Is The Skookum Cast Still Considered To Be A Potential Bigfoot Lay?

[Guest]

Kita's problem in this case is that he is lining up points from all over the impression to try to make his case. DDA put up a color enhanced pic of the cast highlighting the sasquatch impression part, which is a much smaller part of the overall cast than what Kita is implying with his scribling.

Problem is, Mulder, I don't think that is Kit's work. I could be wrong, but that pic is posted on Bigfoot Encounters as part of Daniel Perez's reprinted story on the Skookum cast. Don't know whose work it was originally. Just pointing that out, as maybe someone else here knows where that particular pic came from and can dissect it better than I can! I am sure it was beaten to death on the old forums... Could have been his, I don't know. I do realize that some of the lines are outside of what has been shown as the 'Squatch impression, but the lines/parts of the impression do line up fairly well with elk body parts. IMO. You are right to point out that there might be issues of scale between the two pics. <shrug>

[Guest]

I've pretty much stayed out of this round. I believe certain individuals just 'need' this to be a bigfoot impression for history & reputation's sake and not for science sake. As someone who has had my repeat encounters with Sasquatch, its humorous to see just how many natural phenomenon have been touted by certain groups as being caused by bigfoot over the years. But I'm also a die hard elk hunter and thus I have direct field experience in this area. An elk will roll off and onto its hind quarters when laying down & standing up, and does not need to leave rear hoof impressions within the center of the impression! It has nothing to do with levitation but elk anatomy.

To clarify a few points:

• Never has all the detailed photographs and video been made available for elk biologists to examine. This is where the facts of the scene are, not just the cast. The cast actually lacks information because it omits the approaching & departing tracks and how they relate to those within the impression. This omission is what is really cherry picked science! There is very limited value in examining the cast alone. It is but a portion of the overall story of the scene. The approaching and departing tracks are as important as being able to track an animal in the wild, only that information has been withheld from this examination. Derek has provided me some better quality photos then has ever been available that I posted up in one of the prior threads, but not even those were lacking resolution for enlargement, or offering necessary detail fitting of proper analysis. Being there was a supposed 'tracker' on hand, frankly I'm surprised that even this point is lost with cast proponents.

• Its been stated herein that the cast is available for analysis by any wildlife scientists. Well, I'm going to say that's not true. I offered to organize & pull together 3 elk biologists from Oregon and Washington to examine all the evidence, and this was rejected. These would have been State Wildlife Biologists. All the evidence would mean the remaining photographs and video of the scene that has never been made public.

• The location is not a wallow per se. It is a simple mud hole. But in effect it is also providing some of the same benefits to an elk as a wallow in that elk enjoy lying in mud for a couple of reasons. Don't get hung up on the issue of Wallow or not. The substance itself is providing what the elk enjoy, mud.

• Why has no video ever been shared of the people on the scene intricately pulling the hairs from the impression? The majority of which were elk hairs and none were ultimately identified as Sasquatch. Me thinks this video would reveal that the hairs surface location within the impression would reveal quite a lot. Surely they mapped the location of the hairs within the impression that they knew would be sent in for analysis. Surely close up photographs or video was made of this important exercise of collecting DNA evidence?

• The so-called achilles heel is nothing more then an elk's front leg, even down to the concave attribute found along the lengthwise part of that section. If possible this hunting season I will bring back the corresponding front leg portion and take plenty of images while its still attached. Normally one cuts the leg here so the animal can be hung, but I'll do what I can to preserve the evidence and bring it back intact.

• Being a die hard elk hunter, while in pursuit of them in the near future, I will carry my camera with me to take pics of lots of beds as well as some opportune angles if possible. Can't guarantee I'll get what I'm after but will share if I do. And for the record, I have many times come across elk bedded down at early dawn in similar locations along logging roads. I have one such location just a few hundred yards past my elk camp that I carefully check with binoculars first thing upon leaving camp in the mornings because there are often elk laying there. Its a little muddy too.

• It really does this field a disservice when otherwise obvious wildlife evidence is claimed as being from bigfoot. This impression may very well be one of the most significant reasons why more hunters don't take the bigfoot topic seriously. Most avid hunters know just what this impression was caused by, because they see similar impressions regularly when in the field chasing the very hoofed animal that made it. And for bigfoot proponents to try to make it a deal breaker that there were apple bits scattered around and therefore not elk, is hilarious and only goes to show the lack of field experience some people have. One would think that elk had hands to avoid this feat. Elk (like deer) will make a mess when chewing on apples and they aren't careful to pick up every little piece. Bigfoot on the other hand can pretty much shove the whole apple in his mouth and make zero mess if you want to be critical & honest about it.

• Of course bfro can also be blamed for the hyped misinformation as they got more undue mileage out of this then deserved. And yet, all they were hyping was some elk impression and nothing but an elk impression. One day soon this elk lay will be put to bed.

I've got a busy & exciting next few days so please understand if I don't provide much response. For those who haven't done so, reading the old threads here on the subject will help update the topic on some of the contradictions. A few got heated but there is some important information there.

Edited October 16, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[wolftrax]

No doubt. I wish I could remember the context. I know DDA said he wouldn't leave his pictures up long and why. Looks like someone besides me saved at least one and posted it here but didn't give DDA credit. That sort of thing, by individuals and TV shows, is why he's reluctant to share everything he has.

So you know it is an elk. Thank you for finding the source, it has been a while and a search turned up nothing as he took his images down again. I would have preferred to have given him credit as it does support my point, but without finding it again I couldn't be sure if it was he who had posted it.

Excellent. So there you have an example of an elk that has risen out of the impression without leaving tracks within the depression.

The area looks torn up enough that any leg and hoof marks left by a young calf rolling out of its imprint could have been obscured. by other wallowing. In any event the mudhole by the road wasn't a wallow.

Like this, hoof marks in yellow:

[Guest krakatoa]

[All good stuff excised for the sake of brevity...]

Thanks for chiming in PT. I find your input on Skookum to be extremely relevant, as usual.

I too find it disingenuous to claim scientific backing for the idea that the cast is that of a bigfoot, when there is so much resistance to having additional objective study of it by scientists who might be more hostile to the idea of bigfoot in general, or that this may be a bigfoot impression specifically.

Science isn't done justice by having scientists friendly to your theory reviewing your data.

Science is confrontational by nature. It must be, or else every theory would be deemed true, and the pace of progress would slow to a snail's pace.

If every theory was deemed true for the sake of constructing your next hypothesis, than the presence of conflicting theories demand that every theory must also be deemed false, requiring you to literally start from scratch on every assignment.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

PragmaticTheorist ~ That is a nicely done post ~

Tim

[wolftrax]

No, only those willing to analyze it with an open mind in light of the scientific observations to hand to date will be allowed, and that is as it should be.

An open mind in light of the scientific observations to date INCLUDES the analysis of Dr. Wroblewski, which has been a lot more detailed and thorough and explanatory than any other analysis I have seen. It also INCLUDES my own analysis of matching a 3d model to the photo of the cast replica, which indicated a match.

The real reason why I wasn't given the 3d scan data was because a 3d elk model matching that would leave no doubt that the impression was made by an elk. It is much easier to have an excuse about using photos and a person being against your evidence after they did tests and reached a conclusion based on that than allow the cast to be fully shown to be an elk with no room for doubt or argument.

[wolftrax]

Conflation fallacy, or maybe a sideways ad hom on the people of Skamania County. UFO reports and their validity or lack thereof have nothing to do with BF reports and their validity or lack thereof.

You've either spent way too much time trying to use your argumentative terms or you are extremely paranoid. The point here is that the only thing used to support that the impression was made by a sasquatch is because there was a history of sightings in the area, but there is also a history of sightings of UFOs, so if you ignore all the obvious elk sign why discriminate and include all possibilities, with an "Open mind"?

[Guest 127]

wolftrax: I think they left off marking one of the elk prints that is important to understanding the scene. I've marked it in yellow circled in purple (i posted a screen cap of it earlier from the video taken on scene) In this graphic you can see how the elk may have stood.

Edited October 16, 2011 by 127

[Guest 127]

Has anything about the cast changed since Dr. Meldrum cleaned and studied it? Why should he change his position? Did Sarmiento, Schaller or Swindler change theirs? Apparently Dr. Wroblewski failed to convince.

Do you have a quote that backs up your assertion about Dr. Meldrum enjoying the adoration and following or is this pure conjecture on your part? Perhaps his academic honor calls at him to stick by his guns and support the work that led him to his conclusions. That's my conjecture.

LAL: No. Nothing has changed, except maybe the minds of many who may examine it. I feel like good science is always willing to change its position with new information or findings. In this case you have the opposite so far. I would like to appeal directly to Dr Meldrum and ask him to review his findings and update them accordingly. Anything less is extremely lame/unprofessional IMHO - not to mention its "the right thing to do" academically speaking.

Edited October 16, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

Swindler, on LMS said that, in his opinion, it was the impession of an unidentified North American hominoid primate. He did come to agree with Dr. Krantz about it being a descendant of Gigantopithecus.

Try YouTube for Dr. Sarmiento. I've got to run.

Considering the Skookum cast, Dr. Krantz offered this opinion: "I don't know what it is. I'm baffled. Elk. Sasquatch. That's the choice." (quoted in the Wikipedia entry on Krantz).

[Guest]

So are you saying they are delusional or are you accusing them of fraud? It has to be one or the other...

Mulder,

Over simplifying with nuanced understanding AWOL --- don't you agree?

[Guest LAL]

Considering the Skookum cast, Dr. Krantz offered this opinion: "I don't know what it is. I'm baffled. Elk. Sasquatch. That's the choice." (quoted in the Wikipedia entry on Krantz).

The quote is from the article Sasquatch Is Real! Forest Love Slave Tells All in Outside Magazine, August, 2002, Krantz reportedly could be cranky in good health and at the time he was in process of dying of pancreatic cancer.

The beginning of the sentence in the Wiki article is "Shortly before his death, Krantz also examined the Skookum cast. He did not publicly endorse its authenticity..." This is incorrect.

Discussion here.

[Guest LAL]

I would like to appeal directly to Dr Meldrum and ask him to review his findings and update them accordingly.

Do it. And please post his reply.

[Guest 127]

Do it. And please post his reply.

I did it above in the thread. As we have been told many times by the admins "he is a member here" so if he'd like to reply he's free to do so. I'd like to think that he is a dedicated scientist. One should seek solid, substantiated findings. The skookum cast/impression was made by an elk. This has been shown conclusively. I'd like to also think that a review of his findings now and an updated status on the cast would benefit the subject and his credibility. After all science is about learning and seeking answers. Sometimes they don't come right away. If you fail to adjust your findings accordingly it is a disservice to the concepts of science and education. (again IMHO)

I'm not suggesting that it was intentionally misidentified by Meldrum. Misidentified - yes. Unfortunately the BFRO have a history of doing this with misidentifications such as the jacobs photos and coyote calls and this skookum cast. Intentional on their part? Who knows.

Edited October 17, 2011 by 127

[Guest Kerchak]

Sorry to go off topic but.

I've pretty much stayed out of this round. I believe certain individuals just 'need' this to be a bigfoot impression for history & reputation's sake and not for science sake. As someone who has had my repeat encounters with Sasquatch.........

Then.

.......................It really does this field a disservice when otherwise obvious wildlife evidence is claimed as being from bigfoot.

Personally I think repeat encounter claims kind of do this field a disservice just as much. I would say one encounter is a rarity, nevermind repeat encounters, especially if there is little or nothing to show for it.

Of course I am willing to be put straight if you have some interesting evidence for even one of these repeat encounters of yours. If you can direct me to discussions of your repeat encounters that would be cool, thanks.