Jump to content

Skookum Cast


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to bite Huntster, I'm sure you read Splash's Admonition, so if your intent is to have the thread shut down, I'm not going to play other then to say if the cast is of no consequence to you, then why not leave the discussion to those who have some insight and interested in the subject?

I will also say that there are Elk biologists that I am sure would be interested in a mystery impression. Most are responsible for Managing Wildlife in general in Oregon and Washington. Some specialize in elk, but there is also a wider field of study and responsibility for most. If there was evidence of another species in the wilds, which is entailed in their job descriptions, I'm sure they would be very interested in that as well. But they wouldn't enter into it wanting it to be sasquatch or elk. Besides, elk are so common, there really is no hidden desire to want it to be another elk. But since they know about elk anatomy & behavior, well they could interpret the sign being debated as nobody ever has.

I have an interest in the Skookum Cast because I research sasquatch. I have seen them 4 times and have had many more non-visual encounters. They are fascinating to me, and based on my increased number of encounters, that gives me just a tad additional insight. I also love elk hunting. Its the one sport that I won't let anything or anybody get in my way of enjoying. I enjoy having amazing encounters with elk. Being I have some additional insight of each, well I feel I have a reason to question certain evidence when certain pieces don't add up and there is valid concern. Maybe this field hasn't figured out or matured enough to recognize that we all have a growing responsibility for what is portrayed as the species we are claiming exists? Maybe some day, there will even be a code of conduct in the field of researchers. For now, I am questioning certain evidence. I think that's my right. If DDA doesn't want to share that evidence with the public, then that's his choice but it only adds to the area of suspicion we should not have in this field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bite Huntster

Your reply isn't a "bite"?

I'm not going to play other then to say if the cast is of no consequence to you, then why not leave the discussion to those who have some insight and interested in the subject?

I didn't write that the cast "is of no consequence to me". I clearly wrote that I consider it evidence, because some scientists examined it together and believe that it was evidence. You stated that "the Skookum Cast is a claim that affects us all", and I asked how I was affected.

I will also say that there are Elk biologists that I am sure would be interested in a mystery impression.

I wonder if they are interested enough to contact Mr. Noll to see the cast?

Most are responsible for Managing Wildlife in general in Oregon and Washington. Some specialize in elk, but there is also a wider field of study and responsibility for most. If there was evidence of another species in the wilds, which is entailed in their job descriptions, I'm sure they would be very interested in that as well.

That is my exact contention, and I have written such many times. However, it doesn't appear to be so, does it? Have any of these official wildlife managers contacted Mr. Noll to see the cast? I honestly don't know, but I'll willing to guess that they haven't.

But they wouldn't enter into it wanting it to be sasquatch or elk.

Why not? And who says anybody "wanted" it to be a cast of a sasquatch? Ron Schaffner (co-founder of BFRO) concluded that it was a cast of an elk. Grover Krantz went on record saying that he had no idea what it was. Before examining the Skookum Cast, Daris Swindler was a sasquatch skeptic. It was that cast that changed his opinion. So just what is it that you are alleging, anyway?

I feel I have a reason to question certain evidence when certain pieces don't add up and there is valid concern.

And Mr. Noll (or whoever owns the cast) may or may not choose to address your concerns, but he does not have any "responsibility" to do so.

Maybe this field hasn't figured out or matured enough to recognize that we all have a growing responsibility for what is portrayed as the species we are claiming exists?

Indeed, this species hasn't even "matured" enough for official wildlife managers to show any interest whatsoever. There is no record whatsoever, for example, of an official wildlife manager showing any interest in the Patterson film. So why should you or I be "responsible" when the officials who are supposed to be managing our wildlife are so conspicuously absent?

For now, I am questioning certain evidence. I think that's my right. If DDA doesn't want to share that evidence with the public, then that's his choice

Yup to all that.

but it only adds to the area of suspicion we should not have in this field.

This "field" is filled with burrs. I submit to you that the reason for that is precisely because it has been relegated to amateurs due to the fact that the officials are so fully absent. That is why there are so many hucksters, showmen, and quick-buck artists involved.

If I had any significant evidence, I doubt I'd even mention it on this forum, let alone to the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seemed to have missed your response last night Huntster or would have replied sooner. I'm sure most Wildlife Managers aren't even aware of the cast nor have they contacted him either. We agree. Some may have heard about it too, but they also may have heard they probably couldn't review the supporting photographic evidence showing all the elk tracks if they wanted to. Or maybe, elk biologists wouldn't be considered the type of expert considered qualified because they are not primatologists? Hmm, does seem to be a trend for this. Hence that is a gist of the problem because primate experts don't have the background thus far to know how to read elk sign that is very present at the scene.

It affects us all in that 'as a field', certain evidence is being reflected as being from bigfoot. Alleged evidence of something I and others have a personal interest of. If you don't wish to include your self in 'the field' or feel the evidence important to validate, then that's okay too. That can go for anyone. Choice is choice. Exception to the rule and all that. But if someone talks with me and raises the cast as being evidence of the claim of a species I know exists and that science may someday rely on said evidence, I want to be able to agree with that evidence in corroborating it, or I am being insincere. That's how it affects me and others who recognize the issue. I am not some skeptic of bigfoot either. If I don't feel it is evidence of the existence of the species that some claim, well I want to validate the reasons why I feel that way too. That is my right. I sure wouldn't want to include you in that catch phrase of 'the field', nor are you obligated to be if you don't want to be considered part of it.. Should every person be formalized for their role in a field? Surely not. That's not how the reference 'in the field' works. If you don't want to consider for yourself the details of the evidence or how it affects you or the field, that's for you to decide for yourself. I can't decide that for you.

And Mr. Noll (or whoever owns the cast) may or may not choose to address your concerns, but he does not have any "responsibility" to do so.

DDA's so called 'responsibility' or not, to back up his claim, will be gauged by history! Maybe he nor you understand this. Keeping certain evidence from evaluation will only verify to the world that certain elements of the scene are being kept hidden. 'Responsibility' is not so intangible or negated in that sense. The Skookum Cast is not some sighting report where no evidence exists. The Cast is a tangible piece of evidence with a array of supporting photographic evidence that is not nor never has been shared in detail to those or with the public who can decipher that side of the evidence. If he or you don't understand what the true meaning of 'responsibility' is here, then that only furthers my point. The cast is claimed as evidence of bigfoot, but there isn't a willingness to share certain elements that call into question that claim. If the advocate wants the public to believe in said claim, then an advocate has a responsibility to back up said claim. That's the context of the term. If I made a claim of similar monumental physical evidence, well then I too would have an inherent responsibility to validate it. If you don't understand what responsibility means in this context, then that's simply where you're at.

So in fact, by preventing full disclosure only hurts the case and cause, which has been the trend for a decade. DDA wants scientists to take the cast seriously and be interested in it, well, he may need to take a different kind of disclosure path if he expects that to ever happen. What unbiased scientist will ever want to see the cast today if the supporting detailed photographic evidence is not included in that complete assessment? The cast by itself is only a piece of the existing evidence. And if those scientists are only interested in primate anatomy and have no specific elk knowledge, well their opinion is biased because they apparently lack the insight to differentiate or delineate the elk sign from the impression. Again I proposed elk experts because that element has never been adequately addressed. The primate experts have had their say. To repeat, the best avenue would have been both at the table the first time around.

Physical evidence of the scale being considered and existing, should always to be qualified or validated with respect to the issues or contradictions it raises. Not my rule, that's just proper science. That's the proactive method for verification of a claim. And its THAT process that in the end will increase credibility of the field and the specific evidence itself. To support that evidence shouldn't be backed up, is what actually enables the hucksters and showmen you speak of Huntster! That's the STANDARD we are missing and keeping the skookum cast evidence private, only supports the lack of such Standards. Yes Standards! When any issues are secreted as has been the case with much of the Skookum Cast case, well that only leads the public to conclude that there's something wrong or missing in the claim's evidence. Under normal circumstances, an entity like the US Fish & Wildlife Service should have been invited to review all the evidence surrounding the cast. Would DDA allow that level of inspection to ever occur?

Oh and a previous District Biologist for the USFS Sweethome District of Oregon was very interested in Patty and Bigfoot. He also maintained an open file on bigfoot reports that came in. Doug Hewkin, also a Wildlife Biologist but for Oregon, was also interested in Patty and Bigfoot.

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is Briggs Hall. Maybe you should preach this sermon to those working with the Billy Ape as well.

Edited by damndirtyape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must be some analogies in there somewhere. Brutal Architecture? That's all I got from a quick search of Briggs. Gimme something more to work with DDA, your hints are too broad. Same with your point about the Bili Ape, guess I'm not up on current events. If you're saying something is being covered up, spell it out okay, I can't read minds. Well, not that well anyhow. rolleyes.gif

You do agree there should be Standards of Evidence when making claims right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Blackdog

If I had any significant evidence, I doubt I'd even mention it on this forum, let alone to the media.

I thought you wanted scientists to lead the charge?

If you wouldn't share significant evidence with the media how do you expect the scientists would find out and lead the charge?

From Meldrum, Krantz, Green, Dahinden, Patterson, Gimlin, Byrne, Perez, Noll, Steenburg, Moskowitz, Miller, Munns, etc...?

How has that worked out for you so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cast is a tangible piece of evidence with a array of supporting photographic evidence that is not nor never has been shared in detail to those or with the public who can decipher that side of the evidence.

Wait right there!

PT, you've spent countless posts over weeks, pummeling DDA about how the cast is nothing but an elk lay.

And now, suddenly, "The Cast is a tangible piece of evidence " ?!

I smell more than just a quest for truth... in fact, it stinks.

Edited by gigantor
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huntster, on 10 April 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:

If I had any significant evidence, I doubt I'd even mention it on this forum, let alone to the media.

I thought you wanted scientists to lead the charge?

And one of those can be found on this forum of anonymous posters? Really?

If you wouldn't share significant evidence with the media how do you expect the scientists would find out and lead the charge?

By contacting a scientist directly?

From Meldrum, Krantz, Green, Dahinden, Patterson, Gimlin, Byrne, Perez, Noll, Steenburg, Moskowitz, Miller, Munns, etc...?

How has that worked out for you so far?

It hasn't, because I haven't obtained any significant evidence to turn over to a scientist. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not searching for sasquatch evidence.

You?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure most Wildlife Managers aren't even aware of the cast nor have they contacted him either. We agree. Some may have heard about it too, but they also may have heard they probably couldn't review the supporting photographic evidence showing all the elk tracks if they wanted to. Or maybe, elk biologists wouldn't be considered the type of expert considered qualified because they are not primatologists? Hmm, does seem to be a trend for this.

Lots of “maybes†and “may haves†there. But this trend is clear:

There is a clear lack of professional wildlife biologists involved in this, but among the ones who were there were primatologists.

If you can show that elk biologists even made contact with the cast’s owners, I’d be impressed. If you can’t, then your maybes are worthless.

Hence that is a gist of the problem because primate experts don't have the background thus far to know how to read elk sign that is very present at the scene.

Too bad the elk biologists weren’t there, huh? “Maybe†they should have been.

It affects us all in that 'as a field', certain evidence is being reflected as being from bigfoot. Alleged evidence of something I and others have a personal interest of. If you don't wish to include your self in 'the field' or feel the evidence important to validate, then that's okay too. That can go for anyone. Choice is choice. Exception to the rule and all that. But if someone talks with me and raises the cast as being evidence of the claim of a species I know exists and that science may someday rely on said evidence, I want to be able to agree with that evidence in corroborating it, or I am being insincere. That's how it affects me and others who recognize the issue.

If “science may someday rely on said evidenceâ€, then “science†ought to get with it today, no? And, in the case of this cast, “maybe†that should include elk biologists.

Are you an accredited scientist? If not, why should the cast owners appease your demands? How is that in their interests, or even in the interests of science?

If I don't feel it is evidence of the existence of the species that some claim, well I want to validate the reasons why I feel that way too. That is my right.

Actually, I don’t think you have any rights whatsoever with regard to this cast. It was privately obtained and is privately owned. If it is truly a cast of either an elk or a sasquatch, and said elk or sasquatch is property of the state, then perhaps a permit should have been required to obtain it, but to my knowledge, no permit is necessary (in Alaska) to bait any animal to a mud hole in order to cast it’s spoor.

That’s the problem with the state ignoring the evidence. They also surrender their authority.

In all honesty, I think permitting might be due for any field research of sasquatches due to the likelihood that they are a very rare and perhaps endangered animal. Would you agree?

In that case, perhaps the cast would have been termed quasi-public in nature, but that certainly isn’t the case today. And even if it was, government is worse than private enterprise anymore about holding information back from the public. If you have any experience with FOIA requests, you'd know what I mean.

I sure wouldn't want to include you in that catch phrase of 'the field', nor are you obligated to be if you don't want to be considered part of it.. Should every person be formalized for their role in a field?

If proponents of science want to “formalize†the recognition of the species, it isn’t me who “formalizes†anything. It is them, no?

And that is also a problem with authority, isn’t it? If those in authority refuse to allow the lay any authority, and they refuse to take action, nothing happens, does it?

Oh and a previous District Biologist for the USFS Sweethome District of Oregon was very interested in Patty and Bigfoot. He also maintained an open file on bigfoot reports that came in.

Got a name for this District Biologist? Is that file official? If so, and even if only obtainable via FOIA, that file should be public property, no?

Too bad the PG film wasn’t shot in Oregon, and too bad a California official never opened an official investigation.

Doug Hewkin, also a Wildlife Biologist but for Oregon, was also interested in Patty and Bigfoot.

That's James A. Hewkin, Retired Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife. You will note that "retired" word all around his name with respect to his interest in sasquatchery.

Funny how that is, huh? I wonder why he wasn't active in the endeavor while still with the department? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Blackdog

It hasn't, because I haven't obtained any significant evidence to turn over to a scientist. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not searching for sasquatch evidence.

You?

Nope, I quit looking a long time ago when I figured out it wasn't going to get me anywhere and that I was getting lied to by many of the hot shots in the bigfoot community.

You've said in the past that you don't believe that there are bigfoot in the southern states. What about those folks that say they have seen them in the southern states? You aren't skeptical of those sightings are you?

You also say you would contact a scientist directly. Who would you contact? Any of those I listed or someone else?

You seem to have answers so maybe you can lead the way and let folks know who they should contact. Media excluded of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seemed to have missed your response last night Huntster or would have replied sooner. I'm sure most Wildlife Managers aren't even aware of the cast nor have they contacted him either. We agree. Some may have heard about it too, but they also may have heard they probably couldn't review the supporting photographic evidence showing all the elk tracks if they wanted to. Or maybe, elk biologists wouldn't be considered the type of expert considered qualified because they are not primatologists? Hmm, does seem to be a trend for this. Hence that is a gist of the problem because primate experts don't have the background thus far to know how to read elk sign that is very present at the scene.

It affects us all in that 'as a field', certain evidence is being reflected as being from bigfoot. Alleged evidence of something I and others have a personal interest of. If you don't wish to include your self in 'the field' or feel the evidence important to validate, then that's okay too. That can go for anyone. Choice is choice. Exception to the rule and all that. But if someone talks with me and raises the cast as being evidence of the claim of a species I know exists and that science may someday rely on said evidence, I want to be able to agree with that evidence in corroborating it, or I am being insincere. That's how it affects me and others who recognize the issue. I am not some skeptic of bigfoot either. If I don't feel it is evidence of the existence of the species that some claim, well I want to validate the reasons why I feel that way too. That is my right. I sure wouldn't want to include you in that catch phrase of 'the field', nor are you obligated to be if you don't want to be considered part of it.. Should every person be formalized for their role in a field? Surely not. That's not how the reference 'in the field' works. If you don't want to consider for yourself the details of the evidence or how it affects you or the field, that's for you to decide for yourself. I can't decide that for you.

DDA's so called 'responsibility' or not, to back up his claim, will be gauged by history! Maybe he nor you understand this. Keeping certain evidence from evaluation will only verify to the world that certain elements of the scene are being kept hidden. 'Responsibility' is not so intangible or negated in that sense. The Skookum Cast is not some sighting report where no evidence exists. The Cast is a tangible piece of evidence with a array of supporting photographic evidence that is not nor never has been shared in detail to those or with the public who can decipher that side of the evidence. If he or you don't understand what the true meaning of 'responsibility' is here, then that only furthers my point. The cast is claimed as evidence of bigfoot, but there isn't a willingness to share certain elements that call into question that claim. If the advocate wants the public to believe in said claim, then an advocate has a responsibility to back up said claim. That's the context of the term. If I made a claim of similar monumental physical evidence, well then I too would have an inherent responsibility to validate it. If you don't understand what responsibility means in this context, then that's simply where you're at.

So in fact, by preventing full disclosure only hurts the case and cause, which has been the trend for a decade. DDA wants scientists to take the cast seriously and be interested in it, well, he may need to take a different kind of disclosure path if he expects that to ever happen. What unbiased scientist will ever want to see the cast today if the supporting detailed photographic evidence is not included in that complete assessment? The cast by itself is only a piece of the existing evidence. And if those scientists are only interested in primate anatomy and have no specific elk knowledge, well their opinion is biased because they apparently lack the insight to differentiate or delineate the elk sign from the impression. Again I proposed elk experts because that element has never been adequately addressed. The primate experts have had their say. To repeat, the best avenue would have been both at the table the first time around.

Physical evidence of the scale being considered and existing, should always to be qualified or validated with respect to the issues or contradictions it raises. Not my rule, that's just proper science. That's the proactive method for verification of a claim. And its THAT process that in the end will increase credibility of the field and the specific evidence itself. To support that evidence shouldn't be backed up, is what actually enables the hucksters and showmen you speak of Huntster! That's the STANDARD we are missing and keeping the skookum cast evidence private, only supports the lack of such Standards. Yes Standards! When any issues are secreted as has been the case with much of the Skookum Cast case, well that only leads the public to conclude that there's something wrong or missing in the claim's evidence. Under normal circumstances, an entity like the US Fish & Wildlife Service should have been invited to review all the evidence surrounding the cast. Would DDA allow that level of inspection to ever occur?

Oh and a previous District Biologist for the USFS Sweethome District of Oregon was very interested in Patty and Bigfoot. He also maintained an open file on bigfoot reports that came in. Doug Hewkin, also a Wildlife Biologist but for Oregon, was also interested in Patty and Bigfoot.

Typical skeptical argumentation switching back and forth between science and legal. Why can't people stay with one set of rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huntster, on 11 April 2011 - 06:53 PM, said:

It hasn't, because I haven't obtained any significant evidence to turn over to a scientist. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not searching for sasquatch evidence.

You?

Nope, I quit looking a long time ago when I figured out it wasn't going to get me anywhere and that I was getting lied to by many of the hot shots in the bigfoot community.

And is your participation here getting you anywhere?

Are skeptics any more honest than "hot shots in the bigfoot community"?

You've said in the past that you don't believe that there are bigfoot in the southern states.

No, I don't believe I have. I've stated that I doubt that there are sasquatches in the southern states, and if they are there, they are likely fringe populations well on their way to extinction in those areas.

What about those folks that say they have seen them in the southern states? You aren't skeptical of those sightings are you?

Yes, I am. Yet again, I believe the 2% estimation of overall reports is a good estimate of valid reports. If there are 100 reports, only 2 of them are likely valid. The others are manufactured or mis-identifications. And since Louisiana, for example, has very few reports compared to Washington or Oregon, that would tend to support my theory.

You also say you would contact a scientist directly. Who would you contact? Any of those I listed or someone else?

Probably Dr. Meldrum. He has shown bravery and leadership within official science with regard to this phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical skeptical argumentation switching back and forth between science and legal. Why can't people stay with one set of rules?

"Typical skeptical argumentation switching back and forth between science and legal" eh? That's funny. Makes about as much sense to me as your Briggs Hall and Bili Ape reference but thanks for the links. You mean because I used the terms 'evidence' as in physical evidence? Oh wait, I also used the term 'case'. Yep, all sorts of legal-eze there DDA, all pertaining to your claim. But, whatever it takes to avoid my main points I guess.

Who says there is only one set of rules in the first place? Take for instance the term ethics. There is Legal Ethics. Then there is Scientific Ethics. Two rules of different fields, same concept. Full Voluntary Disclosure would be Ethical with either, you choose.

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of “maybes†and “may haves†there. But this trend is clear:

There is a clear lack of professional wildlife biologists involved in this, but among the ones who were there were primatologists.

If you can show that elk biologists even made contact with the cast’s owners, I’d be impressed. If you can’t, then your maybes are worthless.

Too bad the elk biologists weren’t there, huh? “Maybe†they should have been.

Maybe they would have been if they were invited! I never said any of them did did I? Create your own controversies Huntster.

If “science may someday rely on said evidenceâ€, then “science†ought to get with it today, no? And, in the case of this cast, “maybe†that should include elk biologists.

Are you an accredited scientist? If not, why should the cast owners appease your demands? How is that in their interests, or even in the interests of science?

Um yeah, again, that's why I proposed organizing 3 elk biologists from Oregon and Washington to examine it. And somewhere back in this or another thread, I said I wasn't a scientist.

Actually, I don’t think you have any rights whatsoever with regard to this cast. It was privately obtained and is privately owned. If it is truly a cast of either an elk or a sasquatch, and said elk or sasquatch is property of the state, then perhaps a permit should have been required to obtain it, but to my knowledge, no permit is necessary (in Alaska) to bait any animal to a mud hole in order to cast it’s spoor.

That's why I'm asking him to submit the photos for everyone's review, not just mine. If the cast owner wants the cast to have credibility, then treat it as such! Full disclosure.

That’s the problem with the state ignoring the evidence. They also surrender their authority.

In all honesty, I think permitting might be due for any field research of sasquatches due to the likelihood that they are a very rare and perhaps endangered animal. Would you agree?

I don't believe they are endangered, but they should be protected from harm if that day comes when they are proven to exist. If you mean permitting as in to 'take', well then I disagree, especially if they turn out to be of the Homo lineage.

In that case, perhaps the cast would have been termed quasi-public in nature, but that certainly isn’t the case today. And even if it was, government is worse than private enterprise anymore about holding information back from the public. If you have any experience with FOIA requests, you'd know what I mean.

No, I would agree its privately owned. But its the scientific claim being made about it that is of a public nature.

If proponents of science want to “formalize†the recognition of the species, it isn’t me who “formalizes†anything. It is them, no?

Well I don't know, cause I'm not talking about recognition of the species with respect to disclosure of cast site photos, I'm just talking about the supporting evidence of the cast. As for Standards, well I guess whatever rules a person chooses to follow, will be evident to others. If someone secrets certain elements, well let that be known for the record. Who is to say accepted Standards for evidence disclosure doesn't already exist? It just hasn't been applied herein as maybe it should be.

And that is also a problem with authority, isn’t it? If those in authority refuse to allow the lay any authority, and they refuse to take action, nothing happens, does it?

With that I can agree.

Got a name for this District Biologist? Is that file official? If so, and even if only obtainable via FOIA, that file should be public property, no?

I have his name somewhere. I think in an old notebook.

Too bad the PG film wasn’t shot in Oregon, and too bad a California official never opened an official investigation.

Who knows if it would have made a difference back in 1967...

That's James A. Hewkin, Retired Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife. You will note that "retired" word all around his name with respect to his interest in sasquatchery.

I was merely listing names of government biologists interested in bigfoot. You can split peas & Q's. wink.gif

Funny how that is, huh? I wonder why he wasn't active in the endeavor while still with the department? :huh:

Who says he wasn't? Or did he simply keep his interest separate? Ask him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...