Guest

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

1,085 posts in this topic

Hi

You have a shape shifting neighbor :lol: There were no BF foot prints leading to the impression right ?, but there were Elk prints around, so since there is no other real decent evidence to support a BF, ( well besides the BF Experts testimony that it was :blink: ) when you remove the wishful thinking it had to have been an Elk,

Tim :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a shape shifting neighbor :lol: There were no BF foot prints leading to the impression right ?, but there were Elk prints around, so since there is no other real decent evidence to support a BF, ( well besides the BF Experts testimony that it was :blink: ) when you remove the wishful thinking it had to have been an Elk,

Dr Darius Swindler was just a "BF expert"? :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Really? that's the best you got?

wow.

Great comparison. Muddy wallow vs. a concrete pathway...

brilliant....

:mad:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall from another thread DDA said the transiting elk prints were old and therefore not related to the imprint. They aren't in the right positions for a rising elk. There were also bear and coyote tracks. Impressions from multiple animals as well as elk were ruled out.

Dr. Meldrum wrote about Dr. Swindler's opinion on page 122 of his book.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? that's the best you got?

wow.

Great comparison. Muddy wallow vs. a concrete pathway...

brilliant....

:mad:

Oh yeah? Then explain how the raccoons left tracks! Quod erat demonstrandum.

You may wish to recall that the muddy area the Cast was found in had frozen during the night. Frozen mud, concrete -- some similarities there. And, you conveniently ignore the hypothesis offered to explain why no tracks were found. And, you offer no explanation as to how an elk could arise without leaving a track in the middle of a lay that was occupied long enough to thaw the mud. Facts are so darn inconvenient when they conflict with one's faith.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah? Then explain how the raccoons left tracks! Quod erat demonstrandum.

You may wish to recall that the muddy area the Cast was found in had frozen during the night. Frozen mud, concrete -- some similarities there. And, you conveniently ignore the hypothesis offered to explain why no tracks were found. And, you offer no explanation as to how an elk could arise without leaving a track in the middle of a lay that was occupied long enough to thaw the mud. Facts are so darn inconvenient when they conflict with one's faith.

Here is a photo of the skookum impression before it was cast/dugout. This still look like no tracks to you? They are all over the place, as were elk hairs.

how elk stand up. I don't understand how this was ever identified as anything but an elk lay.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ~

Threeproblems with that:

1) NO, none, not a single elk footpri

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a photo of the skookum impression before it was cast/dugout. This still look like no tracks to you?

My reference to "no tracks" being found was to the absence of bigfoot footprints. As far as I know, the absence of such tracks at the scene of the Cast is not in dispute.

They are all over the place, as were elk hairs.
how elk stand up. I don't understand how this was ever identified as anything but an elk lay.

Yes, there are many elk tracks in the vicinity of the Cast, but none -- not a single one -- within the confines of the impression in question. You may wish to watch the elk video you linked to -- when the elk rises where his front hooves make initial contact with the ground is hard to tell, because the videographer flinched upward so as to not catch them, but the hind hooves appear to walk right through where the elk was laying. If the Skookum Cast is an elk lay -- an impression in the midst of a frozen mud puddle made because a large mammal likely warmed the mud below it to above the freezing point -- where are the fresh elk tracks within the impression? There's aren't any. Thus, the tongue-in-cheek reference by someone above to levitating elk.

By the way, I'm shocked, shocked to find that elk hair can be found in elk habitat! You may wish to read up on what hairs were found -- not all purported hairs turned out to be elk.

In science, when the data don't fit one's theory, one doesn't throw the data out -- one modifies one's theory. Fanatics of faith throw out the data and cling to their faith. Lazy people formulate arguments without making themselves aware of all available information. Scoundrels ignore the data in an attempt to win their argument by means of fraud.

May the levitating elk be with you.

Edited by Pteronarcyd
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reference to "no tracks" being found was to the absence of bigfoot footprints. As far as I know, the absence of such tracks at the scene of the Cast is not in dispute.

Yes, there are many elk tracks in the vicinity of the Cast, but none -- not a single one -- within the confines of the impression in question. You may wish to watch the elk video you linked to -- when the elk rises where his front hooves make initial contact with the ground is hard to tell, because the videographer flinched upward so as to not catch them, but the hind hooves appear to walk right through where the elk was laying. If the Skookum Cast is an elk lay -- an impression in the midst of a frozen mud puddle made because a large mammal likely warmed the mud below it to above the freezing point -- where are the fresh elk tracks within the impression? There's aren't any. Thus, the tongue-in-cheek reference by someone above to levitating elk.

By the way, I'm shocked, shocked to find that elk hair can be found in elk habitat! You may wish to read up on what hairs were found -- not all purported hairs turned out to be elk.

In science, when the data don't fit one's theory, one doesn't throw the data out -- one modifies one's theory. Fanatics of faith throw out the data and cling to their faith. Lazy people formulate arguments without making themselves aware of all available information. Scoundrels ignore the data in an attempt to win their argument by means of fraud.

May the levitating elk be with you.

Personally, I can see exactly where the elk stood and invision how it happened according to the impression. I'm sorry you cannot. May the levitating sasquatch be with you would be more fitting. Absolutely no evidence of any sasquatch present, and elk evidence present everywhere. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. It's positively an elk lay in my mind and probably any experienced hunters mind as well.

Edited to add: Based on what was this declared to be bigfoot evidence? Wishful thinking?

Edited by 127
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may wish to recall that the muddy area the Cast was found in had frozen during the night. Frozen mud, concrete -- some similarities there.

Well I wasn't aware that the ground was frozen. So you are saying it was frozen solid?

If so, how was any imprint left there at all?

Edited by slabdog
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threeproblems with that:

1) NO, none, not a single elk footpri

Hi

So we are left with the explanation that a BF low crawled toward an apple in a basically open area, took a few bites and flew off into the trees ~

Tim :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an imprint of what may be a footprint that was somewhat squashed by the body. The sasquatch apparently rolled out of the puddle. Since the puddle was right by the road entrance and exit via the road doesn't require levitation in order to not leave prints. There were prints found in the area.

Wallow1Bellingham+orb.jpg

The Skookum impression, shown here before it was a cast in Sept., 2000, is beneath the board (right of center) that is shielding it from the sun as expedition members await the return of the rest of the group to make the cast. From left to right: Leroy Fish, Alan Terry and Derek Randles talk with Thom Powell (in truck). Note the damp area indicative of the fast-drying puddle around the cast beside the road.

http://www.thomsquat...chronicity.html

Belly crawling wouldn't leave footprints either.

One reason the site was chosen was a credible sighting by a retired wildlife officer.

<changed font>

Edited by LAL
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

So we are left with the explanation that a BF low crawled toward an apple in a basically open area, took a few bites and flew off into the trees ~

Tim :)

That's a Plus One in the " I'm pretty sure that they try when possible, to not leave Tracks if they don't have to " Camp Tim huh ?? ;)

Edited by BobbyO
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an elk lay and the only ones who think that it isnt are those who have their reputations tied up in it being otherwise or their followers. It's time to start asking questions and not being a cult.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites