I wouldnt be so sure about that,, it would appear the Elk population in the state of Washington are pretty damned resourceful :wink:

Ah, but I didn't rule out helicopters, only forklifts. :laugh:

Edit to add:

IIRC, there was mention earlier of the lack of an imprint from the tail of an elk, suggesting that this was further evidence the print was caused by a squatch and not an elk. These two images show it's not necessary for there to be a tail imprint when an elk is lying down.

In another post, again IIRC, it was suggested that a supposed elk imprint should not show front legs angled out (or in I presume). In this image however, the elk on the far left appears to have its elbow pointing out and its wrist pointing in at an angle. (unless it's just an illusion)

RayG

Im NOT having a "Black Helicopter" conversation -- NO WAY JOSE - I draw the line there... :laugh:

Let's just say you missed my point...by a mile. :new_whistle:

I do apologize for being presumptuous on that one. :wink:

Just for the record, I personally don't even need anymore info. I'm not only willing to believe he's correct, but also that whatever he does submit will come out 'smelling like a rose' in whatever circle of peer and/or scientific review. I'm sure the cast will forever be thought of as possibly Bigfoot™ , but he's nailed the coffin shut already in my opinion. I'm not so sure the thing needs or even deserves a whole bunch more science 'done' to it. DY's opinion, while possibly not to your liking, actually holds a lot of weight, even if it's said 'off the record' so-to-speak. Well that coupled with the fact it really does look like an elk lay. And I can't say I've ever seen one 'up close and personal' like. But somebody who has, DY, tells us that's what it looks like. He's got a PhD. in the study of 'trace fossil evidence', the study of what an organism left behind including its tracks and impressions. If he can determine where and what some million year old worm left behind, I'm guessin' he possesses enough knowledge, experience and savvy so as to be able to establish what is and what isn't an 'elk lay' i.e. 'what an elk left behind'. And/or the wisdom to not say something of this sort if he didn't absolutely believe it. And since I'm assuming he won't change his story in the 'final report', I'm fine with it as it is.

Hey now. Wait. What? What did I do? :wink: For better or worse, everyone that knows me loves me (well either that or they think I'm the scum of the earth). No really, they do. Yeah I know...baffles even me, and I'm supposedly the smartest sum-bitch I know. :laugh: Sadly this board allows neither the inflection or the tone of a conversation to come through. I know we'd not be 'arguing' in person at some Bigfoot Roundup Thang™, we'd all just be talkin' and jokin' and laughin' at how in the hell the Skookum Cast™ was ever considered to be Bigfoot™ related. :laugh:

Okay that's your second incorrect presumption about me. We're even. And see apology above. :wink:

"Harry"

Thank you for posting that picture -- but would you not agree, that if DY's Elk, sitting in mud, on its "wrists" would have left an impression in the mud, or at the minimum a deep impression of some kind?

Remember, this is a heavy animal with its body on its "wrist" sitting in a soft substrate.

So much information in fact that had it not been for DY doing his 'drive-by analysis that destroyed all previous dogma on the matter', they might have actually been only a few short years away from coming up with a final conclusion. Maybe. :laugh:

I looked up the post and I don't see anything more from colobus after that. (I didn't search the whole thread.) He may have not seen the post. I suppose you tried PMing him rather than just assuming he's ignoring your questions. He was very helpful and pleasant to me when I PMd him.

I said it was answered to some degree. I was surprised to learn there was an abstract submitted. I didn't know that.

I remembered a discussion on the rejection after that, but it wasn't with colobus. I should have looked up the post earlier, but I wasn't sure how far back it was. That's hardly a strawman. I'm sure Meldrum would have the rejection notice in his files. He may be reachable by e-mail now that school's starting.

Your continuing insults make you appear immature and not very bright. Perhaps that's why some people might tend to ignore you, if that's what's going on.

DY drove by and mistook a slippage for an elk knee/wrist. I'm certain this will be clarified in the final paper.

It appears most of the work was done in the first year, an abstract submitted, a presentation made, a cast hauled around in the back of Rick's truck so it could be seen............... Did you read colobus' post on the perils of trying to duplicate it?

So DY looks at the copies, takes some pictures and begins the reformation.

Cliff Crook and son said elk without even seeing the cast. Do they get a prize for that?

I can understand that not having a viable answer might make one feel insulted, and throw out
a few insults in turn..... And I'm not talking about Colobus either..

Carry on ... You are doing an excellent job of showing how shallow your position is...

I'd say it's in better shape than your credibility right now, but that's just me. A viable answer to what?

Your source didn't seem to support your version of what he said. It's always nice to hear from the source itself.

I didn't claim that Brian Smith was able to do the Skookum roll without leaving hand or footprints. I was accidently right that he attempted the Skookum roll. Since he left a footprint in the heel area and there's a possible footprint in the same area in the cast, if I'm getting that located correctly, it seems he came quite close even to the footprint. An 8' male with superior strength and an IM index between 80 and 90 might be better able to do the roll than we.

Probably about the same proportion of people that like their explanations met with sarcasm and ridicule.



And that should be the attitude, whether it pertains to the Skookum cast being an elk or a squatch.



What about the almighty paper from the other scientists who examined the cast? You know, the ones that are pretty certain it was created by a squatch.



Isn't that all we have so far, from anyone?

RayG

I don't see where DY answered this:

"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." - DDA

Does this mean it's impossible to scan the picture and post it on the board? Am I spared the expense of having to buy the book? Has anyone commented on this? Did I "miss something" again?

. . . thus illustrating one of the things most wrong with bigfootery.

When someone gets involved in this phenomenon, they are confronted with:

*footprints with dermal ridges prove bigfoot is real, 'cause Jimmy Chilcutt said so.

*weird noises recorded in the woods prove bigfoot is real, 'cause they're really loud and creepy.

*the Skookum Cast proves bigfoot is real 'cause nothing else could make an impression like that.

*the Patterson/Gimlin film proves bigfoot is real 'cause no one could make a suit like that in the 1960s.


So when it's demonstrated that casting artifacts can make ridges, coyotes do the bigfoot "moan", an elk is actually a better match for the cast, and it was indeed possible to make "Patty" with 60's technology and materials, it can seem that the whole house of cards is crumbling.

But that's only the case if we accept these oddities as strong evidence for bigfoot in the first place. Why should we? Are there papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals that in each of the cases above refute all possibilities other than that the subject in question had to have been a previously undescribed bipedal, hairy primate? If there are, I ain't seen 'em.

But there are still lots of reported eyewitness encounters with creatures like this, and the explanations as to why can be unsatisfying: the witnesses are lying, mistaken, or outright hallucinating. THAT'S the phenomenon we need to be investigating - the real bigfoot story. All of this other stuff is just that - stuff. Publish it and we can access it like any other scientific information. But until you publish it, it is not part of the scientific discourse, and it should not have a significant bearing on our "belief" in sasquatch.

In my opinion, each of the four cases I listed above has been shot down, or at least thoroughly riddled with holes. So what? I'm no more skeptical now because of it. But as we keep going back and forth over esoteric phenomena like an alleged "body cast" of a sasquatch rolling in a mud hole on the side of a road in an effort to collect a few apples, people are still claiming to see the $%%$ things . . .

I apologize, truly!

Is there some kind of law that says you must publish a paper on anything you find immediately? This has been discussed. If Dr. Meldrum, Colobus, DDA or anyone else have not or never do publish a word on this - thats their decision to make, not mine. No one is holding a gun to DY's head making him publish anything either.





Yes it is. But, what I was refering to was, the work provided by DY to date is not the full version of his work. Remember he can not publish the entire paper on this message board- so, who knows whats in the entire paper for publication. Did DY already submit his paper for publication? If so, what about the newest revelation since yesterday?

Question, does his sketch for publication, reflect the latest information on what he was calling a "wrist" but is now known to be slippage by an ungulate? Wouldnt you say there is an issue if there is a missing leg? Where is it? Or did the enitre leg magically float above the ground as DY says the hoof did - so as to not make an impression in the mud?? This is a simple test for anyone -- and really is common sense. Go plant your backside in some mud - now, bend a knee and tell me if you see an imprint of some kind in the mud where your foot is. There should be something -- maybe not a detailed impression of the bottom of your shoe but at the minimum you should see where the mud is pushed or your shoe has dug down into the mud. Now, tell me how this wouldnt happen to an Elk or any other animal that sits in mud. Granted the surface area of your shoe is much larger than that of an Elks hoof - but remember there is still body weight applied to that hoof, and that would force the hoof into the mud. I should see depressions in the mud where the Elk hooves should be as DY's Elk sat, I do not - and that creates questions for me, questions I can not get answers to.

I have asked DY why there are no Elk prints to show his Elk stood up from this seated position - DY's response was simply that the "Elk Rolled" ummmm ok - now he has another issue to contend with.. How did the detail of the hair impressed into the mud remain during the full body roll of this Elk to get into the standing position?

If DY was not prepared to answer questions, why did he post anything? What am I missing? I shouldnt be allowed to ask him questions, based on his work, he asked for opinions and debate on? Did I miss a rule change on this board?

I dont know with any certainty what made this impression - I am however trying to figure it out, just like everyone else. If DY cant handle the questions here without being sarcastic, how is he going to handle the criticism or questioning from his peers?


LAL - DY said he wouldnt respond to DDA's remarks about this book or its writer, as it was more commentary on the person and his work - or something like that... He blew that off.

In fact, Chilcutt has noted the difference in shape between artifact ridges and dermal ridges. The artifacts in the Onion Mountain cast (of which a copy survives) were caused by a wicking effect. This doesn't happen in mud.



Unfortunately those atypical sounds weren't recorded for comparison with other recorded purported Sasquatch calls. I've heard two screams within seconds of each other but separated by some distance. They sounded like purported recorded Sasquatch howls, but I can't rule out elk, coyote or even cow. How can I be sure I even remember them correctly?

The Tahoe calls got responses at Skookum Meadows in 2000. An animal approached the call blasting within 100' of two individuals stationed on Ridgetop. It screamed back as though ticked off it had been fooled. And then the coyotes chimed in.

There was a sighting in the area in 2003 by a retired wildife officer who pointed a gun at the animal. He said, "If you're a man in a suit, you'd better identify yourself." It didn't. Rick suggested it didn't speak English. :wink:



There were prints of elk, deer and coyote. Elk seems to be no match at all in key areas.



Using prosthetics to duplicate those proportions? Still waiting for the new "Patty". :popcorn2:



House built on a rock foundation, it will stand, oh yes.



Yep.

I thought the author's work terrific but did not contain enough on the subject matter I was investigating. The pictures I have obtained of animal beds go far beyond the author's work... therefore I suspect the author really didn't investigate it much... just like George Schaller stated when looking at the Skookum Cast. George wrote a book on African ungulates some here may know and stated that the cast did not look like an impression of an ungulate. The details he looked at such as the arm and heel looked primate to him as well. There may have been some leading information since the meeting was set up by John Green in Vancouver BC. I drove the cast there with Dr. LeRoy Fish... our last trip together.

LeRoy and I also attended a two day hunters show where at least 100 elk, deer and bear hunters saw the original cast and they said it did not look like elk to them... took them awhile to orient themselves to it though.

My understanding about DY's paper is that this is just a small part of it. Am I wrong or is the paper solely on the cast?

This was an excellent post and sums the feelings a lot of us have. I did not get interested in Bigfoot because the footprints or recorded noises. It was the eye witness accounts from 100's of people all over the world. There is no way these people could be mistakingly describing the same thing over centuries. There is an established oral tradition raging from Native North Americans to the Sherpas in the Himalayas. The stories are overwhelmingly in favor of the existance of such an animal. There are many things in this world yet to be discovered. I happen to believe Sasquatch is one of them, but not based on any of the evidence saskeptic listed above. The casts and recording are neat and may even add to the over-all picture, but please do not pull all you hopes behind them. Don't forget what makes this phenomenon truly interesting, the people who claim to have seen it.

Where one only needs to suspend disbelief. Fitting. Conclusions fly both ways it seems.

I have a question about submitting material for publication in scientific journals, etc.

Can a person submit just anything for review? What is bothering me right now is the idea that DY is, perhaps, going to submit his theory/study for possible publication. Assuming he is correct, what is so special about a study that shows an impression in the mud as being an impression of an elk? Elk aren't supposed to be rare or extinct, so what is it about this theory/study that would make it a candidate to be published?

I can understand if the impression was already accepted in scientific circles as being that of a rare or new species such as a Bf and has been represented as such in a scientific journal, but, if I understand correctly, that is not the case.

Can any of you, knowledgeable in this process shed some light on this?

It makes no difference to me if DY can or does submit or not, I'm just curious.

Its my understanding his paper is on the Cast... If thats wrong, DY or someone can correct me.. I do believe however that is his plan.

Kind of a non-answer, wasn't it? He chided us for not checking his references, but if we had, we wouldn't have found the pictures..............I guess he thought no one would check. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

(Having just spent $75.00 + tax on a lousy paperback textbook with no color pictures, I'm anti-references right now. Geez, I could have bought two Murphy's and a Meldrum for that. )

DDA, thanks for filling us in on all this. To me, you're the next best thing to being there.

I think DYs paper is just on the cast; i.e. the copies he saw. That's the impression I get anyway. And he plans to submit it to Ichnos. Have any ichnologists examined the original cast yet?

LAL, I just read this in your signature line.....

DY said that?? :doh: I would love to see that thread. Yeah, imagine my surprise :laugh:

Bigfoot Spin Doctors™


:smile:

No spin about it -- These are DY's own words :wink:

I repeat - an "Expert" is only as good as his last opinion.

No doubt. ..
No reason that it can’t fly and make itself invisible either.
When you are making stuff up, anything goes..

:doh: You might want to check this thread too, the one where DY told us:





Exactly what is it about his words that you find so surprising? I don't follow.

I get the impression you (and others) think DY only examined photographs of the cast. That's a myth you're helping to perpetuate, and going back and re-reading his original report quickly dispells that myth.

RayG

Are you serious? In that Quote by DY - he acknowledges the necessity of examining ORIGINALS - not duplicates, not pictures and not sketches. Now, its ok to change his mind?? He did not ask to, nor did he examine the Original Skookum Cast.

He infact attempted to belittle me for insisting the examination of the originals is important. DY is free to examine whatever he wishes, I will adjust my opinion of his work accordingly.



Had he examined the Original Skookum Cast or had discussions with DDA or Colobus, his misinterpretation of the "wrist" which is noted by DDA as slippage by an elk - may have been discovered earlier. I can not be any clearer about this fact -- DY DID NOT compare anything to the Original - he compared his work to COPIES of the original.

Did you miss the .. " you should be careful .. " part ?

Any idea what that means ?

Here's a little help ..

It doesn't mean " You should not, ever .. "

Nothing like wanna' be profound sig lines, whose sole purpose is to ridicule and poke fun ...
Saves the trouble of using ad hom in your discussion when you have nothing else to contribute..


Oh, wait there is something like it.. Someone else who thinks it's cute...

And this is your contribution? Why dont you address the issues raised? Discuss how "slippage" is the wrist of an elk SG.. I would love to hear how you feel about this. What is your opinion? How did you reach this conclusion.

Contribute a comment that moves the conversation forward - to reach a logical conclusion. I wont respond to anymore of your petty attacks.

Edited to add -- "Should" obviously only applies when it suits the person... JMO

DY said..


you said...

WHAT?? how did you get that from...what he said?? my brain is crying and has threatend to leave me if I don't stop the torture that is this thread.

This thread has to be the best example of how just about anything can be twisted to fit ones own agenda. Please tell me where in that quote did DY say anything about how one must view originals. I've read it at least 10 times, and I see nothing that even remotely alludes to that conclusion. He infact does say exactly the opposite by saying "you should be careful to use the actual specimens "or casts,". DY has stated many many many times that the original was not feasible option to be studied so he looked at the next best thing...a cast..which he and most of the scientific world consider just as viable...if not better than the original. And your quote only proves that he has held that belief for over 2 years..lol...amazing.

maxx keep reading -

Then go back and re-read DY's comments to me. You might be surprised.

No he didn't he said:

(bold and underline mine)

I think that quote was taken out of context. It was in another discussion with LAL.


Jeez Mel it sounds like you two are trying your best to discedit DY the person not his presentation of evidence.
I can understand you misreading the quote but LAL knew exactly what it was about.

I wasn't referring to DY. :laugh:

Is that what you think? No, my comments are directly about his work presented here. Nothing more nothing less. I would however like to hear your thoughts on the misinterpretation of the "wrist".

Any thoughts?

edited to add



Emphesis mine -- and he is right, any investigator will tell you to go for the ACTUAL cast - meaning the Original. Not a duplicate and not a picture or a sketch. Seems very clear to me.

Quite.



Re-read what he actually said and not what you think he said. Nowhere does he say it's necessary to examine the ORGINAL. He says,



You seem to be ignoring the bolded bit.



He didn't change his mind, nor did he say anywhere that it was necessary to examine the original cast. He may have preferred to do so, but as he has already stated, it isn't necessary. DY examined the cast and counterslab of the “Skookum Cast” in detail, and for some reason this is being spun into a claim that it's necessary for him to examine the ORINGAL -- a claim DY never made.



Just because YOU think it's necessary for an expert to examine the original, doesn't mean the expert thinks that way. The FBI doesn't have actual fingers in their database, nor do they even have casts of those fingers, they have fingerprints in their database.



You seem to have a very low opinion of his level of expertise on the materials in question.



And that's why I asked whether it's possible that DDA was mistaken in his conclusion regarding the slippage. I'm certainly not saying he WAS mistaken, just asking if it's possible. I have no expertise in matters such as this, so I leave it up to the experts. When provided a cast of an animal, and given a choice between someone who is a trained and recognized Ichnologist, and someone who is a trained and recognized Tooling Metrologist, I have to pick the one with the more relevant area of expertise -- the icky guy.

Unless someone actually bags a big hairy critter. :wink:

RayG

No matter how I read. I just can't make be anything other than what it is. Which is just a re-itteration of what he's been saying for ..well 2 years at least. The original is great, a cast is just as great. Pictures are not sufficient, but can aid study when used in conjunction with the original or a cast. Thats it. It says nothing more or less.

Sure, just because Rick said so doesn't make it so. Where is his proof?
Other than that, DY could be wrong about that particular impression and still not be wrong about the whole thing being an elk. Hell the original thought about the postion of the bigfoot has now been changed by Colobus, doesn't that mean they were wrong at first? But for some reason in some peoples eyes it's still a bigfoot.
I get the feeling you are taking this way too personal (I know I've said that before) and I don't know why, the BF world won't end if this isn't a BF.

Alright, first of all the reference to Tim White in DY's comments about casts takes the background behind what Tim White was referring to. Tim White was one of the few people who worked on the Laetoli tracks, and there was tons of material wriiten about tracks by people who had only studied the casts. Casts wouldn't help a person to see the color of the different strata to see if what they interpreted as foot morphology was instead an uncleanded piece of strata, or a mistake such as a chisel digging into the footprint. So in effect studying ANY cast is not as preferrable as studying the original print IN THE GROUND. That is what DY was referring to, but failing that a cast is much better than a photo.

But let's say that studying a copy of a cast is unscientific or discredits an analysis. Let's hold the rest of the evidence to the same standard.

Meldrum's entire theory of a midtarsal break in bipedal hominids is based on copies of casts. The ridge flow pattern Jimmy Chilcutt theorizes is said to be based on a copy of a cast. How many of those casts he studied in Meldrum's collection are copies of casts?

Care to apply the same arguments and statements to Meldrum and Chilcutt? Anybody?

This is where I come in. Does anyone even know what a metrologist is? How about daily looking, examining and measuring male and female surfaces of the same thing to sub micron precision? No it is not checking the weather forecast. I measure things properly in reverse, mirrored and flipped conditions.

Digitally tracing over a photograph is not accurate. You have reduced down a 3d object to a 2d object... even the 3d object in this case does not have clearly defined edges to measure to or from. Using a Photoshop type program to do actual measurements with by way of outlining the concepts isn't good.

So what did I use? Trammel points and a calibrated hard scale plus calipers. Photo interpretation is just that... it is an artists idea of what the photo contains. But if you think about it now... was the pictures taken by DY that are suppose to be high resolution full scale or not? If he took high res pictures, which I am doubting because he showed us some that he apologized for the resolution and contrast, then I would bet they are not 5' x 4' in size. More like an 8x10 I would guess... but I could be wrong. Maybe he was talking about the high res picture I made and copyrighted in Murphy's book, I don’t know... but even that was not full scale.

The 24" x 48" pictures I made with a 2 1/4 camera barely allowed us to work with them. Detail in 2d sucks.

The replicas DY saw were up on the wall and instructions were to not let them be moved around because of their cost. I was not called on the matter so I am sure that the museum did not take the copies down, so what kinds of measurements were made and how? His interpretive drawing over the picture indeed shows mistaken sections and ignores other parts completely. But then again, he too is trying to bolster a theory.

If he examined the replicas of the casts at the Texas museum in detail then he must have brought or used different lights because the lighting in there was not conducive to such. Did he? If he didn't then how did he examine them in detail? And now to the detail part of the replicas... there is a layer of brown paint over the fiberglass copy. There are areas of paint that are thin, there is brush stroked areas adding detail where there isn't and pools of paint in troughs. I would say... the replicas are with me right now, that the brush stroked paint hides and redirects what looks like hair flow in the original cast. The ridge details on the heels are also quite subdued now.

Please note that I would not have a problem with DY actually examining any of the materials first hand... but in this case, he is the one that is going to benefit from producing a paper on it. I would not entertain the idea of paying his way to do a proper examination.

The first artist renditions were just that... rendered off a drawing (made from a human in the purported or thought of pose... we did this with elk as well) placed over a picture of the cast site or the cast. It was not scientific or accurate. It was meant for the media only. Look at it as a sketch only. Proper investigation did not start until Owen Caddy came along. Why? Because he lives close, has the expertise and willingness to pursue it. The cast was pushed in various directions by various interests. JG wanted duplicates or the original to be taken around to leading scientists and institutions. MM wanted it in the media. Owen and I wanted it thoroughly documented before anything was done with it. Why hasn't it all been done then? Money and time. Our money and time. Nobody tells you how to spend our own money and time so...

It is my hope to one day produce a monograph on the entire subject of the Skookum Cast... much like Daniel Perez did with the P/G film... but better of course. LOL. There are still many things the public doesn't know about it and the circumstances surrounding it. What it contains and what it doesn't contain. You have been allowed to see only what TV producers felt you needed to see. Oh well... I have driven it around to places for people to see in person and I have hosted people who came to me. I don't feel obligated to do so anymore though.

Look at all that I have provided here on the BFF. I thought it was quite a bit. If your mind is made up one way or the other on this too bad... the cast doesn't contain an elk or a Bigfoot... but it does represent some behavior of an unknown animal (no one saw an elk do this either guys). I am not trying to force it on anybody nor convince anybody one way or another. The study or investigation isn't completed yet. Everyone should know that by now.

No, Im not taking anything "personally". I ask for questions to be answered - thats all. If someone wishes to read into my comments - I can not do anything about that.

Fact of the matter is simply this. In this specific case - we do have the Original available for study. But, for some unknown reason some think this is not an important thing to do. I have no idea why that is, maybe one of you can explain that to me.

The Skookum Cast has not been lost - distroyed or otherwise unavailable to be evaluated by professionals. Did DY request "High Resolution Images" of the Original cast? If DY had evaluated the original maybe he would have noticed this "slippage" and been able to formulate his own theory as to what it is - be it slippage or not. He assumed this area was an Elk wrist - and went from there. I always thought the first thing in an investigation is to know what the other side may be thinking? Prepare for all arguments? At least thats what I was taught. Maybe my training was totally wrong - but I dont think so.

I never said this was a bigfoot with 100% certainty.. Now, did I? No, I am simply pointing out what I see as inconsistancies or items that do not make sense to me. Its DY's job to explain these things - its his paper, not mine. He doesnt have to - he can always ignore me. :wink:

Wolftrax - if "Copies" are all Dr. Meldrum has to evaluate or others -- fine, go for it.. But in cases where the Original is available for study - wouldnt you agree its always best to go that route first? Or, is it pretty much anything goes?? Whatever it takes to make your point work?

I think that's great, and i'd love to see this in print. I'd worry, though, about timing. If DY already has or is very near to submitting his paper, then spending your time on a monograph might end up shooting you in the foot as it'll likely take longer to prepare and publish.

As an outsider, I think this situation is really well suited to a simultaneous publication in the same journal. If you think you have a defensible claim that the impression was NOT made by an elk - in direct refutation to DY's analysis - then I recommend you contact the journal editor. You'd have to be careful not to present your case to the editor as having any kind of personality clash or conflict of interest. Just let the editor know that you are aware of a manuscript that makes the case for the impression having been made by an elk, but that you have evidence that it could not have been made by an elk. You don't even have to hint at what you think might have made it, necessarily. The editor could (1) reject both papers outright, (2) have you serve as a reviewer for DY's paper, or (3) encourage you to prepare a simultaneous refutation.

The benefit to you for taking this step could be (1) your comments end up getting DY's paper rejected and you introduce your "anti-elk" hypothesis to a potentially friendly editor, (2) DY's paper gets published but is substantially improved by the feedback you provide, or (3) both papers get published, which means that a significant piece of pro-bigfoot Skookum analysis - namely, that it weren't no elk - gets into the peer-reviewed literature. And this all happens probably within the next year.

Just a thought - this is a pretty classic way for scientists to air differences of opinion over the same phenomena . . .

Au contraire. He specifically stated he saw copies of the cast and took photographs. I so stated.

I think most everyone can deffinately agree on that point. There is still a lot to learn from the cast regardless of what it contains. They painted over the casts? Why? That deffinately messes with any accurracy of hair patterns. As for the over all structure of the imprint, I'm guessing ( and this is a guess...I'm a computer guy..not a metrologist or ichnologist) that precise measurements are not really needed to determine that the gerneral shape and structure is that of an elk?

They weren't needed to dismiss it as an elk .. ..

Right here.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...1432entry141432

DY even kindly corrected my spelling of Dahinden's name. For some reason I kept slipping an "r" in there. I think I was laboring under the impression I'd found some sort of Sasquatch support group. Imagine mysurprise.

You mean like making up a post with a source in it?

Brian's duplication resembled primate and Brian verified he said that.

There seems to be an assumption the Sasquatch must have walked up to the mudhole , stepped into it and then sat down. But a poster PMd me an intriguing possibility. What if the animal was watching the baiting, then when the coast was clear, broke cover and crawled into the mudhole. No deep footprints required.

:yeahthat: :appl: (Do we need to start a Poll?)

Yep, it came up on a search on "credentials".

As a result of that debate, my fireplace is now decorated with copies of copies (and maybe a few more copies) of the Bossburg casts. The toes on the normal one still look straight out to me and I can't find any dermal ridges. The grass impressions came out well, though.

The Piltdown jaw is a prime example of the perils of casts. The file marks were evident on the original, but since most investigators were only allowed to examine casts, that little detail was missed for forty some years.

Since hair flow is critical to the arguments on both sides, it would seem hazardous to examine copies that may not have retained all that detail.

After your remarks about DDA and colobus, I wouldn't be too quick to accuse us of attempting to discredit anyone. (Bringing up Meldrum's supposed 9' estimate on the film he later debunked wouldn't have been an attempt to discredit Meldrum would it? If so, DYs in the same bag you'd put us in.)



Or even in agreement, like Darwin and Wallace.

Great suggestion, BTW.

!



Meldrum cast prints himself, right in the ground, and some of them showed a midtarsal break. Chilcutt found six casts compelling. The Onion Mountain cast was a copy, the original having been destroyed. What about the others? Elkins Creek had the same ridge flow.

Meldrum inherited Krantz' collection and purchased Freeman's. Are you saying those were all copies?

Not spreading misinformation there, are you? <ducks and runs>