Well, I did look it up before making post #636 just so I'd know exactly what the difference might be between your expertise and DY's.

Would it be safe to say that your expertise is in measurements and DY's is in identifications?



Most excellent!! I'm sure I come off as a pain in the rear with my constant demand for details, answers, and opinions. No, really, :laugh: but this has been so frustrating to see nothing of any consequence published (book, journal, whatever) by ANY of the scientists who have examined the cast up close. I guess I have to work on my patience. :new_tiredsmiley:

RayG

If he thought it was a wrist, why the line to the knee? If his examination of the copies was so thorough, why didn't he note the slippage and the hoof prints pointing in two directions, neither one of which was out?

OK... for those that may not know this stuff, although I am sure it has been posted here before... The original impression is a female. A Hydrocal cast was made from it, destroying the original impression. Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Ron Brown at Derek Randles residence cleaned the cast. The cast was used to make a latex rubber female mold with a mother mold backing. This in turn was used to make a latex rubber male mold and mother mold. The two pieces exhibited at the Texas museum were made from these rubber mother molds and then painted to simulate the original mud coloration. BC artists produced them. They typically color their works. These pieces were made out of gel coat and fiberglass with a light plaster backing and steel rod reinforcement with a wood border.

Each of the molds contains three dissimilar materials and the actual copies contain yet again three dissimilar materials. This is mentioned because the rubber molds do not fit the pieces anymore since the dissimilar materials contracted and expanded differently from one another with curing. Steel, Hydrocal plaster, gel coat, POP, fiberglass and polyester resin, wood. The paint detracts from the pieces if the desire is to quantify. Do not think these pieces are like something from Bone Clones.


Mixing of all materials was by eyesight and experience. I do not think they are museum grade pieces though they serve the purpose they were intended for.

I have no inclination to debate the issue of what it is, especially in print. I own and curate the material. I was instrumental in obtaining it and stabilizing it for preservation. I am storing it. The monograph would be mostly data on my part. It could touch on different theories but I would not be the one writing that.

It's almost too funny...

We want to see all the pictures.
We want exact directions to where it happened.
We want to see what the body looked like so cast the impression.
We want to see what the impression looked like, and not just in pictures so make a copy and a reverse copy of it.
We want scientists to look at it but you can't pick them and you will have to pay for them to do so.
We want you to know everything about the impression including what made it, yet it might be considered to good to be true for one person to have the experience, cast, sighting, whatever else there is.
We want all the information but at no cost to us... you foot the bill.
We want to be able to capitalize on the material if we can but with very little work on our part.
We want you to repeat over and over the entire story so we can then pick it apart and second guess your every move, entertaining us to no end.
We want you to enter public forums and argue with us on all the fine points.
We want you to slip up somewhere so we can hang the catch on our name.
We want to know how you do things so that we can do them as well or criticize them.
We want you in fact to tell us about all the things your doing and/or involved with so we can argue about them as well... we want... we want...

Sounds just like my kids. lolsc

There once was an argument on this board about not letting Ben Radford see the cast. Not only was it tailored to fit a poor little ol'e me syndrome it was pathetic. As stated then it was fine by me that he could see it anytime but on his own dime (he found a way around that by being compensated attending and speaking at the Idaho conference) and that I would hope he would add something to it... but all he did was take some snapshots... no measurements... no eyewitness interview... smell the agenda? I think I missjudged the wine, women and song thing. Two out of three aint bad though.

I'm floored. So the whole elk hair flow argument slips away too, so to speak.

Where did I quote them out of context in an attempt to make it look like they have changed their position? They did change their position BTW. Look at the first few posts in this thread and you'll see that.

BTW, why do you keep bringing up Brain Smiths recreation attempts? That has nothing to do with the current theory,


Where did I say that? I'm sure you can source that right? (good luck :new_tiredsmiley: )

To a point correct. I must also analyze what I measure or build something to a design (the opposite direction). I do use the process and technology to tell people what it is they are looking at. It isn't an opinion though.

Thank God only one person had a mind to think the animal in question didn't really sit down on purpose but slipped and fell.

I've pre-ordered my copy of Meldrum's book. Do you suppose there might be something in there?

Patience is a virtue. How long did it take for Darwin to publish?

Can you imagine the frustration DDA must feel when even the people he's debated with seem to have completely forgotten his posts. If there are any nits left to be picked, I'm sure someone on this board will pick them. :laugh:

Now, 'scuse me while I try to understand all this:

"Each of the molds contains three dissimilar materials and the actual copies contain yet again three dissimilar materials. This is mentioned because the rubber molds do not fit the pieces anymore since the dissimilar materials contracted and expanded differently from one another with curing. Steel, Hydrocal plaster, gel coat, POP, fiberglass and polyester resin, wood. The paint detracts from the pieces if the desire is to quantify. Do not think these pieces are like something from Bone Clones."

I am not aware of changing position on anything. Can you just tell me how I did that?

Ironically, this part of the list sounds just like what some here want from DY.

Yes.
The original storyline and the Pete Travers sketch have, for the last five plus years, been all we have had to consider concerning the “bigfoot impression” side of the story. To many proponents of the cast that has been the definitive word given by the parties involved in the discovery. You are the caretaker of the cast and you allowed, mostly through contrition, that perception to continue. Now it seems that that was all wrong as Colobus has presented at the beginning of this thread. Are you sticking to the original version? If so I apologize for claiming you have changed your position.
Can you blame some of us for being a bit disillusioned? I could certainly understand if you don’t care, I’m not sure I would either, but some people take what you say as gospel on this subject because you are the owner of the cast and one of the people on-site at its discovery. Matt may have been behind the media push but until now I didn’t see any refutation that his version may have been or was wrong.

I know now that your investigation isn’t complete but what would have given me any indication of that prior to this thread?

Man, this thread is giving me one hell of a headache.

DY is meeting and questioning science with science, and I can't believe all the crap he is getting on this thread. He has done obviously a lot of research, and presented his case well. And now people are bringing up things he's posted in the past, good grief.

I have never seen the Skookum cast in person, but I'd like to. I'd sure like to know more about how an elk was ruled out, and why by those who studied it. Anyone who looked at the pics DY posted with the red lines and can't agree it sure as hell does look like an elk imprint, is so close minded it's not even funny.

I am really hoping elk can and will be ruled out as the print maker, and it can be proven one day to be from an unidentified primate. I don't know squat about elk or primates, I leave that up to others.

There is just so much petty bickering going on here it's sickening.



Rick is being calm, cool and collected, and others should follow his example.
I'd like to hear more rebuttal from him on what others said, when elk was first thought to maybe be the culprit, and then was ruled out.

Look at my other two "out of context" quotes. Am I making an attempt anywhere to make them say anything other than what they said? I ran across the quote in a search and I chose to put it in. I think it speaks for itself.

I was referring to your remarks about DDA "posturing" and Colobus being "MIA"; nothing said about any change in position.



I showed the result. Wildman would have had us all out in the mud in the nude. I was tring to save us some embarrassment.

As to what he said, and the "yes he did, no he didn't" - that's just part of my year-old with Greg. (And no, "Lu" isn't short for "Luke").



I didn't say you did; DY did. It's on the thread with DY's comment. I think my meaning is clear.

My point? Considering my only point besides not tossing out DY's analysis entirely based on studying a copy, and also not tossing out DDA's and Colobus's analysis until more information is available, is that I think this is one of the most interesting threads here and am eagerly awaiting hearing more. So no, not using anything to make my point work.

But a good question though. Are you going to argue as diligently with Meldrum about studying the initial casts from Laetoli before he concludes they do show a midtarsal break? Or better yet hat he go to Africa and dig them up again to make sure what he is interpreting as a midtarsal break is not in fact Mary Leakey's chisel mark? Personally I wouldn't. I happen to think what he is saying makes a lot of sense.



No, Meldrum's basis for the midtarsal break in bipedal hominids is based on a copy of a cast of the Laetoli tracks. Again, I happen to agree with him, but it is a copy of a cast.

Read the comments by DDA - about the Copies on Display at the San Antonio Museum, and you will understand why I feel copies in this case are NO comparison. I also stated very plainly -- if you have no other option but to use copies - go for it, but do not use that as the basis for your work completely if the original is available. If DY wants to make a name for himself off this cast - fine, but he should be willing to go the "extra mile" on his dime no one elses, to get to the truth of the matter.... Which by the way, is exactly what I am after too.

If you or others think using the copies of the Skookum Cast as the basis for a scientific paper is exceptable - knowing what DDA just said --- well, thats your business. Im not going to argue about it.

How can anyone make a name for themselves by showing that an imprint was made by an elk?
I have my doubts if he'll even get published. What would the motivation be for a scientific journal to do so?

Your right - that was presumptious on my part, I apologize.. He may just enjoy typing for no apparent reason :laugh:

Would it have to be published after a paper was written, first suggesting the cast was of an unknown primate origin?

Or can it be published, refuting the Skookum cast as just that? I understand where you are coming from BD, I dunno either.

I did read what DDA said. You are reading way too much into what I have been saying.

Well, I dont think so Wolftrax - but I ment exactly what I said, and my opinion on this wont change.

Edited for clarity - and to add what Im talking about. I sure would hate to get misquoted

Maybe just the truth matters...that could be his motivation.
I don't care which way it turns out, I would just like to know the truth.

Melissa, are you going to argue this diligently with Meldrum to examine the original Laetoli casts or to go to Africa and examine the actual footrpints themselves?

You must think your the only one who feels this way.. You might be shocked to know I feel exactly the same way Blackdog -- maybe my standard of evidence is much higher than yours - maybe not.. Who knows, but I do expect more than being shown a "Preliminary Paper" and being told I will have to take the word of the person for the rest..

When did that become ok for you? There are some serious issues DY wont address, just since yesterday, and your not even curious as to why? I know I am.

Why do you assume that this is for personal gain? I gurantee you that DY did not become an "ichnologist" to be rich and famous. And unwravleing the skookum cast is not what I'd call a career launcher. I have a feeling most in the field could care less what the skookum cast is...which is unfortunate.

Lets see -- I dont have my crystal ball on me right now, so I can not forecast how I will feel about Dr. Meldrums comments in the future. If I disagree with him, I will ask questions, if I still dont understand I will ask more questions - if I disagree I will say so.

You might be shocked to hear I have disagreed with Dr. Meldrum.. And I had to audacity to say so in person *GASP* It stayed civil - he understood where I was coming from, and I understood his side of it - so we agree to disagree on this issue. He did not throw sarcasm and ridicule in my direction..

*edited for a silly typo*

hmmmm... let me see. The very original story line I guess didn't make it to print then. MM thought this was absolute proof that Bigfoot hides its tracks... it crawled to the edge testing and then scooted out on its butt. No wait a minute that has been written but I guess not published after-all.

I have written out the entire story about the expedition from my perspective but haven't published it yet. Others have written their own... Thom Powell, Dr. LeRoy Fish, Jeff Lemley I think have all wrote about it to some extent.

Derek and LeRoy on examining the impression before others arrived could not see what it was. I thought I saw something in the overall pattern of impressions and sat on the ground to demonstrate where I too would impart depressions and then they understood. We began looking for places in the impression where my own body would impact if I were to lay there. We discovered more impressions.

That is when it dawned on us that my body could make something similar. It sent shivers along my spine when I thought that maybe this was from a Sasquatch. It was very strange being there right then. Both Derek and LeRoy seemed awestruck like me. It was too good to be true... we had to be wrong.

At first I felt it was from a vehicle that got stuck in the mud (the heel like imprints looked like a rear end). Then the hair pattern really didn't fit unless someone in a fur suit got out of the vehicle and laid down to dig themselves out...lol. I asked both Derek and LeRoy to tell me why this could not be a bear, deer elk, coyote, moose, goat, sheep, horse or hoax and we all went through the list. I noticed the impression starting to heat and crack and told the others to go back to camp and get everyone.

I had absolutely no intention of casting the impression and in fact was preparing to pack plaster to go and get at the tracks I had found earlier. MM was the one who sat there near the road listening and changed everyones direction... "You have to cast this Rick". So I did, with the help of others.

I assumed a rough estimate of a body shape that could of made the impression. Did I call it a Bigfoot? I don't remember if I ever did. I asked LeRoy to name the cast and he did. I thought the thing was important enough to cast it though... and preserve it.

MM called me and asked for me to take pictures of someone laying in the position I thought the animal got in to make the impression. So I did and those went to Pete to try and make some illustrations along with some pictures of the cast site from me. Dr. Meldrum also tried to simulate the positions assumed, but did so on video tape.

On the way out of the woods... Meldrum, Krantz, Dahinden, Green and Crook were called about the find so that they could see it first. Dahinden was too sick... Crook was too angry with MM and the BFRO at large... Green suggested that Bindernagel be invited as well. I still could not get other animals out of my mind when thinking of the impression.

When Jeff Meldrum started cleaning the cast it began sinking in that this was important and I let them do the talking. Even though I had been in this field the longest on the expedition and only seconded by Green and Krantz during the cleaning... I could not believe such an animal could exist. I hadn't seen one yet and firmly believed I had to at some point before accepting all of this.

I would not call any of this a change of position concerning what we thought made it or how it did it. It is more like a refinement. Owen is a trained observer in this line of work and I trust him after seeing other things he has done and who hires him to do the stuff. He explains things lucidly and it all makes sense. Granted I have done my own fair share on investigating and discovered a few things including the four typical elk reclining positions (this excludes all road kill poses of course). I even examined another cast made at another site by friends of Thom Powell. I believe that one was actually a horse impression though. There was dead giveaways indicating legs and body, not arms and body.

I digress here I think. Anyway... I would go with Owen's impressions. They are refinements to the original published thoughts. After watching gorillas do the same thing... I felt the shiver in my spine again.

Understandable. I'm not sure how this all started but it has gotten pretty uptight in here. Personally I'd just like to hear and read as much as possible about the cast itself. May I suggest everybody involved take a breather and then, maybe, start over again and focus on the cast itself?

You've already posted your conclusions, and as I pointed out, they were interesting. It would also be interesting to see the conclusions of those scientists that have examined the cast up close.



I have no right to demand anything, but it would be nice to see a list of conclusions (similar to the one you posted) from the scientists who have examined the cast. That theme I have repeated often, much to the annoyance of many I'd guess. :laugh:



Careful, now you're heading into my area of expertise. (no Ph.D., but 23 years of changing diapers non-stop is an excellent experience-builder). :icon_stressed:



I seem to recall it differently. Some folks made excuses, some flung mud, but it didn't diminish the fact his request to see the cast while he was in the area was turned down.





In any case, old water under a very old bridge many moons ago.

Jumping ahead, six years after the Skookum cast discovery... Any idea when scientific conclusions about the Skookum cast might be made public by the scientists who have examined it? :new_lmaosmiley:

RayG

Yes, a very interesting thread... am learning lots about many things from all sides.

Out of curiosity, since a cast copy is on display at the museum in Texas... what is the context under which it is displayed? I mean - is it presented as "This is a cast of a Bigfoot", "This is a possible cast of a Bigfoot", or etc?

Honestly Nightowl - Its been so many months... I actually never even looked at the tag :laugh: I spent my time looking over the copies of the Skookum Cast.. Ecwool might be a good person to ask this question to.

I do know the Museum wanted the public to make up their own mind though.

Was that the fellow who wrote the song that gets embedded in my brain every time I watch the DVD? The one that goes, "He fell on his a** and made the Skookum Cast........................."? :new_weirdsmiley:

I was including our bipedal hominid cousin, and those prints he's cast in situ.

See page 7. Interesting stuff.

http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA200407006.pdf

That is our very own Bigfootdad, also known as Tom Yamarone! That song is my all-time favorite!

"The Skookum Cast...Skookum Cast...Bigfoot slipped in the mud....and fell on his a**...he was walking too fast, and made the Skookum Cast"

Jack and others that have echoed this thought,

This is really a good question. I'm sure DY will answer himself, if and when he chooses to come back to this abusive thread, but here are my thoughts.

I see two obvious ways DY could present this material making it potentially worthy of scientific publication.

A. Refutation of the sasquatch hypothesis. Contrary to some opinions, this is pub-worthy and there are precedents like the DNA from some ungulate hair paper that was supposedly a yeti. The chunk of plaster is interesting enough to have merited worldwide headlines, magazine articles, museum exhibits, etc. so I see it as qualifying as an interesting artifact needing explanation. I believe DY has said he doesn't intend to go this route but I personally don't see how he can avoid it.

B. The other route that is obvious to me, but much more sketchy in terms of publication, is simply as a reference or documentation of an elk lay. The obvious problem being that no one saw an elk make it, so it really isn't documentation. It could be potentially informative in this regard since it seems to break some of the supposed rules of elk lays (track placement, lack of urine, etc.) but I don't see any journal accepting it unless a small part of greater project looking at the diveristy of verified elk lays.

But these are only my opinions. It might be helptful to look at the Journal description for some clues of what they consider interesting and pub-worthy.

Apeman



more thoughts in a moment...

edited because a sentence got chopped

Note: I started this post more than 48 hours- and now about 10 pages in this thread- ago, so apologize if some of it seems redundant with what others have since said. I apologize also for it being a bit of a ramble and not getting to where it was intended- but it actually ended up being even more enlightening to me as I wrote and it and looked at the evidence a little more...

Boy, this thread was really going to sh.... (really unfortunate and sad, though totally unsurprising) but may be heading back towards salvation now. I third the realization of being stunned by some of the vehement opinions expressed herein.

So here's another opinion, though not so strong... trying to show why I don't think anything about the heel lines (which I also don't think even resemble dermal ridges) are in fact NOT consistent with gorilla dermals.

First of all, LAL was in fact partly correct in her statement that some have claimed or argued that there is good dermal evidence. I assume she'll reference Noll's statements from the WCS presentation (please, you are obviously not all THAT busy doing laundry or whatever you said-), but note also that Fish's Crypto magazine report states:


So clearly Fish, Meldrum, maybe Krantz, and most astonishing to me, even Chilcutt believe (or believed?) that there were indeed verifiable dermals on the cast. All I can say is 'Wow' and apologize to LAL. I say wow because, based on what I've seen, I can't believe that any of these experts believe this. Someone really needs to try to properly make this argument (that there are dermals) because I for one, remain TOTALLY unconvinced, but fully acknowledge my lack of true expertise in this area. That said, in my defense, I am learning and am actually collaborating (very informally) on a dermal ridge study of gorillas with Jeff and Jimmy- hence all the images I've taken and posted of gorilla feet.

Also, equally incredible to me, is this part:


Surely, that's pretty wishy-washy and could mean a lot of different things. But it seems a HUGE stretch to me to conclude that anything about the heel imprints is consistent with other tracks- and then to use this as a jump to mid-tarsal breaks. As I've said before, my opinion is that the roundness of the heel makes in IN-consistent with other tracks (and the prominent achilles makes it INconsistent with both ape heels and the PG figure). So the Skookum cast has only three major foot features that could be consistent in ways that I can think of: a) the heel matches the shape of other heels (I disagree and would like to be convinced that this is true and would certainly defer to track experts); the achilles matches something- but it can't, since tracks of the bottom of the foot won't show an achilles; or c) the dermals match- which must be what the authors concluded made the anatomy "consistent with other foot impressions," right?

So where are these dermals?


Based on Fish's report, there is mention of dermals on both the achilles heel strike (note: I'm using the assumed Sasquatch interpretation even though I currently don't think it's correct) and the conglomeration of other heel strikes. None of the dermals are clearly identified in the Crypto report so here's my interpretation. There is one close-up image of the red-squared portion of the multiple heels that's labelled "Figure 11. Skookum Sasquatch Multiple Heel Cast details showing dermal ridges. 02 Oct 2000 copyright LeRoy Fish." But if you compare the size of the obvious ridges that can be seen in this image (in PDF format), they are at least an order of magnitude too big (~ 0.5 cm) to be dermals, and presumably Chilcutt wouldn't have interpeted them that way. So I'm assuming that what look like dermals in these images are not what the experts actually saw, they should be much, much smaller and finer- as I think Tube pointed out about 15 pages ago and I've tried to illustrate below based on what info I can find, with some guesswork, on the dimensions of the area. Moreover, according to the interpretation, these lines are running vertically up the back of the heel- contrary to what Fish et al' have said about the pattern (and contrary to gorillas which is where I THOUGHT I was going when I started this post), so again, these can't be the dermals they are talking about. There must be finer detail in the photos in the original Crypto paper because I for one cannot see what dermals Fish was trying to illustrate in figure 11.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

As for the achilles heel strike, in Fish's paper we are shown an image of the this area with this caption: "Figure 9. Skookum Sasquatch Heel-Foot-Achilles' Tendon Cast details show hair and dermal ridges. 02 Oct 2000 copyright LeRoy Fish." So it appears to claim the dermals are there in the detail, though, unlike the other area, the paper doesn't seem to try to illustrate them (why not? one might ask.). All I see in the provided images are again vertical lines (and again much bigger than dermals) running all the way down across the heel, where there should be a margin of hair, then dermals. It looks to me like a haired joint, (e.g. an elk wrist) and not like an ape heel.

Click to view attachment

I have also seen some close-ups of a copy of this section of the cast which I assume is pretty high quality (the casts were distributed to a few select individuals) and have dermal-like markings but I don't have permission to post them. Nothing about any of these images screams "dermal ridges" to me, so I'd really like to know what sold Meldrum and Chilcutt and have emails off to them as well as Owen Caddy seeking further explanation.

The supposed dermal evidence, which appears really critical in Fish's paper, seems to have since slipped through the cracks, been ignored, forgotten, or perhaps deemed too weak or unverifiable? Neither DDA nor Colobus (with MORE than all due respect) has even mentioned it in this thread as far as I can recall (without rereading 28 pages of mostly repeated -and serially answered- questions, assertions, accusations, insults, and other nonsense) which, to me, implies that either the evidence is very weak at best, or that they choose to refrain from commenting on this aspect because it's a relatively specialized area of study beyond their (and most of our) expertise. Tube questioned the supposed dermal evidence pages and pages ago and I guess I'm doing it again here. Presumably Meldrum will try to ice it in his book (which, for the 100th time is certainly not the equivalent of a peer-reviewed scientific pub as any academic or writer will acknowledge, including surely Meldrum himself). In the meantime, does anyone have anything convincing that they can show us trying to make the argument for dermals? A scaled image from the cast. A comparative image of dermals of some sort. Even a testimonial or argument from Chilcutt or anyone else saying exactly where and why they see legitimate evidence of dermal ridges. Anything.

I have some other thoughs but it's taken me parts of 3 days to put this one together, with tons of changes and edits, so I better end it here and post it now.

Apeman

Edited to get the images right and for the usual typos

Can I please ask everyone involved in this thread to take a step back for a few minutes and calm down.

Please do not hurl accusations, or put words into each other's mouths.

Thank you

Normal service will resume shortly.

Thanks Mel... that zackly answers what I was wondering.

And, not sure if this is right venue for this thought, but if it's not just take me out back and give me a whipping.

I think there is so much passion in this thread because to varying degrees we all have some personal committment to it (the cast) in some way or another. For me, it became part of my personal 'body of evidence' that I would drag out in conversations about the Bigfoot Field with non-believers and wild-eyed-belivers alike. I remember telling people, "They took measurements and ruled out all known animals".

Now, exactly where I got that idea to start with I do not recall... if I'da been a good investigator I'da made notes. Hell, maybe I made the whole thing up in my head, but how I got those thoughts doesen't really matter, the thing is that I did have those thoughts, and I don't think I'm the only one from what I see in all the threads on this topic. And, this is not a complaint, just a statement of fact. Right or wrong, I know I just figured that the proof and all appropriate documentation was in and that the 'scientific community' had spoken.

But now in this thread, I'm finding out that probably no one ever said definitively that the cast was indeed 100% without-a-doubt a sasquatch imprint. So how is it that I got that thought in my head? However it happened, I'll take full responsibility, so this post is not about anything like that. Rather, the main thing is, I've learned something about myself as an investigator, and that's a good thing.

Also, since first learning about the cast I've gotten a complete 'body of evidence' of my own, including a personal daylight sighting, by working a hotspot within a 1-hour driving time for me, so whether the cast IS or ISN'T what it is suggested that it is, is irrevelent for me at this point. Oh, I am still preparing my 'speech of clarification', lol, for when I talk to the people for whom I'd mentioned the cast as part of my arsenal of "Proof", but that's np and is just part of the whole process of being involved in this field.

For me, black and white kind of guy that I am, the cast either IS or it AIN'T. And the point is, if it ain't an IS, then it is an AIN'T - at least in the recesses of my own mind. And of course I don't mean that it's an AIN'T forevermore and absolutely, but it is an obvious point of reality and a statement of fact that the cast does generate differing opinions at this point in time, and, it is a statment of fact that, contrary to what I had erroneously believed, the final chapter of the Cast Analysis has NOT been submitted to the 'scientific world'.

As an investigator, I'm finding that my own search for the truth forces me to accept reality as it is, and not how I want it to be, and for an accounting of exactly what reality is reflected in the cast, I have to leave that to the folks with the expertise in that area. I am simply hoping, that after all qualified parties examine the same evidence they all come to the same conclusion. Black or white - is that too much to ask? (rhetorical question.) I'm starting to understand that this is one of those debates that, like the PGF, may never be fully settled.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, the cast is a significant artifact in the world of Bigfoot Research with points of connection one way or the other to virtually everyone that seriously studies the subject and I'm looking forward to a final report at some point in time.

The midtarsal break observed in the Terra Amata footprint was based on a photograph.

The tracks he cast in situ are the alleged sasquatch tracks. As much as I dislike saying it because it's often used and abused, without a proven foot or track these tracks could very well be a hoax, misidentification, etc.

The true basis for the midtarsal break in bipedal hominids rests in the Laetoli tracks, and these Meldrum examined a copy of a cast. This same midtarsal break is said to be an excavation error caused by Mary Leakey, though that is disputed, but what is one of the reasons Tim White talked about examiniing the tracks in situ over theorizing from casts.

Again, I'm not attacking Meldrum's credibility here, I have a lot of respect for him both as a scientist and as a person. This is just an acknowledgement of the use of casts and copies of casts.

The possibility of termite burrows was considered, too, and Meldrum consulted with people involved in the excavation.

I thought White revealed the heel of a "track-within-a-track" was a chisel mark left by Mary (he saw her do it); I didn't know it had anything to do with midtarsal breaks. Is this something new? Who said the midtarsal bend could be an excavation error?

Meldrum was looking for discs, wasn't he? He used the original photos of the trackway, it seems, not photos of copies of a cast.

Not saying photos and casts can't be used anytime ever, but in this case, DT seems to have misidentified a feature from looking at a copy and the hair flow he notes may be the paint. That's important. If the putative knee/wrist is a slippage, as Melissa noted, the foreleg on that side may have gone missing.

DY mentioned earlier DDA was helping him on this. Does that mean he consulted with him on the interpretation of the mark and the pattern of the hair, or was he being sarcastic?

As one who thought a mold spot on a cast was an air bubble on a copy of a cast, I can only urge caution. :wink:

I did, in fact, start a transcript from the part you requested earlier, but I used the paper to write down a phone # and it took me three days to remember where I put it. If I'd done more housework, I might have found it earlier. I only did two loads of laundry yesterday, which is barely a dent. When I got back to the board it had kind of exploded; I'm still not caught up. In addition to working through a mountain of clothes, I have work and school, and somewhere in there I need to do a painting and look up a reference. I'm trying, though.

Noll said on the DVD that Chilcutt had looked at them. He didn't say what he said, that I can hear. Noll noted they run up the side. He mentions them again when he describes the cleaning when they were first seen.

I think it's great you're working with Chilcutt. I'd rather hear what he had to say from him than from me anyway. Keep us posted.

Even if they were a hoax, he still cast them in situ, so it's not strictly true to say he only used copies of casts. That was my point, but I see what you mean.

Abusive? Heck, I've forgiven him already. I didn't sure didn't mean to drive him out of teaching. I wasn't even in his class.

DY can always go to his own thread if he doesn't like it here. It was started before this one.

This is all I have on the transcript so far:

"I also see in this area that there was was a track in.............The toes........right before the knee...only one side has..... hair pattern.....Walked up........rolled on side........Pictures do not........"

I'll work on it some more after work, provided I can get that song out of my head before it drives me literally crazy.

You are walking on very thin ice....

Lu,

You got a link to that song? I'd like to be able to whistle the melody while I work!

:new_whistle:

Kerry

I believe it's: "You are skating on thin ice." :happy:

Dan

I believe the results are the same :new_whistle:

Ohh the rumors that would fly after that - :laugh:

I agree with what your saying. Everyone is entitled to their opinion when it comes to the "evidence" in this research, I think its best to allow people to formulate their own theories -- based on good information.

28 pages, is it worth me reading? I hope the information is informative. :icon_bang:

So, we have a bunch of people interpreting the evidence as ungulate, the other as unknown primate. Folks, the truth is sitting right in front of our eyes!!!



It's both!!! :laugh:

*******, I'm a freakin' genius! I scare myself. I really do.

Holy crap it was Mr. Tumnus. :new_lmaosmiley:

And for you "Family Guy" fans out there:

"Gimme my sock back, Tummnus!"