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

[Guest Kerchak]

hey , I just read the article..... I had no idea that any of these people were members or about any sort of vendettas or arguments...etc going on between they and other member's...

It's well worth realising that in this 'field' (i.e bigfoot research/bigfoot talk) there are some on the cynical side who have a biased agenda and a need for bigfoot to not exist. They have been arguing against it for so long and have just as much of a biased emotional dam in accepting bigfoot as anyone on the proponent side has a wish or need for it to exist.

You'll find very few impartial and unbiased folks who get into this 'field' and are outspoken. Each side has as much of an agenda as the other.

[Guest Kerchak]

Well then, I stand corrected. It's still wierd for you to â€blame†them for coming to a conclusion. Why is it not enough to disagree? Why can't you just reaffirm to yourself how much smarter you are than those silly scientists and be happy with that? It seems as though you will not be happy until people STOP believing in sasquatch and that just is not going to happen. If you have still not learned to deal with the fact that people- even well-educated scientific people- will have different opinions than you, then this is as good a time as any to get comfortable with that fact.

Bingo. Nail on the head NiceGuyJohn.

I truly believe that some folks are on some kind of a vendetta or even a crusade to try and stamp out 'bigfoot belief'. Why, I don't know. It's hardly the most important or most damaging of the word's mystery phenomenons. Surely there are more important things to argue against?

Anyway you are right. They are basically wasting their time because 'bigfoot belief' isn't going to end in any of our lifetimes. It's here to stay from the foreseeable future.

[wolftrax]

All of nonsensical propaganda aside, where is the actual data that rules out elk?

DDA, if filming Wroblewski while he conducted his analysis of the cast was in the interest of scientific integrity, how many other people did you place this condition on? Were they also required to allow you to use the footage any way you pleased? If so, let's see that footage.

What is the claim that elk must place their hooves within the impression based on? How many elk lays were examined and found this claim to be true or not? Since filming analysis is your preference for scientific integrity, let's see all the elk lays that were used for the data set. The impressions, not just an elk rising from the side view.

The gorilla feeding video has long been shown to support that this was done by a primate. What did the impression the gorilla left look like?

The tracks from the elk are said to have been from an earlier time period than the body impression. How was this conclusion reached?

Edited October 27, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest StankApe]

I'm retracting my post cuz I'm cranky and my ribs hurt.... pout

Edited October 27, 2011 by StankApe

[Guest StankApe]

It's well worth realising that in this 'field' (i.e bigfoot research/bigfoot talk) there are some on the cynical side who have a biased agenda and a need for bigfoot to not exist. They have been arguing against it for so long and have just as much of a biased emotional dam in accepting bigfoot as anyone on the proponent side has a wish or need for it to exist.

You'll find very few impartial and unbiased folks who get into this 'field' and are outspoken. Each side has as much of an agenda as the other.

Then all of the supposed evidence is worthless.... sorry to say it, but that's the dadburn truth.

[Guest]

If it makes you sad that you explanation has fallen into tiny bits,

I for one am not sad, because our "explanation" has in fact NOT "fallen into tiny bits". The best available explanation for the biometric indicators and data contained in the impression indicate that it was made by a large hairy bipedal animal with primate characteristics. This has been attested to by Drs Meldrum, Schaller, Swindler, et al.

There has been NOTHING proffered by the Skeptics that comes anywhere near the level of refuting those observed characteristics or answering the fatal flaws in the "it's an elk lay" hypothesis.

perhaps in the future you should do your diligence before making the leap from "probably an elk, or a bear or another critter" straight to BIGFOOT...

They DID do due diligance. They examined the evidence, recorded it, had OTHER people examine it. They even conducted experiments attempting to duplicate critical parts of the impression with elk pieces.

No one "leaped" ANYWHERE. Science, careful and methodical, developed data that pointed to BF, not elk, as the impression source.

No competent scientist makes an assumption before the fact and then spends the rest of their time attempting to shoehorn the facts into their assumption

And no competent scientist has done so in this case. They did just the opposite.

it's bad science, it's a bad investigation

If it had occurred it would be...but it didn't. Instead very GOOD science was done and it provided powerful data supporting BF as the source.

and it doth not further the cause of Bigfoot...

In your opinion.

[Guest]

Then all of the supposed evidence is worthless.... sorry to say it, but that's the dadburn truth.

No, it's your opinion, and one not supported by fact, reason OR logic.

[Guest StankApe]

If all of Bigfoot researchdom is populated by two wings of people those who will stop at nothing to "prove" and those who will stop at nothing to "disprove" how can we possibly believe anybodies evidence? This would never fly in any sciences I've been a part of. True people may choose their weapons in a debate, but the debates always hinge on facts, not belief systems. You can debate string theory by pointing out an equation that doth not match or say the Architeuthis can't possible reach 100 feet because of it's trunk to arm ratio's, but these are all facts. these are things people have measured and recorded and spent their lives on for generations. When one is dealing with an unknown animal, there shouldn't be a force of "hope" that claims every fart in the wind is Bigfoot, there should only be people who hope to prove their case being extra special careful so as to not over speculate, not to over emphasize, not to over draw the limited amount of data they have. This is smart science. If you know your subject matter might be a stretch for other's to believe you better have all of your P's and Q's together , you better have crossed every T and dotted every I cuz you know dadburn well that the rest of em are gunnin for ya!

Honestly, I've seen none of these things. I've seen conjecture , assumption sloppy science and hope. None of these things are acceptable to science. You hyave to be on your game just to prove you found yet another type of sea slug in the Med. Sea, much less an unknown hominid that is 8 feet tall 500 lbs and lives in Oregon!!!! You can "Dude lebowski " " well that's like, your opinion man.." all you want, but I'm not out there trying to prove what would be the most important scientific find of the past 300 years!!!! I want it to be true, I dearly would. But i find that buying into any "it was bigfoot" story that floats down the river as to be a disservice to the pursuit at large. it's why the skeptics are here. It's why I am a skeptic and why I'm proud of it. I think by pointing out every little crack and problem and fallacy, I'm doing a service to the idea of bigfoot. I'm doing my part to make sure it doesn't remain hokum and malarky , if it indeed exists...

[Guest Kerchak]

All of nonsensical propaganda aside,

Nonsensical propaganda? It's not propaganda at all. It's a rational observation. If you think some on the detractor side don't have an agenda of their own then you must be a very very naive person.

Nonsensical propaganda?

That armchair of yours looks very comfortable, Wolftrax.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Kerchak

[Guest Kerchak]

Then all of the supposed evidence is worthless.... sorry to say it, but that's the dadburn truth.

Well nobody is forcing you to stay here and continue talking about bigfoot if it's all worthless.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

This is really entertaining!! Please don't stop. Come on Red Rat I'm sure you can do better than that! Maybe you can say something about our mothers or something.

Is that all you can come up with ?

Tim

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Well nobody is forcing you to stay here and continue talking about bigfoot if it's all worthless.

Can you tell me what a Bigfoot is ???

Tim

[Guest RedRatSnake]

That is a weak Exam to present to the world that an area has been found, were a BF was was laying down eating apples, it's no wonder so many laugh at BF when it is mentioned ~

Tim

[Guest LAL]

Seems all it takes to convince a skeptic is "looks like a guy in a suit", "looks fake", "looks like an elk lay". Never mind the arguments that refute those conclusions.

I think the team did a great job (except that they neglected to shoot the thing ) and so did the examiners. I think for any other species the evidence would be sufficient to indicate there is an unidentified species out there. We had a problem with being kicked out of the center of the universe, too.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hey! anyone know if the fruit / apples were store bought

or native too the area

Thanks

Tim