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

[BobbyO]

Sorry to go off topic but.

Then.

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.

Fair enough K but you've got to be in it to win it & Mr PT lives in Oregon & is an avid Elk Hunter if i'm not mistaken & spends lots of time in those Woods so the chances of having an encounter, & possibly multiple, would be increased significantly would it not, even with how rare encounters are ??

[Guest Kerchak]

Fair enough K but you've got to be in it to win it & Mr PT lives in Oregon & is an avid Elk Hunter if i'm not mistaken & spends lots of time in those Woods so the chances of having an encounter, & possibly multiple, would be increased significantly would it not, even with how rare encounters are ??

1 encounter I can get. I do, after all, have the opinion these creatures exist.

Multiple encounters are a lot harder for me to swallow, unless there is something interesting to even some way back it up with. I'm just asking if there is any in depth discussion about PT's multiple encounters elsewhere so I can evaluate them. I looked but I couldn't see anything.

I personally feel that claims of repeat encounters, habituations and people seeing sasquatch in almost every state of the USA does more disservice to this field than anything talked about previously in this thread. I just noted the irony, that's all.

[Guest LAL]

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.

Being a member doesn't obligate one to post or even read the forum. He's not hard to reach. Why not e-mail him? I'd be interested to know if he's changed his opinion.

[Guest RayG]

I'm just asking if there is any in depth discussion about PT's multiple encounters elsewhere so I can evaluate them. I looked but I couldn't see anything.

His blog details his initial encounter. Not sure if his multiple encounters have been discussed here or not. Personally, I just don't care much either way, as they'd just be more anecdotes. I read enough of those in Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, 30+ years ago.

RayG

[BobbyO]

1 encounter I can get. I do, after all, have the opinion these creatures exist.

Multiple encounters are a lot harder for me to swallow, unless there is something interesting to even some way back it up with. I'm just asking if there is any in depth discussion about PT's multiple encounters elsewhere so I can evaluate them. I looked but I couldn't see anything.

I personally feel that claims of repeat encounters, habituations and people seeing sasquatch in almost every state of the USA does more disservice to this field than anything talked about previously in this thread. I just noted the irony, that's all.

I'm not sure, they have to live somewhere, in some area & if you just so happen to be in that area often enough like PT would be, i don't see a reason why you wouldn't have the possibility of encountering them more than once.

[Guest LAL]

In this video Derek Randles identifies the animal traces that were "in this pit" - bear, deer, coyote, elk, birds - and explains why the impression isn't from a bear or an elk or a deer.

I don't think he ruled out giant bird.

<edited to change wording to "in this pit" and correct spelling of Derek's last name>

Edited October 17, 2011 by LAL

[Guest LAL]

DDA pointed out some ,gif errors on this thread', e.g.:

"Apparently the layers are locked on your gif wolftrax. I was going to outline the features so that you can once again overlay your model. Do you see how wide the area is where you have a leg? That doesn't fit. The chest area is not curved enough to cover the impression. The horizontal gluteal crease is in the wrong spot and if the chest is placed correctly this crease is even further off. This to name a few..."

"The heel areas or, as you put it the elk knees, would be under the chest not to the side and embedded in the soil. This would mean that the hoof would be at the other end from where the knee is. That is not the case. There is no hoof mark at the end of that impression feature."

"The rear leg or what some are calling the arm, is way to wide on the cast and impression for an elk leg and the end doesn't look like a hoof, but more like a hand. An elk leg would be narrower and shaped like a stretched out hour glass with a hoof at the end. The details in the impression and cast do not indicate that it was produced by something rolled there, which would be impossible to do anyways since it would be attached to the rest of the animal."

ETA: Regarding the 3D model in answer to Swiss Chris on this thread:

"9. I made the model using a laser tracker and retro-reflector surface probe. It is not totally complete and you would need a program that can upload an IGES file. Do you have a program that can render an IGES file and then manipulate and scale it? Then there is the question of why I would release it."

Edited October 17, 2011 by LAL

[Guest Kerchak]

His blog details his initial encounter. Not sure if his multiple encounters have been discussed here or not. Personally, I just don't care much either way, as they'd just be more anecdotes. I read enough of those in Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, 30+ years ago.

RayG

Thanks. I went there and read the blog this morning just out of interest.

I'm not sure, they have to live somewhere, in some area & if you just so happen to be in that area often enough like PT would be, i don't see a reason why you wouldn't have the possibility of encountering them more than once.

In his blog PT says he's had 4 visual encounters and a "few dozen or so" non visual encounters. That's a hell of a lot in my view, especially for an animal people who are looking for it never get to see even once.

I'm not gonna go further with this though. My initial point was that many multiple encounters don't do the validity of this subject any more good than scientists advocating the authenticity of the Skookum Cast do.

I feel seeing sasquatch must be close to a once in a lifetime experience. I find it very hard to accept many multiple encounters (especially with nothing to back them up with), but that's just me.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Bigfoot, the elusive creature so smart and so intent on not being captured alive, dead, fossilized, or in a clear photograph, must have been aware that some annoying humans were in Skookum Meadows that fateful night. What does he do?

1) He walks out in the open near a road.

2) He finds an obvious "trap" in terms of a pile of fruit put there by humans on a wide open roadside.

3) Our master of the woods cannot resist the sweet temptation of that fruit.

4) For some reason - unlike the bigfoots that have left thousands of footprints around for people to find - this one is very cautious about stepping in any soft mud.

5) He decides, therefore, to leave an entire impression of his body by bellycrawling or somehow rolling into position where he can sit and enjoy some - but not all - of that fruit that he just couldn't resist in the first place.

6) So for some unspecified period of time that night, there was a bigfoot lazily reclining in a wide open muddy patch on the side of the road so he could delicately sample some fruit put out by humans to lure him into view in an obvious trap.

Makes sense to me. It's gotta be either the above scenario or that an elk, which are abundant in the area, do bed down along roadsides, do wallow in mud, do enjoy an occasional bite of apple, and did leave prints in the mud is responsible. I'm baffled, frankly.

Brilliant!

[BobbyO]

In his blog PT says he's had 4 visual encounters and a "few dozen or so" non visual encounters. That's a hell of a lot in my view, especially for an animal people who are looking for it never get to see even once.

You mean the 100 or so people that are " looking for it ", in the 700 plus Million acres of Forested area in the United States, excluding ?? .

I'm not gonna go further with this though.

Fair enough, but if you strike it rich in these 700 plus million acres and are aware of somewhere that they inhabit, it's no wonder that you see them more than once, so long as you're looking of course, which 99% of people in the Forests are not.

Edited October 18, 2011 by BobbyO

[Guest 127]

In this video Derek Randles identifies the animal traces that were "in this pit" - bear, deer, coyote, elk, birds - and explains why the impression isn't from a bear or an elk or a deer.

I don't think he ruled out giant bird.

<edited to change wording to "in this pit" and correct spelling of Derek's last name>

From the

:

Derek Randles: "This isn't an elk because the proportions are all completely wrong." "If this was an elk it would be completely obvious."

In his blog PT says he's had 4 visual encounters and a "few dozen or so" non visual encounters. That's a hell of a lot in my view, especially for an animal people who are looking for it never get to see even once.

I'm not gonna go further with this though. My initial point was that many multiple encounters don't do the validity of this subject any more good than scientists advocating the authenticity of the Skookum Cast do.

I feel seeing sasquatch must be close to a once in a lifetime experience. I find it very hard to accept many multiple encounters (especially with nothing to back them up with), but that's just me.

Kerchak: (my bold) For once we agree on something. It only adds further ridicule to the subject. Science is supposed to be based on solid foundations backed by facts - not speculation and confirmation bias. I'm afraid that reputations and investment seem to be winning over good science and truth in this case. Will it ever be corrected and or revised? Doubtful.

Science and bigfoot sometimes don't go together. This is a perfect example in my opinion. Do you (or anyone) think Dr Meldrum is confident in his findings with this impression? How should this effect my confidence in future findings when things like this stick out like a sore thumb and nothing is addressed or revised? It gives me confidence that the scientists involved are not above confirmation bias, and not above reproach. In my opinion when it degrades to that point - it is no longer science. It is laughable. That is exactly what things like this bring to the table for bigfoot enthusiasts. Bigfooters say that they want this subject to be taken more serious. The scientists involved say they want the subject taken more serious. Yet- things like this are not addressed and requests for revision + opposing evidence ignored. As long as "we" collectively consume it - it's going to keep happening. When "we" as a whole stand up and say BS things can change. I'm hoping that may be the case with this skookum cast.

The evidence is overwhelming - yet it remains officially a bigfoot impression to Dr Meldrum.

Bigfoot:

no tracks leading up to or away from said impression

no hairs

nothing identifiable as bigfoot there.

to believe this scenario you must believe and have faith in the words of bigfoot enthusiasts - because that is the only evidence of any bigfoot there is words. You also must believe that the bigfoot performed some neat gymnastics and that it left no hairs in the mud despite leaving excellent hair impressions that had elk hairs in it.

Elk:

tracks present leading up to and away from impression.

hairs present.

the impression is identifiable as an elk impression.

to believe this scenario you can rely on facts and physical evidence.

Edited October 18, 2011 by 127

[BobbyO]

You also must believe that the bigfoot performed some neat gymnastics and that it left no hairs in the mud despite leaving excellent hair impressions that had elk hairs in it.

Is that true ??

Were Elk Hairs found within the Hair impressions that 127 is, i believe, referring to the " Buttock " area ??

