I'll try my best to address some of the comments made.


Judaculla

“OK, question... in the light orange outline of a putative forearm, is that a hand and thumb being depicted?”

When looking at the actual 3-D cast there does appear to be an indication of digits – though it is not possible (obviously) to more definative. The reason it is pointed out is their relationships to the other landmarks on the cast (ie. putative wrist, etc…).


“Also, I recall (perhaps incorrectly) from the Willow Creek Symposium DVDs that there may have been some potential toe impressions preserved in the cast...a footprint that was mostly obliterated by the impression. Is that right?”

The area of the cast in question is one that DDA suggested could have remnants of a track in it. I don’t happen to agree with that interpretation. I don’t think there’s anything in that spot indicating a foot print.


“Has Matt Crowley's work had any impact on the interpretation of dermal ridges on the cast?”

I think it has had the effect of making people cautious when Officer Chilcutt offers such interpretations as definitive. That said however, what is still clear is that those areas were NOT covered with hair, and they do have textures that may be dermals.


“Will a paper be submitted to a peer-reviewed professional journal in the near future?”

Hopefully. A monograph was originally planned. The people involved got sidetracked with other projects and responsibilities, so it moved along slowly. The chances of a formal paper about evidence suggesting that an impression was made by a sasquatch has about a snowballs chance in hell of being accepted – no matter who’s name is on the title.


Harry Henderson

“Meaning why exactly has the elk explanation been seemingly discounted?”

The elk scenario has been looked at in great depth. While the impression has obvious similarities to an elk lay – there are major important differences that make elk unlikely. I don't say that lightly. I've been a wildlife/natural resource professional for 24 years, and have spent a lot of time around ungulates, and the impressions they leave behind in clay pan soils. When I first asked to examine the Skookum Cast ( I had seen photos previously) I believed it was highly likely it was from an ungulate. When I had opportunity to examine the cast at length - it was quite evident to me that while in some respects is similar to an elk lay, many glaring points cast doubt on that first glancing assesment.

1. There are no elk tracks on the cast in the correct orientation for an elk to have stood up. Elk always leave parallel sets of hoof prints when the get up.

2. Elk cannot roll to their feet as DY has suggested. They have to get their feet under them, much like a cow.

3. The areas where the putative heels are impressed are hair free. Elk limbs are hair covered.

4. The hair pattern on the cast does not match that of an elk in many key areas. These are not minor discrepancies; the hair direction is off by 80 degrees in places.

5. In places on the cast individual hairs can be traced over 3 inches. The area where this occurs is the area where it is suggested an elk’s lower legs would be positioned in the elk scenario. Elk have very short hair on their lower limbs.

There are other reasons, but those are the major ones. Many other wildlife professionals, even elk keepers from the Vancouver Zoo at first glance said - elk lay, yet when they study it a bit more they go... wait a minute ... no hoof prints from getting up, oh, and that's wong too... and so on. These are people that work with elk. Not people who specialize in fossils of creatures from ancient seabeds.




Tsiatko

“Were there soil samples taken and tested to determine the exact geological make-up of said soil?”

Soil samples were taken. It is a fine silt with very little sand, and a fairly high clay content. Samples are yet to be tested for exact salt and selenium content, though the simple taste test is salty.


Walkingcarpet

“At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?”

Two molds were made off of fruit fragments. These mold were made with an injectable quick drying dental procedure. Casts were then made in a gypsum product. Dr. Meldrum recently mailed the casts to DDA. The two casts are to be analyzed by anatomists who specialize dentition of hooves mammals.



Saskeptic

“I don't want to belabor this point or send the thread veering off into la-la land, but I have a hard time believing that the substrate was soft enough to take testicular impressions without the rest of the body sinking in much deeper.”

The area that looks similar to a testicular impression is not as deeply impressed as the surrounding area. It is higher than the surrounding area by 3 to 5 mm.

“If the choice is between "elk" and "an undescribed bipedal primate", then parsimony favors the former.”

Obviously. If parsimonious arguments regarding the existence any undescribed species are brought to bear then the undescribed species looses out every time. Why then have the discussion?

* * * *


I'm doing my best to answer questions in a non-dogmatic and non-sarcastic manner. I've demonstrated what actual elk lays look like. I've explained reasoning. We've even shown video of an elk getting up. I guess I'd like to see the other side of the discussion respond to the points that have been made in a similarly polite manner.

Holy smokes, man, this is a family forum! :new_weirdsmiley:

OK, seriously, it doesn't look like the other coyote tracks to this untrained eye...

I think Tube asked about wanting to see more detail on the putative dermals on some of the "heels." So here are a couple pictures that may help a bit in showing those features.


Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Thanks for the very clear photographs. With reference to this photograph of what could be two heel strikes side by side, do you have any photos that include a scale for size reference? How wide are the ridges we see? My guess is that they are on the order of about 1mm wide.

1. Not true. Front hooves are in the correct position, rear hooves are simply not preserved within the body of the cast and/or obliterated by the slurry-like mud immediately to the animal's right (as evidenced by several depressions that have the appearence of collapsed, slumped holes. They are preserved behind it though...but...he said, I said, so whatever, everyone look at the cast yourselves and make up your own minds.

2. Not true. Cows roll as they stand too. My explanation was lacking, but by "roll" I was referring to how the animal digs in its wrists, while at the same time extending its hind legs down into the substrate after partially tucking them up closer (but still not under) to the body. Horses do it far more athletically, but all hoofed animals can and do stand with a sort of rolling action to re-center their gravity since in the resting position, their hips are at 90 degrees to the dorsal vertebral column. That requires rotation of the lumbar vertebrae to rotate the legs from the side to the downward position, ie., rolling.

3. Not true. Hair details are preserved, though somewhat obscured and easily overlooked, from where the wrist dug in and shifted in the ground as the animal put its weight down while standing...see "he said, I said" though, then look at it for yourselves if yuo ever get a chance.

4. Where? Please do show these key areas and also refer to earlier posts regarding the tendency of hollow and buoyant hair (not specifically addressed in those posts, but worth mentioning) to be very mobile and buoyant in a muddy, cohesive substrate. The hair flow on the cast is identical to a large cervid. You highlighted an area on my interpretation as having completely wrong hair flow patterns, yet offered no explanation. When I went and re-examined the specimen, I found that my interpretation was for the most part correct...I only needed to adjust the metacarpal hairs that were too schematic in the initial sketch...but what about the body? Do tell...

5. Not true. Individual hairs are very difficult to differentiate in muddy substrate impressions. What's probably actually happened with these "3 inch long" hairs is that the tract of individual hairs is following a slight crease or undulation in the skin. Look at any horse, cow, or ungulate of your chosing to see the same exact thing. Also, a single hair can leave a long trail behind it if it is pulled along the substrate for a distance before being lifted. I doubt anyone would confidently guess hair length from a part of the body that was clearly mobile as the animal either sat, adjusted, or stood (like an appendage of an ape or cervid).

I realize that all I'm doing here is saying: "No no no and here's why," but I do appreciate colobus sharing his observations and information. This is the best way to share, air-out, and thoughtfully debate any topic. He offers his views based on his experience, and I offer mine, and anyone else can pipe up too with relevant observations and/or references, don't be shy!

Now, if I may be so bold as to make my own list of glaring points why it clearly is an elk lay: :new_lmaosmiley:

1) the hindlimb morphology is 100% identical to a partially folded elk leg. the thigh, shin, and metatarsals, complete with ligament and calcaneal tuber are all plainly visible and exactly the correct proportion.

2) the upwards flair of the dorsal margin of the iluim and its musculature are plainly visible and very characteristic of an elk.

3) the hair flow is identical to an elk's (see above though, then take a look at some photos and decide for yourself).

4) the tail is clearly present and of the right length to be an elk (far shorter than a deer).

5) the paired wrist imprints are a key diagnostic characteristic of ungulate lays and are clearly preserved, complete with reveresed hair flow on the left one, sunk in at 45 degrees to the viscous mud.

6) elk hoofprints are found immediately behind, immediately in front of, and immediately to the sides of the main imprint...it's surrounded.

7) all measurements of limb length, body proportion, and hoof size fall well within the size range of an elk. For example, the entire lay length is 48", while elk range from 39"-52" (see Elbroch, 2003).

8) no evidence for dermatoglyphic skin is preserved on the "heels" of the Skookum cast. The partially mushed imprints reveal hair flow patterns typical of the shorter metacarpal hairs on the lower limbs of ungulates. Again, refer to "he said, I say." The look at some of apeman's and tube's posts on what exactly dermatoglyphics look like as opposed to what artefacts and other impressions look like.

Not one of these points has yet been countered and/or disproved (except maybe 3, but not very convincingly). If anyone with a vivid enough imagination examines the cast, it could also be turned into: a kudu, an okapi, a large bonobo, a lion, a tiger, a tail-less mountain lion, a gigantic hairy-nosed wombat, Oprah Winfrey, and/or anything else with appendages and a hairy body. But sticking to what's actually observable, what's actully preserved, and what's actually been reported about the circumstances surrounding the find, it's virtually impossible to make a convincing and reasonable case for it to be something other than an elk. That's my only point. Other prints and tracks have a lot more going for them. If BF really do lounge around in mud puddles, rolling their nuts around for fun, it should be easy enough to set up some game cams near likely places (like, I dunno...Skookum Meadow) and catch one in the act. Otherwise, this impression is destined to simply join the other array of curiosities that continue to offer no compelling evidence that a huge, apple-eating, mud-loving, ape-man is lurking in wait of documentary film crews to taunt with his genitalia.

I get a sense that you made this statement more from the perspective that the analysis just isn't rock solid enough to stand up to peer review, rather than the tired old "editors are anti-bigfoot" angle. If that's the case, then this may sound kind of mercenary, but my gut reaction was "then why bother any further with the Skookum Cast?"

If you think it's a sasquatch print but really aren't confident enough to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of peer reviewers, then why not use the experience as a tantalizing example of a method that could potentially be used to provide some new and exciting sasquatch evidence, and leave it at that. Instead, you could focus on replicating that method in the hopes of collecting evidence that could in no way be confused with any other known animal.

Just a thought.

I got exactly the opposite impression from the very same statement.

So the opposite would be :

" I get a sense that you made this statement from the perspective that the analysis is rock solid enough to stand up to peer review .... "


This implies that you disagree with Colobus' assessment of presenting a pro Bigfoot paper on the
Skookum cast, as opposed to Saskeptic's ..


Please clarify if I am misunderstanding you ..

You are an attorney, right?

You didn't finish his sentence in your quote. You left out, "rather than the tired old "editors are anti-bigfoot" angle." I got the impression from colobus' statement that to submit a paper would be useless since editors will not take bigfoot research seriously.

And you know that's what I meant.

The fact remains that you cannot say it will not be published or reviewed unless something is attempted to be submitted.

No, it will not be reviewed because it will not be published because those qualified to author it know they will be rejected. So why go to the trouble?

It's not like they aren't conducting research on it or hiding it in Noll's rumpus room under the pool table.

sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy then...
author: "See?! I TOLD you it'd never get published!!!"
friend: "But you never even submitted it for preliminary review by trained professionals."
author: "Exactly, man! Those damned professionals are biased!"
friend: "Word."
author: "Word."

So why bother to research the subject at all? I'm not understanding the logic. They do all this work, and stop just short of the obvious goal. Very very flustrating.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

Yes, isn't the world an unfair place?

Really, I didn't know what you meant.. Really .. Because the opposite of what Saskeptic said, was pretty much what I said..


Colobus said it was useless, and Saskeptic said " Then why not try this ... instead "


I'm still trying to undersatnd what your ' opposite ' impression was...

The logic has nothing to do with getting published, as far as I can tell. Obviously I am not one of those doing the research so all this is the opinion I've formed based on conversations and observation, but these guys are trying to learn all they can about sasquatch. That's why they bother with the research. Not to assure themselves tenure somewhere or to make a big name for themselves.

In fact, based on their actions and everything I've seen of them, they're very interested in getting as many qualified people as possible to see the cast. Hence DY's ability to see it in Texas.

Also, the goal that's obvious to you may not be the obvious goal they're shooting for.

Which implies, that if DY's paper is accepted, he is qualified in the opinion of the editors...


This is not to say DY is right, and anyone else is wrong; just that he has met the criteria for being published..


It is understandable how those who are rejected would cry ' foul ' ...
However, it would seem prudent to submit, in order to explore where you may be coming up short..

But that's kind of my point - from my twisted scientific perspective it makes no sense to work so long and hard on "conducting research" that is not going to be written up and submitted for peer review. So if that's the case, why not forget the Skookum cast and focus on getting another one (or several more) in the hopes of obtaining impressions* so clearly squatchy that their analysis would be robust to peer review?

We scientists collect "pilot" data all the time. In itself it's usually not publishable, but is used to help gather ideas and develop better methods for a more refined, less ambiguous phase II investigation. I'm just wondering if the Skookum Cast should be considered "pilot" data, and its value for bigfootery ultimately being fully realized as an endeavor that informed additional work, rather than an end-point in itself.

*to me, the Skookum story, if genuine, demonstrates two things about sasquatch: they can be baited, and they will leave evidence behind of their visit. So, when I think replication of Skookum Cast methods, I'm thinking pretty broadly, eg., lure of food, pheromone (Apeman, we're gonna need some ovulating mountain gorilla urine please), or recorded calls combined with mud or similar tacky substrate, track plates using carbon dust or fly ash, hair catchers, game cam, etc. Any of these combinations will do.

Some folks on the BFF think I'm skeptical because I just like to be contrary. Not true - I can't wait for the day that somebody here posts a clear game cam pic or a photo of the squatch they just leveled with their pickup truck and I can post a response that says nothing but "Holy sh#t." I'm just not optimistic that that day will occur in my lifetime . . .

Since you selectively quoted the original statement, I assumed you were being argumentative. Sorry if that wasn't the case.

In any event, I've clarified my position.

It also implies that research into sasquatch will not be published because it is not taken seriously. It also implies that research into that which confirms the paradigm's view that those who are involved in the study of sasquatch are deluded will be accepted.

And yes, it also implies that DY is qualified, in at least the eyes of those to which he submits his paper. I am in no position to question his qualifications (nor have I). I do feel free to question his conclusions because I started the forum. Neener neener.


Like I said before, there are other reasons to conduct research than those that drive most people of science.


How do you know that's not what they're doing? And what's wrong with challenging your own conclusions to make sure you're being intellectually honest with yourself?


I cannot answer that. I'll leave it to colobus or DDA to comment.

And that's to be commended since it shows that they sincerely believe that what they claim is what is there.



Conclusions should be questioned, and I appreciate that Bipto's never been anything but civil and straight forward in his responses. I wish I could maintain that composure all the time.

Well, you did leave off my "neener neener" comment.

Dammit!!! :icon_bang:

LOL..Classic, it's posts like that one that keep me coming here. Thats one for my sig.

Did you do that before or after I asked? :laugh: Thanks for the info colobus--looking forward to the results.

History shows it's not impossible to get pro-Bigfoot material published in mainstream scientific journals, as Grover Krantz was able to do. From Loren Coleman's obituary:



http://www.lorencoleman.com/grover_krantz_obituary.html

Now, can we get back to talking about the physical evidence?

As one who is always calling for increased scholarship in the Bigfoot field, I think that it's extremely important that something like this be submitted to a scholarly journal for peer review, even thought it will probably be rejected due to anti-Bigfoot bias.

If it's rejected, then there's nothing to stop the Bigfoot community from starting its own peer-reviewed journal. It's been done before (by the International Society for Cryptozoology), and it can be done again.

I'm convinced that scholarship and paper writing and the like are extremely important if the Bigfoot field wants to get anywhere. One of the things that strikes me when I read research by Russian hominologists is the fact that they're light years ahead of us. Jeff Meldrum is just now discovering things that the Russians have known about for 20 years. The reason, in my opinion, is that Russian hominologists insisted on scholarship. Any time they discovered something, they wrote a scholarly paper, if only to present it at a symposium. And it has made a big difference.

If we are to make any progress in this field, scholarship is essential. If the existing peer-reviewed journals won't permit it, we should create our own.

In 2003 Darris Swindler and D. Jeffrey Meldrum submitted an abstract for a paper on the Skookum Cast to the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA). The abstract was between 250 and 300 words (as required) and had no diagrams or photographs (also as required).

The proposal was quickly rejected. The basis for the rejection was that you cannot infer usable information from impressions (Have them explain that to the publishers of Ichnos).

So I stated my opinion in something less than a vacuum. I state that opinion about the difficultly in getting this topic published based on the past, and the knowledge that the peer review process is rife with politics.

Disclaimer: My new-found interest in this Skookum Cast™ subject is genuine and although sarcasm and contempt often flow from my fingers, I'm being totally serious in my inquiries here. I have recently waded and plodded through all the other Skookum™ threads so I am now more familar with the entire scope of the goings-on. Also, in my own little effort to end QuoteFesting™, I've kept mine to the allotted 'no more than 5' as allowed in the thread by-laws. :new_whistle:

I'm not sure if I have ever quoted myself before (knowingly), but I must here. Re-reading the BFRO report gave me the answer. Not being of the scientific ilk I have to ask, is that type of approach the same as the hypothesis/experiment/proof method with the hypothesis here being it was Bigfoot-As-Culprit™? Meaning is it common to have your ultimate desired result be your guiding force? I'm asking because I don't know. I know there's been many botched police investigations because primary focus was put in the wrong direction too early. And I completely understand there was enough of something there to interest the entire group into making a cast for further study, but could that desire have been even just a little a bit of 'wishful thinking'...maybe in hoping to bring back 'something' to Ma™ as the excuse to spend a week in the bush chasin' monsters? Maybe not... :wink:

Regardless, there's certainly not enough contrary evidence to discount the Elk Theory™. Looking at it from a solely factual standpoint, The Elk Theory™ has several more positive indicators (including footprints) than the Bigfoot Theory™. There may be some peculiarities in the Elk Theory™ that are not totally explained or explainable, but there's no genuine 'stretches' that I've noted. The recently revised and revealed 'Positonal Motion Theory' (we're still waitng on the trademark for that) is quite a stretch in any circle. So much so that only an intelligent, cunning and savvy 'suspect' could/would try to pull it off. Seems they would be going through all those motions solely to throw us HUMANS off the 'scent'. Elk, bear, aardvark couldn't care less I bet (that Bigfoot™ was covering his tracks or not). Thus, if one knows who would be possibly sniffin' around later and then have the notion to disguise its presence so as to make it a mystery to that sniffer, would that be considered rational or logical or intelligent thinking? Or all three? No? To wit...So not only would it not leave identifying and identifiable marks in the 'muddy area of contention', and that it would knowingly disguise it's approach to such, they even agreed it's not a stretch to think that this rather intelligent animal would consciously do it. Yet... So which is it? Cunning and wise enough to completely elude every manner of possible detection whilst almost dancing around in the mud? A medium completely suited for the opposite effect I might add. Or, it's just an extremely lucky but otherwise not overly and/or overtly intelligent animal? Almost seems like a case of having your cake and eat it too. It's profoundly bright when the evidence requires it yet dimwitted when the evidence requires it too? And I don't mean that to be directed only at DDA as it's been said by more than a few others over the years. On the same subject... In the 'site picture' that I'm not posting below, the distance from the edge of the road is a bit further than that I think. In fact, that further distance begs my question. If Bigfoot™ knew its prints would not show on the harder surfaced areas and also knew they would show in mud (if and when it ever encountered mud), I wonder what the indication was to him at that time there was mud around? A memo? :new_whistle: If he thought there may be mud in the area he must have also known to 'skulk around' a bit to find out where the hard surface ended and mud started so as to not 'accidently' leave a print and let the 'enemy' know his actions. I mean, he didn't crawl down the road and especially not on his back as he is theorized to have done in the mud. I will assume he was walking upright until a certain point. Yet, as the official report states, there was not a single definitive print of anything identifiable as Bigfootish™ within that perimeter that would truly indicate Bigfoot™ approached and 'investigated'...anything. Bigfoot™ isn't just good, he's REAL good. The actual point is, taking into account the less than definitive main evidence (i.e. the impression), wouldn't circumstances such as this give genuine pause so as to re-think the notion that maybe there wasn't a Bigfoot™ anywhere near that location? And that the seeming obvious explanation, while not without flaws, is in fact obvious simply because...it's true? My biggest problem with the Bigfoot-As-Culprit Theory™ is, with the possible exception of the heretofore dubiously named 'heel imprints', there's nothing in that cast that truly indicates there was a bi-pedal anything anywhere near it. For that matter, shouldn't there be some kind of knee prints somewhere around there? I'm no expert on crawling (anyone?), but my being both bi-pedal and a 'rather intelligent primate' (see above), I would instinctually tend to want to get on my knees (if not my stomach also) if I was wanting to 'sneak up' on something and not show my footprints.

Anyway, I won't dispute the idea there needs to be further 'scientific analysis' applied to the cast. There does. At least if we're looking for some kind of absolute 'proof' of something. If not, an interesting discussion regardless... IMHO.

"Harry"

Amazing.

I'm skeptical that the texture seen in this photo of the purported heel represents dermal ridges.

First off, the width of the ridges is too great. Colobus privately confirmed for me that the width of the ridges is on the order of 1 to 1.5 mm which about what I had judged from the photo. This alone would place it significantly outside the range of known primate dermals. Note too that the ridges vary in width quite a bit. The ridge texture seems to extend up the side of the purported heel unusually high for true dermal ridges. The ridges are also irregular in their ridge peak heights.

What the ridge texture could represent, if indeed what we are looking at is a heel strike, is simply wrinkled skin, as I'm trying to demonstrate in this photo of my own foot. This wrinkled skin would not be properly considered "flexion creases" as I understand it, as the heel is not jointed like the palm of one's hand. But if you wiggle your foot around you can see the kind of loose wrinkling I'm talking about. Note that simple wrinkled skin matches the size of the Skookum ridge texture much closer than my genuine dermals do.

It's possible the texture seen in the cast represents the transitional texture from dermals to "regular" skin. At the border between dermals and regular skin, the dermals "break up" and produce a sort of "dysplasia".

As to whether the texture represents the hair of an elk's joint, I don't feel at all qualified to speculate. But the presence of bifurcations in the texture suggests to me the absence of continuous hair flow.

I think Harry Henderson's suggestion is worthwhile:


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=328423

Consider that what is being suggested as a "heel strike" probably represents the most steeply angled part of the impression. We know that a large board was used to cover the impression to prevent drying until plaster could be poured. Nevertheless, large fissures resulted in the final cast, representative of the soil drying out. If drying soil could create macroscopic fissures, could it create ridges on the order of 1 to 1.5mm? Especially coupled with gravity on the inside surface of the "heel strike"?

It seems to me worthwhile to check the soil itself for whether or not drying or even simple soil subsidence could account for the textures seen on the purported heel.

Can you elaborate ? The substance of the rejection might give us more insight as to what would constitute
a viable proposal ..

For instance, in saying " you cannot infer usable information from impressions ' ; might that be
" from impressions alone ", or something to that effect ?


While DY's analysis includes some inference in the strictest since of the word, it also includes
corelation between the impressions and established data regarding elk.

Please forgive my ignorance, and the fact that I can't read the whole thread right now, but who are/is Ichnos?

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10420940.asp

Incidently, Dr. Meldrum has had papers accepted by the AAPA with "good dialogue".

While Lal has provided the link, it is pertinent to note that Ichnos is the journal that
Desert Yeti has/will submit his analysis to .

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10420940.asp

Incidently, Dr. Meldrum has had papers accepted by the AAPA with "good dialogue".

This is one:

"Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps:
New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism
D. JEFFREY MELDRUM
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID 83209-8007
meldd@isu.edu
Abstract—The chimpanzee foot is flexible near its middle, it can bend about
the axis of the transverse tarsal joint, whereas the human foot is a comparatively
rigid arched platform. Flexion at the transverse tarsal joint—the ‘‘midtarsal
break’’—uncouples the functions of a grasping, or prehensile, forefoot and a
propulsive hindfoot during grasp-climbing on vertical or inclined supports. At
some point after the transition to habitual bipedalism, these grasp-climbing
adaptations were compromised by the evolution of the longitudinal arch, which
permits increased mechanical advantage of the flexors of the ankle and improved
endurance for long-distance walking and running.
Ape, human, and Plio-Pleistocene hominid footprints were examined for
the effects of a midtarsal break. The human footprint reflects arched-foot
architecture, combined with a stiff-legged striding gait. Pressure releases occur
at particular locations behind the ball and the great toe, or hallux. Early (ca.
3.5 million years ago) hominid footprints from the Laetoli excavation confirm
midfoot flexibility, including repeated suggestion of an associated pressure
ridge. The Terra Amata footprint (ca. 400,000 years ago), yet to be fully published,
exhibits evidence of midfoot flexibility.
Several footprints attributed to an alleged North American ape, commonly
known as sasquatch, exhibit a distinctive midtarsal pressure ridge and other
indications of midfoot flexibility. In the Patterson-Gimlin film, the feet of the
film subject correlate with the kinematics inferred from the footprints, in that
a midtarsal break is present. Additional independent examples corroborate the
consistent presence of this feature, including examples of half-tracks that record
contact beneath the foot only anterior to the midtarsus. These data provide
a fresh perspective from which to consider the pattern and timing of the emergence
of the distinctive features of modern human bipedalism and bear on the
credibility of the possible existence of sasquatch. The observed and inferred sasquatch
locomotor anatomy parallels the stable adaptations that marked the greater
span of early hominid bipedalism.
Keywords: sasquatch—bipedalism—human evolution—hominoid bipedalism
One of the hallmarks of the hominoid, or ape, locomotor system is the grasping
foot. A great toe, the hallux, functions in opposition to the relatively long lateral
digits in a pincer-like grip. This foot posture is especially evident when the ape
is climbing on vertical or inclined supports. The forefoot functions as a grasping,
or prehensile organ, maintaining a secure grasp during the contact phase of a
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 65–79, 2004 0892-3310/04
65

step, while the hindfoot serves as a propulsive organ providing leverage. The
plantarflexors of the ankle elevate the heel as the power arm of a lever with its
fulcrum at the midtarsal, or transverse tarsal, joint complex. This joint is actually
a compound of the articulations between the talus and navicular on the medial
aspect of the foot and the calcaneus and cuboid on the lateral aspect (Figure 1).
Elftman and Manter (1935) first drew attention to the flexibility at the midfoot
in chimpanzees. They referred to the coordinated flexion/rotation of the talonavicular
and calcaneocuboid joints as the ‘‘midtarsal break.’’ The midtarsal break
permits the corresponding, but regionally specialized, functions of the forefoot
and hindfoot, i.e., prehension and propulsion, respectively.
During terrestrial locomotion, the midtarsal break is also evident in the
chimpanzee foot. In studies of the pressures beneath the foot, the elevation of
the heel coincides with a shift of the center of pressure to the tarsus distal to the
midtarsal joint, especially beneath the cuboid (Meldrum & Wunderlich, 1998).
In contrast, the human foot is a comparatively rigid platform, built upon
a relatively fixed longitudinal arch. This adaptation incorporates the shank of
the foot into a lengthened power arm of the lever. Elevation of the heel in the
latter part of the stance phase during human walking shifts the center of pressure
beneath the metatarsal heads, especially that of the hallucial metatarsal,
Fig. 1. Foot skeletons of human (a) and chimpanzee (. Arrows indicate the position of the
midtarsal joint complex. CA ¼ calcaneus, TA ¼ talus, NA ¼ navicular, CU ¼ cuboid.
66 D. J. Meldrum

