I doubt a pair of boxing gloves could remedy what's going on here, but I hope it dies with those posts!
After looking at the skookum cast in Willow Creek for a whopping 20 minutes I came to the conclusions it looked like what I thought it looked like. But there have been some good arguments on this subject. Though both theories are charging off in opposite directions, they do have their holes. Holes in what made or could have made the impression. Holes that leave me and others asking questions.
If anyone were ever to find an impression or any other piece of evidence, they should expect every theory, thought or question thrown at it in respect for the truth.

Noll's comentary on the WCS DVD does just that. Evidently you haven't seen it. You can read the caption on the picture I posted.

Since I seem to have missed the post where you sourced it, how about pointing me to it or sourcing it again?

Edited to add: It's not coming up on a search, so far.............

Agh, I'm not even caught up on the MIM thread yet; I'm into Orangutans. One phrase I recall is to the effect of "It's tempting to think that".......

A picture is worth a thousand words, so's here's one with dermal picked out for you to peruse until I can try a transcript with my one-finger typing. Since Rick is on the board, maybe he'll be so good as to tell us basically what he said while I recover from a hard day at work and try to do some washing before I have to buy new clothes.

More penciled in lines, showing us what we can't otherwise see ?

:new_whistle:

Hey Harry , this implies there is a forthcoming analysis that will refute DY's ...

I can't wait.. I'll take Tobasco™ with my crow...

Meanwhile, I believe I'll just have some popcorn ..

:popcorn2:

Kinda like DY penciling in Elk Tracks, and joining up lines to make an elk in his sketches?

No, I can actually see what LAL is talking about without her being so kind as to actually point it out -- I appreciate those who dont make me guess what they are thinking, and just show it.

TY LAL

This happens to be from the presentation. I've suggested viewing the clear picture in Murphy's book. Detail can be lost in conversion to JPEG, I'm told, and monitors don't seem to grab evry pixel, so the dermals probably wouldn't show anyway. Try looking at the pictures of the bare cast.

I've done four searches and can't find your post on the source on Brian Smith. Is it on some other board?

Wow. This thread has got it all. If nothing else, it has shown us the best and worst of all those involved. In the end, it's nothing more than a "he said/she said" and "neener neener" thread. I've amazed to see so many stoop to levels that I thought only I inhabited. This is one of the most nitpicking-est threads I've ever had the pleasure to participate in. I especially love all the comments about what is and isn't scientific, with very few actual scientists involved.

Is it a sasquatch body print? An elk lay? I have no frickin' clue. I do know this: at least DY is trying. If those attacking DY's research and credentials would dedicate even have that energy into research of their own, then we may actually get somewhere. DY may be entirely full of s**t, but he is at least making an attempt, and one that he truly believes in. I applaud him whether he is right or wrong, simply because he is trying to actually accomplish something. Not only that, but he's sharing his results. Should he be questioned? Hell yes! But damn, some of the questioning here is just so damned ridiculous.

In my humble, yet worthless opinion, people like DY, tube, jimf, etc. represent what I hope to be the future of research. We need more people willing to step up and produce. I'm so sick of hearing "Jimmy Joe Bob said this," and "Dr. Blowhard said that." I'm tired of hearing. Playing in heavy metal bands for a large part of my life makes hearing a bit hard at times. No, I'd rather see. It may not prove anything, but it is a step forward.

Why don't I do something, you may ask? 'Cause I'm over it. I'm interested, but not enough to actually waste too much of my time on the subject anymore. If it's out there, then great. If not, that 's great, too. It has taken me long enough, but I realize now that there are just way too many people out there who are full of themselves, and full of crap. Hell, I'm one of them. This area of study seems to attract more than it's share of those types of people. Normally, I enjoy people-watching, but reading some of the posts here have been painful.

I've also come to the opinion that bigfoot discussion is a lot like politics and religion, in that too many people are so caught up in their own opinions and beliefs that they are unwilling to accept anything contrary to their point of view. Very few people here would know an open mind if they stumbled through one.

It just blows me away that so many people have so vehemently argued against DY's paper when they themselves have neither studied elk lays, nor the Skookum cast. How can you be so sure of yourselves?

I know everyone has their weak moments, but I hope to Hell I never get to a point in my life where information from the internet, TV, or word of mouth will ever hold enough answers for me. Especially concerning something as amazing and unbelievable as the existence of a gigantic hairy bipedal primate living in our mountains and forests all these years, with very little to validate it's existence. That is, unless you are willing to believe what you read or hear.

It just isn't enough for me. Seeing more results like DY's, however, will always stand out a bit more. Not only has he told me what he thinks, he's shown me why he thinks that way. Now he's trying to get it published. We all should appreciate that he is at least trying to solve something, regardless of the outcome. It is always good to question, but damn, show some respect and actually back up what you say without relying on research that, for the most part, hasn't been documented or verified. Or, if it has, it hasn't been made public. How can anyone check your answers if they can't see your work?

What? You all can bitch, but I can't?

Yeah, I'm in another bad mood. I've realized that I truly am the smartest person on Earth, and that is very disappointing. However, you may till bow to me at your leisure. Kneel before Zod.


Signed,

Ole wildman and the dawgs (On loan from Ole bub. You owe me a new carpet, bro. Stupid dawgs.)

Okay, put the valentine back on.

DDA and colobus have done tons of work on the actual cast and Rick was there casting it. Can we at least have a little :appl: for them too?

Without people like them DY wouldn't have been able to see the copy and write a paper about it.

Out of curiousity, why did you change your SN and avatar, Mr. Pinkham, sir?

No doubt, props gotta go to them, and anyone who is out doing their homework. :appl:

Of course, a little more reviewable research and results would be nice... :wink:

I changed my name because I am at a different place in my life. Though the Wildman nickname follows me back to highschool, it just doesn't respresent me as well as my actual name does. Plus, using a nickname always makes me feel as if I'm hiding behind something, and I don't need to be. For those who are curious, the "P.L." stands for Paul Lewis. No hiding, no secrets. Just little ol' me!

It's probably pointless, because to most of you I'll always be "WM," and that is cool with me. I just feel better having changed it. Liberated, a bit.

The avatar? It makes me laugh. I found it by accident, and it cracks me up because it is probably the phrase I use more than any other in my life: "Dude, what the f$%k?" :laugh:

Indeed .. And there would have been little need , if any, for DY to bother ...






Nice post Wildman .. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:



.. I hope everyone takes time to read it ( carefully ) ...

C a r e f u l l y . . . r e a d i n g . . .

:new_stun:

You're welcome.

I had a "Eureka" moment when I saw the hair flow in the picture in Murphy's book. I could actually see what I'd been reading about. I PMd colobus to see if he knew if a video of the Skookum Roll could be posted and got his very helpful reply with the instructions for actually doing the roll. It was worth a sore hip to check it out.

Unfortunately, I can't transform myself into an elk.

And I would like to carefully read your source on Brian Smith. You say you posted it; where is it? I even read the thread about the great new search goodies, added a wildcard and still got nothing but the same four posts, none of which contains the source.

Now, please source it.

The hair flow pattern and length of the hair, and the possible dermal ridge evidence is what really gets my attention. When I looked at the Copies of the Skookum Cast in San Antonio, I was actually quite surprised to see the detail of the hair - and it was fairly obvious to me, that was not the hair of an elk. Elk hair is much to short..

If someone can explain to my satisfaction the hair flow pattern and length found in this cast and its copies, and how this could be the hair of an Elk, you have a much better chance of winning me over -- than telling me "because I said so". This is an important point that has not been addressed - and questioning my ability to ask such questions of someone like DY is not going to shut me up. DY has a point to prove, I think he should prove it. Answer the question, and I will stop asking it.

Seems simple to me.

Thought of that but wasn't sure. Winter coat might not transfer that much heat to the ground . . . I'll defer to folks with more elk experience than I. Certainly ain't married to the "mud froze with elk in it" idea. I's just tossing a thought out there.
~s

Wait...

So now copies of the Skookum cast actually are good enough to show an adequate amount of detail to make an informed decision? At least enough to determine whether it was elk hair or not?

Can someone help me out here? We need a concensus, or something. Are copies good enough, or not?

Are photos good enough, with or without the drawings? Melissa's not writing a paper that I know of, and neither am I.

Whilst Googling in a vain attempt to find Greg's source on the Internet (and, incidently, trying to get Mittermeire's name spelled correctly), I found this:

"Word of the Skookum Cast got out, and for the first time since the Patterson film, important mainstream scientists pricked up their ears. Over the past year, a group of them—including Esteban Sarmiento, a functional anatomist at the American Museum of Natural History; Daris Swindler, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Washington; and George Schaller, world-renowned biologist, conservationist, and author—ventured to the Pacific Northwest to give the cast thorough scrutiny. The results of their critique will be revealed in a documentary titled Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, which is slated to air in November on the Discovery Channel. "I'm a doubting Thomas when it comes to Sasquatch," says Swindler. "But I've looked at the cast twice now, and the imprints are certainly not of an elk or bear or anything we know of." "

And

"No kidding. The cast looks like a congealed vanilla-caramel pudding the size of a twin bed.

"When I first looked at this thing, I saw the elk tracks," says Caddy, pointing out two obvious hoof prints. "I'm a pretty skeptical guy, but I kept on mapping the impression order." Next, he indicates what he has determined to be heel and Achilles-tendon impressions; they're too wide, he says, to be elk, but just right for a large primate. The heel trench, arm print, and butt divot suggest that something bipedal sat down, dug in its heels, and leaned on its forearm.

As Noll removes excess dirt from the cast with a dental pick, Caddy and I sit on the driveway and simulate the creature's position. "Now," he tells me, "put your hand under your butt." I grab a cheek. "Lift your thigh." OK. "You feel that bone? Feel how it digs in?" I do, but I feel a lot like an infomercial stooge for saying so. "Now come look at the cast."

Caddy, Noll, and I gaze in wonder at the bone-shaped bump in the butt print. I'll be damned.

"I'm not saying this was a Sasquatch," Caddy says. "But seeing that bone depression was kind of a turning point for me." "

http://www.wintersteel.com/files/Unexplain...ch_Is_Real_.htm


There are some advantages in viewing the original.

True, you are not. It may be wise to keep that in mind when deciding how it is supposed to be done.



True, assuming those viewing it are qualified to examine the medium in which the evidence is presented, qualified to analyze that evidence, are not full of crap, and are not biased. A couple of those may be easy to rule out. You can check a guy's background fairly easy nowadays. However, figuring out what drives a person to believe what they do deep inside, well, that's a bit tougher. Is it based solely on the evidence before them, or are their personal feelings and gut-reactions involved? Nobody truly knows but that person, and they may not even know themselves.

So, I guess it really depends on who views the original, and how much you personally feel their opinion is worth. Me, I don't know any of these people, so when all is said and done, nothing they say impresses me much. Now, if they write a paper walking me through it, then it starts to become a bit more interesting.

I read nothing in there that screamed at me. It's just a lot of people I don't know talking about things I can't see. Booor-ing!

Boy, I'm a little turd tonight, aren't I?

Yeah.

Read the article. It's pretty good.

Evidently an abstract was written, at least. I would like to see that myself.

As to how it's supposed to be done, there are perils to working with copies. The examples of Piltdown Man and Mary Leaky's chisel come to mind. I can't see dermal ridges in my copies of the Bossburg casts, but evidently faint ones were seen even by Michael Dennett on the originals. I wouldn't conclude there are no dermal ridges based on my copies (DY should know what I'm talking about here).

Well, your comment might start something - if DY had not made mention of this himself...

DY is forumulating an opinion off of 2 copies of an original.. His opinion, he states is a "scientific opinion", so, this is good enough for you? I should ask nothing more from him? The very questions others have asked DDA and Colobus to explain, are given a pass when it comes to DY's work? Case closed in your opinion?

Since when is this ok?




All I can say to this is simply: DY chose to publish bits and pieces of his work, he asked for discussion.

If you cant take the heat -- well you know the rest. :laugh:

Paul, the point was that these experts in primate-related fields "ventured to the Pacific Northwest to give the cast thorough scrutiny".

If Schaller, why not sceptics?

It looks to me like Owen Caddy has already written a paper, complete with diagrams. What does it need to be submitted?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671

You would think so.

It's akin to viewing sources. Instead of playing cat and mouse all over the board, how about providing that source?

Did they "venture," or were they invited? Did they pay for their airfare and accomodations, or did someone else.

We aren't all made of money, and may not all have the money and resources to do things properly. However, that should prevent no one from trying their best with what they have, and by means with which they can afford. Would seeing the actual cast have helped him? Maybe. However, if his paper doesn't stand with people because the original cast wasn't examined, it wouldn't have stood if he had. Minds are already made up here. Maybe it was a sasquatch. Maybe it was an elk. Maybe it is a combination of impressions that just happens to resemble both, yet actually isn't either. No one here knows. It's doubtful any ever will. DY will prove to those that want to believe it is an elk that is an elk. Many are already convinced it was a sasquatch. I seriously doubt that no matter what is finally decided on the subject that anyone's personal opinions will be swayed.

