If the proponents of this cast think that is an insignificant question, then this entire debate needs to be shut down. I'm no scientist but that is an elementary (and very logical) question that has be answered if this is to be properly kept in the realm of 'scientific scrutiny'. Why it hasn't been answered 'properly' is probably as important as the answer itself. I have the feeling (okay, I'm completely convinced) the disagreements with DY's conclusions are not so much about finding 'scientific truth' as they are about the Bigfoot Researcher Hierarchy™ that is at present being stood on its head by an interested and competent 'outsider'. The possible long term consequences of such are incalculable. What's ironic is DY has been steadfastly holding to the tenents of actual 'science' as he knows them, ones he even practices in his everyday job, yet his opinion has been given far less 'respect' than it deserves by the very people that either supposedly hold science to be the arbiter of all things physical or are in fact practitioners of science itself in their careers. What does he have to do to get it right for those types of people? Change his opinion to include Bigfoot™ as the culprit and he'd be okay? I admit I'm astounded by many of you and quite often, but this one is making me simply say WOW!

"Harry"

Yeah, but DDA never claimed to be a scientist, nor is this a scientific forum...how things are presented here by all of us NEVER reaches the level of scientific standards. I don't think DDA should be shot for his method of listing information. I also do not agree that the "doing science" part is lacking. I think that they have considered and eliminated elk, but it’s just not being strongly presented here for whatever reason, or if it has, I missed it (just like not all your info is that easy to find…it would be nice if all of the info was in one location, like say, a publication!).



Well, unless I am completely wrong, I don't know of many folks who would publish an article refuting someone else's work based on website or television information prior to the initial publication. It would be odd, as generally researchers need something in writing from the author as a reference. :wink: However, technically, if we are correct in stating that the Skookum Cast will be addressed in Meldrum's new book, your article will be a rebuttal to his conclusions, assuming of course that he will conclude an unknown primate made the impression. So, you won't be first to publish on the cast...as far as we can tell (but who knows!!!).

While browsing through the elk photographs on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=elk&w=all I was surprised to learn how wide a variety of postures reclining elk are able to assume. It appears this individual has the right front hoof raised above the ground. Did it keep it there? I don't know.

Thank you Tube. But, even your picture clearly shows the hooves of this animal resting on the ground. I can not imagine how you would not have prints where DY's Elk placed its hooves, this is mud we are talking about after all (regardless of when the substrate became mud).

I also do not see in DY's argument where he discusses his "Elk" being in any sitting position other than what he shows in the picture he provided. Unless I am misunderstanding his comments.

Edited to add: Infact - DY's assertion would put the hooves directly under the body of his Elk.. And that - would mean his Elk would have been pushing its body weight on the entire leg.. That has to transfer to the hoof, pushing it into the mud.

But I'm not refuting anything...in the m.s., the specimen is being used in conjunction with a variety of other ungulate lays to highlight characteristics of ungulate impints...BF is only mentioned as an interesting "option."

Nice photo tube!
Just goes to show that elk's legs don't always do what people on BF message boards claim they always do! :wink:
Give these critters a chance people! They do some really interesting things and leave some really cool traces behind, even if you can't figure out what they were doing or how.

You should see the elk pictures we have collected.

I'd settle for the criteria used to absolutely eliminate an elk as the track maker.
I'm not greedy.

the distal-most metacarpal and hoof leave very shallow or no trace...again...


But Hairyman, the interpretation of the cast as being from a hominid is being presented as if it is scientific, as if it is based on scientific grounds, and as if it were a scientific conclusion. If those presenting this don't claim to be scientists, then their interpretations shouldn't be claimed to be based on scientific grounds or considered to have any scientific weight...is this unfair?
I can't show up for a brain operation, present my opinion, make a hash out of someone's frontal cortex and then say that I never claimed I was a brain surgeon...it'd be somehow wrong.
...and the last half of your statement I find sadly true and oddly disquieting.

I hope no one here was thinking and Elk or Bigfoot has only one way to lay down and get up, im sure there are a 100 variations as to how the two might do it. Like i said an elk wont take directions so do the roll your self's. Also i gotta tell ya i have spent many hours trying to get close tot he elk heards here so i can observe them up close, man they are hard to get up on and once they see you they are gone. Not like deer, you can just about walk up to them and feen em a apple.

You could if you stayed in a Holiday Inn.



I guess it's in how you view the purpose of this forum.



Me too.

I understand I am starting to sound like a broken record on this issue.

The picture I posted below - I would like you to pay attention to the imprint of the, in your words "Knee" I have circled in yellow.

Is it your opinion this knee is under the body of this "Elk" or directly beside it?

That is not a knee or a joint. It is part of a hoof slippage into a hole. It was slipped into twice from different directions. Most likely an ungulate tested the material trying to get to food maybe?, slipped twice from different directions and either found better footing or gave up. Probably the former since there are other tracks in line. Was someone thinking that was a joint of some kind?

Well, unless I am interpreting his sketch wrong -- I am thinking DY is calling that impression circled in yellow an "Elk Knee" ??

Is that wrong? Am I looking at the wrong spot?

Edited to add -- sorry DY is calling them Wrists

You missed the point, in more ways than one. Your line misses the top of the tendon.

I don't think you're looking at the wrong spot.



But it's okay to just use copies of casts.

Thank you LAL...

Ok, if thats not an "Elk wrist" as DY sketched -- and its actually slippage from an elk, does that create an issue for the sketch by DY?

Im not an "expert" as has been noted many times, so I just thought I would ask that question :wink:

What makes me think we wouldn't have survived long in his class?

The line actually points to the knee.

DDA, you da man.

Cue chorus: "But how do you know it's slippage?"

Before someone else catchs this, its not actually in yellow. It's below that, but it's clearly outlined.

We ask too many questions LAL - :laugh:

I've figured out the problem here. You people are FUGGING NUTS! You want it both ways - whatever the situation demands. And no this forum is not a 'scientific proving ground' NOR am I aware that it has ever been mis-used by someone as such, but if I've read it once I've read it a million times ON THIS VERY FORUM that "we have to have 'scientific proof', we need to go about this 'scientifically', can it be proven by 'science'...science science science blah blah blah". Now all of a sudden it doesn't have anything to do with science because "it's not in the proper form and forum"..? All manner of supposed 'expert scientific opinion' about the Skookum Cast™ gets thrown all about the place as if it's all TRUE, yet when a real 'scientist' shows up and rebutts some of those MISTAKEN notions, all of a sudden it's not a scientific forum nor is it the place to discuss them intelligently? WHEW! It appears he's not only confounded some you people's original 'beliefs' about the thing, you've actually taken it personally that he had the b*lls to seemingly 'insult your intelligence' by telling you something you didn't want to hear. Above, HairyMan asks for this stuff to be all-in-one-place "like say, a publication" - an allusion to the notion DY is not legitimate nor should he be taken seriously UNTIL he's 'published' it somewhere. Forgetting of course he virtually published it right HERE on this forum. Of course it was in a less-than-formal format blah blah blah...but wait, that's what she just said this place was about, a less formal and certainly non-scientific arena.

Earlier today DY asked NOT for 'some expert's paper' that concludes it was Bigfoot™ - he asked to see the intelligent REFUTATION (whether in a 'paper' or not) of it being an ELK LAY. With so many experts that were a part of this, and after counteless hours of study, shouldn't such a thing exist? That was the accepted fact wasn't it? That it was NOT an elk lay? That should be so old news as to have copies of it readily available in the 'Standard Bigfoot Forms Bin' so anyone seeking its contents can have it for hardly the price of a soda. No, this isn't about science nor whether DY is right or wrong NEAR AS MUCH as it's about a certain group people worrying what their reputations will be in the fallout. Sadly, if they actually had the open mind they supposedly have, they'd have seen immediately that all the 'conjecture and supposition' about the cast was officially in the past the minute DY announced his legitimate and expert opinion on it and his intention to pursue it to its own scientific ends. The bottom line is this, if DY is right, and I do think he is, the likes of Meldrum, Fish (he's deceased I know) and a host of others will look like s**t (at least to the BF community) and they know it. Oh and I highly doubt Meldrum will deliberately address 'refuting' the 'elk lay' scenario in his upcoming book.

IMHO.

"Harry"

Did I miss something in Hairyman's post? I took it to mean exactly the opposite.

There are no two ways about it. This board is not a scientific forum and although scientific information can be presented here, it is not a place that scientists are going to visit to get information. When you have scientific material, you present it to scientists in an acceptable format. That's not all of a sudden, that's the way it's always been.



I neither said nor inferred anything of the sort.



You must have not read that DY is NOT presenting all this information here. DY has clearly stated, and can again state, that he cannot release all the info in the publication prior to the publication. So therefore, all the info is not here. You'll be happy to note, however, that I have agreed to review his paper for him prior to its submission to the publisher.



Wow. I see you still have the lovely personality that I remember.



No maxx, you got it right. I have no idea why Harry misread it, but somehow I doubt I'll get an apology.

It all just seems so silly. Does self-publishing count, I wonder?

According to Desertyeti, the feature I have circled on the cast copy represents the distal portion of the rearmost hoof of an elk, with the plantar surface of the hoof in contact with the substrate and the hoof oriented in the correct direction.

According to the graphic prepared by Colobus, this feature, which he has labeled "contact point", represents the hand of a putative Sasquatch.

Surely we can differentiate a hand from a hoof, can't we? Which is it guys?

Note that Colobus' graphic cannot be rotated to superimpose over the cast copy. Thus he reflected the image in order to show his interpretation of right and left on the putative Sasquatch. In the original graphic, note that Rick Noll's signature and date is reversed. The image still retains the same information in the z axis (proud features and depressions) and I think this may be leading to some confusion with regards to the "on or off axis" of the putative leg and heel positions.

The comments made here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=335300 are therefore somewhat misguided.

I feel the same frustration as Harry. Everyone wants scientific analysis to prove that bigfoot exists but won't even look at anything that refutes a piece of evidence, especially if it involves something involved in LMS. All I see is excuses and posturing.
I thought that's what everyone wanted, a serious look at the evidence. Maybe what everyone really means is a serious look as long as it supports the Bigfoot theory, otherwise forget it.

I want to know the truth, and I don't understand why this would be such a tragic loss if the original analysis were proven to be wrong. I don't even know which analysis is being argued here.... the original that was first brought to our attention, illustrated by Pete Travers and attempted by Brian Smith or the new theory presented by Colobus at the beginning of this thread, it seems to go back and forth.

The name of this thread is The Official Skookum Cast Analysis Thread and therefore is most certainly the place to expect a detailed analysis by the involved paties since they where the principals involved in it's inception. It seems like Rick is more concerned, in his infrequent and well excused posts, in posturing and not explaining himself well and Colobus is MIA.

I want to know the truth and if the additude is that I am somehow not deserving of simple explanations then I guess I'll go with the one that is willing to explain his position...meaning DY.

Click to view attachment


Where's the rest of these pictures? Anyone care to post a few more?

It's certainly easier to replicate the skookum cast experiment than it is to obtain additional Mars meteorites, and I'm not even sure how one would devise a repeatable experiment to discover new planets or pyramids. In all your examples however, the discovered object was the object itself, not the imprint left behind by the meteorite/planet/pyramid, so your analogies are false. Are 'discoveries' published prematurely? Absolutely, and that's why I specifically mentioned Pons and Fleischmann. Is replication possible with the Skookum cast? Absolutely, but apparently it hasn't been attempted.

Note: I wasn't suggesting that the reason for rejection was caused by lack of replication. I was suggesting that a possible reason for non-submission, was the lack of replication. If the experiment cannot or has not been replicated, could it be because the original hypothesis (the imprint was caused by a squatch) is so very weak to begin with?



Back in 2000 the BFRO was still considered the creme de la creme of bigfoot organizations. Then, and to this day, they promote themselves as a 'scientific' organization, with scientific members, though there's very little that's scientific about their procedures, experiments, results, or pronouncements. (That's been fairly evident for quite sometime). However, since 2000, when this scientific organization known as the BFRO went on an expedition and found what was called "significant and compelling new evidence", neither the BFRO, nor any of the scientists who studied the cast, nor any of the people promoting it as a squatchprint, have done anything to replicate the experiment, thereby providing further proof that a large, bipedal humanoid prowls the PNW. (I'm not talking about people videotaped doing the 'Skookum Roll' either. I'm talking about providing a similar environment and experimental settings, in a similar location, for another buttprint by a suspected squatch. Maybe this time catching it on film). If it worked once, why wouldn't it work again?



How would publication in a book carry as much weight as publication in a scientific journal?

RayG

Hoo boy. Colobus gives us drawings and explanations, DDA gives us a point by point list of his conclusions from first hand examination of the imprint itself and years of study on the original cast and information on an area that's been mistaken for a joint (and both have posted volumes on other threads)..............now read the opponents' posts.

I can't even get an answer to a simple question that has to do with the purported elk getting out of the purported position without making a purported mess.

The pro side has the evidence and has defended itself on the elk issue from the get-go. But those who want to see elk will see elk, just as those who see guy-in-a-suit will see guy-in-a-suit, no matter what.

:icon_bang: :icon_bang_flip:

Rick posturing? I wouldn't be surprised if he's posturing with raised finger right now. Both he and colobus just might have more important things to do than to post on this board.

I certainly hope so.

I do not see my comments as "posturing" I see them as asking questions, so that I may understand what DY is talking about. It may have become tense between him and I, but who likes to have their questions met with sarcasm and ridicule? This is DY's theory and his work, he should be prepared to answer any and all questions - he did ask for commentary and debate. I will be the first to admit, and have said many, many times - I think DY's work should continue. This theory has been floated and discussed for a while now and its my opinion the conversation should be had... With both sides being heard. I do not think DY is being treated any worse than anyone else who has stepped forward to offer a theory - he is calling himself an expert, well - this is what experts do. And, I might add -- an expert is only as good as his last opinion.



What makes you think we all dont want the truth? You think because I or others ask tough questions of DY - we are not after the truth as well? Speaking for myself, I think you and DY misunderstand my position in this, and I for one can not make it any clearer -- I simply want a fair look at this Cast, and whatever the outcome - so be it, but I wont follow blindly simply because someone tells me "because I said so, and Im an expert".



In this one thread - I have seen more "posturing" and it certainly hasnt been from DDA or Colobus. Colobus being MIA in your opinion is no consequence to me - he doesnt punch a time clock here.



Stand in line Blackdog - I know Im waiting for answers that will never come - until the almighty paper is published. I guess Im kinda surprised you would back something that is unfinished. Why would anyone back information in an unfinished version?

Do you detect a strange silence concerning the knee that became a wrist that isn't even a joint?

ahh yep, and a quick change of topic as well

There you go, we agree on something !! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:



Oh, wait ! You mean DY's version ...


Nevermind... Sorry ... :icon_redface:

Do you suppose we'll get to do another diversion on "hero-worship"? Again?

Thought I'd post bipto's one-man thread on the cast threads:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...hl=Skookum+Cast

Some people may have missed it.

I'm not perceiving a great deal of difference between the texture claimed to be "dermal ridges" and the texture seen here in the impressed substrate, assumed to be made by an animal's hair.

What great and profound subtlety am I missing?

Well, not seeing it in person, in my opinion, makes it very difficult to make a decision one way or the other. I can see where one person might think hair, and someone else might think this is possibly "dermal ridges" - who knows what skin would be like on an animal such as this -- that has no foot protection and subject to the elements 365 days a year.

This is why I would personally want to see the Original Cast.... But, I am happy to defer to those who have until then.

A lot less strange than the silence about the details of the rejection of the paper submitted
by Swindler and Meldrum .. That question was asked over three weeks ago...


Oh, and there's always this :



Who in your opinion does punch a clock here, and is required to repond to you in a timely manner ?

"When the cast was being examined in depth the first year after it was found, it became clear to those involved that elk had to be looked at as a possible candidate for the maker of the impressions. The challenge internally was to "prove" that it was not an elk that made the impression, as it was recognized that that was the first thing people would suspect. The videos referenced above were just a small part of the effort that went into examining elk as candidates. Other things looked at included:

Size, length of long bones, joint sizes and shapes.
Hair flow patterns on elks ( and other large mammals in the area)
Elk habits in regards to laying down, bedding, wallowing, and standing-up.
Elk urination habits (generally they urinate near or on the area they have bedded down on).

Elks were observed in the wild, on farms, and in zoos. Elk and deer body impressions were examined and photographed. A heel cast made from the larger Skookum cast was shown to a zoo curator who maintained the elk at a large metropolitan zoo. This professional was adament that the cast he was shown was not made by any portion of an elk's anatomy.

In all aspects of the investigating of elk, it was found that:

1) The size was wrong.
2) The shape of the impression itself was wrong.
3) The "heel impressions" of the Skookum cast were much larger, more deeply impressed, and the wrong shape to be from and elk. (They were in fact the exactly "right" shape for a bipedal primate however).
4) The hair flow pattern found on the cast could not have been impressed by an elk unless the animal had repeatedly (4x) got up and selectively impressed certain portions of its anatomy overlapping each other, without ever leaving tracks when it stood.

The elk tracks found in the Skookum cast are those of animals "in transit", and not those of an individual standing-up. On the cast there are also tracks from Black-tailed deer and coyote.

In addition to the above stated enquiry, the cast has also been looked at by many noted scientists very well versed in ungulate morphology, and none of them are of the opinion that elk were maker of the impressions found in the cast.

So rest assured - elk did not make the impressions found in the Skookum Cast." - colobus

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3251

I invite everyone to compare the feature Colobus dubbed "Contact Point" in his #2 graphic with the corresponding feature seen in the large image of the male cast copy seen here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=15569&st=0

I absolutely can't see it as a hand.

I absolutely can't see it as anything but an ungulate leg and hoof.

Though I'm not the one promoting this cast as either Sasquatch or elk, I must say that today was something of an epiphany for me, at least as far as being interested in Bigfoot goes. I find myself rather profoundly disillusioned.

Well, you if you want to be snotty :wink:

Any possibility it's both slippage and an elk wrist? If the slippage was "into a hole", might not the hole have been caused by an elk's wrist, and the slippage by the same elk getting to its feet?

Both DDA and colobus have confirmed there are elk tracks within the imprint, in what appears to be a logical location for an elk getting to its feet (at least for the front legs), yet some other people claim there are no such elk tracks within the imprint, that forklifts were used, etc. etc.

Don't elk tracks within the imprint support DY's assertion that there are tracks in the imprint, possibly from an elk getting to its feet? Is the location of the elk tracks so far off, facing the wrong direction, etc., to exclude them as possibly resulting from an elk getting to its feet?

RayG

And answered to some degree. Can't publish on an impression.

BTW, the middle paper on the molecular clock containing the data that showed it works where it works was rejected by Science although it eagerly accepted papers 1 & 3. The reason was it contained nothing "new and important". (Lewin, Bones of Contention)

Speaking of silence, you still haven't shown me that post where you "already" sourced it, as you claimed. Not strange if I consider there was no such post on this board.

Im sorry Ray, maybe I wasnt clear enough. My question is this -- I do see elk prints within the impression, that I have no doubt about. But, knowing how Elk, Deer etc get into a standing position from sitting or laying, there should be elk tracks in the body of the elk impression.. Elk need to use their front legs to push up, so why do I not see elk tracks?? DY says the elk rolled, ok - well, then explain the detail in the impression as fine as hair? Think about the weight of this animal - and how destructive rolling in the mud to stand, would be to details as fine as hair.... Just because we see Elk prints in the impression does not confirm anything --- I can also see coyote prints, and DY isnt saying its a coyote impression.

The remark about the Forklift was in jest - Maybe the elk had help standing lmao



No, not that I have observed. But, of course DY says this is an unfinished Sketch - he can not post the finished version because that is top secret scientific paper publishing stuff. Close enough is not good enough - at least it shouldnt be.

Didn't I read somewhere that elk was dismissed early on ? Maybe at the site itself ?



Why did it become clear that Elk had to be eliminated when they were already sure it was Sas ?


Nor do I feel inclined to...

Did you ever visit the ' Puzzles ' forum at JREF ?

No, it wasn't answered... A simple " none of your business " would have sufficed...

... And would have told me all I need to know.. No more than the silence, though .

Thanks for the strawmen... You have those out of the way for today...

No one claimed a forklift was used.

DDA explained how the slippage came about with an elk approaching the mudhole and then backing off.

From the direction of the slippage its evident it couldn't have been caused by the same elk getting to its feet from that position. DY has repeatedly posted the photo with the line pointing to this feature as corresponding to the folded knee. The animal would have had to somehow raise the leg to the side, stand and slip and get its hoof pointed perpendicular to the lower leg, all without leaving prints of the hind feet under the body.

Yes, I know there's a photo of an elk with a raised foreleg, but try to imagine that leg going through the motions I just described.

I can't see it as the same point.

As to ridges vs. hair, the thing that stands out for me is the texture. The hair flows, the ridges kind of lump. Is that what's referred to as dysplasia?

While the drawings provided by colobus are imaginative, they don't seem entirely accurate, and since no squatch was sighted doing its mud-roll, his explanations amount to large doses of speculation.

DDA's list of conclusions is interesting as well, but I'd rather see the list of conclusions arrived at by the scientists who've actually examined the cast.



Check out my previous post. If the slippage tracks are facing the right direction, that seems to provide a viable answer.



That applies equally to both sides of the argument.

RayG

Read the field notes.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm

Elk track were noted. Also coyote and Black-tailed Deer.



It was necessary to rule out everything else it could possibly be, including multiple impressions.



I doesn't come up on a search of this board because it isn't there, right?


No. Is that where you posted your source?

Well, if that is slippage as DDA says, then DY has a problem - he is calling that "slippage" an Elk wrist... So, Now what? If that is "slippage", where is the actual wrist then, or hell the entire leg - Elk do have 2 front legs.

And, you cant say its from the Elk standing up -- because there should be a corresponding elk track near the other Knee or wrist, at the minimum -- and possibly a little slippage on the other front foot as the Elk attempted to steady itself.... and I dont see that.

Unless I totally misunderstood something..

You'll note the two head-bashing smilies.

The slippage prints are facing into the imprint.

The drawings seem to give a good idea of the proposed sequence of events. If someone had seen the animal in the mudhole, it wouldn't really help the case because the person could have been hallucinating, misidentifying, drinking, etc., etc.. Now if someone had shot the animal in the mudhole, there might be a chance.

Scientists such as Swindler and Sarmiento stating conclusions on LMS don't count because they're not written down in a list? I'd like the names and addresses and phone #s of everyone who's ever seen the cast, but I doubt I'll see them on a message board.

DDA examined the original imprint. The only "scientist" who did was the late Dr. Fish. He at least left an article. Unless Derek Randalls wants to post, we're stuck with DDA. :laugh:

I forgot to mention DDA gave us a gorilla movie as well. (I think I'll try again to play it. Maybe I found the right plug-in.)

These guys have spent years on this and have provided us with tons of information. DY took some photos of a copy, started writing a paper, and got a major point wrong. The whole argument about the width of the chest and the angle of the forelegs and the distance between the hooves falls apart because that's not a knee or wrist print.

Shades of Mary Leaky's chisel.

Ok, not a claim, but rather a mixture of suggestion, question, and jest (with some sarcasm stirred in).



It obviously couldn't have been a forklift as no forklift tracks were found (no squatch tracks either for that matter). :wink:



Were the slippage tracks clear enough to make a direction determination? Any possibility DDA was mistaken? What say the scientists who did a detailed examination of the cast? Any chance we'll see the list of conclusions from them?

RayG