Guest Kane2002 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Elk, deer, buffalo, horses, cattle and pigs all wallow. There are probably two good reasons. One to cover or coat the tender parts of their bodies with mud to deter flies and other pests. In the high country deer and elk will find a snow patch to lie in to defend themselves against these pests. The other reason would probably be to leave their scent as a way of marking their territory. They will urinate in the wallows. All animals use the forest logging roads to travel on. Go look at the tracks. Also elk being like cattle graze, on grasses. Deer on the other hand browse, like goats on shrubs, bushes, roses. Yes, I know they all like alfalfa but deer are considered browsers. So in a meadow you will see a preponderance of elk tracks and other sign. I have been in Skookum meadows. It has a partial grass-coverd sandy soil. That will not hold water very long. The way I understand it, from conversations with those who were there. They placed the bait and then went back the next morning. Thats when they found the imprint. Any of the aforementioned animals would have been drawn to the bait. In the actual confines of the imprint I don't think their were elk tracks. Nearby yes. As mentioned before elk have to get their hindfeet under them to raise up. From my examination of the imprint that was not evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 one more time: not elk lay dont mean squatchy none of those people are experts in squatchology because theres no such science. You have offered nothing in defens eof it being sasquatch, just wishful thinking. One more time: You are insulting the professional credentials of these gentlemen. BF is an animal. Those skilled and trained in analyzing and understanding animals in terms of anatomy, behavior, etc are ENTIRELY entitled to render professional opinions on the data in front of them in terms of what sort of animal the data represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 One more time: You are insulting the professional credentials of these gentlemen. BF is an animal. Those skilled and trained in analyzing and understanding animals in terms of anatomy, behavior, etc are ENTIRELY entitled to render professional opinions on the data in front of them in terms of what sort of animal the data represent. He's not insulting anyone. His opinion is just as good as all those professionals who can very easily make mistakes just like the rest of us. Their degrees don't give them the last word on anything, especially that of an unknown, unclassified animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kane2002 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Well now, lets not fight. As soon as the big snow melts I will get back up into the meadows. Hopefully there will still be some mud and snow so I can cut some sign. As soon as I learn how to post some photos I hope to have a few to share. Meanwhile, at last the sun is shining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Note the position of the alleged heel strike and how much of the achilles tendon is showing. Below in the same pic is how a leg would have to be positioned on the ground to make a similiar impression. Below is the position (legs bent) the alleged Sasquatch would have to have been in to make a heel strike that close to it's gluteus maximus. Included in the pic is a foot in approximately the same position with an imaginary mud line in red. What I'm getting at is, there is no way that much of the achilles tendon could make an impression in that position without most of the foot included and there is also no way the Sasquatch could have made a heel strike with his leg flat to the ground for it to be in context with the rest of the impression either. They have knees though. Sorry, I don't know why those pictures didn't show up after each block of text. Tyinhell, Nice work ! I agree, I did my own experiments down at the beach last year. Ta get the achilles tendon to imprint as much as it does similar to that in the cast, I had to have my leg almost completely extended out an away from my butt/thigh area. Daniel(Perez) ran some of my observations an photos regardin' this in last months Bigfoot Times. Again, nice work ! Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Those skilled and trained in analyzing and understanding animals in terms of anatomy, behavior, etc are ENTIRELY entitled to render professional opinions on the data in front of them in terms of what sort of animal the data represent. You might say they're not only entitled to do that, it's an important responsibility. It is, however, irresponsible to bypass the peer review process when rendering those opinions. It's like this Mulder. If I'm going to make some statement about something in which I have no specific training and in a field in which no one considers me expert, then I can do that casually and with no pretense about the "PhD" at the end of my name having any bearing on others' likelihood to accept my opinion. If, however, I've established myself as an expert in a certain area and many people consider me to be one, then I have to be very careful about the statements I make relevant to that field. If I make unqualified statements in a book or on a website that cannot be backed up in the peer-reviewed literature, that's not professional. Every academic knows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 His opinion is just as good as all those professionals who can very easily make mistakes just like the rest of us. I'll take the word of someone with the education, training and experience to render a qualified, professional opinion over some internet poster (like fenris) any day of the week. Their degrees don't give them the last word on anything, especially that of an unknown, unclassified animal. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 It's like this Mulder. If I'm going to make some statement about something in which I have no specific training and in a field in which no one considers me expert, then I can do that casually and with no pretense about the "PhD" at the end of my name having any bearing on others' likelihood to accept my opinion. And if I make a statement about something in which I DO have specific training and am considered expert (primate anatomy and locomotion, for example, in the case of Meldrum, Swindler, Sarimento, et al), I am entitled to the full weight of the value of my professional credentials as an authority on the topic. If, however, I've established myself as an expert in a certain area and many people consider me to be one, then I have to be very careful about the statements I make relevant to that field. If I make unqualified statements in a book or on a website that cannot be backed up in the peer-reviewed literature, that's not professional. Every academic knows this. No, what every academic "knows" is that they have to play the game by the rules set by the "establishment", or they will be sanctioned. Submitting papers to be "peer reviewed" by biased peers is an exercise in futility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Mulder, take a deep breath and calm down. The fact remains..........his opinion, just like yours and mine, and every other professional or non professional in their respective fields on this subject, is just that, an opinion. It is was it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 One more time: You are insulting the professional credentials of these gentlemen. BF is an animal. Those skilled and trained in analyzing and understanding animals in terms of anatomy, behavior, etc are ENTIRELY entitled to render professional opinions on the data in front of them in terms of what sort of animal the data represent. not what I said, noone is a bigfoot expert cuz it may just not exist. I personally think it does, but their credentials dont raise them above anyone else looking for a legend's solution cuz we're all winging it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'll take the word of someone with the education, training and experience to render a qualified, professional opinion over some internet poster (like fenris) any day of the week. See above. opinion dully noted, critical thinking is well.... critical for perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) And if I make a statement about something in which I DO have specific training and am considered expert (primate anatomy and locomotion, for example, in the case of Meldrum, Swindler, Sarimento, et al), I am entitled to the full weight of the value of my professional credentials as an authority on the topic. No, what every academic "knows" is that they have to play the game by the rules set by the "establishment", or they will be sanctioned. Submitting papers to be "peer reviewed" by biased peers is an exercise in futility. Mulder just FYI, Dr. Sarmiento is not a believer in Bigfoot, but he has an open mind. He told me this personally last May over a beer in Ohio. As a scientist, he requires better evidence. Just because he is willing to investigate Bigfoot claims and appear on Bigfoot TV shows does not mean he believes. He is a very nice, down to earth man and we all had fun hanging out with him. If I am ever lucky enough to get some good evidence, it is he that gets first crack at it. Edited January 28, 2011 by JohnCartwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 not what I said, noone is a bigfoot expert cuz it may just not exist. I personally think it does, but their credentials dont raise them above anyone else looking for a legend's solution cuz we're all winging it. On the contrary, their credentials raise them FAR above everyone else in terms of credibility, because of the skill, expertise, and knowledge those credentials carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The problem with all of the circumstantial evidence from BF research is the way it is handled. People get this evidence, and swear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely, undeniably from a BF. You can't do that, and be 100% credible to the general public, or the naysayers. It leaves you open to be attacked. You can't even do it with a track.(Unless you watched it being made, and even then, only YOU actually know it to be a fact) These people have got to understand the perception of everyone on the other side of the fence, which is probably 90+% of the general public. There is always a possibility that it was hoaxed, too. Not saying that it was, but... I can't even count how many videos/photos of windfall are out there with people giving theories about how Sasquatches had to make them because of the intricacy of the sticks falling together, and amazing patterns they make. C'mon, man..Really? I think they could possibly do some of these, but it will look somewhat engineered, at the very least. Same thing with some of these trail cam pictures out there. If you have to explain to someone what they're looking at, what kind of evidence do you really have? Then, to make matters worse, a big majority of researchers are so arrogant that it makes you want to discount everything that they say, no matter what it is. I think it's funny that the BFRO attacks Dave Paulides, and Melba Ketchum who claim they have DNA evidence, when the BFRO thinks it's scientific research to walk down a logging road in the middle of the night with 20 people that they just charged 300 bucks a pop to have the opportunity to do so.(And don't tell me that the BFRO had nothing to do with this cast, because they did!) It's all a matter of perception/agenda. Even if a BF did make this impression...So what! People talk about it like it's the holy grail of BF evidence, second only to the PG film. It's not! Sorry! A lot of people on here know for a fact that BF's are real, but it's going to take a heck of a lot more than an impression to prove anything to everyone else. This is precisely why I don't expect many Bigfoot science papers to be published in major journals. The perception that the evidence could be hoaxed or misinterpreted is too great, and they can't risk their reputation on anything less than biological proof. It's not entirely the proponents fault, some don't understand the difference between what is proof to them and proof to the scientific community. Interesting animal kills, tree breaks, tracks and impressions are worthy of documentation and study, though I agree that they should not be regarded as absolutes without other corroborating evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Finding the impression was not the only thing that happened on that trip. I baited the area because it looked like a great place to obtain tracks. The surrounding area was hard packed. I called it a wallow because it was the first word to come to mind with a camera in my face. I do know what an elk wallow is and that probably isn't the best word for the muddy area. Oh well, I'm human. I spent a lot of time in the following months at the Oak Creek game reserve outside of Yakima WA. I observed close to 100 Elk bedding areas. I'm also a back country wilderness guide. I've located many Elk wallows through the years. Almost 100% of the time an Elk will stand up in it's bedding area and leave multiple tracks all over it. Brian Smith of Walla Walla did an experiment with his naked body in a homemade planter filled with topsoil. He put himself in the same position and the impression came out remarkably similar to the Skookum cast. The vocalization we all heard the night before was overwhelming. It was primal, and it was alive. It literally overrode what we were broadcasting. That vocalization was the clearest most amazing sound I've ever heard to this day. This was enough for me to be sure there was a Sasquatch in our immediate area. The pheromone chips as well as the fruit bait at multiple sites definitely raised our chances. I don't think the impression just happened. I believe we lured one in. We actually had a very qualified teem on site, and we were there for all the right reasons. Thank God for Richard Noll's expertise. He did a fantastic job with every aspect of documentation and preservation of the cast. In my opinion there's no way we can prove a Sasquatch made the impression, but I believe that's exactly what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts