Jump to content
Guest Crowlogic

A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

Recommended Posts

Martin

so how did it rise off the ground without leaving a single hoof print in the cast area? was the elk of the pegasus variety?

I don't recall there being any bigfoot tracks in the cast either.

Wasn't the site full of elk hair?

I know Henner found one possible sasquatch hair which even he claimed was weak sauce.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/index.asp

Physical Anthropologist and author, Dr. Grover Krantz

Journalist and author, John Green

Wildlife Biologist and author, Dr. John Bindernagel

Their conclusions: The imprint was not attributable to any recognized animal species. The imprint was most likely made by a living sasquatch.

Meldrum was involved also.

Chilcutt even found dermal ridge similar to one's he has previously identified with sasquatch. 200 pounds of hydro-cal poured is gonna leave a lot of dermal ridges.

All of the big players are vested.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

I don't recall there being any bigfoot tracks in the cast either.

Wasn't the site full of elk hair?

I know Henner found one possible sasquatch hair which even he claimed was weak sauce.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/index.asp

Physical Anthropologist and author, Dr. Grover Krantz

Journalist and author, John Green

Wildlife Biologist and author, Dr. John Bindernagel

Their conclusions: The imprint was not attributable to any recognized animal species. The imprint was most likely made by a living sasquatch.

Meldrum was involved also.

Chilcutt even found dermal ridge similar to one's he has previously identified with sasquatch. 200 pounds of hydro-cal poured is gonna leave a lot of dermal ridges.

All of the big players are vested.

Meldrum has been sucked in to a number of questionable things. This was one and Standing is another then there was the Falcon Project. It's becoming a trend for the doctor.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Double agreed.

I do not trust anti kill groups that ask for money. Perpetuating the myth is a much better fiscal plan for them than real proof.

But I will say that there are exceptions to this as well. There are a few kind souls that truly want proof without harming the creature.

But there are also nameless groups that sell Bigfoot "expeditions" that have curfews and leaders that prep the area before hand, etc...

(raises eyebrow)

I don't trust any group that asks for money with little or nothing furnished in exchange for it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

<While it's not unanimously been declared an elk, the majority and the more rational podcasts absolutely conclude that it's an elk.>

 

The BFRO still maintains it is a bigfoot cast I believe, even though many of it's members, including the co-founder is skeptical of that claim. Here's a pretty good and skeptical article from Bigfoot Encounters about the Skookum Cast, with commentary by many in the field. Most seem to be in agreement it is most likely an Elk.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm

But how did a bigfoot make that impression and not leave any footprints? There were plenty of Elk prints all around the cast area.

bipeds can crawl, i can crawl across a muddy patch and just leave fist and knee impressions. or belly crawl for that matter.

Elk cannot. If they go from a resting position to a walking position? They collect themselves and stand up. Same for a cow or a horse.

I wasnt there, but from what i see from that cast I dont think it was an elk, and that comes from me observing and hunting them.

I would believe a Bear over an elk, but if dr. Swindler thought it was bipedal? who knows? Bears make funny impressions in the ground because they are much more dexteritious than a elk. Bears roll, play, slide, crawl, etc.

its funny skeptics want expert opinions unless that opinion doesnt jive with their world view. same goes for proponents, the bottom line is the issue will never be resolved here, but out there.

I don't recall there being any bigfoot tracks in the cast either.

Wasn't the site full of elk hair?

I know Henner found one possible sasquatch hair which even he claimed was weak sauce.http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/index.asp

Physical Anthropologist and author, Dr. Grover Krantz

Journalist and author, John Green

Wildlife Biologist and author, Dr. John Bindernagel

Their conclusions: The imprint was not attributable to any recognized animal species. The imprint was most likely made by a living sasquatch.

Meldrum was involved also.

Chilcutt even found dermal ridge similar to one's he has previously identified with sasquatch. 200 pounds of hydro-cal poured is gonna leave a lot of dermal ridges.

All of the big players are vested.

Daris Swindler was NOT a "big player".........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

<the bottom line is the issue will never be resolved here, but out there.>

 

True, no real way to know for certain. I guess it's possible a BF had lain there and then an Elk, but with there being Elk prints but no BF or bear prints, I go with Elk.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

While it's not unanimously been declared an elk, the majority and the more rational podcasts absolutely conclude that it's an elk. In fact, Wiki points that out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skookum_cast

This is what I mean about claims needing to be rigorously vetted, skookum is unneeded distraction from real attempts to gain evidence and, while dismissed by most, is STILL being flogged here as potential evidence. Sad.

Daris Swindler.... I don't know him or anything about him.

By vested I mean that Meldrum, Green, Bindernagel and Krantz are all vested in it being a bigfoot. They have declaired it squatch... To admit they are were wrong then footers would be casting doubt over the entire legacy of these pioneers which is never gonna happen.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't even know who Dari Swindler is...... 

