Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 It doesn't matter, you would still get the bottom of the foot in the impression with that much of the achilles tendon included, in a bent leg position (which it would have to be to fit your Sasquatch scenario). What you are calling an achilles tendon and heel is virtually horizontal to the ground, just what someone would expect from an ungulate's knee and shin pressed into the mud. Now actually go out and cast an imprint and show me what you are talking about. I was given an elk leg and I cast that and my own heel and tendon... both have been publicized. You need to do the same now. A line drawn through a foot or a web picture of an elk laying down isn't going to cut it.
Guest Kane2002 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Thank you for your post Derekfoot good input. Lets face it, those who don't believe it was a Sasquatch won't believe it no matter what. Those of us that do, will continue to believe it is. So it is a no win situation. That is the way it is with Sasquatch. We need one to prove it exists.
PBeaton Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Now actually go out and cast an imprint and show me what you are talking about. I was given an elk leg and I cast that and my own heel and tendon... both have been publicized. You need to do the same now. A line drawn through a foot or a web picture of an elk laying down isn't going to cut it. damndirtyape, As I've said, I have tried this as well. In order to get that much of the achilles tendon to imprint similar to what is seen in the cast, I had to almost completely straighten out my leg. Are you suggestin' you can create a similar imprint with you knee bent placin' your heel close to you thigh similar to what is seen in the cast? I doubt it, but I would absolutely love ta see ya try. I've seen them compared on MonsterQuest I think, I can't recall his name who was doin' the comparison at the momment, however, I do recall them bein' quite similar. I of course would naturally wonder about the elk imprint, as it as you said came from a non livin' elk, an thus I'd question the functionality of the tendons. "Isn't going to cut it." Neither is sayin' there's no footprints or animal prints found behind LeRoys half print in the cast, when all it takes is one look at a photo/image of the area to see pleanty of them. Care ta explain that one, an you can cut it any way ya like. Anyone care ta try this, it's quite easy. You're likely sittin', stretch your foot out away from you, notice how your achilles tendon gets closer to the ground, now bing your foot back in towards yourself, notice how the achilles tendon becomes more verticle/upright. Pat...
Guest RayG Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/green_statement.asp "Further, Dr. Meldrum, who is a professor of anatomy, was able to determine the position of the joints for some of the limbs, establishing that the bones were 40 to 50 percent longer than those of a 6-foot human." (my bolding) If Dr. Meldrum is correct about that, doesn't the length of the yellow portion labeled 'elbow-forearm-wrist-hand' look woefully short? RayG
Guest Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 That's a very good observation Pat. Anatomically, an Achilles Heel can't be that close to the body at that angle. It's just not possible. How could that be missed by the analysts of the impression? It's a self standing contradiction and I don't see how it would fit bigfoot at all.
Guest Cervelo Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 This is the same as the caribou being chased by "Bigfoot" video. We know that elk wallow, they are in the area, and there are elk tracks at the site. When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras. Also don't forget the "experts" told us the world was flat and the earth is the center of the universe and .......... never mind I'm starting to rank I'll just sit quietly over here......
Guest Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 This is the same as the caribou being chased by "Bigfoot" video. We know that elk wallow, they are in the area, and there are elk tracks at the site. But, again, NOT in the places they would have to be for the impression to be an elk lay, that is within the impression itself.
Guest Cervelo Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Right next to the Bigfoot tracks...... Sorry I couldn't resist:) that's my simple take on everything not just biggie go with the most logical explanation. Don't get me wrong I'm not spending countless hours stomping around the Dismal Swamp for nothing. Everytime I go in I have a new experience but until I come eye ball to eye ball with one its all most likely something I just havent run across that is a known animal, behavior, or sound. IMO it's elk, could it be biggie sure......but it's like discussing what a cloud looks like we all are going to see somthing different.
Guest Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 But, again, NOT in the places they would have to be for the impression to be an elk lay, that is within the impression itself. Completely not true Mulder, there are plenty of divots there to account for elk tracks all around the cast. And if you look at photos of elk bedded down, they rest with their rear feet off to one side. The rear feet do not land in the center of their impression when they stand, I've seen lots of beds Mulder as an elk hunter. The elk roll their rump onto their rear legs when they stand, not pull their feet completely under them before raising. In other words, they transfer the weight of the rear half of their body onto the hind legs, this is why elk beds show where their rump was without tracks. Today I'm going to try to find some beds to get photos to demonstrate this. With as much as the ground was disturbed by the researchers, I would like to see some higher res photos, but I don't think they want to share these. Why? Assuming they are convinced in their evidence, why be afraid to share it? I also wonder if the scientists didn't have the benefit of having a complete set of site photos to demonstrate all the elk tracks and their respective paths. It may be a few emails are in order. Look at this photo, there are divots all over the place and sufficient to support an elk approach and departure. In fact, where is the rest of this photo? This doesn't fit a regular frame even if it was held sideways. Why not share the better quality photos?
wolftrax Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 There are elk footprints within the depression, Colobus posted images back in the old forum showing this. I'd like to actually see names of credentialed elk anatomists and locomotion experts comments on this, so far I haven't seen any. The only thing I have seen in regards to how an elk stand have been extremely limited, elk roll over and stand, jump straight up from laying, I've even seen one jump right over the hood of a car. You can see the pelvis, back limbs, and forelimbs of an elk within the depression. Elk were in the area.
Guest Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Completely not true Mulder, there are plenty of divots there to account for elk tracks all around the cast. And if you look at photos of elk bedded down, they rest with their rear feet off to one side. The rear feet do not land in the center of their impression when they stand, I've seen lots of beds Mulder as an elk hunter. The elk roll their rump onto their rear legs when they stand, not pull their feet completely under them before raising. In other words, they transfer the weight of the rear half of their body onto the hind legs, this is why elk beds show where their rump was without tracks. Today I'm going to try to find some beds to get photos to demonstrate this. With as much as the ground was disturbed by the researchers, I would like to see some higher res photos, but I don't think they want to share these. Why? Assuming they are convinced in their evidence, why be afraid to share it? I also wonder if the scientists didn't have the benefit of having a complete set of site photos to demonstrate all the elk tracks and their respective paths. It may be a few emails are in order. Look at this photo, there are divots all over the place and sufficient to support an elk approach and departure. In fact, where is the rest of this photo? This doesn't fit a regular frame even if it was held sideways. Why not share the better quality photos? Now your argument is reduced to "divots"? I've posted the citations of the professional opinions of various experts who have stated their finding that the impression is NOT an elk lay, and the basis for their conclusions. I'm gonna go with what the experts say, plus reason and logic on this issue.
Guest fenris Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 There are elk footprints within the depression, Colobus posted images back in the old forum showing this. I'd like to actually see names of credentialed elk anatomists and locomotion experts comments on this, so far I haven't seen any. The only thing I have seen in regards to how an elk stand have been extremely limited, elk roll over and stand, jump straight up from laying, I've even seen one jump right over the hood of a car. You can see the pelvis, back limbs, and forelimbs of an elk within the depression. Elk were in the area. Mulder you really want to put a fork in this one
PBeaton Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/green_statement.asp "Further, Dr. Meldrum, who is a professor of anatomy, was able to determine the position of the joints for some of the limbs, establishing that the bones were 40 to 50 percent longer than those of a 6-foot human." (my bolding) If Dr. Meldrum is correct about that, doesn't the length of the yellow portion labeled 'elbow-forearm-wrist-hand' look woefully short? RayG RayG, When I experimented down at the beach, my elbow actually dug in quite a bit, more so than the rest of my forearm. Also, if you follow up the line of the possible achilles tendo Jeff is pointin' to, it sure looks to me to be a elk track right there. Between the two yellowed areas. Pat...
Guest Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Mulder you really want to put a fork in this one No, I don't. Not when I have multiple credentialed experts telling me one thing and a bunch of self-appointed debunkers distorting the facts trying to tell me something different.
PBeaton Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Now your argument is reduced to "divots"? I've posted the citations of the professional opinions of various experts who have stated their finding that the impression is NOT an elk lay, and the basis for their conclusions. I'm gonna go with what the experts say, plus reason and logic on this issue. Mulder, I admire your grit an appreciation for those involved. I also admire an respect most of them, an it's never easy to question the findin's of those more qualified. It is out of respect for those you speak of, that I search for answers, I'd be remiss if I didn't. If I found somethin' tomorrow, Jeff would be my first call, no hesitations It seems we see thin's differently here, no worries, again admire your grit. Pat...
Recommended Posts