Skookum Cast In A Nut Shell

[wolftrax]

click to view animated comparison of elk and skookum cast.

[wolftrax]

DesertYeti's interpretaton:

Edited January 29, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest LAL]

If, however, I've established myself as an expert in a certain area and many people consider me to be one, then I have to be very careful about the statements I make relevant to that field. If I make unqualified statements in a book or on a website that cannot be backed up in the peer-reviewed literature, that's not professional. Every academic knows this.

As I recall Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Swindler co-authored a paper on the Skookum cast but it was rejected (no, I don't have the details). Dr. Fish wrote it up but died. I sometimes hear proponents don't try and that's a mark of pseudoscience but some have tried. I'm sure you weren't implying they didn't.

[Guest fenris]

Now your argument is reduced to "divots"?

I've posted the citations of the professional opinions of various experts who have stated their finding that the impression is NOT an elk lay, and the basis for their conclusions. I'm gonna go with what the experts say, plus reason and logic on this issue.

this is getting painful, they are not experts, just scientists with an opinion. You really are letting some form of hero worship cloud your judgement here. Its elk lay, and even if not, bear, mule deer, people, careless bfro folks?

[Guest fenris]

No, I don't. Not when I have multiple credentialed experts telling me one thing and a bunch of self-appointed debunkers distorting the facts trying to tell me something different.

Credentialed in what? Bigfoot study, negative..... hence, not experts, just more people with a 2 bit opinion, just like you, just like me. No matter how hard you wanna believe...

[Guest]

As I recall Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Swindler co-authored a paper on the Skookum cast but it was rejected (no, I don't have the details). Dr. Fish wrote it up but died. I sometimes hear proponents don't try and that's a mark of pseudoscience but some have tried. I'm sure you weren't implying they didn't.

Standard Orthodoxy defense 101 for "skeptics":

Step 1: deny the truth of a claim that challenges the orthodoxy, based on "lack of evidence"

Step 2: demand evidence that is proffered to support the claim pass "peer review" to be accepted

Step 3: define "peer review" as only being done by advocates for the orthodoxy side of the argument

Step 4: dismiss/reject any and all proffered evidence

Step 5: see Step 1

[Guest]

Credentialed in what? Bigfoot study, negative..... hence, not experts, just more people with a 2 bit opinion, just like you, just like me. No matter how hard you wanna believe...

Credentialed in wildlife anatomy and biomechanics, among other related fields. That more than qualifies them to render expert analysis of ANY wildlife data, known species or not. The principles of such analyses are the same.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest fenris]

Standard Orthodoxy defense 101 for "skeptics":

Step 1: deny the truth of a claim that challenges the orthodoxy, based on "lack of evidence"

Step 2: demand evidence that is proffered to support the claim pass "peer review" to be accepted

Step 3: define "peer review" as only being done by advocates for the orthodoxy side of the argument

Step 4: dismiss/reject any and all proffered evidence

Step 5: see Step 1

oh please.... Ive actually seen one dude.... debunker, hardly. That said, one more time, elk most likely, if not elk, next most likely subject, after that next most likely. sadly, bigfoot without proof, least likely. What you're offering here is hero worship, nothing more.

Meldrum, etc, not infallible. I am comfortable questioning them or anyone else. Blind belief is what's in the way of proving this to be real or not.

[Guest]

oh please.... Ive actually seen one dude.... debunker, hardly. That said, one more time, elk most likely, if not elk, next most likely subject, after that next most likely. sadly, bigfoot without proof, least likely. What you're offering here is hero worship, nothing more.

Meldrum, etc, not infallible. I am comfortable questioning them or anyone else. Blind belief is what's in the way of proving this to be real or not.

Whose belief is "blind" and whose conclusion is based on evidence?

You've offered not one single shred of evidence to counter the evidence and analyses of Meldrum, et al. I can only conclude that you HAVE no such evidence.

Simply stating "elk lay" over and over again is NOT evidence.

[Guest fenris]

Whose belief is "blind" and whose conclusion is based on evidence?

You've offered not one single shred of evidence to counter the evidence and analyses of Meldrum, et al. I can only conclude that you HAVE no such evidence.

Simply stating "elk lay" over and over again is NOT evidence.

Putting Meldrum on a pedestal doesnt given you proof either. Maybe he has an agenda, maybe he doesn't but he's not infallible. Elk most likely, bigfoot least likely.

[Guest]

Now your argument is reduced to "divots"?

I've posted the citations of the professional opinions of various experts who have stated their finding that the impression is NOT an elk lay, and the basis for their conclusions. I'm gonna go with what the experts say, plus reason and logic on this issue.

What if the experts didn't have all the information?

Do you REALLY see my argument reduced to 'divots' Mulder? If so you must have tunnel vision because I'm raising some important issues. Oh and the term "divots" is because the poor quality of the photo evidence prevents us from properly identifying wether those 'divots' were caused by ELK or DEER. OBVIOUSLY they are NOT cause by Sasquatch. What would you say caused them Mulder given the number of ELK HAIRS that were picked from the impression?

[Guest]

I will agree there is a good chance the marks were made by an elk, but to say bigfoot least likely is WAY out there! Do you really mean to say bigfoot being responsible for the marks is less likely than a cougar, porcupine, coyote, mountain beaver, chipmunk, hummingbird, or yellowjacket, all, by the way native to the area? Or is the list more like this:

1. elk

2. blacktail deer

3. BFRO researchers/campers/loggers/hoaxers

4. bigfoot

[Guest]

Here's my list

1 elk

2 deer

3 coyote

4 bear

5 bigfoot researcher

6 cougar

7 chipmunk

8 leopard gecko

9 gerbil

10 field mouse

11 chupacabra

13 Jimmy Hoffa

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 bigfoot

[Guest fenris]

I will agree there is a good chance the marks were made by an elk, but to say bigfoot least likely is WAY out there! Do you really mean to say bigfoot being responsible for the marks is less likely than a cougar, porcupine, coyote, mountain beaver, chipmunk, hummingbird, or yellowjacket, all, by the way native to the area? Or is the list more like this:

1. elk

2. blacktail deer

3. BFRO researchers/campers/loggers/hoaxers

4. bigfoot

When you consider bigfoot is not proven to exist and the other things you mention do, YES, least likely. You seem to take it "on faith" that the critter exists, and that helps nothing. As for what I saw, I know what I think I saw, and I know what I believe I saw, BUT, believeing and knowing are not nessicarily the same.

Number 4 may or may not exist, this, LEAST likely

[Guest fenris]

Here's my list

1 elk

2 deer

3 coyote

4 bear

5 bigfoot researcher

6 cougar

7 chipmunk

8 leopard gecko

9 gerbil

10 field mouse

11 chupacabra

13 Jimmy Hoffa

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 bigfoot

For the record, I have no belief in the chupacabra and even if the thing exists, mangy skinless dog or alien looking thing? Have fun with that. And for the record I am not trying to discourage belief, but without critical thinking, blind hero worship of Meldrum and company is worthless.

Edited January 31, 2011 by fenris