Something like that.Watching LMS it's hard to forget.I thought he already answered that.
In his own inimitable way, perhaps, but I saw no link to any webites.
And speaking of hairs, what about those hairs that were retrieved from the cast that were not elk, coyote, bear, or deer, but did match samples of purported sasquatch hairs under the microscope.
Did you check TrapOne.com?
Ah, is that what it is? I was reading it Tri(?)One and getting nothing. I'm not that up on photo archives. Back soon. (I chased Greg over about three threads on BFF trying to get a source, so I can't say I'm new at this.)
I've been searching the Official Skookum Cast Thread (man, what a read!) and finally found Rick's reasons for thinking as he does:
"My thoughts on purported Sasquatch getting up from the Skookum impression from studying the impression, the cast, the replicas, elk and gorilla behavior and simulating the process with my own body.
Imprint Observations:
1. Wet side of impression is closest to the purported arm impression.
2. Purported left heel with proud Achilles tendon is on wet side.
3. Dr. LeRoy Fish’s boot print is on dry side (one imprint deep, one very shallow indicating approaching hard dry surface the further out on that side).
4. Two Elk hooves slips are next to the boot print on the dry side… slipping towards the wet side indicting an elk walked up to the area from the dry side, slipped into some softer stuff, maybe to try and get some apple bits left over.
5. With the animal already seated, the ground was cold and hard, frost heaved. The body weight and heat started melting the mud, squishing it out and around the heaviest portions in contact with the mud… the buttocks.
6. There is no tail. Even if there were a tail, I can not think of a reason for it to have made an impression in the substrate.
7. There are two buttock impressions with an area in between detailing the groin area.
8. There are two thigh areas impressed, one upper underside fairly complete and one smaller section.
9. The cast area was not able to capture all impressions found at the site but I would estimate it contains 98% of what was seen there. There is the possibility that some parts of the impression were not recognized at the time of casting but a thorough search by 6 team members showed that there was not.
10. Skin and hair patterns are distinctly different. The skin areas are not hair caked with mud. Other areas do not show this and the skin patch areas are logical in their locations. The edges of hair growth could have clumped together strands of hair, hanging down over portions of skin areas though.
11. The purported arms close proximity to the upper thigh was struck twice, with a skin patch where one would expect to see the elbow region.
12. The arm is not triangular in shape; it is cylindrical, tapering only at the wrist region. This area was disturbed more so than any other area of the impression indicating good articulation beyond this joint. This is more inline with a primate arm and hand than an ungulates leg and foot.
13. The heel impressions indicate two separate appendages. One is lined up fairly well with the purported upper thigh region. The other set is approx. 10 inches away and on the opposite side of the upper thigh from the purported arm region indicating a natural position - where as all impressions of legs and hooves of an ungulate would be either on one side of the animal or underneath.
14. There are two impressions of the arm, one less distinct or deep. They are overlapped in such a way as to indicate that they are the same limb (edge effects showing no gaps of two separate limbs overlaid) striking twice.
15. Hair collected here and at other places by Dr. Henner F. does not show them to be hollow like ungulates. Hollow hair is a natural insulator and would not transfer heat to the ground as easily as primates.
16. At least one hair came back from Henner as similar to his collection of purported Sasquatch hair.
17. Dr. LeRoy Fish retained more hair samples than was given to Henner and he stated that he saw several more hairs similar to the collection as well.
18. No loose mud was noticed in impression, as if falling off from an animal’s body.
19. During video work, quite often the camera man is not directly behind the camera. While videoing the gorilla at Woodland Park Zoo I stood off to the left of camera several times so as to not inadvertently disturb the sequence. I observed the gorilla placing its left upper arm against its left upper thigh while reaching for some apples. Only a small snippet of the video has been made available to the public.
20. In studying four elk videos taken by Dr. Bam Bam, all got to their feet or laid down with all four feet beneath them. Their skeletal structure does not allow for rotating shoulder joints.
Possible scenario:
1. The left leg is bent with the heel of the foot pressed into the mud 90 degrees from the wet area.
2. The body is twisted a bit with the right leg impacting the mud once and the foot several times, one of which, the last impact, shows the side of the foot.
3. Right leg straightens and the underside of the right knee impacts a small pushed up mound of mud, leaving an impression at 30 degrees to the impression norm and showing hair pattern matching the upper thigh impression length and direction.
4. It is possible that limb proportions are different than humans, meaning the upper arm could be longer allowing the lower arm to reach closer to the ground. It could also be that the upper torso is not as long, making the arms appear longer than a human.
5. The animal rolls away from the wet area to stand back up, possibly using a hand in the dry area and leaving clean imprints of body impressions and more weight forced downward on the left foot for purchase in the muddier sections."
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671&st=525
Here's the scanned photo again. You can see the bootprint. In the book you can see the hair.