At the 02:00 - 03:10 minute mark of this Video.

I have never read that they have, but would stand to be corrected of course.

[wolftrax]

DDA pointed out some ,gif errors on this thread', e.g.:

"Apparently the layers are locked on your gif wolftrax. I was going to outline the features so that you can once again overlay your model. Do you see how wide the area is where you have a leg? That doesn't fit. The chest area is not curved enough to cover the impression. The horizontal gluteal crease is in the wrong spot and if the chest is placed correctly this crease is even further off. This to name a few..."

You might as well have copied the entire thread over with my responses. The leg is explained by movement as it brushes against the mud. The "Horizontal gluteal crease" or the butt cheek is the knee of the elk, this trait gets confused later by DDA. You can see the same knee indentation in the other elk wallow posted by DDA.

"The heel areas or, as you put it the elk knees, would be under the chest not to the side and embedded in the soil. This would mean that the hoof would be at the other end from where the knee is. That is not the case. There is no hoof mark at the end of that impression feature."

I didn't say the "Heel" areas were elk knees, they are the wrists. They wouldn't have to be under the chest, nor would there be a hoof mark as the elk image that is prevailant in this thread shows the hooves coming out at the sides with no weight placed on them by the chest. I seem to recall something about the hoof being placed with the plantar side on the ground, unless I'm misunderstanding this that would be impossible, if anything the dorsal side of the front hooves would be facing the ground while it's wrists were on the ground. Of course with the elk rising and digging in it's wrists the hooves wouldn't need to make any depressions at all.

"The rear leg or what some are calling the arm, is way to wide on the cast and impression for an elk leg and the end doesn't look like a hoof, but more like a hand. An elk leg would be narrower and shaped like a stretched out hour glass with a hoof at the end. The details in the impression and cast do not indicate that it was produced by something rolled there, which would be impossible to do anyways since it would be attached to the rest of the animal."

The wideness of the "Arm" or back leg of the elk is from movement, this isn't a direct cast of the subject, it's a cast of the mud the subject was laying on. I've yet to see anything to distinguish the end of the leg from a hoof or any detail showing hand like attributes.

ETA: Regarding the 3D model in answer to Swiss Chris on this thread:

"9. I made the model using a laser tracker and retro-reflector surface probe. It is not totally complete and you would need a program that can upload an IGES file. Do you have a program that can render an IGES file and then manipulate and scale it? Then there is the question of why I would release it."

And the answer I gave then, and now, is Yes! I do have a program that can upload an IGES file and render and manipulate and scale it. I have probably the best software available.

You left out where DDA attributed my believing the impression to be from an elk because I bore some sort of grudge against the BFRO. Despite my repeated comments for him to back this up with some sort of evidence, he never did and it became apparent this was something straight out of his imagination, just like the idea that a sasquatch made the impression and not an elk.

Edited October 18, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest Kerchak]

You mean the 100 or so people that are " looking for it ", in the 700 plus Million acres of Forested area in the United States, excluding ??

Hehe maybe they should abandon those 700 plus Million acres of Forested area in the United States and just go where PT goes instead? A few dozen encounters would mean there is veritable swarm of them there.

Fair enough, but if you strike it rich in these 700 plus million acres and are aware of somewhere that they inhabit, it's no wonder that you see them more than once,

And also have nothing to show for it?

At least Paul Freeman brought back track casts and footage, whether you buy them or not (and not saying I do).

so long as you're looking of course, which 99% of people in the Forests are not.

But in his blog PT says he wasn't looking for them when he had his first encounter and he also says he went out many times hoping he wouldn't encounter them or not even thinking about them.

He also stresses that "If you didn't see Sasquatch do it yourself, don't jump to the conclusion that they were responsible!Mother Nature has an uncanny ability to create many different unusual physical anomalies all by her self.""

By default then he is saying these "few dozen non visual encounters" he had weren't some wishful thinking false conclusions.

My position remains. I find it very very hard to swallow that anybody had had a "few dozen" bigfoot encounters and I don't care who they are. I find that much harder to swallow than that the Skookum Cast shows sign of a bigfoot being there. PT came into this thread to point fingers at others yet he's claiming he's had "a few dozen" bigfoot encounters? That boggles my mind.

[Guest LAL]

I wondered about that too, Kerchak. And why would anyone bring up multiple encounters on a board as full of skeptics and skeptical proponents as this one is? If I'd ever had an encounter I wouldn't talk about it here, especially if I had casts and a video. I think it's possible for the same person to find evidence, fake evidence and misidentify evidence.

I sincerely wish I'd saved Owen Caddy's illustrations. I guess I thought the old BFF would be around forever. He PMd me instructions on doing the Skookum Roll. I remember wishing I didn't have hardwood floors. I didn't know I had an ischial tuberosity until then. You can certainly feel it trying to impress itself on a hard floor.