Guest

Is The Skookum Cast Still Considered To Be A Potential Bigfoot Lay?

1,072 posts in this topic

I've gotten mixed signals as to what BF enthusiasts think of this piece of potential evidence... I know at first it was considered very strong, to the point of earning its own section of Legend Meets Science , and being considered a breakthrough by many. Then, recently, I recall someone referring to it here as an example of over-zealous bigfoot enthusiasts overlooking something obvious like an elk lay. It was stated in such a way that it has been conclusively determined to be an elk, and that situations like this should be cautioned. Now I'm reading Loren Coleman's The True Story of Apes in America and he makes mention of skeptics claiming it to be an elk lay from the very beginning, which its what is causing my confusion.

I realize that skeptics will 100% claim it has always been an elk lay; I would expect nothing less from our fine contrarian friends. My question, however, is whether the Skookum Cast is still considered by people like Dr. Meldrum and Loren Coleman to be a possible imprint of a bigfoot body, or has new information come to light which conclusively rules it out?

Thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the current position of Dr Meldrum on this. I personally don't think Loren Coleman's opinion belongs in the same sentence as Dr Meldrum's... yet I understand it's difficult for either of them to change their opinion once stated.

It would mean admitting they were wrong. IMO, and as much as I respect Rick Knoll, I still don't think it's a BF imprint.

Edited by gigantor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotten mixed signals as to what BF enthusiasts think of this piece of potential evidence...

I realize that skeptics will 100% claim it has always been an elk lay; I would expect nothing less from our fine contrarian friends...

I imagine any good skeptic wouldn't make a claim one way or the other. A skeptic would ask: Where does the evidence lead us?

So a skeptic would look at the evidence of elk in the vicinity, including countless elk prints around the cast area.

A skeptic would request that elk experts be allowed to inspect all the evidence. From what I've read on the topic, it would appear that such experts have been denied close examination of the evidence.

And a skeptic would note the distinct lack of supporting bigfoot evidence, including the lack of bigfoot footprints when so many other elk & human prints are readily apparent.

And then the skeptic would say the evidence leans heavily in favor of an elk-lay.

A contrarian, on the other hand, might make all manner of claims irrespective of evidence.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or has new information come to light which conclusively rules it out?

Thanks!

But to answer that directly, then no..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They, can't remember who exactly, brought the cast to a talk that Gimlin also spoke at in Olympia a few years ago. It just looked like a blob of stuff to me. I guess that if you beleived enough you could see just about anything in it. Did anybody else from here go? I was at the second talk of the day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has new information come to light which conclusively rules it out?

No, most definitely not.

In a nutshell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If was a bigfoot wearing elk feet and elkhair vest, or perhaps a complete elk costume.

(just trying to find a middle ground)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm sure there will be a debate here...............since you brought it up. Nothing like a good mud wrestling match about mud!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is no longer any discussion on the Skookum Cast; everyone has pretty much made up their minds.

The elk lay crowd will always see an elk lay. The sasquatch crowd will always see a sasquatch. It doesn't matter if the imprint has the wrong cross section for an elk and the right cross section for a bigfoot, and it doesn't matter if there are elk prints all over it and some of the hair collected came from an elk.

My own personal take, which fits very well with all of the analysis, is that an apple was placed in the middle of an elk's mud hole, which was filled with elk prints and elk hair, and then a bigfoot belly crawled up to the apple (as in the Greene thermal video), thereby leaving no prints, and left an imprint in the mud while reaching for it. On the other hand, there were finger scrapes near the apple.

The elk-lay crowd prefers the idea that a flying elk levitated into the mud, landed on one of its front knees, twisted sideways to imprint its hind quarters, bit the apple, and then levitated away. Yes, there are elk prints in the mud, but there appears to be an important lack of elk prints in the mud where the supposed elk would have needed to place its feet in order to rise or lay.

Some of the things that could have been even more conclusive were apparently never done. The half-eaten apple was still there. Half-eaten means bite marks. Bite marks would have immediately identified the type of animal that did the biting. The elk prints were never tracked to determine exactly what the elk that made them did (from a glance, it appears to have walked in and then out, after the impression was made). This was mud, and every single force applied to that ground should have been obvious, but nobody ever looked at the kinetics. It might be possible to back some of these things out from good photographs, but such photographs are not available (or not without asking the right people).

Basically, everyone who was there got so excited, that they just shifted into stupid, and completely bypassed the type of forensic analysis the site required.

PS: I might be wrong on not looking at the bite marks, but I could find no information on the bite marks after a half hour of searching.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elk-lay crowd prefers the idea that a flying elk levitated into the mud, landed on one of its front knees, twisted sideways to imprint its hind quarters, bit the apple, and then levitated away. Yes, there are elk prints in the mud, but there appears to be an important lack of elk prints in the mud where the supposed elk would have needed to place its feet in order to rise or lay.

Hi There

I am not into levitation at all, a good set of BF prints would have helped but there were non, only Elk prints, so too keep it logical and not go way off looking for BF evidence that was not there, i would have to think it was an Elk ~

Tim :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never seem to find elk bedded down on the shoulder of a main road in the woods. And NEVER during elk season...........sigh.

edited for spelling

Edited by John T
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I will counter with ~ No one has ever brought in a BF or even parts of regardless of what season it is ~

I don't gamble at all but i do watch for the odds and the odds are way in favor of it being an Elk.

Tim :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajciani, shifted into stupid? Well, that's not offensive. There was Bigfoot activity in the area the night the impression was made. This aspect is continually looked over as if it didn't happen. We all heard the most amazing vocalization that night. It was extremely loud, primal and alive. Tracks were also found on the expedition.

The fruit that had bite marks was DNA tested. It didn't work.

Ya we made mistakes, but we did the best we could with what we had. Finding an impression like that in the mud was the last thing we expected. We were there trying to get thermal footage, not looking for body impressions in the mud.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There

I am not into levitation at all, a good set of BF prints would have helped but there were non, only Elk prints, so too keep it logical and not go way off looking for BF evidence that was not there, i would have to think it was an Elk ~

Tim :)

I walked over to my neighbor's house yesterday. There was some sign that he might be in the area -- his car was in his driveway. But, I noticed as I approached his door that he had not left any tracks on his porch. There were, however, raccoon tracks on the porch. Using your logic I had no choice but to conclude that my friend wasn't home, and that only raccoons were in the house. Thus, I didn't bother ringing the doorbell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites