That's about it spe, the people that earned those degrees deserve them, they don't just hand them out on the corner.

Mel, I have no idea where Meldrum came into the conversation.


You are talking about two entirely different things. There is a huge difference between earning a Doctorate and pretending that you deserve respect because you add some dopey title to the end of you signature that you didn't earn other than starting a local Bigfoot group or having your friends elect you to some position.
I think it's pretentious but that's just me. It's just one more goofy thing in a field that most people look at as goofy anyway.
Yes I want science involved but what does science have to do with;
Joe Blow
Founding member and Sergeant at Arms of the Northwest Bigfoot Buddy Club
?


It wasn't until you brought it up; I hope it doesn't go any further than that either.


When did Jane Goodall become an expert on Chimpanzee's, or Dian Fosse on gorillas? Where did I say anything about "expert" anyway? There are plenty of people that view themselves as experts because they say they saw one or by the amount of time they spend in the field or whatever but my point is that there are no experts on sasquatch on the whole as a biological entity no matter how they view themselves.


Then nothing should ever be discussed about sasquatch because nothing is for sure, is it?
Let's look at a couple of recent disclosures.
The Skookum Cast:
This is from the BFRO website describing how the parties that found the impression decided it was a sasquatch that made it.

Here is Pete Travers' sketch resulting from that conclusion.

Zoom forward to July 10th of this year. DesertYeti posts his theory on how it was an elk responsible for the impression based on a replica of the cast on display in Texas. He wasn't the first to theorize this but he was the first to post a detailed study on the BFF.
On July 18th Colubus started another thread in support of the sasquatch theory, but with a twist...there is a new explanation as to how the sasquatch was positioned in order to make the impression because "the evidence in the impression does not support the idea of a side laying sasquatch reaching for fruit as depicted initially."
How many people knew this prior to this disclosure? But how many people believed it to be a sasquatch impression based on the original theory that is now discounted? Why did they believe it? Because of who presented said it and said it was a sasquatch. It couldn't be the initial data because evidently that is wrong.
How long did they know this and how long where we going to be led to believe that the initial data was valid?
If it was important enough to answer DY's analysis then why wasn't it important enough to reveal earlier?

Now I ask myself, Why should I continue to consider that it's possible that this impression was made by a sasquatch? They were evidently wrong in the scenario that led them to believe it was a sasquatch in the first place when they cast it and now it looks like (and I'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything) that someone is trying to fit a sasquatch into the impression because the first theory was wrong. Isn't that backwards?

The Memorial Day footage;
There is a lot of discussion concerning the validity of this film and the anomaly (the "growth") at the end. All the debate is based on what was made visible on S:LMS. I don't think anyone was foolish enough to think that we saw the entire video but we were led to believe that what we saw on LMS was all that was pertinent.
Then we get a report on Larry Lund's presentation in Ohio raising questions about who was there and how reliable the testimony of the Pate's was based on an unedited version of the tape. Of course the messenger was shot and people still believed what they wanted to based on what they saw on LMS and how it was interpreted by the presenters. Then DTK announces that he has the unedited version and mentions another possible witness. This sparks new debate and we learn that there is more to the video than we saw on LMS but the time restaints prevented them from being shown on the program. One of these revelations was provided by Rick Noll when he says;

A future sure, but why hold that back? It doesn't sound like a maybe thing he says "clearly". Isn't that pertinent? Is there anything else?
Like I said elsewhere, we've been debating the PGF for almost 40 years because things were handled poorly then. What's the point of being so secretive?

Back to your question, would I openly discuss a potential piece of evidence I had before having my ducks in a row? I guess it depends but probably not unless I was looking for input. It seems odd that it required an impetus to reveal these things I mentioned above when it was pretty obvious that they were more than prepared to discuss it proir to the impetus. Why does it bother me? Because I can't intelligently argue for or against any piece of evidence if I don't have the facts others do. It just seems these things are only being revealed when things start going a little south.

But this is not the topic of this thread and neither is whether we want science involved, of course we do, I’m just worried that there won’t be room enough for science and the truth with all the pseudo-scientists and self promoters around.

Simple... because despite the fact that DY did the work, did the research, asked the questions, and came up with an extremely valid conclusion using methods that everyone screams about everyone else not using (i.e. "scientific", "testable,", "quantifiable")... his conclusions didn't support the popular theory and therefore just aren't acceptable. Someone else's guesswork is much more preferable when it supports one's hopes. Sad.

(I'd hoped that thread would swing in a positive direction but apparently it hasn't, huh? I haven't looked in a couple weeks. Sorry, don't wanna get too off topic, no need for an answer! )

Simply and eloquently said and right on the money.

I really enjoyed the reading BlackDog - but you didnt answer my question.

Does a someone calling themselves something in a signature - take away from your or anyone elses research? What does it change?? Does it make the research any more credible?

And your wrong - some of us do pay attention to the people in charge of these Organizations. I researched the BFRO heavily when I was attempting to make up my mind which organization I wanted to be apart of. I researched the BFRO - not because I thought they were (as MM said) the "only scientific organization" - but because I wanted to know if the head of this group was credible - and if his statements were credible as well. I found out that was NOT the case, and moved on. So, for some of us - it does matter. Sometimes the Title doesnt show who is credible - but does show who is NOT credible by use of the words.

I am not going to even attempt to speak to why Colobus or Rick Noll just recently began to discuss these new opinions in relation to the skookum cast - why you ask, I am not Colobus or Rick Noll. I will say this however. I will except the years of work done by Colobus and Rick Noll - over the few hours of research done by DY. I actually find it incredible few are questioning this bit of truth.

Simple truth is this.. The majority of the time, science does not even discuss research or the product of research until ALL work is complete, which is a good guess for why Colobus didnt post this information sooner. I personally applaud him for that. I guess it boils down to this - which would you rather - have all the information to read and make your own determination at once, or piece by piece with all the changes along the way, so you can be confused as to what the actual findings are when its all over.. ??

Quote Blackdog:



Please BD - do not tell me you would not want to defend a potential piece of evidence or work you have been doing over the course of years.. Frankly I would say DY was asking for a response by Colobus or Rick Noll - heck he said as much in his first post. Becareful what you wish for.

Here in this one sentence you say - you wouldnt come right out and discuss something you felt was good solid evidence -- yet you question Colobus and Rick Noll for doing what you say, you would do yourself.

Often I am confused by what people really want. Do you want information that is as factual as possible, based on years of research -- or a quick glance and a determination based on copies and pictures?? I know what my answer is.

But I would appreciate you answering the original question

Pardon my brief response - I am not well today

Stacy - you are aware that DY's "Research" was based on an Artists representation of the casts - and not the Originals - and pictures from the internet right? DY never examined the Originals.. That would be "Scientific Examination".

This is where I get confused.. We expect complete work from one group of people in regards to evidence, yet accept a lower standard from someone else?? DY's work was less than scientific -- yes, he did ask for an outside opinion.. To base an opinion on a picture - and after being told what his options were... That is not an unbiased opinion by any stretch of the imagination..

But - that is my opinion.

And I totally get where you're coming from Mel, I really do... it was the reaction from those involved, which I totally expected, that I was talking about. I know you were pretty heavily involved in the thread the last time I looked at it, but rest assured, it was not you (or anyone else not directly involved with the cast itself) asking questions that I meant. Questions SHOULD be asked, methods should be double-checked. Anyway we're totally off-topic here and if I did want to argue about it (which I don't), I'd do it over there (which for my own well-being, I won't).

I agree Stacy - I really dont want to argue this either - lmao. Its not a fight I have a dog in. I jumped out of that discussion over there - for my own piece of mind

Was that the question?
I'm confused what you are asking I guess. Anyone can call themselves anything they want to but it is pretentious, I said that before. That's my opinion and it means nothing more than that. It turns me off and makes me think that they are more concerned about their image than the work they do.
Let me ask you something, does bragging about a persons affiliations in their personal signature (not a forum signature line but their signing at the bottom of their post) and their position in a bigfoot organization make their work any more credible? It seems that's the goal.

Wrong about what? I never said no one paid attention, I thought I said the minority aren't impressed. I'm interested in who is in charge to a point, but Jees Louise who gives a crap? Only those that are impressed, and by the posts I see defending evidence only by who presents it that seems to be the majority. So evidently a lot of people care.

