Bigfoot_ The Skookum Cast

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

[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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

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.

Quote:

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!)

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

...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]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

...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]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

....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]

Originally Posted by Huntster

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.....

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]

Originally Posted by RayG

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]

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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

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]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

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?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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 RayG

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by RayG

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]

Originally Posted by Huntster

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]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

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]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

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

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

I got caught biologizing once...

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

[Hellbound]

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).

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]

Originally Posted by RayG

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]

Originally Posted by Huntster

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 Huntsman

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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]

Originally Posted by Huntster

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 ...