Leaderboard

Hello DWA, Oh, and I had to add to this. DISMISS EVERYONE!!!!?!?!?!?! Bigfoot skepticism dismisses the consistent experience of thousands, with no good reason whatever. Copious evidence tells me to dismiss "I've never seen one" as a blanket proof that something isn't real. Ok. Then maybe it's time to clear the air a bit and zero in on the issue. It starts with the misuse of Skepticism. You apparently like to use the word to mean the group that ignores evidence. Why? Haven't a clue honestly. Perhaps the thing to do is to NOT use the word for that. I think using a word like "opponents" might end the confusion with truthfully describes your arguments. Sure implying that skeptics deny evidence sounds good but in truth it's incorrect. Opponents and denialists deny evidence. Skeptics weigh both evidence and non-evidence but, depending on their own personal mindset, may be more (or less) at least open to existence. Your lumping of skeptics in with opponents isn't working and in error sorry to say. Although, as far as rankling skeptics, you've done a pretty fair job. As far as this thread goes I stand by my post #2. If my being a skeptic, even though I go into the field and lean towards BF being real, groups me with opponents in your eyes, and therefore you see me as someone who doesn't read reports or who ignores the evidence just like opponents then there's only one thing I can say......you constantly skew the definition of skepticism and for what purpose to which you do that I haven't a clue; I just know that that's what you've always done- but it's a flawed viewpoint. Always has been. I appreciate your being a hands down proponent for an extant North American ape, DWA, I really do. And this isn't personal in the least but there are THREE camps when it comes to the subject of Sasquatch, NOT TWO: Proponents, Opponents, and Skeptics. Your fight is with the Opponents' camp.

Duh? We are not talking proof here, so you dont have to man the fortress walls so viciously. Sasquatch is an unidentified animal, and so is the hair because it lacks a medulla. But its not a human hair because it was worn away and not cut. So its ok to say "we dont know". But a anthropologist of Swindler's reputation stating a large biped made it? Because of the heel imprint? Is better than most reports from a proponents point of view you understand. Would we rather just have the heel itself? Absolutely.

So if there is copious elk hair found, why no sasquatch hair/fur? Not to be snarky but everything points to an elk (IMO). Norse states that there were tracks, the BFRO (maybe) says that there were tracks of prosaic animals and elk hair is found IN THE IMPRESSION ITSELF. JohnT claimed paved road but???? In any event: The impression has been shown to fit the profile of an elk and yet some insist a fantastic animal/ the impression had lots of elk hair imbedding within it so why NOT an elk? How can one ignore the prosaic and insist a completely unknown animal created the impression and yet left no prints to or from and not a single hair in the wallow/impression? How is sasquatch the reasonable thought?

Hello All, I think it may be too late to add the "Bigfoot" qualifier to the word "Skeptic" in the thread's title line. That may have effected a more clear-cut discussion now knowing the OP's distinction in terms. So skeptics are off the hook it would seem and the "bigfoot skeptics/opponents/denialists" camp is the one targeted by the thread's title. That's a good thing right? IMHO though, the term "bigfoot skeptic" is synonymous with "skeptic" so just the term "bigfoot" added in should in no way shift the understood meaning of the word skeptic into the opponent category. I still say that the OP's focus should clearly state "opponents" or "denialists" and leave the term skeptic out of the equation altogether.

I think it's an elk because I can clearly see the impressions made by elk or an elk like creature. Exactly like the animated gif. In my opinion it is a near exact match.The cast was full of elk hair. Like you have experience with elk I have experience with people: Brian Smith, who once upon a time was a respectd, active and trusted researcher in this field, worked with Noll and possibly Randles tells a compelling story. He knows them much better than internet bigfoot buddies. Peel then onion.

I have seen the impression of a bull elk in a wallow near the Indian Heaven racetrack just a few miles to the south of the Meadows. It rolled on it's side and raked it's antlers though the mud, very visible. Then it stood up in it's body print, leaving very visible tracks. I've inspected many elk beds and the substrate, usually under grass, seldom shows tracks. Something else missing is a pile of elk pellets in the center of the bed. They almost always defecate when leaving their bed. I am in agreement with MIB and Norseman. I'm not sure what it was but it probably wasn't an elk. Also, I haven't seen it mentioned, but Thom Powell in his book The Locals, discusses the skookum cast and says the plan was originally his idea. Anyway, his description seemed to be a little more in depth than the BFRO report.

Ive been a hunter all my life and Ive never seen a deer bed down in a mud wallow. a trail or a road are general hard packed because humans are driving heavy objects on them. mud wallows are soft, which is exactly the reason why they left the fruit there in the first place!

Elk tracks around the lay but not within the lay itself seals it for me that its not an Elk. Daris Swindler thought it was a giant biped. I could accept a Bear because if you have ever baited Bear they tend to just mash everything down around the bait site. But Randles says no to a bear, I wasnt there, but a skeptical primatologist from a major university (swindler) proclaimed it to be a authentic Sasquatch body cast.......... you would think this would make a few skeptics sit up and take notice. But no such luck. Its gonna take a body, so the next time you set up a Sasquatch bait sight? Be prepared to sit on it all night long. Preferrably with a large caliber rifle and a light source, nightvision or IR. If in Washington buy your small game license and if asked tell the game warden your hunting coyote which is legal at night. If he balks at your caliber selection tell him its your elk rifle and your just plain attached to it.