Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) These are the photos Derekfoot sent me of the Impression Site. There are 4 in total. The final 3 provide the most detail which I'll comment on in another post. OK, I'm now seeing that this isn't working. For some reason its not allowing the photos to be enlarged. May have to try this over again but for now these will have to do. Photo 05 Photo 06 Photo 07 Photo 08 Edited February 23, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Unfortunately it would seem that Mediafire automatically reduced their size significantly. I wasn't aware of this until now. Tomorrow I will check with the Admins to see if we can somehow replace these photos with better quality ones. I'll go ahead and crop the white area away too since everyone can see its just blank. Edited February 23, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Okay once again here are the photos that Derekfoot previously emailed me that pertain to the Skookum Cast. So with his permission to share them, and some extra time now, here they are. I seem to be able to upload directly to the forum from tests, so maybe they will all upload successfully. Once again I appreciate Derekfoot's willingness to share them despite all the debate over the Skookum Cast. I realize his decision was not made lightly either, but doing so does show integrity on his part. A big problem has been that detailed photographs of the scene have been lacking. This does not make sense when purporting a scientific discovery. While these aren't absolutely clear shots, they are decent and provide a good angle that illustrates some of the tracks more clearly. They are also just what he sent me without changes except where I removed the white border in Photoshop, and then Saved As as a Jpg at the highest quality. Resaving did enlarge the file size a bit due to Photoshop's parameters, but I didn't notice any increase or decrease in image quality. I hope that at some point, full quality images will be made available to discuss, but for now these will have to do in providing some clarity. Derekfoot sent me 9 photographs in total. These first 5 images are of the examination of the cast which are obviously cool because of the individuals present, although its difficult to make out much as far as cast detail given the angle. I'll include the other 4 in the next post. Once again please allow me add the other 4, it should only take a few minutes on this end. If the mods wish, they can remove the previously attempted photos, as they are now redundant and of much poorer quality images. Thanks. Dave Photo 00 Photo 01 Photo 02 Photo 03 Photo 04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 These are the photos Derekfoot sent me of the Impression Site itself. There are 4 in total. The final 3 provide the best track detail that one would not even know existed from the cast impression itself. That's why I have asserted that any analysis as I've proposed, would require not only the impression itself, but of quality photographs of the scene so as to allow the impression to be viewed in context to its surrounding evidence. The same way an experienced tracker can read much from looking at tracks in wet sand, a similar story can be told if good photographs were ever made available. Not having better quality images available over the last decade makes little sense other then to prevent such analysis from taking place. Unfortunately these are pretty much from the same angle, which does limit our perspective to the available content. For example, you can't tell which, if any, of the elk trackway goes off to the right or bottom of the photos? Its also possible there are tracks of more then one elk in the photos, but once again w/o higher resolution, its difficult to make out the size and direction of each track to know for sure. Tracks practically encircle the entire impression except for the bottom left, which once again is indicative of what you'd find surrounding an elk impression. Its time that more photographs be made available of the impression site. They exist, we know that. Offering them for review, and yes scrutiny, is the forthright thing to do, plain and simple! That's what you do with any alleged scientific discovery, you don't conceal such evidence as a means of controlling the direction of discussion. Thanks again Derekfoot, the photos were a very positive step in the right direction. I'm sure I'll add more of my opinion later on, but I at least wanted to get these uploaded for others to view. (Oh Well... It seems like the Site Uploading feature is on the fritz again, it was nice while it lasted. lol So here they are on the MediaFire server.) Photo 05 Photo 06 Photo 07 Photo 08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Its still an elk lay and no matter how hard others may try to portray it as anything else, its an elk lay. There needs to be a time when folks looking into this mystery need better standards for evidence, skookum doesnt cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I agree 100% Fenris! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Maybe I missed this but wasn't there a single hair found that appeared to be "primate?" I see a lot of primates hanging around there and I assume they were working hard around the site. I don't see any hair nets. What happened to that "primate" hair, and were hair specimens collected from the dozen or more "primates" for comparison? How many hairs from elk, and how many from other animals were found? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Maybe I missed this but wasn't there a single hair found that appeared to be "primate?" I see a lot of primates hanging around there and I assume they were working hard around the site. I don't see any hair nets. What happened to that "primate" hair, and were hair specimens collected from the dozen or more "primates" for comparison? How many hairs from elk, and how many from other animals were found? primate or human marker, pesky that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Parnassus, your answer was discussed somewhere in this or the other closed thread but here it is again. According to an email from Henner Fahrenbach in 2000, they found 16 elk hairs, 1 coyote hair, 4 bear hairs, and 1 hair presumptive for sasquatch. However the latter seems to have never been confirmed or we would have heard more about it. Get that? Sixteen Elk Hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Thx PT I'll take that az a no. There was no attempt to compare the "presumptive sasquatch hair" with hair from the people at the site who were gawking or working around and over the impression without hairnets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Yep Parnassus, I very much doubt anyone went through that process or we would have probably have heard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) On 1/25/2011 at 6:47 PM, Guest said: As I indicated in the other Skookum cast thread, the "lay and reach" approach to food is a documented behavior in higher primates. Also, the lack of elk tracks in the cast area itself (where they would HAVE to be if it was an elk lay) speaks against the elk hypothesis.This is so conclusively PROOF THAT AN ELK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE that it is a childlike suspension of disbelief to pretend otherwise. Elk don't leave a wallow by flying or levitating. Unless you have footage. On 1/25/2011 at 7:15 PM, Guest said: Experts HAVE looked it over. Pgs 112-123 in LMS documents the finding, casting, and examination of the Skookum impression.One of the more noteworthy figures in the primate field over the course of the past century went from skeptic to proponent based on this cast alone. If you differ with him, I humbly offer to you that this means nothing more than if you differ with Einstein on General Relativity. On 1/26/2011 at 7:25 PM, Guest said: Not true, hair samples were recovered and detailed anatomical impressions in the cast were left that were observable to trained professionals in the relevent fields.And a slam-dunk, shutdown-corner comment on this: It does not matter who, or how many, differ from relevant professionals, if they bring no evidence...which actually they cannot do on this. (Unless they erase the tendon of Achilles, and plant elk tracks where they HAVE TO BE for their half-baked thesis to scan.) Which means: the Skookum cast is virtual proof of sasquatch. Start getting this. The scientific take is THE take in Western society. Start getting that. Edited June 23, 2017 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Don't we have a CURRENT ACTIVE skookum cast thread pinned at the top of the forum right now!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Caution: Necro Poster At Work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 Still an elk lay, though... 1 hour ago, norseman said: Don't we have a CURRENT ACTIVE skookum cast thread pinned at the top of the forum right now!? We used to have mods and forum rules, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts