Skookum Cast

[Guest]

I'm not getting anything done today.

That is one strange looking elk you got there DDA, no wonder you couldn't get the animal to match the cast. Yeah I'm just joking with ya.

In the bottom right photo, I don't see any detailed blowup photos of the cast site? Those little 4" X 6" photos on the wall just won't cut it either me thinks. The context is missing in the analysis, that's the problem with just looking at the impression by itself. And the impression by itself can look like just a jumble of prods and pokes w/o context of what is around it. So no, to answer your question, w/o that supporting material, not even a taxidermist could responsibly examine just the cast w/o that additional information to aid in a solid examination.

Thanks for clarifying the gamekeeper issue tho, that way more importance isn't given to him/her then should be.

Edited April 13, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

I don't know, that's why I asked. Mulder cited Meldrum's comment in LMS about examinations by game keepers in rebuttal to the elk theory. He asked if you knew who they were and you answered by saying John Green brought the duplicate to the Vancouver Zoo.

Evidently Green and Meldrum thought the replica was detailed enough for examination but you've said in the past that it is not.

I was just asking if it is or it isn't because you seem to disagree with the Green and Meldrum.

The duplicate of the heel I made or the ones the artists made of the entire cast? Only my heel went to the zookeeper I think. I believe this all happened before the full duplicate male and female was made. I tend to disregard everything about the large duplicates so never even think about them.

Zookeepers don't usually write scientific articles for magazines... but if they did, I would bet they would want to work with original evidence. Imagine a zookeeper writing on snakes and all he had was books on the subject and a stuffed one. All he could write about is what others already have.

Who said that Meldrum thought the replica was good enough? Oh Never mind... I answered it myself. The duplicate heel cast was good enough to show a gamekeeper and get his response.

[Guest]

DDA Said:

John Green contacted the Vancouver zoo and went there with the cast duplicate. John talked with him about it and asked if he could identify what it was. The zoo keeper said he had never seen anything quite like it and could not definitively say what it was. Any more than that you would have to talk with John about this conversation.

Only my heel went to the zookeeper I think.

Wait a minute, now you're saying that only the heel was seen by the zookeeper? You think? Well do you think maybe this might have been significant enough to clarify a little before now? Talk about lack of context in making an examination. And here I (and most everyone else) thought he had viewed a duplicate of the entire Skookum Cast. Come on DDA, sheesh!

Okay, now I must ask, is there a difference in your meaning when you say 'zookeeper' and 'game keeper'? In other words, is there a 'game keeper' who has also viewed something?

What do you think of cast examination by a zookeeper now Mulder? All he saw was the heel.

Edited April 13, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

I would not hazard a guess between zookeeper and gamekeeper. Sounds the same to me. Gamekeepers may not work in zoos'?

You guys are asking me things I was not involved with. I can pretty much guarantee though that the large duplicate cast was not made at the time John went to the zoo. I seem to remember John saying that he went to the zoo before our visit with Schaller (2002).

Why would most everyone think that it was the larger duplicate cast? If they read it in Meldrum's book as something that John did, what would make them think it was the larger duplicate? Is that what is written there? Prag? Have you read Meldrum's book? You guys are making this up as you go and jumping to conclusions on a lot of things aren't you?

The context of the story about John going to the zoo needs to be examined. When did he go (before the larger duplicates were made?)? What did he show the zookeeper? What was the zookeepers exact comments? What is the zookeepers name or contact info?

The ONLY thing I have ever said about this incident was that John went to the zoo and asked a zookeeper what he thought could have made a cast he showed him. It has only been a couple of years that the larger duplicates have been made (2006)... and Meldrum's book came out at the exact same time the San Antonio exhibit first showed the duplicates. Meldrum did not have time to include the making of the large duplicate and John certainly went to the zoo long before even that. OBSERVATION is not everyone's strong suit I guess.

[Guest]

Let me show you something DDA. Here is the Achilles Heel of your claim. Its what the front leg of a young bull elk really looks like! Could you please repost your photo of the elk leg along side the heel cast you had? Something was very unusual about it that was not the same as elk legs I have seen. But please share it in better quality will you?

In the photo I've provided, the leg with the green arrow would be this elk's right front leg. Yes this is of an elk I've taken, ie dispatched. Notice the odd concave curve to one side of the leg below the knee? That would match that curve in your Achilles Heel cast portion. It is that knee section that the elk kneels down on. That curve in the impression would be the curve seen in your impression. The unusual concave curve to the bone profile is on the outside of the leg, not the inside. You can see the inside of the leg with the other appendage in the photo. It does not have that same curve shape, and in fact is more convex.

There will be more to come DDA, but I wanted to share some real stuff here for you to be able to examine. Your Achilles Heel. That is a wonderful analogy too because it really does apply here. Sorry I didn't bend his leg tho, but I wasn't thinking Skookum Cast at the time of this photo. Instead I was thinking Winter's meat! If my images don't show up clear enough, but I think they will, I'll upload them in better detail later tonight when I get home. And thanks for clearing up the zookeeper story. Here all along I thought there was some serious examination done. Unfortunately page #119 of Meldrum's book really doesn't clarify it either.

Edited April 14, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest Cervelo]

PT,

So you hunt elk. So the next time you "get" one we (meaning you) could make a cast?

[Guest BitterMonk]

The context of the story about John going to the zoo needs to be examined. When did he go (before the larger duplicates were made?)? What did he show the zookeeper? What was the zookeepers exact comments? What is the zookeepers name or contact info?

If you're just going by Meldrum's book it's impossible to say. The exact quote from page 119 reads...

"Eventually, careful comparisons to elk imprints were made at multiple game ranches and zoological parks. The comparisons, combined with consultation by professional gamekeepers, ruled out elk as a possible candidate for the imprint."

The way that's written you can't tell who took what to whom, or where they took it, or when.

Edited April 14, 2011 by BitterMonk

[Guest]

Here is the size of the elk where the front leg came from. This is the hunter who provided me the leg for testing.

Here are pictures of the leg before testing. You can see the width of the leg with the tape measure in comparison. I don't see your concave side on this leg. The leg is pear shape, with the narrowest section at 1.5" in diameter. No other part of the cast experienced slumping of the mud in the impression. The other three heels do not show anything as narrow as this or the elk leg used in the testing. The other heels are on their sides, yet show no curling from the lower leg to the upper leg.

[Guest]

Well that could have something to do with why yours didn't show that curve to the outside of the leg, but w/o better photos of the leg, nobody can determine much of anything. That elk may have been much more mature then the cast maker. Oh wait, you're the cast maker, I mean the impression maker. (friendly pun)

Cervelo, easier said then done. If you're talking about the entire impression, no! Trying to manipulate an entire elk around, Ha! lol Not to mention it would in no way be natural.

As for a front knee, yeah that is very doable. But elk season only comes along once a year and we're mid way right now. But I'm working on other options...

Gotta run!

Just saw you new photos. Your bull being mature may just have 'more meat on his bones' as they say so the curve isn't so apparent. But in the top left photo, some curve is visible but still difficult to tell because of the angle of photo. Later

Edited April 14, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[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.

[Will]

Here is the size of the elk where the front leg came from. This is the hunter who provided me the leg for testing.

That is a nice elk. Was that taken in Washington?

Edited April 14, 2011 by will

[Guest]

View Pragmatic Theorist, on 13 April 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

And your assumption that this applies to Dr Schaller (?) is demonstrated how? He has studied ungulates on FOUR contintnents, not just Africa.

But NOT North American Elk!

Not relevent. See below.

An ungulate leg is an ungulate leg. No matter the specific species, it has the same parts in the same configurations that are consistent in pattern across species of ungulates. More importantly, this particular expert had expertise in BOTH primates and ungulates...who better to be able to discern between the two?

To the untrained eye, one might not see differences in anatomy between ungulates, but there are. You have bone structure differences. You have muscle structure AND mass differences. You have corresponding length of body part differences. You have hair thickness and pattern differences. You have hoof shape differences. You have track pattern differences. You have the different ways each will lay down and stand up. Where has Shaller ever observed this with an elk? You have enough differences there Mulder to have disqualified Shaller for his lack of expertise of elk in particular. No offense to him of course.

If you were trying to discern the fine differences between an elk and a gazelle, or and elk and a whitetail deer, or an elk and a moose you would have a point.

In this case, however, we are NOT trying to discern such fine details that species of the same type of animal. We are talking about the difference between ungluate anatomy, and primate anatomy. Dr Schaller is emminently qualified, as an expert on BOTH types of anatomy to address the issue on that basis.

Of the anatomical details under examination, it DOES provide a complete picture. What may or may not be 3 feet away does not prove whether the anatomy of the structure in question is an elk knee or a primate heel. ONLY that portion of the cast is relevant to that question.

Again, the anatomy on display is IN the cast area. Not 3 feet from the cast area, 10 feet away or across the field from it. The ANATOMY is the point of analysis, nothing else.

Awe, so I guess if this was a murder scene, you would feel that the tracks leading up to the body location would be irrelevant? And if those tracks happened to fit the tracks at the location of the body impression, would they be just ignored in your book? That's bad science Mulder. Come on! You just let the killer walk away with that logic.

No, I would be avoiding wasting the authorities' time chasing the person who may have walked through the area before the murder, or by the area or just IN the area by focusing on the specific evidence at the ACTUAL crime scene, rather than hoovering up red-herrings by seeking out extraneous material.

As for scientists I feel should examine the cast. I don't have names for you DDA. My offer was completely unbiased in that respect. I would have sought out elk biologists for such a review. I never said there were specific ones who were interested either. That's what made my offer unbiased.

Well, Parn...it looks like it's your turn to "step up". DDA has offered to meet you more than half-way. I would urge you to put together a list and submit it.

Note this is NOT me "calling you out"...you made an offer, DDA has accepted in principle. That puts the ball back in your court.

This also isn't very reassuring DDA. I thought the cast duplicate lacked the detail of the original? Does this also mean that the Zoo Keeper wasn't able to thoroughly examine detailed photographs of the tracks surrounding the cast? Is it possible for someone in touch with John Green to ask him this and maybe the name of the zookeeper so that this can be clarified?

I have Mr Green's email address...I can either ask him myself or if it would make you more confident in the reply I could give it to you and you could do it yourself.

He's a very pleasant gentleman to correspond with. Just be polite and respectful and you'll do fine.

Why would you have a zoo keeper identify a cast of a Bigfoot laying on the ground. Are there bigfeets in the zoo? Com' on man! That's like going to a prison to have the warden identify an impression left by a parachutist not so soft landing! Unless this zoo had lots of elk and their wallows then I get it. But otherwise DUH!

Then you get it. He was consulted because he would be familiar with elk lays and should have spotted it right off if it is as obvious as the Skeptics claim.

[Guest]

Its a complicated and l o n g answer Cervelo, if truly interested, you might look back through a few Skookum threads. But the gist is that if and assuming the cast was actually made by an elk and not bigfoot, then that would be why you would have an elk expert look at the evidence in order to rule it out. And when I say evidence, I mean detailed photographs of all the tracks leading up to and leaving the scene. Hope that helps answer.

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.

What do you think of cast examination by a zookeeper now Mulder? All he saw was the heel.

Since that was the part they were trying to identify, I don't have a problem with it whatsoever.

[Guest Blackdog]

You guys are making this up as you go and jumping to conclusions on a lot of things aren't you?

No I'm not.

I asked questions about Mulder's post and your answer to it. And as always, you make me out to be the bad guy.

I can't help it if Mulder misinterpreted Meldrum's remarks, or if you are wrong about what Meldrum was talking about.

Meldrum's remarks were ambiguous, no citations, no names.

Where did Meldrum mention John Green and the Vancouver Zoo? I was addressing Mulder's quote and your answer.

Where did Meldrum mention the heel cast?

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

I never made any of this stuff up!

I got all of this from the posts here, your answers and Meldrums book.

You answered Mulder's question and it doesn't match what Meldrum said in his book.

Spin all you want but the written word is all I have to go by.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Blackdog

[Guest]

Calm down dog. Who was accusing you of what?