FAN-tastic! Then, I'll add you to the list of people to whom I'll send reprints of the full article, which contains all sorts of swell facts, figures, tables, and charts. In it, I think you'll find much of the information that (as I've said all along) is missing from the posts on this internet board. 'Coz as others have pointed out, internet boards can be full of any sort of unverifiable crap in the world, but only reviewed, critiqued, and revised publications that have been picked over by truly qualified specialists and forced to conform only to what the available data show, should really be consulted for accuracy and veracity.
On to coffee!

As opposed to the ' Sasquatch ' proponents actions ?


No bias there... No, not at all.. None from you either ..

Thanks, I would like to see your completed work in regards to this issue, the FULL version.

But, you didnt answer my question.



Whats the word Im looking for??



Ahhh -- this from the ultimate reference on bias

Nice to see you SG, how have you been?

Pointing out the other side is biased, is kinda like pointing out they don't agree with you .. Ya' think ?


I'm fine, as always... :new_guitar:

Nope - not at all. See, I have no dog in this fight - its not my work. I can however state my opinion, which I have But, you pointing these things out is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black - Ya' think? Thank you for imparting more of your infanite wisdom.

Im glad to hear your well lmao.

I'm flattered that you think my opinion is powerful enough to bias people with 15, 20, or 30+ years in the field of animal-sediment interaction, but I'm afraid your faith in my abilities to convince others is way off...but it would make my life a lot easier in meetings with my manager and colleagues! You're obsessively hung up on what I did or didn't tell others and how I may or may not have influenced others, but you've not addressed how my unbelievably transparent and single-minded bias has made the outlines of all observable features on the Skookum Cast look exactly like the outlines of observable features in an elk imprint. Compare my outlined sketches (traced from a photo) with colobus's (shaded orange on a photo)...they're essentially identical. The cast and what made it are at issue here, not my Jedi-like abilities to convince ichnologists that wookies don't exist.

Deflection will get you no where with me.

You didnt answer the question

This is your work - and your comments I am simply bringing up - you should be prepared to answer the questions much better than you seem to be.

O.k., here's a direct quote from one of my e-mails:
*ahem*

"I'm not sure if you've heard of the Skookum Cast,
> but it's alleged to be
> a body imprint of a male sasquatch (complete with
> imprints of testes).
> I've recently examined the cast, photographed it,
> and traced out the
> features evident on its surface. I wonder if I
> could bother you to take
> a quick look at the cast photo and interpretation
> I've attached, and
> offer any opinions or observations you have
> concerning it? Give a
> holler and let me know what you think. I'd
> appreciate it greatly!
"
Hope this answers your question!
Now...about my biased influencing of others that you keep bringing up... :wink:

Yes, it does. And, you were not truthful in this email to your "expert" - you did not examine the cast - you examined a copy. Unless I missed a thread somewhere about you actually working with the original, but I dont think I did. Minor issue - granted, but none the less - it is a mis-statement on your part.

This email does show a bias. Your aside about the "testies" must have been laughed at, and isnt it for your expert to decide, whether there are testies visable in this print? Wouldnt that be one reason for why you asked for a (and I quote) "quick look".. Give it a "quick look" and then offer an opinion or any observation -- for your work you take so seriously, and are attempting to have published in a scientific journal.

Very nice. Thank you.

Edited for a typo :wink: backatcha

Damned if ya do...damned if ya don't, huh? :new_tiredsmiley:
Nowhere did I mention elk, ungulate, ruminant, cervid, or anything other than BF.
I even tried to get them to take a good look at the thing to see if they could spot the testes (I've seen them reported, but amazingly, I could not locate them, so I was hoping that they could be pointed out to me). And if you're going to pick on my writing style :"e.g., quick look", well I suppose, I should also point out that I unfairly asked them to "holler" back at me rather than use e-mail. All the hollering in the world, and I still wouldn't have heard them. And "cast" is a general term used by all researchers in paleontology,
paleoichnology, paleoanthropology, etc., for describing everything except the original.

