Guest

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

1,072 posts in this topic

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 10:18 AM, MIB said:

When I look at the people involved in the Skookum cast and compare what I know about their specific interests and qualifications, then weigh that against the lack of comparable qualifications on the part of people doing the criticizing (and even scoffing) and the outright foolishness many of the "opponent" counter-explanations, for the time being, I will stick with it being as-claimed, a bigfoot lay. [snip]

And so it is with this topic in general.  Not only did I not really start reading the scientific proponents until I'd done copious research - and found them agreeing with me right down the line - but I compare what we bring to the table with what the scoffers do.  There's no comparison.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there even any doubt at this point that this is anything other than an elk lay? Why? Because it's just an elk lay.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit, thank you for further evidence showing that you're not thinking clearly.    The images might account for the lay with sufficient imagination, but you haven't pointed out any tracks from where the elk stood up.   Obviously it was on its feet AFTER it got up, so the body didn't press out the tracks.  SO WHERE ARE THEY?   Show me a hoof print in the "body".  Show the hoof split ... unavoidable if it is bearing weight.   Show the outer rim on both sides at ones.   You can't.   They're not there.  So, despite your wishful thinking, whatever it is, that is not an elk lay.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem logical to look at most likely candidates first, and elk or maybe bear would be out in front one would think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's not logical to look at any species for which evidence is clearly lacking. 

 

Elk? Rule it out, bingo. I am not sure how people can continue to fail to get that THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE ELK A POSSIBILITY - four tracks smack in the center of the cast, where they'd have to be for the animal to get up - IS NOT IN THE CAST.

 

Bear?  Nope.  Lion? Nope.  Wolverine shrew-mole mountain beaver human etc., nope.  No evidence in the cast.

 

Evidence of large hairy hominoid?  PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE CAST. Plus much evidence - from actual observation of actual large anthropoids, in zoos - that they do precisely what the animal allegedly leaving the imprint was allegedly doing.

 

Follow evidence.  Anything else?  Snipe hunt.

 

P.S.  I fail to get how anyone can be unmoved by one of the more prominent anthropologists and primate specialists of the past century going from skeptic to proponent on the basis of this cast alone.  Him over you.

 

 

 

 

Edited by DWA
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yep, but unless it learned to levitate, that's not an elk 'cause it didn't leave tracks.   Elk do that, y' know ... leave tracks.   You, personally, might not know enough about elk, so perhaps you are positioned to honestly make a plea from ignorance, but anyone who knows anything at all about elk should be looking for the missing tracks and, not finding them, extremely skeptical of elkish claims.   I can't tell you with certainty whether it's bigfoot or not.  I see the logic "they" tried to use.  Might be right, might not.  But whatever it is, it's not an elk.    When elk stand up from horizontal, their feet go under them.   After the body rises, the feet will leave tracks where the elk was laying.   There would be large, clear, cloven-hoofed tracks, inside the "lay boundaries", unsmudged, not muted, unmistakeable, and they're not there.  

 

Go look at the picture skookum cast pre-picture.   Find them.  They will be sharp tracks like below because they were made AFTER the elk got up, they won't be blurry or smudged by being laid on.  That's all that is necessary to prove me wrong.   Should be easy if you're right and I'm wrong. 

 

MIB

 

 

IM000462.jpg

Edited by MIB
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

MIB good point on the lack of footprints showing the elk standing after the lay.   I do not know what made the impression.     Another thing that would hardly be typical would be for an elk to approach and be relaxed enough to lay down and rest anywhere  close to a human camp.     A camp that had been sound blasting bigfoot vocalizations for days.    Any animal within miles would know something was there.    However since the sound blasting was of suspected BF vocalizations,  one can imagine that would entice curious BF to come and take a look and finding a baited area, decide to sample the fruit.      Additionally I would not think an elk would approach an area and be relaxed enough to lay down where BF vocalizations were being made if BF is their major predator.    .   Too many think of BF solely stomping around bipedally.       However we have many reports of BF dropping into all fours to avoid being seen,  or traverse difficult terrain.    I have seen enough evidence of avoidance in several footprints finds to be pretty confident that BF intentionally tries to avoid leaving footprints.   Lack of BF footprints near the Skookum cast may be problematic for some, but it is not at all surprising to me.     I can just see BF laying down and sort of rolling around to get the fruit to avoid leaving evidence in the form of footprints it was there.     Elk could care less.     The back holes at the Golf course in Seaside are a favorite hangout for a herd of elk and their footprints on the greens are the dearth of the maintenance staff and golfers alike.      

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was mentioned previously in this thread previously but at over 1knposts I'll just ask.  What if any tracks were near this lay?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No sasquatch tracks either. They supposedly make them everywhere. 

I just stated in another thread how rare sasquatch tracks are.   How do you get the idea they are everywhere? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rare ? I was under the impression they are found in about every state . Perhaps, I am mistaken and it is the so called sightings

that are so prevalent .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meldrum has one of the biggest collections of footprint casts in existence.    He has been collecting them for decades and inherited a lot of those he has from Grover Kranz who also collected them for decades.  .    I think Meldrum has somewhere between 200 and 300 casts.      Admittedly most people, including myself,   do not make casts.      In my case it is because I do not carry casting materials and sufficient water with me to make casts in remote areas.    Too heavy to carry for months or years at a time between finds.    Besides if Meldrums 100s of casts do not convince anyone in academia or you,    then why bother?.       Sighting reports are far more frequent than footprint finds..    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying. I do agree with your statement why bother. The tracks are not convincing to us.

The ones I found intriguing of a crippled individual in Washington  and the London track way are now it seems just more hoaxes.

Turns out  they are no more convincing than eyewitness sightings. I have read many convincing reports and listened to people on this forum who are convinced of the creatures existence. However, this is not proof and the creature remains elusive and undocumented. Sure wish there was a specimen to be examined .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites