Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

.
Why were experiments limited to 650 lb elk parts, when Roosevelt elk, which are found in the same geographical area as the Skookum cast (west of the Cascades), grow nearly twice as large? Were any tests conducted using these larger elk parts?

This is a very good point. Why hasn't this been done? I don't think Meldrum wants to stand behind faulty evidence and yet he is adamant about being completely convinced the cast is not an Elk lay. I covered what he said in the recent interview and though I'm sure Lu has posted it before, here I will share what Meldrum writes in detail in his book:

Eventually, careful comparisons to elk imprints were made at multiple game ranches and zoological parks. These comparisons, combined with consultation by professional game keeper, ruled out elk as a possible candidate for the imprint. The obvious heel imprints and forearm imprint could not be accounted for by the anatomy of an elk. Skeptics opined that the heel imprint was simply the mark of a kneeling elk, without ever examining the cast itself. A wrist of a 650-pound bull elk was obtained by Rick Noll, impressed in soft soil, and cast. Not only did it fail to measure up to the dimensions of the Skookum heel imprint, it was clearly distinct in shape and pattern of hair. The overall orientations of the hair patterns on the Skookum cast were likewise incongruent with those of an elk. This was made quite evident by comparisons to taxidermy museum mounts. And finally, and perhaps most telling, when an elk rises from a repose it must place its hooves directly under its weight in order to stand, leaving tracks in the centerline of its imprint. Yet there are no elk tracks located in the center of the Skookum imprint, only deep and clear elk prints skirting the imprint.

So in addition to a question on the use of the 80+K that has been allocated to fund Meldrum's research, I'll suggest if he can be asked about why larger elk parts weren't used for his experiments in his next interview. Personally, I think it's been firmly established as an elk lay and that the reasoning for it to be that of a sasquatch and the lack of footprints is rather weak.

If you had at least 80K and thought that the Blue Mountains or Skookum area were hot spots what would you do? I think I'd start by using a very tiny fraction to bribe a forest service employee to spill the beans about what they must surely be hiding. You know, like a real gumshoe.

 

[kitakaze]

I had no expectation that anyone here would know the answer, I was hoping to stimulate some thought on the matter. I shall post the same curiosity over on the BFF and see what response I get.

RayG

Please PM me or post in-thread a link once you do. I'm very interested in any discussion this stimulates.

 

[RayG]

Such as? If you're referring to the Krantz and the SC thing again, I did more searching yesterday. I only have about 150 references to go on the thread I think it was on.

It should be fairly simple to find IF I actually made any comments concerning the two together. I already did a search a few months back and couldn't find any indication I had done what you claimed I did.

When given latitude that she may be merely mistaken, and asked for supportive evidence that her assertion is true, she 'forgets' or 'doesn't remember' or 'doesn't have time to find' where she saw or read something.

That's quite a generalization, especially when I've made several searches here already.

No, that's a fact. You made your accusation over three months ago and still have not shown any evidence to support that accusation. Had it been me it would not take me months to either find the applicable information, or withdraw my accusation and apologize for stating it to begin with.

Yes, I don't have time to reread everything you've written on this board, but I'm trying.

That's what the search function is for. If I said it, the search engine will find it within seconds. If I'm not mistaken, I even provided a link to the posts where I mentioned the words Krantz and Skookum together in the same post, yet nothing like you asserted turned up.

I've already said I'll have the links to hand before posting in future.

That's a good habit to get into, and one that would have prevented this whole debacle. Not surprisingly you asserted that I repeatedly tossed this information out, yet you can't find a single instance of it.

Perhaps you don't remember that for nine months I singlehandedly debated "everybody" on six or more threads. That's a lot of posting and it was taking up most of my free time. I obligingly spent days trying to find a link to the article with the quote from Stringer, both in My Favorites and online. I remembered the statement, just not the title of the article. I've saved over 500 articles on human evolution at last count, and some are identified only by the URL.

I'm not responsible for what you do in your spare time, how many debates you enter into, or how many articles/links you've read or saved. That's your department. If you're spread so thin, maybe you shouldn't make unsubstantiated accusations.

I've never claimed to have a perfect memory (I don't even remember everything I've written, months or years later) but there's nothing selective about it and I certainly can't chose to forget something if it "suits" me. Memory doesn't work like that.

Yet here you are over three months later still searching for something you're sure exists instead of admitting that you were mistaken.

When eventually challenged to provide either a source for her mistaken assertion or an apology, she provides neither, and wanders away content in her own mind that she's successfully 'debated' something.

Reading my mind now, are you? I don't apologize to people I don't owe apologies to nor retract when no retraction is in order. I've provided links when I could and I don't recall any uncorrected mistakes.

No mind-reading involved, I'm basing it on your actions. You made an accusation over three MONTHS ago, have failed to provide any evidence for that accusation, and continue to cruise along as though your false accusation is factual. Am I nit-picking? Probably, but I base everything I say and do on facts and truth, and it's annoying to see you clinging to this dishonest accusation against me. If you were someone like Beckjord, unable to separate fact from fantasy, or Carch, who seems to devolve into an emotional basketcase, I'd not be pursuing it any further. You seem to take great pride in your ability to provide factual information. Most of the time.

I do have other things to do than satisfy your demands for links, but that doesn't mean I've "wandered away", content or otherwise. It looks like the indexing is complete now, so my chances may be better than they were a few months ago.

Ah, so how many more months should I hold out hope that you'll admit to your mistaken accusation?

How about being specific? What untruth have I presented as though it were factual?

Surely you've not forgotten?

(I'll be leaving you off filter while I continue searching, so you may speak to my face instead of behind my back if you wish.)

I've not said anything behind your back, though I have responded a few times to things you've posted. I think I've expressed my continued desire for debate rather than censorship. Jeebus LAL, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but I ain't into group hugs, back-slapping, high-fives, name-calling, dishonesty, or back-stabbing, and I use my real name on any message forums I frequent. I appreciate people that cut through the crusties, shoot straight from the hip, leave their emotions at the door when they debate, provide sources for their claims, and don't hide behind political correctness.

Do I sound sarcastic sometimes? Sure. I've been following this mystery for over 30 years now, cut me some slack. (blatant appeal to pity)

Thanks for the nice things you said.

LAL, I'd rather sit and have a beer with you than nit-pick, but that's what I do, it's my job, it's who I am.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Please PM me or post in-thread a link once you do. I'm very interested in any discussion this stimulates.

No problemo.

You wouldn't happen to have the exact source for this would you?

Eventually, careful comparisons to elk imprints were made at multiple game ranches and zoological parks. These comparisons, combined with consultation by professional game keeper, ruled out elk as a possible candidate for the imprint. The obvious heel imprints and forearm imprint could not be accounted for by the anatomy of an elk. Skeptics opined that the heel imprint was simply the mark of a kneeling elk, without ever examining the cast itself. A wrist of a 650-pound bull elk was obtained by Rick Noll, impressed in soft soil, and cast. Not only did it fail to measure up to the dimensions of the Skookum heel imprint, it was clearly distinct in shape and pattern of hair. The overall orientations of the hair patterns on the Skookum cast were likewise incongruent with those of an elk. This was made quite evident by comparisons to taxidermy museum mounts. And finally, and perhaps most telling, when an elk rises from a repose it must place its hooves directly under its weight in order to stand, leaving tracks in the centerline of its imprint. Yet there are no elk tracks located in the center of the Skookum imprint, only deep and clear elk prints skirting the imprint.

Is that from Dr. Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science?

RayG

 

[LAL]

I thought LAL had me on ignore?

I haven't figured out how to search your posts without taking you off. Naturally, when I take you off, the current posts come up too.

.
What wasn't a Roosevelt Elk? The 650 lb one they used for experimental purposes? Maybe it was, but why use such a small one when much larger ones obviously exist in that specific area.

.
LAL, you omitted the next sentence from that link: "They prefer the logged and burned over areas of the coastal mountains and the western slope of the Cascades."

Wikipedia also makes that observation:

.

Since the Skookum cast was discovered in Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and the GPNF extends 116 km along the western slopes of Cascade Range, I wondered aloud, "why were experiments limited to 650 lb elk parts, when Roosevelt elk, which are found in the same geographical area as the Skookum cast (west of the Cascades), grow nearly twice as large?"

RayG

I lived in Skamania County, which is 86% in the Gifford Pinchot. The elk ranging above my land, which was smack in the middle of the "triangle between Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Adams and Mt. Hood, where the Columbia cuts through the crest of the Cascades, were Roosevelt elk. I know of no other variety in the Gifford Pinchot or anywhere else in Western Washington.

Skookum Meadow isn't west of the Cascades. It's in them, in Skamania County.

"Elk have long been classifled by biologists into at least six subspecies. Biologist Olaus Murie, who studied them extensively over a lifetime, catalogues them as follows:

EASTERN (Cervus canadensis canadensis)--The same species discovered by the first white men in North America. For simplification here, it is defined as all elk east of the Rocky Mountains, although a few "eastern" elk undoubtedly took refuge in the Rockies when driven from the Great Plains and Black Hills.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN (Cervus canadensis nelsoni)--The elk of the Rockies and West, other than Pacific Coast. Most of the top trophies listed in record books (such as Boone and Crockett Club's world annals) belong to this longer-tined species. (Note: This species is sometimes classified Cervus elaphus.)

ROOSEVELT (Cervus canadensis roosevelti)--The dark species inhabiting rainforests of Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, Canada, and, to an extent, northern California. These elk are often larger (but not necessarily heavier) than the Rocky Mountain variety.

MANITOBAN (Cervus canadensis manitobensis)--Elk of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Some historically crossed the border into Great Lakes states.

MERRIAM (Cervus canadensis merriami)--Now extinct species which lived in the Southwest, mainly Arizona and New Mexico.

TULE (Cervus nannodes)--The nearly extinct "dwarf" wapiti of central California marshes and tule swamps."

http://www.bowhunting.net/NAspecies/elk1.html

Rick is posting, so you're apt to get a response. Be sure to ask if that was dressed weight. The antlers on mature bulls can weigh up to eight percent of the animal's dressed weight.

 

[kitakaze]

Is that from Dr. Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science?

RayG

Yes, it is. I just pulled it out of my bag from work and typed it out word for word. I'm nearly done reading it. I was dreading the chapter on the Skookum cast but I got through it and I know his case. The issue came up extensively in the 1hr 30min interview I linked and he defended it as not being an elk lay very assuredly which is why I mentioned it here.

It's simple, really. Meldrum is saying that the comparisons, consultations, hair patterns, anatomy, and track positions rule out an elk lay. Unless they're at the very end of the book he doesn't go into any significant detail of the consultaions or experiments. You really know when you hear him speak on the matter that it's his conviction about the 'heel' imprint that is most compelling for him. Yeah sure, it looks like an achilles tendon if you want to interpret it that way and he obviously did. Otherwise, I think he would have made more concerted efforts to rule out an elk. On the other hand, Anton's preliminary report clearly shows an elk lay. I get the feeling that I could call 'pteradactyl' if I wanted. Also, it's always seemed really silly to me the anecdote about Daris Swindler's whole shaken 'it's giganto' reaction. But nevermind that, that horse is departed. You'd think if a determined group of people are truly convinced they had a body imprint of a sasquatch that getting some reliable evidence wouldn't be such a mountain to overcome (of course I'm not saying it should be so easy, either).

 

[kitakaze]

Rick is posting, so you're apt to get a response. Be sure to ask if that was dressed weight. The antlers on mature bulls can weigh up to eight percent of the animal's dressed weight.

Noll already did not respond to e-mails from Daniel Perez offering a chance to give a rebuttal to Anton's analysis in the recent Bigfoot Times. He refers to cast copies as 'art pieces'. He did not use anatomy of an elk that was necessary to make a proper comparison. Using the wrist of a 650-pound elk for comparison and then calling it too small when much larger elk may well have been present is not an objective effort.

 

[RayG]

I lived in Skamania County, which is 86% in the Gifford Pinchot. The elk ranging above my land, which was smack in the middle of the "triangle between Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Adams and Mt. Hood, where the Columbia cuts through the crest of the Cascades, were Roosevelt elk. I know of no other variety in the Gifford Pinchot or anywhere else in Western Washington.

That was my point. Large Roosevelt elk are found in the Gifford Pinchot forest, which is where the Skookum cast was located. The GPNF, Skookum cast, and Roosevelt Elk are all located west of the Cascades. Doing experiments with a 650 lb elk limb are rather puzzling when far larger elk roam that area. While the impression may be too big for a 650 lb bodypart, what about one weighing half a ton? (rhetorical question LAL, but one that should generate at least a wee bit of curiosity)

Listing a half-dozen species of elk has no relevance to whether or not significantly larger Roosevelt elk are found in the GPNF, west of the Cascades. What was your point?

Rick is posting, so you're apt to get a response. Be sure to ask if that was dressed weight. The antlers on mature bulls can weigh up to eight percent of the animal's dressed weight.

Will do, though it will probably be posted sometime later today.

RayG

 

[LAL]

It should be fairly simple to find IF I actually made any comments concerning the two together. I already did a search a few months back and couldn't find any indication I had done what you claimed I did.

I did several searches using several different keywords, but not all the posts had been indexed at the time. I remember the discussion clearly and may have found the proper thread a few months ago; I haven't gone through it all yet.

I have to thank carcharodon for the Animal X show. Loren Coleman was going to try to get a transcript, and colobus posted a statement from Dr. Krantz on Cryptomondo. Krantz concurred with the others at that time.

Do you at least remember the article LTC found? Grover was terminal and cranky. It wasn't really an accurate reflection of Grover's position on the SC.

Somehow the issue seems to have become lost in the search for the post(s).

No, that's a fact. You made your accusation over three months ago and still have not shown any evidence to support that accusation. Had it been me it would not take me months to either find the applicable information, or withdraw my accusation and apologize for stating it to begin with.

I don't regard it as an accusation (more of an "Ah ha!") and I'm sorry you've forgotten what you said. If I'd forgotten it, I wouldn't have posted as I did.

At the time of the discussion I didn't have the reference material I have now. If I had, I would have been able to question the statement in the interview in a more timely fashion and the whole debacle could have been avoided.

That's what the search function is for. If I said it, the search engine will find it within seconds. If I'm not mistaken, I even provided a link to the posts where I mentioned the words Krantz and Skookum together in the same post, yet nothing like you asserted turned up.

See above. Not everything was indexed. Even before the upgrade I was unable to find a certain post even knowing which thread it was on. I found my own post which must have been soon after, but not the one I was looking for.

I have no trouble at all finding posts on BFF.

That's a good habit to get into, and one that would have prevented this whole debacle. Not surprisingly you asserted that I repeatedly tossed this information out, yet you can't find a single instance of it.

If it was only once, I shouldn't have said "repeatedly", but I didn't expect you would fail to remember it. As I recall, it was more than once, but I could be thinking of the da Vinci posts.

I'll yield that much.

I'm not responsible for what you do in your spare time, how many debates you enter into, or how many articles/links you've read or saved. That's your department. If you're spread so thin, maybe you shouldn't make unsubstantiated accusations.

Since I don't make unsubstantiated accusations, that doesn't take any time at all.

You said at one point it's too bad I don't debate "everybody"; that was a gentle reminder that I have debated "everybody". I don't do that anymore.

Yet here you are over three months later still searching for something you're sure exists instead of admitting that you were mistaken.

I don't think I am mistaken. I'm not sure it still exists.

You were the only poster citing Krantz. Surely you remember the da Vinci comparison posts, and the quotes from Big Footprints?

I'm not still searching. I searched again, but not for long. I spent the rest of the day caught in a hailstorm, getting lost on a nearly impassable road somewhere in the Pisgah, collecting soil and a wild onion with a friend who found bear tracks and who inadvertently collected a tick. I think this is what's known as "field research".

No mind-reading involved, I'm basing it on your actions. You made an accusation over three MONTHS ago, have failed to provide any evidence for that accusation, and continue to cruise along as though your false accusation is factual. Am I nit-picking? Probably, but I base everything I say and do on facts and truth, and it's annoying to see you clinging to this dishonest accusation against me. If you were someone like Beckjord, unable to separate fact from fantasy, or Carch, who seems to devolve into an emotional basketcase, I'd not be pursuing it any further. You seem to take great pride in your ability to provide factual information. Most of the time.

All the time - factual to the best of my knowledge.

You made a few assumptions about what I think when I "wander off", none of which were correct. How honest was that?

Ah, so how many more months should I hold out hope that you'll admit to your mistaken accusation?

So, you're hanging you whole character assassination on my failure to find the post or posts? So far?

Whew! I thought I'd done something serious.

I don't want to get into semantics here, but I don't think "mistaken" or "false accusation" is the way to describe it.

I got the "I don't know what it is" information from this board and I'm quite certain it was from you. We can leave it open until I find the post or posts or you remember, whichever comes soonest.

Didn't we go through something like this before when you asked me for links I'd already provided regarding a discussion with DDA on BFF on the SC?

I'm not responsible for keeping track of what you say anymore than you're responsible for what I do.

Surely you've not forgotten?

Forgotten what?

I've not said anything behind your back, though I have responded a few times to things you've posted. I think I've expressed my continued desire for debate rather than censorship. Jeebus LAL, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but I ain't into group hugs, back-slapping, high-fives, name-calling, dishonesty, or back-stabbing, and I use my real name on any message forums I frequent. I appreciate people that cut through the crusties, shoot straight from the hip, leave their emotions at the door when they debate, provide sources for their claims, and don't hide behind political correctness.

It's been necessary to weed out a few posters. You were part of the pruning process originally because of your cutting remarks about people who think Rick Noll might know a thing or two after over thirty years in the research. I didn't appreciate that. When you continued, I filtered you.

Do I sound sarcastic sometimes? Sure. I've been following this mystery for over 30 years now, cut me some slack. (blatant appeal to pity)

Well, I'm sorry you're disillusioned, but you might want to try to catch up rather than assuming there's nothing new. There's ongoing research and some of it's pretty intriguing.

LAL, I'd rather sit and have a beer with you than nit-pick, but that's what I do, it's my job, it's who I am.

Do you make good money at it?

Sorry but I'm not going to blow over 22 years sobriety just because you're trying to drive me to drink.

 

[LAL]

That was my point. Large Roosevelt elk are found in the Gifford Pinchot forest, which is where the Skookum cast was located. The GPNF, Skookum cast, and Roosevelt Elk are all located west of the Cascades.

One picture is worth a thousand words:

The Skookum Cast may be west of the Cascades in Edmonds, Washington, but it was taken in Skookum Meadow in the Cascades.

Think this guy's wrist would fit?

http://blog.kingsoutdoorworld.com/2005/10/18/amazing-502-world-record-bull-elk/

Mature weight for a Roosevelt Elk is 600-1000 lbs. There may be more body fat and a bigger rack, but would the bones necessarily be any bigger?

 

[kitakaze]

There's ongoing research and some of it's pretty intriguing.

Such as? I'd really like to know.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ah, yeah...

Animal A is 40% heavyer than animal B.

And we are supposed to accept this would not necessarily imply in bigger bones, but only more fat tissue...

Counter-argument:
"Oh, I know someone who gained 40% weight, and his/hers bone structure remained the same!"

A counter-argument that ignores the following:
-A and B are two specimens of wild animals;
-Obese humans are common due to a combination of lack of physical activity, unballanced diet and genetic predisposal, among other things;
-Overweight animals are not exactly common in nature.

Such poor reasonings are really not of much help for the bigfoot cause.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One picture is worth a thousand words:

[qimg]http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/images/bfro_detail_opt.jpg[/qimg]


Think this guy's wrist would fit?

How would we know ? How about a picture of the wrist ?


How about a picture drawn by Meldrum ?


" Here.. See my drawing ? This is how it really is.. Really .. Elk ruled out.. it must be a Bigfoot .. "

 

[LTC8K6]

And finally, and perhaps most telling, when an elk rises from a repose it must place its hooves directly under its weight in order to stand, leaving tracks in the centerline of its imprint.

This is not true at all, of course.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFuFpWCtYyU

Dr Meldrum, watch the elk not leave hoof prints in it's body print, and quit saying they have to, please. Watch the elk get up and then lay back down. Watch how it rolls over as it does both.

Elk do not have to leave hoof prints in the center of their body print when they lay down.

End of argument for all reasonable people. The skookum print could be an elk lay.

It took very little research.

 

[RayG]

I remember the discussion clearly...

Really?

Do you at least remember the article LTC found? Grover was terminal and cranky. It wasn't really an accurate reflection of Grover's position on the SC.

If that's when you made your appeal to pity that I commented on, then yes I remember.

Somehow the issue seems to have become lost in the search for the post(s).

The issue is you claiming I did something that I did not and then doing a fancy dance when your feet are held to the accountability fire.

I don't regard it as an accusation (more of an "Ah ha!") and I'm sorry you've forgotten what you said. If I'd forgotten it, I wouldn't have posted as I did.

An "Ah ha!"? For what? It's a bit difficult to forget something I never said to begin with.

At the time of the discussion I didn't have the reference material I have now. If I had, I would have been able to question the statement in the interview in a more timely fashion and the whole debacle could have been avoided.

If I had done what you claimed I did, that by itself would have been the reference material.

See above. Not everything was indexed. Even before the upgrade I was unable to find a certain post even knowing which thread it was on. I found my own post which must have been soon after, but not the one I was looking for.

Are you now suggesting the forum lost my supposed dastardly deed?

I have no trouble at all finding posts on BFF.

If that's the case, you should have no problem finding my offending diatribe. So... where is it? Is it just possible you're mistaken, and I'm NOT the one who did what you're claiming I did?

If it was only once, I shouldn't have said "repeatedly", but I didn't expect you would fail to remember it. As I recall, it was more than once, but I could be thinking of the da Vinci posts.

Ah, so now it might be a different topic related to Dr. Krantz that you're remembering? I have indeed posted about his arrogant self-comparison to da Vinci, no less than 5 times on here, so might you have mistakenly transferred that reference to one about the Skookum cast. Is that possible?

Since I don't make unsubstantiated accusations...

Really?

You said at one point it's too bad I don't debate "everybody"; that was a gentle reminder that I have debated "everybody". I don't do that anymore.

I've also said it's hard to debate when the communication only flows one way.

I don't think I am mistaken.

Of course not, you don't make mistakes.

You were the only poster citing Krantz. Surely you remember the da Vinci comparison posts, and the quotes from Big Footprints?

Most certainly. They're not hard to find either.

You made a few assumptions about what I think when I "wander off", none of which were correct. How honest was that?

A little latitude perhaps, but that's my opinion, based on your behavior, not something I've asserted as a claim. You have repeatedly used the excuse of not having time to find evidence of my crimes even though you're sure I committed them. Pretty pathetic excuse.

So, you're hanging you whole character assassination on my failure to find the post or posts? So far?

No, on your behavior.

Whew! I thought I'd done something serious.

I have tried to instill in my eleven children a sense of honesty always being the best policy. To me honesty has always been something serious.

I don't want to get into semantics here, but I don't think "mistaken" or "false accusation" is the way to describe it.

What would be a better description? Liar?

I got the "I don't know what it is" information from this board and I'm quite certain it was from you. We can leave it open until I find the post or posts or you remember, whichever comes soonest.

It doesn't seem to have sunk in. I DID NOT post what you're claiming I posted, so there's nothing for me to remember. You are entirely mistaken in your certainty.

I'm not responsible for keeping track of what you say anymore than you're responsible for what I do.

Correct, you're only responsible if you say something about someone else. I can't help it you THINK I posted something I did not. You admit to engaging in six different debates, undoubtedly with at least six different people, yet your memory is infallible? Call me skeptical.

Forgotten what?

See.

It's been necessary to weed out a few posters. You were part of the pruning process originally because of your cutting remarks about people who think Rick Noll might know a thing or two after over thirty years in the research. I didn't appreciate that. When you continued, I filtered you.

Ah, you mean like calling Sweaty the troll that he was? oops.... I almost forgot... I called Dr. Krantz arrogant...

Well, I'm sorry you're disillusioned, but you might want to try to catch up rather than assuming there's nothing new. There's ongoing research and some of it's pretty intriguing.

You're kidding right? Something new in bigfootdom? Just where IS all this breaking news about bigfoot? Not the same old anecdotal accounts, or rehashing the Bossburg prints or Skookum cast as though they've been proven to come from a bigfoot, or dangling the names of Meldrum, Krantz, Dahinden, Green, Byrne, Fahrenbach, or Noll as though they were bigfoot 'experts', or treating science like a disease instead of a method.

You might lay your basket of hope in places like Pine Ridge, I've gone beyond that.

And now I'll endure the 'you're just an armchair analyst', and 'what have you done for bigfootdom lately' comments...

Do you make good money at it?

Eh, it's a living.

Sorry but I'm not going to blow over 22 years sobriety just because you're trying to drive me to drink.

I used to be a party animal once upon a time, but I learned to control the beast. Quit smoking too. However, with eleven kids you gotta realize I didn't give up everything.


RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHOXMefi9gs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP2VkvxCq54

See how the elk are leaned over even when they are not fully on their side? Their hooves are off to the side, not directly under them, and not in the body print as they lean over.

 

[tube]

I may have posted this here before, but there is an actual overpopulation problem with elk in the Skookum meadows area:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...70121&query=Hungry+elk+first+fed,+then+hunted

This story was on the front page of the Seattle Times Sunday edition some months back; I clipped it and sent it to Anton, as I thought he would get a kick out of it...

In other news, I found this journal article just last night:

http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_NWS/NWSci journal articles/1988 files/Issue 3/v62 p129 Bodley.PDF

Quite simple really, though it does bring up the problem that ordinary plaster of Paris is rather fragile. I understand Paul Freeman was overweight, and at one point I believe he walked with a cane. I believe he had diabetes. If I remember correctly from David Daegling's book, quoting Daniel Perez, Perez claimed that Freeman was "no woodsman", perhaps due to physical limitations.

I always wondered about this. If Freeman was not spry and agile, how did he bend down on his hands and knees to form tracks with his hands to impress dermals into the tracks? If instead he pressed a cast into the soil, then he could bear down on it with his body weight and avoid repetitive hands-and-knees to standing motions.

On the other hand, gardeners sometimes do this for hours at a time, perhaps I'm overestimating the difficulty.

I actually made a cast of my own foot in potters clay I bought at Seattle Pottery Supply some time back. I could see my own dermals as plain as day. I never took the next step and impressed the cast into soil as Bodley did.

 

[LTC8K6]

Do you at least remember the article LTC found? Grover was terminal and cranky. It wasn't really an accurate reflection of Grover's position on the SC.

Lu has no idea if Grover allowed his condition to taint his opinion. She is lying when she flatly says it wasn't accurate. She doesn't know, and just makes up something convenient for her position.

Lu also doesn't think there is anything wrong with what she made up, or that she made it up.

It's quite infuriating.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:
Since I don't make unsubstantiated accusations...

Like accusing me of doctoring evidence ?