which now serves as the primary fulcrum of the foot lever. At some point in
human evolutionary history, the hominoid legacy of midfoot flexibility was relinquished
in favor of a striding gait on much stiffer arched feet. Selection
increased the mechanical advantage of plantarflexors of the ankle, combined
with extended legs for increased stride length, thereby improving economy of
long-distance walking and running.
Lacking the opportunity to examine directly the kinematics and plantar
pressures in early hominid feet, could any signature of this pattern of flat,
flexible foot function be identified in the footprints of fossil hominids or extant
hominoids? To investigate this question, human footprints in fine damp beach
sand were examined for a variety of locomotor speeds and directional changes.
Two subjects were particularly studied at length, an adult male and a juvenile
male. In addition, an extensive sample of spontaneous trackways made by
a variety of human subjects was examined at a public beach. Next, bipedal
footprints made in a sand track box by a captive chimpanzee were documented
and correlated with simultaneous video recordings of the kinematics of his
bipedal walking. These footprints were contrasted with stereophotos and casts of
the Laetoli hominid trackway in Tanzania, Africa (ca. 3.5 million years ago).
Finally, fossilized footprints of habitually unshod humans were examined in
Hawaii (Meldrum, 2004). These are footprints left by native Hawaiians in
historic volcanic ash deposits on Kilaeua (ca. 200–400 years ago). These provide
a natural experiment to contrast early hominid footprints with modern unshod
human footprints, both laid down in a substrate of very similar consistency.
It was hypothesized that midfoot flexion associated with a midtarsal break
would, under the appropriate substrate conditions, produce a distinct pressure
release as weight was transferred distal to the midtarsus (Brown, 1999;
Meldrum, 1999). A human foot typically produces such a release proximal to the
ball of the foot, behind the hallucial metatarsophalangeal joint. The situation in
the chimpanzee footprint is somewhat confounded by the divergent hallux,
elongated lateral toes, and high angle of gait (toe-out) associated with
chimpanzee facultative bipedalism. It was found that chimpanzee footprints in
sand do occasionally demonstrate a pressure release associated with the midtarsal
break, as indicated by a primary pressure disc (Figure 2).
After the initial transition to habitual bipedalism, the hominoid grasp-climb
adaptation was compromised by shortening of the lateral toes and reduction in
the range of divergence of the hallux. The Laetoli hominid footprints, the first
direct evidence of hominid bipedalism, exhibit these modifications to the
prehensile portion of the foot to a relatively intermediate degree. There has been
continuing debate over the extent to which the Laetoli hominids display modern
human foot morphology. Some have argued that the footprints imply a foot
essentially modern in all aspects (e.g., Lovejoy, 1988; Tuttle, 1996). Others have
pointed out features that indicate the retention of more ape-like characteristics of
the foot (Deloison, 1992; Meldrum, 2000, 2002, 2004; Susman et al., 1984). I
first drew attention to a feature evident in a number of footprints (e.g., G1-25,
Evolution of Bipedalism 67

G1-26) that suggested the retention of the capability for midtarsal flexion
(Meldrum, 2000). In a depiction of a reconstruction of the Australopithecus
afarensis foot skeleton superimposed upon a Laetoli footprint, this feature can be
seen to lie immediately proximal to the position of the reconstructed midtarsal
joint (White & Suwa, 1987). Some have suggested this is possibly the result of
termite burrowing or excavation artifact; however, the repeated and
consistent position of the feature, combined with other indications within the
footprints of a transverse axis of foot flexion (Deloison, 1992), indicates its
interpretation as a pressure ridge is justified. An exceptional example of
a midtarsal pressure release is clearly evident in the G1-26 footprint, indicated
by plastic flow of the wet ash proximal to the midtarsus (Figure 3). The
possibility of this feature resulting from exfoliation of the layers of ash beneath
the contact surface of the footprint, or other excavation artifact, is excluded upon
Fig. 2. Chimpanzee footprint left in a sand track box, demonstrating a pressure release associated
with the ‘‘midtarsal break.’’ Arrows indicate proximal edge of the primary disc.
68 D. J. Meldrum

close examination. The leading edge of the flow is continuously rounded and has
the same appearance as the ash extrusion between the first and second toes of the
very clear print G1-26. In contrast, the human foot, with a fixed arch and welldeveloped
ball, leaves a very different pressure disk located proximal to the
hallucial metatarsal-phalangeal joint. No such midtarsal pressure features were
found in the sampled fossil Hawaiian footprints.
Recent analyses of early hominid foot skeletons also indicate midfoot
flexibility in australopithecine, and perhaps early Homo, feet, such as that
represented by the OH8 foot skeleton (Berillon, 2004; Harcourt-Smith et al.,
2002; Kidd et al., 1996). At some point thereafter, in the evolution of modern
human foot morphology, changes occurred to stabilize the foot platform, increase
mechanical advantage of ankle plantarflexors, and improve efficiency
and economy in long-distance, endurance walking and running (Hilton and
Fig. 3. Cast of a Laetoli hominid footprint (G1-26) exhibiting a midtarsal pressure release indicated
by plastic flow of wet ash (arrow).
Evolution of Bipedalism 69

Meldrum, 2004). Determining the timing and pattern of the evolution of these
characteristics has remained a challenge due to the paucity of fossilized
footprints or foot skeletons from the period spanning 2.0–0.5 million years ago.
Two potentially critical specimens have remained largely unpublished. The first
of these are the hominid footprints at the Terra Amata site, in southern France
(Figure 4). The site dates to approximately 400,000 years ago. The single published
photo of one of these footprints suggests a midtarsal pressure ridge and
a lack of both a well-developed longitudinal arch and a differentiated ball
(White, 1973). The footprint also appears relatively long for its breadth, possibly
indicating an elongation of the heel segment. The relative position of the
apparent pressure ridge also suggests lengthening of the heel. This would increase
mechanical advantage of the plantarflexors of the ankle, in response to
increased body mass.
Fig. 4. Footprint from the Terra Amata site (ca. 400,000 years ago) displaying a midtarsal pressure
ridge and relatively long heel, but lacking an arch and well-differentiated ball.
70 D. J. Meldrum

The second specimen is the nearly complete foot skeleton of the Jinniushan
hominid from a site in China dating to just less than 200,000 years ago. A
photograph of the skeleton appeared in a popular Chinese magazine (Lu, 1987),
but detailed descriptions or analysis of the foot skeleton have yet to be
published. Features of the foot skeleton visible in the magazine photo suggest
that stabilization of the transverse tarsal joint had occurred by that time.
Specifically, the projecting calcaneal process of the cuboid indicates that this
joint could lock in a stable position supporting a longitudinal arch. Furthermore,
the width and proportions of the navicular are similar to those in a modern
human foot, and the hallucial metatarsal and phalanges are quite robust.
Interestingly, it appears that the heel remains relatively elongated. Therefore,
based on this admittedly limited assessment, it appears that the transition to the
modern foot form, characterized foremost by the longitudinal arch and welldeveloped
ball and hallux, occurred as recently as less than 200,000 years ago.
In that case, it should be recognized that the majority of the history of hominid
bipedalism transpired on flat flexible feet, and modern human foot morphology
was a relatively recent evolutionary innovation. This observation prompts
important questions about the nature of behavioral shifts that accompanied this
transition in locomotor adaptation.
Furthermore, one could ask whether there are any extant analogs of this
sustained, and apparently successful, strategy of locomoting bipedally on flat,
flexible feet. In October 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin purported
to have captured on film, in a remote region of northern California, a bipedal
hominoid, commonly referred to as sasquatch (Kirkpatrick, 1968). The brief film
portrays an upright hair-covered figure, exhibiting a compliant gait (walking
on flexed knees and hips) on flat, flexible feet. A trackway of clear footprints
was left in the loamy sandbar at the site along Bluff Creek. Two exceptionally
distinct footprints were cast by Patterson, representing a right and a left foot.
These were markedly flat and exhibited little or no dynamic features that might
imply the points of flexible articulation, although the exceptionally clear outline
does preserve details of contour that appear to indicate such landmark features
as the Hallucial metatarsophalangeal joint, the navicular tuberosity, and the
tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal. Subsequent events shed additional light on the
film subject’s foot morphology.
Lyle Laverty, a U.S. Forest Service timber cruiser, came upon the site a short
time after the filming and took several color slides of the subject’s deeply
impressed footprints (Perez, 2003; Laverty, personal communication). The footprints
Laverty photographed revealed clear evidence of foot dynamics. Of
particular note is the repeated appearance of a midtarsal pressure ridge
(Figure 5).
Less than two weeks later, Bob Titmus, a professional taxidermist, visited the
site and cast a series of 10 sequential footprints, a number of which had been
covered to protect them from the elements.1 Included was the print with the
prominent pressure ridge photographed earlier by Laverty (Figure 6). This
Evolution of Bipedalism 71

sequence of casts is very informative and exhibits the qualities of variation in
apparent length, toe position, and flexibility typical of a ‘‘living’’ trackway.
From enlarged frames of the Patterson-Gimlin film, portions of three step
cycles in which the feet are visible have been examined (Figure 7). Several
features are noteworthy. First is the indication of the midtarsal break late in the
stance phase of gait. This clearly correlates with the presence of the pressure
ridge in a number of the footprints photographed and cast. Second, slight
plantarflexion recoil at the midtarsal joint can be seen in the early swing phase.
This results from the rebounding of the deep plantar ligaments after being
stretched during bending of the midfoot during the midtarsal break. The foot
flexes about an approximate transverse axis corresponding to the inferred
position of the transverse tarsal joint. Third, an elongation of the heel is evident,
especially when the calcaneal (Achilles) tendon is slack, during the swing phase.
The need for a lengthening of the calcaneus to increase leverage in a biped of
this size has been discussed at length by Krantz (1999). Its significance is further
emphasized in the context of a foot exhibiting midfoot flexibility. The
protruding heel of the film subject was taken by some skeptics as indication
of an artificial foot protruding posteriorly beyond the hoaxer’s own heel.
Alternatively, it can be seen as a sound and reasonable anatomical adaptation to
the animal’s size and foot architecture, and accords with evolutionary trends in
hominid locomotion already discussed.
In a reconstruction of the inferred skeletal configuration of the sasquatch
foot, this combination of midtarsal flexibility and heel elongation is depicted
Fig. 5. Footprint photographed by Lyle Laverty at the Patterson-Gimlin film site.
72 D. J. Meldrum

(Figure 8) based on the footprint of the Patterson-Gimlin film subject exhibiting
a distinct pressure ridge. The pressure ridge in the proximal portion of the
footprint implies the retention of the midtarsal break. Indeed, a number of
footprints attributed to sasquatch exhibit what has been interpreted as a midtarsal
pressure ridge.
Fig. 6. One of a series of 10 consecutive footprints cast by Bob Titmus at the Patterson-Gimlin film
site.
Evolution of Bipedalism 73

Another manifestation of this midfoot flexibility is evidenced in instances
where the sasquatch has run with the heel elevated off the ground. A modern
human adopts a digitigrade posture when sprinting, balancing support of body
mass over the heads of the metatarsals and the toes. This is especially
concentrated at the medial ball of the foot, under the hallucial metatarsophalangeal
joint, and is accomplished due to the stability of the longitudinal arch
of the foot. A hominoid would merely be able to elevate the heel, but not the
midfoot, because the foot would flex at the midtarsal joint, without the support
of the arch. An example of this running foot posture was first recognized in a set
of tracks I was shown near the Blue Mountains in southeastern Washington. One
very clear track, deeply impressed in mud, showed no indication of a heel
imprint. The inferred position of the midtarsal joint implied by the ‘‘half-track,’’
as I came to refer to them, agreed very well with the position of the pressure
ridge in other footprints in the series (Figure 9).
A further example of the half-track was identified in a trackway found in
northern California on the Blue Creek Mountain Road. In 1967, shortly before
the Patterson-Gimlin filming incident, a long line of tracks was found along
a logging road and investigated extensively (Green, 1978). Don Abott, an
archeologist from the Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C., took
a series of color photographs of examples of the footprints (Green, personal
communication). One photograph shows a distinct half-track, which, when superimposed
on a complete track, can be seen to terminate at the inferred position
of the midtarsal joint.
Yet another example comes from the west coast of Washington State. Officer
Dennis Heryford, a Deputy Sheriff for Greys Harbor County, responded to a
reported disturbance at a construction site in 1982. He discovered a line of
Fig. 7. Three consecutive frames of the Patterson-Gimlin film, in which the subject exhibits
midfoot flexibility.
74 D. J. Meldrum

footprints emerging from the timber and crossing a cleared muddy landing. The
track returned in the direction of the forest with twice the step length and left
a series of half-tracks. In this case the contour of the calcaneocuboid joint is
evident on the full-length footprint, and the proximal edge of the half-track
terminates at that point. These, and other repeated examples of midtarsal pressure
ridges and half-tracks, evidence the presence of a flexiblemidfoot in sasquatch
foot functional anatomy.
Recently Haeusler and McHenry (2003) reevaluated the hindlimb morphology
of the 1.8 million year old fragmentary fossil skeleton (OH 62), attributed to
Homo habilis, and concluded that this early hominid may have had human-like
hindlimb proportions and suggested that distance travel might have evolved
early in human evolution. This, in spite of the conclusions about the primitive
morphology of the OH 8-foot skeleton, which was also attributed to H. habilis.
By 1.6 million years ago, Homo ergaster (or early African H. erectus)
unquestionably exhibited modern limb proportions, as exemplified by the
relatively complete skeleton of the Nariokotome hominid (KNM-WT 15000).
This skeleton was of a youthful hominid who was already more than 5 feet in
height when he died and would have certainly attained a 6-foot height at
maturity. Homo ergaster represents the first grade of hominid for which there is
clear evidence of expansion of its range beyond the bounds of Africa to extend
throughout much of the Old World. It has been assumed that the lengthening of
the lower extremities in early hominids was associated with the emergence of
a modern type of human walking and running, but the lengthening of the limbs
Fig. 8. Hypothetical reconstruction of the sasquatch foot skeleton (left) inferred from footprints
exhibiting midfoot flexibility and pressure release. In contrast, the human foot skeleton
(right) exhibits a longitudinal arch.
Evolution of Bipedalism 75

Fig. 9. Single footprint from a trackway photographed by the author in southeastern Washington,
demonstrating midtarsal pressure ridge.
76 D. J. Meldrum

in H. ergaster is in the extreme upper range for modern equatorial Africans.
Such limb proportions in modern African populations also reflect an adaptation
for thermal regulation in hot tropical climates (Coon, 1982). The lengthening of
the extremities increases the ratio of skin surface area to body mass and
increases heat dissipation. This is the reciprocal of a general ecological principle
known as Allen’s Rule. Thus, the increase in proportionate limb length might
reflect a response to heat stress, rather than simply an approximation to modern
human locomotor behavior.
Unfortunately, the otherwise extraordinarily complete Nariokotome skeleton
does not preserve elements of the foot skeleton, which would lend critical
insight into the specific nature of the locomotor strategy of these hominids.
Frankly, the fossil record of any H. ergaster foot skeleton is nearly
nonexistent. One exception is a single hallucial metatarsal, KNM-BK 63, of
a hominid from Baringo 500,000 years ago, which is noteworthy for its
distinctly gracile proportions as compared with modern humans (Fisher &
McBrearty, 2002). The Terra Amata footprint suggests that the older H.
ergaster foot skeleton had not yet acquired the distinctive features of the
modern human foot. Instead, this footprint appears to exhibit features of
a flexible midfoot, lacking a fixed longitudinal arch and well-developed ball.
Not until Jinniushan (H. heidlebergensis or H. sapiens) is there any skeletal
evidence implying a fixed arch and demonstrating a robust hallux. Subsequent
evidence from more recent and more plentiful Neanderthal foot skeletons
further demonstrates aspects of the modern human foot, although retaining
a greater degree of overall robusticity and relatively elongated heel segment
and toes (Trinkaus, 1983).
Should this interpretation of the pattern and timing of hominid foot evolution
be borne out by further fossil remains, then it appears that hominids were
effective bipeds for well over 3 million years, while yet lacking what has
traditionally been considered the hallmark of human bipedalism—the longitudinal
arch. The stabilization of the midfoot and associated modifications,
especially to the distal foot, i.e., shortening of the toes, increased robusticity of
the hallux, development of the ball, shortening of the heel, were relatively recent
innovations that marked a shift in hominid locomotor adaptation to skeletal
gracilization combined with endurance walking and running.
The evidence of midfoot flexibility in the foot and footprints of sasquatch, and
retention of other primitive characteristics of foot proportion, is significant, not
only for the assessment of the purported existence of this hominoid, but in that
this combination of foot morphology and locomotor behavior provides a novel
perspective on the evolution of bipedalism. The sasquatch foot and footprints
exhibit intriguing parallelism to the morphology of the hominid foot as here
presented. This bipedal hominoid may provide an enlightening analog to
hominid locomotor evolution, Ken Yielding insights and refinements to our understanding
of the pattern and timing of modern human locomotor innovations.
The inferred architecture of the sasquatch foot seems well suited to the physical
Evolution of Bipedalism 77

aspects of the terrain of its purported range. Together with observations of its
gait, its locomotor anatomy and behavior present a functionally coordinated
complex that parallels the highly stable adaptations that marked the greater span
of hominid bipedalism, modified in response to dramatically increased body
size. The combination of broad flat flexible feet, elongated heels, prehensile
toes, and compliant gait constitute an elegant adaptation for a giant terrestrial
biped evolved in a mountainous forested habitat. These observations would seem
to lend considerable affirmative evidence for the existence of an unrecognized
North American ape.
Note
1 The original casts are now housed in the Willow Creek—China Flats Museum,
Willow Creek, California. Silastic rubber molds of eight of the 10 original
casts are held by the Smithsonian. Copies of a number of these casts are held in
the author’s laboratory.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Gordon Strasenburgh and the Society for Scientific
Exploration for inviting this contribution. This research was supported in part
by grants from Jack Mayfield, the ISU Faculty Research Committee, and the
Leakey Foundation.
References
Berillon, G. (2004). In what manner did they walk on two legs? An architectural perspective for the
functional diagnostics of the early hominid foot. In Meldrum, D. J., & Hilton, C. E. (Eds.), From
Biped to Strider: The Evolution of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport.
New York: Kluwer-Plenum (pp. 85–100).
Brown, T., Jr. (1999). The Science and Art of Tracking. New York: Berkeley.
Coon, C. S. (1982). Racial Adaptations: A Study of the Origins, Nature, and Significance of Racial
Variations in Humans. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Deloison, Y. (1992). Emprientes de pas a Laetoli (Tanzanie). Leur apport a une meillure connaissance
de la locomotion des Hominides. CR Academie des Sciences Paris, Ser. II, 315-103-109.
Elftman, H., & Manter., J. (1935). The evolution of the human foot with special reference to the joints.
Journal of Anatomy, 70, 56–67.
Fisher, R., & McBrearty, S. (2002). The comparative morphology of hominid postcranial remains
from the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo District, Kenya. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology Supplement, 34, 70.
Green, J. (1978). Sasquatch: The Apes among Us. Seattle, WA: Hancock House.
Haeusler, M., & McHenry, H. M. (2003). Limb proportions of Homo habilis reviewed. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement, 36, 107.
Harcourt-Smith, W., Higgins, P. O., & Aiello, L. (2002). From Lucy to Littlefoot: A three dimensional
analysis of Plio-Pleistocene hominid tarsal remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Supplement, 34, 82.
Hilton, C. E., & Meldrum, D. J. (2004). Striders, Runners, Transporters. In Meldrum, D. J., & Hilton,
C. E. (Eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Evolution of Modern Human Walking, Running, and
Resource Transport. New York: Kluwer-Plenum (pp. 1–8).
Kidd, R. S., Higgins, P. O., & Oxnard, C. E. (1996). The OH8 foot: A reappraisal of the functional
morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate analysis. Journal of Human Evolution, 31,
269–291.
78 D. J. Meldrum

Kirkpatrick, D. (1968). The search for Bigfoot: Has a 150-year-old legend come to life on this film?
National Wildlife Magazine, April–May 1968, 43–47.
Krantz, G. (1999). Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. Blaine, WA: Hancock House.
Lovejoy, O. C. (1988). Evolution of human walking. Scientific American, 259, 82–89.
Lu, Z. (1987). Cracking the evolutionary puzzle—Jinniushan Man. China Pictorial, 4, 34–35.
Meldrum, D. J. (1999). Evaluation of alleged Sasquatch footprints and inferred functional morphology.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement, 27, 161.
Meldrum, D. J. (2000). Footprints in the Ka’u Desert, Hawaii. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology Supplement, 30, 226–227.
Meldrum, D. J. (2002). Midfoot flexibility and the evolution of bipedalism. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology Supplement, 34, 111–112.
Meldrum, D. J. (2004). Fossilized Hawaiian footprints compared with Laetoli hominid footprints. In
Meldrum, D. J., & Hilton, C. E. (Eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Evolution of Modern Human
Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. New York: Kluwer-Plenum (pp. 63–84).
Meldrum, D. J., & Wunderlich, R. E. (1998). Midfoot flexibility in ape foot dynamics, early hominid
footprints and bipedalism. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement, 26, 161.
Perez, D. (2003). Bigfoot at Bluff Creek (self-published).
Susman, R. L., Stern, J. T., Jr., & Jungers, W. L. (1984). Arboreality and bipedality in Hadar
hominids. Folia Primatologica, 43, 113–156.
Trinkaus, E. (1983). Functional aspects of Neandertal pedal remains. Foot and Ankle, 3, 377–390.
Tuttle, R. (1996). The Laetoli hominid G footprints: Where do they stand today? Kaupia, 6, 97–102.
White, E. (1973). The mystery of the first men, p. 61. In The First Men. New York: Time-Life Books.
White, T. D., & Suwa, G. (1987). Hominid footprints at Laetoli: Facts and interpretations. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 72, 485–514.
Evolution of Bipedalism 79"

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10420940.asp

Incidently, Dr. Meldrum has had papers accepted by the AAPA with "good dialogue".


From the Program of the Seventy-First Annual Meeting of the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists

The Adam’s Mark Hotel
Buffalo, New York
April 10 to April 13, 2002

I was under the impression that that particular paper was only accepted by Journal of Scientific Exploration. I'd be pleased to hear otherwise.

This abstract was accepted for presentation at the Seventy-First Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Buffalo, New York, April 10 to April 13, 2002.

From AAPA Abstacts 111:

"Midtarsal flexibility, footprints, and the
evolution of bipedalism.

J. Meldrum. Idaho State University, Pocatello,
ID, 83209-8007, USA.

Midtarsal flexibility of the chimpanzee foot contrasts with the comparatively rigid platform of the human foot. The “midtarsal break” permits the independent functions of the grasping forefoot and levering hindfoot
during climbing. After the transition to bipedalism, this grasp-climb adaptation was lost, increasing echanical advantage of ankle plantarflexors and efficiency and economy of distance walk/running. Ape, human, and Plio-Pleistocene hominid footprints were examined for indications of a midtarsal break. The human footprint
reflects its rigid-platform architecture. Pressure releases occur at typical points, especially behind the ball and hallux. Comparisons with chimpanzee footprints are complicated by the abducted position of the hallux
and distinctive mode of facultative bipedalism. Reexamination of stereophotos and casts from the 1978 Laetoli footprint excavation confirmed indications of midtarsal flexibility. Few foot skeletons or footprints of
Pleistocene hominids are known prior to Neandertals. The Terra Amata footprint (ca. 400 kya) remains to be published, but may exhibit midtarsal flexibility.

Footprints of an alleged North American ape exhibit a midtarsal pressure ridge and other indicators of idfoot flexibility. Examination of high resolution images of the feet of the subject of the disputed Patterson-
Gimlin film footage, correlate with the inferred kinematics of the footprints, in that a midtarsal break is evident. Additional examples reiterate the consistent presence of this feature. The evaluation of these data, controversial though they remain, provides a fresh perspective for the evaluation and discussion of the pattern and timing of the emergence of the distinctive features of modern human bipedalism."

Click to view attachment


Excuse the partial double post. We're having a storm and my AOL disconnected a dozen times. When my last post finally unfroze I found my link had posted four times and my edited post survived, in part.

Dr. Meldrum e-mailed me about his accepted and rejected papers, but the saved e-mails vanished in an AOL glitch. He said two were rejected, as I recall.

Thanks all, I actually learned something before my first coffee!

Conferences, while important, don't typically have the same level of "pickiness" as a journal. More material that is tentative or even questionable makes its way through. If Meldrum published sasquatch research in the AAPA's journal, that would be major.

Since it was rejected by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA), did they ever try to submit it to Ichnos? They shouldn't get the same excuse for non-publication there.

RayG

Click to view attachment







:new_lmaosmiley:

Well, yeah, he has, but I'm not finding a Sasquatch article yet.

Article

New fossil platyrrhine tali from the early miocene of Argentina
D. Jeffrey Meldrum
Department of Anatomical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794-8081


Keywords
Soriacebus • Carlocebus • Dolichocebus • Pinturas formation • Positional behavior


Abstract
Five platyrrhine tali have been recovered from early Miocene localities in the Pinturas Formation of Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. These new fossil tali show overall greater similarities to the slightly older Gaiman talus attributed to Dolichocebus gaimanensis than to tali of the younger primate taxa from La Venta, Colombia. The smallest and oldest talus from the Pinturas Formation displays features similar to the extant atelines and Pithecia, and is provisionally referred to Soriacebus ameghinorum. The four larger Pinturas tali are provisionally referred to Carlocebus cf. carmenensis, and most resemble tali of the extant small-bodied cebids and callitrichids. The differences in talar morphology exhibited by these two genera suggest that Soriacebus had a more derived locomotor repertoire than Carlocebus, which included more climbing and possibly suspensory behaviors.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 2 May 1989; Accepted: 1 May 1990

Article

Kinematics of the cercopithecine foot on arboreal and terrestrial substrates with implications for the interpretation of hominid terrestrial adaptations
D. Jeffrey Meldrum
Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710


Keywords
Positional behavior • Quadrupedalism • Bipedalism • Cercopithecus • Cercocebus • Lophocebus • Papio • Hominid evolution


Abstract
The stereotyped characterizations of quadrupedal foot postures were tested by examining the kinematics of the cercopithecine foot on arboreal and terrestrial supports. Strictly arboreal species were compared with semi-terrestrial species for Cercopithecus, Cercocebus, Lophocebus, and Papio, in semi-natural or experimental settings. Results indicate that the kinematics of the cercopithecine arboreal quadruped differ in degree from stereotypical expectations for an arboreal quadruped. The relatively extended, adducted limb movements of the cercopithecines and the emphasis on the central digit as the functional axis of the foot suggest convergence with terrestrial mammalian cursors, and differ from the platyrrhine or colobine arboreal quadruped. The characteristics of the quadrupedal terrestrial primate foot contrast with the very unique pattern seen in the hominid foot. These contrasts provide a new perspective from which to interpret the hominid adaptation, in which the functional axis has remained fixed between the first and second digits. This pattern differs from virtually all other terrestrial mammals. The influence of bipedalism on this functional pattern is examined.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 5 May 1990; Accepted: 17 September 1990

Hindlimb suspension and hind foot reversal in Varecia variegata and other arboreal mammals
D. Jeffrey Meldrum 1 *, Marian Dagosto 2, Jennifer White 3
1Departments of Biological Sciences and Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8007
2Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology, Northwestern School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois 60611-3008
3Department of Biology and Environmental Science, Simpson College, Indianola, Iowa, 50125

email: D. Jeffrey Meldrum (E-mail: meldd@fs.isu.edu)

*Correspondence to D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Campus Box 8007, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007.

Keywords
positional behavior • feeding adaptations • skeletal morphology • prosimians • anthropoids • xenarthrans


Abstract

The foot, perhaps more than any other region of the primate body, reflects the interaction of positional behaviors with the geometric properties of available supports. The ability to reverse the hind foot during hindlimb suspension while hanging from a horizontal support or descending a large diameter vertical trunk has been noted in many arboreal mammals, including primates. Observations of Varecia variegata in the wild and under seminatural conditions document hindlimb suspension in this lemurid primate. The kinematics and skeletal correlates of this behavior are examined. Analogy is made with the form and function exhibited by nonprimate mammalian taxa employing this behavior. Examples of carnivores and rodents display very similar adaptations of the tarsals while other mammals, such as the xenarthrans, accomplish a similar end by means of different morphologies. However, a suite of features is identified that is shared by mammals capable of hind foot reversal. Hindlimb suspension effectively increases the potential feeding space available to a foraging mammal and represents a significant, and often unrecognized, alternative adaptive strategy to forelimb suspension and prehensile-tail suspension in primates. Am J Phys Anthropol 103:85-102, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 6 February 1996; Accepted: 15 March 1997


Etc.

Is this all the same D. Jeffery Meldrum?

Wasn't one of Krantz' articles published in the journal? I once did a search on the website, but it was evidently too old to come up. My opponent shot down the journal as being "lightly peer reviewed".

I've posted Meldrum's list of where his papers were accepted. If I can remember which thread on what board I should be able to find it sometime within the next ten years.

I did find a living link to the AAPA 2002 annual meeting, though, through their site:

http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2002/ajpa2002.pdf

Impressions such as dinosaur trackways, the Laetoli trackway, and fern leaf imprints from the Carboniferous period?

Oh.

Are you aware of ( do you have any examples ) of the publication of articles in mainstream scientific journals, whose sole basis was inference from impressions with no correlating evidence ?

I asked Colobus if the rejection was as simple as "... you cannot infer usable information from impressions ... " or if this was the basis of a more comprehensive rejection.

He seems to have chosen not to respond so far ..

Thanks Tube, I've been waiting for someone else to say that.

Here's another comp of the Skookum 'heels' with a live gorilla heel, and a mold (as shown in the LMS) of what I believe is a chimp heel..

Click to view attachment

Or, he has chosen to go off and have a life and does not hang out on the forum as much as you (or I).

As indicated I would provide... hopefuly people can see this. I had to reduce the size, bit rate, resolution and over all length of the video clip to get it in here.