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

[kitakaze]

What really made the Skookum impression...

[Guest Kerchak]

Yeah, it is petty.

So why didn't you claim folks were being petty when they were doing the same to the likes of Meldrum and Noll etc earlier in the thread?

It's ok to lambast proponents for their biased emotions and agendas but it's not ok to point out that some detractors have their own biased emotions and agendas?

Geez, there really are a lot of double standards going on aren't there?

[Guest StankApe]

Pot meet kettle

[Guest]

I really think people have to be seeing SOMETHING

Pray tell, how is the field of bigfootology advanced by you doling out your baseless ridicule upon those who get out in the field to look for evidence, who preserve evidence found, who video document the act of preserving the evidence, who allow interested experts to examine the evidence, who video document such examinations, and who report on their findings? I can only assume that you would prefer the public to shun any outcomes from use of the scientific method and instead only listen to your brilliant, yet unsubtantiated, pronouncements.

[Guest 127]

In case anyone missed it I posted the link to the source (Thom Powell's blog) of the "Close up of the impression prior to casting, with outline added by Noll to highlight forearm just above thigh impression (center) and heel mark (lower right). Note also finger marks and apple remains (upper right edge of photo) in this post.

PT, there's a rather distinctive "X" in the tread impressions on both bootprints nearest the impression. I think that indicates they're a pair.

Since 127 seems to have left us while he writes his article maybe the poster who originally posted what I think is one of Rick Noll's diagrams showing transiting elk tracks before 127 joined us can come up with a larger, better resolution copy. I can't read the print even on my biggest, best screen and have been unable to find anything on the Net. If I blow it up it just pixelates.

about that "primate hair" from the skookum elk lay. And wow, that "achilles heel tendon looks mighty thin dont it? Kind of like an elk leg.

[wolftrax]

So why didn't you claim folks were being petty when they were doing the same to the likes of Meldrum and Noll etc earlier in the thread?

It's ok to lambast proponents for their biased emotions and agendas but it's not ok to point out that some detractors have their own biased emotions and agendas?

Geez, there really are a lot of double standards going on aren't there?

No, I'm not going to say anything to people who have told you or anyone else that denies the skookum cast was an elk impression are biased, just like I didn't say anything when the president of the Arizona Elk Society said that anyone claiming that an elk has to put it's hooves in the impression to rise doesn't know what they are talking about. Nobody has provided any evidence that it couldn't be from an elk, just repeated claims with no support.

But do you really care about that, or is this just really your way of filling up space because you don't have shite to show an elk couldn't have made the impression?

Like I said, another few pages of petty arguments like who took the photos we've all seen hundreds of times and anyone thinking the skookum cast is an elk impression is trying to kill bigfoot because they don't have the evidence, and you're proving my point.

Go head, prove them wrong, show you're not biased, show that none of the people that deny that an elk made the Skookum impression are not biased. Show closeup images of these alleged hand and fingerprints. Answer how many elk lays were studied to determine that an elk cannot rise without placing it's hooves in the impression like it's signing it's artwork. Tell how the age of the elk tracks and the impression was determined to be at different times. Show how the direction of travel of the hooves was determined, or that those tracks weren't from the elk rising.

Personally, I feel sorry for Schaller and Swindler. Whether intentionally or not, I have the feeling they were duped into believing that the cast wasn't made by an elk and was from a bigfoot. Judging by the video of it's discovery, and how quick the owner of the cast was to lay out the scenario of how a squatch made it, along with the unsupported claims against an elk as the culprit, I have a strong suspicion that occurred throughout the entirety of any of Schaller and Swindler's observations.

What really made the Skookum impression...

lmao!

Edited November 2, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest StankApe]

Pray tell, how is the field of bigfootology advanced by you doling out your baseless ridicule upon those who get out in the field to look for evidence, who preserve evidence found, who video document the act of preserving the evidence, who allow interested experts to examine the evidence, who video document such examinations, and who report on their findings? I can only assume that you would prefer the public to shun any outcomes from use of the scientific method and instead only listen to your brilliant, yet unsubtantiated, pronouncements.

No sir, you couldn't be more wrong.

I happen to think that the Skookum Cast and the PGF are both bad bits of evidence. I think that the promotion of said evidence holds the search for Bigfoot back as far as the scientific community is concerned. I think the preponderance of the albeit circumstantial sighting and footprint evidence to be so vast and yet of such a variety as to hold the most substance. IMO, the Skookum cast is MOST LIKELY an elk. To continue to focus on it as a key piece of evidence would be wasteful because ANY bit of evidence in regards to an unknown creature that COULD POSSIBLY be explained by other means is pointless. (even if said evidence is eventually proven to be true) Science demands results, it demands real proven facts. I happen to believe that by following the footprint evidence and the sightings one might stumble upon the end result of a "perfect documented sighting" . This may not convince science, but it may lead to the place where science can no longer dispute the amount of evidence....

In other words " i think the Skookum cast is probably an elk, and I reckon that this energy of debate would be better spent somewheres else" YMMV

edit: Just to add to this post. If you come to science and say " hey we found a new type of tree frog in New Guinea!" they go "well there are tree frogs in new guinea, so what makes this one special?" and they wait for your differentiating evidence. When you say " There's an unknown hominid/ape in North America" They go " well, there's no native apes there. There's no fossil record of them there. The evidence must be overwhelming and true!" Call it biased, call it unfair, but that's the way it is!

I don't think attempting to prove suspect evidence as helping, I find it hurting. I find it contrary to the common cause of Bigfoot. Far be it for me to criticize things you find as dogma, but I cannot bend for one tiny instant if I find any bit of evidence to be suspect.

Edited November 2, 2011 by StankApe

[Guest 127]

What really made the Skookum impression...

lol!

Pray tell, how is the field of bigfootology advanced by you doling out your baseless ridicule upon those who get out in the field to look for evidence, who preserve evidence found, who video document the act of preserving the evidence, who allow interested experts to examine the evidence, who video document such examinations, and who report on their findings? I can only assume that you would prefer the public to shun any outcomes from use of the scientific method and instead only listen to your brilliant, yet unsubtantiated, pronouncements.

No one here is saying don't preserve what you feel is evidence. By all means do. (as noted I've said several times in this thread that DDA did a great job preserving what was there) What most of the skeptics are saying is - don't tolerate the bad science that concludes bigfoot when there is no evidence of it, and only wishful thinking along with confirmation bias. Would you rather everyone be a yes man and keep on towing the company line? Sometimes in cases like this the status should/could be updated but it likely won't be. Why?

A bigfoot levitated to the frozen mud and laid/sat in it, left no evidence except for the shape of an elk and a bunch of elk prints/hairs and other known animal stuff ate an apple or two and levitated back out leaving awesome hair impressions that contained a bunch of elk hairs and no bigfoot hairs. no bigfoot anything except for wishful thinking. (howed it leave those deep achilles impressions again in the frozen mud again? lol) The elk pushed off its wrists to leave those "achilles tendon impressions". The point is - stuff like this shouldn't slide by as bigfoot evidence. It's ridiculous and it does the subject and the scientists involved absolutely no favors.

Edited November 2, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

Alright... If you are hungry and in the woods, do you think "i might leave prints I should shimmy up to the apples!" No... The immense amount of prints would say that they seem to not be too concerned with leaving them! You can't pick and choose the evidence that suits you! If Bigfoot haphazardly leaves prints in substrate that allows prints then there is no reason to assume that in the case of the Skookum Cast it suddenly got Print aware.. That's trying to twist the facts to suit an agenda and it's bad science... Sorry, but it's just awful science!

IMO, the logical answer is that it's an elk. So what? Bigfoot is now a phoney? Nope. The dismissal of bad evidence is equally if not more important than a debate over what could be great evidence. In fact I would state

that removing the chaffe doth giveth the flock a greater chance at finding the wheat of the matter

Do you have your skepticals on, brutha? Did you not read what I wrote? I'd say that interpreting things to suit an agenda is bad science, personally.

I know that BF exists, and I still lean towards an elk wallow. But I wasn't there, so I don't pretend to know too much about it from a couple of pictures. I've done elk survey work, and hunted elk since the mid-80's, so I've seen my fair share of wallows. Not that I've ever gone over every minute detail of one. I know they roll, and overlap their impressions, and a lot of odd things can appear after an elk gets out of one. The Skookum cast could be like looking at a Rorschach test, or clouds and seeing images that your brain wants to see. I saw a wallow like 10 years ago that appeared to have a Templar cross in it.(Maybe BF are Templars:) I kind of view it like the elk formation on Mt. Rainier..When i used to look at Rainier all I saw was a mountain, until somebody showed me the 'famous' elk rock formation near the top left of the Mt. Now everytime I look at the mountain, that's all I see. Who knows...Maybe the

cast is of a BF lay, and the elk camp only sees what it wants to. Nobody will ever really know. That's why I asked about the apples, and the W.L professionals. I was just curious of the circumstances, the way the evidence was laid out, and what people thought who don't have BF blinders on, and look at things objectively.

The self-aware BF was what was implied by the army-crawl theory, btw. But then again, I think they ARE

self-aware, and their travel habits somewhat indicate that, if you believe they travel creek-beds, and waterways.

And for someone who keeps telling everyone to let it go, you still seem to be having a tough time doing the same:)

[Guest Kerchak]

No, I'm not going to say anything to people who have told you or anyone else that denies the skookum cast was an elk impression are biased,

I don't need to be 'told' anything. I was actually there posting on JREF half a decade ago when the guy in particular was going on about "woos" and trying to mock them along with the rest of the Statler and Waldorf type crowd.

I know his mindset. I don't have to be told it. I saw it for myself. He's biased against bigfoot and those who advocate it. FACT. It's all "woo" stuff to him.

But do you really care about that, or is this just really your way of filling up space because you don't have shite to show an elk couldn't have made the impression?

If you actually read my other comments apart from those about your buddy Anton Wroblewski then you'd see that I am on the fence regarding the Skookum Cast. Waaaaaaaaaaay back in this thread I wrote this:

""For the record, I'm on the fence. Nothing I have ever read conclusively proves it an elk lay. On the other hand there are a lot of interesting observations from people who actually studied it in person (as opposed to armchair critics)that make the Skookum Cast at the least very very interesting.""

I'm not asserting is IS a bigfoot impression. I don't know either way what it is and nothing in this thread has moved the subject on any further than the discussions and debates of years ago. I still find it an interesting possibility that it may be but I'm not completely convinced that it is.

Like I said, another few pages of petty arguments

Actually for the last few pages it's been you also posting petty comments complaining about other people being petty, which has resulted in more petty responses.

You aren't immune to posting your own petty comments and remarks Wolftrax.

My whole point was that petty and snarky comments aimed at the proponents have been happening in this thread on and off almost since page 1, with accusations of things like cults or people in it for the money and swipes at the integrity of those advocating the cast could be bigfoot etc etc.

I didn't read you complain about any of those petty comments. You only started complaining about petty comments when your buddy Wroblewski was brought into it.

Where had you been for the previous 20 or so pages of petty comments and snarky accusations?

Go head, prove them wrong, show you're not biased, show that none of the people that deny that an elk made the Skookum impression are not biased.

I did not deny that there is a bias on the proponent side. I simply pointed out that there is also a bias in some of those on the detractor side.

There is bias and emotion on BOTH sides of the bigfoot quandary.

I am not naive enough to think there is only bias and emotion on one side but not the other.

[wolftrax]

I don't need to be 'told' anything. I was actually there posting on JREF half a decade ago when the guy in particular was going on about "woos" and trying to mock them along with the rest of the Statler and Waldorf type crowd.

I know his mindset. I don't have to be told it. I saw it for myself. He's biased against bigfoot and those who advocate it. FACT. It's all "woo" stuff to him.

So you were offended by his comments on another site. Maybe you should take your problem to him.

If you actually read my other comments apart from those about your buddy Anton Wroblewski then you'd see that I am on the fence regarding the Skookum Cast. Waaaaaaaaaaay back in this thread I wrote this:

""For the record, I'm on the fence. Nothing I have ever read conclusively proves it an elk lay. On the other hand there are a lot of interesting observations from people who actually studied it in person (as opposed to armchair critics)that make the Skookum Cast at the least very very interesting.""

I'm not asserting is IS a bigfoot impression. I don't know either way what it is and nothing in this thread has moved the subject on any further than the discussions and debates of years ago. I still find it an interesting possibility that it may be but I'm not completely convinced that it is.

Than pretty much that is all that really matters having to do with the Skookum cast, as far as you're concerned, isn't it?

Actually for the last few pages it's been you also posting petty comments complaining about other people being petty, which has resulted in more petty responses.

You aren't immune to posting your own petty comments and remarks Wolftrax.

I'm sure that was your point you were attempting to make, that was the point. Detract with your own personal issues and trying to justify them.

My whole point was that petty and snarky comments aimed at the proponents have been happening in this thread on and off almost since page 1, with accusations of things like cults or people in it for the money and swipes at the integrity of those advocating the cast could be bigfoot etc etc.

I didn't read you complain about any of those petty comments. You only started complaining about petty comments when your buddy Wroblewski was brought into it.

Where had you been for the previous 20 or so pages of petty comments and snarky accusations?

Thinking that this thread was a huge waste of time and space. Thank you for confirming that.

I did not deny that there is a bias on the proponent side. I simply pointed out that there is also a bias in some of those on the detractor side.

There is bias and emotion on BOTH sides of the bigfoot quandary.

I am not naive enough to think there is only bias and emotion on one side but not the other.

Doesn't matter. You have a real elk with known anatomy fitting the skookum impression vs. an unknown primate with unknown anatomy, along with a lot of unsupported claims against the elk making the impression. Whatever side is biased or not, the elk comes out on top at present.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Looks like an elk to me. Why all the fuss? Really!?

[Guest]

Actually for the last few pages it's been you also posting petty comments complaining about other people being petty, which has resulted in more petty responses.

You aren't immune to posting your own petty comments and remarks Wolftrax.

My whole point was that petty and snarky comments aimed at the proponents have been happening in this thread on and off almost since page 1, with accusations of things like cults or people in it for the money and swipes at the integrity of those advocating the cast could be bigfoot etc etc.

I didn't read you complain about any of those petty comments. You only started complaining about petty comments when your buddy Wroblewski was brought into it.

Where had you been for the previous 20 or so pages of petty comments and snarky accusations?

Hello Everyone.

From what I've seen everyone has had their fun from posting a dead horse to slinging barely veiled insinuations to calling each others and Researchers arguments petty. This type of discourse needs to cease and desist immediately or the thread will be locked down for a cooling off period. Everyone has had their fun, gotten their licks in and while spirited and passionate debate is encouraged on the forum. Swatting at each other is not, no matter how cleverly worded. Please resume arguing the argument and kindly leave out the rest.

Thank You everyone for your attention to this matter.

Grayjay

[Guest LAL]

This is John Green's replica of the Skookum Cast. Interesting angle.

http://northamerican...ng-back-at.html

This a female copy of the cast, apparently also John Green's. The paint certainly seems to obscure a lot of detail. I'm wondering why it's there at all. At least we can get an idea of the depth of some of the impressions.

http://www.mcclean.o...01_archive.html

Another view of the original from Squatchopedia.

These replicas were on display in Texas.

http://www.cryptomun...krantz-skookum/

Matt Crowley circled supposed hoof prints on Wroblewski's photo in 2007. Of all the photos of copies I've found so far, that one seems to be about the worst.

http://forums.randi....&postcount=4745

127's circles and color:

[wolftrax]

Looks a lot more like hooves than hands to me.