Guest fenris Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 elk lay or biggie butt print,whats yoru take? Go…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) the Skookum Cast at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Skookum_cast Skookum Cast info at the BFRO: http://www.bfro.net/...cast/images.htm Youtube: Edited January 25, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I have not examined it personally, but I lean towards elk wallow. I suspect that the BF move with Elk, so that could explain the ancillary evidence such as vocalization in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mcgibboper Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I personally dont buy that this one is a BF, if it was why would it lay in the mud instead of sitting, kneeling or anything else like BFRO is proposing? and if all the area was soft mud I would think there would be some kind of better tracks made that what is showing. and looking at the cast, not really seeing a biped form in there when you look at the BFRO web link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I suspect that the BF move with Elk, so that could explain the ancillary evidence such as vocalization in the area. I'd take it a bit further. No one is disputing that there were elk in the vicinity at the time the impressions were left in the mud, yet why would elk hang around a place where a top predator was "vocalizing?" The real explanation for the Skookum Cast? Elk. The elk were relaxed enough at that location that at least one of them had a nice lie-down. Why weren't the elk scared by the "vocalizing" bigfoots? Because those weren't bigfoots vocalizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) I personally dont buy that this one is a BF, if it was why would it lay in the mud instead of sitting, kneeling or anything else like BFRO is proposing? and if all the area was soft mud I would think there would be some kind of better tracks made that what is showing. and looking at the cast, not really seeing a biped form in there when you look at the BFRO web link. As I indicated in the other Skookum cast thread, the "lay and reach" approach to food is a documented behavior in higher primates. Also, the lack of elk tracks in the cast area itself (where they would HAVE to be if it was an elk lay) speaks against the elk hypothesis. Edited January 25, 2011 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kane2002 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 On this one I have to vote "Sasquatch." Remember we are looking at the cast upside down. That is the mounds on this cast are actually valleys in the mud. At least that is how I interpret it. So what we see is the reverse of the actual. Is that right? I have seen the cast two times. It is confusing but I think there would be more elk or deer tracks in the middle of the depression. Think how an elk raises, hind end first, so his legs would be under him. My thoughts only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) I sit on the fence... There is no way of knowing till we sort the players out, the hoax idea out, and then we have experts look the cast over... But gut feeling says it is not a hoax but a misidentified sight that was cast... Wallow or not... No harm no foul... Edited January 26, 2011 by TooRisky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I sit on the fence... There is no way of knowing till we sort the players out, the hoax idea out, and then we have experts look the cast over... But gut feeling says it is not a hoax but a misidentified sight hat was cast... No harm no foul... Experts HAVE looked it over. Pgs 112-123 in LMS documents the finding, casting, and examination of the Skookum impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'd take it a bit further. No one is disputing that there were elk in the vicinity at the time the impressions were left in the mud, yet why would elk hang around a place where a top predator was "vocalizing?" The real explanation for the Skookum Cast? Elk. The elk were relaxed enough at that location that at least one of them had a nice lie-down. Why weren't the elk scared by the "vocalizing" bigfoots? Because those weren't bigfoots vocalizing. I have been in the Gifford Pinchot NF this year elk hunting. To be fair I must say that this country is some of the most dense forest I have ever hunted in. I don't know how big their research area was, but it's plausible that the elk simply did not hear any vocalizations or if they did they were far enough away they didn't care. And elk don't rely on the eyes and ears nearly as much as their nose. The quickest way to blow a stalk is to get winded, that is the nail in the coffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 no sasquatch. there were elk prints in the area and the impression that was regarded as a heel impression looked like an elk/deer knee impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) I am not aware of any significant report that suggest BF take Elk, so Apex Predator or no, I see no reason the Elk would spook and leave, since they don't always do that for Browns who DO eat them. Not to mention, animal behaviors change based on location, resources, numbers present, etc. There was reportedly a fair amount of Elk sign as I recall. Put another way in response to Sas's reply, I do not believe that indication of the presence of BF or Elk in any way precludes the presence of the other. I was just providing a rationale for why some involved in the expedition may believe the impresion to be BF related due to vocalizations observed from the approximate area. Edited January 26, 2011 by infoman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Elk, deer, bear, and coyote prints were found all over the place. Were there any prints found that match what is believed to be from bigfoot anywhere close to the wallow or lay areas? Just woundering............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 26, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted January 26, 2011 elk lay or biggie butt print,whats yoru take? Go…. I have one question about Lay/Wallow. Would/Could Elk use a Truck Turnaround, with a Gravel Road surface like that was, as a Lay/Wallow ?? I have read that an Elk Lay/Wallow is used for the Animal's to do exactly that, wallow, but i can't see how they would be able to do that in that particular place in question & i have read teh view of someone who regualry hunts Elk who downright says it's not an Elk Wallow & he has no bias one way or another.. Given that, would we not take this Guy's opinion on it more so than someone who hasn't ever hunted Elk or seen dozens of their Wallows, like many whho are contributing & adding their 10 Cents to this ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 All the information about this cast is interesting, but for me... inconclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts