Anything but answer the questions, Greg. There's no picture posted here of Brian doing anything. The picture with caption is from Rick's presentation. It may be an oversimplification, but that's all I have on what Brian said. It certainly doesn't look like he duplicated an elk.

Why not show us your PM to him so we'll know what you said?

This is a comparison of the two imprints.

Click to view attachment

I'm guilty of trying to keep Wildman out of the mud, and from viewing impressions on my bed, but that's about it.

Colobus posted a picture showing the wet and drier areas of the mudhole. Without duplicating the conditions of the mudhole, a roll in the front yard can only be an approximation, even if one has the right proportions, which is not too likely.

I can't tell from photos on the web, but my question seems to have been answered way back in post #3:



DY, how would you explain wrist imprints from an elk, impressed at a sharp angle? Am I barking up the wrong tree altogether?

RayG

:ohmy:

:new_whistle:

:wink:

What color is your unmarked van?

Once again.. You keep dodging the point of all of this; and that is your assertion that Brian's work
supports the " Skookum Roll " hypothesis ..

This is another picture of the heel area. It's difficult to see 3D in 2D. There's a possible side of a foot and it was quite fat. Krantz was interested in that because he'd surmised there'd be a thick plantar pad.

Click to view attachment

Dr. Fish's bootprint showed in the mudhole, but 20" away he left no impression. Evidently the animal rolled out onto hard ground.

Click to view attachment

One more quick question... ( On topic for a change ....)

With regard to this diagram .. RayG's question brought something to my attention.. ( blue line - mine )




Isn't the magenta heel strike supposed to be the one with the prominent achilles tendon ?

If so, wouldnt the left ( If I don't have them reversed ) leg be aligned somewhat differently than
depicted in this diagram?

Wouldn't that change the overall position of the figure considerably ?

I'm not telling....

And don't look out the window!!!

So, where's your post on the source? You're not dodging that, are you?

Is there some way to read this statement other than the way I read it? "Somehow some one has a picture from my video of me attempting to duplicate the cast."

RayG nicely gathered all my comments together, so I don't think I need reiterate what I actually said. I don't know that Drs. Sarmiento and Swindler ever saw any of Brian's work. If Rick Noll misquoted him (there's more at the end of the presentation), then let them hash that out. About all Rick said was Brian said it could have been primate. Are you Brian's mouthpiece now? Since he's allowed to post, he can take it up with me.

In the meantime, I'm going to respect Maxx' sensibilities and ignore you for awhile. Bye.

You're right, it's difficult to see things in 3D even when they have colorful lines drawn around them.

In your example for instance, the marked item in the upper left looks like a boot with a toe poking through. The thing in the middle looks like the boot of Mercury, complete with attached wing. To the far right, I see what looks like a Stormtrooper helmet. Reminds me of the test I took for color blindness in the military. They kept telling me there were numbers somewhere in that jumbled mess of dots. Yeah, riiiiiight. Can't tell if the 'heel' is angled or not though. :laugh:

Speaking of being colorblind... nothing is more frustrating than when my wife tells me to go grab a green or blue or grey skirt. I usually just grab a bunch and hope I got lucky.

RayG

Exactly right, Tube. They are photos of actual elks hooves placed as though they were still attached to an elk. The cast should show the tops of the hooves and wrist. I did say that in my post, but I must not have been clear. Sorry for the confusion.

:laugh:

Funny, 'cause it is true. Even if I saw the thing in person, I couldn't possibly make heads nor tails of it. I could recognize and identify the elk and 'yote prints, but the rest is one big Rorschach to me.

I have the feeling that a primatologist will look for anything resembling primate, though. That's kinda their thing. I'm not sure if that means it is actually primate, or that their mind is so focused on one subject that it is too easy for them to see it in the Skookum Rorschach. The same goes for the elk folks. Maybe one can't convince the other because they are both wrong. Maybe, just maybe, it is a combination of several animal impressions made to resemble, well, whatever the experts say it resembles?

I think I'm just a little loopy.

Sarmiento (on LMS) commented on the different animal traces found. Multiple imprints of several animals combining to give the impression of 2/3 of a Saquatch was ruled out too.

Swindler was very precise about his thinking on the heel with the tendon of Achilles.

Well, I hate to come off like the "picky" type, but I think this graphic is in error. If I'm not mistaken, the line drawing is superimposed onto the original cast, which is a "male" copy of the original "female" impression in the ground.

The original cast is encased in a wooden box that has the little metal strips around the perimeter. The copies are not. The original cast is not uniform in color and has still-adhered substrate on it, the copies do not. As far as I can tell, the putative "heel strikes" in this graphic are proud, so I don't think the image has been photographically reversed.

Two ways to correct this; the line drawing could be rotated 180 degrees about a line running between the figure's legs lying in the plane of the cast surface, or better yet, superimpose the line drawing on the "female" cast copy of the original cast.

It looks to me like the drawing is supposed to show the leg bent. The line at the top of the thigh indicates this and there's an attempt at foreshortening. If this is the case, the heel fits and would be at an angle, as the cast shows.

I've been misquoted. Read my post again.

:ohmy:

okay so im a little slow, i was thinking the WCS was for the west coast sasquatch web page so i was trying to figure out how they had that photo :doh: . Now the light switch has been turned on and i see the still is from Ricks Presentation at Willow Creek. That clears up all the confusion for me. I simply was not aware Rick used it being i was not there and have yet to see the dvd. No big deal now that i know who is using it. Again as i have said before my imprint does look like the imprint of the cast except i left hand and foot prints the first few tries then left foot print the last few tries in the same area as the cast shows heel strikes. Anyone can go out and do this there self, i guess im supprised no one has.

Perhaps...but they're read by more people and they don't hesitate to point out inconsistencies. My point was, if I was a scientist and wanted to do a serious review of an artifact, I'd make it a point to go see the artifact, and not rely on a model. That's why scientists travel to locations, rather than just look at photos of specimines. If the cast is a sas, it's as close to having the sas in front of you. If it's an elk lay, the same holds true. I would suggest that a "serious" study of an artifact would seem a whole lot more serious if the investigator went to the scene, or failing that, examined the artifacts. The fbi doesn't request molds of our fingerprints or footprint castings for analysis. They want the castings. That's as it should be.

As for the phd in "gunology", the university of hard knocks has a credo that states most people find many "ologists" to be pretentious jerks. Like the post above where DY pokes fun at a comment, and I'll paraphrase: "We aren't supposed experts, we are "real" experts," is akin to merely stating "I have a phd in this or that." I don't believe a serious study would rely on a simple mold of an original casting, if the investigator still held out any claim of open-mindedness. The lack of interest in seeing the original artifact is indicative of...well a lack of true interest. I will not accept a lack of funds or time as an excuse for a serious review. On the other hand, it's probably an elk lay.


Dan C

Wildman's on his way now. :wink:

Glad we got that cleared up, Brian. Your confusion is quite understandable.

There's a place in the heel section of the cast where it looks like there's an impression of a foot sideways. I'm wondering if that could have been left when the animal was rolling out. Seems the drawing from the BFRO is somewhat in error as to position and since it was done over a photo of a human , the proportions were off. So, could the heel impression be from it rolling out instead of reaching for fruit?

There's a possible footprint in the heel area on the cast, outlined in the last pic I posted. Is this in about the same area as yours?

Click to view attachment

At least three of the people listed in the roster were experienced animal trackers and Dr. Fish was a trained zoologist, but I don't know if he was a "pretentious jerk". They not only saw the original cast, they saw the original imprint. Randals was with Noll when they first saw it. I just don't think these experienced people would pour a couple of hundred lbs. of Hydrocal into an elk lay and then lug it back just to be to be told it's an elk lay.

Colobus was present when Dr. Swindler examined the cast. He said Swindler was visibly shaken. Now who would be shaken over an elk lay?

Doesn't matter if it's bent or not , the achilles should line up with the lower leg, and a line drawn through it should intersect the knee; unless you are suggesting the lower leg is broken.

And "they" examined the original cast. There is a big difference. I would be hard put to base my professional reputation on an incomplete artifact. I may not have a phd, but I have often been put into a position where my testimony could send someone to prison for years and years, or if I lied or used incomplete data, could allow a monster to go on monstering! I find it difficult to believe that one who takes seriously their professional reputation would base it on an incomplete record, unless the only ones who really matter to them professionally are of their same mindset and wouldn't be put off by examining a mold rather than the origial casting.

On the other hand, it may be an elk lay.

Dan

Greg:

Your post: "Doesn't matter if it's bent or not , the achilles should line up with the lower leg, and a line drawn through it should intersect the knee; unless you are suggesting the lower leg is broken."

A few minutes ago I tested your hypothesis. To use a typical response that I often hear from "skeptics", it can be done. On the other hand, it requires that the leg be bent and the knee tilted a bit to the side. This might not be readily apparent in an impression. You are correct in that if the leg is straight, the tendon does not follow with the "artistic rendition" of the cast. But as I stated in my post above, a "critical" examination of the facts should not be based on an artistic rendition which is nothing more than an illustration of an opinion.

Second, there is no reason to believe the heel impression was made at exactly the same instance the leg lay flat, but could have come later as the animal attempted to roll or rise. This would account for it being dug in rather than laying flat.

On the other hand...it may be an elk lay.

Dan

I'm suggesting your line's a bit off and the drawing doesn't show the position of the lower leg as clearly as it might. There were plans to make a digital model. I don't know it that was ever done, but rotating it would show what I mean. And, as tube pointed out, the cast is "male" .




If it's an elk lay, how do you get the "knee" (or is it a "wrist") to fit?

Isn't Greg the one who was harping about the use of drawn-in lines?

No comment on Brian's post, Greg? Especially this:

"Again as i have said before my imprint does look like the imprint of the cast except i left hand and foot prints the first few tries then left foot print the last few tries in the same area as the cast shows heel strikes."

When an ungulate stands, the bulk of its weight presses down on the metacarpals (wrist).
No mystery...it digs in deep at an angle.
No mystery.

So you're saying the "heel strikes" are elk wrist prints that were impressed when the elk got up, rather than knee prints from when the elk was lying down? And the elk managed to get up on its wrists, pull its front legs out to stand without smearing the deep prints? Were the legs lifted straight up? One at a time or both at a time?Either way, how did the elk accomplish this without shifting the weight to the hind end and leaving clear hoof and lower hind leg prints in the imprint?

Ladies and gentlemen...One of the reasons I quit teaching at a university... :new_tiredsmiley:
Peace out, yo.

Greg's line is off to the left:

Click to view attachment

I should show you my experiments... Looked exactly like raccoon lay, except it didn't ...:new_guitar:

My thoughts on purported Sasquatch getting up from the Skookum impression from studying the impression, the cast, the replicas, elk and gorilla behavior and simulating the process with my own body.

Imprint Observations:

1. Wet side of impression is closest to the purported arm impression.
2. Purported left heel with proud Achilles tendon is on wet side.
3. Dr. LeRoy Fish’s boot print is on dry side (one imprint deep, one very shallow indicating approaching hard dry surface the further out on that side).
4. Two Elk hooves slips are next to the boot print on the dry side… slipping towards the wet side indicting an elk walked up to the area from the dry side, slipped into some softer stuff, maybe to try and get some apple bits left over.
5. With the animal already seated, the ground was cold and hard, frost heaved. The body weight and heat started melting the mud, squishing it out and around the heaviest portions in contact with the mud… the buttocks.
6. There is no tail. Even if there were a tail, I can not think of a reason for it to have made an impression in the substrate.
7. There are two buttock impressions with an area in between detailing the groin area.
8. There are two thigh areas impressed, one upper underside fairly complete and one smaller section.
9. The cast area was not able to capture all impressions found at the site but I would estimate it contains 98% of what was seen there. There is the possibility that some parts of the impression were not recognized at the time of casting but a thorough search by 6 team members showed that there was not.
10. Skin and hair patterns are distinctly different. The skin areas are not hair caked with mud. Other areas do not show this and the skin patch areas are logical in their locations. The edges of hair growth could have clumped together strands of hair, hanging down over portions of skin areas though.
11. The purported arms close proximity to the upper thigh was struck twice, with a skin patch where one would expect to see the elbow region.
12. The arm is not triangular in shape; it is cylindrical, tapering only at the wrist region. This area was disturbed more so than any other area of the impression indicating good articulation beyond this joint. This is more inline with a primate arm and hand than an ungulates leg and foot.
13. The heel impressions indicate two separate appendages. One is lined up fairly well with the purported upper thigh region. The other set is approx. 10 inches away and on the opposite side of the upper thigh from the purported arm region indicating a natural position - where as all impressions of legs and hooves of an ungulate would be either on one side of the animal or underneath.
14. There are two impressions of the arm, one less distinct or deep. They are overlapped in such a way as to indicate that they are the same limb (edge effects showing no gaps of two separate limbs overlaid) striking twice.
15. Hair collected here and at other places by Dr. Henner F. does not show them to be hollow like ungulates. Hollow hair is a natural insulator and would not transfer heat to the ground as easily as primates.
16. At least one hair came back from Henner as similar to his collection of purported Sasquatch hair.
17. Dr. LeRoy Fish retained more hair samples than was given to Henner and he stated that he saw several more hairs similar to the collection as well.
18. No loose mud was noticed in impression, as if falling off from an animal’s body.
19. During video work, quite often the camera man is not directly behind the camera. While videoing the gorilla at Woodland Park Zoo I stood off to the left of camera several times so as to not inadvertently disturb the sequence. I observed the gorilla placing its left upper arm against its left upper thigh while reaching for some apples. Only a small snippet of the video has been made available to the public.
20. In studying four elk videos taken by Dr. Bam Bam, all got to their feet or laid down with all four feet beneath them. Their skeletal structure does not allow for rotating shoulder joints.

Possible scenario:

1. The left leg is bent with the heel of the foot pressed into the mud 90 degrees from the wet area.
2. The body is twisted a bit with the right leg impacting the mud once and the foot several times, one of which, the last impact, shows the side of the foot.
3. Right leg straightens and the underside of the right knee impacts a small pushed up mound of mud, leaving an impression at 30 degrees to the impression norm and showing hair pattern matching the upper thigh impression length and direction.
4. It is possible that limb proportions are different than humans, meaning the upper arm could be longer allowing the lower arm to reach closer to the ground. It could also be that the upper torso is not as long, making the arms appear longer than a human.
5. The animal rolls away from the wet area to stand back up, possibly using a hand in the dry area and leaving clean imprints of body impressions and more weight forced downward on the left foot for purchase in the muddier sections.

Because you didn't want to answer questions? I thought that's what teachers are for, among other things, like presenting material in an understandable way and keeping order.

I was going to ask if this elk had hairless wrists and/or knees. There were no hair imprints in the impressions. Maybe you could help us out by scanning and posting some examples from your refences on how all this is done by real (as opposed to hypothetical) elk.

I live somewhat near an acclimated elk herd. Maybe I can get some pictures of my own some evening. I really want to see an elk ballancing on its wrists.

I provided a picture in this thread showing an elk joint in mud while laying on its side. It looks like a shell not a heel. If it was underneath the animal then more would have been seen and certainly the legs would have been used to support it's body weight standing.

[quote name='LAL' date='Aug 15 2006, 09:02 AM' post='335341']At least three of the people listed in the roster were experienced animal trackers and Dr. Fish was a trained zoologist, but I don't know if he was a "pretentious jerk". They not only saw the original cast, they saw the original imprint. Randals was with Noll when they first saw it. I just don't think these experienced people would pour a couple of hundred lbs. of Hydrocal into an elk lay and then lug it back just to be to be told it's an elk lay.

Those three animal trackers may have been more valuable had some actual squatch tracks been found. Surprisingly, even with three animal trackers in the expedition, no significant attempt was made to track the squatch after it made its buttprint.

[quote]Colobus was present when Dr. Swindler examined the cast. He said Swindler was visibly shaken. Now who would be shaken over an elk lay?[/quote]

Apparently Swindler wasn't shaken enough to have anything of significance published on the matter.

RayG

Thanks DDA. I don't know how they're going to refute this, but I'm sure they'll try. Are there any plans to publish?

Well, if DDA's list is supposed to be a refutation of the morphological evidence that the Skookum Elk Cast was left by an elk, it falls short in a number of ways. Point for point, here's a breakdown of his list:

1. o.k.
2. “proud Achilles tendon”? interpretation.
3. o.k..
4. Elk present.
5. o.k.
6. interpretation… and I disagree (I say tail is present), but unimportant.
7. interpretation.
8. interpretation.
9. o.k..
10. interpretation.
11. interpretation.
12. interpretation.
13. interpretation contradicted by observation.
14. interpretation.
15. coyotes and other animals drop hair…coyotes were present…uninformative
16. interpretation.
17. interpretation and hearsay.
18. uninformative.
19. uninformative, not available.
20. misleading interpretation contradicted by observable facts...feet are always under animal, but not always in the body imprint…big difference.

Possible scenario:

1. interpretation.
2. interpretation.
3. interpretation.
4. interpretation.
5. interpretation.

The bulk of the list is either based on his interpretation of the thing as a hominid (hence terms like "arm"), or is uninformative (the business about clumps of mud not falling off an animal. Again, none of this is meant to be personal or insulting, just thorough. He points out that an elk was moving around in the area (hoofprints) and I agree. He points out that the maker of the body imprint moved its appendages around a bit as it sat there and I agree. But the main difference between out takes on this is:

DDA argues what an elk should do according to him at least, then discards it as the maker of the cast if it doesn't meet his expectations.
I argue about what is observable in the cast (no handprints or BF prints...lots of elk-like anatomy), then take that back to what elk can be observed doing.
Animal behavior and biomechanics are very complicated subjects, and I would hate to be the one who has to support a claim that an elk will always do such and such with its hoof just so...that's very tricky business.
In the end, I'm more of a conservative and prefer to stick with what is actually visible on the cast, rather than come up with interpretations of why something I think should be ther isn't.

It wasn't Swindler's find to publish! No one that I would show an artifact to would publish what they told me about the artifact....it isn't ethical. The finder gets to publish...and hopefully invite those he/she consulted to be a co-author.

It's all interpretation...even what you are doing DY. Unless someone filmed the spot with the animal laying down in it, everything is speculation (and I am betting someone would say the lay was there before the film was made... :wink:). I agree that elk are the most common animal in the area, but I can't deny the expertise of folks like Swindler, Meldrum, etc. They are not ichologisstisttssss <hiccup>, but you're not a primatologist either. So where does that leave us? Well, someone publish something and we can go from there!

DY I'm pretty sure that your observation is the correct one, based purely off the fact that the cast resembles an elk lay and elk are an indentifiable local animal...unfortunately sasquatch is not. (not that it means much to you..lol)....but I would like to hear your explanation of what Jake pointed out earlier with the lower leg imprints of the elk. Here is a link to my post asking about it.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...671&st=475#


oh and Kathy's post is right on the mark.

Exactly what Kathy said.

Damn if you, damn if you don’t… asked “…why would”… or ” …how would” and then told that is “…just your interpretation.” Thought I stated that right up front so that no one needed to have a degree in order to read between the lines.

Since in a great many of the track and animal guide books an animal is not always seen making impressions on film or video but is either observed by the authors or other witnesses, including native Americans, but what is shown in these books is the impressions on film, are we to question them as well? I have the book that DY mentions and true fully it is a great book (I have many others as well of course), expensive and extensive but I fail in finding the picture he asks us to look at. His whole section on the subject of bedding is sadly lacking; it would be great to see impressions such as this made by all the animals in his book. I can only credit this as that he rarely comes across them, has not paid particular attention to them or doesn’t really get out into the field that much. I know which one I am leaning towards.

For jack and Maxx (and even Mr. Gone and the is-es):
Again, a resting elk has its lowermost (towards the hoof) metacarpals slightly elevated, the hoof slightly flexed (raised above the ground), and not impressed into the substrate. Since the main weight distribution for a sitting elk is on the wrists (metacarpals) and haunches (thigh, butt, and hind lges), these areas, rather than the belly and chest leave the greatest impring in the substrate. See the photos for examples of this. The "mud ridge" that LAL has pointed out resulted from viscous mud being squeezed into a furrow...I contend that's the furrow between the thigh and belly (as seen in the photos).

for Hairyman and others:
Sort of...but here's the real key, nit-picking difference, which as a scientist I'm sure you'll dig (no archaeology pun intended). "Doing science" on a specimen like this consists of two parts. The first is observation and documentation (DDA's list includes this as a header). This requires measuring, quantifying, outlining (direct tracing is best), experimenting, and repeating. The next is interpretation. That requires assembling observations and data into a coherent scenario, based on other observable, quantifiable, repeatable data.
If you look at DDA's list, his interpretations are listed under the "observation" heading.
If you go way WAY back to when I posted my initial, preliminary report, you'll notice that I made observations first, then interpreted them.
It's not just semantics. Saying for example that "the impression of the appendage measures 10" long and has the same dimensions and texture as an elk metacarpal." is different than saying it is an elk metacarpal...although that's the most reasonable interpretation based on the data. Some interpretations are better than others. The ones that honor the data, make no appeals to missing data, and answer all or most of the questions with the fewest contortions or appeals to the extraordinary are usually correct. My look at the Skookum Cast convinced me (as others before me) that it matches perfectly with known examlpes of elk lays. I measured, made as many observations as I possibly could, using standard ichnological criteria, and was able to support the elk interpretation based on direct comparisons of measureable, repeatable data. Going in already with an image of elbows and buttocks and skin and heels leads to lists like DDA's which are more a product of desire and interpretation than actual documentation. So the first critical step in "Doing Science" is lacking.


But once it's been publicized on t.v., in books, and on websites, it is up for grabs if someone wants to publish their observations and interpretations of it...especially if a replica of it is on public display, and appeals have been made in public for scientists to study and interpret the specimen (open invitation on the BFRO website). This was done with the Skookum Cast, and since I'm not "stealing the thunder" from anyone...i.e., I'm not claiming it's something unique and wonderful, that route is still open for the owners of the specimen.

The rest of your post goes on to attack the credibility of a field tracker/author/educator, and is not relevant to our discussion here, so I've left it out.

But where's the morphological comparisons showing why an elk's body is incapable of making that imprint? All you need to do is show why this diagram is simply not possible.
That's it, no degree needed.
It's been said many many times that an elk was absolutely ruled out as the maker, yet we've not been told (or shown) how or why...only that some parts of the specimen are kind of sort of like what someone might think a BF should look like.
But what specifically about this cast completely rules out this image?:

Thank you for repeating it DY. I now realize that you stated exactly that earlier, and I missed it. I can completely visualize how an elk made the impression, and I cannot do the same for the Sasquatch. That could be a result of my lack of Sasquatch knowledge, or rather my lack of imagination.
There are many who have spent significant time working with this specimen. The initial collection and investigation was not easy, and as anything in bigfoot research...largely thankless. I appreciate the work that those like DDA do with little reward. Some day through those kinds of relentless efforts discovery will be had. I also appreciate those individuals such as DY who are professionals in a science that can actually contribute something to our search for the hairy one. I am pleased to see that someone is will to seriously look at any bigfoot evidence, instead of completely writing it off as nonsense. Anytime we can get a biologist, primatologist, ichnologists, zoologist..etc to look this way (in a serious manner), then that already is a small victory in my book...as it gives this subject legitimacy just with their interest alone. Dy I look forward to reading the published piece, if it does get publushed. I also look forward to a published rebuttal. Debate is healthy, and leads to learning new things...keep the debate civil and on topic and we'll be better for it.

What's an appropriate waiting time if the original finder doesn't publish anything on such an important discovery? In this case, the finder most qualified to publish in a scientific journal would probably be Dr. Leroy Fish, but he passed away in March, 2002. In the six years since the cast was discovered, DY seems to be the only one attempting to publish. (and no, books don't count)

And where's the replication? That's a standard step in the scientific method. What scientist (other than Pons and Fleischmann), no matter how qualified, is going to make an extraordinary claim based on a single incident? Is that the real reason none of the proponents who've examined the cast have had anything published -- no replication?

The BFRO showed just how 'scientific' they were when they dropped the ball, big time. Instead of replicating the experiment in the same area, they take their travelling carnival on a country-wide tour that produces nothing but money for MM. And it only took about 5 years for people to realize what was going on. :doh:



But you suggested it wouldn't be ethical for Swindler to publish something.

Who else did you have in mind?

RayG

It sure is ... Because that is the way the achilles is aligned...

The leg drawing is off to the right...

:popcorn2:

If Swindler is not/was not in a position to publish on the Skookum Cast, then the account of him being "visibly shaken" is irrelevant.

That's what irks me about a lot of so-called bigfoot evidence: I read things like "so and so who's a big-time primate anatomy guru looked at [fill in the blank] and said 'Yep, that proves there's bigfoot all right.' "

Well IF that's the case, then how could so-and-so not see to it that this amazing zoological find du jour gets published? It makes no sense to me as a scientist.

If my neighbor (auto mechanic) knocked on my door one day to show me the Ivory-billed Woodpecker photo he took at his mom's farm out in the country, I wouldn't gasp "holy crap" and then expect HIM to publish the paper on it. I'd work with him to make sure it got published - IMMEDIATELY!

We were told a proposal was rejected..:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=329366




I asked if there was more substance to the context of the rejection..

As in " They didn't accept impressions alone " ... Or something similar ..

As compared to submitting a proposal based on an elk impression , where we actually have part/s
of an elk to possibly match it up with..


I never recieved a reply to that question..

Thanks, DY.....I understand your answers, but my questions go beyond your answers......but no matter. You don't need to answer my questions. I'm not convinced either way, BF or elk. If you're satisfied with your position, that's all that really matters. It's certainly not me that will be reviewing your work. I asked the questions and hoped for an answer, but if they do nothing more than open up more avenues of thought then that's good. At least I gave it some thought and made those thoughts known for whatever its worth. Good luck, should you decide to present your work for publication.

This makes no sense to me. How did your Elk keep its hooves raised above the ground? Based on the picture you supplied DY (as a comparison) - and it clearly shows the legs and hooves being in direct contact with the ground, how is what you are suggesting possible?

Edited for clarity

One of the most speculator archaeological collections in the state of California was excavated on this forest in 1963 and it still not published. The original excavator is still alive and STILL "working" on it. Does it irritate me? Yes. Is it my right to put everything together and finally get it published? No, because it isn't my work. When he finally does the dirt dive am I going to publish it then? No, because damn if he didn't pass on some of the work to a colleague who will have the responsibility after his death. I do have some cards to play after his death, and I'll play it when needed, but such is life.



You can't be serious? Extraordinary claims are published all the time! You want to discuss the Mars meteorite with the single cell organism? Or the discovery of new "planets"? Or how about the new pyramid in the Middle East? Just because something is published doesn't mean it's the truth or it's been replicated or even that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts it. Apparently an article was submitted for publication and it was rejected. Until we know the reason for the rejection, saying it's because of a lack of replication is premature.



What does the BFRO really have to do with this? It's not the BFROs responsibility to publish scientific work, it's up to the individual. The cast was collected during a BFRO expedition, but what MM did or didn't do later has no bearing on this issue.



Dr. LeRoy Fish passed the scientific baton to Dr. Meldrum prior to his death, so the right is his (and I'm assuming in conjunction with several others). Once in publication form (and yes, books count), Swindler can refute it, add to it, or whatever he wants.