Jump to content

Skookum Cast


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Just as a quick aside, the most recent evidence discovered from the wear pattern of Gigianto teeth studied shows it to be consistent with an omnivorous diet. The evidence for bamboo is not as conclusive as some would have us believe. The evidence shows silicate wear, but silicate plants are more than just bamboo, including some grasses, etc.

We also know, thanks to the discovery of remains of ecological and temporal contemporaries of Giganto that the climate in N America going back several million years was indeed similar to that of Giganto's home range in Asia, and that animals from that range migrated to the N American continent.

Back on topic:

Parn, as much as I agree with you in theory about "secret" evidence, I suggest you go back and re-read this, as well as other posts by DDA. He has stated a perfect willingness to have the cast and photos examined IF the proper steps are taken to ensure that he is 1) properly credited, 2) properly compensated, and 3) that the material is shown in a careful and thoughtful manner.

What of those three conditions do you object to? The only people who DDA has said flat out will NOT be allowed in are those who have done him dirty in the past. Can you blame him for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a friendly reminder to keep this thread on topic. It is a discussion about the Skookum Cast and the circumstances concerning the Skookum Cast.

It is not a thread to discuss the government's lack of interest in sasquatch.

It is not a thread to discuss main stream scientist's lack of interest in sasquatch.

It is not a thread to discuss the various locales of sightings of sasquatch/bigfoot.

Etc, etc, etc.

Thanks,

Splash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

For some reason, there is an occasional post that doesn't show up when I visit some pages lately. Same thing happened with one of Huntsters yesterday. I had emptied my browser cache two days ago, but if anything that should clear page memory and load everything new. So anyway, if I don't respond to something, it may be I didn't see it.

Now to this point, what you've stated Gigantor is called 'taking things out of context'!

The cast is claimed as "evidence" of bigfoot by its proponents! I and others call into question that "evidence". What is so difficult in that concept? At least be honest with the argument.

Here is what I said: "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."

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
Huntster, on 11 April 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

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?

Invited? Do they need to be dragged in kicking and screaming? What if formal invitations to various official wildlife managers/elk biologists are sent out with flowers and they still don’t show? How is it that Swindler, Meldrum, Sarmiento, Brown, Krantz ,and Bindernagel examined the cast? Were they all sent personalized invitations, or did some of them call and ask if they could examine it?

There was a former poster on the old BFF who claimed to be a scientist and who asked to examine it. I believe he was able to do so, too.

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.

I fail to see why “full disclosure†to a gaggle of amateur sleuths is any benefit to the scientific recognition of the cast or the species. Indeed, I can easily see the detriment. The last thing this (or any other evidence) needs is yet another round of baseless rejection widely bandied about by amateurs which would likely discourage accredited scientists from being willing to participate in the debate.

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.

How ironic. It is the skeptical and scientific communities (not “believers) who are demanding a carcass (which, by definition, means “harmâ€) in order to prove that it exists. So should the species be protected from scientists and skeptics?

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

How is a “scientific claim†a public affair? It is of and for the scientific community/industry, not necessarily to the public at large. Again, if the public wants control, the public had better get invested. They cannot arbitrarily claim that they shouldn’t have to invest in the investigation/research, and then conversely demand access to something acquired through private effort and investment because “it is of a public natureâ€.

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.

What’s the difference? It’s the “formalizedâ€â€ rules of science†that are being cited/used here in order to try to gain access to private property.

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.

This isn’t a legal trial. Scientific analysis has been conducted, and an official press release has been published. More importantly, an invitation to scientists has been issued:

If you are a qualified scientist or forensic specialist (either active or retired) in any relevant discipline, and you would like an opportunity to examine this cast in Washington State, please contact the BFRO at Cast@bfro.net

Friends or family members, or students of people who are considered qualified, may accompany them to view the cast in person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Invited? Do they need to be dragged in kicking and screaming? What if formal invitations to various official wildlife managers/elk biologists are sent out with flowers and they still don’t show? How is it that Swindler, Meldrum, Sarmiento, Brown, Krantz ,and Bindernagel examined the cast? Were they all sent personalized invitations, or did some of them call and ask if they could examine it?

As I recall, a few of them you listed were flown to see it by AnimalX weren't they? As for other non-primate scientists, yep, invitations usually are appropriate, especially for those who don't know anything about it.

There was a former poster on the old BFF who claimed to be a scientist and who asked to examine it. I believe he was able to do so, too.

I think you may believe wrong.

I fail to see why “full disclosure†to a gaggle of amateur sleuths is any benefit to the scientific recognition of the cast or the species. Indeed, I can easily see the detriment. The last thing this (or any other evidence) needs is yet another round of baseless rejection widely bandied about by amateurs which would likely discourage accredited scientists from being willing to participate in the debate.

That would be your opinion.

How ironic. It is the skeptical and scientific communities (not “believers) who are demanding a carcass (which, by definition, means “harmâ€) in order to prove that it exists. So should the species be protected from scientists and skeptics?

You can wrestle with that pretzel question. Not sure how it has anything to do with this. Are you suggesting that the Skookum Cast should be evidence of their existence?

How is a “scientific claim†a public affair? It is of and for the scientific community/industry, not necessarily to the public at large. Again, if the public wants control, the public had better get invested. They cannot arbitrarily claim that they shouldn’t have to invest in the investigation/research, and then conversely demand access to something acquired through private effort and investment because “it is of a public natureâ€.

Whatever you say.

What’s the difference? It’s the “formalizedâ€â€ rules of science†that are being cited/used here in order to try to gain access to private property.

Of a public claim.

This isn’t a legal trial. Scientific analysis has been conducted, and an official press release has been published. More importantly, an invitation to scientists has been issued:

Yes, but DDA brought up the legal-eze view of it. Old news on the links even tho it would seem those who don't have primatology background aren't considered qualified. See Scientist you referenced above. His name would be DesertYeti.

And I have an email from Dr. Meldrum on 2-11-11 where he states this: "I have remained tentative about our conclusions. I urged others not to be dogmatic, while holding the nay sayers responsible to account for the anomalies, were they correct that it was an elk bed. I certainly never put all my eggs in that basket. "

Tentative!

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, a few of them you listed were flown to see it by AnimalX weren't they? As for other non-primate scientists, yep, invitations usually are appropriate, especially for those who don't know anything about it.

No, you are wrong. Animal X flew no scientists to the cast site.

I think you may believe wrong.

No, you are wrong. John Myozinski contacted the BFRO wanting to see the cast and made his way here because of the offer.

That would be your opinion.

That is my opinion as well. It didn't work for the PGF and won't work for anything else.

DesertYeti failed to take up the challenge. Back to this guy are we? In my opinion he didn't have the qualifications needed, not like say Briggs Hall.

Meldrum and company have always been tentative on their conclusions. Look at anything a scientist does or writes nowadays. There is just too much new information being gathered. From who discovered America, or the existence of Hobbits to that of long missing animals , previously thought to have been extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine in green.

As I recall, a few of them you listed were flown to see it by AnimalX weren't they? As for other non-primate scientists, yep, invitations usually are appropriate, especially for those who don't know anything about it.

No, you are wrong. Animal X flew no scientists to the cast site.

Neither of us said to the cast SITE, but to see the CAST.

I think you may believe wrong.

No, you are wrong. John Myozinski contacted the BFRO wanting to see the cast and made his way here because of the offer.

But because of various differences, he never got to see it right? And didn't BFRO tell him he wasn't qualified?

That would be your opinion.

That is my opinion as well. It didn't work for the PGF and won't work for anything else.

DesertYeti failed to take up the challenge. Back to this guy are we? In my opinion he didn't have the qualifications needed, not like say Briggs Hall.

Wasn't me who brought him up, it was your ally. Oh yeah, guess you said DY didn't have qualifications as well. Right, cause he wasn't a Primatologist and he might have discerned the elk sign like nobody else has been allowed to before do. Heck DDA, your average hunter has qualifications to identify elk sign. You and a few others have simply built up the sign to mean more then it actually does. Any seasoned elk hunter is qualified, come to grips with that.

Meldrum and company have always been tentative on their conclusions. Look at anything a scientist does or writes nowadays. There is just too much new information being gathered. From who discovered America, or the existence of Hobbits to that of long missing animals , previously thought to have been extinct.

And that is what science is supposed to do when new knowledge provides basis for a more educated hypotheses. At some point even Dr. Meldrum may reverse his position altogether. Won't that be interesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DDA, Dr Meldrum states that, aside from the one expert consulted who had a knowledge of both primatology AND ungulates (whom Prag dismisses out of hand because he isn't an "elk expert"), consultations were made with professional gamekeepers at game parks who presumedly would have the requisite expertise (LMSpp119). Do you know which parks and gamekeepers were consulted and if so, can they be publicly contacted to speak directly on this matter?

If they can be brought forward with their direct testimony, instead of 2nd hand via Dr Meldrum, maybe Prag's arguments could be satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mulder, if the impression were found in Africa and thought to belong to an Oryx by cast critics, would someone who studies ungulates in America be qualified to know what the posture and physical traits of African Oryx is when bedded down? Especially if he has never seen one actually bedded down or in the process of lying down & standing up.

One factor in your subsequent proposition would be, what level of access these gamekeepers had to the photographic evidence surrounding the cast itself? Not to forget, but what were the qualifications of these people as has been an important point of discussion thus far? Remember, the cast 'by itself' does not provide a complete picture. Never would it be appropriate to just examine the cast w/o equal examination of the area around it. What access has anybody previously had to the detailed supporting photographic evidence surrounding the impression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mulder, if the impression were found in Africa and thought to belong to an Oryx by cast critics, would someone who studies ungulates in America be qualified to know what the posture and physical traits of African Oryx is when bedded down? Especially if he has never seen one actually bedded down or in the process of lying down & standing up.

And your assumption that this applies to Dr Schaller (?) is demonstrated how? He has studied ungulates on FOUR contintnents, not just Africa.

An ungulate leg is an ungulate leg. No matter the specific species, it has the same parts in the same configurations that are consistent in pattern across species of ungulates. More importantly, this particular expert had expertise in BOTH primates and ungulates...who better to be able to discern between the two?

Remember, the cast 'by itself' does not provide a complete picture.

Of the anatomical details under examination, it DOES provide a complete picture. What may or may not be 3 feet away does not prove whether the anatomy of the structure in question is an elk knee or a primate heel. ONLY that portion of the cast is relevant to that question.

Never would it be appropriate to just examine the cast w/o equal examination of the area around it. What access has anybody previously had to the detailed supporting photographic evidence surrounding the impression?

Again, the anatomy on display is IN the cast area. Not 3 feet from the cast area, 10 feet away or across the field from it. The ANATOMY is the point of analysis, nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your assumption that this applies to Dr Schaller (?) is demonstrated how? He has studied ungulates on FOUR contintnents, not just Africa.

But NOT North American Elk!

An ungulate leg is an ungulate leg. No matter the specific species, it has the same parts in the same configurations that are consistent in pattern across species of ungulates. More importantly, this particular expert had expertise in BOTH primates and ungulates...who better to be able to discern between the two?

To the untrained eye, one might not see differences in anatomy between ungulates, but there are. You have bone structure differences. You have muscle structure AND mass differences. You have corresponding length of body part differences. You have hair thickness and pattern differences. You have hoof shape differences. You have track pattern differences. You have the different ways each will lay down and stand up. Where has Shaller ever observed this with an elk? You have enough differences there Mulder to have disqualified Shaller for his lack of expertise of elk in particular. No offense to him of course.

Of the anatomical details under examination, it DOES provide a complete picture. What may or may not be 3 feet away does not prove whether the anatomy of the structure in question is an elk knee or a primate heel. ONLY that portion of the cast is relevant to that question.

Again, the anatomy on display is IN the cast area. Not 3 feet from the cast area, 10 feet away or across the field from it. The ANATOMY is the point of analysis, nothing else.

Awe, so I guess if this was a murder scene, you would feel that the tracks leading up to the body location would be irrelevant? And if those tracks happened to fit the tracks at the location of the body impression, would they be just ignored in your book? That's bad science Mulder. Come on! You just let the killer walk away with that logic.

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Green contacted the Vancouver zoo and went there with the cast duplicate. John talked with him about it and asked if he could identify what it was. The zoo keeper said he had never seen anything quite like it and could not definitively say what it was. Any more than that you would have to talk with John about this conversation.

Prag... John Myozinski came and saw the cast. I thought I said that in the previous posting of mine. You are coming to the game late, acting like the hero expert in all of this, failing to even know who, what, where and when things happened. Granted some things were kept secret (like what specific sounds did we use and get return calls with on the expedition), where the exact cast site was, detailed pictures, experiment results (like with the pheromone chips). But those things have not been your arguing points.

DY studies ancient animal traces in the petroleum industry, specifically those of invertebrates, like ancient worms going through shale stone. Maybe that is a way to indicate the presence of fossil fuels. I don't know. How is that applicable over someone who is an expert on primates or ungulates on four different continents and has actually seen the original cast with measurement equipment in hand? Because he could draw a pretty picture, inaccurate but pretty? He even admitted he had never encountered elk or it's sign outside of literature. So his theory was probably based off a perfunctory searching on the internet for animal lays and then further refined to that of elk, after having determined Skookum meadows is in fact an elk preserve. Get that? Skookum meadows is an elk preserve and everyone on the expedition knew that. So we all understood that that was the first likely suspect. Not one member of the expedition reported that they had found fresh elk sign during it either. Only those tracks found at the cast site were seen. Bear season just started and that was the flimsy excuse Todd N. gave me when I discovered him trying to sneak to the back side of our camp. He was hunting bear. Laughable really since he didn't have a gun with him. I don't think anyone saw any dear or bear either on the expedition, even though right by the main camp was a berry field and huge amounts of bear scat, and I found many overturned mushrooms lying on downed logs. Plenty of places for their tracks to show up too, but nada. Only coyote.

Spouting off to everyone that will listen to you about how the expedition members had no experience looking at elk sign or attempted to rule out elk just comes from ignorance. Trying to insert yourself into the story could get real messy for you. Email me the names of the elk scientists you think should look at the cast and I will talk with them if they are available and interested as you have indicated. This is my one and only concession to you. I have taken to vetting any visitors myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mulder or DDA, being Dr. Schaller has been brought up many many times. Just what were his formal findings specifically regarding the Skookum Cast? I don't think I've actually ever seen them.

DDA, I'm sure you did say that, trying to keep track of everything said herein is the challenge as you know. Yet again, how much of the detailed site photos were adequately examined? Actually I mixed up Wroblewski with Myozinski! My oops.

Trying to insert yourself into the story could get real messy for you.

Is this some kind of threat? Because I challenge your evidence? I can present my critique of your evidence with confidence DDA.

As for scientists I feel should examine the cast. I don't have names for you DDA. My offer was completely unbiased in that respect. I would have sought out elk biologists for such a review. I never said there were specific ones who were interested either. That's what made my offer unbiased.

Edited by PragmaticTheorist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Green contacted the Vancouver zoo and went there with the cast duplicate. John talked with him about it and asked if he could identify what it was. The zoo keeper said he had never seen anything quite like it and could not definitively say what it was. Any more than that you would have to talk with John about this conversation.

This also isn't very reassuring DDA. I thought the cast duplicate lacked the detail of the original? Does this also mean that the Zoo Keeper wasn't able to thoroughly examine detailed photographs of the tracks surrounding the cast? Is it possible for someone in touch with John Green to ask him this and maybe the name of the zookeeper so that this can be clarified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

Why would you have a zoo keeper identify a cast of a Bigfoot laying on the ground. Are there bigfeets in the zoo? Com' on man! That's like going to a prison to have the warden identify an impression left by a parachutist not so soft landing! Unless this zoo had lots of elk and their wallows then I get it. But otherwise DUH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...