Maybe it is just me, but it just blows me away that so many can stand behind the sasquatch angle when they themselves have never actually seen a sasquatch, havent found, seen, or studied any of the evidence first hand, and who have absolutely no background in any field that would help them to properly read the evidence, but can so easily dismiss the elk. Especially when elk are known to exist, are known to be in that area, and have left other verifiable evidence of their presence not just in that area, but in the cast itself. The only people who would know anything about sasquatch would be those that have actually seen them, and those qualified enough to read the evidence and make a determination on that. No one else should even have the right to claim knowledge of the creature. And, there is always the chance that the qualified individuals and witnesses are mistaken. How does one pick and choose who and what to believe? I have no clue, and it frustrates the Hell out of me.

And this is coming from a guy who has heard strange howls in the night and has seen not just a few purported prints, but two long trackways side-by-side that I believe may be attributed to sasquatch. Can't prove it, and I won't try. The chances are that I heard an unknown howl from a known animal, and happened upon some odd prints, either human or hoaxed, due to the fact I was in an area crawling with people. I can separate what I want to believe from what the facts tell me. I think that is harder for some to do than others.





I don't know. Is an attempt being made?

Uhh, that would be ..

It would need to be submitted .... :new_tiredsmiley:

Your source concerning Brian Smith is..............?



I don't know. Why don't we ask colobus? It doesn't look to me like it would need much more. I'm sure they have the measurements.

Ah. But even if it didn't transfer heat to the ground, it would certainly insulate it from the cold, would it not? Ground freezes from the top down.....cold air and all, not from the ground up. Even snow will insulate the ground and vegetation it rests on. The elk would have to freeze before the ground under it. Those sharp hooves will make a mark in almost any hard ground surface.

Well, Mr. Pinkham, it's not just you. I'm genuinely surprised to find out how many people are now claiming to be experts in what ungulate imprints look like...yet still claim that this scenario is impossible because um....beacuse...well...errrr, because someone else said so...yeah!


And, in following up on this...yet another reason (I've previously explained 2) that I didn't examine the original, is that simply...no one has asked me to. The going rate for a trained ichnologist to look at specimens and render a qualified opinion is $700.00 a day, plus airfare and lodging (check with any geology department or energy company for the actual dollar amount since it varies from place to place). This is true of industry and academics...which explains why so few studies of sediments and/or traces actually use qualified ichnologists. But back to the main topics at hand...
let's see...we left off with misunderstandings, miscommunications, and photoshopped graphics of each others' avatars...so...back to it...

:laugh: See...a cast is only good enough to form a qualified, educated opinion if you're not a trained ichnologist and have previously claimed to know nothing about the subject. If you are one and (God forbid) actually know something about animal track and sign, then the cast will somehow lose all that detail and become useless, making any interpretation of it fatally flawed...it's maaaaagggiiicccccal!!!!

Ai yai yai...this gets better every week!

edited to add: thanks for the above post LAL. It certainly helps illustrate how very perfectly (or not) an imaginary figure can kind of, sort of, reproduce an elk imprint, using a minimum of 7 easy manouvers. It speaks for itself, alright...incidentally...what's with the pretend BF's left leg...why does it not leave an impression...perhaps it's an amputee?
I know, I know..."pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Swindler was already in the Northwest. Uh, you do know who these guys are, don't you?

Are you suggesting that if someone paid their expenses that would somehow influence their conclusions? Or that they couldn't or wouldn't have come if their expenses weren't paid? Or that everyone who disagreed was so poor they couldn't fly to Seattle? Are there no elk experts in the Seattle area who might have been able to examine the cast firsthand?

Dr. Daegling used Cliff Crook's conclusion in his book. Neither saw the cast itself. Do you know if Daegling has seen it since he presumably made some money off the book?

I haven't seen your drawings showing the sequence and how those putative knee prints got there or how the rising elk got its feet into those transitting hoof prints.

Sorry to see you resorting to attempted ridicule. Maybe you were on JREF too long and picked up their tactics?

Left leg? Where it's pointed out the knee may have been bent and the leg raised?

You're absolutely right LAL, it's clearly a hominid imprint, not an elk.
Thank you for bringing me to my senses.
What was I thinking?!
I'll no longer ridicule the pretend, lounging, Yoga-Yeti ever again I promise.


True...yet you still go on and on about how my interpretation is wrong...odd, no?


No...where it's clearly extended into the mud. Actually...it's not so clear...the whole illustration is very unclear and uninformative...in my opinion.

and from the guidelines on this forum:
word. :icon14:

So, its your opinion that DDA and Colobus should pay your airfare and hotel expenses, and your rate as an "expert" so you can fly to Washington and examine the Original cast for a paper you will be given credit for.... Yeah - I think you should ask them... Can we make this a conference call ?? I sure would like to hear that conversation. :laugh: :laugh:

Your right - this does get better every week. And you ridicule me.... lmao.

Nope.
Don't need to see the original.
The cast did just fine, thanks. :icon14:
Besides, didn't you read the rest of my post? I now agree 100% that it's a hominid imprint, not an elk.
See? All better.

When your pitty party is done, let me know.

All I ever ask of ANYONE is to be fair in the work they are presenting. If you do not think examining the original is necessary for a "Scientific study" then thats your issue to deal with, not mine.

I don't recall ever asking you to deal with any of my many issues.

Hey great -- take a few of mine then

EMAIL FROM BRIAN SMITH (he can't seem to post here anymore)

I seem to be getting invovlved with this debate on the bff without being able to post. Somehow some one has a picture from my video of me attempting to duplicate the cast. Not sure who has it, i only gave you a copy of it on the video i sent a lond time ago. Anyway skeptical greg has pm me and i told him i could not duplicate it as someone on the board is saying i came real close to doing it. I said it looked simular but i could not do it with leaving foot prints were the heel strike is. And that that was based on my understanding of the bfro drawing and how the bigfoot was suppost to get up. Figured i would let you know what was up being we had issues before with the cast. Brian

If someone wants to PM me Brian Smith's email address, I can look into why he can't post.

I didn't come from there and I don't have any hard feelings, so I don't think that applies.

No, I haven't gone "on and on" about how your interpretation is wrong, I've asked how the elk got up.

I may have to borrow my Meet the Sasquatch book back and look at the left leg area in the clear photo.




Does this mean you're not going to finish your paper and submit it?





Not only does it get better, it begins to resemble threads dealing with Dfoot's suit. Good thing I have a lot of cheesey corn on hand. :popcorn2:

Who has a copy of the video? Who said Brian came real close to "doing it" (doing what - the Skookum Roll?). Seems he's getting Greg's spin on this and I certainly would like to see him read the thread and join the discussion.

If someone does have a video of someone, anyone, doing the Skookum Roll, it would certainly be helpful if it could be posted. A mere gorilla movie didn't seem to do the trick. Personally, I think the description of the position and the sloppy eating is a good match for someone at a picnic, so maybe a roll in the mud isn't absolutely necessary. One could just take a camera to the park and look for toddlers.

Ugh. This has been a stern reminder for why I choose not to be married now, or ever. :black-eye:
I feel for you, DY. I really do.

What kind of a sexist remark was that? I know you're drop-dead gorgeous, but I wonder if anyone would want to marry you anyway if you have an attitude like that.

DY would hopefully get a lot worse in peer review. If he has a case, let him answer the objections.

How did the elk get up?

Looks like I got my URLS mixed up above, but it should be clear from 3 and 7 a roll out onto hard ground would be easy from either position without a lot of assists from hands or feet.

Question about the temperature, DDA. Was the mudhole frozen prior to the last day?

LAL wrote:




Wow. No revealing there of it wanting to be the imprint of a sasquatch. :laugh:

So, Greg, are you going to show me where you said you were PMing Brian Smith, giving him a distorted version of what's been said on this thread, and then using him as your source?

If you have time to lurk, you have time to post.

Naw, I want it to be an imprint of a coyote. :new_lmaosmiley:

It's just that if there are holes big enough to drive a truck through, as Melissa has suggested, DY shouldn't be surprised if someone shows up with a forklift - or a crane.

Who?
Tell me you are kidding...

Your first post of the photo of Brian's efforts, clearly implied you felt it supported the
Sasquatch conclusions regarding the cast ..

Shall I recap your subsequent profferings, and your obsession with my source .. ( who was clearly noted
for anyone to see )




I trust you at least know who my source is, now ...