Well, I for one am looking very forward to reading DY's paper. His points sure made me think a lot.
If it doesn't get published, I hope he makes copies available to us.
If not "us," at least ME. :laugh:
Full Version: The Official Skookum Cast Analysis Information Thread
After several days away, I tried to get caught up on this thread and just couldn't do it.
Can someone explain to me why it any farther than this post?
Can someone explain to me why it any farther than this post?
I tried to read it all too and I couldn't do it either. 
QUOTE(walkingcarpet @ Aug 19 2006, 12:42 AM) 
Can someone explain to me why it any farther than this post?
Let me sum it up for you.
"its an elk"
"its a sasquatch"
"its MR. Tumnus"
"LOL"
The end
or
"my research is more scientifiky that yours"
"nuh uh"
"uh huh"
"nuh uh"
"uh huh"
"ok fine at 67 scientists have looked at my evidence"
"noway I had like 1000 look at mine"
"liar!"
"stinky!"
"fine"
The End
or something like that. I might have exagerated a little bit...but my version would have accomplished similar results and we would have been treated with milk and cookies by now.
:laugh: Yeah that's about what I expected. Thanks, maxx!
It is unfortunate that this thread was hijacked by proponents of the other thread with contrary opinions as to what this impression and cast represent. This thread started out as a repository for information on the subject, from those who had examined the original impression, cast and copies... the other for debate on theories and conclusions as to what made it and I might add contrary to any Bigfoot theory held by some. The human mind is unique in its ability to recognize patterns, organize and try and put sense to them.
No amount of argument here is going to change people's minds on just what made the original Skookum impression. This thread has given people three choices in how to use it though:
1. For knowledge on the subject, what it is, contains, how it was made, the surrounding circumstances, what is and has been done with it, etc. This has been degraded a bit here by arguments, great hind sights and egos. Given any other event related to the subject of Bigfoot, the Skookum cast has preserved more information and evidence then most if not all of them. It is actually quite easy to dissmiss seeing that Bigfoot is not a recognised animal.
2. A place to ask logical, non-redundant questions; which really didn't come to pass. Many questions are being asked over and over. Now side threads are being created where a poll is included to try and bring in statistics of what people believe the cast represents, could represent, some what skewed towards an animal already recognized by science.
3. A place to use this information in bolstering one's own pet theory as to what it all represents. This is only human nature... to recognize and use patterns found in the seemingly chaotic forms of nature.
This is the one reason why nothing has been published yet, at least not by me. The monograph written about in here was to be of pure information and not watered down material by debate. It was meant for reference. Sure there would have been a place in the end to show likely suspects and the information they might leave behind but conclusions had no place in it.
Since it has been brought up by several people here I wish to address some of the work done on elk specifically. For those of you who do not have this book, I am sure that a bookstore or library near you might have a copy that you can browse. Just go to page 387 to follow along with.
Arguably, Mark Elbroch's 786 page tome - "Mammal Tracks & Sign: A Guide to North American Species" is a fantastic work of such information no where to be found in other literature. An expensive field guide with 70 pages and 107 color pictures and line drawings containing information on Beds, Lays, Wallows, Baths, Nests, Burrows, Dens and Cavities (as the chapter title indicates). On page 388, the author has either drawn a bed he has seen or makes us a typical bed of an ungulate. Below this drawing is an underexposed snow picture that shows a real ungulate bed.
Mark wrote three paragraphs and included 7 pictures of various hoofed animal beds and one shadowed line drawing marking features of an ungulate bed. The only elk bed he illustrates is in tall grass and is quite indistinct (probably determined to be elk by actual track identification). There are no pictures of the actual animals in any of these beds. There are no actual measurements of these bed sizes. They are just patterns he has found or that others have found and sent him.
The picture of a deer bed he shows below the line drawing has tale-tell marking of the animals hooves inside the body impression of the rump area. The forward wrists have bent hooves to the side. The elbows are connected to these and look nothing like the purported heels in the Skookum cast.
The Skookum cast does not contain a nose or head imprint. The imprint thought by some to be just that, a nose contact with the soil, is bent the wrong way, is too far away from the rest of the impression and is of a shape and texture matching that of the other impressions thought to represent limbs used for walking.
There is only a superficial likeness of this impression found within the Skookum cast. Even the ungulate tracks nearby in Mark's picture indicate the animal was standing there and slides indicate it laid down there. The overall shape shown in the line drawing is tear dropped. Mark only writes three short paragraphs on hoofed animal beds.
Mark writes that deer lay on their sides, with their front feet tucked underneath them and their rear legs out to the side. He identifies two distinct features; legs tucked up underneath in the front and that the rump area is a well defined curve for identifying such a bed. He further argues the definition of lay versus bed.
When all the people involved examined the Skookum cast and the impression pictures we did as much as Mark here has done... maybe a little more. We have identified other features that would indicate an ungulate lay versus something else with features such as hair flow direction, hair length, track strides, comparative castings, movies and pictures if in fact it were. We made our own shadowed line drawings and found that elk in particular have not just one lay or bed type. A lay of course would tend to make a sharper image then a bed by the fact that the animal is in a bed longer and probably moves around more, given that they were both made in similar substrate such as mud (don't look to compare a grass bed with the Skookum impression).
This post is getting quite long so I will end here but will further illustrate some of our work with the ungulate material. I have hesitated to do so in the past as it could be used by elk lay purponents to illustrate their own work... making it easy for them to jump to their conclusions without really looking. Maybe this is what is done all the time in scientific papers... I don't know.
Remember though that the only pictures presented so far have shown the attributes indicating the Skookum impression may represent something other than a deer lay... and for something completely different, one should look at the skookum impression and cast from different vantage points. I would hazzard a guess that the actual viewing direction can alter views.
No amount of argument here is going to change people's minds on just what made the original Skookum impression. This thread has given people three choices in how to use it though:
1. For knowledge on the subject, what it is, contains, how it was made, the surrounding circumstances, what is and has been done with it, etc. This has been degraded a bit here by arguments, great hind sights and egos. Given any other event related to the subject of Bigfoot, the Skookum cast has preserved more information and evidence then most if not all of them. It is actually quite easy to dissmiss seeing that Bigfoot is not a recognised animal.
2. A place to ask logical, non-redundant questions; which really didn't come to pass. Many questions are being asked over and over. Now side threads are being created where a poll is included to try and bring in statistics of what people believe the cast represents, could represent, some what skewed towards an animal already recognized by science.
3. A place to use this information in bolstering one's own pet theory as to what it all represents. This is only human nature... to recognize and use patterns found in the seemingly chaotic forms of nature.
This is the one reason why nothing has been published yet, at least not by me. The monograph written about in here was to be of pure information and not watered down material by debate. It was meant for reference. Sure there would have been a place in the end to show likely suspects and the information they might leave behind but conclusions had no place in it.
Since it has been brought up by several people here I wish to address some of the work done on elk specifically. For those of you who do not have this book, I am sure that a bookstore or library near you might have a copy that you can browse. Just go to page 387 to follow along with.
Arguably, Mark Elbroch's 786 page tome - "Mammal Tracks & Sign: A Guide to North American Species" is a fantastic work of such information no where to be found in other literature. An expensive field guide with 70 pages and 107 color pictures and line drawings containing information on Beds, Lays, Wallows, Baths, Nests, Burrows, Dens and Cavities (as the chapter title indicates). On page 388, the author has either drawn a bed he has seen or makes us a typical bed of an ungulate. Below this drawing is an underexposed snow picture that shows a real ungulate bed.
Mark wrote three paragraphs and included 7 pictures of various hoofed animal beds and one shadowed line drawing marking features of an ungulate bed. The only elk bed he illustrates is in tall grass and is quite indistinct (probably determined to be elk by actual track identification). There are no pictures of the actual animals in any of these beds. There are no actual measurements of these bed sizes. They are just patterns he has found or that others have found and sent him.
The picture of a deer bed he shows below the line drawing has tale-tell marking of the animals hooves inside the body impression of the rump area. The forward wrists have bent hooves to the side. The elbows are connected to these and look nothing like the purported heels in the Skookum cast.
The Skookum cast does not contain a nose or head imprint. The imprint thought by some to be just that, a nose contact with the soil, is bent the wrong way, is too far away from the rest of the impression and is of a shape and texture matching that of the other impressions thought to represent limbs used for walking.
There is only a superficial likeness of this impression found within the Skookum cast. Even the ungulate tracks nearby in Mark's picture indicate the animal was standing there and slides indicate it laid down there. The overall shape shown in the line drawing is tear dropped. Mark only writes three short paragraphs on hoofed animal beds.
Mark writes that deer lay on their sides, with their front feet tucked underneath them and their rear legs out to the side. He identifies two distinct features; legs tucked up underneath in the front and that the rump area is a well defined curve for identifying such a bed. He further argues the definition of lay versus bed.
When all the people involved examined the Skookum cast and the impression pictures we did as much as Mark here has done... maybe a little more. We have identified other features that would indicate an ungulate lay versus something else with features such as hair flow direction, hair length, track strides, comparative castings, movies and pictures if in fact it were. We made our own shadowed line drawings and found that elk in particular have not just one lay or bed type. A lay of course would tend to make a sharper image then a bed by the fact that the animal is in a bed longer and probably moves around more, given that they were both made in similar substrate such as mud (don't look to compare a grass bed with the Skookum impression).
This post is getting quite long so I will end here but will further illustrate some of our work with the ungulate material. I have hesitated to do so in the past as it could be used by elk lay purponents to illustrate their own work... making it easy for them to jump to their conclusions without really looking. Maybe this is what is done all the time in scientific papers... I don't know.
Remember though that the only pictures presented so far have shown the attributes indicating the Skookum impression may represent something other than a deer lay... and for something completely different, one should look at the skookum impression and cast from different vantage points. I would hazzard a guess that the actual viewing direction can alter views.
So here is one type of an Elk lay.
And another one.
And another one.
Here is mark's drawing
And Mark's picture of a deer lay in snow.
And Mark's picture of a deer lay in snow.
Here is a picture showing a youg elk in a lay that shows the legs tucked. The elk in the picture could not tuck his left front leg due to a injury. Note the right front leg tucked under the body.
According to Mark, a lay is something used in passing and not frequented often. A bed may be used over and over and many hours spent in.
Elk have a mane of longer hair under their chins (bulls) and will turn their heads backwards and squirt urine over it and their face. They will then rub this scent onto the ground to mark it while prone. They do so with the antlers upright. Females do not do display this way but will rub their entire bodies in the urine soaked lay, rolling around in it. When laying down, the head is usually held up unless sleeping. Ground vibrations are transfered to the ears and introduce noise degrading their sense for predators. Only during rut is the behavior seen regularly that elk lay their heads down while not sleeping.
Elk have different lengths of hair around the rump area. There is actually a raised demarkation which is not evident in the Skookum impression.
An elk carries most of it's weight over the front shoulders due to the head being above it. Elk typically show deeper impressions towards the front legs.
There is certainly room for error in using body size, placement and limb proportions in determining a body imprint to be that of a male or female, female or calf. Other attributes must be looked at such as antler scraping, preaching and sexual bone fusing. The Skookum impression is not an elk or a bigfoot. It is a representation of some animals mass laid to rest there. It's positive identification is all but impossible, baring a complete natural reenactment.
It is a foregone conclusion that most scientists would side with the impression being that of a known animal, but it should be remembered that if the Sasquatch were also a known animal, a debate of what the impression represents would still occur.
Elk have a mane of longer hair under their chins (bulls) and will turn their heads backwards and squirt urine over it and their face. They will then rub this scent onto the ground to mark it while prone. They do so with the antlers upright. Females do not do display this way but will rub their entire bodies in the urine soaked lay, rolling around in it. When laying down, the head is usually held up unless sleeping. Ground vibrations are transfered to the ears and introduce noise degrading their sense for predators. Only during rut is the behavior seen regularly that elk lay their heads down while not sleeping.
Elk have different lengths of hair around the rump area. There is actually a raised demarkation which is not evident in the Skookum impression.
An elk carries most of it's weight over the front shoulders due to the head being above it. Elk typically show deeper impressions towards the front legs.
There is certainly room for error in using body size, placement and limb proportions in determining a body imprint to be that of a male or female, female or calf. Other attributes must be looked at such as antler scraping, preaching and sexual bone fusing. The Skookum impression is not an elk or a bigfoot. It is a representation of some animals mass laid to rest there. It's positive identification is all but impossible, baring a complete natural reenactment.
It is a foregone conclusion that most scientists would side with the impression being that of a known animal, but it should be remembered that if the Sasquatch were also a known animal, a debate of what the impression represents would still occur.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 12:28 PM)
It is a foregone conclusion that most scientists would side with the impression being that of a known animal, but it should be remembered that if the Sasquatch were also a known animal, a debate of what the impression represents would still occur.
Though I believe it to be an elk lay, or at least some sort of ungulate. I must admit it does not appear to be normal impression of any kind (some serious juxtapositioning went on no matter what animal layed there). It's an odd impression.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:28 PM)
It is a foregone conclusion that most scientists would side with the impression being that of a known animal, but it should be remembered that if the Sasquatch were also a known animal, a debate of what the impression represents would still occur.
... then no matter what, the Skookum Cast is a puzzle that cannot be solved??? Rats.
QUOTE
It is unfortunate that this thread was hijacked by proponents of the other thread with contrary opinions as to what this impression and cast represent.
Double Rats... this is what I get for not having the time to spend reading every word of every post in every topic.... I never know when things are being hijacked. Not looking to put anyone out, but if someone knows (off the top of their head) what the post number is that hijacked this thread I'd appreciate it. Maybe I'll learn something about the hijacking process if I study it some.
QUOTE
This thread started out as a repository for information on the subject, from those who had examined the original impression, cast and copies...
Sorry I missed this fact. Then maybe the thread should have been set up to keep anyone else from posting, woulda saved lots of time all around.
As someone much respected in this field once said... "It's not about belief, it's about the evidence".
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
It is unfortunate that this thread was hijacked by proponents of the other thread with contrary opinions as to what this impression and cast represent. This thread started out as a repository for information on the subject, from those who had examined the original impression, cast and copies...
QUOTE(bipto @ Jul 18 2006, 04:28 PM)
No one should assume that because we pinned this we're somehow dissing other threads and opinions. That's not the intention. The intention, since this is the "official" position of those who discovered and have spent the most time analyzing the cast, is to give it some kind of elevate status so it's easy to find. Everyone of all positions are still free to post what they think here or in any other thread.
If Bipto ask everyone to refrain from posting comments about any post, I'm sure everyone would have obliged him.
As for "a repository for information on the subject", what's stopping those directly involved from submitting more information? Seems the inflow has stalled from what is was from the beginning.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
2. A place to ask logical, non-redundant questions; which really didn't come to pass. Many questions are being asked over and over...
I've asked once I believe for better pictures of the skookum impression. All but one picture I've seen so far of the original impression has been of such poor quality, I would be hard pressed to use those pictures to explain or express anything.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
and for something completely different, one should look at the skookum impression and cast from different vantage points. I would hazzard a guess that the actual viewing direction can alter views.
When all the facts from both sides are presented either here or published elsewhere, only then will everyone be able to view the skookum impression from the angle you speak of.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 04:28 PM)
The Skookum impression is not an elk or a bigfoot. It is a representation of some animals mass laid to rest there.
That pretty much is a true statement, but the language that keeps rising doesn't support those sentiments.
If no one asked questions or questions the path of which this piece of evidence is traveling, some will be involuntarily forced to rally around it no matter what their stance may be.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 01:28 PM)
The Skookum impression is not an elk or a bigfoot. It is a representation of some animals mass laid to rest there.
OK, now I'm really getting confused.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
It is unfortunate that this thread was hijacked by proponents of the other thread with contrary opinions as to what this impression and cast represent. This thread started out as a repository for information on the subject, from those who had examined the original impression, cast and copies...
Why? Aren't you open to discussion? I'm sorry but I must have missed the point that this was only open to you and whoever has the means to inspect the original.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
2. A place to ask logical, non-redundant questions; which really didn't come to pass. Many questions are being asked over and over...
Until better answers come out I don't know that you can expect anything less. This is really starting to sound more and more like MG and JC.... "If you don't believe it...too bad because we know better than you."
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
and for something completely different, one should look at the skookum impression and cast from different vantage points. I would hazzard a guess that the actual viewing direction can alter views.
Let's see them then. Why should I accept any less from you than I would from anyone else?
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 04:28 PM)
The Skookum impression is not an elk or a bigfoot. It is a representation of some animals mass laid to rest there.
That's easy to say, there is no animal stuck in the impression. Please excuse the unwashed masses for not accepting everything at face value.
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Aug 20 2006, 11:30 PM)
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 04:28 PM)
The Skookum impression is not an elk or a bigfoot. It is a representation of some animals mass laid to rest there.
That's easy to say, there is no animal stuck in the impression. Please excuse the unwashed masses for not accepting everything at face value.
See, I knew I needed to clarify in my poll that an elk didn't make the cast ...
Didn't really help..
Oh, well .. :popcorn2:
Still looks to me like an elk could have made the impression .. 'Cept when you color in parts of it
to make it into something else..
Of course it could be a Bigfoot. I just need to see one, before I can give it more consideration..
DDA-
Thanks for the long and helpful posts and attempt to put this thread back on track. I would disagree about this thread being hijacked by anyone or any group in particular, but that's neither here nor there.
I would, however, like to see and hear more about the hair flow direction. As I pointed out weeks ago in the other thread, and you and others clearly figured out long before me, definitive hair flow direction on the achilles/wrist section would clinch this. You've just mentioned it again here:
Could we see or hear more about this evidence on hair flow direction, i.e. can you convince me or other members of this forum that the hair on the achilles area points towards the heel?
I'd also like to hear (and see) some convincing evidence about hair length and especially about the dermals. This thread seems like the right place to present and debate these aspects, right? If some of this is proprietary data or other's work that might be in preparation for something, please just say so, I can fully respect that.
Apeman
Thanks for the long and helpful posts and attempt to put this thread back on track. I would disagree about this thread being hijacked by anyone or any group in particular, but that's neither here nor there.
I would, however, like to see and hear more about the hair flow direction. As I pointed out weeks ago in the other thread, and you and others clearly figured out long before me, definitive hair flow direction on the achilles/wrist section would clinch this. You've just mentioned it again here:
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 07:26 PM)
We have identified other features that would indicate an ungulate lay versus something else with features such as hair flow direction, hair length, track strides, comparative castings, movies and pictures if in fact it were.
Could we see or hear more about this evidence on hair flow direction, i.e. can you convince me or other members of this forum that the hair on the achilles area points towards the heel?
I'd also like to hear (and see) some convincing evidence about hair length and especially about the dermals. This thread seems like the right place to present and debate these aspects, right? If some of this is proprietary data or other's work that might be in preparation for something, please just say so, I can fully respect that.
Apeman
QUOTE(Nightowl @ Aug 20 2006, 06:22 PM)
Sorry I missed this fact. Then maybe the thread should have been set up to keep anyone else from posting, woulda saved lots of time all around.
As someone much respected in this field once said... "It's not about belief, it's about the evidence".
As someone much respected in this field once said... "It's not about belief, it's about the evidence".
To answer politely... That is just what was attempted here... to present evidence and results of investigation. So many times we see people not wanting to wait but start tearing down a train of thought before it is ever transferred. Responses by the elk faction never presented any evidence except to say wait for the paper coming out... or just look at this book. Those of you in the same camp applaud this and people actually working with the evidence and doing their own investigation get chastised or answered with smart a## remarks. Belief in what the Skookum Cast represents seems to be what DY proposes since no convincing evidence has been presented here or in the thread he began.
I think this thread has presented more evidence concerning elk then the proponents to that theory have. This thread was meant for all this type of stuff. I didn't say that people should not be posting here... I said that it was hoped that logical and non repetitive questions be asked becuase the people who have the answers or are working on them are not all knowing and can forget something or fail to mention it. Maybe even a subject never questioned in this event will present itself for further evaluation.
QUOTE(Apeman @ Aug 21 2006, 12:12 AM)
DDA-
Thanks for the long and helpful posts and attempt to put this thread back on track. I would disagree about this thread being hijacked by anyone or any group in particular, but that's neither here nor there.
I would, however, like to see and hear more about the hair flow direction. As I pointed out weeks ago in the other thread, and you and others clearly figured out long before me, definitive hair flow direction on the achilles/wrist section would clinch this. You've just mentioned it again here:
Could we see or hear more about this evidence on hair flow direction, i.e. can you convince me or other members of this forum that the hair on the achilles area points towards the heel?
I'd also like to hear (and see) some convincing evidence about hair length and especially about the dermals. This thread seems like the right place to present and debate these aspects, right? If some of this is proprietary data or other's work that might be in preparation for something, please just say so, I can fully respect that.
Apeman
Thanks for the long and helpful posts and attempt to put this thread back on track. I would disagree about this thread being hijacked by anyone or any group in particular, but that's neither here nor there.
I would, however, like to see and hear more about the hair flow direction. As I pointed out weeks ago in the other thread, and you and others clearly figured out long before me, definitive hair flow direction on the achilles/wrist section would clinch this. You've just mentioned it again here:
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 07:26 PM)
We have identified other features that would indicate an ungulate lay versus something else with features such as hair flow direction, hair length, track strides, comparative castings, movies and pictures if in fact it were.
Could we see or hear more about this evidence on hair flow direction, i.e. can you convince me or other members of this forum that the hair on the achilles area points towards the heel?
I'd also like to hear (and see) some convincing evidence about hair length and especially about the dermals. This thread seems like the right place to present and debate these aspects, right? If some of this is proprietary data or other's work that might be in preparation for something, please just say so, I can fully respect that.
Apeman
Apeman,
I will see what I have showing the hair pattern. I might have to take some new pictures illustrating in more detail the areas you want though. I will also check on the hair length info here for you.
As I have stated over and over, I am not here to debate anything. I am just presenting evidence collected. I consider myself biased and that is the main reason I haven't written anything except for here. Sure I gave a nod to what LeRoy wrote, as did Derek but that was him writing it up and using mostly his own pictures to illustrate his points and thoughts.
QUOTE(HuntFish @ Aug 20 2006, 09:28 PM)
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
It is unfortunate that this thread was hijacked by proponents of the other thread with contrary opinions as to what this impression and cast represent. This thread started out as a repository for information on the subject, from those who had examined the original impression, cast and copies...
QUOTE(bipto @ Jul 18 2006, 04:28 PM)
No one should assume that because we pinned this we're somehow dissing other threads and opinions. That's not the intention. The intention, since this is the "official" position of those who discovered and have spent the most time analyzing the cast, is to give it some kind of elevate status so it's easy to find. Everyone of all positions are still free to post what they think here or in any other thread.
If Bipto ask everyone to refrain from posting comments about any post, I'm sure everyone would have obliged him.
As for "a repository for information on the subject", what's stopping those directly involved from submitting more information? Seems the inflow has stalled from what is was from the beginning.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
2. A place to ask logical, non-redundant questions; which really didn't come to pass. Many questions are being asked over and over...
I've asked once I believe for better pictures of the skookum impression. All but one picture I've seen so far of the original impression has been of such poor quality, I would be hard pressed to use those pictures to explain or express anything.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 02:26 PM)
and for something completely different, one should look at the skookum impression and cast from different vantage points. I would hazzard a guess that the actual viewing direction can alter views.
When all the facts from both sides are presented either here or published elsewhere, only then will everyone be able to view the skookum impression from the angle you speak of.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 20 2006, 04:28 PM)
The Skookum impression is not an elk or a bigfoot. It is a representation of some animals mass laid to rest there.
That pretty much is a true statement, but the language that keeps rising doesn't support those sentiments.
If no one asked questions or questions the path of which this piece of evidence is traveling, some will be involuntarily forced to rally around it no matter what their stance may be.
As stated before in other threads, the impression was photographed by LeRoy, Dr. Bam Bam, the Storyteller video people, Jeff Lemley and I. The quality of the photographs varies on which source you go with. I only have access to mine and those in my opinion are not my best work. My good cameras were locked up in my truck and I could not get in because the battery was dead. The latch was under the console as well. Eventually, I got through to the inside by prying through a window and latching the release for the door.
Thom Powell was there as was MM, neither had cameras. That really made me wonder.
I will post some but everyone should understand that they will be sized down and they are copyrighted. I do not care for DY’s attitude presented here on the thread and will not allow him to use the pictures for his paper. I think he should have to work on the project before earning that right… meaning… well I will let it go at that.
I would also like to say that I am starting to take offense to some of the comments and comparisons being expressed here. You guys want this and that and then make derogatory comments like that… what exactly gives you the right to judge people so yet demand stuff in the same breath? I have yet to see anybody post here any evidence pertainable to this event that they collected except for John and Chris. It has mostly been opinions flying around. Why even DY’s pictures, illustrations and identification are so poor as to just add confusion to the topic. Once that kind of stuff gets added to the mix it will constantly be brought up again… like the elk wrists he thinks are there, which are not... or the tail and nose. His pictures, even mine, are not good enough to determine what things are or are not on the cast. Just ask anybody who is going to be honest about it and has seen the cast in person. Pictures do not do it justice in this respect.
Maybe I should attempt some 3D pictures of the cast… as if I had the time and desire.
I don’t burn bridges if I can help it nor do I take pleasure in tearing people down… but usually the first people responding are the few that like to do so. Both Owen and I do not need to post anything here. We do so only because there are people who are curious, have a great interest in the subject and have been courteous about it. We are having to throw out what we have before it is complete because all of you think we should and DY is intent on publishing his paper. Truefully, I didn’t want to do anything about it. It isn’t a competition.
QUOTE
I do not care for DY’s attitude presented here on the thread and will not allow him to use the pictures for his paper. I think he should have to work on the project before earning that right… meaning… well I will let it go at that.
...and there you have it...
Remember Wayne King and his "top secret" files?
And the High Desert Sasquatch Research Team with all their "proprietary" information?
How about BFRO and their "top secret" research?
Or the Johor Hominids and their "secret" photos?
So, what became of all them?
Anytime anyone is willing to not share, to not publish, and to keep things hidden from scrutiny by others (especially qualified researchers), everyone should be suspicious. That's sadly at the heart of the debate here. After 6 years of cryptic writings, limited access to researchers, and a tendency to remain evasive as to what exactly the imprint is claimed to be, it's my opninion that the time has come to pull the plug on this sucker. As anyone can see, it's an elk imprint. Pure and simple. My attitude has indeed shifted with regard to the "evidence," the presentation of the "evidence," and the ability of some to objectively interpret animal tracks and sign. For those who I've asked to look at the pre-review paper on ungulate beds, I'll get it out as soon as I wrap up some additional work on the imprints I've been cataloguing. For those who's minds are already made up and won't be convinced by anything I or anyone else says with regards to the Skookum Elk Cast, well...lemme forward you this e-mail from a Nigerian prince who has a great deal for you.
thanks everyone, it's been a hoot!
--DY
QUOTE
I do not care for DY’s attitude presented here on the thread and will not allow him to use the pictures for his paper. I think he should have to work on the project before earning that right… meaning… well I will let it go at that.
That really clears things up about where you are coming from.. Thanks for sharing..
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Aug 21 2006, 09:59 AM)
QUOTE
I do not care for DY’s attitude presented here on the thread and will not allow him to use the pictures for his paper. I think he should have to work on the project before earning that right… meaning… well I will let it go at that.
That really clears things up about where you are coming from.. Thanks for sharing..
It certainly does, doesn't it.
I almost can't believe what I'm reading here.
Maybe I see it a little different. From what I have read on this forum and what I know of Rick and Owen I wouldn't say they are trying to hide anything. More like they would would rather wait for the study and examinations to be complete so the best scientific information can be realeased instead of throwing out theory and speculation. Isn't that what we really want anyway? Everyone is in a hurry to hear it all, but when the invesigation isn't complete, yet people start pissing and moaning about cover up and trying to hide information. Personally I would think most here would find it refreshing to see someone trying to find the facts before going off half cocked. I guess not.
QUOTE(Tsiatko @ Aug 21 2006, 01:36 PM)
Maybe I see it a little different. From what I have read on this forum and what I know of Rick and Owen I wouldn't say they are trying to hide anything. More like they would would rather wait for the study and examinations to be complete so the best scientific information can be realeased instead of throwing out theory and speculation. Isn't that what we really want anyway? Everyone is in a hurry to hear it all but when the invesigation isn't complete yet people start pissing and moaning about cover up and trying to hide information.
Well, it's been six years.. When do you think the ' scientific ' examination will take place..
Oh, wait ! Someone just tried to do that ..
It appears that disagreeing with all the speculation ( which was all we had so far ). constitutes
an attitude that one side of the issue doesn't find tenable..
There was all the clamor for him to examine the original cast, without even clarifying whether he
would even be given access to it ..
At least that question has been answered..
QUOTE
Personally I would think most here would find it refreshing to see someone trying to find the facts before going off half cocked.
Just like six years ago ?
...a final note...here's the newly interpreted "area of slippage" clearly showing the imprint of the shaft of the metacarpus, the carpal block, a portion of the ulna, and even some hair texture.
I stand by my interpretation of it as a wrist despite DDA and others' (those who haven't seen the cast) insistence that it's a hoof slip.
Fortunately, I have my own photos of various portions of the cast, and DDA's assessment of my worthiness to have access to his photos, while making me tear up and begin to weep quietly, has no impact on any interpretation of the cast.
Now....back to it...and remember...Be Excellent to One Another!!
I stand by my interpretation of it as a wrist despite DDA and others' (those who haven't seen the cast) insistence that it's a hoof slip.
Fortunately, I have my own photos of various portions of the cast, and DDA's assessment of my worthiness to have access to his photos, while making me tear up and begin to weep quietly, has no impact on any interpretation of the cast.
Now....back to it...and remember...Be Excellent to One Another!!
