Okay. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, very often (maybe not always but very close to it) it is a duck. The speculation/conjecture notwithstanding, there's nothing physical in that imprint that even whispers Bigfoot™ YET...to the proponents the chances of it being Bigfoot™ in origin are more a possibility than an elk in spite of the opinion of an expert in such matters declaring it what it appears to be? Even suspending my disbelief I don't see Bigfoot™ in it. Clinging to some mystical 'directional hair coefficients' as a basis of the Bigfoot™ belief seems like...wishful thinking maybe? The supposed heel imprints have been satisfactorily explained as elk in my opinion. They at best only resemble what a human heel might produce and we have no genuine basis at all to claim them as Bigfoot™ originals. Yet they easily fit what any large number of elk's knees might produce even if they're not a supposed 'perfect match'. And not once in that entire Skookum Expedition™ did they actually see a living breathing Bigfoot™ did they? Maybe they didn't see elk either but I bet they could have safely assumed they were around.

I'm still not clear on 'why' all the debate over this thing. As I asked above, what would we know further if we actually knew it to be Bigfoot™ in origin? Nothing for the most part. At least nothing more than we already know as we've been reminded so many times how much time and effort has been put into this thing and thus it seems everything that could be known about it should be known by now. If the same people that studied it for so long suddenly had the knowledge it was in fact an actual Bigfoot™ , what would they then do differently in studying it? I would hope nothing if they were doing the initial inquiry properly. I will reiterate this - the imprint cannot be used as proof of the creature's existence. And short of that, I'm not clear on what it should prove, if anything.

"Harry"

Nothing whispers Bigfoot?

Noll, Fish and Radles saw the real thing, fresh in the mud, not as photos on a computer screen (I assume you know their areas of expertise).

"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.



Rick Noll describes the scene to the team.
Photo by Jeff Lemley.

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."

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

It whispers kind of loudly, I think.

Well I'm more than willing to agree to disagree on this subject. Regardless, if I ever change my last name I need to change it to "Bambenek"...now that's a cool name. :new_cowboy:

Ahhhhh -- but,, I never said it "Must" be anything... Im looking at all possibilities - without ruling out anything. Isnt that what we should all be doing?

DY I still havent seen that explination for how this elk got up from the sitting position, DY claims it was in.

Who made that rule ?

Actually, you should be ruling out just about everything...

Coyote shouldn't even be on the ' D ' list ....

But don't take my word for it ..

Lu, how do we know what the hair patterns of a Sasquatch look like ?

Oh, and you left out the end of the story, where the research team leaves the site of this
momentous discovery, never to return and actually find more evidence, or track down
the creature that left it's butt print in the mud....

I didn't actually make that statement since I didn't write the field notes, but it would seem the person who did was, by that time, convinced enough to call it a Sasquatch instead of something like "purported butt". As you may know, if you've read the beginning of the thread, that the hair patterns are closest to (gasp!) us.


You'll have to check with the agency responsible for the generous funding that continues to support further research in Skamania County.

I do believe we did the futility of "hot pursuit" to death on JREF. I know I did. The animal could have had a head start of several hours, and, exactly what would they have done if they'd caught up with it? They were there to test equipment and hopefully get clear footprint evidence. They were not equipped for a capture. Rick Noll has said he usually goes out armed, but I wouldn't want to try to bring down an 8' male with a 9mm.

But that's just me.

Had a visual to know for certain, so we wouldn't be having this discussion ? A clear picture ? A video tape? Further footprint casts? Hair samples ?

You're dealing with a 'could have" where the evidence is in dispute and has been for several years now. If the attmept was never even made how can that question be asked , let alone answered.

They had to choose between pursuit and preserving the imprint, which was beginning to dry and crack. There was still the matter of Rick's truck battery.

"The group then prepared Randles' truck for transporting the cast. Randles donated an air mattress to serve as cushioning underneath the cast, while other members contributed whatever spare padding was available. It took 6 men on the ground plus one in the bed of the truck to successfully and safely maneuver the cast into the truck bed. Padding was then placed around the cast to prevent it from sliding during transport. The area where the impression had been was then swept clean of all debris from the casting procedure. Powell departed immediately after the cast was secured, as he had obligations back in Portland. Terry left as well.

After returning to camp, Randles, Fish and Noll decided to head out for Hood River again to obtain a car battery for Noll. The rest of the group remained at camp, discussing the day's discovery. Randles, Fish and Noll returned at around 11 PM. Some more fruit and peanuts were placed at the mud wallow, in an attempt to obtain more track evidence. A combination of fatigue and high winds won out over the remaining researchers, and so everyone retired to their tents at a relatively early hour. No vocalizations or other disturbances were noted that night."

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

If the animal was active at dawn, it already had been gone for 3 1/2 hrs. at the time the imprint was discovered.

And on day 8:

Saturday, September 23

"The group awoke to a sunny but extremely windy day. Fish and Noll travelled up to the mud wallow to see if there were any fresh impressions. The mud pool was frozen and frost-heaved, leaving a hard surface with no tracks. Some of the fruit was again missing, although this could be attributed to any animal. Of interest were the peanut shells that had been left at the mud pool. They had been chewed open, and the peanuts inside had been consumed. Fish and Noll collected the peanut shells into a Ziplock bag, and returned to camp.


Dismantling camp began immediately after breakfast. Bambenek was first to leave, and was soon followed by Moneymaker and the film crew. Randles, Lee, Noll, Fish, and Lemley finished cleaning up camp. Noll and Randles left at noon. Lee and Lemley left soon after. Fish stayed behind for a short while longer, gathering a few last notes about the area before departing."

If they'd been prepared to stay another week, perhaps they could have brought in more evidence, but that was not the case. It's too bad real life is allowed to intervene.

Too bad.
If you go back and actually read through some of the stuff I've written in direct response to your very own questions, you'll find it in post #261 in this very thread. But since nothing I have to say, or anything that anyone else has to say, seems to be sufficient, and since I don't respond well when someone who has repeatedly admitted to having little or no knowledgeabout anything we're discussing demands explanations from me, I'm going to go ahead and leave this thread to what it's become.

It's painfully obvious that you're playing the part of an investigative reporter, yet you haven't even taken the time to learn the basics about what it is that is being discussed. By misunderstanding my use of the term "cast," you launched into an attack on my personal credibility. By failing to understand that the cast I examined was made from a mold of the original, you again questioned my scientific integrity. By making unfounded assumptions about my discussions with other researchers, you yet again attempted to cast me as a deceitful, dishonest person. And despite myself and others even posting photos to show you which way is front on an alk hoofprint, you continue to claim that everyone else is wrong, and that back is front...but wait...you also claim that I'm the one with the ego problem...yet who's making uninformed demands?

I and others have repeatedly made good-faith attempts to answer your relevant questions about my work on this specimen, but since the above quote at the start of this post demonstrates that you don't even read (or understand) my answers, and since this seems to be a very personal issue for you, as evidenced by your repeated use of the word "insulting," I'll wish you the best in your journalistic endeavors, good luck with your blog, and all the best for your furture pursuits.

I debated posting this publicly, but considering the repeated public attacks against my scientific integrity and personal credibility that have been tossed around the past couple of weeks, I opted to do so since I do take my professional reputation somewhat seriously. Sorry for the less-than-cheery tone

edited to add levity:
"Two peanuts were walking down the street. One was assaulted...nut."

Yes, too bad that the only scientific organization looking into the bigfoot mystery packs up and goes home the very next day after discovering the find of a lifetime. The Skookum cast is afterall, "THAT OF AN UNKNOWN HUMANOID PRIMATE".

To me, that confirmed the BFRO was no scientific organization.

RayG

The more I learn about specific details surrounding this Skookum thing, the more the same word keeps flashing in my head: "lame."

Yes...but only in their imaginations...not in the evidence.

That's HOMINID primate.

It was a combined effort, not just a BFRO expedition, and quite unlike today's pay-for-play campouts.

With no clear indication of which way the animal went, pursuit would seem useless. Perhaps, like Patterson, they thought scientists would come flocking to the area and confirmation would follow within months. Green, of course, wouldn't have thought that. :wink:

Having to go back to work is undoubtedly the lamest excuse of all. They should all have quit their jobs and camped at Skookum Meadow forever.




It takes more imagination to contort an elk into those impressions, IMHO.

Please, attack me all you wish. It's of no concern to me. I have nothing to lose, Im not the one writing the paper and praying for publication. I have never said I was an expert in this - and I dont pretend to be, but I will bet I have observed more deer (at least) standing, sitting, running, eating and living their daily lives than you ever will my friend -- just because I live in texas now, doesnt mean I always did. I do have some experience with these animals -- not in your "scientific" sense, but I have enough observation time under my belt to know -- you have not satisfied my questions enough to change my mind one way or the other.

I asked yet again how this animal got up -- because as LAL has so nicely pointed out - there are no hoof prints where their should be hoof prints, to show this animal standing from the sitting postion. You keep avoiding this important point. Simply saying "Where are the squatch prints" doesnt negate the necessity of pointing out how this elk stood up... Your trying to kill an argument by making another.

You may get as "pissy" as you like DY - is this how you plan to answer questions about your paper, should they arise after its publication?

So, because you made an attempt to answer questions - and failed to do so, that means that gives you a pass on trying to make your points clear? Heyyy, now theres an argument I had never thought of before. LMAO. You can't be serious. If you think your work is dead on - you should want to explain why you think that -- if your point is not getting across, you need to figure out why ----- yet you get angry and post this little rant.

I should not have to tell you Science is about debate -- long after the paper is published it will be debated, what published article gets a pass simply because its published.... You better refine your debate skills if you can't handle a discussion with me..

Dont take me to task with a temper fit - because you can not explain your work.. Thats not my issue, or problem.



I musta really struck a nerve with you. Answer the questions. I havent demanded anything of you since last week -- get over yourself and heal your fragile ego. This isnt about YOU in my opinion, its about whatever evidence you can provide that will support your conclusion that, this is in fact an "Elk Lay". Bruised ego's really dont mean a whole lot to me.

If you can not or will not defend your work or conclusions - who will? LMAO.

Yes, I stand corrected. Either way, it's still the discovery of a lifetime for a scientist.



May seem useless, but you won't know if you don't try. Considering Moneymaker was present, perhaps this was merely an expedition trial run, and they just weren't approaching the outing from a scientific standpoint. :wink:



Nice straw man. No suggestion was ever made that anyone should quit their job or camp at Skookum Meadow forever. It does seem rather curious there was a mass exodus immediately after finding such compelling evidence. Just doesn't seem to have that nice new scientific smell to it. What follow up, replication of the experiment, pictures, film, footprints, or abstracts submitted to any scientific journals have been produced from that area? In short, the scientists involved have no real evidence, and they made no effort to gather evidence that would confirm their hypothesis ( even though the cast is arguably the discovery of a lifetime).

Yup, ho-hum, nothing to see here folks, carry on, boring stuff, back to work.



Surely you jest. Quite unlike your squatch doing butt-balancing mud yoga, no contortion required for the elk hypothesis.

RayG

Oh, I know why.
:rolling:
sorry...that's just very funny to me.
all the rest is just sad.

Your right -- but its more "sad" for those of us (like myself) who havent made a decision one way or the other - you simply assume I have made up my mind - because your conclusions do not make sense to me. You ridicule me - because you havent done the work to answer that one VERY important question -- you seem fine with turning back on those who seem to think this could be a bigfoot lay ---- How did your elk stand up, and not leave any prints.

You can no more answer that question now than you could the day you started this thread. Your right - it is sad, I shouldnt have to argue with someone, to try and understand information they say is so easily seen.

Now you can simply answer the question - which in your opinion is so obvious, or admit you can not answer it. Seems simple to me. LAL made a very good point - she even posted a pretty picture ( Thank you LAL). I dont know why your so against explaining this so those of us, like myself, who do not understand how you reached your conclusion -- might understand.

Or is it that you can't answer the question? How did the elk - stand up from a sitting position without

1. Distroying the impression of what you call a "knee"?
2. Without leaving prints in the impression itself? As we know, ugulates gather their front legs under their bodies to lift themselves up.. How are their no "Elk" tracks in the body of the impression?

If the answer is so simple - then tell me

I was jesting with what you called a strawman. Are only sceptics allowed to be sarcastic?

No balancing act required for a heavy bipedal animal, but I can't get those multiple "knee" prints to work, for one thing.

Draw me a picture.

Dr. Fish was the one "scientist" on the expedition, and he had the audacity to die. It appears there was an abstract, so it's not as if no one tried. Perhaps we'll learn more about that in Meldrum's book.

Since they weren't equipped to stay longer, a return with the cast for evaluation makes sense to me. I know Meldrum and Noll didn't throw in the towel and stop all research after that, but my impression is that much of their work is in the north Cascades.

I don't know what, if any follow up there's been, other than more work on the cast. Perhaps someone who knows can enlighten us.

What work, exactly, needs to be done on the cast ?

6 Years, and no reasearch follow up at Skookum (to your knowledge )... ?

I'll go with virtually none, since I know you would be all in our face with it, if there had been ...



Oh, 'nother nice straw man with the ' audacity to die ' quip...

Sorry, didn't realize you were jesting with me, since your reply was to a quote from someone else. You must be part ninja.



Sadly, I have no artistic talent whatsoever, the kids got it all I guess. Have you seen the drawings of the balancing bigfoot? (hint: page one, post #10 of this very thread)

Somehow bigbutt was able to position itself in the manner it did without leaving any foot or hand prints. Apparently it rolled into position, did its funky yoga routine, and then rolled out again. All it left behind was a very elk-like impression in the ground. :laugh:

RayG

It seems this keeps getting missed. Thought it worth repeating.

And there are very finger-like and toe-like prints in the cast. And quite a few heel strikes and an impression of what seems to be the side of a foot with dermal ridges going up the side, as in other primates.

I think I'd better rephrase. I was jesting in general and you took it for a strawman. I can see where the above statement wasn't too clear.

Do gorillas do funky yoga too?

I didn't miss it. Why are there no hoofprints in the middle of the imprint? If an elk somehow got its forelegs forward enough to hit dry ground at the edge of the mudhole, how did it get to its feet without leaving prints from the hind feet?

Further analysis has evidently been done on the cast, copies have been made for display (at considerable expense). Have you been reading the thread or just copping pictures from it?

I no longer live in Skamania County and I have no idea what's been going on there. I only recently found out Dahinden was there in 1969. Nobody told me.

"Audacity to die" is a strawman? Explain that one, please. I was, again, being sarcastic. It seems even death isn't a good enough excuse for sceptics. He should have published posthumously. :new_whistle:

Something I've asked previously ,but if there was an answer I missed it. How is it no sasquatch footprints is attributed to the frzen gound, yet no elk footprints isn't attributed to the same. Specifically if considering the supposed weight differential between the two. Which, if we're going by papers and studies done by the finders of the impression, would be in the range of 200-600 lbs give or take .

The mudhole was frozen next day. I haven't read anything about no Sas prints because the ground was frozen. The ground around the mudhole was hard, and in one area, gravelly. The mud certainly wasn't frozen at the time the imprint was made. There's a possible five-toed print in the mud, a forearm print and a suggestion of a hand. Other prints may have been squashed when the animal sat down. All it had to do was push off and roll out with a hand about 18" outside the mud.

Now, how did the elk get up? If an elk somehow got its forelegs forward enough to hit dry ground at the edge of the mudhole, why is there no impression of the chest?

I read the begining of the thread, and actually paid attention; unlike some people who didn't note that
coyote had been ruled out as a source for the impression..

In case you haven't noticed, there is a difference of opinion about the hair flow pattern, and someone has
actually prepared a scientific ( gasp! ) paper, substantiating that opinion..

This image shows elk hoofprints in the impression area, both at the front and the rear.



No comparable squatch prints are found anywhere.

RayG

As were elk. I pointed out coyote tracks were found as well but no one seems to think an 8' coyote was responsible. Those tracks are also in the cast, in the wrong place, but so what?



Namely whom? (***** is working on one, so it can't be him.) Published yet? :popcorn2:

Note he saw a copy of the cast that only has about 50% of the hair impressions.

The elk prints show elk walked across the area. Now, try to get a rising elk's feet to fit into those impressions. There should be at least a hoofprint at the end of the "rear leg" but there isn't one (finger marks, maybe). And how did the knee strike repeatedly leaving almost no trace of the lower leg?

There is a possible five-toed footprint, but no footprints need be showing if the Sas sat on them.

Don't understand ' prepared ', Lu ?

Don't understand tenses, Greg? He's said repeatedly it isn't finished yet.

I'm waiting for the drawings. :popcorn2:

I'm sure it was explained, and I must have missed it; but can someone tell me the
the explanation for the significant size difference in the ' heel ' strikes ..
( from the point of view that we are looking at a Sasquatch impression ...

Of course if you are feeling mean, you can make me read through the whole thread again...

I didnt miss it either. Im wondering, as I sit here with my limited knowledge, how much damage would have been done to a muddy impression as an Elk rolled from its side to get into this standing position -- and do it all leaving no hoof marks, within the impression itself.. Hummm..

IF we are calling this an Elk (for the sake of argument).. Must have been one dainty roll, to not have the sides of the "Elk Knee" impressions collapse under the weight of such a manuver - or to still have the details of the hair still so visible. Wow, I didnt know Elk were so graceful..

Edited for spelling

I'd rather post pictures of the heel strikes when I find the Skookum folder that I so laboriously captured. It seems to have become a sub-folder somewhere, but I don't know where yet.

It's not the size that matters, Greg. :laugh:

This help ?




The magenta and cyan objects are the ' putative ' heel strikes..

Finding the folder helped.

This is a "knee" and a possible five-toed print:

Click to view attachment

Does that really look like an elk knee?



This is a laid out elk. :laugh:

Click to view attachment




And *****'s going to claim the mudhole was used repeatedly by elk and that those are all old knee prints from elk that managed to get up without leaving hoof prints where they ought to be.

Am I getting warm?

Not even close...

If the heel strikes are from a Sasquatch; why the difference in size ?

The putative heel strikes without the cyan and magenta:



He's not going to say that? Funny, he said it on JREF.

The differences in size would be due to depth, just as in the case with footprints. The largest was most deeply impressed and shows the Achilles tendon.

Nope... Does not compute .. The ball of the heel should still be
the same size in all three strikes.. I'ts obviously not...




I'm surprised their isn't an ' infant ' element here ...

Try it. The deeper the heel strike the greater the width. A light tap will produce a dent, a hard one an impression of a quarter of the foot.
And that's what it looks like.

Why would an elk have different knee sizes?

LAL and SG are both right!
Cue stunning musical score here.
The difference in size between the impressions to the right side of the cast is in fact due to multiple imprints of an elk. One situated about 90 degrees to the primary one. The metatarsals, calcanea, and achilles heel are all visible. Elk hoof prints are found where they "should be" (there are nine clearly preserved prints in the cast and another two suspect, put possible imprints as well), and at least two are even partially overlain by the second (youger), primary trace. Claims that hoofprints "aren't where they should be" are absolutely ridiculous, as anyone looking at the cast can tell (the high-resolution fiberglass cast reveals all of the hair flow pattern shown in colobus's photos of the original, and is probably at least 98% the resolution of the original based on the properties of the materials used...but enough of the shop-talk). I'm guessing most people making judgements about the cast haven't actually seen a 3-d version of it and are going primarily from photos (nothing wrong with that if you know what you're doing...like say...a trained ichnologist...but I'd be willing to bet my signed David Hasselhoff Christmas Album* that none of these folks even heard of ichnologists a few weeks back).

But wait...examples of ungulate imprints are also found in a variety of published sources, thereby allowing anyone to verify for themselves just where hoof prints are and are not found on ungulate traces. Surely those intent on showing that hoofprints always fall within a body impression have consulted the relevant scientific literature, assembled a set of references, and can offer multiple illustrated examples demonstrating that ungulates always leave hoof prints within the body impression before making blanket statements about ungulate ethology and biomechanics, right?
Wait...what?

*this album was signed by my friend Carl, not David Hasselhoff.

Now it's gotten serious.

Ichnologist? Heck, I've never even heard of David Hasselhoff.

In fact, videos and photos of elk and elk lays were taken. You'd have to ask Noll, Caddy, Meldrum, Sarmiento, Swindler, et al, if they consulted the literature as well, DY.

Is there something in the literature about elk getting up without gathering their legs under them or leaving a chest print?

Why bother ?

If they did, they apparently ignored what they found...

Time for this, I guess. From DY on JREF:


"Here's Jeff's take on it as of May, 2006.
I of course, disagree with him as do the people I've consulted with who work quite a bit with elk, deer, and other ungulate traces. We're just not as verbose! (Sorry Jeff!)


THE SKOOKUM BIGFOOT BODY CASTING, 2000, IS STILL A RATHER
CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC. DON'T YOU THINK THE IMPRESSION LENDS ITSELF TO
MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS?
Certainly multiple interpretations have been offered by various individuals, some without
the benefit of ever having examined the cast. The only alternate interpretation, excluding
hoaxing, initially worthy of serious consideration was that the imprint was made by an
elk. However, this hypothesis was readily falsified by comparing the impression to those
left by elk, to their anatomy, hair patterns, and behavior. At this point, no reasonable
argument can be made for elk as the responsible candidate. I found it curious how readily
many individuals adopted an opinion that the reconstructed posture was quite
unreasonable for a large primate. Rick Noll recently filmed a gorilla at the Seattle Zoo
feeding in precisely this posture, right down to the heel plants. It ate selectively and
sloppily as was also indicated at the site."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59728&page=2

You are so right on. And if there were multiple elk, why not multiple messes?

We saw the film .. It was hardly a match in the opinion of most of those who
commented in this thread...

It certainly didn't do the " Skookum Roll " ....

That meldrum found it precise, does the word ' precise ' a great disservice..

Don't forget; Meldrum has a book to sell... We would hardly expect him to reconsider
his position on the cast ..

Perhaps he can prepare a rebuttal to DY's paper if it is published...