Thank you Blackdog and LAL

But I couldnt find the name of the person who wrote it up... Does anyone know?

Thanks Wolftrax, the one I had in mind was Krantz study of the bossburg tracks, in which he also used a copy.

No problem, it's the truth.

This really is one of the more interesting threads, I think Colobus, DDA, and DesertYeti have done a great job and am definitely eager to read more.

On the one I posted:

Story by Jeff Lemley, BFRO-WA.
Acknowledgements to Dr. LeRoy Fish, Richard Noll, and Theo Stein.


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

I think you are confused, so let's recap:



Melissa - Post #224 - 7:oo PM




SG - Post # 234 - 9:38 PM ( quoting you in #224, just in case you missed it the 2nd time above )




So like I said... Don't bring your assumptions about my needs to these discussions, and I will
do the same....
_________________________________________

Now back to the topic .. ( sort of )


What exactly are your credentials in these matters, that you are qualified to call DY's
evaluation ' substandard ' ?

My comment to you about "fitting your need" was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THE MONEY.. You are always the one to jump up and down -- about evidence and standards -etc.. NOW you bury your head in the sand and attempt to make me look stupid.

Arrogance at its finest.

My qualifications -- the same as yours -- I am a member of this board, and as such I have posting priviledges - until such time as a member of the Admin chooses to remove me for violation of the rules - if you dont like that, take it up with them. But, you wont stop me from asking questions.

Attack me all you wish - just shows your level of frustration that there may infact be holes in this "Scientific paper" that are big enough to drive a truck through.

I personally expect more - and you should too... Im really very shocked by your attitude SG. I really expected a much more adult conversation from you. Guess once again I expect too much.

I just have one question for DY ,if you're still reading..if your paper is not accepted and published are you going to attempt to do so elsewhere?

There may be .. Perhaps we will soon find out.

But what about the "Scientific paper" that supports the North American primate notion ?
Think there might be any holes in it ?


Sorry,my bad... I keep forgetting there isn't one ..


What exactly is it, that you are comparing DY's analysis to ?

Maybe this will help.

Click to view attachment


Sorry, felt obliged to lighten the mood here. This is a really important thread on a really important subject. Let's please keep that in mind and not let this one go the way of so many other lost threads and decline into a bunch of personal attacks, spats, and tirades. (That's not aimed at anyone in particular.)

It looks to me like some should just agree to disagree on a number of counts and leave it at that.

Also, I think Colobus asked for the title spelling to be corrected for future ref (e.g. Analysis) but that seems to have not happened yet.

Apeman

Analogy time. I've got projects that I finished years ago and still haven't submitting anything for publication, and others for which I'm ready to go with the paper within days (sometimes hours) of completing the analysis. The difference? Some findings are hot and others are not.

Let's say I'm a person qualified to interpret whatever may be apparent in the Skookum Cast and it is my professional opinion that it can clearly be demonstrated to have been made by a large, hairy, bipedal creature to the exclusion of all other likely candidates in the area. Because this information will be a proverbial pair o' dime shift in biology - and likely in many other facets of human culture - I DROP WHATEVER ELSE I'M DOING AND GET THE PAPER OUT, PRONTO.

If, however, I'm not fully convinced by my analysis or there is a distinct possibility that the impression could have been made by some other known creature, then I am likely to sit on the analysis while occasionally offering tantalizing suggestions of what it may be, perhaps in a book or other popular media like radio, television, or DVD. It may be many years before I try to publish it; I may never even try because I know there's nothing conclusive there. There may even be a financial incentive for me NOT to publish, if I intend to write about it in my book. That's a win-win: I don't have to subject my analysis to the rigor of peer review, and I can make a pile of money in the process.

Based on what I know of this thing, I can only conclude the latter. (Not accusing anyone of willfully engaging in the nefarious money-grubbing aspects of the latter case, just pointing out that there may be a conflict of interest at play with this thing.)

DY, however, is confident in his analysis, and is following the progression of someone who does research, obtains a result, and seeks to share that result with the broader scientific community. Perhaps, if his paper gets published, those who refute the "elk lay" hypothesis can respond with a commentary on his paper to the journal demonstrating how his conclusions were in error. Then, with a peer-reviewed publication (the commentary) showing that the impression was clearly NOT an elk lay, proponents may have enough momentum to feel they can better make their case for the impression's creator. Until then, however, the score is elk: 1 sasquatch: 0.

Just thought I'd put a stop to this notion. As I said in an earlier post, when paleontologists and ichnologists refer to "casts," it means a reproduction of the original. Otherwise, we say "original." In all my wiriting about the Skookum cast and the photos, etc., you'll notice I refer to the "cast", never "the original specimen." I understand how Melissa and others might get confused by this apparent scientific jargon, but to insinuate that I'm somehow being dishonest or deceitful is just absolutely 100% wrong and makes me want to cry like Mel Gibson at a wine tasting party. Sorry for the misunderstandings.

Now...LAL and others are apparently vexed by my overlooking their questions:
1) how do elk satnd up?
2) why didn't I ask to see the original?

so here's the absolute, final, conclusive, never again needs to be repeated ever answers:
1) they extend the metacarpals forward, roll the hips from the horizontal to near vertical position, then extend the caudally-facing humerus to the vertical plane, unfold their elbows (thereby extending the radius and ulna forward, forming a brace agaisnt which the opposing force of the now extending hindlimbs can act). The forelimbs stay put, extending well ahead of the main body impression (this area in front of the the main body imprint is not preserved in the Skookum Cast, which barely extends past the metacarpal bulges), as the hindlegs completely unfold, leveraging the animal upards. From this pose (hind hoofprints are now located on the side(s) of the body imprint where the folded legs originally were, or straddling the imprint, or even in the imprint, depending on how the animal stabilized itself), the elk can walk off in absolutely any direction it chooses. This is all easier shown with a series of figures...and yep...they're in the paper I'm submitting, so you'll either have to wait, or go look at an elk.

2) because: 1) the morphologcal signature in the cast are so definitively elk impressions that in this case, it is honestly not necessary (just like if someone showed me a cast...sorry...a reproduction of a cast of a human footprint, I wouldn't need to stare at the original cast for six years to say: "That's a human footprint."); 2) I don't feel like spending money and time on a plane ticket to go to wherever the original is, look at it for a couple of hours (or minutes) and go..."Yep, I was right...it's an elk."; and 3) The whole purpose of making casts of specimens (as any paleontologist or archaeologist knows) is so they are available for others to study, largely eliminating the need for trips like described in #2. Honestly, the super-dooper-fine details of the Skookum Cast are not at all necessary to verify that the thing is an elk impression. Most elk impressions don't even preserve hair or muscle imprints, but they're still quite identifiable as being elk imprints on the basis of the metacarpal, metatarsal, and hoof print impressions. Even the cast (sorry...reproduction of the original) of the Skookum Cast has a far greater amount of preservation of fine details than the average elk imprint, making it a very ordinary, albeit very nicely preserved, example of an elk impression in mud.

I understand why some are all gung-ho that I should examine the original. But, this is a bit of red herring. Photos of the original clearly show all the major features that diagnose it as an elk imprint and that are also plainly visible on the cast...sorry...reproduction of the original (clear metacarpal bulges, clear curve of the ilium, tail, haunch, metatarsals, hair flow, yadda yadda). And as I mentioned before (but was apprently overlooked), many paleontologists and ichnologists actually prefer to look at casts since the color distortions common in original specimens are thus removed, allowing for clearer analysis.

Don't believe me?
Check out Paul Sereno's description of the small, toothed, Early Cretaceous bird Sinornis in Nature (or Science, I forget which). He used a cast poured from the original to describe the skeletal features of this sparrow-sized bird. Horrors!
Als look at some of the work done by Michael Benton who studied latex peels (not originals) of the Carboniferous tetrapods from Greenland. EGADS!
Of course, we must never forget Martin Lockley, who's been known to actually study...*hard hats on please*...safety glasses secure...casts of casts of weathered dinosaur footprints! NNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

And again, just to bring it on home...the issue here is how does an impression exhibiting identical morphologies to an elk's butt, ilium, flank, metatarsals, metacarpals, sternum, and tail get to be interpreted as something other than an elk impression?

Desertyeti, if you feel comfortable doing so on an open forum, can you tell us what your educational and professional background is as an ichnologist?

I will have to take you at your word for that, as I do not know. But, you could have said this much sooner.



In your opinion.



Note the text I have highlighted in bold. If thats the case - explain the hair on this cast.



No, I really dont think you understand why I am so "gung ho" on examination of the original. Question, what if you were to examine the Original, which is reported to still have various alleged hairs still remaining in and on the cast - wouldnt that be helpful in the determination of the hairflow pattern? Wouldnt that be helpful to you as a scientist to see if the alleged hairs are actually imbedded within the casting material? What if you did see hairs embedded within the original - and they followed the hair flow pattern of a primate - and were longer than that of an elk? How can you make a determination without studying the original. Colobus posted pictures he/someone took of the alleged Heel Strikes - which had greater detail than that of the copy - account for that? You are not going to convince me the copies of this cast have the fine detail the original has. You lose so much in your evaluation by simply relying on the copies -- yet that is just my opinion.



You mean to tell me, everything you have ever worked on - has been exactly what you thought it was when you first saw it?

Look DY - I am all for you completing your paper - I am interested in whatever the truth may be. I guess I was hoping for a much more indepth study of this cast by someone who is of the opinion you are. My bad. I have no idea what this cast is -- and thats because I have never seen the original cast, and well - Im not an animal person. People in my position depend on those with more knowledge in these areas to answer the questions we have - so we can formulate a opinion based in sound judgment and reasoning -- this is my source of frustration right now. I understand and agree with the opinions expressed by Colobus - because he has basically spelled it out for me -- hey he even drew a few pictures.. You on the other hand left me with many questions, and those questions will remain unanswered -- even after your paper is published.

Some of us are after the truth - and sometimes the truth comes through hard questions and answers. But, Im sure you already know that.

Sure.
B.S. Geology and Geophysics
M.S. Geology (emphasis on sedimentary geology and vertebrate paleontology)
Ph.D. Sedimentary Geology, 2002 (emphasis on alluvial and incised valley fills, and ichnology).

My study of ichnology centers on identifying the actions and/or morphologies of trace-making organisms within a variety of sediments (subaquesous and subaerial...under water and in the air). In 1996, I began working with dinosaur tracks in Montana, near Choteau, and continued with that work in northern Colorado (Peance Basin) and also near Denver (Dinosaur Ridge), and Utah (Clevland Lloyd Quarry). My main interest is in surficial traces (as opposed to burrows), and I got into modern animal tracking in about 1992, and have been collecting casts of modern tracks since then. Not sure how many specimend I have currently, but they're stacked pretty high in my garage in boxes. Currently, I work for a major oil company, and am studying the invertebrate traces (mostly burrows of amphipods, decapods, and polychaetes) preserved in Early Cretaceous core and outcrops in the hope of helping predict sandstone distribution in a new oil field that's set to be drilled in January up in Alaska. Proper trace fossil interpretation can make or break a well (average cost of a single well, dry or productive is ~$10 to $45 million dollars), so I drink lots of coffee and take frequent breaks here in the forum to clear my muddled brain. It's actually rereshing to pop by here, throw around a few facts, figures, and debates, and then settle back into staring at core, meeting with managers, and trying to convince engineers you know what you're talking about (now there's a challenge!!).

So...let me get this straight. You walk into a bar, see something worth looking at, and walk up to her and say, "Hey baby, I'm an ichnologist...mind if I study your vertebrate traces?" :new_weirdsmiley:

WOW! I actually learned something today (but don't rejoice too soon, I watch Jerry Springer, so I'll quickly kill those new brain cells).

( Frantically raises hand in back of class.. May I ? May I ?)


Uhh, because this cast is not one of the ' most .. ? It's one of the other one's , that do have hair imprints ?

And here I just thought you and your conclusions made sense. Ph.D.- I'm genuinely impressed. :icon14:

I party everytime I meet an engineer that actually knows what he's talking about. I party but rarely. :laugh:

Talk about ironic, and fortunate all at the same time

Yeah it would be...maybe just as much as if it were a bigfoot impression. :wink:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=332607




That group of pictures all together, is worth a thousand words...

It is clear what made the impression.

...and at least a few hundred posts apparently.
some further points of consideration:

1) as to claims that there can be no certainty as to an elk being the maker of the impression...not true. The abbreviated tail evident in the cast is characteristic of elk and rules out deer or similar-sized ungulates. The presense of elk hoof prints and the size of the impression (48"--falls well within the known range of elk imprints (39-52")) indicates an elk-as-maker. Finally, the clear imprint of the ilium, not to mention the calcaneal tuberosity, femoral musculature, and even clear ligament imprints on the metatarsals are all identical to an elk's morphology. Simply saying: "Well, I don't see it, and I don't believe you." as a few folks have opted to do doesn't invalidate these observations...pick up an anatomy book, learn some morphology, and then re-examine the cast. Contrary to popular misconception, species identification from tracks and sign is quite possible, and is even used by a number of Wildlife Departments around the nation for censusing, studies of population distributions, and even productivity. Many pdfs of official reports can be found online regarding the uses of sign- and track-based species identification..

2) while an original is usually better than a cast when determining identity of the maker, it's not always the case. Consider a dental cast made by your dentist, using alginate and plaster...essetially the same exact process as used in reproducing the Skookum and other BF-related (and non-BFl-related) casts. The accuracy of these casts is so great that Invisalign braces, and other prosthetics can be made to perfectly fit the owner's teeth. That's precision down to micrometers (look it up if that's an unfamiliar word...it means very small). Dental details are surely as important as anything relevant on the Skookum and other casts. Claims that a great amount of detail are simply not preserved in the fiberglass (an amazingly good material for retaining detail) are baseless...individual hair traces can be clearly made out, as can the texturing on some coyote prints...that's good! The size of the Skookum Cast also means that its overall morphology can be measured in meters and decimeters and centimeters as opposed to the millimeters and micrometers necessary in studying smaller ichnofossils. Yet, even these smaller traces are often studied on the basis of casts. Plus, casts have the advantage of a single, monochrome appearance, eliminating the illusion of shadow or structure that can accompany stained or splotched originals.

3) the "time-of-study-myth" never seems to die. Claims that if Billy-Dicky studies something for 12 years, but Jimmy-Ralph only looks at it for 5 minutes, then Billy-Dicky is more likely correct in his assessment are just plain wrong at best and naive or dangerous at worst. It boils down to experience and background. If Billy-Dicky is looking at a pile of wiring diagrams for the Space Shuttle Atlantis, but he's never read a wiring schematic before, of course he's going to be lost, take his time, and take some best-guesses as to what he's looking at. If Jimmy-Ralph is an electrical engineer who worked on the wiring diagrams for the Columbia, he might be able to look at the schematics, spit a stream of chewin' tabbacky, and declare: "Yep...them's space shuttle wiring schematics." I would hope that an expert in a particular field of study would take a lot less time to recognize something...otherwise, I would question their abilities.

O.k., enough griping...going back and forth on this topic before the full, scientific assessment of the cast is published is not going to get anyone anywhere. Even though at least one person has said that my finalized paper would still not be sufficient to explain how ungulates make body imprints (a very presumtive and revealing opinion), I'll trust that for other people, it will clarrify much about how animals go about making impressions in muddy substrates. In the mean time...let's find us an apeman!!!!

I think I'm a reasonable guy, and from what I've seen since DY started his analysis, all the facts seem to be falling his way. Of the facts that still seem to support the Skookum interpretation that might sway me I include:

1. The hair length in the supposed "arm". I can't see this very well in the pictures though. DY has made a reasonable case that the hairs aren't really that long, but I'm not going to grant that point out of hand.

2. The supposed tendon, in one of the pics, does look awfully skinny to be the bone of the foreleg of an elk, but that's in a photograph. What are the actual measurements of that feature and how do they compare with real leg bones in elk of the size seen in the impression? If DY has given this info already, then my brain refused to hold it. If the tendon/leg bone turns out to be well within the range of what you'd expect for that size elk, then this point goes to DY's interpretation. If it's an outlier, and then has to be explained via mud movement, I would not grant the point out of hand.

One diagnostic against the Skookum interpretation has been Apeman's point that Patty didn't have an observable achiles tendon. The back of her heel looks like an ape's would. Since I'm still in the camp that believes Patty is legit, I'm properly confused as to how the species could have prominant achiles tendons in one individual and then not have them in another. Isn't this a point worth talking about?

I think DY is to be congratulated on his efforts. Even if he turns out to be wrong, he has *done the work* and is vigorously pursuing making it public and permanent. That's exactly what we need to do. I understand that there were attempts to publish the Skookum interpretation, but when those ended in frustration, I don't understand why that unpublished paper wasn't made available? Does it still exist in a form we can see now? Why not post it at the Bigfoot Information Project? Then the positive arguments would be neatly arranged for our review. As it is now, you actually have to scan through various postings and construct the argument yourself -- that's not the right way to go about things.

I admire the folks who found the Skookum cast, and understand how invested people get in their ideas, particularly when a good argument can be made for them. But I don't really have a grasp on how the Skookum interpretation works. I've seen references to features, to the impossibility of an elk laying like that, or getting up from that position, but I have not seen any of these opinions supported by facts and demonstrations (and if they have been, then once again my brain failed to hold onto the goods). All of this needs to be collected into one coherent document and that needs to be made available. Then we can peruse both and formulate our opinions.

Of course, opinions do not change the world - there is a reality that underlies the Skookum cast that will not change no matter how often our opinions do. It very well may be that a sasquatch sat there, leaving an impression that looked remarkably like an elk lay. But if it did, and we can't prove it, it means nothing. Because when you have to choose between the realistically likely and the unlikely, you need sufficient reason to go against the ordinary. We are up against the point where, even if we grant points 1 and 2 to the Skookum interpretation, if the overall pattern really does look like a regular elk lay, folks outside of here are going to be inclined to say, "well then it's an elk lay with some unusual characteristics." That's a reasonable position to hold, and I don't think DY should be beaten up because he voices it.

I've seen elk get up, thank you. I've also watched the videos on WCS 2003. How did this particular elk, or series of elk, manage to get up without gathering its legs under it? How did it manage knee prints with little to no imprint of the lower leg? Why are the hoof prints in the wrong places?

How did the supposed sasquatch get up without leaving hand or footprints?

Colobus has explained the "Skookum roll", and there may be a handprint. The area around the mudhole was quite hard.

Desertyeti has explained the "elk roll", and there are--not "may be"--elk hoof prints.

So it's either a known animal which left a characteristic imprint of itself consistent with other such imprints and which also left other other sign of it's passing...or, it's an unknown animal that left an impression that coincidentally strongly resembles that of a known animal, while managing to avoid leaving any other sign of it's presence.

Hmmm...

There are elk prints. They aren't where they should be. Do the heel strikes really look like elk knees to you?

They don't really look like anything to me, but I'm not an expert. By looking at the cast in it's entirety though, it's easier for me to envision a known animal leaving a characteristic imprint than to force an unknown animal to improbably contort itself in such a manner that my--or more rightly your--assumptions are satisfied.

Excellent! I think that almost sums it up. Coupled with an apparent expert's expert opinion did it for me. I'm not even sure what the Skookum Cast™ would really prove to Popular Bigfooting™ even if there were some way to know it was of BF origin. If it's an elk...big whoop? If it's a bigfoot..big whoop too? Based on the extensive studies that have apparently been done on it, what has been learned? That we don't know what it is? Suppose a deity from beyond came down and enlightened us to its BF origin, what more would we know then? Simply a conclusion to the 'mystery'? If its future value has been determined to be possible proof of the monster's existence in general (and I know there's not much of that around), there's been way too much time spent studying it on behalf of such a notion. That will never-ever-not-in-forever happen with the Skookum Cast™! Yikes...

"Harry"

I can't get the known animal to contort properly. I really didn't have many assumptions from viewing pictures of the unmarked cast online. The resolution just wasn't good enough. It did look like a jumble at first. And the photo of the imprint from the field notes? OMG. However, I had no trouble seeing the details of the imprint, including hair flow, in Murphy's book. The heel strikes look just like heel strikes, the forearm print like a forearm print and not at all like an elk leg imprint.

This section looks most elk-like, but a closer look shows the "hip" is a ridge of mud.

Click to view attachment

The section at the end of the arm makes sense as possible finger imprints, but it certainly doesn't look like an elk hoof. I see no way an elk knee could get out of the impression without smearing it to pieces, but a primate heel comes right up when the lower leg is lifted.

Click to view attachment





Just what does that mean? Explain, please.

Where, actually, should an elk walk before it eats some apples and lays down?

I understand..

I'ts much easier to get an unknown animal to do anything you want it to ..

I's called ' making stuff up ' ... :wink:

Here is a good look at it before casting...



Click to view attachment

How does it lay down without getting its legs under it? How does it leave bits of apple and peel in its "knee" prints? How does it get up again without getting its legs under it and leaving hoof prints in the middle of the imprint.

Not only did elk walk across the mud hole, a coyote did too, and in a sniffing at the imprint sort of way. No one seems to have suggested the imprint is coyote.

Are you suggesting that an elk lay and a coyote lay should be given equal consideration?

Not surprisingly, the cast matches the dimensions, body imprint, and behavior of an elk. What is coyote-like about it?

RayG

Just thought that observation was worth reading twice.

Thanks for posting that. And the "hip" part before casting:

I've wondered the same thing. The behavior of an animal finding non-native food???

Since the PGF, has there ever been a piece of evidence that has attracted so much attention... been picked apart, analyzed, scrutinize, tested and so on just to determine the source of the evidence?

I will now <drumroll> attempt a gif again. If it works, it's a elk getting up (down's about the same thing). If it doesn't work, you won't be seeing me for awhile.

Got some coyote lays we can look at ?





______________________________________________________________________




We will be waiting for the .gif of the Bigfoot getting up ( or down ) ....

Then we can surmise about which one looks more likely ...

Are you now denying a coyote walked through this impression? Im not. LaL brings up a good question. If it could be an elk - why cant it be a coyote ??

Except for the fact that in every observable, quantifiable, and morphological way, the thing matches an elk and not a coyote...well...nothing...otherwise, excellent point and very convincing argument!

In case you missed it, I'll repeat:

--Not surprisingly, the cast matches the dimensions, body imprint, and behavior of an elk. What is coyote-like about it?--

To extend your line of thinking further (and LAL's), why can't it be a bear? More importantly, why must it be a squatch?

RayG

Of course, elk don't "roll" up, they gather their legs under them, and leave hoofprints, and usually urine, where they lay.

Here's a "may be" footprint:

Click to view attachment

And a couple found in the area earlier:

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment
Aside from Skamania County's long history of activity, there were signs of activity for nine months prior to the expedition. Skookum Meadows was chosen as a likely spot because of this activity.

The possibility of an elk lay was considered from the beginning. Some reasons why that's not likely:

Click to view attachment

I think you get my point, Melissa. Animal prints in the mud do not necessarily = that's the animal that made the imprint.

The possibility of multiple animal imprints was considered too. An elk could have laid down, got up (without leaving hoof prints), a coyote followed, lying in just the right spot to make another imprint that would look like part of a Squatch, and maybe there could be a raven or two just for good measure leaving "testical prints" or something. The whole composite was then cast and lugged back, all 200 lbs. of it, for further analysis.

I do think the team could tell an elk lay from a hole in the ground.

Uhhhh, hello ! Where did I deny anything ?


You said

" No one seems to have suggested the imprint is coyote. "

... was a valid observation , made by Lu ..

If it was ( a valid observation ) , then I would expect you to have a basis for believing it was valid.

i.e. You have first hand knowledge of what coyote ( body, I presume ) impressions look like ..


You now ask " ... why can't it be a coyote ?? "...

Well, the first thing that pops into my mind, is :

" Because it don't match the anatomy of a coyote ? "

and not one of them valid upon closer examination...

time to hum another Carcass song:


great band if you're into speed/death metal...

I'm not.

Please post pictures of elk getting to their feet without getting their feet under them.

You're not extending my line of thinking. The elk tracks transversing the mud hole (and they don't seem to be heading for the fruit, either) are not necessarily connected to the imprint any more than the coyote tracks were. Get it now?

Where can we find information about follow-up investigations, and the evidence that was recovered from this hot- bed of Sasquatch activity..
Particulary after finding such conclusive evidence as the cast ....



From the beginning?

Can you show where that is documented ? In the beginning ...


They certainly should have... ( Been able to ..)