Now, if you could kindly explain now how your 3 weeks' worth of claiming that I unfairly biased other ichnologists with my assessment of the specimen as an elk (wrong), has anything at all to do with the fact that the features of the cast perfectly match the features of an elk impression even according to colobus's posts, and that people who know animal traces inside and out picked the cast as being an elk (as opposed to deer, moose, tsitatunga, etc.) without any hints, suggestion, Jedi mind-trick, or coersion from me, I'd be most interested.

Otherwise, this is pretty much running out of steam unless we want to go back and pick out punctuation errors. Fact is, for 3 weeks I've been accused of biasing others before even showing them the data, and now that I've produced an e-mail quote proving these accusations wrong, and revealing no bias whatsoever with regard to non-BF interpretations, there's really nowhere left to go...except maybe for more coffee...

over to you:

Wow - for someone with a point to prove, you sure do get worked up really fast when questioned. Explain my 3 weeks worth of questioning your bias? No, I dont feel I need to - as my opinion is spelled out for you to read as often as you like. You may take my words anyway you like. I just find it amusing how your experts are beyond reproach - and the people who have assessed this cast for years are so wrong a 5 year old could point it out. That really shows a bias on your part.

Do as I say - not as I do really applies here. The questions I have posed to you are not uncommon questions when asking someone in your position to qualify statements made or how a determination was reached - you simply took my questions as a back handed statement about your work - when in fact they were not. This is your work, and as such you should be prepared to answer such questions when your putting out the information and opinions and asking for feedback - which you did. You simply choose to not do anything about the concerns that have been noted, I find that alarming.

My comments have nothing to do with anything discussed by Colobus or DDA - my comments are about your work specifically - and as such I will not address your commentary about the work performed by Colobus or DDA. You asked for opinions and comments about YOUR work-- You like some (that agree) and take offense to anyone who may say something that does not agree with you.

I think your work should continue - whether you believe that or not, as I am after the truth as well - I just expect more when someone is giving an opinion and calling it "Scientific" and yes, we could say you are attempting to give an "expert" opinion. The bar for the standard of evidence is much higher - and it should be.

You have been very quick to assess the bias of Colobus and DDA -- I think its only fair to point out the bias displayed by you as well. Its a two way street my friend, like it or not.


Does this mean I wont be getting that daquri ??? :wink:

Never said that...in fact, I presented my own work as just that...my own work. Only after the barage of "Oh yeah, well so and so said..." did I half-jokingly point out that I too can drag out people who know their stuff to say: "Blah blah." Again, none of this has anything to do with the cast or what it represents....that's the whole issue here.


Yep, and I've been interested in those opinions. But when I get blanket statements like : "You're not qualified." as I did from someone other than you, granted ( :wink: ), I do tend to get a bit touchy.


But they're mostly about what I said to others or what they said to me, or which way an elk print is pointing. How about addressing the metatarsal imprints? Or the ilium contour? Why not delve into the hair flow pattern that I outlined, but was summarily rejected for no obvious reason by colobus? Why neglect the impact force of a metacarpal imprint in the mud? Or how about the lumbar-throrasic twist evident in the spine of a resting elk and the Skookum imprint (in both photos and traced outlines)?


I LOVE 2-way streets. Difference is, I first heard of the cast as a hominid imprint. I looked at the interpretive outlines of alleged hominid anatomical structures. "Hmmmmmmm..." I thought to myself..."Interesting..." Then I looked at the un-outlined photos: "Hmmmmmmm..." I again thought..." Very interesting."....Then I saw the cast specimen...."Hmmmmmmmm...." I thought yet again..." This is clearly something other than I've been told, and it looks a hell of a lot like the elk and deer and horse imprints I've seen over the years." If that's bias, then, guilty I am. But in my opinion, it's far more biased to look at an imprint in the ground and say: "Hmmmmmmmm...no footprints other than elk, no handprints, no feces, and no other evidence....it must be a hominid!" and then dogmatically stick to that interpretation despite much evidence to the contrary.

If you're as fair and even-handed as you claim, you should be demanding even greater standards from those who are seeking to explain how an 8 foot tall hominid can duplicate an elk impression without leaving any other evidence of its existence in an area. Now that's something that requires a high standard of evaluation.

So, how did it get up? 'Scuse me..................how did they get up?

You have proved my point so eloquently. I do appreciate it.

Bias is important in these issues -- if it was not, you would have simply ignored my comments and/or questions.



Im quite honestly sick of reading this. If you took the time to read Colobus's opening remarks regarding the work he has done to date -- he states SPECIFICALLY.. and I quote:



Read that part in bold very carefully -- you continually mis-state what has been said in text by Colobus and DDA in this regard -- and that is very unfair on your part. But - you present your work as "The final word" - how insulting is that? Your few months should simply be excepted as the fact of the matter and close the issue - while the work being done by Colobus and DDA and Dr. Meldrum and Sarmiento etc -- has all been a big waiste of time.. Am I understanding you correctly? Talk about insulting.

Im sure you know your work can not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as well - and your not the first person to suggest this is an Ungulate lay -- so, I half expected to see something like this eventually. Did you have a discussion about evaluating the original cast? And, being a man of "science" how do you rationalize not examining the original cast? To use one of your analogies -- thats kinda like me calling my doctor about a strange mole, and sending my friend who has one as well for him to evaluate.. This is not apples and oranges - if you want to call your work scientific..

I really hoped the first alternate explanation for this cast would have been a lot more scientific in its approach -- guess I asked for too much. Got lots of ego though

But...you haven't even read the paper yet...heck, it isn't even published yet...and actually, I'm a very self-loathing being, perpetually despondant and dejected. But here's an ego-trip statement if ever I read one: And, no it's not a quote from me. :wink:
But I wish I was confident enough to not need to learn anything new.


Read it...and...well, that's correct. But what they're actually claiming throughout these threads is that it's not an elk lay (I say it is), that a primate made it (I say no way), and that anyone who dosn't agree is a big, mean skeptic, with absolutely no knowledge of elk, or mud, or elk in mud, and with an axe to grind.

But why is my having a different interpretation of a specimen insulting? To whom? People make mistakes every day. Are you insulted that Meldrum and Sarmiento might have been wrong? Are they? Why so personal? I've never picked on them personally, only the amalgamated interpretation of the cast...that's all. Science isn't about personal feeling sor worrying about insulting someone, it's about getting the most likely explanation for an observable phenomenon. If an interpretation turns out to be not valid, it shouldn't be taken personally.

I do present my work as a "case closed" because well...if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck...I'm inclined to call it a duck. Such is the case with the Skookum Cast (as the final manuscript will show). I'm not exactly sure how much work Sarmiento, Meldrum, et al., have actually put into the cast, but if their interpretation isn't based on adequate documentation of what's actually preserved, it doesn't matter. I could happily stare at a gorilla's duodenum for years on end and not really know just what the heck I'm looking at. And as a matter of fact, my interpretation can be proven without a shadow of a doubt (well, to anyone not looking to make a "Yes...but..." argument) by going out and looking at some elk in the mud. I never claimed to be the first do come up with this interpretation, but it is the best. At the end of the day, I'm not the one making the extraordinary and completely unsubstantiated claims here.

I also never said that - and you bring this in completely out of context - without qualifying it - and frankly that is insulting to me. I have not attempted to put words in your mouth -- as I have had no need to try.



Sorry there is no "But" about it. If you choose to read more into what is being said - that is your issue to deal with, not mine. You cannot prove an elk make this impression either. I never called you a mean skeptic - so, lets not play the poor me game Ok.



Its your opinion that a mistake was made - you can not prove that, and to say you can or have -- well you have much more work to do.



So, its ok for you to close the issue on this -- but not for someone who might think this is something other than an elk lay? Now thats something.