Daris Swindler? Only the forensic examiner on the Ted Bundy and Green River Killer cases in Washington State. Yeah, only him. He was the guy who examined the remains at the Issaquah site and correctly concluded there were the remains of 3 different victims and not just 2 two young ladies who disappeared from Lake Sammamish. His work on the Bundy and Gary Ridgway cases was stellar.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

He must be like 100 years old.

I bet the BFRO never showed him the animated gif of the cast and the elk.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Swindler passed away almost a decade ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

<the bottom line is the issue will never be resolved here, but out there.>

 

True, no real way to know for certain. I guess it's possible a BF had lain there and then an Elk, but with there being Elk prints but no BF or bear prints, I go with Elk.

I say thats because the elk were there first walking around and whatever laid there smashed them out. But an elk upon standing up should have hoof prints in that cast area. But thats not the case.

Im not contesting that there were elk in the area, only that by my observations an elk standing up is going to reveal itself in that cast area with hoof prints.

Does a (side impression) heel of a Bear look like the heel of a large Biped? Dunno, but skinned out they sure look human like.

Its too bad they didnt know how to bait properly. You always buy a bag of flour and sprinkle it around a bait sight. it would have given them an EXACT picture of what came in after them. Im speaking about bear baiting here.

Another trick is to rake it out clean, then bait, then come back and see what was there. It gives you a specific time reference. Where the elk tracks there before they put bait down?

Of course they could have either put up a trail cam or sat on the bait with a rifle and waited.

He must be like 100 years old.

I bet the BFRO never showed him the animated gif of the cast and the elk.

He was aware of the elk hypothesis and rejected it.

Daris Swindler.... I don't know him or anything about him.

By vested I mean that Meldrum, Green, Bindernagel and Krantz are all vested in it being a bigfoot. They have declaired it squatch... To admit they are were wrong then footers would be casting doubt over the entire legacy of these pioneers which is never gonna happen.

Other than Green? The other three are scientists and Swindler made four with Swindler being the outside skeptic.

Swindler called it the way he saw it, he had no reason to go along with something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1758470&postcount=1

 

http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/fish-obit/

I really like this Cryptomundo article because it has a DWA response in the comments section and it's so typically DWA that it caused me to chuckle just a bit.

 

and to, hopefully, beat this horse to death:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm

It's not skeptics that are dismissive, it's believers too. The link below shows a hunter who has shot an elk with a bow and goes on to describe why skookum is an elk lay. As an elk hunter you may find this more compelling.

 

http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/

The Skoolum cast represents the biggest waste of plaster ever recorded.  That not withstanding the pro cast adherents never supplied a reason why the supposed bigfoot chose such an odd posture to grab a piece of fruit from the ground.  Also there are reports of bigfoot in orchards scavenging fruit and none reported to be prone.  As a bigfoot artifact the Skukum Cast is a singular event and singular events in bigfoot are even more unsupportable as the run of the mill usual reportage.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

So now your using Bigfoot reports to debunk the Skookum cast?

(shakes head)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diana swampbooger

The Skoolum cast represents the biggest waste of plaster ever recorded.  That not withstanding the pro cast adherents never supplied a reason why the supposed bigfoot chose such an odd posture to grab a piece of fruit from the ground.  Also there are reports of bigfoot in orchards scavenging fruit and none reported to be prone.  As a bigfoot artifact the Skukum Cast is a singular event and singular events in bigfoot are even more unsupportable as the run of the mill usual reportage.

 

Multiple animals used a wallow. They must like it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQvnIdJxdD0&feature=youtu.be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

So now your using Bigfoot reports to debunk the Skookum cast?

(shakes head)

Well it's like this.  Over on the boot mark thread folks are saying one print looking odd does not make an entire trackway fake.  So I'll apply that same logic and reply that one bigfoot supposedly having laid in the mud does not a real bigfoot action make.  Not when it is a singularity like that boot print anomaly.  Yes all a person can do is compare bigfoot reports against other bigfoot reports.  We can't go to the zoo and watch them now can we?  The report I referred to was in Georgia of a rather loud bigfoot down in the family orchard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

there is different levels of evidence and then there is proof.

i think finding proof is very important, but you trying to debunk the skookum cast with a Bigfoot report from 2000 miles away is weak sauce. Simply because the report involves fruit and how the supposed fruit was gathered by the creature is inconsistent? Really?

Do you think a black bear in the carolinas acts the same as a bear in alaska? Eats the same foods? What about a yellowstone grizzly and a coastal brown bear?

Its these quick generalizations and dismissals of evidence thats frustrating.

Its gonna take a body to convince you and Im OK with that. I dont think that is too much to ask.

But as Ive said all along its not a rabbit outta the hat trick. its gonna take hard work and dedication to make that happen. Which means for us proponents we have to somehow look at the evidence at hand and apply it in a real tangible way. All the shouting in the world is not going to make the myth pop into reality, but its not going to make it go away either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...