Thank you LAL. And, you bring up yet another very good question. Maybe this Elk didnt play well with others....... :laugh:

I couldn't get the movie to play, but Rick's stills on another thread made the point.

As to the opinions of those on a message board, would you take those over those of people who have actually done an analysis, taken measurements, done studies, Greg? Of course you would.

In Rick's presentation at the Willow Creek Symposium (2003), photos of two elk lays were shown as well as the pictures of elk and elk getting up. Does this sound like they hadn't considered the possibility?

I don't think Meldrum needs to resort to chicanery in order to sell a book. He been doing research for years on his own time and his own dime and holds a position at Idaho State. Why would he suddenly have to hawk a book? He wasn't even writing it when he cleaned the cast, was he? But then we're used to your attempts to discredit Meldrum.

Colobus provided drawings showing how everything fits, right down to the bent knee.

Still waiting for the elk drawings. :popcorn2:

Drawings for elk not needed... There is a clue there..

:popcorn2: :popcorn2: :popcorn2:

:edit1:

Joke! It was just a joke!

Don't need drawings LAL...here's that nice photo...again...showing all the joints, chest, and flank, tail, and butt in exactly the same place as the Skookum Elk Cast. I can add bright red circles if you need them. :new_lmaosmiley:

....edited to add...oh, what the heck...I want to draw some red lines since it's Friday.
I'm sure everyone will now see how I've been simply making stuff up, and that there's absolutely positively no way an elk can possibly fit into the cast... :wink:

Of course, I should point out for those not familiar with animal traces (and you know who you are :wink: ) that the knee highlighted on the resting elk is indeed on the upper side of the animal's body...BUT the opopsite knee is pressing down into the mud, so please, let's not go through 348 posts debating whether or not the red "knee line" is accurate and on the correct side. thank you and happy Friday!

Stick two heels (or knees) in soft mud.....move one slightly or wiggle it a little and the soft mud moves too...suddenly the heel (or knee) that's moved leaves a larger impression.....No mystery here. Works in both scenarios, BF heels or elk knees.

I brought this up in another thread and maybe it will be moved here.......Using your photo's here, notice the lower leg and upper leg fold up with lower leg directly under the upper leg. Knees in elk as in other critters only move one direction......not sideways nor forward only as shown in the photo of the elk. Yet in the cast it appears that the lower leg, wrist, and hoof fold up under the chest (assuming elk here) and the chest is pushing the lower leg, wrist and hoof into the mud. But a portion of the lower leg, wrist and hoof are missing from the cast.....no marks, impressions.......nothing. I see no evidence of the elk trying to get up, dragging that lower leg and all that is attached to it from under its chest, which would leave a large gouge across the chest and then a hoof print where it planted that hoof in the mud to get up. Even if the elk was able to levitate and float out of the mud......that lower leg, wrist and hoof mark should be there.....across the chest......

Where is it? How could it possibly, completely, disappear leaviing no trace?

The other questions is: How can an elk put its legs at that odd angle in the first place? The lower leg can only fold up directly under the upper leg. There could be some rotational movement at the shoulder, but that only moves the complete leg outward and the hoof would still not be under the chest impression.

Good question Jack, and it has to do with the way an elk's hoof folds. The wrist (the large joint on the foreleg some call a "knee") is indeed folded so the metacarpals (cannon bones) and radius and ulna (forearm) are all parallel. The hoof also folds up in this position, and is in fact elevated above the sediment's surface. The bottom surface of the hoof in the position of the elk shown above is actually facing upwards, since the last joint in the leg (just above the hoof) is flexed about 45 degrees above the plane of the metacarpus. So the hood actually leaves no imprint. This is actually a diagnostic characteristic of ungulate imprints and can be seen in numerous publications on animal tracks and sign, as well as in the real world if you have some deer or elk or cows handy.

When the animal stands, it braces itself either on the wrist, with the hooves and metacarpus elevated abouve the ground's surface, or it extends its hooves outwards, in front of the body and then raises the hindquarters after rolling its haunches over the rear hooves. Either way, no front hoof prints are preserved within the body impression. Hope this helps.

Well.....no. It still doesn't answer how the forleg , wrist and hoof can be under the chest, as evidenced in the cast and not leave a mark of any kind. or how its leg can even get to that odd angle. I understand what your saying and can see that in the elk photo. But the cast shows the forleg UNDER the chest impression, but no wrist or hoof. The hoof can't be above the sediment surface, if the chest is resting on top of it and the chest impression is clearly there. How is this possible?

I'd say one is actually alongside the chest, like is seen in the photo of the elk and the other is at an angle to the chest with maybe the hoof close to or under the chest. An elk's chest is very narrow, only about 6-8 inches wide at the sternum. And again, in the photo, you can see the hoof raised above the sediment's surface, and the hoof closer to the chest (or under if you prefer) would have the same orientation...it's how the ligaments flex. So I guess I'd have to say that your idea that the hoof under the chest needs to be and pushed into the sediment is partially explained by the actual photo of an elk.

Incidentally...have a look at how the actual elk's anatomy lines up 1 for 1 with clear landmarks on the Skookum Elk Cast (SEC). There's no disparity between the two (all the pretty red lines are parallel)...anyone seriously claiming that there is no correlation is probably also capable of arguing that a Nike shoe print was in fact made by the hoof of a 250 lbs. peccary named Milton...in my opinion.

Desertyeti; the red lines in your photo-montage are very helpful for someone like me unfamiliar with animal traces. You can see in the elk photo how the rear legs are not directly under the elk, and are in fact slightly angled sideways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to leave the rear hooves slightly angled, and I can now perceive what what you claim are the rear hooves having left a slightly angled impression as well.

I can perceive the features that you interpret as slightly crossed rear legs as plain as day.

In fact I can now perceive every single feature in the cast copy matching the same features on the elk itself.

Your photo montage has shaken me, much like how I was shaken when I finally perceived how the ridge flow pattern on CA-19 was consistent with casting artifacts. It's one big gestalt moment.

Exactly!!!!!!! And this is something I've never mentioned to anyone before, ever...glad you could pick that little detail out! Once you know what you're looking at, all the seemingly unexplainable details become instantly recognizeable, with no bizarre scenarios or imaginary behaviors, or appeals to the extraordinary necessary. It's still a really neat cast...but it happens to be a really neat elk cast. And that's very cool in and of itself, in my opinion, but I'm a guy that happens to like all sorts of animal traces.

Yes, DY - awesome photos with the red lines thing.

A thought:

Elk lies down in soft mud.

Ground gets cold and mud hardens.

Elk gets up and plants hooves in mud now much less likely to take imprint.

Could there be something as simple as this at play here?

By jove, I think we're onto something!

LOL... easily impressed. Chinese puzzles require fingers. Rolling apples leaving marks? No... the bits and pieces were sitting on top of the mud. Weight dispersal on hooves are greater then the entire body, yet no hooves pressed deeper and underneath. Don't fit the evidence to circumstances not existing.

Red lines pay no attention to the opposite side impressions. Pictures Owen and I provided all show the hooves in the impression left by ungulates. Someone needs to show an elk getting up by rolling and getting up without legs underneath, preferably like the video shown here. Words alone are not convincing.

Reminds me of one of those Japanese transforming cars changing into a jet plane and flying away.

The scenario above would have the mud freeze or harden onto the animal and leave no hair pattern. Some pieces even dislodging and falling. Nothing like that seen. But you guys go right on. So far we haven't missed anything in our study... by way of looking at yours.

By the way... I think anyone who is semi physically fit can get up and down into this position, sitting on and obliterating any first strike impressions unconsciously without the aide of hands to get back up. But why would someone do that? Hands full maybe?

Since the only place (so far) that most of us hear about what the proponents are saying about the cast is here, is this what is believed to be the case now? That the purported sasquatch stood up without using it's hands? Interesting. Is it believed it then rolled out of the mud onto harder soil? Can that motion be seen in the cast? I think if it scooted or wiggled it's way out, that would be pretty noticeable. For it to simple stand from that position, it would probably have to move it's feet under itself. I think that would be obvious in the cast as well. So what is the current thinking on how it actually moved it's body in order to get out? Or is that here somewhere, and I missed it?

God, even when I'm not being a smartass, when I read what I write it sure sounds that way! :laugh:

But seriously, I'm curious about what the current stance is.

Nice pun. :laugh:

RayG

:laugh:

If the impression was made by a Sasquatch what does the circled feature represent?

And why are there two of them?





RayG

I had heard that there were testicular impressions in the Skookum cast as well, but I don't think I've seen a pic of the cast where they were circled. If so, does it line up with your elk pic to where you drew the lines?

Also, does anyone know if there were pieces of fruit in the cast, or was all the fruit carried away and not eaten right there? Maybe there is no way of knowing.

I don't. And I didn't need the photo; I've seen actual elk lying down, with bellies and chests on the ground. I was expecting drawings showing how those multiple "knee strikes" occured and how the legs managed to unfold without smearing them into unrecognition..........or are those supposed to be wrist impressions now?

I could see them in the photo in Murphy's book, but I really can't find them in the rather low res pictures online.

There were bits of peel and apple on the impression which were collected but left in the alcohol too long. One apple was found away from the mudhole, as I recall from reading the field notes. The melons were intact.

This is what I would like to see explained as well. Seems next to impossible to me. Maybe the Elk population in washington have access to forklifts to help out a pal ??

Rick! Still in Malaysia? Will we be treated to a thread on your trip there, I hope?

I tried it on a hardwood floor and I don't recommend it to anyone with hipbones over the age of ten. Easy on a nice soft bed simulating mudhole, though.

I have got to find a way to view your gorilla movie. I don't know what I'm lacking.

I was thinking of a crane. And it would have to be lifted straight up, with no marks of a sling showing.............


If those are two rear leg imprints why is there no smearing in between? There are clear hair impressions in that artea in a clear photo. I doubt an elk could lift a hind leg out of a lying down position and set it down again, especially while lying on it. Maybe it's the other leg? Then how did the elk get up without smearing the impressions and leaving deep hoofprints? How would it roll over and out of the mudhole without pushing off with the hind legs?

If it rolled, why is there no broad back impression? I've seen horses roll many times and they always wiggled around on their backs (to scratch them, presumably). That would obliterate a lot, including the testical impressions.

It's too bad that the bed doesn't retain an impression for comparison. Will someone please go try it in the mud? Come one, there's gotta be a sucker out there somewhere! :laugh:

Brian Smith's already done that.

Where's the video? It doesn't do me any good if I can't see it being done. That's what I want. I want someone with too much time on their hands to get into mud in the "Skookum Position" (pretty sure that's in the Kama Sutra) and then get out without using hands. Then cast it. Except for size, depth and hair impressions, the casts should be pretty damned close, shouldn't they?

Did Brian Smith do it before, or after the idea of no hands being involved in getting out? Is this documented somewhere? I know I've seen pics of it, but I can't remember where. Was it cast? Was the process recorded on video?

Can I ask more questions?

Yeah, probably.

Or feet, knees, and elbows.

RayG

One step, or lack of, at a time... :laugh:

Wildman, I'd be happy to film you while you try it if you'll promise not to wear the valentine.

Uh, that didn't come out quite right.......

I'd figured you'd want me to keep it on, but if its au natural you want...

:laugh:

I didn't even want to see the van.

I am having visions of crane operating elk -- thanks LAL - LMAO. Im sure we will hear - this is a one in a million occurance -- but it does happen.. :new_tiredsmiley:

Ok, I'm not the only one thinking this.


Since we're on the subject of puzzles...
I'm a bit stymied by this -

September 2000 Skookum Expedition
Pretty darn cold if you ask me.

Wouldn't the ground be to hard for anything to leave an impression? Is there a chance the skookum impression was already there when the fruit pile were place at that spot on Thursday night/Friday morning?

A perfect fit doesn't make it a Sasquatch while a resemblance makes it an elk. I see.

I wonder why no comment on the apparent elk hip outline being a raised ledge of mud?

I didn't know elk had dermal ridges on their knees. Or is it wrists?

I've yet to hear anyone familiar with the cast honestly make either of those claims. Have I missed something?

Apeman

And he ( Brian ) said he couldn't come close ...

Anyone else ?

Surely they photographed the area before baiting it .. Didn't they ?

You know, for a ' before and after ' comparison ..

Great point HuntFish !!

Here's a good page on elk hooves and tracks as well as other info.

Quoted from this page..."The outer edge, or wall, is very prominent and may be all that shows on a hard substrate."

Note the photo of elk hoof prints in wood. I've seen them on hard dry ground that look similar (only the outline of the tough outer wall). Doubtful that mud would harden enough so that an elk hoof would not make a very definate mark. The elks body warmth would keep the mud from freezing under and near the elk.

It would be only fair, since the Sasquatch population seems to have access to high tech, stealth and evasion eqipment...

Soooooooo...has anyone seen that small art house film about a big ship sinking in the ocean? Wasn't too popular. It was called Titanic™ or something like that. Anyway, it went down in flames (so-to-speak). I think the captain went down with the ship too. :ohmy:

"Harry"

Willow Creek Symposium 2003, Disc 3, with all the proper qualifying language.




None needed. All it takes for a tall, dark hominid to avoid detection in a dense forest is to step behind a tree.




Did I miss something? Source that, please.

This is Brian Smith's imprint:

Click to view attachment

Yes you did .. ( miss something )


I did source it.. You missed that too..


Let's try this..

Since you brought up Brian's work, why don't you show that it supports the " Squatch Could Have Made Skookum Impression " theory...

You know, a video, annotated comparrson pictures, stuff like that ..
Maybe some commentary from Meldrum, Noll and Sarmiento, explaining how the demonstration
supported the Squatch conclusion..

And pray the little one crawling around on their shoulders doesn't give them away , by leaning
out to see what's going on ?

Not really knowing who you are I had to blow up your avatar to get a sense of where your coming from...

I did see that picture, was a double feature. The other one had some very prominent scientists of the times stating that man would never fly.

If all of these skeptics are solely using this forum for their information... that tells a lot.

Thanks for the effort LAL but that really doesn't help. I assume this is a reference to Noll's presentation. I was there, so never bought the DVDs and don't recall all the details so could you please remind me exactly what he said. Knowing Rick a little bit, and how smart he is, I assume "all the proper qualifying language" means he said things like "there are some areas that could be toe impressions" or "there are lines on the heel that resemble dermal ridges" or maybe even that some people have made such interpretations. I guess you did also qualify with toe and finger "like" and "what seems to be...dermal ridges" but I'd like for us all to be more clear on who exactly has made what specific claims, so can you supply the relevant transcript whenever you have a chance?

Thanks,
Apeman

PS- I'd argue that even if the "heel" lines were verifiable dermal ridges that they in fact do not resemble the pattern seen on at least gorillas, so I'm particularly interested in that portion.

:icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy: Now see folks, that's how you properly respond to hecklers. :icon14: