Bigfoot_ The Skookum Cast

[Skeptical Greg]

We have discussed this at length in other threads..

I thought a new analysis by BFF member ' DesertYeti ' brings a nice perspective to the skeptical side of the table..

Here is the text of the original post ( with DY's permission ) and a link to the thread..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15569&view=findpost&p=326297


Here's a preliminary report (written in classic, dry scientific style...my apologies), with accompanying first-draft figures of my study of the Skookum Cast. I want to stress that I traced out only those features that exist on the cast, and made no interpretation of them until after I was done with the photowork. This is standard practice is straigraphic geology, where we work with photopanels of outcrops, trace surfaces and features, then double-check them on the actual outcrop or specimens. This serves as a safety-check and helps correct errors made from 2-d images. The interpretation shown here is preliminary, and a newer one exists, but I still need to double check a couple of minor features. I know plenty of people will disagree with this study, and that's fine. All I can say is, look at the specimen yourself if you get a chance, and remember Occam's Razor!

Introduction
The “Skookum Cast” as it has become widely known is a Hydrocal plaster specimen of a body imprint collected in September, 2000 by Rick Noll, members of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, and a television documentary crew. Although nothing has been formally published on the specimen, it has been touted as representing some of the best available evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Yet no formal study or detailed interpretation of the cast has been published since its discovery.
The purpose of this study was to examine the slab and couterslab of the Skookum Cast in order to: 1) document the occurrence of footprints, body prints, and hair flow patterns; 2) compare these traces to known animal sign in an effort to identify the makers; and 3) evaluate previous claims that the Skookum Cast represents clear evidence for the existence of a large, hairy, non-human, North American hominid.

Materials and Methods
The cast and counterslab of the “Skookum Cast” were examined in detail, and high-resolution photographs were shot for use in photo-interpretative work. Interpretations were digitally traced directly over the photos, and later compared to the actual specimens to verify the details. First-order surfaces are those that are readily apparent, 3-d shapes in the cast, exhibiting textures and morphologies characteristic of animal traces and were traced in a heavy line. Second-order surfaces include hair patters and surficial textures and were traced in a lighter-weight line. All surfaces were traced and compared to the specimen, and no attempt was made during the tracing to interpret structures, morphologies, or the originator of the trace. Only upon completion of the tracing exercise were the results compared to casts of tracks of known animals, and also published examples of animal tracks and sign (see Elbroch, 2003).

Results
In addition to the large body trace evident in the cast, four elk hoof prints, at least seven canid prints, and two boot prints are visible (Figs. 1, 2). Hair flow patterns are clearly preserved over much of the body trace, and match the pattern of flow in resting traces of large, hoofed mammals, including elk (see Figs. 1, 2). Although dermatoglyphic ridges have been informally reported on the “heel”, here interpreted as the wrist, none were evident to me during examination of the specimen. The elk hoof prints exhibit the characteristic rounded anterior margin and emarginated posterior margin of the species’ hoof morphology and are deeply impressed into the mud, ranging from 2-5 cm in depth.
The canid track was formed after the elk had moved away from the area as demonstrated by the superimposition of the canid’s prints over the main body imprint. The boot prints were left by the researchers at the site.

Discussion
The Skookum Cast appears to be a perfect example of forcing data to fit a pre-formed conclusion. In this case, the researchers were out to find evidence of Bigfoot, and this colored their interpretation of the evidence. Despite the complete lack of any Bigfoot prints on any part of the specimen, or in the immediate vicinity, the Skookum Cast continues to be lauded as some of the best evidence available for the existence of large, non-human North American hominids. Elk hoof prints found in direct association with the body imprint, combined with the very characteristic hair flow patterns readily apparent on the imprint immediately suggest that the specimen represents an elk lay (see Elbroch, 2003 for a discussion of the characteristics of ungulate lays).
The elk body print clearly evident in the Skookum Cast reveals the animal’s flank, butt, thigh, knee, shin, and metatarsals in precisely the areas where they would be expected (see Elbroch, 2003; Fig. 2). The curvature so readily apparent in the anterior impression of the elk’s thigh and knee were interpreted as the imprint of the gluteus maximus of a large hominid by at least some of the researchers who examined the cast (Murphy, 2004). The metatarsal imprints were likewise interpreted as the forearm of a hominid, and the imprints of the wrist and metacarpus became a “heel imprint.” The paired wrist and metacarpus imprints are characteristic of elk, deer, and other ungulate lay traces (see Elbroch, 2003). Significantly, the lack of hoof prints directly within the outline of the main body print is exactly what is seen in deer, elk, and other ungulate lays (see Elbroch, 2003). Hoof prints found outside the main body outline, but related to the forelegs reveal how the animal stood up.
Since none of the previous interpretations of the Skookum Cast have been formally published, it is impossible to evaluate all the claims surrounding the specimen. Nor is it possible to determine from the available information whether any of the researchers involved in its analysis have actually compared the specimen to known elk lays. There is little doubt that anyone actually making a comparison between the Skookum Cast and an elk lay would find the resemblance absolutely compelling. To this end, it is perhaps significant that a young couple examining the cast at a recent exhibition looked at it for roughly three seconds before the young lady summed up her interpretation in a mild Texas accent: “It looks just like a cow.”

Conclusions
The main body of the Skookum Cast represents a near-perfect body outline of an elk. The flanks, butt, thigh, knee, shin, metatarsals, metacarpals, wrist, and possible head imprints are all clearly visible and in exactly the position in which they’d be expected. The position of the hoof prints demonstrates how the animal raised itself up from its resting position. At some later time, a coyote walked through the site, and finally, the site was visited by the researchers and a cast made.

References Cited

Elbroch, M., 2003, Mammal Tracks and Sign, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA, 779 p.

Murphy, C. L., 2004, Meet the Sasquatch, Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, WA, 239 p.

[Cleon]

Interesting. Of course, to believers, it's still not good enough--the couple of replies I saw over there from Footers seemed to hinge on appeal-to-authority fallacies ("so you took some pictures and refuted everything all these professionals said...").

I do find it heartening that one of the Footer investigators (Richard Noll) was willing to work with him, even if he didn't agree with the conclusions. It shows there's some willingness for independent investigation among the Footers.

[Orthoptera]

And twenty years from now that bizarre piece of non-evidence will still be touted as "the actual imprint of Bigfoot!", because, after all, no one didn't see Sasquatch squatting in the mud.

[Skeptical Greg]

Surely Dr. Meldrum will be delaying the publication of his companion Book to LMS, to include this information...

[Huntster]

Surely Dr. Meldrum will be delaying the publication of his companion Book to LMS, to include this information...

Got some inside information on that?

Why is it so "sure"?

[Skeptical Greg]

Got some inside information on that?

Why is it so "sure"?

Surely you recognize sarcasm when you see it ?


No ?

I thought LMS was scientific ? You know, objective ? Presenting alternate viewpoints ?

No ?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Got some inside information on that?

Why is it so "sure"?
Surely you recognize sarcasm when you see it ?

Yup. I sure do.

I didn't see it.

No ?

I thought LMS was scientific ? You know, objective ? Presenting alternate viewpoints ?

No ?

So Meldrum has a responsibility to delay his work to include DesertYeti's study?

[Skeptical Greg]

Yup. I sure do.

I didn't see it.



So Meldrum has a responsibility to delay his work to include DesertYeti's study?

I certainly believe he does do.. How about you ?

You don't think the implied conclusions about the Skookum cast in LMS are misleading, at best ?

How about they just take the one sided presentation about the Skookum cast out of the book ?

Would that be O.K. ?


Maybe I should dig up some of your rants about how science ignores Bigfoot ?

[Correa Neto]

Presenting and comenting other interpretations is the standard -and recomended- proceedure when writing a scientific article (yeah yeah yeah, at an abstract or extended abstract from a congress this may be impossible).

However, one must bear in mind that sometimes new data (or interpretations) can not be addresed at a paper due to printing schedule. With books, its much more complicated, Its not completely unusual for a book to be published with sections already outdated. All it takes is a new paper to be published when no more changes in the book are allowed due to its release schedule.

If this partiular interpretation is not commented in the book, it may not be Meldrum's fault at all.

But we must bear in mind that the interpretation of Skookum cast as being from an elk is not new, even if it was never presented in such a detailed way. This should be addressed, and if he concludes the cast is from a bigfoot, he must say what were the criteria he used to conclude its not from an elk.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
....So Meldrum has a responsibility to delay his work to include DesertYeti's study?
I certainly believe he does do.. How about you ?

Of course not. Depending on what point in publication he is, he might add a sentence or two stating that the great, famous "DesertYeti", an unknown screen name on the internet, has looked at the casts and determined it to be that of an elk, but I wouldn't bother.

DesertYeti is free to publish his opinion just like Dr. Meldrum, you, or I are.

You don't think the implied conclusions about the Skookum cast in LMS are misleading, at best ?

I don't know. I haven't read them.

How about they just take the one sided presentation about the Skookum cast out of the book ?

If it was my book, I'd do with it as I damned well pleased.

Would that be O.K. ?

Ask Dr. Meldrum.

Maybe I should dig up some of your rants about how science ignores Bigfoot ?

Go right ahead. If you're patient, maybe I'll give you some more right here in this thread.

[LTC8K6]

Bah!

I already told everyone all that about that cast.

:D

[kitakaze]

For me one of the greatest moments of bigfoot high comedy is Esteban Sarmiento (sp?) in LMS looking up at the camera wearing the huge magnifying goggles while looking for hair samples on the Skookum cast and his flowing Latin lover locks are hanging everywhere. It's priceless. I see that and I sometimes imagine Wes Anderson doing a similar treatment with bigfoot researchers that he did with ocean documentarians in 'The Life Aquatic'.

[desertyeti]

Hey all,
First-time poster, long-time lurker. well, not really that long. I'm the author of the Skookum Cast first-draft preliminary study above. I have an M.S. in paleontology and a Ph.D. in sedimentary geology, and have worked extensively with ichnofossils for about 12 years. The reaction on the BFF was about what I expected. Despite having never seen it, or an elk trace for that matter, several of the BFers launched the predictable "who the hell are you...you didn't study it long enough...why should we take your word over our 'experts?!'" type of tyrade. Many more however, were actually complimentary of my study.

Mark Elbroch, whose book I used as a conveneient, authoritative, and recent reference in the hopes that BFers would actually take the time to investigate how "real" trackers work, has weighed in and agrees with my interpetation as well. There is no controversy as to the identity of this particular cast. Anyone with one working eye and an ounce of common sense can see that it's an elk or large deer trace.

I should also clarrify that Rick Noll's help on the matter consists of critiques, not actually providing any data or additional information. He's my litmus test, and I appreciate his attempts to punch holes in my observations. They help strengthen the overall study.

As for Meldrum's book and publications, I actually am toying with the idea of submitting a final draft of this work to Ichnos or a similar journal. Meldrum's book can include or exclude whatever he wants. Everyone I've spoken to in academic circles thinks it'd be a real hoot if I published this note, and help liven up the sometimes less than action-packed ichnofossil publications. We'll see. Anyway, thanks and I look forward to haunting this forum in future!

[Bandersnatch]

Hey all,
First-time poster, long-time lurker. well, not really that long. I'm the author of the Skookum Cast first-draft preliminary study above. I have an M.S. in paleontology and a Ph.D. in sedimentary geology, and have worked extensively with ichnofossils for about 12 years.

Welcome to the forums! Well done analysis.

[desertyeti]

Mnay thanks.
If only the researchers who found it 6 years ago had actually taken a moment to look at a known elk lay, this could have all been avoided...no...wait...probably not. After all, one of the first things they were talking about in the press was how this specimen was their ticket to big-time funding from a granting institution for further "fieldwork."

[Skeptical Greg]

Bah!

I already told everyone all that about that cast.

:D

Yes you did..

However, you failed to endear yourself to the Supreme Council at
BFF, then post a professional looking analysis that made previous
presentations on the cast look like Grade School science projects..:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Mnay thanks.
If only the researchers who found it 6 years ago had actually taken a moment to look at a known elk lay, this could have all been avoided...no...wait...probably not. After all, one of the first things they were talking about in the press was how this specimen was their ticket to big-time funding from a granting institution for further "fieldwork."

Yeah, but you really can't blame them.. It wasn't like they had anything pointing to
an elk, like hoof prints and elk hair ...

No ! Wait ! They did !!

That's Bigfoot for you.. Planting fake evidence..


Do you think Meldrum will acknowledge your presentation ?
Chance to see where he is really coming from ...

[desertyeti]

I don't know what Jeff will do with this. I haven't sent him any drafts of the work yet. Considering his likely bias, I opted to consult with people who had NO preconcieved notions about whether or not BF exists and seek their comments and criticisms. I contacted Rick Noll since he actually has the original specimen (I think), but I'm reasonably sure that the replica is close enough to the original to not require a thorough study of the original (of course, he disagrees). Hell...it looks like an elk lay...what more does one need?

My hunch, and it's only a guess is that if he mentiones my work at all, Jeff may laugh it off in the same dismissive, off-handed way that creationists use when discussing fossils. Either way, I don't really care. I'm reasonably certain that anyone with more than 8 firing neurons could look at his "evidence" and my data and immediately recognize the cast for what it is. Well...maybe only 4 neurons are required...it's a pretty open and shut case.:D

[Cleon]

desertyeti, welcome! Thanks for posting your study, and we're glad to have you here. Well, I am, can't speak for Huntster.

[desertyeti]

Thanks Cleon!
Ol' Huntster's pretty skeptical of skeptical thinking, and that's good. He helps keep everyone honest and true to the data. Data are never wrong...but interpretations usually are!

[Huntster]

....can't speak for Huntster.

Why not? You've done it before. (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1760591&postcount=235)

[kitakaze]

Welcome to the board, desertyeti! That was an exellent analysis on the Skookum cast. It's too bad that some people will continue to refuse the obvious even with something that was pretty weak to begin with. Who was the boner who came up with the idea of putting a bait trap in mud to get some more useless footprints put didn't have the wattage upstairs to put out a trailcam? Edited to fix exclamation mark.

[desertyeti]

Heya Kitakaze, thanks for your compliment. I'm not sure who the "boner" was that didn't think about using a camera system, but mud instead...it's hard not to laugh writing that one!

[Huntster]

...Who was the boner who came up with the idea of putting a bait trap in mud to get some more useless footprints put didn't have the wattage upstairs to put out a trailcam?....

Maybe somebody with the money to buy apples, but not enough to buy trailcams.

[kitakaze]

Desertyeti, you're most welcome. Love your latest avatar at the BFF, BTW. You gotta stay in form here, too. This is a great board and I'm sure you'll enjoy it very much. I came and joined here after lurking over at the BFF for a very long time and I think you'll find a great many intelligent, insightful people that will give serious BF claims a fair hearing. While we differ on some points, Huntster and I might be the only ones that I'm aware of that aren't pretty firmly in the 'no, I don't think so' camp but then again I'll be the first one to admit that after weighing the evidence any other camp is getting to be a tougher and tougher sell. If bigfoot day ever comes he gets to serve heaps of crow and get to nibble on a few crow wings with a celebratory beer while I tell everbody that I was really on the other guys team from the start.

[Huntster]

...While we differ on some points, Huntster and I might be the only ones that I'm aware of that aren't pretty firmly in the 'no, I don't think so' camp but then again I'll be the first one to admit that after weighing the evidence any other camp is getting to be a tougher and tougher sell......

I'm not a salesman. I'm a consumer.

I'm here defending my right to buy whatever I see fit.

[desertyeti]

Yeah, looks like I'll maybe set up camp for a while here...lesse...need a spanking new avataar...hmmmmmm...

[kitakaze]

Maybe somebody with the money to buy apples, but not enough to buy trailcams.Fair answer and a fair question in turn. Seeing as how this was a BFRO deal in 2000 do you think they could afford trailcams but thought fruit in mud was a more cost effective route to obtaining irrefutable evidence?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Maybe somebody with the money to buy apples, but not enough to buy trailcams.
Fair answer and a fair question in turn. Seeing as how this was a BFRO deal in 2000 do you think they could afford trailcams but thought fruit in mud was a more cost effective route to obtaining irrefutable evidence?

Fair question returned. The answer appears to be that it wasn't a money problem, but the fact that remote cameras weren't used, while much more expensive night viewing equipment was; equipment which wasn't deployed at the spot where the cast was found.

The BFRO website regarding the discovery of the cast (http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp) has a very detailed outline of objectives and activities. Night vision equipment was obtained and tested for viability.

Maybe if they had relied on a trailcam at the site (and all other sites where bait was deployed, none of which got a cast) they would have gotten a photo that the folks here could roundly belittle with great glee.

Had the "expedition" gotten a photo through one of the manned thermal cameras (which didn't occur) we would still have a photo that folks here could ride like a bronc.

Me? Six of one, half dozen of the other. The Skookum Cast has never been much of an issue for me (go ahead, y'all; run the search engine). Why? It's meaningless, whether it's the real thing or not.

Ditto a trailcam photo.

[kitakaze]

Ditto a trailcam photo.Shall we do the boobytrap thing again? JK:D

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ditto a trailcam photo.
Shall we do the boobytrap thing again? JK:D

Trapping with a food bait is indescriminate.

Elk love apples..........

[kitakaze]

Trapping with a food bait is indescriminate.

Elk love apples..........Golden Delicious for me, thanks. But wait. Huntster, while my mind's still on it, let's back up to post #26 for a sec.I'm not a salesman. I'm a consumer.

I'm here defending my right to buy whatever I see fit.In Japanese we could say this is 'sasuga Huntster' (roughly 'totally Huntster'). I mean it's a Huntsterism (isn't that cool, you get an -ism?) and a darn fine one but wait, we're talking about sasquatches. If this were the religion and philosophy forum you could and have come out and kept on swinging with that. IMHO, when we're discussing whether or not bigfoot exists on a skeptic's board (are we not?) it doesn't seem to be the time to speak about what one has the right to believe. As far as BF is concerned, I'd far rather know one way or the other as opposed to believe.

[Skeptical Greg]

...........
Maybe if they had relied on a trailcam at the site (and all other sites where bait was deployed, none of which got a cast) they would have gotten a photo that the folks here could roundly belittle with great glee.
......................


Nope..

If that were the case, there would be no self styled Bigfootologists finding Bigfoot testicle prints in an elk wallow..

Nothing to belittle.. Nothing to see.. Keep moving..

[Correa Neto]

Nice work and welcome to the forums, Desertyeti!:w2:

You know, sooner or later we'll ask your opinion on the alleged bigfoot footpints pics linked and relinked every now and then. Yep, just pics, there are resolution, distortion and scale problems...

Just out of curiosity, you are working with exactly what sort of ichnofossils? You would not be, by some sheer luck, in to some Cambrian stuff, would you :czbiggrin:?

[Huntster]

...But wait. Huntster, while my mind's still on it, let's back up to post #26 for a sec.
I'm not a salesman. I'm a consumer.

I'm here defending my right to buy whatever I see fit.

In Japanese we could say this is 'sasuga Huntster' (roughly 'totally Huntster'). I mean it's a Huntsterism (isn't that cool, you get an -ism?) and a darn fine one but wait, we're talking about sasquatches. If this were the religion and philosophy forum you could and have come out and kept on swinging with that. IMHO, when we're discussing whether or not bigfoot exists on a skeptic's board (are we not?) it doesn't seem to be the time to speak about what one has the right to believe....

I understand and agree what you're saying. In fact, I'd like to say that I know sasquatch exists. Unfortunately, I can't.

If I do (and as soon as I do), the skeptics here would (rightly) demand proof that I know (because "to know" is "certainty"). I don't have that proof, nor overwhelming evidence. There's plenty of evidence out there, and I saw evidence that (to me) is convincing, but it cannot hold water for others. I can only believe, if I have any hope of justifying my position (and even then, skeptics who have an ideological opposition to "belief" are a constant scourge on my ass around here).

Finally, notice my statements above:

I'm not a salesman. I'm a consumer....

I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I don't think I could, anyway. I'm one of the guys wandering around in the market (forest) who saw the product (evidence), and get a little tired of folks telling me that it "doesn't exist", or that I'm a fool for considering the purchase.

I'm here defending my right to buy whatever I see fit

I didn't say "buy what I believe". It's "buy whatever I see fit."

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I think those critters are out there. That's my right, and it isn't contingent on making others believe, or proving anything to anyone.

As far as BF is concerned, I'd far rather know one way or the other as opposed to believe.

Me, too. But I learned long ago that I may not get what I'd like. This may be one of those cases. I might go to the grave without ever having seen the real thing, live, and in person.

Oh, well. That's the breaks.

[desertyeti]

Correa Neto, actually, I have looked at some Cambrian specimens! Nothing spectacular, but some Cruziana, Skolithos, and Arenicolites in outcrops of the Flathead Sandstone in Wyoming. But I'll look at any trace, anywhere, for any reason...well...mostly any reason!
Why you ask?

[kitakaze]

*cue Minnie Ripperton* Correa Neto, Desertyeti. Desertyeti, Correa Neto.:cupid: Yeaaaahhh, JK.:D

[kitakaze]

Me, too. But I learned long ago that I may not get what I'd like. This may be one of those cases. I might go to the grave without ever having seen the real thing, live, and in person.

Oh, well. That's the breaks.Huntster, I know we've got a couple of decades between us but I'm beginning to have ever stronger doubts about how long living sasquatches would be able to allude scientific description. Mind you if and when I do become a full fledged skeptic in regards to BF, I'll probably be a really bitter, nasty one.:D

[Huntster]

Huntster, I know we've got a couple of decades between us but I'm beginning to have ever stronger doubts about how long living sasquatches would be able to allude scientific description....

I don't. I have no doubt that such a rare and intelligent creature could still be out there, being seen regularly by the lay, and with science busy looking for other bone fragments and chasing global warming politics.

Mind you if and when I do become a full fledged skeptic in regards to BF, I'll probably be a really bitter, nasty one.:D

I'm in my final third of my life (if I'm lucky). I could easily go to the grave with this phenomenon still raging.

In fact, that is likely.

[kitakaze]

I don't. I have no doubt that such a rare and intelligent creature could still be out there, being seen regularly by the lay, and with science busy looking for other bone fragments and chasing global warming politics.This is the part that I have a tough time with. To be regularily seen by the lay then you have to at least sometimes be seen by the not-so-lay or the not-so-unarmed or the not-so-paying-attention-to-the-road. I know we've gone over that and rarity ad pukem but for me it does give me doubt even against my own experience we don't have any conclusive proof of any of the above happening.

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto, actually, I have looked at some Cambrian specimens! Nothing spectacular, but some Cruziana, Skolithos, and Arenicolites in outcrops of the Flathead Sandstone in Wyoming. But I'll look at any trace, anywhere, for any reason...well...mostly any reason!
Why you ask?

I'm working at a NeoProterozoic-Lower Cambrian basin, and some drill cores show what's been interpreted as bioturbations. Intrites, Planolites and Cochlichnus, have ben described (at outcrops if I am not mistaken).

I'm a structural geologist working with mineral exploration, so ichnofossils are not exactly my speciality. It was suggested the particular structures from the cores could be sand dikes (the basin has evidence for synsedimentary tectonic activity). I was considering getting in touch with people from Rio who work with this stuff, but since a paleoichnologist just showed up, I think I could not miss the opportunity of at least asking for some tips, even if at the risk of causing a thread derail.

[desertyeti]

No problem. Go ahead and e-mail me if you want to keep the thread from boring everyone to death with our talk of all things bioturbational.

[Huntster]

This is the part that I have a tough time with. To be regularily seen by the lay then you have to at least sometimes be seen by the not-so-lay or the not-so-unarmed or the not-so-paying-attention-to-the-road....

All, of course, has reportedly happened. The John Mionczynski situation comes to mind.

I know we've gone over that and rarity ad pukem but for me it does give me doubt even against my own experience we don't have any conclusive proof of any of the above happening.

That's right. There's no conclusive proof for those to whom it hasn't happened.

[kitakaze]

No problem. Go ahead and e-mail me if you want to keep the thread from boring everyone to death with our talk of all things bioturbational.Little boy: "Daddy, what's 'bioturbational'?" Father (pauses a moment, looks over newspaper): "Well you see, that son, is a new ecologically friendly method for producing turbans in the 21st century.":D

[desertyeti]

It's interesting to me, though not unexpected, that none of the proponents of the Skookum Cast being a real-live imprint of a hominid have offered the slightest bit of evidence to disprove the elk imprint interpretation. Probably because there is none.:D

[kitakaze]

*crazy eyes* Pfft... Desertyeti, man, are you not listening to what Meldrum is saying!? Calcanial (sp?) tendon! Jeez, did you not cover that or what? Huh? Oh, nevermind.:D

[Correa Neto]

There's been some discussion here on how important is/was Skookum cast to Meldrum. It seems he may not think of it as the most important piece of evidence around.

My fishy-O-meter beeped when I read about it because bigfoot would have to lay down and roll in the mud to get the fruits. Why not just bend or kneel to get them?

Kitakaze, easy on the sake...

[kitakaze]

My fishy-O-meter beeped when I read about it because bigfoot would have to lay down and roll in the mud to get the fruits. Why not just bend or kneel to get them?Yes, pick a card from the house of wild speculation. Me, I'll take any card having to do with bigfoot being able to sense cameras.Kitakaze, easy on the sake...*burp* Sorry. BTW, shochu's nicer. Disclaimer: Kitakaze takes it easy on the sake and the shochu.

[desertyeti]

Here's Jeff's take on it as of May, 2006.
I of course, disagree with him as do the people I've consulted with who work quite a bit with elk, deer, and other ungulate traces. We're just not as verbose! (Sorry Jeff!):o

THE SKOOKUM BIGFOOT BODY CASTING, 2000, IS STILL A RATHER
CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC. DON'T YOU THINK THE IMPRESSION LENDS ITSELF TO
MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS?
Certainly multiple interpretations have been offered by various individuals, some without
the benefit of ever having examined the cast. The only alternate interpretation, excluding
hoaxing, initially worthy of serious consideration was that the imprint was made by an
elk. However, this hypothesis was readily falsified by comparing the impression to those
left by elk, to their anatomy, hair patterns, and behavior. At this point, no reasonable
argument can be made for elk as the responsible candidate. I found it curious how readily
many individuals adopted an opinion that the reconstructed posture was quite
unreasonable for a large primate. Rick Noll recently filmed a gorilla at the Seattle Zoo
feeding in precisely this posture, right down to the heel plants. It ate selectively and
sloppily as was also indicated at the site.

[Correa Neto]

So it seems he thinks its important...

Well, at this point, one could argue that gorillas are not truly bipedals, while bigfeet are supposed to be. OK, gorillas were filmed doing the "Skookum move" at a zoo. Such behavior would be expected to be common in the wild? If its not, then what were the odds of getting a mud imprint of a rare creature doing an unlikely move?

But I guess this path will lead us anywhere...

Honest question:
Is it truly possible that testicles of a primate -even a large one- can leave a mark in the mud?

I never sat naked in mud, only in sand. My personal faulty unreliable anedoctal piece of evidence (fine grained beach sand) indicates that its a bit unlikely. No, don´t ask, I will not make any experiments and post pics. I think most people here do not deserve to be submitted to such images...

Desertyeti, found no pics of the particular parts of the cores with the possible bioturbations. Guess I was too focused on other stuff... In two weeks I'll be back to the project and then I will send you some pics.

[Huntster]

...However, this hypothesis was readily falsified by comparing the impression to those left by elk, to their anatomy, hair patterns, and behavior....

That statement indicates that Dr. Meldrum compared the impression to those left by elk.

Is that true?

Did you do such comparisons, DY?

[desertyeti]

Sounds great. I'll keep an eye out for the photos.
My first comment would be that dewatering structures or dikes would show upwards deformation of the laminae surrounding them, whereas burrows would likely be surrounded by downward-bending laminae. Intrites might look like a dewatering pipe from above (bedding plane view), but from the side, should be less regular. And Cochlichnus should be very diagnostic on the bedding plane surface, but could be hard to differentiate from Planolites or Paleophycus in core.

I know, I know...it sounds pretty dull, but everyone, try saying Cochlichnus and not laughing (look up pronunciation elsewhere).

[desertyeti]

Glad you asked Huntster!
I don't know whether or not Meldrum did what he claims, since nothing's ever been published on the specimen and therefore, there's no way to evaluate his claims of dissimilarity (although looking at the images I've provided clearly disproves his statement about readily falsifying the elk scenario...in fact it supports it absolutely).

I compared the impression to published photos of elk lays, showed photos of the impression to people who have studied elk lays, and even looked at a cow and deer lay (basically the same thing, but for those who want to point and cheer and say "HAH! He didn't look at an elk lay in person!", go right ahead). The cast fulfilled every single criterion I could find, as well as every single criterion my collegues who study animal sign could find for being an elk lay. So, I'm left with the assumption (yes, a dangerous thing) that either Jeff isn't seeing what tracking specialists and myself are seeing, or somehow, he's mistaken about examining an elk trace.

[Huntster]

...try saying Cochlichnus and not laughing (look up pronunciation elsewhere).

As an old, pre-Vatican II altar boy, I had a decent command of Latin pronunciations. In fact, we had "names" which sounded a lot like Cochlichnus that we sinfully used on each other.

Who was the sick bastage who named the poor creature such without it being around to defend itself?

[Huntster]

....I compared the impression to published photos of elk lays, showed photos of the impression to people who have studied elk lays, and even looked at a cow and deer lay (basically the same thing, but for those who want to point and cheer and say "HAH! He didn't look at an elk lay in person!", go right ahead). The cast fulfilled every single criterion I could find, as well as every single criterion my collegues who study animal sign could find for being an elk lay......

Does that include the act of arising from the lay?

I admittedly haven't participated much on Skookum Cast debate either here or at BFF, but I remember lots of folks making an issue of the placement of hooves upon arising.

Does the Skookum Cast remain consistent with that in mind.

Finally, is there any indication that the elk stepped into the mud to get the bait? I find it difficult to imagine that an elk would lay down a few feet away from fruit in the mud, then rise and leave.

[desertyeti]

Yep, I watched the cow rise, and sho' mutt, it sort of roll-heaves itself to the side, then up and out. This is evident in the Skookum Cast. As I've said before, the hooves are exactly where they'd be expected. Anyone claimnig otherwise is either being deceitful or doesn;t know what they're talking about frankly.

It's important to remember too, that the bait was left in a muddy area...the muddy area was there because it's an elk lay. Ungulates re-use their lays several times daily and over many months. The elk that left the print probably nibbled on some fruit either before or after it plopped down. In the cast are indications of prolonged use of the lay over multiple episodes...more on that in the more detailed study report...

[RayG]

All, of course, has reportedly happened. The John Mionczynski situation comes to mind.

I thought all he saw was a shadowy silhouette through the material of his tent?

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Hmmm.... I've heard this discussion before..... :D

I was playing the part of desertyeti, as I recall, but I used only photos of Elk doing their thing.

The descriptions of the cast were revealing as well.

The activities of the BFRO crew were damning as well, to me.

[Huntster]

I thought all he saw was a shadowy silhouette through the material of his tent?

RayG

That's right. He even slapped at it through the tent fabric.

Then the shadowy silhouette later threw pine cones at him as he sat huddled before a fire with his gun in his hand.

I've never seen bears throw pine cones. I've seen squirrels do so, but not on such a regular basis, nor have I ever seen squirrels that big.

But, I've got little experience with Colorado squirrels.

Maybe you can educate me?

[RayG]

That's right. He even slapped at it through the tent fabric.

Then the shadowy silhouette later threw pine cones at him as he sat huddled before a fire with his gun in his hand.

He never actually saw the shadowy silhouette throwing pine cones. He had drifted off to sleep, and awoke some time later, never catching a glimpse of any bigfoot, nor able to clearly identify his pine cone assaillant.

I've never seen bears throw pine cones. I've seen squirrels do so, but not on such a regular basis, nor have I ever seen squirrels that big.

He never saw anything throwing pine cones either, and only assumed it was bigfoot. He never once got a clear, unobstructed view of a bigfoot -- not when it was crashing his tent down around his ears, OR when it supposedly tossed pine cones at him. Not exactly a first class, grade-A bigfoot encounter.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/bringback.html

RayG

[thaiboxerken]

I'm just glad that I'm not stupid and idiotic enough to believe that bigfoot is real.

[LTC8K6]

Squirrels will definitely throw stuff at you.

[RayG]

I'm just glad that I'm not stupid and idiotic enough to believe that bigfoot is real.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1890000/images/_1890222_fight300.jpg

Nice childish rebuttal. (as the father of 11 children, I'm somewhat familiar with childish rebuttals)

Scientists sometimes come up with some pretty stupid and idiotic arguments. Like Alfred Wegener, for example, and his wacky hypothesis about drifting contintents. Apparently that's a widely accepted theory now. Go figure.

Why do you believe it's stupid and idiotic to believe that bigfoot may be real? What's wrong with leaving the possibility door open a crack?

Personally, I'm not willing to believe bigfoot is real based upon the existing evidence, but I'm not willing to slam the door closed on the possibility either.

RayG

[RayG]

Squirrels will definitely throw stuff at you.

They're nuts. :)

RayG

[desertyeti]

A major part of the problem in interpreting the Skookum Cast is revealing itself (as I figured it might). A couple of peolpe who've looked at it and studied it, as well as my report (hopefully), can't tell front from back on an elk hoof print. Yeah...but they can properly identify an unknown hominid leg, butt, and arm. Wow...is it too early to start drinking?:boggled:

[Huntster]

I'm just glad that I'm not stupid and idiotic enough to believe that bigfoot is real.

You don't need to believe that bigfoot is real.

Your intellectual capacity (or lack thereof) is clearly illustrated in so many other ways (see sig lines below.....................)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That's right. He even slapped at it through the tent fabric.

Then the shadowy silhouette later threw pine cones at him as he sat huddled before a fire with his gun in his hand.

He never actually saw the shadowy silhouette throwing pine cones. He had drifted off to sleep, and awoke some time later, never catching a glimpse of any bigfoot, nor able to clearly identify his pine cone assaillant....

That's correct. Therefore, something large (bear, human, deer, elk, lion, or sasquatch) initially woke him in his tent by poking it. He slapped at it. He thought saw the silhouette of a "hand". He emerged from the tent, built a fire, then sat up with his weapon until reawakened by the pine cones.

I've never seen bears throw pine cones. I've seen squirrels do so, but not on such a regular basis, nor have I ever seen squirrels that big.

He never saw anything throwing pine cones either, and only assumed it was bigfoot. He never once got a clear, unobstructed view of a bigfoot -- not when it was crashing his tent down around his ears, OR when it supposedly tossed pine cones at him.

Again, correct. We (and he) had options to consider:

* A team of bear/squirrel poked his tent, then threw the pine cones
* A human did both
* A sasquatch did both

Do you wish to choose the most likely possibility or add more?

Not exactly a first class, grade-A bigfoot encounter.

The man was a professional wildlife biologist, and in the woods performing wildlife research when this incident occurred.

This is precisely the scenario that Neto and I went around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around about for pages. He wrote that such professionals don't report such situations. Do I need to provide the citations and links for everybody's review?

Now I'll bet dollars to donuts that this report is still no damned good, even though it's reported by a professional wildlife biologist, while on duty researching wildlife.

[Huntster]

Personally, I'm not willing to believe bigfoot is real based upon the existing evidence, but I'm not willing to slam the door closed on the possibility either....

Kenny's problem isn't that he slammed the door on possibilities, but that somebody must have slammed a door on his head. (See sig lines below.......)

[Hellbound]

Again, correct. We (and he) had options to consider:

* A team of bear/squirrel poked his tent, then threw the pine cones
* A human did both
* A sasquatch did both

Do you wish to choose the most likely possibility or add more?


You also forgot some:

The two incidents were simply coincidental, and not causually related. i.e.- a bear poked at his tent and wandered off. Later, the pine cone incident. However, I'd personally like to see the links and citations, as I have not seen this story yet.

Were the pine cones thrown, or did he wake up when he was hit by one? How many were there? These are just the beginnings of questions to answer.

If he didn't actually see the pine cones arcing in, it's a possibility that they simply fell. I've had similar happen while walking in the woods (although the more cones the less likely this becomes). Also, depenedent on the area, some types of pine trees react to heat, opening and dropping their cones (an evolutionary adaptation to seasonal forest fires). This, of course, depends on the type of pine trees in the area he was in.

[RayG]

However, I'd personally like to see the links and citations, as I have not seen this story yet.

Check out the link in post #60 Huntsman.

RayG

[Hellbound]

Thank ya Ray. I did not realize that was a link to the original story.

Well, assuming nothing was embellished, 20 pine cones is a bit much for my theory, and he apparently saw them arcing in.

Still, being able to pick out the shape of a hand, in shillouette, in the dark, through a tent, while said appendage is smashing the tent, when you are obviously not awake enough and not able to see well enough to determine a face poking into your tent is not a bear but more humanoid?

Interesting story, but without supporting evidence, it doesn't mean much. And considering the alleged difficulty of finding a foot, and their reknowned elusiveness and shyness, this type of behavior doesn't fit, either.

[Huntster]

....;.Interesting story, but without supporting evidence, it doesn't mean much.....

Without two, stinking, still bleeding, complete carcasses, nothing means much to skeptics.

And considering the alleged difficulty of finding a foot, and their reknowned elusiveness and shyness, this type of behavior doesn't fit, either.

Actually, this type of behavior has been reported for years.

This was the first time (to my knowledge) that a nocturnal visit including object-throwing was reported by a professional wildlife biologist who was in the woods professionally "biologizing".

[desertyeti]

I got caught biologizing once...

[Huntster]

I got caught biologizing once...

Professionally, or in the back seat of a car with..............?

[Hellbound]

Actually, this type of behavior has been reported for years.

Well, I'd hope even you can agree that this type of behavior doesn't fit within the actions of a shy, hard to find creature (i.e.-Snow Leopard).

This doesn't help the case, as if BigFeets were predisposed to agressive and curiousity-driven activities such as this, they wouldn't be so hard to track down. The behavior witnessed doesn't match the behavior theorized. So, we're back to the situation where the witness accounts are still contradictory to the other elements of the case for BigFoot.

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you believe it's stupid and idiotic to believe that bigfoot may be real? What's wrong with leaving the possibility door open a crack?

The same reasons I don't take UFO abductee stories seriously, the same reasons I don't believe Sylvia Browne is psychic, the same reasons I'm not a scientologist.

[thaiboxerken]

Kenny's problem isn't that he slammed the door on possibilities, but that somebody must have slammed a door on his head. (See sig lines below.......)

The problem is I'm open to the possibility. I just need a bit of scientific evidence to convince me.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Actually, this type of behavior has been reported for years.
Well, I'd hope even you can agree that this type of behavior doesn't fit within the actions of a shy, hard to find creature (i.e.-Snow Leopard).

I do. The elusiveness of these creatures is extremely different than the elusiveness common of felines.

Harrassment from concealment is a common tactic for primates, including man. Felines use concealment as their classic stalking foundation. Bears use concealment in a manner between the two; they'll crunch around in the woods just out of sight, circling your camp, sometimes popping their teeth and woofing, and generally trying to intimidate you.

This doesn't help the case, as if BigFeets were predisposed to agressive and curiousity-driven activities such as this, they wouldn't be so hard to track down....

Mionczynski, at the time confident enough to slap a bear's nose through tent fabric, was shook up enough to spend the rest of the evening huddled around a fire with a gun in his hand. He has been a sasquatch researcher ever since, and (to my knowledge) hasn't had another encounter. Again, he was a professional wildlife biologist (a Rocky Mountain sheep man, if memory serves me correctly).

The behavior witnessed doesn't match the behavior theorized. So, we're back to the situation where the witness accounts are still contradictory to the other elements of the case for BigFoot.

It's classic primate behavior.

Ever see the chimps and gorillas throwing their feces at the crowds gawking at them at the zoo?

[Huntster]

The problem is I'm open to the possibility.....

Of course you are. You and Bigfoot are old drinking buddies (See sig lines below............)

[Skeptical Greg]

This was the first time (to my knowledge) that a nocturnal visit including object-throwing was reported by a professional wildlife biologist who was in the woods professionally "biologizing".


And that means exactly what ?

How does this information support the existence of a North American, non-human primate ?

What kind of follow-up work has Mionczynski done ?

I thought you were above the ' feel good ' stuff ...

[Correa Neto]

That's a nice story.
IMHO, the credentials of the person who reported it may add more credibillity to this story than PGF ever had.

But it has its share of problems.
(1) Anedoctal nature.
(2) If you were a huge powerfull primate you would try to scare a puny human by throwing pines at him?
(3) No follow-up?
(4) There are other possibilities besides a close encounter with a bigfoot, even if some people don't like them. And they do not actually deny Mionczynski's experience. Its nature, however, may be different from what he thinks it was.

Could it have been a true encounter with a bigfoot?
Yes.
Could it have been something else?
Yes.

And?

[Huntster]

...I thought you were above the ' feel good ' stuff ...

Search my posts. Do any indicate that I "feel good?"

[Huntster]

....Could it have been a true encounter with a bigfoot?
Yes.
Could it have been something else?
Yes.

And?

And...............

.............same old, same old.

[thaiboxerken]

And...............

.............same old, same old.

Yep, just another story of bigfoot with no evidence to support it.

[RayG]

Search my posts. Do any indicate that I "feel good?"

This whole encounter is a 'feel good' report, yet you hold it up as one of the incidents that most convinces you of the reality of bigfoot. There's nothing in this story that connnects it with bigfoot. At no time did Mionczynski ever clearly see a bigfoot, and I'm not aware of any other evidence he presented that supports the bigfoot hypothesis.

This whole thing seems to be a case of taking a natural event, adding a dash of romanticism, stirring in some unconfirmed facts, and presenting it as a bonafide (feel good) bigfoot encounter. Makes for a good campfire story, but little else.

It's time bigfoot supporters start tossing these inconclusive/meaningless reports.

RayG

[Skeptical Greg]

It's time bigfoot supporters start tossing these inconclusive/meaningless reports.

RayG

Imagine what that would do to the BFRO data base ?


Now what data base was that ? :D

[RayG]

Imagine what that would do to the BFRO data base ?

Now what data base was that ? :D

That's part of the problem. Anything and everything was tossed into the database salad in the hopes it would taste better. It don't.

Give me quality over quantity any day. (unless it's money) :D

RayG

[Mad Hom]

Well I've been away from the Bigfeetsus debate for a few weeks...and it seems nothing much has changed.

Fudd still considers all the pathetic evidence to be "conclusive".

...and it seems that nothing will ever convince him otherwise,cuz dammnit Hairy Bipeds are real!!

Reading DY's Skookum cast analysis was quite interesting....although I've always contended it was an Elk's arse...I'm just no expert on arseprints....Elk,Bigfeet or otherwise...so my opinion is poo pooed by most Bleevers especially when Pope Jeff Meldrum the 1st says it's clearly the arse of a Hairy Biped of Unusual Size.

So now we have a study that pretty much closes the door on Skookum...of course I'd argue that it was only open a (butt)crack to begin with..but that's beside the point.

Down goes Skookum,forced to dwell with the Bossburg prints and dermal ridges as a useless shred of pseudo-evidence.

Which leaves the PGF once again standing alone...oh sorry there's all the "I seen it I swear" stories as well.

In another thread Fudley argues that all the Youtube Biped footage tends to augment the authenticity of the PGF....to which predictably I say...BULLSHYT!!!!!

To me all these Youtube videos are restricted by the Tech that they use.It's far superior to what Roge used on the Sandy Knoll...so they have to film at night...or obscure with trees and crap.......or jiggle the camera. Roge just needed to point his camera and let it take care of the inconclusiveness part.

The PGF is only as important as it's inconclusiveness allows. The PGF's validity is at best an opinion. If you BLEEV than it's the bonafide goods. If you don't BLEEV than it's a crock of hoax puckey. There is nothing "conclusive" about the PGF other than that something was filmed walking across the Bluff Creek Sandbar. What that something was is open to interpretation.

Fudd enjoy's interpreting it as a Hairy Biped of Unusual Size because I don't know I guess it helps him sleep...or whatever.

I find it curious though as to why anyone would argue that rampant hoaxing helps his case in any way.

Help me out here Fuddster would ya?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/biliape_2006.htm

Bili ape is not a new species.

Grover Krantz and his dogs in Smithsonian museum:

http://tinyurl.com/h6kl9

[Mad Hom]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/biliape_2006.htm

Bili ape is not a new species.

Amazing how quickly things are resolved when "actual" scientists get involved.

[RayG]

Amazing how quickly things are resolved when "actual" scientists get involved.

There are 'actual' scientists involved with the Skookum cast too, just don't hold yer breath waiting fer one of them to have something published in an 'actual' scientific journal. They seem to be taking their sweet time.

RayG

[Cleon]

Without two, stinking, still bleeding, complete carcasses, nothing means much to skeptics.

On the contrary. Some clear (i.e., non-fuzzy) photographs would be incredibly significant, especially if they come from different sources and show what's obviously the same creature.

So far, all we have is a bunch of fuzzy photographs, and some obvious fakes. (I find it odd that my mothers, whose hands shake due to MS, is able to take clearer photographs than your average Bigfoot photographer.) The only clear footage is the Patterson tape, which is questionable.

If such a creature exists, I think it would be a crime to kill one just to prove it exists. Sufficient photographic and video recordings would make me happy. "Sufficient," in this case, meaning "clear, not obviously a fake, and preferably coming from multiple sources showing creatures with very similar features."

[Huntster]

This whole encounter is a 'feel good' report, yet you hold it up as one of the incidents that most convinces you of the reality of bigfoot....

It doesn't "most convince me of the reality of bigfoot." It's an example of an outstanding witness.

Neto and I went around and around and around about biologists in the field not reporting such encounters. Here's one that did. I think it's more significant than Joe Sixpack reporting the same.

End of statement.

At no time did Mionczynski ever clearly see a bigfoot

And if he had, you'd still claim that there is no "evidence."

...and I'm not aware of any other evidence he presented that supports the bigfoot hypothesis.

He clearly stated that he saw the silhouette of a hand, and there was the pine cone throwing testimony.

This whole thing seems to be a case of taking a natural event, adding a dash of romanticism, stirring in some unconfirmed facts, and presenting it as a bonafide (feel good) bigfoot encounter. Makes for a good campfire story, but little else.

Good story teller.

It's time bigfoot supporters start tossing these inconclusive/meaningless reports.

Yeah. And tossing everything else, too.

Nothing but a carcass or two (or three) will do.

[Huntster]

Give me quality over quantity any day. (unless it's money)

So you'll settle for dinar?

[Huntster]

Well I've been away from the Bigfeetsus debate for a few weeks...and it seems nothing much has changed.

Fudd still considers all the pathetic evidence to be "conclusive".

No, I don't, and I never said I did.

However, I've repeatedly stated that it's provocative (or should be).

So now we have a study that pretty much closes the door on Skookum

No, the door isn't closed yet. If it matters, it's just another qualified opinion (unlike yours or mine; and, oh, btw, I never recorded an opinion on the silly thing one way or the other, because I never saw it; did you?).

...of course I'd argue that it was only open a (butt)crack to begin with..but that's beside the point.

Yeah. Your argument goes a long way. You've never seen the thing, yet you can argue.

Your opinion isn't worth the crack of an ass.

In another thread Fudley argues that all the Youtube Biped footage tends to augment the authenticity of the PGF....to which predictably I say...BULLSHYT!!!!!

To me all these Youtube videos are restricted by the Tech that they use.It's far superior to what Roge used on the Sandy Knoll...so they have to film at night...or obscure with trees and crap.......or jiggle the camera. Roge just needed to point his camera and let it take care of the inconclusiveness part.

Please.........Forty years of photographic technological advances have brought out more detail from the film, not less. And that detail shows that Patterson either built a much better "suit" than that day's Hollywood productions, or it was the real thing.

The PGF is only as important as it's inconclusiveness allows. The PGF's validity is at best an opinion. If you BLEEV than it's the bonafide goods. If you don't BLEEV than it's a crock of hoax puckey.

Thank you. You finally admit that the evidence has nothing to do with it. It's all ideology. Nothing more.

Help me out here Fuddster would ya?

You're beyond help.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Without two, stinking, still bleeding, complete carcasses, nothing means much to skeptics. On the contrary. Some clear (i.e., non-fuzzy) photographs would be incredibly significant, especially if they come from different sources and show what's obviously the same creature.

Bullspit.

If such a creature exists, I think it would be a crime to kill one just to prove it exists.

I agree. However, since it is clear that only a carcass (or two, or three) will do the trick, who should we hold responsible for the crime?

Sufficient photographic and video recordings would make me happy.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that.

[Cleon]

Bullspit.

You're right, I'm lying. It's all part of my extremely cunning plan to lure you into a false sense of security while secretly denying Bigfoot's existence until I see a bleeding corpse. :rolleyes:

[kitakaze]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/biliape_2006.htm

Bili ape is not a new species.

Grover Krantz and his dogs in Smithsonian museum:

http://tinyurl.com/h6kl9You beat me to it again, LTC. I was thinking of linking both of those. That story on Krantz is a very funny, touching, sad, and honest look at a man that some here have dismissed as an idiot or intellectually dishonest. No matter what one thinks about bigfoot, it's hard not to see Krantz has being an intelligent and willful man. After I read the Bili ape piece I had the distinct suspicion that there was absolutely no new information in there that hasn't already been known for sometime (accept for the claim of an accumulated 20 hours observing). The "Mystery Bili Ape turns out to be a 'fat chimp'" article title also seemed more than a little arrogantly presumptuous. We have the question of an ape that genetic testing seems to firmly place as Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii yet clearly demonstrates anomolous behaviours, living habits, and anatomical features. By Cleve Hicks own admission they came across a large community of animals that had apparently never met humans before and regardless of his assertion that they are nothing more than chimps he still recognizes their anomolous nature and the need for further study.

[LTC8K6]

Please.........Forty years of photographic technological advances have brought out more detail from the film, not less. And that detail shows that Patterson either built a much better "suit" than that day's Hollywood productions, or it was the real thing.

I think this line is pretty damn funny.... more detail? Not a chance of that at all. Any more detail is artificial.

However, I'll play. I can't be sure that this greater detail is real, rather than created over time via processing, so how can I trust it?

I would be mighty suspicious of getting greater detail than was available initially from shaky, blurry, 16mm film.

Why can't we all just look at what RP originally shot?

[RayG]

It doesn't "most convince me of the reality of bigfoot." It's an example of an outstanding witness.

My bad. When I said "This whole encounter is a 'feel good' report, yet you hold it up as one of the incidents that most convinces you of the reality of bigfoot....", I should have said:

"This whole encounter is a 'feel good' report, yet you hold it up as one of the best individual [bigfoot] encounters..."

Just to clarify, do you think it's one of the best because of the qualifications of the witness, the actual quality of his report, or both?

I think it's more significant than Joe Sixpack reporting the same.

I'd certainly agree IF he was able to clearly identify his tent attacker. He wasn't, so we're left with what he thinks he saw.

At no time did Mionczynski ever clearly see a bigfoot

And if he had, you'd still claim that there is no "evidence."

I'd certainly have further questions, but at least we wouldn't be dealing with shadowy figures in the dark.

He clearly stated that he saw the silhouette of a hand, and there was the pine cone throwing testimony.

Yeah, and he clearly stated that he smacked a bear on the nose. Not once, but twice. No clear observation, no footprints, no clear "evidence."

Good story teller.

On that I agree.

Yeah. And tossing everything else, too.

Nope, just the inconclusive/meaningless reports. There seem to be a great many of them.

Nothing but a carcass or two (or three) will do.

Well, since this is a completely unknown, uncatalogued species, you're probably right.

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It doesn't "most convince me of the reality of bigfoot." It's an example of an outstanding witness.

Just to clarify, do you think it's one of the best because of the qualifications of the witness, the actual quality of his report, or both?

I think the qualifications of the witness is the significant aspect of that event.

I think it's more significant than Joe Sixpack reporting the same.

I'd certainly agree IF he was able to clearly identify his tent attacker. He wasn't, so we're left with what he thinks he saw.

While there was no clear visual sighting, Mionczynski's biology background is significant as he experienced the animal's behavior.

[desertyeti]

For anyone interested, the "official" excuse, er...explanation of the Skookum Cast has been posted on Bigfootforums.com by one of the researchers who've been slaving away for 6 years on it.

It manages to capture the: "yes it looks exactly like an elk lay....but...hey...look at that one part over here....it sort of looks kind of like a human heel, doesn't it? Huh? Y'think?" argument flawlessly. Of course, I'm just a trained ichnologist...what do I know?:rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

For anyone interested, the "official" excuse, er...explanation of the Skookum Cast has been posted on Bigfootforums.com by one of the researchers who've been slaving away for 6 years on it.

It manages to capture the: "yes it looks exactly like an elk lay....but...hey...look at that one part over here....it sort of looks kind of like a human heel, doesn't it? Huh? Y'think?" argument flawlessly. Of course, I'm just a trained ichnologist...what do I know?:rolleyes:

Here is the link..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671

You are doing an excellent job of countering their ' analysis '...


You are sooooooooo, destroying someone's 15 minutes, and the death throws
are entertaining to watch.

I feel a little guilty for gloating about this.. ( Just a little, mind you .. )

[Mad Hom]

No, I don't, and I never said I did.

However, I've repeatedly stated that it's provocative (or should be).

Fine Fudster....you never said you did....it's just that it would seem that you confuse provocative with useless is all



No, the door isn't closed yet. If it matters, it's just another qualified opinion (unlike yours or mine; and, oh, btw, I never recorded an opinion on the silly thing one way or the other, because I never saw it; did you?).

Did I see it? By this do you mean....in person? I mean because as i've stated before....I don't live in Hairy Biped country and a trip there is cost prohibitive for me especially just to stare at an ELK print.....errrr......Bigfeet arse cast.

I have however seen it on the Interweb many times and from many different angles. I also have seen it on the LMS and every single time I saw it....it looked like an ELK print!! Desert Yeti's study just reinforces my opinion.

Just another qualified opinion? Fudd stop fighting it...that mush in your skull is trying to tell you something. It's trying to tell you...that ELK are known to dwell in the area,that they kneel down and roll in mud all the time, and that ELK can leave butt prints to.

It's than asking you to couple that with the fact that it makes no sense that any animal would roll over it's own nuts in mud to grab an apple that it could have just knelt down and picked up with minimal effort.

Than it wants you to multiply that by how little the BFRO jackarses who found the thing in the first place put into finding the actual arse that left the print (allegedly)

Finally it wants you to combine all of this with the high wishful thinking factor held by all concerned in the whole thing and voila....you reach the logical conclusion........ELK PRINT!!



Yeah. Your argument goes a long way. You've never seen the thing, yet you can argue.

Your opinion isn't worth the crack of an ass.

Oh Fudd....do I actually need to have seen the actual cast? I've seen the pictures. I've seen Pope Meldrum's diagram...I can tell he's full of poop and I always felt it was what it turn's out to have been.......an ELK PRINT!!

Please.........Forty years of photographic technological advances have brought out more detail from the film, not less. And that detail shows that Patterson either built a much better "suit" than that day's Hollywood productions, or it was the real thing.

More Detail?!?!?! They doctored it up Fudd...c'mon youre not the stupid...are ya? The only flick even worth considering is the OG PGF because it hasn't been tampered with. It's still not very overwhelming but at least it's the unedited version.So if your ok with the PGF:The Footer's Cut,how we wish it looked when it was originally filmed!! version than so be it....it just makes you look ridiculously gullible is all.


Thank you. You finally admit that the evidence has nothing to do with it. It's all ideology. Nothing more.

And evidence never has had much to do with it Fudster....especially given the fact that Bigfoot Apologist never has had much evidence...or least evidence that was worth much.



You're beyond help.

........and you'd be the authority on being beyond help Fudd especially given your behavior here.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, I don't, and I never said I did.

However, I've repeatedly stated that it's provocative (or should be).

Fine Fudster....you never said you did....it's just that it would seem that you confuse provocative with useless is all

I don't. You do.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, the door isn't closed yet. If it matters, it's just another qualified opinion (unlike yours or mine; and, oh, btw, I never recorded an opinion on the silly thing one way or the other, because I never saw it; did you?).

Did I see it? By this do you mean....in person?

That's right.

I mean because as i've stated before....I don't live in Hairy Biped country and a trip there is cost prohibitive for me especially just to stare at an ELK print.....errrr......Bigfeet arse cast.

I'm even farther away, and that's why I didn't go see it. I'm also not impressed enough to drive over a few hours to see it. I think (and always have) that even if it was a bonafide cast of a sasquatch ass, it won't matter a twit.

I have however seen it on the Interweb many times and from many different angles. I also have seen it on the LMS and every single time I saw it....it looked like an ELK print!! Desert Yeti's study just reinforces my opinion.

Armchair quarterbacking. Your opinion is worthless.

Than it wants you to multiply that by how little the BFRO jackarses who found the thing in the first place put into finding the actual arse that left the print (allegedly)

They were in the area for days, using night vision equipment every night. They went through a hellava lot more effort than you, or anybody else commenting on the situation.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yeah. Your argument goes a long way. You've never seen the thing, yet you can argue.

Your opinion isn't worth the crack of an ass.

Oh Fudd....do I actually need to have seen the actual cast? I've seen the pictures.

You've seen the PG film, too.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Please.........Forty years of photographic technological advances have brought out more detail from the film, not less. And that detail shows that Patterson either built a much better "suit" than that day's Hollywood productions, or it was the real thing.

More Detail?!?!?! They doctored it up Fudd

Prove it.

[Skeptical Greg]

They were in the area for days, using night vision equipment every night.

And they found zip ..

They went through a hellava lot more effort than you, or anybody else commenting on the situation.


Ever heard about climbing a ladder that's leaning against the wrong wall ?

And as soon as they had their Bigfoot butt print, they did virtually nothing
to find the critter that left it...

Here we do find a real parallel to PGF event...

[kitakaze]

Interesting November '67 Jack Webster radio interview with Patterson and Gimlin (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm). I paid special attention to the parts where they disagreed with an aspect of the others account.Fair enough, Diogenes. I posted this a while back in the PGF thread and now as then I don't post as an attempt to try and validate the PGF but anyway maybe someone can post a similar document pertaining to the Skookum cast and we can have a good look at what parallels there may be in regards to their immediate follow-ups (or lack thereof) and see just how similar they are.

[Skeptical Greg]

Fair enough, Diogenes. I posted this a while back in the PGF thread and now as then I don't post as an attempt to try and validate the PGF but anyway maybe someone can post a similar document pertaining to the Skookum cast and we can have a good look at what parallels there may be in regards to their immediate follow-ups (or lack thereof) and see just how similar they are.

Well, we need the Bigfoot proponents to show us what they did to try to find the critter who made the cast..

I believe it was Lal who told us that according to Noll, ' ambulance chasing ' doesn't work. Can't argue with that ...

We discussed this extensively in one of the other threads..
We heard lots of excuses why these professionals, out looking for a Bigfoot, spent hours making a cast of the print, rather than trying to track whatever made it.

[kitakaze]

Well, we need the Bigfoot proponents to show us what they did to try to find the critter who made the cast..

I believe it was Lal who told us that according to Noll, ' ambulance chasing ' doesn't work. Can't argue with that ...

We discussed this extensively in one of the other threads..
We heard lots of excuses why these professionals, out looking for a Bigfoot, spent hours making a cast of the print, rather than trying to track whatever made it.So if we are to assert a parallel between the events of the PGF and the Skookum cast then certainly it's fair to remember that in the case of the PGF we reasonably either have a deliberate hoax or a genuine unkown hominid encounter caught on film as opposed to the Skookum cast where we very likely have an example of biased bigfoot researchers tailoring a mundane find as reason for greater support to their cause. Is the parallel in the motivations or results of their efforts?

[LTC8K6]

This is just one more example of skeptics doing way more than they should.

No one has shown any evidence whatsoever that the skookum cast has anything to do with a bigfoot.

I went to great lengths to show it was probably an elk lay, as did others.

Why? We don't have to.

No evidence whatsoever links that cast to bigfoot. None.

People just claim it was made by bigfoot.

That's it. Thats the link to bigfoot. Somebody said so.

[Huntster]

This is just one more example of skeptics doing way more than they should.

I agree. Stop it. I think skeptics have done way more than they should.

Sit down and shut up.

[LTC8K6]

Sit down and shut up.

Sorry, but it's still a free country so far, despite your attempts to squash opinions that don't match your own.

[Huntster]

Sorry, but it's still a free country so far, despite your attempts to squash opinions that don't match your own.

Oh, you disagree with yourself?

Then, by all means, do more.

[LTC8K6]

No, I was talking to you, not myself.

[kitakaze]

This is just one more example of skeptics doing way more than they should.

No one has shown any evidence whatsoever that the skookum cast has anything to do with a bigfoot.

I went to great lengths to show it was probably an elk lay, as did others.

Why? We don't have to.

No evidence whatsoever links that cast to bigfoot. None.

People just claim it was made by bigfoot.

That's it. Thats the link to bigfoot. Somebody said so.Kudos to you for making that effort, LTC. You'd hope it would skip out a little farther. Nothing at all stopped the Skookum proponents as claiming it as evidence of BF or getting far too much mileage out of it.

I agree. Stop it. I think skeptics have done way more than they should.

Sit down and shut up.Come now, Huntster. Hardly called for.

[Huntster]

No, I was talking to you, not myself.

Who's on first?

[Huntster]

....Come now, Huntster. Hardly called for.

I'm joking.

But, that's okay. Huntsters aren't supposed to screw around.

[kitakaze]

I'm joking.

But, that's okay. Huntsters aren't supposed to screw around.Correct. Only scwewy wabbits. At times like this I like to think, considering there's no one in my real life I could do so with, I like to imagine you, LTC, and I sitting in a nice pub and discussing the topic over a few pints. I like to think that we all have enough respect, tact, courtesy, and genuine interest in the others opinion to have a very fine and lively discussion on the subject. Oh, and look. There's RayG and Diogenes at another table who come and join us and it gets even more interesting. We toss around the ins and outs of sasquatches and have a very fine time. Then Beckjord crawls out of a dark corner and we all flip a table on him and call it a night. And there you have the joy of bigfoot.:D

[Huntster]

Correct. Only scwewy wabbits....

Dos damned scwewy wabbits!!

At times like this I like to think, considering there's no one in my real life I could do so with, I like to imagine you, LTC, and I sitting in a nice pub and discussing the topic over a few pints.

What! You don't have anybody to go kill a box of beer with!

My problem is that I have too many friend who need help destroying beer. At least, that's what Mrs. Huntster says.........

I like to think that we all have enough respect, tact, courtesy, and genuine interest in the others opinion to have a very fine and lively discussion on the subject. Oh, and look. There's RayG and Diogenes at another table who come and join us and it gets even more interesting. We toss around the ins and outs of sasquatches and have a very fine time. Then Beckjord crawls out of a dark corner and we all flip a table on him and call it a night....

Actually, if I didn't know about Ray's fun and games with the guy, I'd think Beckjord would be a kick to drink with. Heck, I probably wouldn't even need the alcohol. He's such a trip, I'd think I was on LSD just listening to him.

[tube]

Well, we need the Bigfoot proponents to show us what they did to try to find the critter who made the cast..

I believe it was Lal who told us that according to Noll, ' ambulance chasing ' doesn't work. Can't argue with that ...

We discussed this extensively in one of the other threads..
We heard lots of excuses why these professionals, out looking for a Bigfoot, spent hours making a cast of the print, rather than trying to track whatever made it.

As far as I know, the BFRO has never returned to Skookum meadows for any kind of follow up expedition. It's not like climbing to 15,000 feet in the Himalaya looking for the Yeti. The Skookum impression was found 25 feet beside a forest service road. You can simply drive there!

[desertyeti]

But then you'd see all those elk laying in the mud and have to explain to your paying customers why they somehow avoid leaving imprints, while them thar ape-men are busy stuffing their naughty bits into cold mother earth for no reason whatsoever. Makes it hard to make a buck.;)

[Skeptical Greg]

I just wanted to document another of DesertYeti's responses to a critique of his ' Elk Lay ' hypothesis, with regard to the Skookum Cast ..

The critigue can be found here..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15671&view=findpost&p=329045

And DY's response here.. ( which I am posting with his permission )

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15671&view=findpost&p=329212


1. Not true. Front hooves are in the correct position, rear hooves are simply not preserved within the body of the cast and/or obliterated by the slurry-like mud immediately to the animal's right (as evidenced by several depressions that have the appearence of collapsed, slumped holes. They are preserved behind it though...but...he said, I said, so whatever, everyone look at the cast yourselves and make up your own minds.

2. Not true. Cows roll as they stand too. My explanation was lacking, but by "roll" I was referring to how the animal digs in its wrists, while at the same time extending its hind legs down into the substrate after partially tucking them up closer (but still not under) to the body. Horses do it far more athletically, but all hoofed animals can and do stand with a sort of rolling action to re-center their gravity since in the resting position, their hips are at 90 degrees to the dorsal vertebral column. That requires rotation of the lumbar vertebrae to rotate the legs from the side to the downward position, ie., rolling.

3. Not true. Hair details are preserved, though somewhat obscured and easily overlooked, from where the wrist dug in and shifted in the ground as the animal put its weight down while standing...see "he said, I said" though, then look at it for yourselves if yuo ever get a chance.

4. Where? Please do show these key areas and also refer to earlier posts regarding the tendency of hollow and buoyant hair (not specifically addressed in those posts, but worth mentioning) to be very mobile and buoyant in a muddy, cohesive substrate. The hair flow on the cast is identical to a large cervid. You highlighted an area on my interpretation as having completely wrong hair flow patterns, yet offered no explanation. When I went and re-examined the specimen, I found that my interpretation was for the most part correct...I only needed to adjust the metacarpal hairs that were too schematic in the initial sketch...but what about the body? Do tell...

5. Not true. Individual hairs are very difficult to differentiate in muddy substrate impressions. What's probably actually happened with these "3 inch long" hairs is that the tract of individual hairs is following a slight crease or undulation in the skin. Look at any horse, cow, or ungulate of your chosing to see the same exact thing. Also, a single hair can leave a long trail behind it if it is pulled along the substrate for a distance before being lifted. I doubt anyone would confidently guess hair length from a part of the body that was clearly mobile as the animal either sat, adjusted, or stood (like an appendage of an ape or cervid).

I realize that all I'm doing here is saying: "No no no and here's why," but I do appreciate colobus sharing his observations and information. This is the best way to share, air-out, and thoughtfully debate any topic. He offers his views based on his experience, and I offer mine, and anyone else can pipe up too with relevant observations and/or references, don't be shy!

Now, if I may be so bold as to make my own list of glaring points why it clearly is an elk lay: new_lmaosmiley.gif

1) the hindlimb morphology is 100% identical to a partially folded elk leg. the thigh, shin, and metatarsals, complete with ligament and calcaneal tuber are all plainly visible and exactly the correct proportion.

2) the upwards flair of the dorsal margin of the iluim and its musculature are plainly visible and very characteristic of an elk.

3) the hair flow is identical to an elk's (see above though, then take a look at some photos and decide for yourself).

4) the tail is clearly present and of the right length to be an elk (far shorter than a deer).

5) the paired wrist imprints are a key diagnostic characteristic of ungulate lays and are clearly preserved, complete with reveresed hair flow on the left one, sunk in at 45 degrees to the viscous mud.

6) elk hoofprints are found immediately behind, immediately in front of, and immediately to the sides of the main imprint...it's surrounded.

7) all measurements of limb length, body proportion, and hoof size fall well within the size range of an elk. For example, the entire lay length is 48", while elk range from 39"-52" (see Elbroch, 2003).

8) no evidence for dermatoglyphic skin is preserved on the "heels" of the Skookum cast. The partially mushed imprints reveal hair flow patterns typical of the shorter metacarpal hairs on the lower limbs of ungulates. Again, refer to "he said, I say." The look at some of apeman's and tube's posts on what exactly dermatoglyphics look like as opposed to what artefacts and other impressions look like.

Not one of these points has yet been countered and/or disproved (except maybe 3, but not very convincingly). If anyone with a vivid enough imagination examines the cast, it could also be turned into: a kudu, an okapi, a large bonobo, a lion, a tiger, a tail-less mountain lion, a gigantic hairy-nosed wombat, Oprah Winfrey, and/or anything else with appendages and a hairy body. But sticking to what's actually observable, what's actully preserved, and what's actually been reported about the circumstances surrounding the find, it's virtually impossible to make a convincing and reasonable case for it to be something other than an elk. That's my only point. Other prints and tracks have a lot more going for them. If BF really do lounge around in mud puddles, rolling their nuts around for fun, it should be easy enough to set up some game cams near likely places (like, I dunno...Skookum Meadow) and catch one in the act. Otherwise, this impression is destined to simply join the other array of curiosities that continue to offer no compelling evidence that a huge, apple-eating, mud-loving, ape-man is lurking in wait of documentary film crews to taunt with his genitalia.

[LTC8K6]

Man, I tried so hard to get the point across about elk not putting their feet under them when they rise.......

I feel a bit left out...... :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Man, I tried so hard to get the point across about elk not putting their feet under them when they rise.......

I feel a bit left out...... :D If you think DY is having a hard time over there, where do you think you would be ?


You were only trying to convince one ( that I know of ) Skookum cast = Squatch proponent , that it was elk...

How do you think I feel, trying to get them to concede that 25 feet from a 100 foot roll of film ain't o.k. ?

[RayG]

Hey, I've been questioning the circumstances and 'evidence' regarding the Skookum cast as far back as November 29, 2003 (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=2560&hl=&view=findpost&p=56501) over on the BFF.

Some folks even earlier. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2560&st=153#)

Bipto has provided an excellent list of links (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=15668) to Skookum cast threads. (though those are only threads specifically started about the Skookum cast, not those that turn into Skookum cast discussions.)

RayG

[jhunter1163]

First post in this forum.. I'd seen this cast on a Discovery Channel program about a year ago, never was really convinced about it.

That being said, I'm a native Washingtonian and would have to say I'm open-minded about the existence of Bigfoot. None of the evidence I've seen is really incontrovertible, but Washington is a huge place, and if Bigfoot existed and didn't want to be found, you'd have a hell of a time finding one. Of course, if they don't exist, it would be even harder.. so I'm ready to be convinced, one way or the other...

[William Parcher]

I think I may have found a video that shows a gorilla doing the Skookum Roll. Or rather, a gorilla doo-dooing the roll. Or rolling a doo-doo. Or something. Anyway, this video shows a gorilla doing what a gorilla does when it does what it does. This gorilla does do something with doo-doo.

Be careful before you watch the video. It would probably gross-out anyone who is grossed-out by this sort of thing.

If you think you might not want to watch this... think Skookum Roll, doo-doo roll and yummy sushi roll.

I warned you. I warned you. I warned you. (http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Gorilla_beringei/Gorilla_beringei_be_08c.html?movietype=qtMed)

Other formats. (http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Gorilla_beringei/more_moving_images.html)

[LTC8K6]

Soon people will say they have seen sasquatch do this.....

[desertyeti]

Just as an update for anyone who might still care about such stuff: things have continued to devolve in the dicsussion of the Skookum Cast over at BFF. It's now been pointed out that:

1) Ph.D.'s are given out way too early in one's life (I guess because I and others with them somehow are considered too young?...not really sure though, but I wish it was true, would have saved me 12 years of post-high school education and tons of $$$).
2) allegations of me biasing others with my interpretation of the cast as an elk before asking their opinions are absolutely untrue.
3) with no other avenues of reasonable counter-argument, the personal attacks are flying, and I'm being accused of being deceitful, dishonest, unqualified, bad-smelling, ugly, my mom dresses me funny, and other very valid points.
4) pro-BF supporters of the cast are either silent, launching personal attacks and crying foul, or back-tracking and trying to claim that they never actually said it's a BF imprint.:jaw-dropp

Any cultural anthropologists of psychologists here need a thesis topic? This would be a great study of cult mentality!

[Huntster]

....with no other avenues of reasonable counter-argument, the personal attacks are flying, and I'm being accused of being deceitful, dishonest, unqualified, bad-smelling, ugly, my mom dresses me funny, and other very valid points.

Well, in all honesty:

1) I don't know what you smell like, but this charge is purely founded upon the olfactory keenness of the beholder; they may have merit, especially after you come in from the field;

2) You did submit a photo of yourself; again, this charge is purely founded upon the visual keenness of the beholder; they may have merit (I'm not sure; I can't see shyt anymore...................)

3) Do you wear plaid?

4) pro-BF supporters of the cast are either silent, launching personal attacks and crying foul, or back-tracking and trying to claim that they never actually said it's a BF imprint.:jaw-dropp

I've been silent. Haven't even looked at the thread in a while.

The Skookum Cast phenomenon is a waste of time for all involved, in my opinion.

Any cultural anthropologists of psychologists here need a thesis topic? This would be a great study of cult mentality!

There are cults everywhere.................

[desertyeti]

True all that you say...how'd you know about the plaid!?
But by silent pro-BFers, I mean the ones who claim the Skookum Cast is clearly a primate, then disappear or backtrack when confronted with other interpretations.
I'm not sure I agree that it's a waste of time...it's a wonderful example of what an ungulate trace looks like when preserved as aplaster slab...very informative.

[Huntster]

...I'm not sure I agree that it's a waste of time...it's a wonderful example of what an ungulate trace looks like when preserved as aplaster slab...very informative.

Oh, I can agree with that.

But as far as sasquatchery is concerned, such a cast (even if it was the real thing) wouldn't prove a thing. Any declaration that it was a sasquatch would be a guarantee of never-ending debate.

[desertyeti]

Absolutely.
After many many moon of pondering the "what would serve as good evidence?" question we see over at BFF, I think I've about got it. It's about repeatability. Say I spot a 7', hairy hominid on my ranch. I tell you, and you say "Bull." Then we argue, debate, get personal, and call it a day. BUT, I say I spotted one on my ranch, then I collect some photos, scat, tracks, video, etc., and share all this ASAP with as many people as I can (not unlike what Patterson did, actually). 99 out of 100 people I approach will call "Bull." but I might get a t.v. statio or a friend or two to come out and likewise photgraph, video, and otherwise observe. Then maybe the neighboring ranchers start filming, etc. This is what happened in Illinois with cougars, Michigan with wolverines, and Arkansas with the Ivory Bill.
The problem is (like with the Skookum and other casts), they represent a one-shot deal. Same with Patterson's film. There's never any follow-up (except at Mary Green's or with Beckjord...now that says something).

So th elong and short is, a single cast or a single line of prints is useless. Multiple forms of repeatable evidence are needed from a single incident if any serious support is to be given.

[Huntster]

Good scenario. I agree.

[Skeptical Greg]

True all that you say...how'd you know about the plaid!?
But by silent pro-BFers, I mean the ones who claim the Skookum Cast is clearly a primate, then disappear or backtrack when confronted with other interpretations.
I'm not sure I agree that it's a waste of time...it's a wonderful example of what an ungulate trace looks like when preserved as aplaster slab...very informative.

I think part of what we are seeing, is that less and less is being proclaimed as Bigfoot evidence, as those who would have us believe, realize it's not going to fly under any type of scrutiny ..

Is it just coincidence that Bigfoot doesn't seem to be leaving many footprints any more ?

It would seem that the Shroud, urr uhhm , Cast of Skookum , would have best been left alone, as far as those who want it to be Bigfoot are concerned..

Yes, the silence is deafening over at BFF with regard to this ..

[William Parcher]

This is what happened in Illinois with cougars, Michigan with wolverines, and Arkansas with the Ivory Bill.

Proceed with caution on this one. It might be another Bigfoot. Ivory-bill Skeptic (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/09/ivory-bill-skeptic-home.html)

[Hellbound]

Proceed with caution on this one. It might be another Bigfoot. Ivory-bill Skeptic (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/09/ivory-bill-skeptic-home.html)

Yeah. SO far, just the one sighting, and it could have been a differnet but similar species. Research is ongoing (NASA got involved to do some terrain/habitat mapping) but, to my knowledge, there's not been any other confirmation.

[William Parcher]

There were multiple sightings by researchers and even sightings with more than one person present. But these were fleeting glimpses that didn't include all of the significant ID points for an Ivory-bill. The video is much worse than the PGF and the stills from it would certainly qualify for blobpeckers. Cornell is backing all of this as real evidence, but there is no clear picture or video, no truly indicative signs (like a proper-sized nest hole finding) and no sightings subsequent to the initial phase of the explorations by teams.

It could be a misidentification of epic proportion. The political and private interest stakes on this puppy are big. Not to mention that scientific credibility (at least for Cornell and Science magazine) has its head on the chopping block with this one. It's painful to watch it unfold. I think it has relevance to Bigfootery because of the element of 'groupthink'.

[Hellbound]

Yes, I should have clarified that it was one sighting (by a kayaker, IIRC) that had all the ID pooints but was unverified. They did have the sound recordings of the calls, which were a match, but I'd hesitate to say conclusive based on that alone.

[William Parcher]

Peers who have reviewed the recorded sounds (calls and knocks) say that what you hear cannot be confirmed to be an Ivory-bill... bluejays can and do make the same calls and Pileated woodpeckers (common at the sighting area) will do the 'double-knock' (which is supposed to be diagnostic for IBW).

The world's living expert on IBW thinks these folks saw Pileateds.

[desertyeti]

Well...not exactly. The Ivory Bill has been confirmed, and in fact, located in another area nearby. These data are not being made public for obvious reasons. The preliminary concerns about the misidentification of the Ivory Bill turned out to be invalid, and the birds have been under pretty tight study for the past few months. It's just reall hush-hush for now.

[William Parcher]

Thanks for the TOP SECRET info, Desertyeti. It's fun when only a few people know about such a monumental thing.

One of us is in for a surprise. You'll be surprised if your info is false and I'll be surprised if it is true.

Surprise surprise.... when will they make the big announcement?

[TjW]

I don't see how the ivory-billed woodpecker could be "another bigfoot". The ivory-billed is at least known to have existed in recent times, whether it exists now or not. Misidentifying a small bird (if that is what is happening) is not in the same league with claiming a large, previously unknown primate is wandering around North America.

[William Parcher]

The commonality is exactly what you stated, TjW. It is the belief in the existence of a non-existent animal. It is true that we know the IBW at least WAS a real animal. We don't know if Bigfoot IS a real animal, but we do know that non-human bipeds WERE real animals.

The IBW was 'confirmed' to still exist without the kind of confirmation that is usually standard for science. There was no body, feather or even a nest hole. There were no still photos taken, only a very crappy video and the stills taken from it. One still from the video that is supposed to show the bird perched on a trunk is confidently described by critics as a branch stub sticking out of the trunk. They are saying it's not even a bird.

When Cornell claims that the IBW exists without any quality evidence, it is much like the claim that Bigfooters make.

If the IBW cannot be physically confirmed pretty soon, there is going to be a spectacle like we have not seen in modern times. If Desertyeti is wrong about this TOP SECRET info... many heads will be rolling in all sorts of directions.

[Old man]

This whole IBW thing makes me just a little embarrassed about working for Cornell.

[Huntster]

Well...not exactly. The Ivory Bill has been confirmed, and in fact, located in another area nearby. These data are not being made public for obvious reasons. The preliminary concerns about the misidentification of the Ivory Bill turned out to be invalid, and the birds have been under pretty tight study for the past few months. It's just reall hush-hush for now.Thanks for the TOP SECRET info, Desertyeti. It's fun when only a few people know about such a monumental thing.

One of us is in for a surprise. You'll be surprised if your info is false and I'll be surprised if it is true.

Surprise surprise.... when will they make the big announcement?

Maybe never. Avian security reasons, you understand...............

As long as the funds and environmental propaganda flow uninhibited, who cares if they truly exist or are confirmed?

[LTC8K6]

If only they were 600 pound, 8 foot tall woodpeckers......

[trvlr2]

Do 6foot tall, 200 lb peckerwoods count?:)

[Skeptical Greg]

Does this question seem confusing ?

Can you please say yes or no, if you think the main body of the impression this cast was made from, could have been made by an elk .

Answer - No - if you believe the main impression ( body, putative ' heel ' strikes etc. ), could NOT have been made by an elk )

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-595-1153206678_thumb.jpg

I see now that I did not include a question mark at the end of the question that esatblished the poll..

Maybe that was it..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15985&st=0&#entry336122

[RayG]

Does this question seem confusing ?

Yes. :D

Can you please say yes or no, if you think the main body of the impression this cast was made from, could have been made by an elk .

Answer - No - if you believe the main impression ( body, putative ' heel ' strikes etc. ), could NOT have been made by an elk
Which is it? Made from, could have been made by, or could NOT have been made by and elk? You've allowed people to answer NO to all three possibilities.

One of the main reasons I'm reluctant to vote in polls is the manner in which the poll question(s) are presented. Is the question biased, ambiguous, leading, open to interpretation, or lopsided?

I see now that I did not include a question mark at the end of the question that esatblished the poll..

Maybe that was it..
Doubtful. :cool:

RayG

[LAL]

Hairy Man (on BFF) has offered to pay Desertyeti's way to see the cast and to take up a collection to help with expenses. DDA has offered to pick him up at the airport and take him to a hotel. He wants him to perform his examination of the original for the History Channel.

See the thread for his response.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671&pid=337084&st=900&#entry337084

[Huntster]

Still hoisting that Pabst stuff, I see.

[Skeptical Greg]

Since we are hanging out perceived dirty laundry, here is a fresh pair of boxers..



I like DDA's response when I asked for the documentation that was made of the impression site, before the impression was discovered..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15671&view=findpost&p=337029

This was precipitated by the assertion, that since there were scientists present ( a fact ), that the analysis of the impression and cast was a scientific endeavor ..

A tidbit from the 400+ word obfuscation ..

If you are truly interested in the Bigfoot subject, show it by doing the background stuff... ask real questions when you can't find it, not ones that slime a person in the process... I swear some of the things you ask and the way you do it sounds an awful lot like a divorce attorney I had to go against. It is interrogation.

Translation = " No, we didn't photograph the baited area for a before-and- after comparison .. "



There was another defensive dissertation about how it was common practice to bait muddy areas, and other such places in the hope of getting more tracks.. This was advanced as an important part of Bigfoot research.




Oh, yeah ... Just what we need, more tracks... The core of Bigfoot research ..

[Huntster]

Since we are hanging out perceived dirty laundry, here is a fresh pair of boxers.......

Here's another (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15671&view=findpost&p=337058):

QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Aug 23 2006, 07:27 AM)
....Listen SG... I could care less if you believe it or not and think it rather funny when skeptics such as yourself continue to try and find holes without really doing the homework first. I think that is one of the biggest problems many have on this board with the skeptics, coming from your skeptical viewpoint. It is almost like you really don't have an interest in the Bigfoot subject, you have an interest in testing out your powers of critical thinking...

Bingo. I think you pegged both me and SG with that one.

Thank you, DDA. You just made my day.............

Sorry, I didn't bother to wash this dirty diaper before hanging it up. I don't mind shytty smells wafting in the air.

That's why I hang out here now and then..................:

[LTC8K6]

Why does anyone into bigfoot even bother with that silly cast anyway?

There is still no evidence at all that it has anything to do with bigfoot, so why all the continued fuss?

If there was some evidence that anything other than an elk made it, then I could see some fuss being made over it, but there isn't.

It still looks exactly like an Elk made it, just like it always did to objective folks.

The lack of pursuit of a bigfoot that supposedly sat down and ate near them just a couple hours ago, put the nail in the coffin of the Skookum cast for me.

Whatever happened to the DNA tests on the apple bits, anyway?

[JJEagan]

I have a question. Were the elk prints made before or after the supposed bigfoot sprawled in the mud? Can I assume that an elk would be terrified of a 600 pound primate? Why would an elk go anywhere near where a huge, smelly, potential predator has just been? Maybe these are stupid questions. Carry on.

[Skeptical Greg]

I have a question. Were the elk prints made before or after the supposed bigfoot sprawled in the mud? Can I assume that an elk would be terrified of a 600 pound primate? Why would an elk go anywhere near where a huge, smelly, potential predator has just been? Maybe these are stupid questions. Carry on.

You would have to ask the people who claim the impression was made by Sas..

My last line of inquiry ( in the link provided ), regarded the documentation
of the impression site before the discovery was made..

I was assured it was photographed ; but nothing was shared.

[JJEagan]

I'm sorry, but I have not read the whole debate (slapfest) on the BFF. Was the site photgraphed, documented, and measured BEFORE they put down the apples? It just seem's silly that an animal would walk along the road, stop, lay down, and reach for the fruit. I know, "BF likes to cover his tracks", but c'mon, it really seem's ridiculous.

[Correa Neto]

I don't think there's any slightly reliable evidence that the Skookum impression was created by a bigfoot.
I think the avaliable evidence does not support the existence of bigfeet.


If bigfeet (assuming they exist) and elk are not involved in any predator/prey or competition relationship, theoretically they could walk side by side. Whoever is the smaller (or outnumbered) animal might eventually move aside or leave the area only if it feels somehow threatened. There are many possible relationships, where one species would follow the other even without predator/prey relationship.

Thus the close spatial association between elk and alleged bigfoot prints is not a circunstantial evidence that the print was not made by an unknown primate.

[JJEagan]

I don't think there's any slightly reliable evidence that the Skookum impression was created by a bigfoot.
I think the avaliable evidence does not support the existence of bigfeet.


If bigfeet (assuming they exist) and elk are not involved in any predator/prey or competition relationship, theoretically they could walk side by side. Whoever is the smaller (or outnumbered) animal might eventually move aside or leave the area only if it feels somehow threatened. There are many possible relationships, where one species would follow the other even without predator/prey relationship.

Thus the close spatial association between elk and alleged bigfoot prints is not a circunstantial evidence that the print was not made by an unknown primate.

I agree, thank you. I really should think of all posibilities before I post. Hence, only 51 posts. Oops, 52.

[Brainache]

Bigfoot is one of those woo topics I have always had a soft spot for.
I have never been to that part of the world, but if I ever get the chance I would love to see it for myself.
I'd like to ask people who know more about Bigfoot some questions:
1)Just how far fetched is the possibility of Bigfoot?
2)Could a large non human hominid really hide that effectively for so long?
3)Just how much of the country up there is true wilderness?
4)Are the Sasquatch folk tales of the native people the sort of stories people tell to kids to scare them, or are they more matter of fact general knowledge type stuff?
5) I suppose another interesting question might also be; If Bigfoot is real, what is he? Some kind of Forrest Gorrilla or a hairy Neanderthal?

Anyway I still hope he is out there and just being too smart for us dumb Saps to find him.
But if he isn't I won't be too surprised.

[Huntster]

.....I'd like to ask people who know more about Bigfoot some questions:
1)Just how far fetched is the possibility of Bigfoot?

Just a bit more farfetched than the possibility that gorillas existed in Africa in the year 1840.

2)Could a large non human hominid really hide that effectively for so long?

I think so, especially since the folks who appear to have the authority to proclaim that they exist aren't looking for them.

3)Just how much of the country up there is true wilderness?

Way, way, way more than most folks can imagine.

4)Are the Sasquatch folk tales of the native people the sort of stories people tell to kids to scare them, or are they more matter of fact general knowledge type stuff?

In my opinion, both.

5) I suppose another interesting question might also be; If Bigfoot is real, what is he? Some kind of Forrest Gorrilla or a hairy Neanderthal?

I believe they are a bipedal ape.

[Correa Neto]

1)Just how far fetched is the possibility of Bigfoot?
Very.
2)Could a large non human hominid really hide that effectively for so long?
Unlikely.
3)Just how much of the country up there is true wilderness?
Depends on what you consider as true wilderness. Note that only those that could be bigfoot's habitat would qualify for the purposes of the current discussion.
4)Are the Sasquatch folk tales of the native people the sort of stories people tell to kids to scare them, or are they more matter of fact general knowledge type stuff?
They are not stories people tell to scare people. They are myths. Note that their "true" purpose and/or meaning must be seen within their original context. Interpretations outside this framework must be made with great care.
5) I suppose another interesting question might also be; If Bigfoot is real, what is he? Some kind of Forrest Gorrilla or a hairy Neanderthal?
Its a myth, and since a myth's interpretation usually depends on the interpreter's cultural background and agenda (if present), feel free to see it the way you are more comfortable with. Be it a giant hairy homind, a gigantopithecus, an entity from another dimension, an elemental, a spiritual entity or... A myth.

[kitakaze]

[disclaimer]There are many possible relationships, where one species would follow the other even without predator/prey relationship.Antler envy, dude. Antler envy.

[kitakaze]

Bigfoot is one of those woo topics I have always had a soft spot for.Yeaaaah, me too.:) 1)Just how far fetched is the possibility of Bigfoot?Well pull out the sticks but I'll say that the possibility isn't so far-fetched but the likelyhood on the other hand... well, so far it's been a tough sell. (Yes, Huntster. I know you're not shopping.:D )2)Could a large non human hominid really hide that effectively for so long?Weirder things have happened but given the range they're given by anecdotal evidence it's certainly doubtful. Is a really believable report from Kentucky any more doubtful than an equally believable report from BC. Is there any solid evidence from any report? I mean really, many would love some.(Hunster- ;) )3)Just how much of the country up there is true wilderness?A LOT. And more than enough. Not really the problem, though.4)Are the Sasquatch folk tales of the native people the sort of stories people tell to kids to scare them, or are they more matter of fact general knowledge type stuff?Well, who doesn't love scaring the crap out of their kids? Whether an actual animal versus a social construct is involved I think many forthright First Nation people would tell you it's both.5) I suppose another interesting question might also be; If Bigfoot is real, what is he? Some kind of Forrest Gorrilla or a hairy Neanderthal?So many suggestions and so little to support it. I'll say Paranpithecus Erectus. Or possibly Homo Gigantothropus. Or maybe just a nude, inebbriated Robin Williams.Anyway I still hope he is out there and just being too smart for us dumb Saps to find him.
But if he isn't I won't be too surprised.Yeah! What he said! I love posts like that. BTW Brainache, you'd be surprised that more than a few here would agree with that. Some sticks in the mud might call you stupid for thinking so or berate you for not finding sufficient excitement in what's been scientifically described but hey, maybe not, Thaiboxerken hasn't posted in any BF threads for a while so...:D

[Huntster]

....Its a myth.... .

Myth: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth)

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Which of the 5 above would you say is the most accurate definition of what you meant?

[Correa Neto]

Read Campbell.

Much better and comprehensive than your quote, if you are really interested.

[Huntster]

Read Campbell........

Campbell who?

[Correa Neto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

[Brainache]

Thanks for those replies.
I still think Bigfoot is not impossible.
I really don't like to think of something being impossible until all the facts are in. My house is full of things that many scientists once thought were impossible.
I would say that BF is more plausible than the Loch Ness Monster, but until somebody brings him back from the bush in a cage (as sad as that would be), I can't imagine scientists ever believing in him.

[Correa Neto]

Thanks for those replies.
I still think Bigfoot is not impossible.
I really don't like to think of something being impossible until all the facts are in. My house is full of things that many scientists once thought were impossible.
In this case, how can one put all the facts in?
The best one can do is try to narrow possibilities, in other words leave bigfeet with less places to "hide". For those wishing to "believe", the space is enough. For those who want reliable evidence, theres very litle or no space at all.

But still, its possible. But unlikely and depending on the "version" of bigfeet, implausible.

I would say that BF is more plausible than the Loch Ness Monster,
Yes, its more plausible than all lake monsters.


but until somebody brings him back from the bush in a cage (as sad as that would be), I can't imagine scientists ever believing in him.
Nope. High-quality footage or pictures with reliable provenance would be enough.

[Brainache]

Correa Neto I agree with everything you wrote in that last post.
I suppose its just my childhood woo factor that keeps me interested in this particular subject.

But until every square inch of wilderness has been mapped and photographed in close up I will assert my right to at least hope.






Now, where's the thread on UFO's?;)

[Correa Neto]

Well, my woo years lasted from my teens untill my late 20s' or even more, depending to the wooism...

Despite having concluded bigfeet, lake monsters, UFOs (as alien spacecraft), etc. are myths, I am always checking claims and news about them. Maybe one day some reliable piece of evidence will surface and I will gladly conclude I was wrong. But I am not holding my breath.

[Huntster]

....Nope. High-quality footage or pictures with reliable provenance would be enough.

For you, perhaps.

Are you stating that science as an institution would be satisfied with such photographic evidence?

[Huntster]

Read Campbell.

Much better and comprehensive than your quote, if you are really interested.

I have not read any of Campbell's work, but I have read of him. I am very impressed so far. My understanding of religion appears to mirror his.

I never figured sasquatchery would fit in with Campbellism, but I suppose (if looking at it with native religions in mind), it certainly has a role.

[kitakaze]

Nope. High-quality footage or pictures with reliable provenance would be enough.I'd hope so but who are you speaking for, Correa? Regardless, here's one we haven't beat thoroughly to death. I think 'provenance' is the key word here. As in I have a crystal-clear video of a salivating sasquatch digging for clams before taking a dump then noticing the person taking the footage and going into a chest beating display before shrieking like a little girl and then making a break for the tree line complete with matching prints and it didn't come from Tom Biscardi but rather James Randi's accountant. That would be provenance, no? Meanwhile, I'll be huffy and wait for one solid piece of evidence for these creatures that doesn't fall to crap upon thorough investigation. Forgive me, I'm feeling moody about endless $#!tty sasquatch evidence claims today. :mad:

[LTC8K6]

Well, with that film, plus the prints, plus the DNA from the saliva, the feces, and the clams, you'd have a much better package than the PGF.

With it all documented at once and proven to go together, it's pretty darn good, imo.

[LTC8K6]

Today, DNA labs are so good, you can get good data just from skin cells.

You can probably get a DNA sample from a sasquatch footprint today.

They get DNA samples just from your clothes rubbing on your skin nowadays.

A print where sasquatch turned or rotated his foot probably has plenty of skin cells in it where the foot's skin cells were abraded off by the dirt or sand.

[Yoink]

I don't follow the Bigfoot theory at all, but I was interested to ask: to Bigfoot Believers have a theory to account for the complete absence of Bigfoot remains from the paleontological or historical record? I mean, this is a large primate that has supposedly been indigenous to North American for a very long time--through massive swings in the North American climate. However restricted its range is considered to be now, it surely must have had more prosperous times in the past, when it ranged far more widely across the country. How is it that not a single Bigfoot bone, or frozen Bigfoot feces, or what have you has shown up in the entire continent?

I can believe that a Bigfoot or two could be released into the wild today and remain unfound for the rest of their lives. I don't see how a breeding population of Bigfeet has maintained itself in the continent for millions of years without leaving a single trace of its existence.

Could Bigfeet all be breatarians who leave no spoor and whose bodies evanesce rather than decompose?

[LAL]

I'm sorry, but I have not read the whole debate (slapfest) on the BFF. Was the site photgraphed, documented, and measured BEFORE they put down the apples? It just seem's silly that an animal would walk along the road, stop, lay down, and reach for the fruit. I know, "BF likes to cover his tracks", but c'mon, it really seem's ridiculous.

Yes, the site was documented, photographed, etc. The apple bits were left in the alcohol too long. Most animals approach new food with caution, keeping a low profile, especially if others may be around to steal the food. Observe primate feeding behavior sometime. The ground was hard and gravelly around the mudhole. No need for it to use the road, or try to conceal tracks, but Chimpanzees have been observed deliberately leaving tracks for the troup to follow. Even dogs seem aware of their tracks. Sasquatches are not primarily predators, though they may be opportunists and will take meat when they can get it. Chimpanzees do this too.

Read DDA and colobus' posts on the BFF "Official" thread. The rest may be safely skipped.

[LAL]

I don't follow the Bigfoot theory at all, but I was interested to ask: to Bigfoot Believers have a theory to account for the complete absence of Bigfoot remains from the paleontological or historical record?

Only about 1% of all species that have lived have left traces in the fossil record. Wet, acid soils even disolve teeth. Sasquatches may be a late Pliestocene arrival, not something that was here for millions of years. Their possible ancestors were widespread and long-lived as a species, yet left only three jawbones (deposited in caves by water or porcupines) and 1100 teeth.

Gorillas and okapis have no fossil record (yet) either. And, despite decades of digs, only three chimpanzee teeth have turned up so far. It took the Leakeys thirty years to find hominid fossils and even fossil hominids are scarce.

Fossilization requires rapid burial (to protect remains from scavengers), the right kind of soil conditions, then exposure and someone to find them.

[Yoink]

Only about 1% of all species that have lived have left traces in the fossil record. Wet, acid soils even disolve teeth. Sasquatches may be a late Pliestocene arrival, not something that was here for millions of years. Their possible ancestors were widespread and long-lived as a species, yet left only three jawbones (deposited in caves by water or porcupines) and 1100 teeth.

Gorillas and okapis have no fossil record (yet) either. And, despite decades of digs, only three chimpanzee teeth have turned up so far. It took the Leakeys thirty years to find hominid fossils and even fossil hominids are scarce.

Fossilization requires rapid burial (to protect remains from scavengers), the right kind of soil conditions, then exposure and someone to find them.

But I specifically referred, for the reasons you adduce, to more than the (always scanty) fossil record. This is an animal that believers claim continues to live down to the present day. So why didn't any explorer stumble on a Bigfoot skeleton? Why didn't someone purchase a "Bigfoot fur" bag or headdress or ceremonial item from some Indian? Why has no one found Bigfoot feces etc. etc. etc.?

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, the site was documented, photographed, etc.


Evidence ?

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/images/clean_cast_guide7.jpg

Note how we color in shapes; ignoring the actual features of the cast..

Based on the size of the heel, the critter was deemed to be over 8 feet tall..

Sadly, it seems to have a forearm reminiscent of Danny DeVito ..

[RayG]

Read DDA and colobus' posts on the BFF "Official" thread. The rest may be safely skipped.

By 'the rest', I assume you mean DY's scientific thoughts and opinions?

Why should 'the rest' be safely skipped?

RayG

[RayG]

Sadly, it seems to have a forearm reminiscent of Danny DeVito ..

What is the actual measurement from 'elbow' to 'hand'? I don't think I've seen that information posted anywhere.

RayG

[Skeptical Greg]

What is the actual measurement from 'elbow' to 'hand'? I don't think I've seen that information posted anywhere.

RayG


I haven't seen it either .. I just noticed, looking at this picture, it looks shorter
than Meldrum's elbow-to-hand length ..


http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/green_statement.asp

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.

[Huntster]

I don't follow the Bigfoot theory at all, but I was interested to ask: to Bigfoot Believers have a theory to account for the complete absence of Bigfoot remains from the paleontological or historical record?...

I believe it's because they're a recent immigrant, just like man.

....I mean, this is a large primate that has supposedly been indigenous to North American for a very long time--through massive swings in the North American climate. However restricted its range is considered to be now, it surely must have had more prosperous times in the past, when it ranged far more widely across the country. How is it that not a single Bigfoot bone, or frozen Bigfoot feces, or what have you has shown up in the entire continent?...

I believe their densities have always been low, just like they are now.

[LAL]

Bigfoot is one of those woo topics I have always had a soft spot for.
I have never been to that part of the world, but if I ever get the chance I would love to see it for myself.
I'd like to ask people who know more about Bigfoot some questions:
1)Just how far fetched is the possibility of Bigfoot?
2)Could a large non human hominid really hide that effectively for so long?
3)Just how much of the country up there is true wilderness?
4)Are the Sasquatch folk tales of the native people the sort of stories people tell to kids to scare them, or are they more matter of fact general knowledge type stuff?
5) I suppose another interesting question might also be; If Bigfoot is real, what is he? Some kind of Forrest Gorrilla or a hairy Neanderthal?

Anyway I still hope he is out there and just being too smart for us dumb Saps to find him.
But if he isn't I won't be too surprised.

Smart doesn't really enter in. Scarce does and dense forests do. I've been learning on some recent excursions just how dense and extensive the forests are even here in the SE. The PNW is unbelievable.

Wilderness doesn't seem to be a requirement. I used to live in Washington State and the area that seemed to have the most sightings was mature second growth. There were quite a few crossings on HWY 14 in the west end of the Columbia Gorge.

They could well be a descendant of Gigantopithecus blacki, and would likely be most closely related to orangutans.

The coastal tribes seem to have them in their traditions, but I'm not so sure eastern tribes describe them. I'm in process of learning more about "boogers".

It took sixty years after their "discovery" for a Panda to be brought in despite expeditions out to bring them in for zoos. There's a real lack of well-funded scientific expeditions out to hunt Sasquatches. One would be a start.

I don't think they're far-fetched at all. They're far-ranging, eat what bears eat and would probably have been collected years ago if they were quadrupedal. There seems to be a reluctance on our part to acknowlege a species of bipedal hominid primate alive and well in our times. I think we liked being alone.

[LAL]

Myth: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth)

Which of the 5 above would you say is the most accurate definition of what you meant?

And how do multiple witness sightings a of Sasquatches crossing roads fit in any of those catagories?

"Why did the Sasquatch cross the road?" "To get to the other side."

Most sightings last about twenty seconds and are really mundane.

In some Native belief systems, a sighting is supposed to herald some sort of change, but I've heard much more detailed stories of talking hawks and eagles.

[LAL]

By 'the rest', I assume you mean DY's scientific thoughts and opinions?

Why should 'the rest' be safely skipped?

RayG

I included us, Ray. We didn't really add much of substance.

DY's been posting here, so I assume they know what he thinks. If not, he started his own thread on BFF and anyone is free to read it. He wasn't really on the OSC thread much and didn't give us the great debate I was expecting when he finally confronted DDA.

His arguments largely rested on an interpretation of hair flow that was 50% absent in the copies he saw and the copies themselves were painted. He also attributed a scraping to an elk knee/wrist. That really changes the position of his putative elk. I'm still waiting for the drawings.

It's a great thread though, and if anyone wants to read the whole thing they're certainly welcome to do so.

Start here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671

There were quite a few complaints even from BFFers, though. They must have been talking about Wildman. ;)

[LAL]

But I specifically referred, for the reasons you adduce, to more than the (always scanty) fossil record. This is an animal that believers claim continues to live down to the present day. So why didn't any explorer stumble on a Bigfoot skeleton? Why didn't someone purchase a "Bigfoot fur" bag or headdress or ceremonial item from some Indian? Why has no one found Bigfoot feces etc. etc. etc.?

Scat has been found and analysed. No one trips over skeletons of anything in places like the PNW. THe scavenger system goes from bears down to bacteria. I once had a vulture check me out. I'm not sure they always wait until the animal is dead.

Many Native peoples had taboos about what animals could be killed. A Cascades Indian couldn't kill beaver, e.g., if he dreamed beaver was his medicine. White hunters have turned down shots at them because they look so human. A few have shot but failed to bring them down. Personally, I would not want to try to kill an 8' animal with a spear or a bow and arrow. Mammoth hunting in a group would have been a lot easier.

[Correa Neto]

I'd hope so but who are you speaking for, Correa? Regardless, here's one we haven't beat thoroughly to death. I think 'provenance' is the key word here. As in I have a crystal-clear video of a salivating sasquatch digging for clams before taking a dump then noticing the person taking the footage and going into a chest beating display before shrieking like a little girl and then making a break for the tree line complete with matching prints and it didn't come from Tom Biscardi but rather James Randi's accountant. That would be provenance, no? Meanwhile, I'll be huffy and wait for one solid piece of evidence for these creatures that doesn't fall to crap upon thorough investigation. Forgive me, I'm feeling moody about endless $#!tty sasquatch evidence claims today. :mad:

Who am I speaking for? I am not a representative of anyone or any institution. Its a personal opinion, a conclusion based in the behavior of the people I know that work in the academic field. You are right when it comes to provenance. If the footage has provenance, it will surely raise lots of eyebrows and soon researchers will go to the field. Possibly officially looking for wolves, bears, deer, whatever, but actually searching evidence to validate the footage. I would also expect some more evident searches, backed by NG, for example.

But as long as "Biscardi-Marx" quality evidence are shown as THE evidence, I expect very few people to take it seriously. We've been telling footers for a looong time to drop all the shytty claims and and disputable evidence if they want to be taken seriously. Yes, this includes some pieces that are dear for some (PGF, cripplefoot, Skookum cast, Minesota Iceman). Quality prevails over quantity.

[Correa Neto]

I have not read any of Campbell's work, but I have read of him. I am very impressed so far. My understanding of religion appears to mirror his.

I never figured sasquatchery would fit in with Campbellism, but I suppose (if looking at it with native religions in mind), it certainly has a role.

Campbell's work basically shows the similarities among myths. The was not the first to think this, but surely he was probably the person who managed to express the idea more clearly.

Check the roles and characteristics of heroes, for example. Same could be said for villains and monsters (here bigfeet would most likely fit). He showed clearly that myths tend to follow templates. You seem to have not understood that this was the line I was proposing when at some other thread I compared bigfeet with other mythical hairy bipedal characters from other parts of the world. Werewolves, for example. Other people got the idea quite quickly. Myths have similarities, templates. Its not unlikely neither unexpected to find myths about hairy bipedals at many places of the world. By no means they are evidence of real creatures.l

Now, this put, the nature and the cause of the templates for myths are open to discussions. Many people (yeah, you guessed right, I amone of them) consider its not an "external" or "independent" cause, such as Jungian archetypes or a "spiritual world". Its can be merely a cause due to the fact that we are all humans, with very similar bodies and brains. We share psichology, needs, behavior, fears and when subject to roughly similar pressures, the outcomes will be similar.

Huntster, I am finding extremely pleasant to be having -at least untill now- a polite discussion with you. Let's please try to keep this level when we start to disagree.

[LAL]

He also attributed a scraping to an elk knee/wrist.

Correction: I should have said "slippage". There were striations typical of the bottom of a hoof. DY interpreted this as the impression of a joint in his resting elk scenario.

[Huntster]

....But as long as "Biscardi-Marx" quality evidence are shown as THE evidence, I expect very few people to take it seriously. ......

As long as it's Biscardi and Marx out there looking (and not NG or state fish and game agencies), you're gonna get "Biscardi-Marx quality evidence."

[Huntster]

....He showed clearly that myths tend to follow templates. You seem to have not understood that this was the line I was proposing when at some other thread I compared bigfeet with other mythical hairy bipedal characters from other parts of the world. Werewolves, for example. Other people got the idea quite quickly. Myths have similarities, templates. Its not unlikely neither unexpected to find myths about hairy bipedals at many places of the world. ...

Oh, I understand your side of the point quite well. And I agree it might well be the case.

You refuse to entertain or accept my side of the understanding.

"Myths" conform to the template, but something created that template.

Now, this put, the nature and the cause of the templates for myths are open to discussions.

Many people (yeah, you guessed right, I amone of them) consider its not an "external" or "independent" cause, such as Jungian archetypes or a "spiritual world". Its can be merely a cause due to the fact that we are all humans, with very similar bodies and brains. We share psichology, needs, behavior, fears and when subject to roughly similar pressures, the outcomes will be similar.

I agree that needs, behaviors, fears, etc will be roughly similar. But I also believe, especially with regard to sasquatchery, that a real creature can be at the root of this "myth."

I especially believe that because we know that bipedal apes existed at one time. That is not in question. It has been established.

The question is whether or not they still exist today.

Huntster, I am finding extremely pleasant to be having -at least untill now- a polite discussion with you. Let's please try to keep this level when we start to disagree.

Okay. Let's.

[Yoink]

Scat has been found and analysed. No one trips over skeletons of anything in places like the PNW. THe scavenger system goes from bears down to bacteria. I once had a vulture check me out. I'm not sure they always wait until the animal is dead.

If scat has been found, wouldn't it be possible to do DNA analysis on it that would be definitive? (I assume DNA of an unknown primate species would be readily identifiable as such.)

Many Native peoples had taboos about what animals could be killed. A Cascades Indian couldn't kill beaver, e.g., if he dreamed beaver was his medicine. White hunters have turned down shots at them because they look so human. A few have shot but failed to bring them down. Personally, I would not want to try to kill an 8' animal with a spear or a bow and arrow. Mammoth hunting in a group would have been a lot easier.

Yes, different Indian tribes often tended to mark tribal identity by their particular food taboos. But the very example you give (beaver) shows the problem with that as an argument for why no Indian "bigfoot" relics have ever shown up. It's not as if finding Indian items made of beaver fur is tough work. Why isn't there a "bigfoot bone ornament" or a "bigfoot fur headdress" or what have you, sitting in a draw in the Smithsonian?

As for white hunters "turning down shots"--well, all I can say is that it seems amazing that this guy is both incredibly scarce, leaves no prints or feces for anyone to collect, and yet keeps sticking his head out from behind a tree and thumbing his nose at people whose cameras just broke, or who just ran out of film, or when it was just getting a little too dark to take a photo etc. etc. etc. He's both the shyest, scarcest, tidiest animal in the world (even cleaning up after himself when he takes a dump) AND he's a merry prankster who likes to hunt out down-on-their-luck Bigfoot believers and give them just a little bit of inconclusive song and dance.

If I were a Bigfoot believer I'd go in guns blazing--this bastard is laughing at you!

[LTC8K6]

You can drop an elephant or a rhino or a cape buffalo with a gun, but not sasquatch? Seems odd.

Feces are not very good for DNA sampling.

Without known samples, you don't really have any sasquatch scat.

Scientifically speaking, no one has ever found any sasquatch scat, hair, or tracks.

[RayG]

we know that bipedal apes existed at one time.

We do? Do you mean Gigantopithecus? I thought it was only speculated that Giganto was bipedal? Has new evidence come to light to confirm the bipedalism, or are you talking about something entirely different?

RayG

[Skeptical Greg]

Correction: I should have said "slippage". There were striations typical of the bottom of a hoof.

How does one differentiate hoof striations from say, someone dragging a stick
accross the ground ?

Who examined the cast that was qualified to make that distinction ?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
we know that bipedal apes existed at one time.
We do?

Well, some folks do.

Do you mean Gigantopithecus? I thought it was only speculated that Giganto was bipedal? Has new evidence come to light to confirm the bipedalism, or are you talking about something entirely different?

Correct. Gigantopithecus locomotion hasn't been determined, nor can it with the fossils that have been recovered.

However: (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199901/0034.html)

.......Christopher Wills had a short discussion of this evidence. It concerns a
10 million year old ape, Oreopithecus bambolii. He writes:

"Upright posture may not be unique to our own lineage. An ape that lived
ten million years ago on Sardinia, Oreopithecus bambolii, seems to have
acquired similar capabilities, perhaps independently." " Christopher Wills,
The Children of Prometheus, (Reading, Mass: Perseus Books, 1998), p. 156

He referenced an article from the Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences, Meike
Kšhler and Salvador Moyˆ-Solˆ "Ape-like or hominid-like? The positional
behavior of Oreopithecus bambolii reconsidered" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 11747-11750, October 1997

The abstract from the PNAS web site reads,
"Comparative morphological and functional analyses of the skeletal remains
of Oreopithecus bambolii, a hominoid from the Miocene Mediterranean island
of Tuscany-Sardinia (Italy), provides evidence that bipedal activities made
up a significant part of the positional behavior of this primate. The
mosaic pattern of its postcranial morphology is to some degree convergent
with that of Australopithecus and functionally intermediate between apes
and early hominids. Some unique traits could have been selected only under
insular conditions where the absence of predators and the limitation of
trophic resources play a crucial role in mammalian evolution. "

This raises an interesting point. Bipedality has been the sine qua non in
the definition of a hominid! This ape stood 3' 7" tall and weighed 66
pounds. Until 1992, Oreopithecus was the only late Miocene ape that had
left remains of its postcranial skeleton.(see Moya-Sola and Kohler, Nature
379(1996):156-157.) But in 1992, the postcranial remains of Dryopithecus
laietanus were found in Spain and they also showed evidence of an
'orthograde' locomotion. Moya-Sola and Kohler note:

"Several features of the trunk of Dryopithecus suggest adaptation for
orthograde postures. The lumbar vertebrae are proportionally shorter than
those of cercopithecoids and proconsulids. The transverse processes
originate on the pedicle dorsolaterally on the vertebral body, and the
caudally directed spinal process indicate reduced mobility of the lumbar
region. The more dorsally situated costal foveae of the thoracic vertebra
imply a more ventral postion of the spinal column and hence a broad thorax.
The claviccle is proportionally longer than in African apes and comparable
in relative size to the lengths of clavicles of Pongo and Hylobates. This
suggests that the scapula of Dryopithecus was situated dorsally on the
thorax as in extant hominoids, and that the clavicle would have been
oriented more vertically than in African apes, and similar to Pongo and
Hylobates, a character linked to suspensory postures." ~ Salvador Moya-Sola
and Meike Kohler, "A Dryopithecus Skeleton and the origins of Great-Ape
Locomotion," Nature, Jan. 11, 1996, p. 157-158..........

More (http://www.riverapes.com/AHAH/Timescale/RiverApeModel1.htm)


Yet more: (http://www.primates.com/history/)

....Today’s apes are few in number and in kind. But between 22 million and 5.5 million years ago, a time known as the Miocene epoch, apes ruled the primate world. Up to 100 ape species ranged throughout the Old World, from France to China in Eurasia and from Kenya to Namibia in Africa. Out of this dazzling diversity, the comparatively limited number of apes and humans arose. Yet fossils of great apes - the large-bodied group represented today by chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans (gibbons and siamangs make up the so-called lesser apes) - have turned up only in western and central Europe, Greece, Turkey, South Asia and China. It is thus becoming clear that, by Darwin’s logic, Eurasia is more likely than Africa to have been the birthplace of the family that encompasses great apes and humans, the hominids. (The term "hominid" has traditionally been reserved for humans and protohumans, but scientists are increasingly placing our great ape kin in the definition as well and using another word, "hominin", to refer to the human subset......

There's lots more: (http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/anthropology/Faculty/Begun/begunSciAm.pdf#search=%22miocene%20apes%20bipedal% 22)

WE STILL HAVE MUCH to learn. Many
fossil apes are represented only by jaws
and teeth, leaving us with little or no idea
about their posture and locomotion,
brain size or body mass. Moreover, paleontologists
have yet to recover any remains
of ancient African great apes. Indeed,
there is a substantial geographic
and temporal gap in the fossil record between
representatives of the early members
of the African hominid lineage in Europe
(Dryopithecus and Ouranopithecus)
and the earliest African fossil hominids.
Moving up the family tree (or, more
accurately, family bush), we find more
confusion in that the earliest putative
members of the human family are not obviously
human. For instance, the recently
discovered Sahelanthropus tchadensis,
a six-million- to seven-million-year-old
find from Chad, is humanlike in having
small canine teeth and perhaps a more
centrally located foramen magnum (the
hole at the base of the skull through
which the spinal cord exits), which could
indicate that the animal was bipedal. Yet
Sahelanthropus also exhibits a number of
chimplike characteristics, including a
small brain, projecting face, sloped forehead
and large neck muscles. Another
creature, Orrorin tugenensis, fossils of
which come from a Kenyan site dating to
six million years ago, exhibits a comparable
mosaic of chimp and human traits,as does 5.8-million-year-old Ardipithecus
ramidus kadabba from Ethiopia. Each of
these taxa has been described by its discoverers
as a human ancestor [see “An
Ancestor to Call Our Own,” by Kate
Wong; Scientific American, January].
But in truth, we do not yet know enough
about any of these creatures to say
whether they are protohumans, African
ape ancestors or dead-end apes....

[Correa Neto]

Oh, I understand your side of the point quite well. And I agree it might well be the case.

You refuse to entertain or accept my side of the understanding.

Nope. I just disagree with your conclusions and beliefs. Its not a refusal.

"Myths" conform to the template, but something created that template.

Sure. But the templates might have been (were IMHO) created by humans.

I agree that needs, behaviors, fears, etc will be roughly similar. But I also believe, especially with regard to sasquatchery, that a real creature can be at the root of this "myth."

Yes, there may be one or more species of real creature(s) behind this particular myth, specially depending on the specific sasquatch/bigfoot myth you choose (I am using "sasquatch" to group Native American myths and "bigfoot" for the modern myths). But they may not necessarily be what we would actually call a bigfoot, specially on the last case. Also, there may not be any real creature behind it. What I think is the case.

I especially believe that because we know that bipedal apes existed at one time. That is not in question. It has been established.

The question is whether or not they still exist today.

If you are talking about Gigantopithecus, you should say that were "giant" apes in the past. The avaliable evidence indicates they were most likely not bipedals.

Unless you add the controversial Meganthropus, there are no fossil species that would fit the criteria for a correlation with bigfeet: size and bipedalism. Even in this case, the fur could be an extra issue, if they were related to the Homo genus.

Okay. Let's.

Is it so hard?

[LTC8K6]

Bipedal activities make up a significant part of a bear's positional behavior.

Hey! That sounds pretty good. I almost know what I'm talking about!

[Correa Neto]

A quick nitpicking in Huntster links:

No clear undisputable link between bipedalism and dentition, as some propose to back the claim of a bipedal gigantopithecus.

And the opinion about bigfeet at the last link is far from being supportive...

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, I understand your side of the point quite well. And I agree it might well be the case.

You refuse to entertain or accept my side of the understanding.

Nope. I just disagree with your conclusions and beliefs. Its not a refusal.

Fair enough.

Nothing established for sure either way.

Originally Posted by Huntster
"Myths" conform to the template, but something created that template.

Sure. But the templates might have been (were IMHO) created by humans.

Correct.

And they might have been established as a result of creatures that are not out of the realm of possibility, we're sure existed at one time in some form, and we're just not sure if are still around.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I agree that needs, behaviors, fears, etc will be roughly similar. But I also believe, especially with regard to sasquatchery, that a real creature can be at the root of this "myth."

Yes, there may be one or more species of real creature(s) behind this particular myth, specially depending on the specific sasquatch/bigfoot myth you choose (I am using "sasquatch" to group Native American myths and "bigfoot" for the modern myths). But they may not necessarily be what we would actually call a bigfoot, specially on the last case.

True.

Also, there may not be any real creature behind it. What I think is the case.

True. And I think you're incorrect.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I especially believe that because we know that bipedal apes existed at one time. That is not in question. It has been established.

The question is whether or not they still exist today.

If you are talking about Gigantopithecus, you should say that were "giant" apes in the past. The avaliable evidence indicates they were most likely not bipedals.

I am not referring to Gigantopithecus, which were, indeed, "giant" apes.

The available evidence cannot determine whether or not they were bipeds or quadrapeds.

Unless you add the controversial Meganthropus, there are no fossil species that would fit the criteria for a correlation with bigfeet: size and bipedalism. Even in this case, the fur could be an extra issue, if they were related to the Homo genus.

See here (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1883303&postcount=202).


Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay. Let's.

Is it so hard?

Not at all, so far.

[Huntster]

[QUOTE]A quick nitpicking in Huntster links:

No clear undisputable link between bipedalism and dentition, as some propose to back the claim of a bipedal gigantopithecus.

Correct. I don't claim that Gigantopithecus was bipedal, but that it could have been bipedal. We simply don't know.

And the opinion about bigfeet at the last link is far from being supportive...

But the fact that bipedal apes existed in the past is there.

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/images/clean_cast_guide7.jpg

Note how we color in shapes; ignoring the actual features of the cast..

Based on the size of the heel, the critter was deemed to be over 8 feet tall..

Sadly, it seems to have a forearm reminiscent of Danny DeVito ..

I must acknowledge, that in my haste score a skeptical coup, I was fooled by perspective illusions in this picture..

I found it necessary to apologize in this post at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15671&view=findpost&p=338365

Here is the substance of the post:



It would seem DDA has the last LOL after all .. At least based on the approximation I have come up with.

The ' forced perspective ' consideration, indeed had me jumping to an ill founded conclusion..

I apologize to DDA for insulting his obvious photographic expertise .. ( and thanks to him, I now have a very small amount )


I came up with this shot from LMS , and found some identifiable points to measure about 7.5 inches ..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/skmeas.gif


Transfering those points to this image, and using the blue lines as a measuring stick.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/skmeas2.gif

It looks like the indicated elbow to wrist measurement is somewhere near 15 inches.

I'm about 5-11, and my elbow to wrist is about 11 inches. Making the alleged forearm,
indeed ~ 40% longer than that of a 6 foot human..

It was quite presumptious of me to assume Dr. Meldrum had been careless in the measurements
that lead to his conclusions, or that he presented them in a careless manner..
With that in mind, I apologize..

Doing this work before I tried to score a skeptical coup would have served me well ..

Indeed it has served me well in any event...

[kitakaze]

Just to comment on Huntster and Correa's discussion of myth templates I don't know if it seems too much of a stretch to take into account that within the last few hundred thousand years as a species we would have maybe quite often come into contact with other similar species that would have fit quite nicely into the big, hairy monster men mould and to which we would have had a natural fear. I also don't think it's necessary for those creatures to still be around for the template to keep churning out myths. Correa's outlined on many occasions the errors of trying to read to much into myths. Whether sasquatches exist or not I find it a little bit difficult to accept the idea that they've always been rare and elusive yet would be the sole progenitor of our hairy man myth template. If I think about it a little more a pure psychological construct doesn't seem absurd at all, either.

[Brainache]

One of the reasons I like to think of Bigfoot is that if he does exist his most effective survival skill is remaining hidden.

[Skeptical Greg]

One of the reasons I like to think of Bigfoot is that if he does exist his most effective survival skill is remaining hidden.
Indeed.

But it begs the question of how it remained undetected while this skill was being developed...

It reminds of the owner of a Bigfoot photo, who claimed the Bigfoot was holding a stick in front of the camera to block the flash .

I posited that there should be some pictures of the Bigfoot developing this technique ...

The reply is still forthcoming..

[casebro]

Re: the myth fitting a "template", and where did the myth come from?

We know that bears will make overlapping footprints- that's the probably origination of the 'midtarsel break'. And we know the Indians told their children about the mythical sasquatch to keep them from wandering off at night. Does it take some great leap of imagination to visualise an Indian parent pointing to one of the overlapping footprints, and originating the myth of a big footed critter?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Brainache
One of the reasons I like to think of Bigfoot is that if he does exist his most effective survival skill is remaining hidden.
Indeed.

But it begs the question of how it remained undetected while this skill was being developed.........

That's just it.........they have not remained undetected.

They have remained uncatalogued by science.

[Huntster]

Re: the myth fitting a "template", and where did the myth come from?

We know that bears will make overlapping footprints- that's the probably origination of the 'midtarsel break'....

I've seen so many bear footprints and trackways I couldn't possibly remember them all. I have yet to see an overlap, or anything that I would mistake for a sasquatch footprint.

And we know the Indians told their children about the mythical sasquatch to keep them from wandering off at night. Does it take some great leap of imagination to visualise an Indian parent pointing to one of the overlapping footprints, and originating the myth of a big footed critter?

Why would you need boogermen to scare your kids with if you have bears running around?

[LTC8K6]

They have also remained undetected by science, which explains the lack of a catalog.

[Yoink]

I've seen so many bear footprints and trackways I couldn't possibly remember them all. I have yet to see an overlap, or anything that I would mistake for a sasquatch footprint.



Why would you need boogermen to scare your kids with if you have bears running around?

Well, there's no evidence that Native Americans invented Sasquatch (a made-up, non-Indian word, by the way) as a boogeyman for children, but your question prompts another which seems rather telling:

Why did the Europeans invent trolls when there were wolves and bears still in Europe? Why did Europeans invent myths about trolls, fairies, giants, golems, leprechauns, willis, naiads, dryads, satyrs, Wild Men, amazons, elves, banshees, mandrakes etc. etc. etc. etc.? We know that none of these (and the thousands upon thousands of other similar ones) didn't exist: why shouldn't the Native Americans invent similarly mythical hominid creatures?

[Correa Neto]

And they might have been established as a result of creatures that are not out of the realm of possibility, we're sure existed at one time in some form, and we're just not sure if are still around.

Maybe. But we can not be sure if people would still remember such beasts (assuming they existed) say, 10K years later. One of the things that annoy me in this reasoning is that megafauna was composed by a number of magnific large beasts. Why no myths on saber-toothed tigers or mammoths, for example? These beasts probably would have had much more impact on the lives of those persons than the elusive sasquatches...

I am not referring to Gigantopithecus, which were, indeed, "giant" apes.

The available evidence cannot determine whether or not they were bipeds or quadrapeds.

Well, the guys who study it do not agree.

[Huntster]

They have also remained undetected by science, which explains the lack of a catalog.

No major feat there. Pluto remained undetected by science for a long time.

In fact, even though it's been detected for nearly a century, it still seems to defy scientific cataloging................

[Huntster]

.....Why did the Europeans invent trolls when there were wolves and bears still in Europe?

Who says that trolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll) were "invented"?:

Origin of the myth
In the genre of paleofiction, the distinguished Swedish-speaking Finnish paleontologist Björn Kurtén has entertained the theory (e.g. in Dance of the Tiger) that trolls are a distant memory of an encounter with Neanderthals by our Cro-Magnon ancestors some 40,000 years ago during their migration into northern Europe. Spanish paleoanthropologist Juan Luis Arsuaga provides evidence for these types of encounters in his book, The Neanderthal's Necklace. The theory that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons occupied the same area of Europe at the same time in history has been theorized based on fossil evidence. Other researchers believe that they just refer to neighboring tribes. The problem with this theory is that neither Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons existed in this part of Europe during the ice-age. Most of Scandinavia was covered by a large glacier and the area was not occupied until much later.

A more plausible explanation for the troll myth, is that the trolls represent the remains of the forefather-cult which was ubiquitous in Scandinavia until the introduction of Christianity in the 10th and 11th centuries. In this cult the forefathers were worshipped in sacred groves, by altars or by gravemounds. One of the customs associated with this practice was to sit on top of a gravemound at night, possibly in order to make contact with the deceased. With the introduction of Christianity however, the religious elite sought to demonize the pagan cult, and denounced the forefathers as evil. For instance, according to Magnus Håkonsen's laws from 1276 it is illegal to attempt to wake the "mound-dwellers". It is in these laws that the word troll appears for the first time, denoting something heathen and generally unfavourable.

This fits with the trolls in Norse sagas who are often the restless dead, to be wrestled with or otherwise laid to rest.

Why did Europeans invent myths about trolls, fairies, giants, golems, leprechauns, willis, naiads, dryads, satyrs, Wild Men, amazons, elves, banshees, mandrakes etc. etc. etc. etc.? We know that none of these (and the thousands upon thousands of other similar ones) didn't exist: why shouldn't the Native Americans invent similarly mythical hominid creatures?

Actually, we don't know that. We don't have physical evidence that these creatures existed, or that they existed as the myth evolved through time after the original creature went extinct.

"Dragons" may be large lizards (like monitors) that handed down stories later made fly and breath fire. We just don't know.

I can attest that I never needed sasquatches, trolls, banshees, or any other "myths" to scare my children. The bears and my own punishments were scary enough.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And they might have been established as a result of creatures that are not out of the realm of possibility, we're sure existed at one time in some form, and we're just not sure if are still around.

Maybe. But we can not be sure if people would still remember such beasts (assuming they existed) say, 10K years later.

Of course they wouldn't. However, the original cave-fire talk of hairier races of hominids might evolve over 10,000 years of oral folklore into a creature that was quite different than the original Neanderthal, especially if the original Neanderthal is no longer around to compare it to..........

One of the things that annoy me in this reasoning is that megafauna was composed by a number of magnific large beasts. Why no myths on saber-toothed tigers or mammoths, for example?

Because we still have tigers and elephants.

Don't forget the "myths" of "half-man, half-beast" creatures coming out of Africa for 2,000 years that were finally put to rest in the 1850's.

These beasts probably would have had much more impact on the lives of those persons than the elusive sasquatches...

Elephants and tigers still do.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I am not referring to Gigantopithecus, which were, indeed, "giant" apes.

The available evidence cannot determine whether or not they were bipeds or quadrapeds.

Well, the guys who study it do not agree..

So it has been determined, by examining teeth and partial mandibles, that Gigantopithecus was quadraped? No examination of skull, hip, or spine is necessary?

Just how was that done?

[Yoink]

Who says that trolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll) were "invented"?:

Actually, we don't know that. We don't have physical evidence that these creatures existed, or that they existed as the myth evolved through time after the original creature went extinct.

"Dragons" may be large lizards (like monitors) that handed down stories later made fly and breath fire. We just don't know.

I can attest that I never needed sasquatches, trolls, banshees, or any other "myths" to scare my children. The bears and my own punishments were scary enough.


Ah ha, I see. Well...so long as we agree that Bigfoot is just as likely to exist (or have existed) as trolls, pixies, elves, fairies, leprechauns and satyrs, I guess we've got nothing to argue about.

(Backs away slowly.)

[Huntster]

Ah ha, I see. Well...so long as we agree that Bigfoot is just as likely to exist (or have existed) as trolls, pixies, elves, fairies, leprechauns and satyrs, I guess we've got nothing to argue about......

Hear of anybody lately claiming to see a troll, pixy, elf, fairy, leprechaun, or satyr?

Thousands of folks, even, over the past century?

See any footprints left by an elf, troll, pixy, fairy, leprechaun, or satyr?

Any films?

(Stands firm, waiting for lame answer...............)

[Yoink]

Hear of anybody lately claiming to see a troll, pixy, elf, fairy, leprechaun, or satyr?

Thousands of folks, even, over the past century?

See any footprints left by an elf, troll, pixy, fairy, leprechaun, or satyr?

Any films?

(Stands firm, waiting for lame answer...............)

Oh, there have been crazes of fairy sightings. There have even been fairy photographs--the Bigfoot footage of their day--that many hundreds of otherwise normal and rational people accepted as solid "evidence" for the existence of fairies. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies)for example.

But that silliness died away, eventually (although there are, apparently, still a few defenders of the faith out there).

Of course, nowadays nobody would be silly enough to believe in some mythical creature just because of some unsupported "eyewitness" accounts and some highly suspicious photographic "evidence."

[RayG]

Still haven't heard what the actual measurement of the Skookum cast 'arm' is.

Bueller?... Bueller?...

RayG

[Yoink]

Actually, it's interesting that the first recorded Bigfoot "sightings" occur around the same time as the Cottingly fairy photographs. It looks like "Bigfoot evidence" and "fairy evidence" are running roughly neck-and-neck.

And there's probably a good reason why we don't find any fairy tracks or scat: so they're one up on Bigfoot there. Maybe you should move to England, Huntster, and start hunting fairies? Although you may not want to say to the immigration guys as you arrive that the purpose of your visit is to "track down some fairies." It might give them the wrong idea.

[Huntster]

Oh, there have been crazes of fairy sightings. There have even been fairy photographs--the Bigfoot footage of their day--that many hundreds of otherwise normal and rational people accepted as solid "evidence" for the existence of fairies. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies)for example.

Yeah. The Cottingley Fairy photos is the classic, recurring response to that question.

Any other examples?

But that silliness died away, eventually (although there are, apparently, still a few defenders of the faith out there).

Really? Like who?

Of course, nowadays nobody would be silly enough to believe in some mythical creature just because of some unsupported "eyewitness" accounts and some highly suspicious photographic "evidence."

Of course not!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Huntster]

Actually, it's interesting that the first recorded Bigfoot "sightings" occur around the same time as the Cottingly fairy photographs....

Actually, it's interesting that reference to sasquatches occurred by Europeans in the New World over a century before the Cottingley Fairy photos.

It looks like "Bigfoot evidence" and "fairy evidence" are running roughly neck-and-neck.

Not even close. For example: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies)

The cousins remained evasive about the authenticity of the pictures for most of their lives, at times claiming they were forgeries, and at other times leaving it to the individual to decide.

Never, not even once, have Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin even hinted that their film footage was a hoax.

And there's probably a good reason why we don't find any fairy tracks or scat: so they're one up on Bigfoot there.

And what might that good reason be?

Maybe you should move to England, Huntster, and start hunting fairies?

No, thanks. I like it quite well right here in Alaska. Hell, I don't even want to go back to Amerika.

And I don't believe in fairies.

Although you may not want to say to the immigration guys as you arrive that the purpose of your visit is to "track down some fairies." It might give them the wrong idea.

It might.

And they might also say, "Good luck. Shoot straight. We need to get rid of a few of them around here."

[LTC8K6]

Those measurements strike me as pretty imprecise. I see no evidence there that the arm length can be determined with any accuracy.

Meldum is careless from the get go. He doesn't know that it's even an arm in the first place.

[Yoink]

Yeah. The Cottingley Fairy photos is the classic, recurring response to that question.

Any other examples?

Why do there have to be other examples? Doesn't one make the point?

Really? Like who?

Like this guy (http://www.cottingleyconnect.org.uk/fairies.htm), for one. Go to the "unanswered questions" link. You may find its reasoning eerily familiar.

Of course not!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Yes, I agree that this is very funny. And just a little bit sad.

[LTC8K6]

First you prove that it's an arm impression.

Next you show that it's unusual in length for a human.

Don't get them backwards.

[Yoink]

Actually, it's interesting that reference to sasquatches occurred by Europeans in the New World over a century before the Cottingley Fairy photos.

Got an indisputable example (i.e., a reference in a book actually published before 1900)?

Never, not even once, have Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin even hinted that their film footage was a hoax.

One of the girls died insisting that the photographs were real. Does that make it true now?

And what might that good reason be?

Because fairies live on sunbeams and pixie scat is indistinguishable from kitten sighs. I thought everyone knew that.

And I don't believe in fairies.

Why not? There's photos, and lots of witnesses. That seems to be enough for you with Bigfoot.

[FFed]

Hear of anybody lately claiming to see a troll, pixy, elf, fairy, leprechaun, or satyr?

Thousands of folks, even, over the past century?

See any footprints left by an elf, troll, pixy, fairy, leprechaun, or satyr?

Any films?

(Stands firm, waiting for lame answer...............)

Here are people claiming to see a leprechaun. Funny stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EFIFBxW-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3FQaTptj2M

[Yoink]

Here are people claiming to see a leprechaun. Funny stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EFIFBxW-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3FQaTptj2M

Wow. Hard to argue with evidence like that. I mean, it must have been something, right Hunster? I mean, that's dozens of witnesses, right there. And we certainly don't have any conclusive evidence that it wasn't a leprechaun. So...I guess we add leprechauns to the list of "possible undiscovered bipedal primates."

I think it's fairly evident that the leprechaun (australopithecus pattanmurfius leprechaunus) is a close relative of Bigfoot; they both show the same "camera attraction/avoidance" technique: drawn, apparently, to people with cameras, but immediately hiding as soon as one is trained directly at them.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yeah. The Cottingley Fairy photos is the classic, recurring response to that question.

Any other examples?

Why do there have to be other examples? Doesn't one make the point?

Not if you're comparing fairies to sasquatches. There are literally hundreds of hoaxed sasquatch photos out there, not to mention the one film that hasn't been established as a hoax.

Quote:
Really? Like who?

Like this guy, for one.

I read through the link. I didn't find where "this guy" states that he believed the photo subjects were real fairies.

Perhaps you can help me there?

Go to the "unanswered questions" link. You may find its reasoning eerily familiar.

Actually, no, I don't. What should I find familiar?

[Yoink]

Not if you're comparing fairies to sasquatches. There are literally hundreds of hoaxed sasquatch photos out there, not to mention the one film that hasn't been established as a hoax.

So...you're saying that the fact that there are a lot of hoaxes somehow adds credibility to the Bigfoot story? If there were more hoax fairy photos we'd be more likely to believe in fairies?

By the way, I'm sure it was oversight, but you forgot to give me that (published) pre-1900 account of Bigfoot.

[Yoink]

Actually, no, I don't. What should I find familiar?

The inability to realize that failure to disprove X in no way whatsoever lends weight to a belief in X.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, it's interesting that reference to sasquatches occurred by Europeans in the New World over a century before the Cottingley Fairy photos.

Got an indisputable example (i.e., a reference in a book actually published before 1900)?

Got a few. How about the year 1840 (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/walker.htm)?:

"Bear with me if I trouble you with a little of their superstitions. They believe in a race of giants, which inhabit a certain mountain off to the west of us. This mountain is covered with perpetual snow. They (the creatures) inhabit the snow peaks. They hunt and do all their work at night. They are men stealers.
They come to the people's lodges at night when the people are asleep and take them and put them under their skins and to their place of abode without even waking. Their track is a foot and a half long. They steal salmon from Indian nets and eat then raw as the bears do. If the people are awake, they always know when they are coming very near by their strong smell that is most intolerable. It is not uncommon for them to come in the night and give three whistles and then the stones will begin to hit their houses."

Earlier? How about 1811 (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1399)?

Quote:
Never, not even once, have Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin even hinted that their film footage was a hoax.

One of the girls died insisting that the photographs were real. Does that make it true now?

Nope.

Quote:
And what might that good reason be?

Because fairies live on sunbeams and pixie scat is indistinguishable from kitten sighs. I thought everyone knew that.

Nope. I never paid much attention to them, because I don't believe they exist.

Apparently, you're the authority on fairies and pixies.

Quote:
And I don't believe in fairies.

Why not? There's photos, and lots of witnesses. That seems to be enough for you with Bigfoot.

There are only one set of photos you can produce, those involved in the photographs have admitted that they were hoaxed, you've only produced them as witnesses, and no, that isn't enough for me with Bigfoot.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not if you're comparing fairies to sasquatches. There are literally hundreds of hoaxed sasquatch photos out there, not to mention the one film that hasn't been established as a hoax.

So...you're saying that the fact that there are a lot of hoaxes somehow adds credibility to the Bigfoot story?...

No, I'm saying that your comparison of the Bigfoot phenomenon to fairies with a single set of hoaxed fairy photos is a lame attempt to debunk sasquatchery.

If there were more hoax fairy photos we'd be more likely to believe in fairies?

We?

It wouldn't impress me, but you're free to believe whatever you please.

By the way, I'm sure it was oversight, but you forgot to give me that (published) pre-1900 account of Bigfoot..

Not an oversight. Just a little busy to be playing with you.

It has been delivered.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, no, I don't. What should I find familiar?
The inability to realize that failure to disprove X in no way whatsoever lends weight to a belief in X.

How very profound!

Does that now mean that the inability to prove "X" (even though there is evidence that "X" exists) mean that "X" cannot possibly exist?

[Yoink]

Got a few. How about the year 1840 (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/walker.htm)?:

Not published pre-1900. A link to a reputable site giving the text of this journal would be nice. What he describes (a beastie with distinctly predatory characteristics) in no way matches any of the modern claims about Bigfoot. Why adduce "giants who live on a mountain" as evidence of Bigfoot if the rest of the inconvenient testimony can be simply laid aside?


Earlier? How about 1811 (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1399)?.

Again: link to a reputable text? (I ask about reputable texts, by the way, not just to be pissy but because I tried googling some passages from the excerpts given in these links and found other Bigfoot enthusiast sites, but nothing else. Some attributed the quotations to "journals" some to "narratives" some to "letters" and they didn't give exactly the same wording.

This one, by the way, even if authentic, is even less helpful as testimony. Even in the form quoted the guy says he thinks it could be a very large bear with worn down claws.

If the question had been "did anyone ever find spoor they couldn't properly identify before 1900" I'd have been very confident that the answer would have been yes.

Apparently, you're the authority on fairies and pixies.

Please, "cryptopixologist."

There are only one set of photos you can produce, those involved in the photographs have admitted that they were hoaxed, you've only produced them as witnesses, and no, that isn't enough for me with Bigfoot.

You yourself say there's only one "film" of Bigfoot, and the only thing going for it is that no one has admitted to it being a hoax. If the girls had died before one of them confessed, would we now be required to believe in fairies?

[Yoink]

How very profound!

Does that now mean that the inability to prove "X" (even though there is evidence that "X" exists) mean that "X" cannot possibly exist?

No. I cannot prove that fairies cannot possibly exist. However, despite centuries of testimony to their existence, I'm comfortable in denying it. The fact that you think the question "can you prove that it doesn't exist?" is important tells me that you are suffering from precisely the error I described in my earlier post.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Got a few. How about the year 1840?:

Not published pre-1900. A link to a reputable site giving the text of this journal would be nice.

I see. We're going to play that game, huh?

The Walker Library (http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/holland/masc/walkerdescription.html) is extensive.

Okay. It will take some time.

Then beware. This road travels both ways.

What he describes (a beastie with distinctly predatory characteristics) in no way matches any of the modern claims about Bigfoot.

Now comes the traffic in the other direction. You made that claim.

Substantiate it.

Quote:
Earlier? How about 1811?

Again: link to a reputable text? (I ask about reputable texts, by the way, not just to be pissy but because I tried googling some passages from the excerpts given in these links and found other Bigfoot enthusiast sites, but nothing else.

Did you spell correctly?

I had no problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thompson_(explorer))

Some attributed the quotations to "journals" some to "narratives" some to "letters" and they didn't give exactly the same wording.

As the BFRO site clearly stated, Thompson wrote of the incident more than once.

This one, by the way, even if authentic, is even less helpful as testimony. Even in the form quoted the guy says he thinks it could be a very large bear with worn down claws.

And he also wrote that his Native guides disagreed, and that he clearly indicated "Monster Bear".

Quote:
There are only one set of photos you can produce, those involved in the photographs have admitted that they were hoaxed, you've only produced them as witnesses, and no, that isn't enough for me with Bigfoot.

You yourself say there's only one "film" of Bigfoot, and the only thing going for it is that no one has admitted to it being a hoax.

No, I didn't. I stated that it is the one that hasn't been shown to be a hoax. There are many other hoaxed films.

If the girls had died before one of them confessed, would we now be required to believe in fairies?

I'm certainly not, but (like I wrote) you're free to believe whatever you wish.

[Correa Neto]

Of course they wouldn't. However, the original cave-fire talk of hairier races of hominids might evolve over 10,000 years of oral folklore into a creature that was quite different than the original Neanderthal, especially if the original Neanderthal is no longer around to compare it to..........[?QUOTE]

Is there any evidence neandethals were hairer and/or taller than we are?

[QUOTE=Huntster;1886536]Because we still have tigers and elephants.
In North America?

And using the reasoning you presented above, don't you think saber-toothed tigers (that by the way were related to jaguars, an not tigers) could trigger the same cultural phenomena? They were much more impressive than cougars, imagine the mythical beasts that would be created using them as a template.

Giant terrestrial sloths also have no current equivalent. Not enough impressive?

Don't forget the "myths" of "half-man, half-beast" creatures coming out of Africa for 2,000 years that were finally put to rest in the 1850's.[QUOTE]
All African "manimal" myths are based on gorillas?

[[QUOTE=Huntster;1886536]So it has been determined, by examining teeth and partial mandibles, that Gigantopithecus was quadraped? No examination of skull, hip, or spine is necessary?

Just how was that done?
Simple.
The most similar and closely related animal is the orang-utang. Then...

Oh, note you are disagreeing with a famous bigfoot researcher. Here's something we agree with, LOL.

[Huntster]

Of course they wouldn't. However, the original cave-fire talk of hairier races of hominids might evolve over 10,000 years of oral folklore into a creature that was quite different than the original Neanderthal, especially if the original Neanderthal is no longer around to compare it to..........

Is there any evidence neandethals were hairer and/or taller than we are?

Nope. However (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal):

Neanderthals had many adaptations to a cold climate, such as large braincases, short but robust builds, and large noses — traits selected by nature in cold climates, as observed in modern sub-arctic populations. Their brain sizes have been estimated as larger than modern humans. On average, Neanderthal males stood about 1.65m tall (just under 5' 5") and were heavily built, and muscular due to their physical activity and robust bone structure. Females were about 1.53 to 1.57m tall (about 5'-5'2").

Originally Posted by Huntster
Because we still have tigers and elephants.

In North America?

Nope.

And humans were arriving in the North America when the last saber toothed cats and hairy proboscidea were dying out.

But..............you knew that, didn't you?

And using the reasoning you presented above, don't you think saber-toothed tigers (that by the way were related to jaguars, an not tigers) could trigger the same cultural phenomena? They were much more impressive than cougars, imagine the mythical beasts that would be created using them as a template.

Sure enough, huh?

But, at least with the Natives of Alaska today, their totems and spiritual ties to animals only refer to animals that are alive today.

Their totems and religion include, specifically, sasquatches.

Reference. (http://www.amazon.com/Make-Prayers-Raven/dp/0226571637/sr=1-12/qid=1156994117/ref=sr_1_12/103-0267905-5995062?ie=UTF8&s=books) Discussion. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8881&hl=lore)

Funny how that works out, huh?

Giant terrestrial sloths also have no current equivalent. Not enough impressive?

No current mention of giant sloths among native peoples that I know of. They are also "reasoned" to become extinct in the Americas around 10,000 years ago; right around the time man "is thought" to have arrived.

Now, do you want "proof" of those dates?

Ask your fellow scientists. That's where all these dates come from.

Don't forget the "myths" of "half-man, half-beast" creatures coming out of Africa for 2,000 years that were finally put to rest in the 1850's.
All African "manimal" myths are based on gorillas?

Nope. But before 1850, though, all "manimal" "myths" were rejected by your beloved "scientists." Only after an adventurer brought out the first carcass of a gorilla did science get dragged to the table (and here in the U.S., they still resisted for years).


Originally Posted by Huntster
So it has been determined, by examining teeth and partial mandibles, that Gigantopithecus was quadraped? No examination of skull, hip, or spine is necessary?

Just how was that done?

Simple.
The most similar and closely related animal is the orang-utang. Then...

So, the determination wasn't made based on the actual evidence, but on what "the most similar and closely related animal" is like, even though that "most similar and closely related animal" is 1/3 the size of the questioned beast?

Oh, note you are disagreeing with a famous bigfoot researcher. Here's something we agree with, LOL.

I'm not "disagreeing with a famous bigfoot researcher." I'm stating facts.

You?

[Correa Neto]

Nope. However (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal):

Are you suggesting they had more hairs than we do as an adaptation to the cold?

There are some (circunstantial) evidence that hey used clothes, what would not be an indication of neanderthals having more hairs than we do. It is nowdays known their looks were not that different from ours - wearing modern clothes one could pass by you right now and you would not note any major difference. Also, as your quote shows, they were not tall, thus they can hardly be the source of any legend of giant hairy man-like beings wandering in the woods.

Nope.

And humans were arriving in the North America when the last saber toothed cats and hairy proboscidea were dying out.

But..............you knew that, didn't you?

Incorrect. Humans cohexisted with the megafauna for some millenia in North America. The Clovis people (the ancestors of Native Americans) actively hunted mammoths. Some suppose they contributed to the extinction of the species. The overlap between man and megafauna in the Americas may have been something between 3Ky or 5Ky.

Sure enough, huh?

But, at least with the Natives of Alaska today, their totems and spiritual ties to animals only refer to animals that are alive today.

Their totems and religion include, specifically, sasquatches.

Reference. (http://www.amazon.com/Make-Prayers-Raven/dp/0226571637/sr=1-12/qid=1156994117/ref=sr_1_12/103-0267905-5995062?ie=UTF8&s=books) Discussion. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8881&hl=lore)

Funny how that works out, huh?

Huntster, we are focusing the discussion on the point if the preservation of memory of extinct beasts as myths is or not likely. If their tradition is based just on currently existing animals, then it can be seen as a hint it is not.

Now, are you interested in moving on and discuss the possibility of the current Native American myths of "sasquatch" being based on a real animal that exists nowdays?

That would be a different topic, with different pro and con arguments.

No current mention of giant sloths among native peoples that I know of. They are also "reasoned" to become extinct in the Americas around 10,000 years ago; right around the time man "is thought" to have arrived.

Now, do you want "proof" of those dates?

Ask your fellow scientists. That's where all these dates come from.

I am quite well aware of the methodology, since I am a geologist. You could say that in a certain way I am one of them.

As I wrote before, the overlap between the Clovis people and megafauna may have been something between 3K and 5K years. Not to mention that there are evidence of an earlier population, but the chances of cultural continuity between both people are very low.

Nope. But before 1850, though, all "manimal" "myths" were rejected by your beloved "scientists." Only after an adventurer brought out the first carcass of a gorilla did science get dragged to the table (and here in the U.S., they still resisted for years).

Might I ask you to tone down the hostility?

So, the determination wasn't made based on the actual evidence, but on what "the most similar and closely related animal" is like, even though that "most similar and closely related animal" is 1/3 the size of the questioned beast?

You have any better option than say it could have been bipedal because a mythical beast is supposed to be bipedal?

I'm not "disagreeing with a famous bigfoot researcher." I'm stating facts.

You?

The facts you stated are in disagreement with Krantz's interpretation that Gigantopithecus's teeth indicate bipedalism.

What am I doing?

I am trying to maintain a polite discussion with someone who has a diferent point of view. I am exposing my reasoning and the evidence I use to back it.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope. However:

Are you suggesting they had more hairs than we do as an adaptation to the cold?

I'm stating that more hair/fur is a biological reality for cold climate terrestrial mammals.

Is it not?

There are some (circunstantial) evidence that hey used clothes, what would not be an indication of neanderthals having more hairs than we do.

Utilizing clothing/tools is also the hallmark of humanity, as opposed to mastadons/elephants.

Obviously, if you subscribe to Darwin's theories, as man evolved into a reasoning/thinking creature, his reliance on fur diminished as he clothed himself. Neanderthal wasn't "created" naked, then clothed himself with fur, did he?

It is nowdays known their looks were not that different from ours - wearing modern clothes one could pass by you right now and you would not note any major difference.

Unless he was extremely hairy, which can't be known from the fossil record. His skeletal evidence demonstrates that some modern people are built like they were, but humans are built in many, many ways, aren't they?

Also, as your quote shows, they were not tall, thus they can hardly be the source of any legend of giant hairy man-like beings wandering in the woods.

Asian "sasquatch" reports don't refer to creatures as tall as the Pacific Northwest. Almas aren't reported to be any taller than men.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope.

And humans were arriving in the North America when the last saber toothed cats and hairy proboscidea were dying out.

But..............you knew that, didn't you?

Incorrect. Humans cohexisted with the megafauna for some millenia in North America. The Clovis people (the ancestors of Native Americans) actively hunted mammoths. Some suppose they contributed to the extinction of the species. The overlap between man and megafauna in the Americas may have been something between 3Ky or 5Ky.

That is current theory. The overlap is now considered approximately 3,000 years.

Please provide a citation for the evidence of that claim.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sure enough, huh?

But, at least with the Natives of Alaska today, their totems and spiritual ties to animals only refer to animals that are alive today.

Their totems and religion include, specifically, sasquatches.

Reference. Discussion.

Funny how that works out, huh?

Huntster, we are focusing the discussion on the point if the preservation of memory of extinct beasts as myths is or not likely. If their tradition is based just on currently existing animals, then it can be seen as a hint it is not.

I'm focused on the possibility that these creatures exist or existed recently. You are focused on the likelihood that they do not.

We're presently dancing around the definition and origins of myths. I'm pointing out that traditional Native American myths, especially in the region most noted for sasquatch sightings and evidence, don't include such myths as dragons, trolls, or others brought to the Americas, but that sasquatches are an integral part of their culture, and that PNW totems include no creatures that do not presently exist (nor do they include such creatures as saber toothed cats or mastadons which existed as recently as 10,000 years ago, are still found intact in glaciers, and which you claim they even hunted to extinction).

Now, are you interested in moving on and discuss the possibility of the current Native American myths of "sasquatch" being based on a real animal that exists nowdays?

That is exactly what I wish to discuss.

That would be a different topic, with different pro and con arguments.

That is part and parcel of the possibility that sasquatches exist or recently existed in the North American PNW.

Originally Posted by Huntster
No current mention of giant sloths among native peoples that I know of. They are also "reasoned" to become extinct in the Americas around 10,000 years ago; right around the time man "is thought" to have arrived.

Now, do you want "proof" of those dates?

Ask your fellow scientists. That's where all these dates come from.

I am quite well aware of the methodology, since I am a geologist. You could say that in a certain way I am one of them.

As I wrote before, the overlap between the Clovis people and megafauna may have been something between 3K and 5K years. Not to mention that there are evidence of an earlier population, but the chances of cultural continuity between both people are very low.

Thus the lack of myths regarding species that went extinct prior to 10,000 years ago.

So why do Haida have totems with sasquatch faces on them?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope. But before 1850, though, all "manimal" "myths" were rejected by your beloved "scientists." Only after an adventurer brought out the first carcass of a gorilla did science get dragged to the table (and here in the U.S., they still resisted for years).

Might I ask you to tone down the hostility?

So now we're back to "hostility"?

Please point out my specific hostile words.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, the determination wasn't made based on the actual evidence, but on what "the most similar and closely related animal" is like, even though that "most similar and closely related animal" is 1/3 the size of the questioned beast?

You have any better option than say it could have been bipedal because a mythical beast is supposed to be bipedal?

Yes. I'd say that the mode of locomotion for the Gigantopithecus is not known because there is no way to determine that from the only known fossils, which are teeth and partial mandibles.


Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm not "disagreeing with a famous bigfoot researcher." I'm stating facts.

You?

The facts you stated are in disagreement with Krantz's interpretation that Gigantopithecus's teeth indicate bipedalism.

So?

[Correa Neto]

I'm stating that more hair/fur is a biological reality for cold climate terrestrial mammals.

Is it not?
...snip...

Do you think neanderthals had much more body hairs than we?

Do you think neanderthals may have been a template for myths such as sasquatch or not?

I say no, given their similarity with modern humans.

If you disagree, then please tell why.

Asian "sasquatch" reports don't refer to creatures as tall as the Pacific Northwest. Almas aren't reported to be any taller than men.

Neanderthals were restricted to Europe and parts of the wstern Asia. Better look for another template for these mythical beings if they are not within this geographic range.

That is current theory. The overlap is now considered approximately 3,000 years.

Please provide a citation for the evidence of that claim.

See below.

I'm focused on the possibility that these creatures exist or existed recently. You are focused on the likelihood that they do not.

We're presently dancing around the definition and origins of myths. I'm pointing out that traditional Native American myths, especially in the region most noted for sasquatch sightings and evidence, don't include such myths as dragons, trolls, or others brought to the Americas, but that sasquatches are an integral part of their culture, and that PNW totems include no creatures that do not presently exist (nor do they include such creatures as saber toothed cats or mastadons which existed as recently as 10,000 years ago, are still found intact in glaciers, and which you claim they even hunted to extinction).

Well, Huntster, lets be precise here. I have not claimed the Clovis people hunted mammoths or mastodons to extinction. I wrote:
Some suppose they contributed to the extinction of the species. The overlap between man and megafauna in the Americas may have been something between 3Ky or 5Ky.
Care to correct your statement?

Easy info on the Clovis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

Easy info on the overhunt theory:
http://www.exn.ca/mammoth/extinction-overkill.cfm

http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec04/b65lec04.htm
Researchers with another POV:
http://www.smu.edu/anthro/faculty/dMeltzer/pdf%20files/JWP_2002_Clovis_hunting.pdf

More pro and con people:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Clovis%20mammoth%20extinction%20simulati on%20Mithen&hl=pt-BR&lr=&oi=scholart

Understood?

So why do Haida have totems with sasquatch faces on them?
Why shouldn't they have? The myth is part of their culture.
However, to interpretate their myth according to another background is questionable. And this is the point, isn't it? There are other options than a real creature.

So now we're back to "hostility"?

Please point out my specific hostile words.

Well, the your beloved "scientists." , for example, seems to be the old hostility starting to surface again. I hope I am wrong, however.

Can we try to avoid this?

Yes. I'd say that the mode of locomotion for the Gigantopithecus is not known because there is no way to determine that from the only known fossils, which are teeth and partial mandibles.

You are free to say so. But you can't ignore the fact that based onthe avaliable evidence, they most likely were not.

So?

Their interpretations are not flawless.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm stating that more hair/fur is a biological reality for cold climate terrestrial mammals.

Is it not?
...snip...

Do you think neanderthals had much more body hairs than we?

Yes, I think they did.

Do you think neanderthals may have been a template for myths such as sasquatch or not?

Yes, I think neanderthals may have been the template for myths of trolls, almas, and possibly other Eurasian myths, and certainly may have been the template for the catchall myths of brutish, crude, bipedal, sub-human "boogiemen".

I don't think they are the template for North American sasquatches.

I say no, given their similarity with modern humans.

If you disagree, then please tell why.

I neither agree nor disagree. I don't know.

I say it's possible.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Asian "sasquatch" reports don't refer to creatures as tall as the Pacific Northwest. Almas aren't reported to be any taller than men.

Neanderthals were restricted to Europe and parts of the wstern Asia. Better look for another template for these mythical beings if they are not within this geographic range.

Okay. If you wish such discipline, than drop the almas reference.

Europe has plenty of myths of sub-human, bipedal boogermen.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm focused on the possibility that these creatures exist or existed recently. You are focused on the likelihood that they do not.

We're presently dancing around the definition and origins of myths. I'm pointing out that traditional Native American myths, especially in the region most noted for sasquatch sightings and evidence, don't include such myths as dragons, trolls, or others brought to the Americas, but that sasquatches are an integral part of their culture, and that PNW totems include no creatures that do not presently exist (nor do they include such creatures as saber toothed cats or mastadons which existed as recently as 10,000 years ago, are still found intact in glaciers, and which you claim they even hunted to extinction).


Well, Huntster, lets be precise here. I have not claimed the Clovis people hunted mammoths or mastodons to extinction. I wrote:

Quote:
Some suppose they contributed to the extinction of the species. The overlap between man and megafauna in the Americas may have been something between 3Ky or 5Ky.

Care to correct your statement?

Correct which statement?

Easy info on the Clovis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

Easy info on the overhunt theory:
http://www.exn.ca/mammoth/extinction-overkill.cfm

http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio6...4/b65lec04.htm
Researchers with another POV:
http://www.smu.edu/anthro/faculty/dM...is_hunting.pdf

More pro and con people:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&oi=scholart

Understood?

I will address Clovis and the overhunting theories later, if the myth generation/template derail continues.............

Originally Posted by Huntster
So why do Haida have totems with sasquatch faces on them?

Why shouldn't they have? The myth is part of their culture.
However, to interpretate their myth according to another background is questionable. And this is the point, isn't it? There are other options than a real creature.

That's the point; the myth theory isn't whole.

Why do Haida have totems with sasquatches and do not have any totems, reference, traditional background, or any mention whatsoever with dragons? Dragons are a cultural icon in Europe, all through Asia, and even Central America. Why didn't the dragon myth include the North American Pacific Northwest, but the sasquatch myth did (and so very prominently)?

After all, humanity moved through the PNW before reaching Central America, did it not?

Originally Posted by Huntster
So now we're back to "hostility"?

Please point out my specific hostile words.

Well, the
Quote:
your beloved "scientists."

, for example, seems to be the old hostility starting to surface again. I hope I am wrong, however.

Can we try to avoid this?

Is a challenge toward the inaction and entrenchment of science and scientists with regard to this phenomenon with such words hostile?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yes. I'd say that the mode of locomotion for the Gigantopithecus is not known because there is no way to determine that from the only known fossils, which are teeth and partial mandibles.

You are free to say so. But you can't ignore the fact that based on the avaliable evidence, they most likely were not.

That is incorrect. Based on the available evidence, there is no way to determine the mode of Gigantopithecus' locomotion.

If you disagree, please provide some evidence. As a scientist, that shouldn't be difficult for you.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So?

Their interpretations are not flawless.

Bravo for that observation!

I'd like to point out that our interpretations are not flawless, either.

So, Krantz opined that Gigantopithecus was bipedal. You appear to opine that Gigantopithecus was a quadraped.

I opine that the mode of locomotion cannot be determined by the available evidence.

There is no other option, unless someone wishes to opine that Gigantopithecus traveled on either one leg or three.

Who is correct?

[Yoink]

I see. We're going to play that game, huh?

Yes, the game I am playing is the "I want to know that the evidence is sound" game. It's a fun game. You should try learning the rules.

Now comes the traffic in the other direction. You made that claim.

Substantiate it.

Just to remind you, you're referring here to my claim that the behaviour described in the Walker diary (or letter, or narrative--depending on which site you consult) is inconsistent with claims made about Bigfoot. In the passage you referred me to here is what these putative "Bigfoots" are described as doing:

"They come to the people's lodges at night when the people are asleep and take them and put them under their skins and to their place of abode without even waking."

You have consistently accounted for the absence of concrete evidence of Bigfoot by hypothesizing that Bigfoot as extremely shy and wary. Here, though, you offer me evidence of a predatory beast who actually barges in to human habitations and makes off with its victims. Can you really imagine that such an animal would have remained unknown all this time?

Did you spell correctly?

Try googling the phrase "track is a foot and a half long" from the Walker extract you gave me. You'll find that you get two sites, each quoting the same characteristic, but each locating the phrase within different sentence structures of supposedly different works by Walker. This is why I asked for a more scholarly version of the text.

I had no problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thompson_%28explorer%29)

No, that simply tells me that this person did exist. It doesn't give me the text of the passage in a scholarly, non "Bigfoot enthusiast" context. The Wikipedia entry does, though, mention that Bigfoot enthusiasts are keen on Thompson's account of some unidentified tracks that he found. You may yourself have noticed, though, that the Wikipedia entry agrees with me that his description is useless for Bigfoot purposes. Unless you hypothesize that Bigfoot occasionally grows claws on his four toes, and then sheds them, Thompson clearly wasn't describing Bigfoot tracks.

So Thompson is "evidence" for you simply because he found some tracks of a surprisingly large bear? Or do you feel that it is justifiable to assume away every part of his account that doesn't fit with Bigfoot but keep the "unidentifiable track" part because it props up the fantasy?

And he also wrote that his Native guides disagreed, and that he clearly indicated "Monster Bear".

And Bigfoot is a monster bear? I think you'll find that a lot of people would be willing to agree with that proposition: hunter's in bad light see a very large bear on its hind legs and spin this into a Bigfoot sighting. Yep, that sounds very believable.

No, I didn't. I stated that it is the one that hasn't been shown to be a hoax. There are many other hoaxed films.

I'm still not seeing how the fact that there are many hoaxed films supports your case. Surely the fact that there are many hoaxed accounts of Bigfoot sheds doubt over every account? We know that people have an incentive to lie: the very fact that so many have been caught lying proves that.

I'm certainly not, but (like I wrote) you're free to believe whatever you wish.

Yes, we're all free to believe what we wish. However, we're also all free to choose to believe things that we actually have some evidence for.

[kitakaze]

Just a thought but while we're on the hairy monster men myth origin topic it seems to me that were the template based on an external rather than psychological construct it is not totally necessary for a single species to be involved. With our collective flare for the dramatic we have often taken rather unrelated creatures and inferred a level of humanity on them. Huntster has already made a good point of how gorillas were considered wild men. I'm pretty sure orangutans and bears have fallen in that category. How 'bout the rug-chested, mono-browed guys on the other side of the valley? I guess the point being that we're pretty imaginative and it doesn't take much to make monster men and we seem to enjoy having them. On the other hand what we call bigfeet or sasquatch (not a native word) may have been a contributor and I do think Huntster has a point in bring up the fact that native peoples of the PNW (Haida, etc.) portrayed in their totems only animals that they were familiar with. I guess that begs the question of where thunderbirds fit in.:confused: