Jump to content

Skookum Cast


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

My original thinking on the cast was that independent studies and publications were indeed needed. Things not written or influenced by me or other members of the expedition. Issues that might argue against the cast being anything but that of an ungulate would also have to be addressed, independently. No one stepped forward to do so except for Owen Caddy. He had no vested interest and seemed to dedicate himself to the task. He was not being paid anything to do so and appeared to have sufficient credentials, desire, talent and expertise to accomplish it. That only progressed so far what with his family life and such. Others have come and gone concerning it as well. Eventually someone will come along but it looks like I might have to take on a greater role in that endeavor. At least in setting the record straight in many respects glossed over by the media. Case in point...Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science started out as that being a 2 hour theatrical release, predominately if not THE show piece being on the Skookum cast. That did not pan out. Then there was a famous writer working for a prestigious magazine... that too did not work out. A big newspaper article... nope. Then there were the scientists. Yes they were interested but no they didn't have the time or desire to write a paper on it. Maybe it is some kind of professional courtesy or something, thinking I should be the one to publish first on it.

So just to clarify, was the above report written by Owen Caddy or yourself? And if by Owen Caddy, did you provide interpretation for him? Just trying to understand the context.

The TV shows that I worked on had me spending my own money on things. I was compensated for those expenses sometimes. Whether it was for being behind a camera, providing a generator and lighting in the field, writing a story, gathering technical experts and equipment or travel. It was never for the Skookum cast. Your attempt to discredit on this item had better stop. Everyone that knows me personally has witnessed me giving more than receiving when it comes to this subject. You on the other hand cannot hope to coerce anything out of nothing as has so many others in the past have tried... be it bringing a heel cast duplicate to Rene's sons during his memorial to include with their fathers material, allowing a duplicate art piece to be made from the cast or appearing on TV.

Only asked a question DDA, no basis for trying to discredit you. And sorry but I've not proposed doing any of those things you mention at the end of the paragraph.

I have no interest in giving freely, to you or anybody else, information that I have collected over the years concerning this subject. When I do post on it, I many times feel regret for doing so afterwards.

Maybe you feel that way because you overly control so much of the information that prevents others from interpreting on their own? How do you expect the scientists to take it seriously when they see this on the surface? Thing is, even with the report you posted above, I have come to realize there is one element where I was wrong. You see, had you offered skeptics the complete supporting material, it might help avoid many errors and confusion. And yeah don't worry, I'll admit my little error in context to what I'm putting together. All of which could have been avoided if you would have just been a little more forthcoming to everyone.

I have been working on a book concerning the Skookum expedition since even some of the members don't quite have the details down right or have been privy to the direct study of it and all the information and comments made on it. Some have even faulted me for not having published sooner on it, but I have had my reasons, some of which are told in this post. When I get done with it, it will be made available.

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notes come from my collection, written by me, after sitting and working with Owen, and listening to his comments and discoveries as well as from Meldrum, Daris, Schaller and Grover. I don't have the expertise in recalling all the scientific names of body parts that Daris recited, or the anecdotal remarks concerning ungulates in the African savannas that Owen and Schaller spoke on or on what exactly Grover, Henner and Jeff talked about in Fife while examining the cast. I do have what any of them wrote on the subject though.

Interpretations... no I tried to refrain from giving my take on what the cast depicted. I let them look at it and if they had heard of any of the features before hand I pointed them out on the cast. I would have to say that I was the most negative person to examine the cast of anybody. It defies my current logic.

BTW. On the elk drawing above, I of course left out the toe joints at the base of both the front and rear legs. They do bend but not with as much agility as do our own.

Edited by damndirtyape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notes on comparing the Skookum Cast to an Ungulate and a primate

Heel and Achilles tendon versus Elk Wrist

The heel and Achilles tendon area on the Skookum cast are what elk proponents are indicating as an ungulate wrist, from the front leg. This wrist is a rear-bending joint, covered in the same type of short thick and hollow hair flowing in a downward direction towards the hooves on the elk. When it bends, it places the hoof in a rearward facing direction with the plantar portion of the two toes against the ground when lying down. The hoof is made from different material than the rest of the limb and shows easily this differentiation when placed in wet soil. It is like the difference between your own fingernail and that of the surrounding skin of the finger.

No, when lying down the plantar portion of the toes faces the body, not the ground.

The Skookum cast does not contain these hoof marks at the end of the Achilles tendon area. The cast shows that this appendage is being forced in an almost straight up and down or perpendicular aspect in respect to the ground surface. This section also contains a marked difference in surface detailing from the rest of the impression that shows it to be covered in thin, 2†long hair. The Achilles tendon shows very fine hair markings but this pattern stops short when reaching the supposed heel. The heel area contains what looks more like skin folds, creases and dermatoglyphics than that of a continuation of hair.

Or the elk was rising and putting it's body weight on it's wrists and the hair was pushed and pulled into the mud making large squish and drag marks.

A large dismembered elk leg was obtained for experimentation and it was shown that the hair on it continued similarly throughout the impacting surface. The hair was also of different length and texture than that on the cast, but more importantly, the elk leg clearly showed joint protuberances when placed in duplicating substrate material (play-do). These are not present in the Skookum cast or the impression it came out of.

Elk proponents have depicted a likely body posture in that this foreleg is bent towards the side of the body and not straight down. Investigators have collected reclining elk limb impressions where this limb was bent to the side on live animals and it clearly shows a curled look at the joint location. This is not visible in the cast, indicating once again that these were struck almost straight on with the ground. For an elk to have done this, these sections would have had to be under the main chest cavity and also below a very heavy head. This would most certainly have impressed the entire leg into the surface, down to the hooves.

“Vâ€

There is another area on the cast that looks like a sharp “V†and that the elk proponents are claiming indicate the placement of the front and rear hooves in a sideways reclining prone body posture. Investigators have looked at this area and determined that it is not a part of the overall impression. It clears shows ridged grooves running it’s entire length, is too sharp of a “V†to have been created by a prone ungulates front and rear hooves and most likely is where an ungulate place a hoofed leg while standing or walking and slipped twice into the same hole or soft spot, sliding the hoof along the surface.

This “V†detail was made before the rest of the main impression body, as indicated by overlaying surface details. It does not contain any indication that it was made with a parallel to the ground elk leg.

Rear Legs versus lower arm

The rear portion of the cast depicts another section called the arm and wrist of a primate. Elk proponents claim it shows the rear leg. This section is far too wide, long, and containing surface details indicating it was made with one strike. In other words it was not made with something less wide and just rolled in place to create the effect, such as an elk leg. First of all, an elk leg is attached to the rest of the body of the animal and cannot be dissociated with it so there would have to be other indications that the limb and body both rolled the impression. This is not evident in the cast. Secondly, this limbs surface detail indicates a shape, hair patterning and texture not matching that of an ungulate. The rear leg of an elk is cylindrical, with an hourglass shape. The cast depicts a big boned and thickly muscled forelimb tapering down to what is thought to be a primate wrist, starting at the elbow. The apex of this elbow also shows cracked skin and folds similar to other primates, nothing like the wing-like shape of an ungulates back knee.

Buttock crease

The knee section of the ungulate theory versus the crease between buttock and upper thigh region on a primate also lacks some details that would link it to an elk. The skin and muscle on that section of an elk is quite thin and placing a couple of hundred pounds on it, pushing it into soft soil would leave tell-tale boney features, evident in collected images from elk lays. They are not present in the cast. The hair pattern also flows through the area continuously, unlike that from an elk leg pressed up against the belly or chest, which would have a different hair pattern. The elk leg has hair pointing downwards and laying in the direction of the hooves. The belly of an elk has the hair going crossways, from the left side to the right side or vice versa. The Skookum cast shows a hair pattern that flows through this area consistently, in fact continuing all along the length of the impression towards the heel areas.

Side impressions

The Skookum cast contains heel like areas on one side of the main body and the arm like feature at the other end, but on the opposite side from these. An ungulate would have to have been twisted severely in order to accomplish this, since the hair pattern indicates a single sitting and not multiple strikes.

This is a natural reclining position for an elk as seen here:

skookum2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except NDT, when a scientific claim is made, there is responsibility on the part of the owner in validating that claim when elements are questioned. This isn't a simple sighting where we can't expect solid evidence to be available. This is an alleged physical piece of evidence that has elements that exist that are being questioned. If he ever wants science to take it seriously, he will have to get used to being up front with whatever evidence there may be. And unfortunately, some of it hasn't seen the light of day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

This is a reply to a post that has been deleted so take it for what you will.....

I would disagree with your assessment. IMO when the evidence is presented it appears to me (in my short time here) that the decision has already been made that it's Bigfoot. All that is being sought out is affirmation of this conclusion. When that doesn't happen that's when feelings get hurt. But unfortunately I agree with you on your other point don't bring it out to the public unless you've got "the goods". In this case as so many others there's just enough for both sides to build pretty good cases and not enough to convince anyone to change their minds.

Edited by Cervelo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To parade around this misidentified and sub-quality picture is funny. Like I said before and before and before... ad naseum. You have body parts going to the wrong places. Got nothing new but this old argument huh? The last picture is copyrighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

Except NDT, when a scientific claim is made, there is responsibility on the part of the owner in validating that claim when elements are questioned.

To anonymous posters on the internet? Really?

Mr. Noll has repeatedly stated that the cast has been available for accredited members of science to examine. Several prominent scientists have done so. They made arrangements with the owners of the cast to do so, traveled to the location of the cast, did so together, and discussed it as they examined it together. Most of them have stated that they believe that the cast was made by a primate.

And you insist that, somehow, Mr. Noll is "responsible" to validate those claims to you on the internet?

If he ever wants science to take it seriously, he will have to get used to being up front with whatever evidence there may be. And unfortunately, some of it hasn't seen the light of day.

Not your "day". And the odds are they never will.

And I find that rather satisfying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except NDT, when a scientific claim is made, there is responsibility on the part of the owner in validating that claim when elements are questioned. This isn't a simple sighting where we can't expect solid evidence to be available. This is an alleged physical piece of evidence that has elements that exist that are being questioned. If he ever wants science to take it seriously, he will have to get used to being up front with whatever evidence there may be. And unfortunately, some of it hasn't seen the light of day.

I am (VERY reluctantly) going to agree with this statement. I don't like "secret evidence" as a concept. Anything less than transparency just opens the door to Skeptical side-barring about "withholding information" that detracts from the primary matter at hand: the actual evidence.

For the record, I am firmly in DDA/Dr Meldrum/et al's camp on what the cast represents, however, there needs to be a full and open disclosure so that the debate can be properly engaged.

As for the problems DDA is having getting scientists on board to publish a paper, why not as Dr Meldrum to co-author it?

I'm going to go lie down now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a reply to a post that has been deleted so take it for what you will.....

I would disagree with your assessment. IMO when the evidence is presented it appears to me (in my short time here) that the decision has already been made that it's Bigfoot. All that is being sought out is affirmation of this conclusion. When that doesn't happen that's when feelings get hurt.

On the Skeptic side as much as the proponent side (only the opposite opinion), if not more so.

In this case as so many others there's just enough for both sides to build pretty good cases and not enough to convince anyone to change their minds.

At this point in time, I have to agree that many minds are not going to be changed, esp hardcore Skeptic ones. Dr Meldrum has had success in moving several people from a strong "no bf" to at least a neutral or cautiously open-minded position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am (VERY reluctantly) going to agree with this statement. I don't like "secret evidence" as a concept. Anything less than transparency just opens the door to Skeptical side-barring about "withholding information" that detracts from the primary matter at hand: the actual evidence.

For the record, I am firmly in DDA/Dr Meldrum/et al's camp on what the cast represents, however, there needs to be a full and open disclosure so that the debate can be properly engaged.

As for the problems DDA is having getting scientists on board to publish a paper, why not as Dr Meldrum to co-author it?

I'm going to go lie down now...

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR MULDER? ohmy.gif

No REALLY, that's very honest of you to say Mulder. I respect that. Thank you.

Huntster, the Skookum Cast is a claim that affects us all. I used to tout it as evidence of bigfoot too, but I'm also a hunter and know a bit about elk as well. The Skookum Cast is a claim that goes far beyond this forum. I'm not so anonymous either as I've shared my identity here. But I am also a voice that reflects other voices out there who have questions, just as you are. There has been scientists look at the cast, but which of those scientists didn't have an interest in bigfoot? None only had an interest in ungulates thereby being without that internal desire for it to be bigfoot. Even my opinion should be biased towards bigfoot following the trend, but I have an interest in both bigfoot and elk. I've seen em both. Still, I've never claimed to be a scientist here, but I do have a more then usual skillset in the two areas. Remember, in the beginning I offered to bring together 3 elk biologists from Oregon and Washington to review all the evidence. That idea went south pretty fast around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

M,

I disagree when someone brings forward information for others opinions but has already made up their minds what they have, they are not looking for input. When I say IMO there are elk in the area and this looks a lot like an elk lay so IMO it's most likely an elk lay that's kinda it for me I'm not upset at all and could be wrong it's just my opinion of the evidence presented. But the response to that statement often indicates the investment one has in their "evidence" and how open minded they are. We all have been guilty of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR MULDER? ohmy.gif

No REALLY, that's very honest of you to say Mulder. I respect that. Thank you.

Fair is fair...we don't agree on a lot, Prag, but one of my big things is honest debating. That can't be done without both sides willing to put it all out and consider it all fairly

There has been scientists look at the cast, but which of those scientists didn't have an interest in bigfoot? None only had an interest in ungulates thereby being without that internal desire for it to be bigfoot.

This is going to have to be where we start disagreeing again..."having an interest in bigfoot" is not a professional disqulifier. That presumes a bias.

Remember, in the beginning I offered to bring together 3 elk biologists from Oregon and Washington to review all the evidence. That idea went south pretty fast around here.

Would not your panel be just as biased as you are suggesting the proponent scientists are, just if favor of "elk"?

Proponent scientists deserve an equal place at the table with skeptical ones in any discussion about evidence. It MIGHT be fair to say that Dr Meldrum has a lack in knowledge of ungulate physiology, but by the same token your elk experts lack knowledge of primate physiology. That's why they both have a place at the table, indeed are NEEDED to be at the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M,

I disagree when someone brings forward information for others opinions but has already made up their minds what they have, they are not looking for input. When I say IMO there are elk in the area and this looks a lot like an elk lay so IMO it's most likely an elk lay that's kinda it for me.

So the professional opinions of the primate anatomists (Dr Meldrum and those he consulted) have no meaning for you whatsoever? "It looks like an elk lay", so that's it and no amount of more sophisticated analysis need be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

So the professional opinions of the primate anatomists (Dr Meldrum and those he consulted) have no meaning for you whatsoever? "It looks like an elk lay", so that's it and no amount of more sophisticated analysis need be done?

M,

It's just my opinion and this is just the response I'm talking about, it's not a personal attack on anyone or their qualifications to attribute behavior to an undocumented species. I'm open to any information that anyone brings forth. I believe they could exsit and this is based on several personal experiences, but I also believe that 99.9 percent

of what is attributed to biggie is questionable. As I've said many times on this site and others if you go on a witch hunt you will find witches. Its not incumbent upon you or anyone else to prove anything to me the evidence will speak for itself, if it has to be explained why this or that is Bigfoot then It most likely is not going to pass as proof that an unknown creature is amoung us IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...