Skookum Cast

[Guest]

M,

It's just my opinion and this is just the response I'm talking about, it's not a personal attack on anyone or their qualifications to attribute behavior to an undocumented species. I'm open to any information that anyone brings forth. I believe they could exsit and this is based on several personal experiences, but I also believe that 99.9 percent

of what is attributed to biggie is questionable. As I've said many times on this site and others if you go on a witch hunt you will find witches. Its not incumbent upon you or anyone else to prove anything to me the evidence will speak for itself, if it has to be explained why this or that is Bigfoot then It most likely is not going to pass as proof that an unknown creature is amoung us IMO.

That is disappointing to me. To me it shows a fundamental lack of respect for science of good caliber and standing. It's the subtle details that are not something Jimmy Joe Bubba Bob would think of if he was planning a hoax that are VITAL to building the supporting case for Bigfoot. Papers like Fahrenbach's trait distribution analysis and Dr Meldrum's morphology analysis are powerful, purely scientific proofs exactly BECAUSE they are obscure.

To reduce science to the level of a kiddie school slide show is to do it great disservice.

[Guest Cervelo]

That is disappointing to me. To me it shows a fundamental lack of respect for science of good caliber and standing. It's the subtle details that are not something Jimmy Joe Bubba Bob would think of if he was planning a hoax that are VITAL to building the supporting case for Bigfoot. Papers like Fahrenbach's trait distribution analysis and Dr Meldrum's morphology analysis are powerful, purely

scientific proofs exactly BECAUSE they are obscure

To reduce science to the level of a kiddie school slide show

is to do it great disservice.

Well like I said it's just my opinion thanks for your always insightful input!

[Guest]

Just watched the Best Evidence show on Bigfoot. It extensively used my images from the PGF film without any credit whatsoever. My point all along exactly.

Edited April 10, 2011 by damndirtyape

[wolftrax]

To parade around this misidentified and sub-quality picture is funny. Like I said before and before and before... ad naseum. You have body parts going to the wrong places. Got nothing new but this old argument huh? The last picture is copyrighted.

I posted the image showing the elk available on the net, the cast was attached to it, but your talking about the "V" slippage of elk hooves that just so happen to be within reach of the the wrists of the elk, good place for the hooves to be when the elk stands up, eh?

Just watched the Best Evidence show on Bigfoot. It extensively used my images from the PGF film without any credit whatsoever. My point all along exactly.

And what point is that?

[Guest]

Heel detail

The heels that are part of the Skookum cast have what looks like an Achilles tendon attached to them. The dismembered elk leg was an obvious mismatch in that this feature, the tendon, was much more robust. It was a good 1.5†in diameter versus the .5†for the Skookum cast.

With the elk leg pressed into soil a pretty thick round feature is left there. This image is a small one but clearly shows then tendon (for lack of a better term right now) receding away from the bulbous heel like area, with my own heel casting sitting beside it. I wanted to really quantify this observation so I sectioned a copy of the Skookum heel and one I made of the Elk leg. I have actual pictures of course and I am sure that those that watched one of the Bigfoot shows on Monster Quest saw Daris and Owen looking at them.

[Guest]

I posted the image showing the elk available on the net, the cast was attached to it, but your talking about the "V" slippage of elk hooves that just so happen to be within reach of the the wrists of the elk, good place for the hooves to be when the elk stands up, eh?

And what point is that?

Not really, what with the actual heels on the other side of the body. Did you actually read any of what I wrote above? Those grooves are not a part of the cast impression's top layer. Are you now proposing a three legged elk? Only one elk hoof at a time in that spot.

The point is that I sat for days building a device to hold that film, bought a microscope with a camera adapter attached to it and painstakingly made over 560 images from that film, in red, blue and green light. The images were made for John Green but they fell into the hands of M.K. Davis who assembled them how he saw fit and published them as his own. You do not see anything wrong in any of that? This is why many people keep the evidence they collect secret until a time comes when they feel it right to release it. I have some photographs, purportedly of Bigfoot, that would really make people gasp if they saw them. The person who took them though doesn't feel they should be released to the general public. Why is that? I am sure they have seen how things like this get treated on TV shows.

The Best Evidence show had an expert female scientist who insisted that there was not enough food for something like a Bigfoot to exist. She stated that Gigantopithecus was a tropical ape, with a large brain that need nothing but high end food resources. She was talking out her ... two of the three cave sites are above the Tropic of Cancer. Berries and bamboo is also the current theorized diet of the beast.

[wolftrax]

Not really, what with the actual heels on the other side of the body. Did you actually read any of what I wrote above? Those grooves are not a part of the cast impression's top layer. Are you now proposing a three legged elk? Only one elk hoof at a time in that spot.

3 hooves from an elk are a lot better than no footprints or handprints from a squatch.

The point is that I sat for days building a device to hold that film, bought a microscope with a camera adapter attached to it and painstakingly made over 560 images from that film, in red, blue and green light. The images were made for John Green but they fell into the hands of M.K. Davis who assembled them how he saw fit and published them as his own. You do not see anything wrong in any of that?

You know I did.

This is why many people keep the evidence they collect secret until a time comes when they feel it right to release it. I have some photographs, purportedly of Bigfoot, that would really make people gasp if they saw them. The person who took them though doesn't feel they should be released to the general public. Why is that? I am sure they have seen how things like this get treated on TV shows.

Kind of like not wanting to be filmed while examining the cast and signing a release so the producer of monster shows can do with it and edit it any way he wants?

The Best Evidence show had an expert female scientist who insisted that there was not enough food for something like a Bigfoot to exist. She stated that Gigantopithecus was a tropical ape, with a large brain that need nothing but high end food resources. She was talking out her ... two of the three cave sites are above the Tropic of Cancer. Berries and bamboo is also the current theorized diet of the beast.

So what I am gathering here is that the point is you didn't like MK Davis using your images, or the show using your images, without permission, but I don't know what that has to do with letting people examine the cast or the 3d scan.

[wolftrax]

Heel detail

The heels that are part of the Skookum cast have what looks like an Achilles tendon attached to them. The dismembered elk leg was an obvious mismatch in that this feature, the tendon, was much more robust. It was a good 1.5†in diameter versus the .5†for the Skookum cast.

With the elk leg pressed into soil a pretty thick round feature is left there. This image is a small one but clearly shows then tendon (for lack of a better term right now) receding away from the bulbous heel like area, with my own heel casting sitting beside it. I wanted to really quantify this observation so I sectioned a copy of the Skookum heel and one I made of the Elk leg. I have actual pictures of course and I am sure that those that watched one of the Bigfoot shows on Monster Quest saw Daris and Owen looking at them.

How do you know the difference in width is not form the slumping of substrate either before the casting or from the weight of the casting material itself?

[Guest]

Fair is fair...we don't agree on a lot, Prag, but one of my big things is honest debating. That can't be done without both sides willing to put it all out and consider it all fairly

This is going to have to be where we start disagreeing again..."having an interest in bigfoot" is not a professional disqulifier. That presumes a bias.

Would not your panel be just as biased as you are suggesting the proponent scientists are, just if favor of "elk"?

Proponent scientists deserve an equal place at the table with skeptical ones in any discussion about evidence. It MIGHT be fair to say that Dr Meldrum has a lack in knowledge of ungulate physiology, but by the same token your elk experts lack knowledge of primate physiology. That's why they both have a place at the table, indeed are NEEDED to be at the table.

Mulder, my original intent would have been to have biologists assess and delineate out all of the elk tracks from the numerous photographs and video taken of the scene. I've never heard where this was ever done. Since there have already been primate experts render their opinions, elk biologists would have actually balanced things out since there hasn't been any elk experts assess all that evidence.

Of course I agree that the best scenario would have been if experts from both backgrounds would have analyzed the whole of the evidence jointly in the first place. The only scientist who had anything close to elk expertise pertained to African ungulates, and they just aren't the same as elk. He had a principle interest in Bigfoot as well. And so we have this controversy come up over and over through the years. I suspect that will never change as long as elk experts are unable to analyze those visual elements, as well as the cast.

DDA, I do want to thank you for sharing the latest information too. I will take it into context. Obviously we don't agree on things but some of that is simply due to certain examination steps never having taken place. I also want to say, there is something unusual with that elk leg that you previously posted that I am having trouble with. You're saying that was indeed a front leg? If so, yeah, it is a lot more robust then most elk legs I've seen. (I'm not a trophy hunter, more like a sustenance hunter.) It actually looks to be the size and profile of a rear leg, but of course the rear leg bends backwards. And since that photo you previously had pixelated so easily, it was impossible to tell much of anything. So anyway, even tho we will disagree, thanks for sharing that little bit of information. And sorry you had images used and not being given proper credit. While some of that is unintentional, with non-copyrighted images, or for education purpose, sounds like the pgf work was pretty major.

Dave

[Guest]

So what I am gathering here is that the point is you didn't like MK Davis using your images, or the show using your images, without permission, but I don't know what that has to do with letting people examine the cast or the 3d scan.

If you can't see the obvious correlation, then there's nothing the rest of us can do to enlighten you. DDA doesn't want to get burned again with his work being used by others without proper credit, control, and/or compensation.

I understand his motivation, even if I don't agree with the concept of witholding evidence from consideration.

[Guest]

Mulder, my original intent would have been to have biologists assess and delineate out all of the elk tracks from the numerous photographs and video taken of the scene. I've never heard where this was ever done. Since there have already been primate experts render their opinions, elk biologists would have actually balanced things out since there hasn't been any elk experts assess all that evidence.

That, IMO, just leads to "dueling experts" with both sides talking AT each other rather than working together investigatively to arrive at a mutually agreed conclusion. One, I might ad, that they SHOULD be able to come to if they are being at all objective.

Of course I agree that the best scenario would have been if experts from both backgrounds would have analyzed the whole of the evidence jointly in the first place.

Thank you for that.

The only scientist who had anything close to elk expertise pertained to African ungulates, and they just aren't the same as elk.

He studied ungulates on 4 continents, not just Africa. And ungulates as a group have as many similarities as differences, so the expertise is applicable.

He had a principle interest in Bigfoot as well.

Again...that doesn't invalidate his expertise in his field. There is no such thing as a 100% "objective" man who never has an opinion. The question is is he honest enough and have enough integrity to not let his opinions color his analysis.

And so we have this controversy come up over and over through the years. I suspect that will never change as long as elk experts are unable to analyze those visual elements, as well as the cast.

Agreed, the controversy is probably going to continue until there IS full disclosure and a concerted group effort to do a full and proper analysis with ALL parties at the table.

[Guest]

That, IMO, just leads to "dueling experts" with both sides talking AT each other rather than working together investigatively to arrive at a mutually agreed conclusion. One, I might ad, that they SHOULD be able to come to if they are being at all objective.

Again, this is only because there haven't been any elk experts examine all the evidence. I'm talking about site photographs and video in enlarged detail, not just the cast. Its only been primate experts and they were not knowledgeable about elk. In fact I now wonder if even they were able to examine a complete collection of visual material of the scene in depth? But even if they were, they were still not elk experts.

He studied ungulates on 4 continents, not just Africa. And ungulates as a group have as many similarities as differences, so the expertise is applicable.

Yes, but other ungulates are still not elk, and if they simply lay down or stand up differently then elk, the expertise is practically moot. There are some very specific features surrounding, and in the impression, that tell a story, and if a so-called expert doesn't know what the relevant posture patterns of an elk is supposed to be like in that context, then he is only guessing as an amateur would. I might be considered an amateur too, but I have a fair amount of experience with elk, so even I know what to look for and thus see the contradictions in the available evidence. And that's why I have come to question those conclusions.

Again...that doesn't invalidate his expertise in his field. There is no such thing as a 100% "objective" man who never has an opinion. The question is is he honest enough and have enough integrity to not let his opinions color his analysis.

See above.

[wolftrax]

The Skookum photo has been flipped and rotated but it's obvious by the body and knee impression that both of these imprints were made by the same animal.

[Guest]

Let me post this one more time!

Skookum Cast threads are by nature full of debate. This thread stays active based upon debating the Skookum Cast.

So this is how this thread will flow from now on........

Please debate the Cast and the Cast circumstances. Please refrain from making any observations concerning the intent or posting style of any poster posting in this thread.

If you feel that you should encourage a member posting in this thread, then use the PM function and leave it off of the thread.

If you feel that you should discourage a member posting in this thread, then use the PM function and leave it off of the thread.

Leave the personal comments out of this discussion.

Ask DDA a question. He can answer it or not if he wants too, or if he is able too. It's his choice, like any other member of this forum.

Any post not conforming to the "admonitions" that I have just made will be deleted and if we get enough of them, this thread will be closed.

Once again I have had to delete posts that were off topic and/or made personal observations not related to the discussion of the Skookum Cast. If you don't see your post in this thread, you know why. Before you make a post in this thread, please read it and make sure it is contributing to the discussion/debate concerning the Skookum Cast and not making a personal statement. If it makes a personal statement to any of the posters in this thread, it will be deleted. Please do not reply to a post with a personal statement because your post will be deleted also.

Folks, this is the last chance you will have to discuss the Skookum Cast. Use this thread wisely.

Remember, discuss the Cast and the circumstances surrounding the Cast.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Splash

[Huntster]

Huntster, the Skookum Cast is a claim that affects us all.

How does it affect me?

I used to tout it as evidence of bigfoot too

I never did. I recognize it as evidence simply because some scientists have examined it and said it is, but in reality, I haven't a clue. I've never seen it, and would not likely know what I was looking at if I did.

I'm not so anonymous either as I've shared my identity here.

I don't know you from Adam. Or Eve, for that matter.

But I am also a voice that reflects other voices out there who have questions, just as you are.

Precisely. You are a voice crying out from the wilderness. Nothing more. Mr. Noll holds no responsibility to you or I at all.

There has been scientists look at the cast, but which of those scientists didn't have an interest in bigfoot?

Now, what an interesting question. If they held no interest in bigfoot, do you think they would incur the cost in time and travel to go see the cast? This is precisely the problem I repeat ad nauseum with regard to this science industry that so many hold so religiously. Most in the appropriate fields don't give a rat's behind (until it pays), and those who do are held as something less than professional.

Remember, in the beginning I offered to bring together 3 elk biologists from Oregon and Washington to review all the evidence. That idea went south pretty fast around here.

Perhaps you aren't aware of what Mr. Noll went through regarding another "expert" from this forum who offered his "services" analysing the cast?