Which piece of work on the Skookum Cast are you accepting? The original where they made up their mind by looking at the impression on site that a bigfoot made the impression that they published on the BFRO website and elsewhere or the one where they decided that the original scenario didn't work and had to determine another one for a bigfoot to fit the impression?


So Colobus determined the new scenario just previous to DY posting his theory? I find that extremely coincidental, maybe it is but it just seems odd. The initial results were posted years ago, I thought they were done, was I wrong for thinking that? Wasn't the work complete back then? Why was everyone led to believe that the initial findings were correct? All the debates surrounding the Skookum cast were based off of the bad data of the initial findings until July 18th of this year and no one bothered to interject until someone made a reasonable argument refuting the original determination.


I'd rather know it all, who wouldn't? Evidently the Skookum Cast report was released way too soon considering the new theory just being released, so if I wasn't so skeptical (OMG there's that nasty word) I would be confused, but now I'm just more skeptical of it.


Yes he did ask for a response, that's what it's all about. He wasn't slaughtered by Rick or Owen, neither one of them defended the original analysis, Colobus just presented a new one.
Would I defend a piece of work that I had been doing for years? Yes, but I would make sure I thought I was right, there is a change of reasoning by Colobus, it isn't the original analysis.


No I didn't, I said it depended on if I was seeking input. It wasn't as black and white as you say. I guess it would be a little embarrassing to stick to one theory for so long and then figure out it doesn't work, I can't honestly answer what I would do, I'm not a scientist.
But I still hold onto the right to be a skeptical of their findings if the pieces of the puzzle are re-cut to make them fit into a conclusion that appears to be wrong in the first place.


It appears that the original determination about the Skookum Cast was made by a quick determination and not years of research proving it correct. Show me otherwise and we'll agree.


I forget...what was it again?




I think if we're going to continue this conversation we should probably start a new thread, this is getting way off topic and someone might want to discuss the original topic.
Let me know and I'll be happy to start one, it's nice to be able to voice my opinion without being accused of being Dr. Evil.

Well, it may be pretensious to you - its all a matter of perception.. Period. I see no hidden agenda. That is my perception. I see no reason to say someone is wrong or bad because of how you or I feel about what they have opted to put in their signature line. So, going by how this is shaping up - before long, should someone decide to quote me, or even you - will that be intrepreted as butt kissing? I dont see where it ends. Also, whether or not someone chooses to advertise their position within an organization of ANY KIND says nothing other than they are proud of the work they do, and they want everyone to know where "the buck stops". That to me shows responsibility within the organization, or at least the attempt to be responsible.





Ok, then if you care in the minimum - how do you find out who is in charge if the person who is in charge doesnt put it out?? I dont understand how that information becomes available. And by the way - I could care less about someone's credentials - if ANYONE puts out a good strong arguement for why they feel a specific way, based in logic and with a good scientific explanation -- I would back that person in a heartbeat - regardless of their affiliation. I am after the truth. (Yes, I know you did not mean that directed at me personally - just wanted to throw that out there).





Near as I can tell BD - the only thing that has changed in the opinion about the skookum cast is the position of the animal lay.. Thats about all I can find thats different.. But -- before someone starts to list any and all differences between the first and most current release of information -- I AM NOT A SCIENTIST AND I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANIMALS Im really - actually very surprised, that anyone would think the evaluation of this cast would stop.. Why would evaluation end until something definitive can be determined? Thats all part of this - the ongoing mystery - whatelse can be learned or discovered within EVERY piece of potential evidence. Geesh BD - we have researchers going over the details in the Onion Mountain Cast - and that is far older than the Skookum Cast.. While I may not agree in total with the evaluation - I applaud the work and the fact that someone thinks its important enough to look into and test claims that have been made. Potential evidence should not be studied for a year or two then - simply stop.. It should be an ongoing evaluation - leave no stone unturned so to speak. Only walk away when no futher information can be gained. Thats what this is all about, at least in my opinion.





Are you suggesting Colobus threw all this information together just to discredit DY? Please, I am sure he has much better things to do. Given the completeness and the through way in which he presented the information, I would venture to say he has been putting this together for quite sometime - but once again, I am in no position to speak for Colobus - and I do not pretend to.





I honestly cant respond to that - I was not in charge of that, and not sure what the factors were in releasing the information. There may have been good reasons.. I cant speak to that.





Once again - I can not speak to differences from the original analysis. Much of it goes over my head - I can only speak to what I find convincing. I also do not think Colobus or Rick Noll posted anything in an attempt to slaughter DY - he asked for a response, and he recieved one. If DY thinks he was mistreated or treated unfairly - thats his issue, not mine. I cant say I think he was.





Nicely put - And, that is probably why work is still ongoing by Colobus and Rick Noll on this cast. Why marry yourself to one specific idea -- when later, through more study and research you discover a difference. Its your right to hold onto whatever opinion you have - I wont argue with you on that.





When I made this statement I was directly discussing the current evaluation put out by Colobus. Things do change - and we must be ready to take on any new information - Im not sure exactly when Colobus began his work on the Skookum Cast, this may account for the new information. Again, I wont speak for him. But, nothing he says really makes me reconsider any of my reasons for thinking this cast is worthy of further study.




You know, it feels like a couple years ago - I dont remember, LMAO. Wait, I think you attempted an answer this time.



Kewl go for it. I dont think your evil - and never have. I am willing to continue the conversation, as Im sure you are.. So long as it remains civil

Edited to fix Quotes - I just pray they are right - LMAO

I guess I should have tried harder to be more clear, my fault.

I no way do I think Colobus came up with the new scenario in response to DY’s post. I’m sure this is something that they came up with some time ago. The timing was odd though, if they knew this already why let the debate continue based off of the old data? That’s what I don’t understand.
Let’s say you and Nightwing start a debate about quantum physics (it could happen!). You both are on equal footing having read Quantum Physics for Dummies published in 2000.
PL Pinkham (who seems much more intelligent now since going to the initials thing) has been studying quantum physics in his spare time (it could be true, ya know) and finds some glaring errors in theory. He knows that the old data doesn’t fit into the mold but for some reason he sits on it for a while.
You go all out and put together a well written and thought out report pointing out the errors of Nightwing’s way’s based on Quantum Physics for Dummies. PL Pinham responds disputing your findings with a whole new theory that no one knew about but fits the mold much better. Wouldn’t you feel a bit let down by PL for withholding this information while you debated the merits of bad data?
Should PL have shared it? I guess that’s his business but you still have the right to be annoyed.

What bugs me about the new theory is that when they found the impression they made the determination based on the depressions in the soil that a sasquatch made it. In order to do that they had to visualize a sasquatch laying in the mud reaching for the bait pile. This is what most of us had been looking at when trying to decipher the cast. There are all sorts of diagrams showing this along with explanations supporting that theory. But through further study and analysis that theory evidently fell apart. Therefore what made the impression a sasquatch when it was found was no longer true, so how was it still a sasquatch? Nobody saw one sit there.
The only way it could be is to fit one into the mold with a new theory based on further study and speculation. The new theory shows a sitting sasquatch, which is a totally different body position than the original. Again, what made them think it was a sasquatch in the first place? The initial analysis. And if that theory was wrong why is it still a sasquatch? Because they want it to be?

I’m sure these aren’t popular opinions but after all that’s all they are.

What do you mean by "artist's representation of the casts"? Do you mean the cast copies exhibited in San Antonio?

No biggie



Ok, maybe this is where we have our difference. Sure, I would be a bit miffed - but, this is something I deal with all the time, but in a legal capacity. I dont think past work done by Colobus or Rick Noll will stop anyone from coming up with their own theories as to 'HOW" the impression was made in the mud. If you have a theory - work it out. Thats what DY is doing.. I just have a problem with his methods. And, if DY had done his homework - and actually discussed doing an independant evaluation of the cast, with Rick Noll or Colobus, what would the outcome have been? Just because Colobus has an opinion - that doesnt mean DY needs to stop his work - my issue is with How DY came to his conclusions. The items he used to make his determination. New things will come up all the time -- we must be prepared for changes and new information. Doesnt make the old information less credible or the evidence less worthy of further scrutiny.

Sure, DY was thrown a curve ball - but, if he is a scientist - he should have expected that. No one ever said work on the Skookum Cast stopped.



Your right - no one saw it sit there.. Most footprints that are found - are not found after a person sees the animal make it. Yet - it is casted and work is done to determine what made the track. I think there was more to why they thought the impression was possibly a sasquatch - other than the members of the team stood around for a few hours to try and determine what could have sat there. And to be perfectly honest - I have seen posts by Rick Noll - telling people things such as "When the animal sat on this ground - it was frozen" - but no one paid attention and I still see people post about how this animal sat in the soft mud... So, whats new information and what is information thats been put out - and no one caught on?



Again, Im not Colobus or Rick Noll - I cant answer that question.



Im sure my opinions dont make me popular - but they are my opinions. lmao

exactly.

It's not hard to say that DY has put more time into the Skookum Cast than those that cast it had when they decided it was a Saquatch and made the cast.

By that point, I'm guessing they had so much invested in it there was no turning back. Calls get made. Posts on furums. General buzz and hubbub. No turning back.

I think DY's work is valid. I'm no expert and don't have any fancy titles but before I even read alternate theories on what made the imprint I thought...."hmmm, I just don't see it"

I live in BC. Do I think they're out there? Probably. The main thing I've learned since I've been on these forums is there's all kinds of people with all kinds of ideas seeing and hearing all kinds of things. I never thought in a million years Sasquatch discussion could get so political and personal but it does.

I just think that sometimes people have too much invested in something to say "Maybe you're right."

Mooseman - Its your opinion that a couple of hours looking at Copies of the Skookum Cast and reading internet posts qualifies as "Scientific Evaluation"?

Did I read that right?

What I'm saying is how long did those guys take to determime it was a Sasquatch that made the impression before they made the cast? 5 minutes?

Oh ya, I forgot, enough time for someone to walk through it to look at the half eaten apples.

ps. I'm not picking a fight just giving my own opinion

Well, Im thinking it was more than 5 mins. But -- dont change the subject. You said you agree with DY, you think his work is valid.. Thats fine, Im just curious why DY's work based on a couple hours examining an artists rendition of this cast and some internet posts make for good scientific evaluation?

While it may have taken those involved a few minutes to determine what they could be looking at - the work and documentation of what is seen in that cast has gone on now for years -- on the originals, that is science.

I agree - Just a good discussion - and you are more than entitled to your opinion

I wasn't trying to change the subject, I thought it was part of the same one. No matter. I do think DY's work is valid. My whole point, actually, was that the investment people have in this thing has gotten bigger (IMHO) than the cast itself. You know what it's like out there. I've seen people go on for WEEKS about absolutely nothing. This is the freakin' Skookum cast!

Enjoy the conversation.

No offense to Mooseman..

You think DY's work is valid - based on what? I would really like to know the answer to that question. DY made the claim that his work was a "Scientific Evaluation" - I would like to know where the science is. What he did was not scientific - by any stretch of the imagination, hell I could have done what he did - maybe not as well, but I would have expected a totally different response from the community..

I thought we expected a higher level of evaluation of all evidence? Is this now going to be the acceptable standard when evaluating evidence? Look at copies and read some posts - get an independant evaluation, but give the options for what it is to the person giving the evaluation?? Thats kinda scary my friends.

If you lower the bar - everything comes into play.

DY stated his was a preliminary report surely he deserves the time to refine his hypothesis just as anyone else.

As I understand it he worked off of a replica of the cast and the counterslab on display in San Antonio and high resolution photos of these.
Were the cast replica and counterslab merely an artists rendition of the original or molded from the original? I couldn't find any reference for this.

It really doesn't affect my opinion one way or the other anyway, Occam's Razor would tell us it is more likely a known animal than an unknown one. The burden of proof is on the proponents of the bigfoot scenario.

Like the apples with, what was it again, corrupted DNA?

Oh, and like there were elk prints and NO Sasquatch prints.

Um, what bar are we talking here? I hope they have a happy hour.

I agree - he can do whatever he wishes - but to call work based on copies when the original is out there - is less than scientific.. Yep, thats right - DY put out a "Preliminary Report" - and didnt even have all the tracks sketched into his drawings -- Preliminary is a good word for what he did. So, we should allow him to put out some information but not all - as seems to be expected of Colobus or Rick Noll? That doesnt seem hardly fair. Why would anyone base an opinion entirely on a preliminary report? I sure wont. My position remains unchanged - unless DY can come up with something that is based in good science. I havent seen that yet.



These Male and Female replicas were done by an artist. They are a very good representation - but as Colobus and Rick Noll said - they do not show all the details you would see in the Original, which is why you should always use the original -- when available. I dont know if DY requested to view the original cast or not... That would have been a good place to start.



I personally appreciate how Colobus and Rick Noll have accepted this challenge.. They have not put out bits and pieces of information, work is ongoing - and it will continue. We may not like the bits of information coming out from time to time - but thats how its done most of the time.. Its not unusual.

I can not speak to the actual process - I do not know. I do know these are a very good representation of the cast itself - I do not know if these panels were molded or anything else from the original. Specifics I do not have. If you look at the pictures supplied by DY and the pictures supplied by Colobus - it should be fairly obvious - the original would have been much better to work with when your making a "Scientific Determination"..

And just for the record I'm gonna agree with you on that one.

Well you were the one that said it's acceptable for Rick and Owen to change thier minds and fit a new scenario into the cast. I expect that DY would recieve the same courtesy. BTW when was the original Skookum Cast report labled preliminary when they declared it a saquatch?
Of course the original would have been much better, that does taint his work. Maybe he'll have the chance in the future to examine the original

An artist sculpted all the impressions and tracks and even hair flow into the replicas? Wow! Can I ask for a reference on that? No offence I hope. [edit... I just read your reply to Tube]

I know what he told me in San Antonio - but I will NOT speak for Colobus or Rick Noll, I do not have enough information to do so. But, regardless of how the Male and Female Version were made - to think you would get a look thats good enough to base a scientific determination on,, is just wrong. I have no idea how exactly these copies were made, therefore I can not discuss how true to the original they are. I would assume the copies were never intended to be used for scientific evaluation though - and Im not sure why anyone would even consider that a viable option?? Doesnt make sense to me.

Again - your asking me to discuss something I have no knowledge of. I was never a member of the BFRO or the Skookum Expedition.. I have no idea when or if they deemed information "Preliminary" - it would be silly not to in the beginning, but thats just my opinion.

Edited for clarity -

I'm almost positive the cast copies exhibited at the first Seattle Sasquatch Symposium and more recently in San Antonio were made with elastomeric intermediates and were not "sculpted" in any way. I think the term "done by an artist" is highly misleading.

I was able to closely examine the cast copies in Seattle with Colobus, and was in fact about half way through his "walk through" until I was pulled away to help get Ray Crowe on stage.

I could see hair flow and various canid and cervid tracks in the copies. As to the degree of fidelity the copies have to the original, I can't give an informed estimate.

If indeed the copies are as lacking in surface detail as Colobus now asserts, this is sadly ironic, as my understanding is that John Green had the copies made specifically to exhibit to various mainstream scientists.

That said, as long as surface detail is an issue, Desertyeti has shot himself in the foot by not examining the original cast.

I was told - an artist was paid to create these panels.. Nothing Misleading about it. What the method used was - I have no idea.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...ndpost&p=212761

Are you sure what was in San Antonio (and evaluated by DY) was made of Rubber? Is that what your asserting? Just trying to be clear as to your meaning..

No.

Note the word "intermediates" in my previous post. The final copies are made of fiberglass reinforced resin. My guess is that the resin used was urethane, but it could be polyester, epoxy, or something else. I know this because when I asked Rick what they were made of he responded "fiberglass", which is not quite accurate.

At the risk of belaboring the point, if you claim the cast copies were made by "an artist" without further qualification, then a naive reader could certainly come to the conclusion that the casts were artistically fabricated, and not copied.

Whatever floats your boat Tube. I know what I was told - but unlike many I wont discuss specifics I do not have in writing. I wont misquote or speak for someone else. PERIOD. Which is why I said - I wont speak for Colobus or Rick Noll many times. I was however told an ARTIST was paid - how it was done -- I DO NOT know. I cant be any clearer on that point.

I too was told the copies were made of fiberglass.. I cant even imagine the work that went into getting the kind of detail we see, when the material used is fiberglass.

Well, what "floats my boat" Melissa, is technical accuracy.

I doubt you will concede that use of terms like "an artist was paid to create these panels" is misleading, but I think this is an important enough subject to point it out.

By the way, do you know what the difference is between FRP and fiberglass, or will you continue to perpetuate the notion that "the material used is fiberglass"?

Sorry tube - I know how important "Technical Accuracy" is to you..

I am not perpetuating any "Notion" simply stating what I was told, and I will not get drawn into elaborating on something I do not know. Im frankly surprised you would ask me to do so.

I said what I know, if that isnt good enough - sorry.. Not sure what to tell you. Never said I did know the difference between FRP and Fiberglass -- but Im POSITIVE you will be more than happy to share your wisdom with the board...

Have at it

When you make casual and misleading statements like this, especially about technical issues, it's unreasonable to expect others not to call you on it.

I'm in agreement with you about the crux of your argument, however, namely that Desertyeti is examining copies, and not the original cast, and therefore cannot claim knowledge of the subtleties of surface detail and what it might tell us about what made the initial soil impression.

The Skookum cast copies are not artistic fabrications.

The Skookum cast copies are not made of fiberglass.

Well, It was not my intention to mislead - and I deny I did so. I am sorry you took it that way, and I infact stated I did not know. I did state what I was told, If that is wrong - you may want to inform others as well - as even on Cryptomundo the cast is listed as being a "Fiberglass Replica" - not sure what to say other than that. In fact here is the exact sentence...

"Along with the other items on display at the Bigfoot in Texas? exhibit, are a fiberglass replica of the Skookum Cast, as well as a replica of the impression in the ground."

It may not be fiberglass -- I do not know (and I wont say that again).. But that is what I was told. Not sure whatelse to tell you.



Thank you. As I said - I know accuracy is something we both agree on.

Melissa, you surely did not start the "fiberglass replica" concept. Indeed, we often have to simply go by what other people tell us, especially when those telling us are directly involved. As I say, Rick also told me it was "made of fiberglass". But unfortunately, Rick is wrong on this point.

Now why get so anal about what seems like trivia? Well because it seems to me like bad PR for Bigfootery not to get things correct in the first place. Like Doug Hajicek referring to the Patterson film subject as moving with a "climbing gait". If Bigfooters want to get mainstream scientists to take them seriously, then it behooves them to use the proper terminology.

The Skookum cast replicas are made of "FRP" or fiberglass reinforced plastic. The fiberglass is there for structural support, not surface detail replication, and constitutes only a portion of the casting slurry. I find the designation of "fiberglass replica" to be misleading, as many everyday items made with fiberglass as a component often exhibit coarse surfaces. Fiberglass can come in many forms, from coarse woven roving to chopped strand, to fine woven roving, to insulation. What the underside of a hot tub looks and feels like is nothing like the surface of the Skookum cast copies. As I say, I don't know what the organic resin component of the copies are, but I do know that YOU CAN'T CAST FIBERGLASS.

Perhaps Rick chose the word "fiberglass" over "plastic" because it sounded less cheap. Too bad he didn't pick "composite" as that term has a high-tech sort of buzz to it..

So if Colobus claims that there are individual hair strands that are 3 inches long, and that this level of detail is not visible in the copies, then the only way to skeptically assess that claim is by examining the original cast itself.

Even if DesertYeti is correct, and he has made the correct judgement from gross morphology, his argument will forever be incomplete if he has not yet examined the original cast to assess the advocate's claims relating to surface detail.
While I support Desertyeti's efforts at analysis, I'm doubtful Ichnos will publish his findings once the editors learn he has not examined the original cast.

If Ichnos does publish his findings, then the copy vs. original issue will be the Achilles heel of the article.

Which is exactly why I was shocked to hear the copies were said to be made of fiberglass. While I had heard the copies were made of fiberglass, I have wondered if something else was used along with the fiberglass.



Can I ask what your source is for this information? Just curious.



On this we have NO disagreement at all. I would frankly be surprised to hear this article of his would be published, based on what he used/evaluated to form his conclusions. Its my personal opinion he should continue with his work, but if he truly wants to be "Scientific" in his work, he should not publish anything or make definitive statements until he has had the opportunity to fully examine the original cast.

I'm not sure which information you mean.

Nevermind - misread, and just answered my own question.. Sorry.

Has there been any opposition to letting DY examine the original?

As far as I know, he never asked. When I asked him about this issue - DY was of the opinion the copies were just fine, and there was no need to see the Original.

He never said if he requested to see it..

Among some of the other things that puzzle me about this incident is how an alleged bigfoot got in and out of the area of this box without leaving even a partial print..It's been said by the proponents of the cast that the ground surrounding some of the alleged cast was too firm to leave prints of any kind although this pic seems to show there is moist ground around the entire perimeter of the impression...at least enough on the driest side toward the dirt road for the alleged creature to have to purposely long step in or leap without leaving some sort of footprint....any thoughts or am I misinterpreting this pic.

I extracted this pic from the LMS video
Click to view attachment

Ok, let me see if I can take a stab at this.. lmao.

I have seen this discussed by DDA a number of times - yet the same thing keeps being said. To the best of my recollectionm impression was found in the morning hours, the ground over night had at least partially froze. In fact the sun had to be blocked with plywood until the casting agents could be prepaired and poured to make the impression. It is thought that maybe the body heat of the animal itself is what actually caused the impression - as whatever it was sat there. I am not speaking for anyone involved with this impression however, and anyone is free to correct me.

This does not seem like much of a stretch to me. Think about the changing temperatures between day and night, in those elevations and part of the country.

The problem I have with that is that bigfoot supposedly doesn't wear shoes. The body heat would be applicable to feet as well as the rest of the body, being capable of creating the sme meltin out impressions in frozen ground.

Sure, if the alleged bigfoot stood there in one spot for a period of time. Body heat will transfer -- but the feet would need to be in that very spot for a period of time (I would think). Feet also have a much smaller mass than an entire torso..

Just my opinion..

Yet that would mean the same thing for the elk prints that show in the cast would it not ? But there they are ,and thats not something under dispute by either side of the debate.

Not if the elk walked through after the alleged bigfoot left the area.. Im not denying there are elk prints in this cast -- but I have never heard mention of any elk tracks outside of this print either. This issue of tracks outside the cast can go on for decades -- but, if the ground was partially frozen, I dont think anything that is walking or being mobile is going to leave any tracks, unless it stands there for a a period of time.

The appearance of elk tracks within the softened impression really do not surprise me or cause any alarm.. I do wonder though - why we dont see the tracks that the "Elk" would have had to leave - when it attempted to stand in an upright position, after sitting for so long. For that elk to leave no prints in the body of the impression in order to stand upright -- just doesnt seem possible to me..

But, thats just my opinion

The same question could be asked ,why a primate that supposedly weighs several hundred more pounds than the elk, wouldn't like wise leave footprints after getting up from the laying down position.

Fair question. I often wonder this myself. But, if all this happened as described, the animals feet only at the heel actually made it into the soft mud. These "heel strikes" are something I have a particular interest in. But when you think about it:

Odds of an Elk getting up from a laying position, in soft muddy soil, without leaving prints in that soft soil - pratically none. The elk would have had to use both front feet to push up the weight of its body.

Odds of a Bipedal animal putting its feet outside the soft soil, and moving toward the edge (note butt impression on the edge of the print) a bit higher (but not much). I have no expertise whatsoever with animals, but there should be some tracks in the body portion of that impression -- I see none.

I also had the opportunity to examine the male and female version of this cast in San Antonio - and I wish those heel strikes had the detail I did see in the pictures Colobus posted.... That detail was not on the Male and Female versions of this cast..

Mel quote
.
On the BFF, Colubus states this about the day and night before the impression was made .


But we are lead to believe the window of time the alleged bigfoot approached the area the ground was frozen solid enough as not to be penetrable enough to leave footprints from a 500- 800 pound animal and only right up to the edge of the alleged impression ?
I don't know...it sounds like a convenient explanation for a near impossibility to me.