If you could see my apartment lately -- you would know thats a sweet deal your offering, can you cook? :laugh:

I can cook Elk! :laugh:



...edited 'cause I couldn't spell cook!

Not likely.

The ground under a creature that had been laying there for some time would not have frozen like the surrounding ground due to the heat and insulation of the laying beast.

Someone needs to prepare a concise version of this thread - it is fascinating, but one heck of a read.

Since we're picking nits that's not exactly true...Dr. Greg Bambenek was there too.
And no I'm not going to debate who was better qualified to write a paper about the impression given their different backgrounds, I'm just pointing out that fact.

I just got back from Prince George BC about a week ago. We were at 4000' and believe it or not it froze the first night we were there at about 4:30 am.

It was damn muddy during the day and another thing, with the full moon it was damn bright all night.

Huntster, you know as well as I do that animals will fart around during a full moon and since, where I was, it didn't freeze 'till morning, is it conceivable that in the skookum cast an animal walked through the site before it froze (remember we're hovering around freezing here) layed down, the ground beneath it thawed due to body heat. Then it walked away on the unditurbed frozen ground?

Forgive my ignorance but what time of year was this thing cast anyway?

September.

I'd never marry Vol.

I think it's conceivable that the freezing point might have a part to play then.

Anyone care to look up the temps. of that day in the area?

....And drinking (of all things) Pabst beer.

Nobody in a respectable fraternity would be caught dead with a Pabst in hand............




Does it have to be in the nude, so that the testicular imprint is visible?

I can guarantee that if my testicles come into contact with freezing mud, I will leave no telltale sign of a routine rising.

Here is the report posted on the BFRO website, it lists temps for the night in question. I'm not sure how reliable any of it is though given that Rick has a slightly different view of things and MM was behind the publication of it.

Well one thing is for sure, a cold man can't brag. :laugh:

Yes, that would be one reason ... That is the side I'm coming from, or did you notice ?

Academia doesn't provide education in firearms technology or science, either in elementary, primary, secondary, or post-graduate levels. In fact, they ignore it completely (like other subjects they don't "like".....................), unless they're involved in propagandizing the subject. The only education you might find in weapons technology at that level are the military academies. Otherwise, it's pretty much a self-taught science. Peer stuff. Like what "science" says it's all about.

Firearms technology is a science. An ignored and much hated science.

Sorta like sasquatchery.

Exactly


This is what I'm talking about. Temps. hovering around freezing can really mess up tracks.



...edit: thanks Blackdog

I'm not sure why a --- ................

Oh never mind. Got a feeling you can play psychic on this one... :wink:

I suspect highly that even if DY's article is accepted and published, there is going to be lingering questions over the quality of the cast that was viewed in San Antonio and the photographs used in the paper. So...I hope this goes over as it is intended.

If DY is willing...
And DDA is ok with it...
I am willing to help fund DY going to DDA's in order to see the original cast in person.

If the offer is accepted, anyone else willing to help can donate funds until there is enough to cover the expenses of a plane ticket, car rental, and a hotel room. I'll even send him jars of my homemade jam, pickles, and tomatoes to offset food costs. (And maybe someone nearby can offer to pick him up at the airport and put him up at their house!)

I think only good come of this...and I'm hopeful someone will walk away with a better understanding of the other's position.

Wow! :icon14:

Does this mean DY will not be challenged on his work when presented to real, live "scientists"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..................

Great idea H.M. By any chance is there another reproduction cast located near the original cast so comparisions can be make between first and second generation casts.

Shooting down a "myth."

My bet is that it will be published.

I've always thought all elk were called wapiti, but according to the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (quoted below), only Rocky Mountain elk are called wapiti. Not that it matters. I wonder if other agencies/org's. concur.

WDFW

I always thought ALL deer were called Elk. Wapiti is what we are calling an 'Elk' here.

From Wikipedia:

I don't like the word "never", but I highly doubt a mature bull (with a large set of antlers) would roll completely over.

I've never seen mature bull moose do it.




Yup, but I'm much better on the eating side of the equation.

Oh, you betcha. In fact, that is the likely scenario.

One of the factors that has me stumped (regardless whether we're talking about a sasquatch or an elk) is:

* I have a difficult time understanding an elk laying down next to several apples, eating a couple, then getting up and leaving the rest, and

* I have a difficult time understanding a sasquatch laying down next to several apples, eating a couple, then getting up and leaving the rest.

If it was an elk that made the impression we shouldn't assume that it had antlers.

Yes, I noticed.

Now I've noticed your admission of bias.

That post will be copied for future use................




Good point. It could have been a yearling, which would have antlers in September, but could be quite small.

But, then, his .......*ahem*..... would be small, too.

We aren't sure it had an...*ahem*.... it isn't know for sure that is a testicular impression. It may have been a cow. This is just for the sake of debate of course, I don't have a firm opinion on what made the impression.

All true.

I'll stick with my giant coyote theory.

It seems to work just as well as the elk or sasquatch ones..................

I just wasted two days catching up on a thread that has basically gone nowhere. Man I need a life :laugh: .

Not at all Huntster. But most of the "Real, live, scientists" probably don't believe in bigfoot, and probably wouldn't challenge what DY had to say about the cast anyway, don'tcha think? :laugh:

But how many times has it been said that we need to police ourselves in this field, and rule out probabilities or possibilities that certain "evidence" we may hold does not or cannot be attributed to any other known animal/s?

I believe in the grand scheme of things, what DY has presented here is not just food for thought, but challenging science with science, like I said before.

I like to hear both sides of the story.

I know I've seen and maybe learned a few things on this thread:

1. First and foremost, that Rick Noll had the material and the forethought to actually cast this impression in the first place.

2. That there are people like Rick who are out there in the field all the time, actually looking for more evidence, and are willing to come to this forum, and discuss it here. And when he was questioned, he came out and replied in a calm manner that he wasn't sure yet what it was, more study needs to be done on it.

3. That some people like DY have the cahoneys to come forward, and maybe go against popular belief, and state their opinions and question things.

4. That some people are so closed minded, that they are unwilling to accept alternative suggestions.

5. It seems others post here to just fight or banter, when so much could be left unsaid or taken to the pm feature. It really distracts from the main purpose of threads like these.

6. That some people are so serious about getting the answers, that they make things happen instead of watching things happen. Good example, Hairy Man's generous offer. Damn.

I'll contribute to the fund..

Let's see how it will split between the people who step up...

Are you guys forgetting DY's own words. He doesn't need to see the original, talk with us about it or see what we have found in it. He knows it is an elk. He has already made up his mind.

Is that a NO then?

I would agree that's A likely scenario. Are there any 'before' pictures of this mud hole area? If not, does anyone truly know exactly what was there before (as) they placed the fruit? If placing them specifically in soft soil so as to get imprints, wouldn't knowing what's there beforehand help later?

:laugh: Thought about that too. Hungry animals (there's more than a few out there) would eat it all. Maybe the service was so bad they left in a huff without finishing. Bastards!

"Harry 'Bambenek' Henderson"

Following the scientific principal, his next step is to gather data in support of his theory, modifying it if need be... How? By seeing what doesn't fit his theory. Bit by bit... but was this really science to begin with or just a quick paper for publication?

No follow up, no return trips, and no replications, have been conducted in the same area that produced the find of a lifetime. THAT was my whole point. There have been nineteen BFRO expeditions since September 2000, yet no replication of the Skookum cast experiment. Not a very effective way to test the hypothesis.

To put it another way, if the elusive Ivory-billed woodpecker had been spotted on a Saturday, would all the bird-watchers have vacated the area the very next morning, and NEVER gone back? Would they be satisfied with a few pockmarks in a tree? Does it make sense when it comes to bigfoot, to LEAVE the area immediately after an encounter, and NOT go back? Makes it rather difficult to gather further evidence.



No, some people are claiming that bf evidence was found, cast, and extracted, but there's no confirmation that it was indeed a bf. Leaving the scene and never going back makes it difficult to confirm anything. If the experiment is replicated, there's the possibility that bf (if that's what left the impression) will eventually slip up and leave a clear foot/hand print in the mud as it reaches for fruit. There's the possibility of getting video footage of the bf as it reaches for the fruit. There's the possibility of confirming the original hypothesis by gathering clear and distinct evidence that bf caused the mud impression. If nobody repeats the experiment, there's no way to know.



Not once have I suggest staying in the woods and not coming out, or that people don't have committments. That's worlds apart from future visits or experimental attempts in the same area though.



I've never suggested anyone is stupid, nor is what I'm suggesting an attempt to discredit anyone. I do find it curious that claims are made without any experimental replication of the Skookum cast. Conducting experiments is one of the "essential elements" of the scientific method.

• Observations
• Hypotheses
• Predictions
• Experiments (test all the above)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, there's been no attempt to repeat the Skookum cast experiment.

RayG

I guess I missed this before. If you mean the mass exodus of 2005, that wasn't in any way related to the Skookum cast. I know of no one who left the BFRO over the handling of the Skookum cast...only over MM's behavior (unrelated to the Skookum Cast).



Actually, I believe DDA and Derek Randles have been back to the very location on more than one occasion (and he can discuss that further if he likes), as have many other investigators. My brain was full earlier and I didn't fully address your comments about replication...I should have said that on every expedition that I have been on (BFRO and my own) we always leave out locally grown fruit near or in mud holes, sand, etc. In fact, on the Washington expedition, a shrine of plums resulted in something eating the plums nearly whole and then proceeding to throw the fruit "up", including the remains of a frog and a dogwood flower. That material was collected and remains in deep freeze until we can find how to best test it. I'm not saying it was a bigfoot, of course, but the event happened right after the gang of girls saw a bipedal figure step out from behind a tree to check us out. We collected it because it was fragile and we didn't want the DNA (if present) to degrade while standing around talking about whether it was important or not!

There are some great stories of fruit being taken, but none that I know of have resulted in casts being taken. I also know that there are others that leave out pancakes but that hasn't resulted in anything nor any tips (bigfoots are well known to be cheap).

Actually, that's exactly what I think, but I didn't want to start a flame exchange by writing it down so bluntly.

No, I meant packing up and leaving Skookum Meadow the very next morning by all participants. See my woodpecker analogy. (Sorry, I didn't mean the exodus of members from the BFRO).



Just to clarify, by replication, I meant trying to repeat the conditions/experiment that resulted in the Skookum cast as closely as possible. That would mean similar ground conditions, fruit piles, etc. in the hopes of getting a hand or foot print cast, possible video, or another body impression.

RayG

That happens. Matt tells expedition members to try and locate mud holes and to pile local fruit in the center of it. I do it; and most everyone I know does it. We taught baiting methods at Operation Odyssey.

Dr. Bambenek is a psychiatrist, Dr. Fish was a zoologist. I put "scientist" in quotes because I'm not sure having a doctorate automatically makes a person a scientist. By this definition (from Answers.com), Dr. Bambenek might not qualify, although he's an expert in pheromones.

"A person who studies nature or the universe; an expert in such areas of knowledge as chemistry, biology, physiology."

Dr. Fish might not have qualified either. He was a retired professor and ecological consultant. I've read he did ecological research, but was he "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientist)?

:new_tiredsmiley:

Look up what Dr. Bambenek has done in his research and development (and not just the pheremone chips) and you tell me he isn't qualified as a scientist.
Do you like to argue just to argue? :icon_bang:

I agree with BD...Dr. Bambenek is clearly a scientist.

I think the Skookum site is being visited through out the year, every year since the 2000 expedition. Fruit has been left out every-time, in the exact same spot as well as others (I have noticed some liberties taken here though... potatoes and such). In fact two years after the event I documented finding tracks within 100 yards from the site near an abandoned honey comb with no teeth marks in it. Sometimes I go down there by myself and camp... every-time I have found old and new fruit left at the site. Don't know who is leaving it but I have a sneaky suspicion...

As far as the mass exodus from the site at the end of the expedition. Who's to say what anybody else would really do in the same circumstance... not just saying what one would do but actually doing it. Calling in to work and saying you need more time off, calling the airlines and trying to rebook, calling your nurse and telling her to reschedule patients, calling customers and employees. Nobody on that expedition did this full time. Their money was coming from other jobs. They had set aside and planned a certain amount of funds and time for this. There was maybe only one person capable of staying longer... Dr. Bam Bam... but I am only guessing that he had funds to do so, but his practice would have taken a hit probably.

Supplies were also at an end. My truck was having serious problems... battery and alternator. These are not excuses. They are what happened. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. You will not find anything to contradict it.

Think what you like... but we came out with more than just a story, bumps and screams unrecorded in the night. We did find other impressions in the ground that looked like Bigfoot tracks. I don't know how many times I have said that. I didn't have any plaster left and so their are only pictures of them. But there seems to be an unwritten law here that tracks must be within a certain distance and time frame as to be related. Oh well... not my rule.

A year later there was a sighting just down the road from the site by two people who don't get spooked or are unfamiliar with local wildlife. They also found tracks supporting the sighting and cast them.

The GPNF Ape Cave tour guide, yes a government employee, has been heard to recount the story of the Skookum expedition and the making of the cast before plunging the tourists into one of the longest lava tubes in north America. It isn't done so lightly either. I have heard it while filming there.

Hopefully your not thinking that 13 people performed a hoax, knew it was over and the goods safely tucked in the back of a truck and thought nothing of leaving. Jeff Lemley lived about 30 miles away in Trout Lake and continued to visit the site and it's surroundings for almost a year afterwards. He continues to do so.

I think there are good areas like this in many places and just because no one on this board has heard about them doesn't mean they don't exist, that the people studying the areas are just being romantic about their findings. They know now that even people into the subject will scoff unless they come out with a body. They know that because they have been involved in Bigfoot research that they will be scrutinized even more so than if not. They may not even like the internet from what they see while lurking here... downright meanness.

Criticize this all you want... but you should get out there and do better before passing judgment and what you think is critical wisdom.

I am sure this will get picked apart just like everything else so have at it.

And other threads. And the whole site, for that matter!

I was waiting on this point Huntster. My experience with bait is with deer and hogs. You can see traffic in and around the bait areas sometimes next day depending on location. Both animals can be pretty aggressive in devouring bait, and I'm sure an Elk is similar. The material I read on the expedition mostly from the BFRO site. A couple of points or observations regarding this(please excuse the lack of the quotation boxes, I'm here through proxy server and I loose some of my board functions).

First off other baited areas in the expedition site:

"Fruit gone from gravel pit bank, still present in wet area of gravel pit. Fruit gone from roadside. "

Any tracks or sign found in these locations other than missing fruit?

This is pretty interesting at the mud site:

"Mud site has fruit missing, 3 out of six apples gone. Melons pecked by birds, probably ravens. Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote. The most obvious fresh tracks were coyote and undetermined deep marks."

If this is accurate then fresh tracks are noted as well as the old tracks. Also the amount of fruit is noted missing. After the deep marks were determined to be something different, this was obeserved:

"The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint."

Ok to make my observation:

1: If fresh tracks were noted as being coyote, where are the Elk tracks in and around the bait are? I do find it interesting that around the remaining apples or in the mud pit there are no noted fresh elk prints.

2: Why would and elk come into an area and then lay in mud to eat, and spew chunks of apple on it's own inprint? If the apple bits were spewed over the inprint, how did this elk do this laying down? Maybe the animal ate some of the apple first then layed, but would that not have caused some of the apple remains to be embedded in the mud? Was any found? Maybe it dropped some as it got up. Maybe it layed down then got up to eat the apples, three of them, and dropped debris.....but where are the tracks then? There would have to be fresh tracks in the mud or inprint itself, right?

Now later on in the report on the BFRO it states(please over look the mention of squatch in the quote, it isn't important):

" A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved. It is noted that an elk, deer, coyote, etc., would probably have eaten the entire apple and not spewed out the seeds or core."

1: Where are the tracks for either? What about the seeds and core? A whitetail would have eaten the whole thing. At least they did the last batch of apples I put out. Hogs would have uprooted everything in the area looking for more.

2: What if it was another animal besides an elk or sasquatch? What about a raccoon? a skunk? Any other tracks noted around the second area?

Some of this stuff may have been answered already but I refuse to go back and reread this entire thread again, I don't have the time and if I did, my Doctor told me last week to cut my caffein intake down considerably.

Last observations..

Hairy man...your a class act!! I'd actually send something $$ to help also. (Rb get her some chocolate for being so cool)
Rick and Owen, I appreciate your work.
DY, I appreciate what you are doing also.

Because it was approaching the fruit with a low profile, not wallowing as an elk might. I can see elk using a mudhole to cool off in hot weather, but to lie in one when it's freezing? Seems odd to me.

Someone asked why either would leave fruit. As I recall, one apple was found a distance away. If the Sas rose with hands full, as Rick suggested, it might have dropped one and not waited to retrieve it, especially if Dr. Fish was talking in his sleep again. I'm not sure how far away the tents were, but I do know how sound can carry in those mountains.




Yes! I think all the inane comments should be removed................except for mine, of course.

There were no deer or elk tracks close enough to the bait pile to have been able to pick, even with an extended neck. There was a track that looked like it could be a bear but I cannot confirm that it was bear. I think Derek thought it was. It was on the opposite side and looked like it took a few steps in to the area and backpedaled since they didn't continue or turn around. There were no pieces of apple embedded into the 6" or so of soil attached to the cast face when lifted and then cleaned. Feeding was definately selective. Even if the animal was disturbed during feeding and before it could get the other fruit, why just the apples? How did they get way over where we found them? All we could do was scratch our heads... and yes we needed showers. That little fact has probably more to do with this then anything... HSF... Human Stink factor.

Good people with excellent qualifications make decisions under less than ideal situations with many conflicting pressures.
Others - given the luxury of time and 20/20 hindsight - dissect those decisions and possibly try to impugn character and motive.

Rick - you and the others did what you thought was best at the time and under those specific circumstances.
I, for one, am certainly not going to question your abilities or motives.
Your good character and ability is one thing that I can hold to as fact in this whole sasquatch phenomenon.

Now, let's get back to discussing the various interpretations of the actual cast.