You know, once someone told me - the people in bigfooting are more of an interesting study than the animal itself -- this appears to be very true in this case. Do as I say, not as I do -- or you should be branded a fraud.... Nice Extraordinary and Unsubstanciated claims -- humm... Where did Colobus say that this was absolutely the impression of a Sasquatch? Could you please point me in that direction. I dont think you can. As Colobus did not make such an assertion.. You have this uncanny ability to read exactly what you want, and just leave the rest behind.

Its my sincere hope Colobus and DDA continue with the work they have been doing - and I am sure they will.. I do hope you continue your work as well.

My opinion remains unchanged. I can not say by reading and reviewing the information you have provided that this is either an Ungulate lay or a Sasquatch with 100% accuracy. I look forward to reading the paper that changes my mind either way.

I defer to one of my favorite bands (Carcass) because I'm just plain tired:

Ohh btw..

You didnt answer my question - did you request to evaluate the original cast yourself?

Just curious

Do you know if the copies that are put on display, are accompanied by a disclaimer that says they
are not to be considered sufficient for scientific study ?

If you are asking this as a serious question -- I am definately moving on -- O-M-G..

I removed the post.

John

As serious as I can get ..

You seem to have information that suggests DY couldn't have done an
adequate analysis without the original..

We are talking science here, right ?

Not just stuff hung up on a wall for everyone to look at, but not draw any conclusions ?


In other words, people who think the cast was made by an undocumented North American primate,
shouldn't be coming to that conclusion by looking at a copy of the cast ( or photos, or anything
but the original cast ) , right ?

But wait a minute !! Even the original cast, is a copy of the impression ( or so we have been told ) !

I haven't seen any side by side pictures of the cast and the original, that would allow me to come to the
definite conclusion that the cast is in fact, a cast of the impression we have been shown ..

I'm just taking their word for it, that ' The Cast ' is the cast that was made that day, regardless of what
actually made the impression..

But I can clearly see that the copies of the cast, were made from the cast ...



Another thing; is that I have been shown some impressions of other elk lays, with which I can see
a similarity to the cast being shown: but I haven't been shown any other Sasquatch lays to compare
it to...

That really is a problem for me...

He didn't answer my question either. How did it/they get up?

So, your argument here is that -- copies are just as good. I cant help you SG. If your willing to accept substandard evaluation - thats your right - but dont expect me to lower my standards because this particular theory fits your needs (and thats really all this is about for you).

I am not telling anyone to believe anything - Im asking people to be honest about the work they are putting out. Be fair in the analysis and find the answers. DY started with his own personal theory - and never strayed from that. While DDA has had Wildlife biologists, primate experts and scientists examine this cast. Where is DY's objective scientific review?

Dont lecture me SG - I have seen you post many, many times about accuracy and not cutting corners. Im really dissapointed in you.





He didnt answer - because he cant work a theory to fit his nice, neat little story line

I could be wrong though.. LMAO just a guess.. I have seen many ask this question and get no answer... Although they deserve one.

:icon_really_happy_guy: Since I feel I have 'reading skills' as good as anyone, I will declare that even when DY is being funny he's not being disrespectful. Something I cannot claim. :wink: Regardless, his following statement has not been heeded very well in my opinion... If one does not or cannot agree with that statement, then one needs to seriously re-evaluate the basis of their point of view. Seems this Skookum Cast™ has assumed the role of a 'scared cow' of sorts. Where exactly is the 'official paper' from others that it is a Bigfoot™ impression anyway? Desertyeti hasn't only reviewed, investigated, deciphered and concluded...he's written it all down for further (and probably more intensive) review. This perceived 'bias' he keeps getting accused of having is fantasy. Him seeing actual elk prints in the cast is not a bias. One who looks at the clouds and sees zoo animals where others might see flowers cannot be said to have a bias even if they really do look more like zoo animals than flowers. If there is in fact any bias in this subject it is exactly what he's described - that of the proponents hope it's of Bigfoot™ origin.

I'm pretty sure he expected to encounter some opposition to his conclusion, but such opposition needs to include at least some viable contrary evidence (that it's more likely a Bigfoot™ than an elk). Questioning his integrity as a fallout of his conclusion without just cause actually makes his case stronger in light of the notion there's been no other genuine 'research paper' put forth on the subject. The name Meldrum gets thrown around a lot it seems in this debate but has he produced something (besides his name) that 'concludes' something contrary to DY's? If anyone truly thinks DY has been unfair, unreasonable, unprofessional, biased, hateful, arrogant, ill-equipped or any number of other adjectives, I'll need to see actual proof of such. I think this case is simply one where previous notions of something have been stood on their head, and the acceptance of the new ideas has to go through the filter we call our brains before its logical and fact based conclusions can be accepted - or at least more righteously examined for possible acceptance, regardless of its waivering from the seeming 'conventional wisdom'. IMHO.

"Harry"

OHHH A debate with Harry --- now I feel like I have arrived - LMAO *rolling up my sleeves*

Ok, well - first of all, DY's paper is not published - when it is or if it is, then we can go down that road.

All Im asking is for a good solid arguement to be made - based on the EXISTING ORIGINAL evidence. I have asked DY a number of times if he infact requested to evaluate the original cast -- he has not responded, which makes me wonder why??

I dont think when others made their determinations they asked DDA,, "hey, could you copy the cast and let me look at that?" No, the logical question would be "May I examine the Original cast to form an opinion?"

I dont think thats out of line --or asking too much of someone who says they are publishing a "scientific paper" on the Skookum Cast.

Ok - your turn harry

Umm Something I'd like to point out if that is now the accepted criteria for evidence..many of the track casts studied and concluded upon were made from copies and not the originals..So by the standard you're now rallying a for you have to throw out about 50 % of all the track casts studied that had conclusions reached regarding them to be real, do you not?

Well Jim - anyone who has been reading about my work with Dermal Ridges knows I am very much against using copies of the Onion Mountain Cast as a "Control". I have no knowledge of what casts exist in their original state - and what are only around as copies.

If DY is intent on using Copies of the Skookum cast as his comparison -- he needs to make that very well known - and noted in his email to his "ungulate expert" - he was misleading on that point. Has DY made these pictures posted by Colobus of the alleged "Heel Strikes" available to his expert? Dont know, because DY will not answer direct questions about this -- falling back on "this is only a preliminary report and I can not post the entire article here until it is published".....

Guess this means Colobus can never publish his work now - after being demanded to show all his evidence.


*edited for clarity*

:icon_really_happy_guy: You arrived alright...at Bellevue - I'm in room 306 in the Psych. Ward. :laugh:

Harry -- you crack me up

Well, I have three comments and/or questions:

1. What is an ichnologist anyway?

2. It is always better to study the original in the ground, but the original cast is a close second. A copy of a copy rarely shows the details that were present in the ground or in the first copy. I think what Melissa is saying is that DY may have missed details present in the original cast that didn't duplicate into the copy on display at the museum. DY is saying it makes no difference, an elk lay is an elk lay.

3. Meldrum's name is being thrown around freely. His book will have his point of view on the matter and that is due out very soon. He should be allowed to speak for himself. (and throwing names around always ends up with someone getting hurt....so lets all settle down before someone loses an eye).

I agree Hairyman - which Is why I have said many times, I will not speak for any of these people.

But I do defend good honest work

I confess that I too had never heard of "ichnology" until I read about it here. Up until this time I had simply assumed that the analysis of the Skookum cast was a totally novel kind of investigation, and that novel methods of analysis would have to be developed.

According to this website, modern animal traces fall under "neoichnology": http://www.envs.emory.edu/ichnology/intro.htm

No, that's your argument ..

That a cast ( a copy ) of an impression is sufficient for an analysis, but a copy
of the cast is not ..

It is clear where the need is here. And it's not to show that elks exist ...

No, my argument is you can not use a copy of ANYTHING and give it as much weight as the original. I am sorry you dont understand that.

You cant even use the arguement that the cast is no longer in existance - because it is. You read what you want SG - and thats very true. Fact remains, you will not convince me, that DY's couple hour examination of "Copies" and high resolution photographs -- along with internet postings are enough to make a "Scientific Determination".. As compared to YEARS of examining the original.

You know nothing about my need - or how I feel regarding this cast, so dont make assumptions you know nothing about. If asking for the truth - and standards is too much, I do apologize for asking you to challenge yourself.

And on that note, if the cast Tube examined in Meldrum's lab was indeed a copy, that is the same copy Chilcutt examined. The ridge flow pattern on the Onion Mt. cast being the basis to look for on other casts than would be based on a copy of a cast.

Wolftrax, Im not saying all details are lost during the process of creating a copy -- geesh - why am I having to explain why its so much more important to examine an original than a copy?? I dont understand this line of thinking.

If the Original of the Onion Mountain Cast exists - then wonderful. We can base assumptions on what we see in copies, but I would NEVER base my opinion completely on what I see in a copy, and then write up a paper for publication in a scientific journal based on information obtained while studying a copy -- when the whereabouts of the original are known. Thats just me - set your own standards.

But, Im not getting into an Onion Mountain - Dermal ridge debate on this thread..

As physicist Alan Cromer says in Uncommon Sense, The Heretical Nature of Science (page 149-150):



That's why it's so frustrating to see nothing published in scientific journals by the scientists that examined the Skookum cast up close. Scientists like anthropologist and leading primate expert Dr. Daris Swindler, who thinks the cast is that of an unknown humanoid primate, and anatomy professor Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, who thinks the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence of bigfoot. It's only been six years though, and science doesn't always move at the speed of light.

Let's wait and see if DY has any publication success.

:popcorn2:

RayG

At least they tried. It's frustrating they weren't published.

Melissa, by and large I'm with you on the value of examining the original cast. I suspect this may be an issue for DesertYeti when he submits his paper for Ichnos review.

However, I don't share your absolutism about whether or not a correct judgement can be made from a copy. Consider an 8" by 10" publicity shot of a celebrity that you recognize. If one photocopies that original it's still highly likely that everyone will still recognize who it is. Now whether you can see the actor's pores in the copy becomes debatable... :laugh: But do you need to see the actor's pores to correctly identify the individual?

Does this simple analogy apply in this case? I don't know, so I'm unwilling to speculate either way.

Can a correct determination be made from the gross morphology of the copies? I really don't know. I would predict, however, that technical debate will arise relating to hair flow interpretation and hair length interpretation.

Is it OK to make judgements about the prognathic morphology of the Patterson film subject based on examination of a copy? :wink:

Your'e the one who started talking about my needs .. You do that sort of thing a lot...

You leave it alone, and I will too ...

Believe me SG - a discussion on your needs-- is not something I really care to have...


Ohh your talking about this thread - sorry LMAO



oh btw SG... check out your post #234



So - check your own comments first, before you accuse me. Maybe its you who does this sort of thing A lot ??

Edited to add

Thank you Tube, I appreciate your saying that. I wonder about whether or not this paper will be published..



You and I have had many discussions about this, and we both feel differently - and I respect your right to feel how you do. Question I have though - and no one is addressing but me, is DY's email to his "expert". If he was willing to pass off pictures of the male and female copies as the original once, will that be done again - or will it be assumed these pictures are of the copy. I guess we will have to just wait and see. I am not a scientist - but I have serious issues with this type of thing.

My issues with you have never grown to this level tube - as you have always been upfront and honest about your work on Copies of the Onion Mountain Cast.



I agree with you here too.



Well, see thats why I have never professed that I was 100% convinced the Patterson Film or even the Onion Mountain Cast are authentic -- I havent ever seen the real thing. I can make assumptions - but not a decision based on facts that can come through study and evaluation.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking the way I do - but I dont think so. I think we should be raising the bar - not lowering it.

I have asked DY a couple times if he asked to evaluate the original cast personally -- I have not gotten a response. Still waiting.

Scoftic!! :laugh: :laugh:

Not sure what that means but :laugh:

Can someone define "Scoftic" for me please?? lmao

Here comes Roger...

Studying the original cast requires having access to it.
Unfortunatly only one original exists and it can't be everywhere and neither can anyone who doesn't have an unlimited budget for such things.
While I agree that using a copy for a scientific study taints the results I don't honestly know if there are the minute details that would refute whether or not it's an elk or a sasquatch lay. If it's so close that something like a few hairs make a difference it is too ambiguous to make the determination that it is a sasquatch...and yes that is the presumption of the proponents of the cast. To think otherwise is being a little enthusiastic.

Mel, you know I luv ya but it looks like you are getting a bit angry about this. How about we all take a step back and wait for the smoke to clear.

And just for the record it certainly does look like the determination that it was a saquatch imprint appears to be made on the morning it was discovered:
From the official BFRO report: (And please don't tell me this was all Matt, this was published well before the current fiasco and supported by the participants)

Ohhhh do I sound angry.. Im sorry

Well, Im sure a quick determination was made that morning. But, sometimes you gotta make a decision fast. I dont find fault with that.

Blackdog- who wrote up that report, if you know..

Im not angry, I promise.. But your sweet to worry about my blood pressure :laugh:

The long version:

"The weather was sunny but cool as the expedition members arose. There was a steady west wind, with some strong gusts. After breakfast, Randles offered to drive Noll into Hood River, OR, to pick up a new battery for his vehicle. Fish accompanied them.

On their way out, Randles, Noll, and Fish decided to stop and check the roadside mud pool that Randles and Dr. Fish had placed fruit at the night before. Some of the fruit, but not all, had been taken. Three of the original six apples were missing. Some of the melons showed evidence of having been pecked at by birds. They noted elk, deer, coyote and bear tracks in the mud pool. The three noticed a large impression at the eastern edge of the mud pool. It took several minutes of studying the impression before they finally deduced that it was possibly made by a sasquatch sitting down at the edge of the pool, and leaning over to grasp the fruit in the center. The three immediately returned to camp to inform the others.

Upon returning to camp, the trio related the details of their find to the group. Everyone gathered up all photographic equipment and casting materials and drove out to the impression site. Noll, Randles and Fish described the scene for the others. Noll went so far as to lay down on the ground and assume the position they believed the animal had to have been in to leave such an impression.

There were several hairs apparent in the impression, along with a few bits of chewed apple. Randles and Bambenek set about collecting these bits of evidence with sterile tweezers, and placed them into containers for storage. Some other bits of apple were located about 15 feet away from the impression. While this was underway, several of the other participants spread out to check for any other footprints or impressions in the area. Terry located one of the three missing apples, just beyond the embankment on the opposite side of the road from the mud pool. The apple was mostly intact, except for some peck marks from birds. No other impressions were located in the immediate vicinity.

Several dozen pictures were taken of the impression, along with video of Noll re-enacting the suspected behavior of the sasquatch while Randles narrated and pointed to various details in the impression. Readily apparent were the left forearm and wrist, the left buttocks and thigh, and several heel strikes. The hair patterns of the sasquatch were easily discernible in the mud.

Unfortunately, the heat from the sun, combined with a steady west wind, was quickly drying the mud pool. This quick drying began to cause cracks in the surface, including the impression. A makeshift shelter consisting of four large rocks and a sheet of plywood was hastily erected to protect the impression from the damaging effects of the sun's rays. It was the groups concensus that the impression needed to be preserved beyond the means provided by video and photography. Noll, who is an expert in casting materials, decided that the attempt would have to be made to cast the entire impression."

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm

Right here.
Scroll down to the section titled "Friday 22 Sep 2000."