Brian Smith is also known as Squatchworks. He was suspended indefinitely for violating the posting guidelines after several warnings. I have reinstated his access to posting but left him on moderator review meaning his posts will not show up until a moderator has approved them.

:laugh:
Word.
And don't fret LAL, the paper is being submitted and will be reviewed by very qualified ichnologists with lots of credentials and experience (dare I say more than anyone on the forums?...yes, I dare). So my glaring errors in attributing the Skookum Elk Cast to an elk should be readily apparent to them...unless somehow...I'm correct...*gasp*... :new_whistle:
but then, you'd just claim bias on the part of the reviewers, so it still wouldn't really matter, now would it?

Let's try to refrain from using language meant to incite a reaction from someone of a specific gender, OK?

The key being...peer...as in people who have spent many years studying traces in the field and lab and have many years of education in relevant fields. So what makes you so very certain that their reviews of my actual observations and interpretations will be "worse" than your opinions based on a few images provided to you by others (myself included) on an internet forum?

:icon_really_happy_guy:

Brian Smith is Squatchworks, wolftrax' unimpeachable source on Paul Freeman? Thanks, bipto. :dance:

No, I wouldn't. I would expect them to have some difficulty interpreting the marks that were allegedly made as the elk got up, but surely, with their expertise they will be able to present us with the proper circles and arrows. I'm sure we'll all be looking forward to the reviews. I do hope you'll share them.

For the record, I considered not releasing his name in connection with his forum handle but thought that would be been pointless to try to hide if and when he decided to post regarding this thread. The connection would have been pretty obvious.

What I was suggesting is that these experts that have seen the cast may have been invited, and had their airfare and accomodations taken care of. Those who disagreed were probably never invited, and most wouldn't make the trip because they truly don't feel the need to. They aren't the ones claiming anything out of the ordinary. They aren't the ones trying to prove the existence of sasquatch. More likely than not, they probably felt, and still feel the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and resources. Scientific? No. Realistic? Yup.

The problem I'm seeing with the elk scenario is with one of the forelegs and perhaps both forelegs. I tried to explain this in an earlier post, but I'm not sure my verbal painting was getting my point across. This doctored photo shows the cast with front hooves in the approx. location they would have to be in to make the impressions of the forelegs in the cast. The dark blue dotted line is the approx. center of the elks mass from tail to neck through the hind quarters and chest (running NW/SE in the cast photo). The other dotted lines show the angle of the front forelegs through the knees, foreleg, wrist and hoof. The left knee/foreleg lays, more or less, parallel with the torso and that is normal as seen in the photo of the laying elk. What I don't see on this leg is the wrist or any part of the top of the hoof.

The other foreleg/knee is at a odd angle (running North and South in the cast photo)...almost 45 deg. from the norm. This puts the hoof under the full weight of the animals chest. Yet there is no impression of the wrist or hoof (top of the hoof should be impressed in the mud). How can a heavy animal press its hoof/wrist and foreleg into the mud and have only a portion of the foreleg make an impression? It seems impossible to me. Unless, of course, the elk is an amputee.

The other problem I see is the angle of that same foreleg. That angle can only be from the shoulder joint. The knee will bend in only one direction as in your own knee. In the photo of the laying elk the foreleg is directly under the upper leg and shoulder joint. Can an elks shoulder joint actually bend like this? It surely looks odd to me and at the least, very uncomfortable for an elk that is relaxing.

Let me rephrase: I hope they would be a lot worse than opinions based on a few images provided to you by others on an internet forum.

I would hope the people who have done the actual work on the cast that led to those images would be asked to review or allowed to rebut. Will the paper be sent to Dr. Meldrum, e.g.?

Nice shuffle .. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Dr. Swindler is a professor emeritus at UW. He didn't need to fly. He was a sceptic for thirty years. Did he think it was a complete waste of time and resources to take a look?

Thank yo ufor your kind hopes that qualified reviewers will be very mean and horrible to me.
Jeff will probably not be included by the reviewers (who are chosen by the journal editors) since he is not an ichnologist.
But he, and anyone else (including you, LAL) who feels that they can point out serious flaws in my finished paper can absolutely offer a rebuttal for publication.

Thank you. Did I get it right?

Did you tell him someone on this board has a video of him doing the Skookum Roll?

It took him very little time and very little resources, and he may have been compensated. I don't know. Do you? Do you know that he truly was a skeptic? Maybe he was a closet believer who didn't feel comfortable supporting the matter until then, due to fear of ridicule. Who can say? Who knows what goes on in people's heads.

He's also not a trained ichnologist.