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Aug 21 2006, 01:03 PM)
QUOTE(Tsiatko @ Aug 21 2006, 01:36 PM)
Maybe I see it a little different. From what I have read on this forum and what I know of Rick and Owen I wouldn't say they are trying to hide anything. More like they would would rather wait for the study and examinations to be complete so the best scientific information can be realeased instead of throwing out theory and speculation. Isn't that what we really want anyway? Everyone is in a hurry to hear it all but when the invesigation isn't complete yet people start pissing and moaning about cover up and trying to hide information.
Well, it's been six years.. When do you think the ' scientific ' examination will take place..
Oh, wait ! Someone just tried to do that ..
It appears that disagreeing with all the speculation ( which was all we had so far ). constitutes
an attitude that one side of the issue doesn't find tenable..
There was all the clamor for him to examine the original cast, without even clarifying whether he
would even be given access to it ..
At least that question has been answered..
QUOTE
Personally I would think most here would find it refreshing to see someone trying to find the facts before going off half cocked.
Just like six years ago ?
That question was answered a long time ago. DY can look at the original but it would be on his own dime... not mine. He can take his own pictures but not use mine. He has to do the work... not Owen or me. He cannot use any of my material but I cannot speak for Owen on this. I thought that was understood. Maybe Selective reading is going on here. You have a search engine that only looks for certain wording that can be twisted?
The point I brought up before where many of you wanted Ben Radford to see the cast and I asked just what he would be bringing to the table comes to mind here. Ben needs to make money. He writes things for a skeptically based periodical. He is not a scientist and he certainly doesn’t have an open mind. I interviewed the guy on video.
He asked no questions of me. Took a few simple pictures and that was it. He probably got enough to do the story already in his head concerning this. If so… that is just what I suspected. But many of you thought it was a good idea to do. Why?
Examining the cast copies while on the run with an overheated radiator waiting outside is not what I would consider setting aside the time to really look at it, give it a real examination. His pictures, at least the ones he published here, are basically worthless... not that mine are any better mind you.
We have identified at least two mistakes in interpreting the various impressions on the cast copies made right before everyone here. There is no nose print. The identified joints in line with the elk tracks are not a joint but hooves from two different track ways. I won't get into the deer versus elk tracks.
Short quips made to humiliate anybody else involved with this should have been below most out of high school I would think. Once again, comparing this to other frauds is belittling. It is almost like what is done in the entertainment industry where controversy or sensationalism is introduced artificially where there was none. Even the alluding to in DY’s latest post about the people he let sees the draft copy of his paper is an attempt to slap us. So be it.
Personally, I have not sought out all the media coverage that the cast has garnered. It has been people like who are active on this very board that has pressured the need to know more, have it attend conferences and such.
Can any of DDA and Colobus's detractors speak to the referenced material posted by DDA on ungulates - which by the way is by the very same person DY has referenced?
I personally dont see where your coming from with this. I have not heard or seen where DDA or Colobus have ever said this cast of an impression was absolutely one animal or another. Yes, the arguement has been made that it is potentially the body print of a sasqutch, but why is that? I am thinking because in Colobus's opinion some areas of this impression do not completely match up with an Ungulate Lay. Colobus has also worked with the original cast.
Question, how can you "pull the plug" on anything - when you wont respond to direct questions about your own theory?
1. This "Elk" did not "Roll" to get up. Fact is, anyone who knows anything about fine details left in any kind of impression - would tell you this "Roll" you discuss would have distroyed those details, thus they would not have appeared in the casting. So, how did your elk get up? You make light of this issue, when in fact - it is a very serious question and goes to the heart of your theory.
2. We have no "Elk Tracks" showing this elk getting from a laying position to a standing position.
3. What about the "Wrist" that is a "Slide" - had you examined the original cast, and not copies hanging on a wall - in poor lighting, and if you had asked questions of those who had come before you - you would have known this very issue would have to be answered -- as this "Wrist" is pointed out by you -- and it may not be a "Wrist".
Im willing to bet you did not request pictures of the original or have conversations with DDA or Colobus about the Original Cast for your scientific paper for one very good reason.... You didnt want them to know you were doing it. It had nothing to do with not needing to see the Original, because Im guessing Colobus didnt ask for "high resolution images" to make his assessment, he went to the original, same with Dr. Meldrum. You say you have no bias in this yet, It is my opinion it was your intention to "Pull the Plug" from day one. The methods you used to come to your conclusion tell me that. At least DDA admits to his bias.
If you say DDA and Colobus should have to stand up to questioning etc - so should you. But, Im guessing by your latest comments that you will not be.
You may not like my questions - but they deserve an answer.
Sorry DY wrong area.. Thats not the area of "Slippage" First pic is your picture you posted - that is not the area in question. Second image posted is circled with the area of "Slippage" in question.
QUOTE(DesertYeti)
That's sadly at the heart of the debate here. After 6 years of cryptic writings, limited access to researchers, and a tendency to remain evasive as to what exactly the imprint is claimed to be, it's my opninion that the time has come to pull the plug on this sucker.
I personally dont see where your coming from with this. I have not heard or seen where DDA or Colobus have ever said this cast of an impression was absolutely one animal or another. Yes, the arguement has been made that it is potentially the body print of a sasqutch, but why is that? I am thinking because in Colobus's opinion some areas of this impression do not completely match up with an Ungulate Lay. Colobus has also worked with the original cast.
Question, how can you "pull the plug" on anything - when you wont respond to direct questions about your own theory?
1. This "Elk" did not "Roll" to get up. Fact is, anyone who knows anything about fine details left in any kind of impression - would tell you this "Roll" you discuss would have distroyed those details, thus they would not have appeared in the casting. So, how did your elk get up? You make light of this issue, when in fact - it is a very serious question and goes to the heart of your theory.
2. We have no "Elk Tracks" showing this elk getting from a laying position to a standing position.
3. What about the "Wrist" that is a "Slide" - had you examined the original cast, and not copies hanging on a wall - in poor lighting, and if you had asked questions of those who had come before you - you would have known this very issue would have to be answered -- as this "Wrist" is pointed out by you -- and it may not be a "Wrist".
Im willing to bet you did not request pictures of the original or have conversations with DDA or Colobus about the Original Cast for your scientific paper for one very good reason.... You didnt want them to know you were doing it. It had nothing to do with not needing to see the Original, because Im guessing Colobus didnt ask for "high resolution images" to make his assessment, he went to the original, same with Dr. Meldrum. You say you have no bias in this yet, It is my opinion it was your intention to "Pull the Plug" from day one. The methods you used to come to your conclusion tell me that. At least DDA admits to his bias.
If you say DDA and Colobus should have to stand up to questioning etc - so should you. But, Im guessing by your latest comments that you will not be.
You may not like my questions - but they deserve an answer.
Sorry DY wrong area.. Thats not the area of "Slippage" First pic is your picture you posted - that is not the area in question. Second image posted is circled with the area of "Slippage" in question.
QUOTE(Desertyeti @ Aug 21 2006, 01:38 PM)
...a final note...here's the newly interpreted "area of slippage" clearly showing the imprint of the shaft of the metacarpus, the carpal block, a portion of the ulna, and even some hair texture.
I stand by my interpretation of it as a wrist despite DDA and others' (those who haven't seen the cast) insistence that it's a hoof slip.
Fortunately, I have my own photos of various portions of the cast, and DDA's assessment of my worthiness to have access to his photos, while making me tear up and begin to weep quietly, has no impact on any interpretation of the cast.
Now....back to it...and remember...Be Excellent to One Another!!
I stand by my interpretation of it as a wrist despite DDA and others' (those who haven't seen the cast) insistence that it's a hoof slip.
Fortunately, I have my own photos of various portions of the cast, and DDA's assessment of my worthiness to have access to his photos, while making me tear up and begin to weep quietly, has no impact on any interpretation of the cast.
Now....back to it...and remember...Be Excellent to One Another!!
Sorry DY. That is not the slippage spoken about in your interpretation nor is it what is marked in one of your own overall pictures. Look back in the threads and see it for yourself. There is a big circle around the object below and to the left of this.
Blast!
Caught in my own sinister attempt to evade truth yet again!
Here's the correct wrist (since it's a mirror image of the one I posted, I got confused...I apologize profusely).
Still...it's an elk wrist.
Oh, and to finally make melissa happy, here's the answers to her 3 questions:
1) an elk's pelvis MUST roll to go from horizontal to vertial, about 90 degrees...no the flank hair will not be totally wiped out...why? Because the hair is simply lifted up and away from the substrate...no smearing...very simple, get over it.
2) do too...namely evidence of the moving hindlegs, and forelimbs (DDA's correct that a forelimb was moved...he's even properly identified it as an elk this time...there's hope yet...)
and
3) it is a wrist, there's no issue, get over it.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress...
Caught in my own sinister attempt to evade truth yet again!
Here's the correct wrist (since it's a mirror image of the one I posted, I got confused...I apologize profusely).
Still...it's an elk wrist.
Oh, and to finally make melissa happy, here's the answers to her 3 questions:
1) an elk's pelvis MUST roll to go from horizontal to vertial, about 90 degrees...no the flank hair will not be totally wiped out...why? Because the hair is simply lifted up and away from the substrate...no smearing...very simple, get over it.
2) do too...namely evidence of the moving hindlegs, and forelimbs (DDA's correct that a forelimb was moved...he's even properly identified it as an elk this time...there's hope yet...)
and
3) it is a wrist, there's no issue, get over it.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress...
Ok first of all, I will not "get over" anything.. I am sorry your answers make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Thats your issue to deal with and not mine.
Now, your saying the first picture posted in this response is exactly the same as the second picture??? Is that really what your saying? I want to be clear about this. Hate to be redundant with my questions, ya know. :new_tiredsmiley:
If thats the case, there is an Elk out there with a very deformed "Wrist" and is suffering something fierce.. Someone should form a search party -- poor elk
Now, your saying the first picture posted in this response is exactly the same as the second picture??? Is that really what your saying? I want to be clear about this. Hate to be redundant with my questions, ya know. :new_tiredsmiley:
If thats the case, there is an Elk out there with a very deformed "Wrist" and is suffering something fierce.. Someone should form a search party -- poor elk
[/quote]
Well, it's been six years.. When do you think the ' scientific ' examination will take place..
.I guess it will never happen. Because you do not trust any of the scientists, trackers and such who did do the examination over the last six years and who voiced their opinion of it. It is clear that, for you, unless the scientists who examine the cast call it a hoax or an elk you will not recognise their work on it. You suggest the cast has been hidden so it can't be examined. That is pure BS. It has been put on public display several times as well as been viewed privately by numerous people who made the request. Just because Rick isn't willing to ship several hundred pounds of fragile Hydra cal to anyome who wants to take a look doesn't mean it has been hidden from view. Truth is examination of the cast by scientific people has been encouraged since it was first was cleaned. John Green has done everything he can to get scientists to come and examine the cast. Many will not look because, to them, there is no point because sasquatch don't exist.
What made the imprint that the cast is of will probably never be known for sure. No one saw an elk or a sasquatch make it. There will always be more questions about it. Unless one has a closed mind.
I wonder sometimes why some people are on this forum. Most are here because that are interested in one way or another. But some are here just because they want to stir the pott and try and piss people off. interesting way to get their jollies.
[/quote]
Well, it's been six years.. When do you think the ' scientific ' examination will take place..
.I guess it will never happen. Because you do not trust any of the scientists, trackers and such who did do the examination over the last six years and who voiced their opinion of it. It is clear that, for you, unless the scientists who examine the cast call it a hoax or an elk you will not recognise their work on it. You suggest the cast has been hidden so it can't be examined. That is pure BS. It has been put on public display several times as well as been viewed privately by numerous people who made the request. Just because Rick isn't willing to ship several hundred pounds of fragile Hydra cal to anyome who wants to take a look doesn't mean it has been hidden from view. Truth is examination of the cast by scientific people has been encouraged since it was first was cleaned. John Green has done everything he can to get scientists to come and examine the cast. Many will not look because, to them, there is no point because sasquatch don't exist.
What made the imprint that the cast is of will probably never be known for sure. No one saw an elk or a sasquatch make it. There will always be more questions about it. Unless one has a closed mind.
I wonder sometimes why some people are on this forum. Most are here because that are interested in one way or another. But some are here just because they want to stir the pott and try and piss people off. interesting way to get their jollies.
[/quote]
QUOTE(DesertYeti)
1) an elk's pelvis MUST roll to go from horizontal to vertial, about 90 degrees...no the flank hair will not be totally wiped out...why? Because the hair is simply lifted up and away from the substrate...no smearing...very simple, get over it.
Wrong. While the elks pelvis MUST roll, there MUST be momentum to do so. Where does the momentum come from? Body Weight. Body weight must be shifted in order to create the momentum to Roll - so, basically - its not a clean roll - as you would have us believe. Fact of the matter is this - if this elk "rolled" to get into a standing position it most likely would have distroyed any hair evidence that could have been left.
You address the flank hair - but, what about the potential hair evidence in the "wrists"? That absolutely would be gone if we go with your theory. As the "wrists" would have had to roll or move with the movement of the body of this elk.. Is it your opinion the "wrists" remained stationary during this "roll"?
QUOTE(Tsiatko @ Aug 21 2006, 03:29 PM)
There will always be more questions about it. Unless one has a closed mind.
Actually, I don't think there would have been any questions at all, if noone had tried to make it out to be something it isn't ...
Nice try on the old " You don't agree with me, so your mind must be closed " gambit; but no cigar..
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Aug 21 2006, 02:40 PM)
QUOTE(Tsiatko @ Aug 21 2006, 03:29 PM)
There will always be more questions about it. Unless one has a closed mind.
one had tried to make it out to be something it isn't ...
Nice try on the old " You don't agree with me, so your mind must be closed " gambit; but no cigar..
SG, any chance you might respond to the questions - or are you gonna stick to the personal stuff? I would really like to hear your opinion on the latest pieces of information discussed.. Such as "Wrist" vs. "Slippage" and the information posted by DDA from a tracker quoted by DesertYeti as well..
Any opinion?
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Aug 21 2006, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE(Tsiatko @ Aug 21 2006, 03:29 PM)
There will always be more questions about it. Unless one has a closed mind.
one had tried to make it out to be something it isn't ...
Nice try on the old " You don't agree with me, so your mind must be closed " gambit; but no cigar..
It apears you are the one claiming to have the answers
QUOTE(Desertyeti @ Aug 21 2006, 02:06 PM)
Blast!
Caught in my own sinister attempt to evade truth yet again!
Here's the correct wrist (since it's a mirror image of the one I posted, I got confused...I apologize profusely).
Still...it's an elk wrist.
Oh, and to finally make melissa happy, here's the answers to her 3 questions:
1) an elk's pelvis MUST roll to go from horizontal to vertial, about 90 degrees...no the flank hair will not be totally wiped out...why? Because the hair is simply lifted up and away from the substrate...no smearing...very simple, get over it.
2) do too...namely evidence of the moving hindlegs, and forelimbs (DDA's correct that a forelimb was moved...he's even properly identified it as an elk this time...there's hope yet...)
and
3) it is a wrist, there's no issue, get over it.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress...
Caught in my own sinister attempt to evade truth yet again!
Here's the correct wrist (since it's a mirror image of the one I posted, I got confused...I apologize profusely).
Still...it's an elk wrist.
Oh, and to finally make melissa happy, here's the answers to her 3 questions:
1) an elk's pelvis MUST roll to go from horizontal to vertial, about 90 degrees...no the flank hair will not be totally wiped out...why? Because the hair is simply lifted up and away from the substrate...no smearing...very simple, get over it.
2) do too...namely evidence of the moving hindlegs, and forelimbs (DDA's correct that a forelimb was moved...he's even properly identified it as an elk this time...there's hope yet...)
and
3) it is a wrist, there's no issue, get over it.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress...
Sorry, guess again. That is a hoof that slipped into a hole from one trackway and another hoof that slipped into it from a different trackway... just follow the tracks you laid out in one of your bigger pictures posted. This feature of the cast is easily the deepest of the impressions... about 8 inches. It is associated with the two trackways of the elk.
Could I ask everyone to take a breather please?
In spite of some of the things that have been said and the accusations that have been made, I would REALLY love to see DDA and DY (along with anyone else who's been able to study the cast in person or by good photographs, debate this one on one without all the added accusations made by those on the "outside". Hey, I can dream can't I?
In spite of some of the things that have been said and the accusations that have been made, I would REALLY love to see DDA and DY (along with anyone else who's been able to study the cast in person or by good photographs, debate this one on one without all the added accusations made by those on the "outside". Hey, I can dream can't I?
QUOTE(Melissa @ Aug 21 2006, 03:43 PM)
SG, any chance you might respond to the questions - or are you gonna stick to the personal stuff? I would really like to hear your opinion on the latest pieces of information discussed.. Such as "Wrist" vs. "Slippage" and the information posted by DDA from a tracker quoted by DesertYeti as well..
Any opinion?
Any opinion?
Did the tracker examine the impression and/or the original cast ?
Or . . . we could allow this "debate" to take place where any scientific disagreement should take place - in the peer reviewed literature.
If DY is preparing a manuscript that says this impression was made by an elk, then he's got to get his analysis past 2-3 independent peer reviewers and a journal editor. If he succeeds in this endeavor, then the rest of us may conclude that the impression was most likely made by an elk. If he fails, then we should trust him to report back as to why the manuscript was rejected. For example, if those 3-4 independent parties thought the evidence was insufficient or incompatible with an elk, I would expect an honorable person to come here, share that information with the Forum, and accept their heaping plate of crow. (Note that - no offense to DY - there are multiple reasons why the paper could be rejected that might have nothing to do with his conclusion that the impression was left by an elk.)
But until that review takes place, this issue could be debated endlessly to no resolution.
In the meantime, anyone with evidence to refute the "elk hypothesis" is welcomed to prepare a manuscript and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, as DY is apparently doing.
If DY is preparing a manuscript that says this impression was made by an elk, then he's got to get his analysis past 2-3 independent peer reviewers and a journal editor. If he succeeds in this endeavor, then the rest of us may conclude that the impression was most likely made by an elk. If he fails, then we should trust him to report back as to why the manuscript was rejected. For example, if those 3-4 independent parties thought the evidence was insufficient or incompatible with an elk, I would expect an honorable person to come here, share that information with the Forum, and accept their heaping plate of crow. (Note that - no offense to DY - there are multiple reasons why the paper could be rejected that might have nothing to do with his conclusion that the impression was left by an elk.)
But until that review takes place, this issue could be debated endlessly to no resolution.
In the meantime, anyone with evidence to refute the "elk hypothesis" is welcomed to prepare a manuscript and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, as DY is apparently doing.
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Aug 21 2006, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE(Melissa @ Aug 21 2006, 03:43 PM)
SG, any chance you might respond to the questions - or are you gonna stick to the personal stuff? I would really like to hear your opinion on the latest pieces of information discussed.. Such as "Wrist" vs. "Slippage" and the information posted by DDA from a tracker quoted by DesertYeti as well..
Any opinion?
Did the tracker examine the impression and/or the original cast ?
I have no idea - ask DY, he quoted this tracker - and DDA simply responded to that. You would have to ask DY. Not sure why your asking me. lmao.
On what Tube asked awhile back and then questioned interpretation I think he was pointing out dermals on his own foot versus skin wrinkles. I am not an expert in dermals but what I find fascinating is that the hair stops in this area of the supposed heel marks and changes to something looking like what Tube found on his very own foot.
There are a few skin abrasion patches visible on some of these structures and I believe it was in them that Jimmy claimed there were dermals. This structure is so fine that duplication in any form has not worked, at least in what I have seen except for a small latex skin mold Jeff Meldrum made right after casting. The nature of fine structure like this is that the 3D nature of the shape makes thicker material jig lock the structures. These are so small that slight pulling of the material easily removes a mold made from it. Unfortunately that process acts like sandpaper and rubs it off.
I haven't seen these structures in the copies made with gel coat. The structures on Tubes foot are about 1mm. The structures on the Skookum cast ( as stated by Owen) are between 1 and 1.5mm. These structures are no where to be found on elk joints. We have a frozen elk leg and use it to made test casts with.
There are a few skin abrasion patches visible on some of these structures and I believe it was in them that Jimmy claimed there were dermals. This structure is so fine that duplication in any form has not worked, at least in what I have seen except for a small latex skin mold Jeff Meldrum made right after casting. The nature of fine structure like this is that the 3D nature of the shape makes thicker material jig lock the structures. These are so small that slight pulling of the material easily removes a mold made from it. Unfortunately that process acts like sandpaper and rubs it off.
I haven't seen these structures in the copies made with gel coat. The structures on Tubes foot are about 1mm. The structures on the Skookum cast ( as stated by Owen) are between 1 and 1.5mm. These structures are no where to be found on elk joints. We have a frozen elk leg and use it to made test casts with.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 21 2006, 05:03 PM)
The structures on Tubes foot are about 1mm. The structures on the Skookum cast ( as stated by Owen) are between 1 and 1.5mm. These structures are no where to be found on elk joints. We have a frozen elk leg and use it to made test casts with.
Can you indicate where the red square is on the full cast ?
Also, what are the dimensions of the cast ?
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 21 2006, 02:49 PM)
The point I brought up before where many of you wanted Ben Radford to see the cast and I asked just what he would be bringing to the table comes to mind here.
I thought that was water under the bridge, but since you bring it up again... :wink:
Personally, I don't care whether or not he sees the cast, but when he stated he wasn't allowed access to the cast, he was being truthful. Then some other folks tried to twist that around to where Radford was demanding 'special' access or something. That was not truthful. At this point it matters little, because he wasn't given access, special or otherwise. What would he have brought to the table? Who knows?
QUOTE
He is not a scientist and he certainly doesn’t have an open mind.
John Green is no scientist either, but he got to examine it firsthand, and, given his position and the number of books JG has written on bigfoot, he appears no more unbiased than Radford.
QUOTE
But many of you thought it was a good idea to do [Having Radford look at the cast]. Why?
I think Robo summed that up best a few years ago:
QUOTE(Robo @ December 6, 2003)
If the skeptic looks at the cast and scoffs, well, nothing lost, that was his position beforehand. If he looks at the cast and is intrigued, and writes as much, then BF research has gained some credibility.
I think it's important to have as many people as possible look at it. The more qualified the better.
QUOTE(RayG @ December 7, 2003)
I would lobby for as many scientists as possible examining the cast. The more that examine it, the more publicity it will generate, and the very distinct possibility that even more scientists will examine it... make it available for examination and let the chips fall where they may... I don't believe he [Radford] should be given special status, but I also don't believe he should be treated with contempt because he has a skeptical viewpoint.
QUOTE(damndirtyape)
Short quips made to humiliate anybody else involved with this should have been below most out of high school I would think.
Yes, and it's something all of us seem to be guilty of at one time or another. Emotional outbursts and ad-hom attacks do little to further the discussion.
RayG
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Aug 21 2006, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 21 2006, 05:03 PM)
The structures on Tubes foot are about 1mm. The structures on the Skookum cast ( as stated by Owen) are between 1 and 1.5mm. These structures are no where to be found on elk joints. We have a frozen elk leg and use it to made test casts with.
Can you indicate where the red square is on the full cast ?
Also, what are the dimensions of the cast ?
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act...post&id=627
F3
QUOTE(RayG @ Aug 21 2006, 06:24 PM)
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 21 2006, 02:49 PM)
The point I brought up before where many of you wanted Ben Radford to see the cast and I asked just what he would be bringing to the table comes to mind here.
I thought that was water under the bridge, but since you bring it up again... :wink:
Personally, I don't care whether or not he sees the cast, but when he stated he wasn't allowed access to the cast, he was being truthful. Then some other folks tried to twist that around to where Radford was demanding 'special' access or something. That was not truthful. At this point it matters little, because he wasn't given access, special or otherwise. What would he have brought to the table? Who knows?
QUOTE
He is not a scientist and he certainly doesn’t have an open mind.
John Green is no scientist either, but he got to examine it firsthand, and, given his position and the number of books JG has written on bigfoot, he appears no more unbiased than Radford.
QUOTE
But many of you thought it was a good idea to do [Having Radford look at the cast]. Why?
I think Robo summed that up best a few years ago:
QUOTE(Robo @ December 6, 2003)
If the skeptic looks at the cast and scoffs, well, nothing lost, that was his position beforehand. If he looks at the cast and is intrigued, and writes as much, then BF research has gained some credibility.
I think it's important to have as many people as possible look at it. The more qualified the better.
QUOTE(RayG @ December 7, 2003)
I would lobby for as many scientists as possible examining the cast. The more that examine it, the more publicity it will generate, and the very distinct possibility that even more scientists will examine it... make it available for examination and let the chips fall where they may... I don't believe he [Radford] should be given special status, but I also don't believe he should be treated with contempt because he has a skeptical viewpoint.
QUOTE(damndirtyape)
Short quips made to humiliate anybody else involved with this should have been below most out of high school I would think.
Yes, and it's something all of us seem to be guilty of at one time or another. Emotional outbursts and ad-hom attacks do little to further the discussion.
RayG
Apparently very little will come from Ben viewing the cast, unless he chooses to do a followup. At least I made no special trip just for him. Skeptics are as faulted as believers in that they are fixated on an outcome not yet determined. Neither can see easily the forest through the trees. My best guess right now with :ahem: readings between the lines of DY's postings is that the Skookum cast is going to be nothing but a side note in an article concerning beds and lays of contemporary animals for identification purposes optioned to that of tracks. The Skookum cast will just be something like... and then here is an excellent example of a preserved deer lay that some enthusiastic day dreamers actually think was made from the fabled beastie Bigfoot... just added spice. It is just a guess mind you since I have not be privy to his drafts.
At the beginning I PMed DY about one or two things to help (I think he was headed down the wrong path or something, can't really remember) but then I got that attitude that just told me this was someone I didn't or shouldn't be around. Typical of someone hiding something and about to do harm... at least in their mind. Others noticed this as well, even those who have sided with his opinion... yes... his opinion. DY has privileged me with nothing that he hasn't given to the general public so far.
If I am not mistaken, wasn't Ben asking for a special viewing of the cast since he could not come to Seattle or to one of the conferences unless the conference paid him to? Sounds special to me. I consider it a special viewing when I went down to Seattle and picked up Loren Coleman to come and visit it. It was a special trip I made to show it to a hunters convention and to George Schaller. There have only been a few people who have come to me and asked to see it. As explained before, it was really Matt Moneymaker who was really against it but that is not what I was talking about here or beforehand. Ok! It is water under the bridge. Agreed.
By the way, everyone knows that the so called elk here in the US are not really elk, right? They are of the Red Deer family. They were called elk because of their bigger size. It would only be right to have that included in DY's paper I would think.
John Green and all the others we called were close by and took it upon themselves to come and see it by driving hundreds of miles and spending hours doing so. Only Grover Krantz go special treatment since he was ill. John was called because he had such a history with the subject, not for his expertise. It was a courtesy to include him. He deserved to know first hand what it was all about and share... just like others close by and into the subject... René Dahinden, Dick Grover, Todd Neiss and Cliff Crook. I wasn't intending to line up support for the thing... in fact support was split with the later few. John had scientific contacts as well as the scientists invited.
Skeptics do not have anymore legitimacy in my book as that of someone labeled believer. The sum of the parts do not always equal the whole. The trouble here is that building a case either way by attacking small parts and then lumping them together just gets you a frankenstein creation. Not always working well together. Remember when bones were added to the T-Rex skeletons in order to make it work to then current theory. Science was wrong. The same can be said with a multitude of fringe topics on the other side too of course.
Now hopefully people wont take this wrong... but there is always a few individuals sitting in the audience who while watching a magic show just can't bring themselves to enjoy it. They have to try and figure out how a trick was done. The Skookum cast is no trick or magic but the general thought here seems fitting. There are many out there who have to know absolutely how this impression came about. Sorry... no one will ever know that. Get past it. Chalk it up to a possibility that will either pan out or not. Read from it what you will and go on. You will not convince anyone who has authority to use it in helping the cause.
I have learned from it and consider myself richer for it.
....
Agreed and am the first to admit fault in it.
QUOTE(Melissa @ Aug 21 2006, 12:51 PM)
This "Elk" did not "Roll" to get up. Fact is, anyone who knows anything about fine details left in any kind of impression - would tell you this "Roll" you discuss would have distroyed those details, thus they would not have appeared in the casting.
I'm just curious as to where this information has come from. I would think that an animal that rolled would actually impress added detail, if the mud didn't stick to the hair. Much like the way they ask you to roll your finger when making a fingerprint instead of simply pressing. Now, I have no idea how this works concerning mud, that's why I'm wondering where this info is coming from.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 21 2006, 07:20 PM)
By the way, everyone knows that the so called elk here in the US are not really elk, right? They are of the Red Deer family. They were called elk because of their bigger size. It would only be right to have that included in DY's paper I would think.
Same species actually: Cervus elephas. Interesting how the BFF seems to have lots of folks well versed in Native american stuff but i haven't seen anyone lobbying to call "elk" by their original North American name (one of many, no doubt) "wapiti."
QUOTE(P.L. Pinkham @ Aug 21 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE(Melissa @ Aug 21 2006, 12:51 PM)
This "Elk" did not "Roll" to get up. Fact is, anyone who knows anything about fine details left in any kind of impression - would tell you this "Roll" you discuss would have distroyed those details, thus they would not have appeared in the casting.
I'm just curious as to where this information has come from. I would think that an animal that rolled would actually impress added detail, if the mud didn't stick to the hair. Much like the way they ask you to roll your finger when making a fingerprint instead of simply pressing. Now, I have no idea how this works concerning mud, that's why I'm wondering where this info is coming from.
Mud is soft, it is a very unforgiving medium. Try sitting in a pile of mud - and moving to get out, and let me know how your impression turns out. But, remember, your theory is that this was made by an Elk, so - you can not use your arms.
I dont know if this was an Elk or not.. Who knows, maybe DY's Elk was just very talented :laugh:
Still havent heard what the proponents think of the Elk "Slippage" vs. "Wrist"... Im waiting
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.