What happened to the quest for scientific legitimacy ?

What I hear you are saying is " Can't we just imagine it was made by Bigfoot and enjoy it; without trying
to analyse it too hard ? Don't look behind the curtain .. "

Hi SG - its great to see you back

Are you going to answer my question? Thanks.

I think it's great !

Really , I missed something...

What is " Slippage" vs. "Wrist" ?

Well, you may not like me or my style of questioning -- but, at least when I am asked a direct question I attempt to address it without sarcasm.

Im glad you think its "GREAT" - now, tell me why, Thanks


Ohh I just noticed you edited.. Well -- you have some back reading to do then. Go back a couple pages.

Thanks

Ohh geesh - just cause I am a nice person.. Go back to page 23 and start at post number 561. Dont ever say I didnt do anything nice for you

Good grief! :icon_bang:

First, I have no theory. I don't know what made the impression, and it really doesn't matter to me. I just don't like being told things like rolling in the mud will destroy fine details unless I know how and why. It's the little things that interest me.

I'm not sure I have enough ass-hair to leave hair impressions in mud. I do have hairy arms, though. The hair leaves better traces in Play-Doh if I roll my arm across. Oops! Sorry! I used my arms!

Of course, the 'squatch didn't use it's arms to get up either, 'cause they were full of apples or something. Didn't use it's feet either, from the looks of it. I'm not sure I could pull that off.

O.K., I finally found where DY, in a sketch, had labeled that impression that looks like it contains a hoof, as a wrist ..

I see what looks like the top of a hoof, which means it would have been made by a kneeling type
movement/position; or just the front leg folded under, as in this picture.. ..






If so, the heel like bulge under ( looking at the cast, but actually above when it made the impression )
the hoof could have been the elbow ..


In any event, with the top and front of the hoof face down
( I't only looks face up, because it is a cast;
confusing, I know :wink: .. )

.... there would have been a wrist nearby...


Even though DY labeled it as wrist in the sketch you originally referred to, I think he is now confusing
the so-called slippage area with the big ' heel ' strike.

Maybe he will take a moment to clarify...

I must admit, I didn't really see the hoof shape till DDA pointed it out... For all I know it could be coyote testicles..

See, I just don't get the thinking behind this. An elk leg, wrist, knee, etc. is covered in hair, unless he has a case of the mange. As far as we know, a bf is covered in hair. Wouldn't that hair, on whatever left the impression, have left "fine" impressions in the mud no matter how he rolled to get to the standing postion? I can't figure out how anyone could tell if the hair impressions came from an elk or a bf, as long as the general size of the impression is thought to be similiar.


Taking for granted that the "fine" impressions being discussed are those impressions left by the hair on the animal...whatever it was.

I agree Wildman - I have no idea what made this impression. I do like the discussion however. Well, Im not telling you to believe me, I think I said - try it for yourself. I am not an expert and never claimed to be. I am simply drawing on my experience living on a farm, watching cows etc get up in muddy pastures - and watching deer throughout wisconsin (and in our own back yard growing up). I have read more about Ungulates since becoming a member of this board (I cant believe I even know the word for them :laugh: ), but I enjoy learning things I do not know.

I think its great your using Play-doh to attempt to simulate this issue. But, the consistancy is much different. Try mixing up a small batch of mud and just putting your arm in it - trust me, mud wont hurt you and its GREAT for the skin That I am VERY knowledgeable about !!!! lmao.

A good debate can kick your drive for knowledge into high gear - at least it does for me. No one should take my word for something -- try it yourself.... Just as much as you do not like to be "told something" - I do not like hearing my questions are silly because I am not an expert.



You could be right - who knows. But, my issue in this regard is simply this. DY says an Elk laid in this spot and created this impression. Ok, lets go with that. Elk need to move up onto their "Wrists" to first get into a standing position - thus putting weight on this area where the first impression was formed.. Now, depending on the consistancy of the mud - that act of the elk applying its full body weight onto the "wrists", initially, to stand, in my opinion more than likely would have wiped out any and all traces of hair on this area.

If Im wrong - I will stand corrected and move on from this issue, but it is an important issue DY has not addressed. That Elk roll would have been destructive to more than just the hair impressions in this.

Imagine how you would feel if you were an expert ...

SG - that holds no weight with me whatsoever. I give the same respect given to me. I am not going to discuss my background with you, but suffice it to say - many "Experts" have not appreciated my questioning of them - and they got over it.

If you want to call yourself an expert you have to be willing to answer questions.. Or at least thats how I thought you felt on that specific issue. Did you change your mind?

Ohh did you catch up? Can you discuss the issue I was kind enough to direct you to?

I don't mind getting muddy so much. I just don't care enough to do it! :laugh:

There is an elk farm near where I live. Like, a couple of miles away. There are times when I think "Hmmm... I should go ask to take some pictures of some elk wallows and lays." Then I think "Nah." There is just so many other things I'd rather be doing. Someday, if I'm bored enough, maybe I'll take that very short drive over there and do a little research. It's doubtful, though. Whatever the Skookum impression may be, it means absolutely nothing to me as far as evidence is concerned. It seems pointless to go and try to obtain evidence to either bolster or refute other purported evidence that, in the long run, doesn't mean squat. Regardless of what it is, it can't be proven, or disproven, either way. It is what it is.

I hear what your saying - but I dont think trying something new is pointless. We are all learning. Who knows what you might discover.

Life is a series of learning experiences.

Exactly P.L. The kicker in all this to me is that there was only one "lay" whatever it was. We have one cast available to us so that's all we have to go on. Nobody can ever go back and cast it again so what we have is what we have. No matter how much debate there is over that cast, it's all we have to work with from that particular time. I do believe it's important in the history of this subject just because of the history of this subject. IMO it's more important to use it for whatever we can get from it, and remember it when the next discovery comes along.



Oh yeah, that really made sense huh? :laugh:

I know. I could go cast a thousand elk lays, and some squatch ones, and no two would probably ever look alike. :laugh:



How hard it is to get mud out of those hard-to-reach areas?

Actually - I wouldnt let it dry for very long...

Dont ask me how I know that - I wont talk about that. LMAO. :laugh:

Sorry SG - I didnt mean to ignore your comment... I didnt see it till just now.



Thank you for offering your opinion on this. I was curious as to your response. I apologize for asking you to respond when you already had.

Are you sure it doesn't have something to do with the restraining order they have against you over there? :new_whistle:

It was consensual! I swear!

Exactly, so whats with all the hubbub about the elk pics, and the way they get up, and roll or balance etc.

Maybe, what ever it was, had a bad leg or was favoring a hoof. Maybe that's why it laid down it the first place!


edit sp.

k - maybe you shouldnt do "research" at that Elk farm... :laugh:

Vol, I heard that his red heart scared the lady elks and they won't lay eggs any more so they had to ban him. :new_weirdsmiley:

:laugh:

LMAO!!!!!!

:icon_really_happy_guy:

Sure did. I think everyone who read this thread gained quite a bit of knowledge that can be taken into the field and applied.

I had a great big long rambling post all typed out, but I think what Ray posted in another thread may be just as appropriate as anything I could ever say and probably far more accurate.

Care to elaborate?

Ohhh Skeptical Greg - I almost forgot... This was DY's response to the "Wrist" vs. "Slippage" issue...



Fact is, its not a "mirror image".

But, I will "get over it" :laugh:

Many will scream MM right off the bat.

Wrong. There does not NEED to be any momentum to roll an elk pelvis. Since no one caught this, and there is already plenty of uninformed ranting in this thread, I feel obligated to correct this one, even though it is totally unimportant in the grand scheme. I'm not trying tp pick on Melissa either Basic physics tells us there only needs to be a strong enough force to move any object. Momentum (mass x velocity) can be helpful, but is not necessary. For example, an elk extending it's legs to create a see-saw effect to roll itself over is not because of momentum. This is NOT to say that an elk doesn't use or even need some momentum to stand up. It might take some momentum for the elk to get its main body mass all the way over it's tucked under feet and then get up, but the majority of the body better be well off the ground by then, and that might even be aided by momentum. But momentm is not a requisite for rolling a pelvis as Melissa has claimed. This is partly semantic and does not really change Melissa's main point (as I understood it), but I would side with DY on an elk's ability to stand up without having to roll around enough to smear it's hair impression (e.g create a lot of momentum). I'm sure that anyone who has closely examined an ungulate impression (as many have claimed) can enlighten us on whether or not hair can usally be seen if the substrate is good enough. :wink:

Also Melissa, with all due respect, if you cannot see these two features as resembling eachother in mirror image like DY explained, then maybe you should be more sympathetic as to to why he has totally given up on participating in this thread.

Click to view attachment

(Don't the symmetrical divots seem a little interesting?)

As for the slip/wrist#2...I wasn't happy with the slip interpretation when first proposed (by Colobus) because it seemed to me a remarkable coincidence that two trackways (or even two elk?) would happen to slip from different places and have their hooves end up in EXACTLY the same place. I reconciled that to assume it was probably one slip with the hoof sliding in from one direction and sliding out in the other direction...but that would require a significant change in body position, at least a 45 degree pivot if that interpretation is correct. To me, that might help explain a number of possible anamolies as to why this impression doesn't match a standard elk impression. That is, the elk slipped when getting up or down, it's weight dramatically shifted, it's tracks ended up other than where predicted, etc. Of course we'll never know, but if anything, that slippage helps bolster the elk theory in my mind by adding anamolous elk tracks into an 'unorthodox(?)' impression. [Speaking of which, there has been a lot of discussion and presumption about how elk do or do not get up, not to mention many bold statements about features that are "always" or "never" present etc. I don't think anyone here would presume to know, have seen, have studied, have documented, have witnessed, or even have imagined every conceivable way an animal like an elk can get itself off the ground. What if it has a broken leg, strained thigh muscle, or even a missing foot? Maybe it has broken antlers and it's weight and balance is all screwed up. Maybe it is infected with the meningeal brain worm Parelaphostrongylus tenius and has neuro deficits? Or maybe it's perfectly healthy but the elk was startled and jumped up quickly and awkwardly- without urinating? Maybe one foot slipped (hmmm)? Maybe it stepped on uneven ground and had to readjust suddenly? I could go on and on but assume my point has been made.]

But now I wonder if it is even a hoof slippage to begin with? I can see it both ways (wrist or hoof) based on the not-so-great images provided so far. It seems to me that part of the reason for having cloven hooves is to provide traction and that a properly functioning cervid hoof would splay open (in front) to catch itself when slipping forward in mud to show the two points normally pressed together in elk tracks- but I really have no idea other than what I know about hoof anatomy and what I see (but never bother to study) in buffalo, duiker and bushbuck tracks in the mud on almost a daily basis. (Shouldn't we also see the other two vestigal digits if it slipped and was this deep?) Maybe it was too wet and that detail was lost in the suction of pulling the hoof out? Or maybe it's there, I just can't tell from the images? Or maybe it doesn't really happen that way and I should stick with gorillas? It just seems like, upon closer inspection, the impression isn't very sharp for a hoof mark and also seems to widen towards the base (without splaying). This feature seems like a huge dilemma to me in that, the experts in this regard all agree it is from an elk, but DDA and Colobus are sure it is a hoof (or hooves) while DY says it is another wrist. How can we debate or distinguish finer features in the overall impression if we can't even agree on the difference between elk hooves and elk wrists?

DDA- thanks for the hairflow on the achilles area. I think we all see the hair flow along the lines as you've drawn but what is the justification for the direction of the arrow heads? I assume something shows hair tips as apposed to roots and wonder if you or anyone else can illustrate this.

Thanks also for your thoughts on the dermals. I still do not see the margin where the hair is said to stop but guess I can only expect so much from images and will add that to my list for if/when I can examine the real deal. I'll keep trying to get insight from Jimmy and Jeff on this aspect.

Apeman

edited to try to diminish the initial harsh tone- perhaps unsuccessfully.....

At the risk of being forever labelled DY Cheerleader #1, I can't let this slip either (and BOY do I hope I haven't screwed this up?)...

DY has been criticized by important and prominent people who have studied the cast for YEARS because of things he's supposedly overlooked or misinterpeted in the cast.

Yet we have this: DDA has just shown us an image of the achilles area labelled and clearly showing 2 coyote tracks (one VERY obvious and one quite subtle). Colobus started this thread with the "official" interpretation of the cast including a frame of the coyote sign which now appears to be very conspicuously missing the more obvious of the coyote tracks DDA just posted.

Click to view attachment

No one here expects perfection. We all make mistakes and this was probably just a small oversight by Colobus posting something other than the final image or something like that. No big deal, and this error is no criticism on my part and I'm not nitpicking. I have nothing but the utmost respect for DDA and Colobus and would like to consider both of them friends and colleagues and fully understand that this whole effort continues to be a work in progress. Perhaps they disagree with each other on the second track- but I doubt it.

I raise this issue simply to remind everyone that we can't all have it both ways, we can't have our cake and eat it too, we can't apply different standards to different people,.. choose your cliche. If DDA and/or Colobus can make mistakes like this (assuming it is indeed a mistake) on their official information thread, and have studied it for so many years, then maybe some here should cut DY the occasional break if he errs (though I guess he's stopped posting), and maybe also let the peer-review process sort out any major mistakes in his scientific effort if it does get that far.

Apeman,

PS- I keep forgettng to ask this: Do elk ever fully roll over? Could the testicle impression be the middle of the elk's back as it fully rolled over into the drier area where it stood up normally and walked away leaving tracks (and urine?) exactly where one would have been expected, but where the ground was too hard and nothing was cast? Especially if it was frozen and he rolled over quickly and got up directly?

Anytime soon?
You seem to get a lot more play from the fluff than the substance ..

Go with what you have...

I believe it may have been directed towards me as well scotto.

The exact point many here have been drilling in to our (Owen and I's) heads. 6 years and what have we got... yet along comes a scientist who takes a cursory look and some pictures of the copies of the cast and walla... he is going to write a definitive paper on it without even consulting the original or people who have been involved with it far longer than he has even known about it. The point is, and I am not saying that we have, of course it is possible that we could have missed something in the cast...

I can't answer for Owen on whether or not he documented that particular coyote track. It is not the first time I have seen it though.

After doing hi-res imagery on the cast, we quickly determined that the 3D cast actually has to be present as well in making any maps from it. Owen used an acetate overlay on the 24" x 26" picture (maybe that isn't the right dimension of the picture but you get the point, it is big.) Murphy's book photocopied this picture so it isn't as sharp and they lowered the contrast on it for publication. I made 10 of these at $75.00 each. I gave them to certain people I thought would use them... two are on display.

Remember I use to be a pro photographer and know the problems in photographing stuff like this low relief 3D cast. I used special lighting (two spots and on large soft box, all strobes) and colored gels to accent and slightly fill in shadows. I used the original cast and Owen and I grid it then set the camera and cast co-planar and used the sweet spot of a medium format film camera.

I warned everyone that the painted surface alone makes things appear to be something other than they are. Those two slide marks do not have hair on them; they have striations running the length of them much like a gun barrel. We THINK that this is due to the hoof at the end scraping into the mud, making it bigger so that the rest of the leg doesn't even register or when it does it makes what looks like a double barrel image. But that is just us and only one of many other features miss-labeled by DY in his line drawing. The paint makes it look like it was covered with hair.

I'll try and get to the other questions when I have the time.

Wow, split the arrow on that one. I think many should read Greg's post again, and again, and again until it sinks in. This applies to all sides of the issue. I also want to thank Apeman for being the beacon of objective observation in this thread. I do lean toward elk, but I have also seen slippage track in whitetail deer, usually on a muddy creek bank...and it does indeed resemble whats described, but that doesn't change my "opinion" of the over all cast being a four legged hooven critter.

Exactly, except for "voilà!", a French word meaning something like "look there". "Walla" is what the elk did or some thing to do with Paul Freeman, isn't it? :new_whistle:

I'm not sure why a self-respecting elk would be lying in a partly frozen mudhole in 28° weather in the first place. Is this normal elk behavior?

Thank you Apeman, you actually proved my point much better than I did. Maybe I wasnt clear in my posting. I was never talking about the momentum of the pelvis - Im discussing the momentum of a 500+ pound animal trying to remove itself from a mud hole. The rolling of the Pelvis was not my theory - but it was DY's, I was simply giving him the benefit of the doubt, and going with his new claim of pelvis rolling for the sake of the discussion. Based on my past observations this is my opinion - now, can I be wrong - absolutely, Im just waiting for someone to prove it to me.

Heck - I dont even think I know what an Elk Pelvis is -- now I have to look that up too :laugh:



I sincerely do not see these two images as a "mirror image". I am not picking things out to argue with him over.. This whole "wrist" vs. "slippage" issue blindsided me - I never saw it coming. So, imagine my surprise.. But, something about that specific part of the impression bothers me - and I am bothered by it for all the reasons I have discussed. I do not think I am being unfair. If DY can not answer a question, then he can says so, and I will move on. Im just waiting to hear it - or an explanation that makes sense to me.

Edited for quote tags.

Only if the shoe fits. Keep in mind, those words were originally written by Dr. Grover Krantz, not me, and I originally posted that bit because it seemed to describe MM quite accurately.

However, since MM was on the expedition, and the cast is featured on his BFRO website, what was his initial reaction to the discovery?



Not sure I understand your concerns about this, and here's why:

• DY is only writing the paper, it hasn't been published
• DY's paper is based on his opinion in his area of expertise (he's as much an expert as any of the experts who've alreadly looked at the cast, though his area of expertise differs from theirs)
• no paper, definitive or otherwise, has been published on the Skookum cast in the six years since its discovery
• scientists are not obligated to consult personally with those who hold the opposite opinion
• other scientists, including the original ones, will have an opportunity to respond in the event DY gets published
• as a scientist, DY must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any error

RayG

Let's start with this: Do you know what a 'mirror' is? :new_lmaosmiley:

JUST kidding...sort of. I'm pretty sure DY won't be posting in this thread anymore and might even have chosen to leave the BFF for good, so I don't think he'll respond. This is the best I can do for the time I'm willing to spend trying to illustrate how one, perhaps only with a very vivid imagination (sarc), might see these two features as sharing some symmetric physical attributes, or being mirror-like images of each other. If this doesn't help than I also give up. :surrender:

Click to view attachment

Apeman

[qoute]

DDA- thanks for the hairflow on the achilles area. I think we all see the hair flow along the lines as you've drawn but what is the justification for the direction of the arrow heads? I assume something shows hair tips as apposed to roots and wonder if you or anyone else can illustrate this.

Thanks also for your thoughts on the dermals. I still do not see the margin where the hair is said to stop but guess I can only expect so much from images and will add that to my list for if/when I can examine the real deal. I'll keep trying to get insight from Jimmy and Jeff on this aspect.

Apeman

edited to try to diminish the initial harsh tone- perhaps unsuccessfully.....
[/quote]

This is a cast copy and the other example is a cast. It represents what impressed itself there. Certainly not everything can be visible. Longer hair most likely did change direction with friction against the substrate when entering and then being pulled out. As to the extent I haven't a clue. Most features are quite sharp, some are blurred. I don't know if this is due to movement of that piece of anatomy or something different in the substrate or something that happened after the event.

So far all that have looked at the original cast feature there think the hair to be running towards the heel. The hair does appear to be finer in thickness at that end and less closely spaced. But I personally haven't taken any quantitative data from there. As stated before I consider myself biased, and seeing the reaction I get from this board proves that for me to provide that kind of information would be wrong and taken out of context… as illustrated above in many places.

No one can question the things I have done so far, which is to photograph, cast and preserve the impression. Why, I even let a card carrying skeptic look and photograph it. LOL.

For me to interpret is a step I think quite a few here are waiting for me to take. The duplicates were not made by me. If I were to have made exacting copies of the cast, the original would have been destroyed. I have noticed that the copies actually have bumps in places it shouldn't now. The rubber mold made from the original in some places is less then .200". Even the manufacturer states that one should never make it less the .250".

Earlier on this board I presented SCENARIOS I thought possible to explain the impression. I got chastised for it saying that I was making or jumping to conclusions… man I tell you… for people having a hard time with this animal impression in some mud, they still sure know how to sling it. Aim seems to be off though. If it were me to have made a blunder or two, how many would have jumped all over it? Isn’t jumping to conclusions what started all of this to begin with DY’s first, didn’t you call it inflammatory, thread?

Like I said, when I get some time I will try and get some more pictures illustrating things you have questions on. The cast is locked in storage and I would have to schedule a few hours with it to do so.

The web page here shows alot of the goofy things elk are capable of. (even though they are captive from what I gather)

Here's a few pics but check out the whole site:

Copies of the PG film aren't satisfactory for you. Why would a copy of the Skookum Cast be fine?

Because the analysis was critical of the possiblility of sasquatchery?

Apeman. A mirror? hummm, yeah I got a couple of those laying around -- and even handy in my car - :laugh:

All joking aside. I never said I did not see similarities. Which was why I said I was blindsided by DDA saying this was not a "wrist" it had been evaluated and determined to be from an Elk that had slipped in the mud, for one reason or another, or words very similar to that - I do not speak for anyone.

I was simply asking DY to respond to this issue, and how or if he planned to address it in his paper... His response was clear. It just seems to me, if he is going to question or make matter of fact statements as he has - he should show or discuss why he thinks the observations of so many before him are wrong.



P.S. Mooseman - Cute pics

Thanks Melissa :wink:

Hi SG - how are you today? Good I hope. We should really start out our day with some hellos or something.

I think Im doing pretty good with the substance of this issue. Maybe you dont think so, along with others - thats fine, I can live with it.

The Skookum Cast is clearly the imprint of a new species of giant, fruit-eating coyote (that still has small feet), which is likely a mutation caused by the dual influences of global warming and human-caused influences regarding fruit and domesticated dogs (obviously of the St. Bernard size).

I propose that a $50 million grant be provided to me so that I can demonstrate that humans need to vacate this planet before they cause coyotes to grow to the size of Indian elephants.

I'll second that.

I'll do it for ten bucks!

I'll never understand this line of debate regarding sasquatch evidence discovery. It is commonly repeated with regard to the PG film, as well.

Evidence is found, collected, then extracted, and the party is condemned for leaving the scene.

I'd rather sit in the woods than do anything else, but I've gotta come out on a regular basis. I've gotta resupply. I've got committments. Mrs. Huntster will replace me if I don't come back. Etc., etc., etc.

And if I found something of interest/value, I'd have to come out for it to have utility in the interest/value arena.

I guess I'm stupid. I just can't figure out how that is to the discredit of the discoverer.

WOW, now thats a deal.... How much would you charge me to clean my apartment? :laugh:

Damned irresponsible scientist!

If his timing is so lousy, he obviously can't be very reliable.



$50 million.

Can you cook?