Skookum Cast

[Guest Cervelo]

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.

Mulder,

My reply is your response I could not have stated it any better! Tracks matter as long as there biggie but not if there elk whew you are amazing!!!!

Thanks you made my day!

[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?

Go right ahead and try to make everyone believe that a 75 lb calf elk is going to be a logical representation for what I was referring. People here are smarter then that DDA. In the first year, an elk will grow the majority of its weight over its life. You figure the rest out of how many elk of varying sizes that represents. You are ignoring variable factors of live elk, impression changes, elk posture, etc, in your measurements. You used an elk leg that was too mature and you didn't account for movements in one position by the elk. Remember, the impression maker was long enough to melt the frozen ground right? An elk didn't just lie completely still and not move at all in changing the impression while it was there? It moved around, and that clouded what you see.

If you can't follow the joint growing proportionally concept with elk, do you recognize how the human head is larger when young, and grows disproportionately during the early years? Yeah huh, same concept.

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.

So tell me, just how did you account for the added depth of the coyote impression in the knee there? It made quite an impression didn't it, and it really prevents you from seeing the original outline of the joint too. (Remember, I have a copy here!) In addition, that adjacent surface are on each side of the coyote print, how do you account for that being the leg angled on up to the body? That isn't just part of the knee joint there DDA, that's the beginning of its upper leg muscle that widens the joint. So there you have two uncontrollable variables in your measurement that you can't address. Cause when the elk leaned to one side, its gonna widen that point where it places its weight. So what your saying about the leg being 3 times as thick, well yeah, that's the elk's leg. Duh! In addition, any movement of the elk WILL widen the impression it made, there is no way this can be denied. All anyone needs to do is go out to a sandbox and move his knuckles around in the same spot, its going to leave a larger impression then the original knuckles. I haven't said anything about slumping btw.

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.

An elk leg can move very dynamically when the elk is alive. Its your using a stiffened rigor-mortis dead elk leg that offers you no natural movement DDA. Didn't you figure that out when trying to bend it over 90°? So in fact is your elk leg that once again doesn't match the movements that created the impression from a live elk.

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.

Only if you over-read the sign, just like the hairs have been over-read. As I explained in an earlier thread, many of those hair striations were merely soaked hairs in the mud that took on a paintbrush effect. You guys over-analyzed.

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.

No I'm trying to maintain some science relating to a very misdiagnosed piece of alleged evidence, when its really just caused by something that occurs every few minutes up in the mountains, elk laying down. Kind of like the majority of tree breaks in the mountains, including the ones that guided you to Skookum Meadows, all completely natural yet overanalyzed by people who want to see more then there is.

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.

But I pay special attention to things. I become one with the mountain DDA. UuuMMMMM LOL No DDA, I'm just a naturalist at heart and in tune when in the woods. I don't do nearly worthless expeditions. I don't use methodical grid searches to locate bigfoot. I'm sure there are a lot of things I don't do that all the experts do to try and find em. But because I view them differently, not as some ape, and because I try to be in tune with things, it probably has something to do with why I have encountered them the times I have. I walk and I listen in more ways then with my ears. Awe, you're just jealous cause you can't see one huh?

I only have my life experiences to draw on just as anyone. Areas I don't have experience, then I only speculate. I've claimed no expert knowledge, but there are areas I do have added knowledge. Can I prove I've had the encounters I've had? You know the answer, but its not like I've claimed to go meet them whenever I want either. Four sightings in 34 years. Its still a very rare event to have a visual encounter, and I've never had one when I was looking for them either. I have had very close non-visual encounters when looking however. So I guess I'm doing something right.

[Guest]

D,

You got it... its all opinion!

And if Prag's "elk expert" panel definitively declared it an elk lay, you would be praising the "science" of it to the nth degree...Skeptics are SO transparent. When a piece of evidence is said NOT to be bf related, it's "good science". When a piece of evidence is affirmed as bf evidence, it is "not good science" or "opinion".

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.

At least one hair was found and collected during forensic examination of the cast, as documented by Dr Meldrum.

Next fail?

Mulder,

My reply is your response I could not have stated it any better! Tracks matter as long as there biggie but not if there elk whew you are amazing!!!!

Thanks you made my day!

I will make one final attempt (probably wasted, but anyways...) to explain the situation to you, using the following analogy:

A person is found murdered in a store. The police go in to collect evidence. In several places in the store they find basic shoe prints. Are they going to hoover up every shoeprint in the entire store?

No.

They are going to collect shoe prints (if any) that directly relate to the dead body. If a bloody print was found, they WOULD collect it because it is demonstrably tied to the murder scene. They are not going to give a rat about the non-bloody shoe print three isles over because it is not relevant.

[Guest Cervelo]

And if Prag's "elk expert" panel definitively declared it an elk lay, you would be praising the "science" of it to the nth degree...Skeptics are SO transparent. When a piece of evidence is said NOT to be bf related, it's "good science". When a piece of evidence is affirmed as bf evidence, it is "not good science" or "opinion".

What you said but in reverse

I will make one final attempt (probably wasted, but anyways...) to explain the situation to you, using the following analogy:

A person is found murdered in a store. The police go in to collect evidence. In several places in the store they find basic shoe prints. Are they going to hoover up every

shoeprint in the entire store?

No.

They are going to collect shoe prints (if any) that directly

relate to the dead body. If a bloody print was found, they

WOULD collect it because it is demonstrably tied to the

murder scene. They are not going to give a rat about the

non-bloody shoe print three isles over because it is not

relevant.

Yes that was a waste of time for both of us

[Guest]

What you said but in reverse

I give up. Not in the sense that I say you are right, but in the sense that there is no debating with you. You have your opinion, it is immovable. That is your right, I suppose...

[Guest Cervelo]

I give up. Not in the sense that I say you are right, but in the sense that there is no debating with you. You have your opinion, it is immovable. That is your right, I suppose...

Right back at ya! but hey M we both like fishing !!!!!

[masterbarber]

I'm reopening this thread so let's leave the disrespectful and snide comments out and concentrate on the exchange of information.

Please continue the discussion.

[Guest parnassus]

Perhaps this has been discussed previously but on p 117 of SLMS Meldrum writes of the "heel":

"The imprint of moderate length hair could be seen streaming down across the tendon, giving way to hairless skin just above the margin of the sole, which in turn gave way to the texture of ridged friction skin. "

He also says that Chilcutt consulted and found skin ridges as in other footprints.

Now I look at the photograph and there are clearly visible ridges on the heel in the direction that would be predicted for a pouring artifact, and perpendicular to the ridges on a human foot and to the ridges found in casts where the pour was at 90 degrees to the Skookum pour.

I see this as strong confirmation of pouring artifact and of Chilcutts blindness to it. Not to mention Meldrum's.

Has Meldrum ever been asked about this aspect of the Skookum cast?

Edited April 21, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

The first layer of hydro-cal/ plaster was installed very carefully as per Rick. It was quite thin. We spattered it in by hand to try and get all the detail accurately. It was not poured in, so ripple artifacts were not an issue at all IMO.

[Guest]

In an effort to share with all who are reading this thread, I simply cannot let this one pass by.

In the first year, an elk will grow the majority of its weight over its life.

The following can be found here.

A mature bull may weigh from 700 pounds to as much as 1000 pounds live weight, and that would be an exceptional animal. Bulls are bigger than cows as are cows bigger than calves. A cow elk may run from 500 - 800 pounds and calves will be anywhere from around the 100 pound range to several hundred pounds. The weight of the calf would vary depending on when they were born and the time of the year you are hunting. A hunter living in elk country has the advantage of first hand knowledge of the living library where the elk hunter that resides where there are no elk has to depend on pictures and books. All the tiny details of the puzzle fit together faster and easier for the hunter in elk country than the other hunter. The hunter in elk country is generally able to spend much more time among the elk than the short, brief visit of the other hunter also, so what he sees and learns will stick with him/her far easier. The hunter that does not reside in elk country needs to look at pictures, and lots of pictures to try and pick out the subtle differences amoung the elk.

And then we have this.

At birth, an elk calf weighs about 35 pounds (16 kg) and can gain two pounds (one kg) a day for the first few weeks.

At the start of its first winter, an elk may weigh five times as much as when it was born.

Cow elk can weigh more than 500 pounds (225 kg), stand 4-1/2 feet (1.3 m) at the shoulder, and measure 6-1/2 feet (2 m) from nose to rump.

An average bull weighs 700 pounds (315 kg), stands 5 feet (1.5 m) at the shoulder, and measures more than 8 feet (2.4 m) from nose to rump.

And again here.

Size

Newborn calf 35 pounds (16 kg)

Cow 500 pounds (225 kg)

4 1/2 feet (1.3 m) at the shoulder

6 1/2 feet (2 m) from nose to tail

Bull 700 pounds (315 kg)

5 feet (1.5 m) at the shoulder

8 feet (2.4 m) from nose to tail

Do a little math. Can anyone really believe that a calf born at 35 pounds can grow the majority of it's weight within the first year when at full maturity at 7 to 8 years of age they top out at 700 to 800 pounds?

I agree that they do grow rapidly, but 35 x 5 doesn't even come close to 700 pounds, so a calf born that same year is out of the question. Even one born the previous year wouldn't cut it either.

I also agree with the things that are pointed out in the first link that I posted about familiarity with elk, or any animal for that matter, comes best by living among them.

[Guest parnassus]

The first layer of hydro-cal/ plaster was installed very carefully as per Rick. It was quite thin. We spattered it in by hand to try and get all the detail accurately. It was not poured in, so ripple artifacts were not an issue at all IMO.

thanks , I guess u were there. Have u ever tested that method for artifacts?

How do you exain the direction of what look like ridges on the " heel " in the left hand image on that page? Don't they appear to be running around the back of the heel? Why would friction ridges run that way? Isn't that perpendicular to the ridges found in casts of footprints?

Appreciate the info.

In an effort to share with all who are reading this thread, I simply cannot let this one pass by.

The following can be found here.

And then we have this.

And again here.

Do a little math. Can anyone really believe that a calf born at 35 pounds can grow the majority of it's weight within the first year when at full maturity at 7 to 8 years of age they top out at 700 to 800 pounds?

I agree that they do grow rapidly, but 35 x 5 doesn't even come close to 700 pounds, so a calf born that same year is out of the question. Even one born the previous year wouldn't cut it either.

I also agree with the things that are pointed out in the first link that I posted about familiarity with elk, or any animal for that matter, comes best by living among them.

Not that it's critical but your own info tends to support the posters estimate... 5 x 35 lb is 165 lbs by first winter which would be several months short of a year. If u want more data look at

http://digital.libra...47/p406_413.pdf

This is in keeping with my experience over many years with the weights of field dressed elk.

I would also suggest you are using max weights; realistically many if not most bull elk are harvested before reaching max size.

So while you are free to disagree with the poster, all in all the data do not seem to warrant your attempts to ridicule his estimate. And this thread was closed for a reason if u recall.

Of course that's just my opinion .

Edited April 22, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

No ridicule intended. I'm just simply saying that the math doesn't work, no matter how you cut it.

Mature weight is what is used, not harvested weight. By the way, I think that 7-800 lbs. for a mature Bull Elk is on the conservative side. At least for the elk that I live among.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Washingtonian

[Guest]

For what its worth Washingtonian, I was also figuring in 'rate of growth' into that statement. Percentage wise, they are seriously putting on the weight in the first year. So I could have been a little more clear there.

Plus, read what you quoted more carefully. "At the start of the first Winter". Well, at the start of the first Winter, they can be only about 6-8 months old.

Are we good?

Edited April 22, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

Perhaps this has been discussed previously but on p 117 of SLMS Meldrum writes of the "heel":

"The imprint of moderate length hair could be seen streaming down across the tendon, giving way to hairless skin just above the margin of the sole, which in turn gave way to the texture of ridged friction skin. "

He also says that Chilcutt consulted and found skin ridges as in other footprints.

Now I look at the photograph and there are clearly visible ridges on the heel in the direction that would be predicted for a pouring artifact, and perpendicular to the ridges on a human foot and to the ridges found in casts where the pour was at 90 degrees to the Skookum pour.

I see this as strong confirmation of pouring artifact and of Chilcutts blindness to it. Not to mention Meldrum's.

Has Meldrum ever been asked about this aspect of the Skookum cast?

Parnassus - I began using various commercial grades of plaster over 30 years ago. I became a Plaster Pattern Maker in the aerospace industry while working at Northrop on the B-2 program. This job entailed being able to construct complex curves using plaster as the finished surface in a tooling capacity. I went from a C, to a B, then on to an A and after incorporating multiple head Theodolite and Laser Tracker equipment in to the process, to a Tooling Developer. One of the main requirements of the job is to make surfaces that are extremely accurate, robust and defect free. The accuracy is on the order of .010" and scaling is on a 1:1 basis @ 68 degrees F., . Robust in that the surfaces constructed will not break free when later making plastic face casts off them and defect free meaning the surfaces are uniform in hardness, without holes, pits, rocks, runs, discoloration, or any other artifact not desired in the final product. Suffice it to say I am considered in the industry an expert at the job of using plaster, otherwise I wouldn't get paid as much as I do (LOL). Aerospace plaster tooling masters are life rated to 50 plus years.

A splash coating on a surface that you wish to duplicate has the least potential of producing casting artifacts that Matt Crowley has expounded on. Most, if not all of his findings, as well as that of other experimenters, are things I had to learn to eliminate when I was a C Tool Builder. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the Skookum cast does not contain any casting artifacts. I am also completely at ease if someone like Crowley would want to examine the cast to corroborate this statement. He may not know everything about the causes of surface defects but has experimented enough to bear witness the Skookum cast does not contain them.

Casting artifacts are produced by inexperienced people. They either add air to the mixture of plaster and water (by mixing in air or pouring water into plaster), do not arrest the effects of the substrate (apply moisture barriers), mix the plaster too thick or wait to long before using (allowing the mixture to shorten it's pot-life or cure cycle), add an ingredient that can produce detrimental surface effects (oils), or pull the cast from the substrate before fully curing.

Casting a track made in mud is not an overly hard process, even with surfaces that are undercut (jig-locked) or are found in aspects defying gravity (vertical, upside down). The splash coat process is one that produces the least amount of stress to the substrate when applied. It also has enough surface tension and minimal weight to adhere even if trying to counteract the forces of gravity. Only thicker plaster mixes that do not flow into every nook and cranny have the potential of deforming the original impression or the potential of pulling away from the surface and creating it's own.

As a side note: Plaster mixes in a B stage of curing, when deformed, will produce crack like structures, as will even mud. This has led to the conclusion that the Skookum cast heel/achilles tendon area shape is not a product of mud slumping. The impression and the cast are crack free in that area, and the fine hair tracings on it do not show any deformations in their splines.

The surface features on this area are quite unlike anything Matt Crowley has ever found during his experiments. They are in fact identical to features you could find on primate skin. The hair tracings are very fine or thin in diameter. They are also on average between .1" and .15" in density, allowing for areas to have skin surfaces exposed and casted. On the other hand, ungulate hair density is so small as to make it all but impossible to cast the skin beneath it without going to extreme measures (such as shaving the hair off.) Ungulate hair is also very thick and brittle, what with being hollow so as to insulate the body better. All one needs to do is compare between the two surfaces (ungulate - Skookum cast) to understand the differences.

[wolftrax]

Casting artifacts are produced by inexperienced people. They either add air to the mixture of plaster and water (by mixing in air or pouring water into plaster), do not arrest the effects of the substrate (apply moisture barriers), mix the plaster too thick or wait to long before using (allowing the mixture to shorten it's pot-life or cure cycle), add an ingredient that can produce detrimental surface effects (oils), or pull the cast from the substrate before fully curing.

What can you provide to show this is the case vs. Casting artifacts being caused by by dessication?

The surface features on this area are quite unlike anything Matt Crowley has ever found during his experiments. They are in fact identical to features you could find on primate skin.

Not arguing that what is seen in the skookum "Heel" is casting artifacts, but what can you provide showing the features are identical to primate skin?