Skookum Cast

[Guest Blackdog]

I think it was pretty clear Ape, I quoted you.

Do you care to answer or do you want to leave it to Mulder?

[Guest]

Where did Meldrum mention John Green and the Vancouver Zoo?

Where did Meldrum mention the heel cast?

Where are all these game keepers and game farms that Mulder and Meldrum talk about?

I take it you mean these three questions, the only ones I could find in your post...

Don't know... I never said he did in the first place.

In his book? Actually in several places. In regards to this zookeeper story? I never said he did so don't know.

Don't know. I never worked that end of things. I know one of the members of the expedition went to an elk farm and studied them, photographed impressions. Other than that you would have to ask them.

Probably not that helpful was it? But... I answered your questions.

[Guest]

Notice the hair coloration, designed to blend in with the environment and blur any sharp body parts. This counter shaping makes one picture look like there may be something to your theory about a concave surface, but in the next picture you can see looking down the leg, there is no concavity to it. Also notice the hoof at the other end. That portion should have been embedded into the mud if there is no curl apparent between the lower and upper leg, indicating the leg was on it's side. That is not present in the cast or impression.

Its the specific elk leg you are using that is what is not the match DDA. Yours being from a mature bull IS NOT what made the so-called achilles heel part of the impression. Instead, the impression came from a younger animal then your leg, one that didn't have as much meat on it to cover up the concave bony area. Your elk leg is wrong as an appropriate candidate to use! And that my friend (Mulder included) is why elk biologists would have put this contrived impression to bed a long time ago!

Mulder, some of your logic just can't be responded to. I'm sorry. And what are these Parn references you make? Freudian slips? Either way, I'm surely not going to go through a long exercise of searching and organizing elk biologists just so DDA can consider them unqualified because they don't have primate knowledge. That's not the parameters of MY proposal.

And BTW, Pat B had a very solid point about the angle of the heel that just does not fit for bigfoot and somehow this has never been adequately addressed. There's just no way a leg could have been at the angle it was, and be so close to the body. Common sense wins on that one.

[Guest]

And that my friend (Mulder included) is why elk biologists would have put this contrived impression to bed a long time ago! [/b][/color]

Pony up the experts with their opinion and give the proponents a chance to respond.

Mulder, some of your logic just can't be responded to. I'm sorry. And what are these Parn references you make? Freudian slips?

Not biting.

Either way, I'm surely not going to go through a long exercise of searching and organizing elk biologists just so DDA can consider them unqualified because they don't have primate knowledge. That's not the parameters of MY proposal.

So much for your "unbiased" proposal" then. And so much for hectoring proponents about what they "must do" to establish scientific validity for their claims.

And BTW, Pat B had a very solid point about the angle of the heel that just does not fit for bigfoot and somehow this has never been adequately addressed. There's just no way a leg could have been at the angle it was, and be so close to the body. Common sense wins on that one.

Take it up with the experts who say otherwise. "Common sense" is not a scientific observation.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Splash7
To fix quote tags.

[Guest Cervelo]

And you would link them to the impression under discussion how? Do you know what tracks were laid when? That is why all this talk about "tracks leading in", "tracks in the area", etc is a red herring. You can't associate them with the actual impression under study.

More "doubt casting" without foundation.

Shouldn't we really be considering the totality of the site in order to formulate an objective opinion? So just ignore everything around it, If there were bigfoot tracks leading up to the cast you would be ok with ignoring those to argue its an elk lay?

[Guest]

Its the specific elk leg you are using that is what is not the match DDA. Yours being from a mature bull IS NOT what made the so-called achilles heel part of the impression. Instead, the impression came from a younger animal then your leg, one that didn't have as much meat on it to cover up the concave bony area. Your elk leg is wrong as an appropriate candidate to use! And that my friend (Mulder included) is why elk biologists would have put this contrived impression to bed a long time ago!

Mulder, some of your logic just can't be responded to. I'm sorry. And what are these Parn references you make? Freudian slips? Either way, I'm surely not going to go through a long exercise of searching and organizing elk biologists just so DDA can consider them unqualified because they don't have primate knowledge. That's not the parameters of MY proposal.

And BTW, Pat B had a very solid point about the angle of the heel that just does not fit for bigfoot and somehow this has never been adequately addressed. There's just no way a leg could have been at the angle it was, and be so close to the body. Common sense wins on that one.

This is exactly what I thought you would say. You are wrong of course.

• You have given no measurements like I did yet think yours is a match, how does that work?
  
• It looks like the thinest part of the legs you present are at their rear not the front, the front portion is what would be in the dirt.
  
• Thick and thin elk legs? Come on. Maybe different types of elk or even the difference between an elk and a deer.
  
• Mature and young elk? Prove that one. Opinionated are we not?
  
• We don't even get to see the rest of the body attached to those legs you put up and the species?
  
• The lower elk legs have very little muscle on them to begin with. An elk leg would impart the leg bone robustness in that area, the front of the leg.
  
• Your thin elk legs look like they also have small joints attached as well.
  
• And all of this from pictures?
  

I got an elk leg, FROM THE AREA THE CAST WAS MADE. I got an elk leg that closely matched the size of the joint. Now, because my elk leg doesn't match, you think you have found one that does, with no background material on it at all?

[Guest]

Shouldn't we really be considering the totality of the site in order to formulate an objective opinion? So just ignore everything around it, If there were bigfoot tracks leading up to the cast you would be ok with ignoring those to argue its an elk lay?

Two different things.

In the case of BF tracks, those would be further anomalous findings that would support the idea that an uncatalogued creature had been in the clearing. The tracks would be directly linked to the impression.

In the case of elk tracks it is to be expected that such tracks would be in areas where elk are found. So there is no way to demonstrate a link between tracks and impression.

[Guest]

This is exactly what I thought you would say. You are wrong of course.

You anticipated the truth eh? Of course you would say it is wrong. You have to.

• You have given no measurements like I did yet think yours is a match, how does that work?

I am saying the curvature along the bone is what matches DDA, you know that is what I am referring to! Heck, I'm not even saying my particular leg is an exact match, I am saying that the curve is there on younger animals. And what would you have me do, reincarnate that elk of 5 years ago to take measurements? lol Measurements you refer to such as yours, are also arbitrary given the age of your elk being used.

• It looks like the thinest part of the legs you present are at their rear not the front, the front portion is what would be in the dirt.

Well that would reveal just how little you apparently know about elk because you would recognize that if they were the rear legs, they would be bending backwards at the knee. Oops!

• Thick and thin elk legs? Come on. Maybe different types of elk or even the difference between an elk and a deer.

Once again, this reveals how very little you apparently know about elk. What do you think, elk are born filled out from the womb? There's a major difference in elk robustness and size between a 2 and say a 5 year old. The elk in my photo only weighed about 450 lbs. The elk you showed is more like 800. And elk that has to carry around that much more weight is just gonna have thicker legs. You think? Some of that has to do with the species too. Mine is a Rocky, a bit smaller.

• Mature and young elk? Prove that one. Opinionated are we not?

Are you truly incapable of recognizing different sizes of elk based on age? Um, I think its a rule of size with any species on earth. Practically animal varies depending on age. And in fact, this is where the difference between Roosevelt and Rocky Mtn elk may even enter the picture. That region has a documented presence of both sub-species. Rocky Mtns are smaller in size than Roosevelt. You actually have no idea which of the two species of elk made the impression.

Here's a little light reading for ya if you need to widen your knowledge base on elk. Zumbo

• We don't even get to see the rest of the body attached to those legs you put up and the species?

Lots of blood and body parts that needed to be edited out, plus I didn't count on you not knowing the difference between front and rear legs. Its a spike in legal terms even tho a fork on one side. Its only one of a few I have that showed front legs clearly.

• The lower elk legs have very little muscle on them to begin with. An elk leg would impart the leg bone robustness in that area, the front of the leg.

That's right, but your older bull has filled out with additional muscle a younger animal would not have! If you refuse to accept that, well your agenda shows clear. And that is why you don't find the necessary amount of curve on your sample. Whereas a younger animal in the 1-3 year age group would not have such muscle mass as your sample. Hope that is simple enough for ya.

• Your thin elk legs look like they also have small joints attached as well.

Not that small but smaller then yours, which you admit is larger then the impression right? More on that below...

• And all of this from pictures?

A picture can be worth a thousand words sometimes, especially when it reveals physical characteristic difference in species. Of course, clear photos would also reveal the truth of all the elk prints leading up to and surrounding the impression, something you hope will never come out and won't volunteer yourself right? I'm sure if you were open enough about your evidence, we'd see a whole lot more about the elk sign surrounding the impression. But you must conceal that stuff I suppose.. Anyway, raising questions about the use of your elk sample, which is not an accurate age/size to have made your heel impression, is a pretty good outcome of my photo. Your elk leg was simply from an animal that was too mature and thus invalidates your claim.

I got an elk leg, FROM THE AREA THE CAST WAS MADE. I got an elk leg that closely matched the size of the joint. Now, because my elk leg doesn't match, you think you have found one that does, with no background material on it at all?

I am saying that from the photo I showed, it demonstrates that the elk leg YOU have used is not an accurate candidate for comparison. Your elk leg is from an elk that is too mature. If you don't understand that, or don't want to admit it, well others can see your reasons now. With respect to the size of the knee, that I'd venture to say is one part of the body that doesn't grow at the same rate as other parts. In other words, their knees look bigger then is necessary when young. Just look at a calf, you can see bony knees. So in fact, you can likely easily find the size of knee to fit your impression with a somewhat younger elk of 2-3 yrs. HOWEVER, and as I said a few threads ago, when an animal settles in and moves around in its impression, its going to enlarge the impression it leaves, especially at limb locations.

Unless of course YOU think that the earth springs back after? So your so called achilles heel location will likely be just a little larger then the size of the original body part (front elk leg) that made this. So basically the elk knee measurements you made have much lessor value then you give them because the knee measurement location in the cast would not be a constant. If you are incapable of recognizing the mechanics of this, well that's on you. Go outside and impress sand with your elbow and see how the area enlarges bigger then your actual elbow measurements.

Cervelo, very good point you made. I'm afraid they will choose to ignore it tho. Kind of like how they ignore the fact that there isn't a single bigfoot hand or foot print in the mud around the impression but tons of elk prints. He claims that the ground froze where a hand or foot print should be. Never mind that elk, deer, coyote, and boot prints were on top of the impression. Some would have you believe as well that no connection could be made between the elk tracks and the impression even tho such prints are in the impression. Those same have also prevented a full adequate examination of the photo evidence surrounding the impression. I wonder why? The alleged achilles heel is also a perfect example of part of the elk that ties itself to the impression, but they will say whatever is needed to play this connection down.

Edited April 14, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest Cervelo]

PT,

Thanks, at this point IMO it's just to see what Mulder would come up with he is quite the "Wordsmith Master"! Did I also see in an early post this site was within an elk preserve?

[Guest]

Your logic and answers are so full of holes I don't know where to being. But I will try and that will be the end of it.

I never said anything about the front and rear legs. Where did you get that? I was talking about the front legs but differentiating between the front and rear of those legs. The front legs are thicker round in the front of them than the rear of the same legs in your picture.

I matched the size of the heel with the lower joint. If I would have searched for something to match the leg, disregarding the joint, I would have had a mismatch as well. What you are proposing is that we look at a young elk leg with a mature joint. Then we have to account for the hair pattern or lack thereof. You then propose an even younger elk leg, that you claim has bigger joint size to leg bone thickness.

The elk tracks came first then the body impression, only later did the coyote walk through the site. there is an age difference between the elk tracks, body impression and coyote tracks. Since I was there when this all happened, I can tell you that the ground was frozen when we found it. The likely scenario then would be that the elk tracks came through when it was pretty unfrozen. The ground froze and then whatever made the body imprint sat there, possibly heating up areas with body heat. Either the coyote came through close behind or the sun peaked through some of the canopy and heated the impression for it to leave tracks. Then it began to solidify again when we discovered it.

The curvature along the bone I have does not match, there is no curvature, yet the joint size is still too small and misshapen to match as well.

You continually try to belittle my intelligence when it comes to elk sign. I have tried and tried to explain to you the scene but you keep relying on 2D pictures and ... ahmm, your superior knowledge and deducing ability. You are comparing a Washington Roosevelt elk to your Rocky Mt Oregon elk. Rocky Mt elk have even smaller joints. I also said that all I have seen in the area have been Roosevelt. I have pictures of them there, but no Rocky Mt.

You cannot roll an object in mud, to make a bigger impression without significantly degrading the surface details. Details measuring down to .020" (skin patch surface, fine hair).

You have a theory and can stick with it. It is your choice, I am not stopping you. I suppose you can create a frankenstein elk to match up. Young leg, old joint, large distance between front and rear of impression, heavy weight. Young elk legs are very long, so long in fact when laying in a prone position they over reach the rear legs.

[Guest Cervelo]

D,

You got it... its all opinion!

[Guest]

Your logic and answers are so full of holes I don't know where to being. But I will try and that will be the end of it.

OH so now you use a few week old calf to make your point? LOL Hilarious!

I never said anything about the front and rear legs. Where did you get that? I was talking about the front legs but differentiating between the front and rear of those legs. The front legs are thicker round in the front of them than the rear of the same legs in your picture.

You talk around in circles so much its difficult to tell DDA.

I matched the size of the heel with the lower joint. If I would have searched for something to match the leg, disregarding the joint, I would have had a mismatch as well. What you are proposing is that we look at a young elk leg with a mature joint. Then we have to account for the hair pattern or lack thereof. You then propose an even younger elk leg, that you claim has bigger joint size to leg bone thickness.

The elk tracks came first then the body impression, only later did the coyote walk through the site. there is an age difference between the elk tracks, body impression and coyote tracks. Since I was there when this all happened, I can tell you that the ground was frozen when we found it. The likely scenario then would be that the elk tracks came through when it was pretty unfrozen. The ground froze and then whatever made the body imprint sat there, possibly heating up areas with body heat. Either the coyote came through close behind or the sun peaked through some of the canopy and heated the impression for it to leave tracks. Then it began to solidify again when we discovered it.

Not if you account for the fact that a 600 lb elk WILL enlarge the knee impression area as it moves around. Below you claim that the elk would have been there long enough to melt the frozen ground, and yet you can't allow for movement over time by the same elk? Go outside and roll a round rock in the mod a little, do you propose that the hole it leaves will remain the same size as when you first plodded it down? That would be a fabrication if it didn't enlarge the hole.

The fact of the matter remains, you have NOT allowed anyone with ample elk or elk hunting experience to truly delineate the tracks surrounding the impression. If I'm wrong, please share their written findings. Funny how the boot prints were left in the frozen earth.

The curvature along the bone I have does not match, there is no curvature, yet the joint size is still too small and misshapen to match as well.

In your elk leg!

You continually try to belittle my intelligence when it comes to elk sign. I have tried and tried to explain to you the scene but you keep relying on 2D pictures and ... ahmm, your superior knowledge and deducing ability. You are comparing a Washington Roosevelt elk to your Rocky Mt Oregon elk. Rocky Mt elk have even smaller joints. I also said that all I have seen in the area have been Roosevelt. I have pictures of them there, but no Rocky Mt.

Yeah, but there are STILL Rocky Mtn Elk in that region. Go back to the Washington Elk Study I linked up in the old thread of that area! You even have interbreeding DDA! Just because you didn't see Rockies, has nothing to do with whether they are there. Your argument loses.

You cannot roll an object in mud, to make a bigger impression without significantly degrading the surface details. Details measuring down to .020" (skin patch surface, fine hair).

If you roll it along one plane then sure you can. The joint is connected at the body, so its very natural to extrapolate only side to side rolling.

You have a theory and can stick with it. It is your choice, I am not stopping you. I suppose you can create a frankenstein elk to match up. Young leg, old joint, large distance between front and rear of impression, heavy weight. Young elk legs are very long, so long in fact when laying in a prone position they over reach the rear legs.

Like I pointed out at the beginning, if you want to use to baby calf to counter my point of a basic young elk, well that's your prerogative and more transparent.

[Guest]

Oh I see, you think from calf to young elk the joints will grow out of proportion to the leg and thus then fit the impression. What did you claim, that certain parts of the body may grow disproportionately through it's maturing? The pictures I posted show that the joint is not that big compared to the leg in an elk calf. They also do not look that big in your own picture you posted. So somewhere in-between those two ages, you contend the joint grew?

Your elk leg, my elk leg, any elk leg... the joint is too big for a young elk wrist to still maintain the smaller diameter leg bone. Sorry you could not follow that logic. Let me try to be more precise here. Rocky Mt Elk have leg joints that are too small, even in adults. It was logical to take the largest body part and try an fit a known animal part to it, not the smallest part. Thus a Roosevelt elk leg was obtained and used to get the general size right for the heel at the outset. Unfortunately the leg attached to it was 3 times as thick as found on the cast or in the impression. I can prove there was no slumping in the impression and cast so the size is what it is.

Now here is an experiment you can do yourself, maybe proving your point to all of us elk ignorant people... you go out and make an impression of some kind, with something that has surface details in sticky mud. Use an old long bone with a joint and your initials carved into it at the end or something of that nature. Place this on the ground and press real hard. Roll it around while embedded in the substrate to enlarge the impression. Remove it then cast it and show us the size difference you were able to obtain. I won't ask for the harder problem of rolling something like the joint to make a bigger impression but not the attached achilles tendon, which is still attached even further up the body because I think you will cheat and use something that could move in those directions (like rotating a very large tinker toy set). Elk legs just cannot move like our own arms do. Enlarging the heel area with movement would correspond to movement within the ankle and tendon, enlarging that as well, erasing or blurring surface elements like sharp hair patterns and skin folds / creases, evident in the Skookum impression and cast. But wait... you also need to reduce the width of the tendon attached to the heel you are to move. Go ahead and even try attempting the use of slumping of the soil after removal to reduce the tendon diameter. There is some telltales for that so we can judge the amount if any took place.

You can fit one thing (leg) forgoing another (joint, reach of leg) all you want. It's your keyboard. You can also claim that what made the impression moved around so much that certain areas in it no longer fit the model elk you are proposing. Unfortunately the surface details in the imprint don't support that contention either.

What is transparent is your over achieving goal to want to prove me wrong, yet try to obtain the needed material to do so from the very same person. Also transparent is the little jibes and comments you make with each and every post trying to show how much better you are then me or anybody else. That must be making you feel better about yourself.

My choice is not to believe a word out of your mouth when it comes to claiming to have seen a Sasquatch, not once... not twice but four times... without a stitch of proof or evidence. No proof though looks like it means no one can disprove. Were you paid to speak about your supposed experiences with the animal? Yet this claim is one of your bedrocks in knowing the subject (Bigfoot) so intimately, in fact better then most all others, in your mind making you more than qualified to judge over the internet on the subject, where I might add you also are claiming to have expert knowledge of elk. Because you hunt them, like 60,000 other hunters do.

[Guest parnassus]

With all due respect dda, just a casual reader on this topic it doesn't sound as if you have done the needed experiments with various sized elk (not just legs) in mud, to know what they can and cannot produce in various soils over varying time intervals. So while you are entitled to your opinion, you really can't say what would be impossible for an elk to do.

Meanwhile you yourself do brush up against the impossible in suggesting that a huge hairy creature could have made this imprint without leaving tracks or hair. I find it remarkable that a person of your obvious abilities would not by this time have come to the conclusion that it is Sasquatch that is really the impossible alternative here. Jmho.

Edited April 14, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

With all due respect dda, just a casual reader on this topic it doesn't sound as if you have done the needed experiments with various sized elk (not just legs) in mud, to know what they can and cannot produce in carols soils over varying time intervals. So while you are entitled to your opinion, you really can't say what would be impossible for an elk to do.

Meanwhile you yourself do brush up against the impossible in suggesting that a huge hairy creature could have made this imprint without leaving tracks or hair. I find it remarkable that a person of your obvious abilities would not by this time have come to the conclusion that it is Sasquatch that is really the impossible alternative here. Jmho.

I have addressed all of your observations many times before. Some even in this thread. It is true that the number of experiments possible with an elk leg have not been exhausted to the point of totally ruling out an elk. Science doesn't actually work that way either. Law enforcement does though, since they are trying to recreate a crime that may impact a life or it's freedom from it. They will experiment and experiment until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt with the results. Science will experiment and then rule out many things from the results, even one's that were not anticipated being asked beforehand. I am not a scientists and all funding came from my back pocket. That is a finite resource.

Even the most ardent of skeptical scientists have not said that Sasquatch is an impossibility, so the Skookum impression being made by a Sasquatch cannot be ruled out as simply as that.

Addressing what someone else posted earlier... I have never started a thread on the new or old BFF concerning the Skookum Cast. I have not paraded it around as proof of anything. I came to the Skookum threads only to answer questions that I knew the answers to, quite unlike many who come for the opposite reasons. Look them up for yourself. Someone else has started those threads.