Please don't read things into what I say. I've expressed no wish they be mean and horrible to you. I don't think anyone on this board has been mean and horrible to you, either. But isn't it the job of reviewers to poke every hole they can? It's not, "Well, 'ol Anton here was my drnking buddy in school and we belonged to the same fraternity, so anything he says is okay with me", is it?

Colobus has credentials too, and the possibilty of elk has been thoroughly investigated. It would appear that one of the most thoroughly investigated questions was, "How would an elk get up?" They gather their legs under them and usually leave a chemically analysable trace. This one evidently did neither. How is that?

No, but he's a leading primate anatomist, you know, the one who wrote the monumental text on primate anatomy? Guess he should have written one on elk, too.

Regarding the whole "my expert is better than your expert thing", can we at least agree that a comprehensive analysis of this cast cannot be made by someone skilled in only one field? Would it not be preferable for experts from many points of view to work together in determining the likeliest manner in which the impression was made?

Not that I have any idea how you'd go about getting all these experts together, mind you...

Actually...I was never in a fraternity...to busy doing fieldwork and being antisocial.
And we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the idea of an elk creating the Skookum Elk Cast (SEC) being thoroughly investigated by colobus et al. In my opinion, and many others, it was not thoroughly investigated, and if it was, the results were either ignored or mis-stated to make it seem as if an elk could never possibly leave the SEC. As your repeated and (in my honest opinion) misguided question about how an elk stands up without leaving hoof prints in it's body print shows, you simply choose to not believe me or anyone else (evidently never even looking at any of the references I provided weeks ago...like Elbroch's field guide to mammal tracks and sign...available at any bookstore or online) who points out that elk, deer, and other ungulates can and do stand without leaving hoof prints in the main body imprint. Cool, that's your hang-up...whatever.
Now this business about chemical analysis...WTF?!
Over the past few weeks I've examined many deer, moose (in Alaska), cow, horse, and mule lays. Not one of them had any urine or feces. Not one. And I know that the animals I claim made them, because I watched them stand up from the lay and wander off. I have some photos I can post too if need be (since no doubt this will be called b.s. by people who still cling to the idea that a Yeti made the SEC). In fact, here's one now...no poop, no pee...but what kind of animal made this imprint?!
Anyone?
edited to add...the pens are parallel to the metacarpal imprints...carry on...

As well as your source for the Skookum recreation.

This is fun! "Find the Feces" can be a whole new game when out in the field.
Here's a few more photos of ungulate lays with no poop or pee.
One's even right next to a hiking trail.
Hmmmmm.....must be hominids then, huh!?

I encourge all of you who take issue with the skookum cast being elk or bigfoot to go outside, chop up some dirt and start rolling in it. First step is to set up a video camera to film your entire procces, second soften up the dirt, third print out the photo on the bfro of the drawing of the bigfoot reaching for the fruit. fourth set out fruit to reach for, fith attempt to duplicate the impression of the skookum cast, you may have to repeat this many time until you get it right, if you can. Sixth step cast it. Thats what i did since i was not convinced it was an impression of a bigfoot. We are the best method to use since bigfoots anatomy are so simular to ours( i say that since i had a very up close sighting of 2 bigfoot at one time) and besides we well never get an elk to take directions. Also Prof Meldrum has a cast of a bigfoots rear end that was cast here on blacksnake ridge, maybe someone could get a photo of that for hair pattern comparision. Also i may not think its a bigfoot imprint but i have seen video of the privious night during the skookum trip and on this tape they are broadcasting the tahoe scream and very clearly on the tape you can hera reply calls comming back s that make you go hum. LAL, Sceptical Greg has been up front with me in his pms, im not sure who said it but some did say i came close with my attemps. As for the freeman comment towards woldtrax, i have no clue what you mean but i knew freemnan and have spent many years reseaching in the same areas as he did so i have a little more info about him than other that never spent time with him or in this area.

Yes, he got down in the mud in the front yard and left an imprint. There's a resemblance and this was shown on WCS. This was evidently prior to his indefinite suspension from this board. I haven't finished reading all those links you provided yet, but I certainly will now.

:rolling:

The Skookum roll is not done like this, BTW.

I asked you a direct question about him a couple of years ago and didn't get a reply. The debate with woltrax is on Freeman's credibility and he used you as a source. Wolftrax and I have an ongoing on just about everything. I noted you said you were finding evidence in the same areas Freeman did, but that's a topic for another thread.

Welcome back.

I don't know what Greg told you, but no one here has claimed to have a video of you. All I did was post the still from the WCS with the caption, which see on the thread.

So, what did you conclude from your experiments?

I'm not an "ologist" of any type. But when I write an article for a gun magazine, I have to hold the gun in my hand and study it and shoot it and write about it. I can't use a model.

Dan

Greg's spin? LAL, you seem to be the one suggesting that Brian Smith engaged in Skookum Roll activities.



No?











Appears to be the same Brian Smith that you're using to try to substantiate the Skookum cast. Fancy that.

RayG

I believe i told Skeptical Greg it was a still from a video i shot and was not sure how it ended up on the net(wcs)webpage, he never told me a video was floating around, i told him. If i had the equipment i would show some video stills of the cast i made, i only poured the imprint not the entire area around it, to much $$$ to do that. I ended up throwing the cast away only days before Noll asked me to see it. Figured i got what i needed out of it and chunked it. What did i come to think after doing it? Thats not really important, what is important is that others get out there and put it to the test if you question it.. It only took an hour of my time really.

Now Ray, you know it's hard to keep a story straight when it changes so often depending on what's being claimed at the moment! The one constant is that no one has shown why this is not the most absolutely reasonable interpretation of the Skookum Elk Cast:

Knock yourself out.



Lal, maybe you'd like to share with everybody what you find so funny?


I'm afraid that's all in your own mind.

Not paying attention again?

Quite unlike those that write bigfoot articles -- no squatch required. Besides, you don't have a Ph.D. in gunology, and a gun magazine isn't exactly a scientific journal.

RayG

Yes, as long as they aren't self-appointed experts.

RayG

Nice link Ray!
I particulalry like this bit, based on the point of view of an actual expert on a subject matter (might have to use this sucker some day):

And this is the problem I have with the BF scenario. It's been suggested that BF sat in his own tracks, thereby obliterating them. But how does he do that? To sit in your own tracks, you have to move your feet out of those tracks, thereby making more tracks.......or jump up, fling your feet out in front of you flopping down on your butt in your tracks and drop your heels into the mud in front. Then you have to get up, somehow, without making more foot prints (and probably at least one hand print, too).

Pardon me for not understanding. Something made that impression. How was it done without making foot/hoof prints, properly oriented? Tracks had to be the last impression made as the animal got up, in or around the body impression and they should be very clear. It doesn't take a Phd to understand that in order for an animal to walk, it must have its feet on the ground, supporting its weight and balanced so as to stand. That generally means under it. Not off to the side or off the cast area or out in hard ground. They must be under it, supporting its weight and balanced before it can move. Right? Where are the properly oriented tracks?

I know it's been answered before....but the "answers" are not making sense to me. I don't know about submitting papers for publication, but it would seem to me that those are questions that will come up in the peer review and DY should have answers ready that make sense. I realize no one needs to satisfy me. I may never get the answers that make sense to me. Like the missing hoof under the chest thing I asked about in a previous post. DY suggested that the chest of an elk is quite narrow, about 8"-9" I think he said and he didn't think the hoof was under the chest. But if my estimates are anywhere near correct, those two front hooves are only about 2" apart and the chest impression surrounds one of them, if not both, but not even a hint of an impression of the top of either hoof.

I'll own my sloppy wording there. I should have said he attempted a duplication of the imprint. On viewing the section again it appeared the Skookum roll wasn't mentioned.

At any rate, it seems Brian got the idea someone here claimed to have a video of him doing it. The only one I can think of would be Rick and he hasn't mentioned it, to my knowlege.


Ray, I'm certainly not the one who PMed Brian. I obviously didn't know who he was. So any spin he got from the PM must have come from Greg, who still hasn't shown me where the post is, or Brian may have misunderstood what Greg said.

Yes, I am. Where's the post where you sourced it?

There's more to it than footprints. The animal could have pushed backwards onto hard ground with elevated legs, rolling after pushing off with the forearm, the mud could have been too soft to hold a print in some areas, the prints may be there where Rick suggested.. I was thinking of duplicating the body positions, getting the forearm in the right position, that sort of thing.

How did you know he was Squatchworks, BTW?

Or, you could ask him to review it before you submit it so that he can point out any holes that might accomodate a truck. I for one, would want to communicate with the guy who actually cleaned the cast I haven't seen.

I don't think the case rests on an elk having to get all four feet into the middle of the imprint in order to get up, but I would think there would be deep hoofprints from the hind legs, at least. If the "heel strikes" are "knee prints", how did the front legs unfold without leaving big smears?

I haven't looked at the references because I don't have the book (as yet, anyway) but I see what Jack's pointing out. Colobus has provided drawings showing the succession of movements that could have produced the imprints. Can you do likewise?

I don't have a hang-up; I'm trying to understand this. At least I see more where the elk proponents are coming from than I did when I first saw the suggestion and thought :wtf:

Gah. The endless bantering is counter-productive, and makes your baby deity cry. Jack has posted two very interesting questions for both sides of the issues. That are on topic and further the discussion of the cast. Can you "experts" stop poking each other in the eye for a few minutes and seriously address his questions...please?..particularly the elk question.

Personally I feel it was a manatee.

Yes, because as it looks, you seem to be implying (a number of times) that Brian Smith DID do a duplication of the imprint, a.k.a. the Skookum Roll.



No. If you re-read the email that DDA posted from Brian Smith, you'll see he's got the idea that someone here has a picture from the video.





No question that Greg PM'd Brian, however I have no idea what was specifically said to Brian in Greg's PM, nor do you. It's entirely possible any spin Brian picked up may have come from your posts to the forum, implying he enacted the Skookum Roll, unintentional or not. Afterall, you were the one that posted the Brian Smith imprint (post #395 of this very thread). Just because Brian is unable to post to the board doesn't mean he can't read the applicable threads or see the images that others have posted.

RayG

Nice try, Maxx, but this debate has attained self-awareness. There's no going back now...

Thats what I have been waiting for as well.. Seems DY would rather tell LAL and myself to not second guess his opinions - because he is an "expert". LMAO...

I would love to see an explanation to any of the questions LAL, Jack and myself have asked DY - but I dont see that forthcoming anytime soon.

Oh no you don't Melissa ..No No No...I strictly forbid the use of my post to toss another eye poke. Stop it...take it back. :icon_bang:

And now that he's posted it sounds as if he did try the roll. However the imprint is not what I mean by the Skookum roll.



Which hasn't been posted either, even if someone did have a copy to post the picture from.

<snip>



Well, since the image of him doing it hasn't been posted and I didn't say he successfully duplicated the Skookum roll, I don't see how he could have seen that on the board. He did evidently misunderstand what I said about posts concerning Paul Freeman. We could ask him, of course, where he got the ideas he expressed in the e-mail.

Rick Noll has done a demonstration for a reporter, according to the story. Now, there's a video I'd like to see, but I don't know that one was taken.

I'm interested in the butt imprint Brian mentioned.

Jack brings up a couple of valid points. I don't have the answers, but I DO have another question.

Elk proponents are claiming the 'wrist' mark was made by an elk, so the cast imprint should show the 'wrist' flat along the ground.



Squatch proponents are claiming the 'heel' mark was made by a squatch with its leg bent, causing the left knee to be raised high, so the cast imprint should show the 'heel' angled into the ground.



Simple question -- was the imprint flat along the ground, or angled?

RayG

LAL i did not try to just make the imprint but tried to get in and out to leave the same impression as the skookum cast so i guess i was trying to do the skookum roll as you put it. I tried it in numerous ways and none worked without leaving very clear foot prints were the heel impression is on the skookum cast, getting up without hands took a few tries but just could not do it without using my feet. I should try it again now seeing Owens drawing overlays of the cast and see how it comes out. As for my pms with Greg, well that what they are, pms so it is bettween us. Im not sure who contacted who first, maybe i contacted him seeing my name was bring dropped, dont recall and its not really important as i see it. As for Freeman im lost, if i did not answer one of your question please re ask and i will answer to the best of my knowledge. Hey if Rick feels up to it he could pull some stills from the video of me attempting to skookum roll the but im sure he has better things to do, and that if he even has it on tape. I could be wrong about sending it to him, it was a few years back. You know there are alot of questions on what could have been done such as taking photos of the skookum area before baiting but you live and learn, its just beating a dead horse anymore so i suggest again for those with issues about the cast go reproduce it yourselfs and see what you come up with and by all means when you are out in the field cover all your ground so when you come apon the greatest find since Patty there is no room for questions. Video/ photo everything i dont care if its a 1000 photos and hrs of video you can never have to much.

It should be noted that Jack's photo montage shows the bottoms of the elk's hooves, not the top, in contact with the soil, and I believe this is somewhat misleading. I'm certainly no expert in elk anatomy, but as far as I can tell from the elk photo posted here, it looks like the front legs of the elk are folded under, so we would expect the anterior or "top" of the hooves to be in contact with the substrate, whereas the rear hooves would have the plantar surfaces or "bottom" in contact with the substrate.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Looks angled to me.

One more time ...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=335113


The first picture you posted, in support of the ' Skookum Roll ' , is a picture from the video that
Brian says he gave to Rick..

Brian says he did/does not think he was successful in accomplishing the SR, and the resulting impression/s
did not support the conclusion that the impression in question was made by a hominid..


The bottom line here, is that your implication that Brian's experiment somehow supports the Sasquatch conclusion, has no merit.

Oh, and another implication, would be that Brian does not remember giving anyone permission to use
pictures from his video...