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

[Guest parnassus]

Your lack of knowledge of the topic is obvious.

Freezing transforms a liquid to a solid, so yes.

Biological Physics for Jocks: Big endothermic animal lays on frozen surface. Body heat thaws frozen surface, allowing imprint to be left behind, which also obliterates previous imprints.

If you are truly interested in the topic, you can read several readily available writeups by persons who were present, which are easily found with Google. As the sun rose the mud started thawing. As I recall, the Cast team placed items (cardboard?) to keep the imprint in shade until it could be cast.

If you are truly interested in the topic: Your version does not fit with Meldrums in LMS. Who is more likely to be correct?

Edited October 13, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest 127]

Dr. Daris Swindler was the author of the standard text on primate anatomy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ6n-2XyPGg&feature=player_embedded

So what did the hairs come back as? Was there DNA testing done on them or a visual inspection? Thanks.

[Guest parnassus]

Are you saying an elk can jump out of an elk lay without messing it up or leaving fresh tracks if it's sufficiently scared?

I used to live below an area that was frequented by elk for whatever that's worth.

In LMS p 119 Meldrum shows a cartoon ("typical posture...") which is clearly not the posture shown above by kitakaze.

Here is the statement in LMS by Meldrum:

"...perhaps most telling, when an elk rises from a repose it must place it's hooves directly under it's weight in order to stand, leaving tracks in the centerline of its imprint."

This is not true.

An elk which is lying as shown by kitakaze and is startled can roll to the side, off its imprint, onto its back legs and spring forward from its front knees, out of the wallow without coming to its front feet. This does not leave tracks in the centerline of its imprint. It it astonishing to me that 6 years after the event Meldrum did not know this and even more so now 11 years later that this fallacy about leg gathering is still being advanced. Perhaps it is only observed by bow hunters. The "MOST TELLING" argument against an elk lay is wrong.

Edited October 13, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest 127]

The same way this one did:

wolftrax: Exactly.

LAL: How would you explain the elk lay impression that wolftrax posted? Was that also a bigfoot impression?

[Guest LAL]

How do I know it's an elk lay? Doesn't look much like the Skookum impression, does it? Maybe you could fit a dog into it................

[Guest krakatoa]

How do I know it's an elk lay? Doesn't look much like the Skookum impression, does it? Maybe you could fit a dog into it................

Irony, thy name is...

[Guest LAL]

It it astonishing to me that 6 years after the event Meldrum did not know this and even more so now 11 years later that this fallacy about leg gathering is still being advanced. Perhaps it is only observed by bow hunters. The "MOST TELLING" argument against an elk lay is wrong.

Gosh, all those gamekeepers/zookeepers Meldrum mentioned must have been wrong too. Most telling? The front feet have to come down sometime, don't they?

Why would an elk lie down to eat fruit in the first place instead of walking up and eating it whole? What about the bits?

I think Owen Caddy's sketchovers were more telling arguments. Sasquatch sits eating fruit - no contortions required. A doctored version of one is here. I guess the rest went down with BFF1.

You read the other threads you were on, right?

"Heel detail

The heels that are part of the Skookum cast have what looks like an Achilles tendon attached to them. The dismembered elk leg was an obvious mismatch in that this feature, the tendon, was much more robust. It was a good 1.5†in diameter versus the .5†for the Skookum cast.

With the elk leg pressed into soil a pretty thick round feature is left there. This image is a small one but clearly shows then tendon (for lack of a better term right now) receding away from the bulbous heel like area, with my own heel casting sitting beside it. I wanted to really quantify this observation so I sectioned a copy of the Skookum heel and one I made of the Elk leg. I have actual pictures of course and I am sure that those that watched one of the Bigfoot shows on Monster Quest saw Daris and Owen looking at them. " - DDA

http://bigfootforums...st/page__st__60

Edited October 13, 2011 by LAL

[Guest]

Hi

Just to keep it from getting too flamed here,

according to sources on the net,

the known Elk population in Washington State. is around

55,000 ~ The BF population is 0

Tim

Which has zero to do with the observed characteristics within the cast itself that have been analyzed by scientists and other persons with expertise in primatology, ungulates, or both and established to NOT have come from an elk.

That is an irrefutable fact.

[Guest]

Was Dr Darius Swindler in it (the Skookum Cast analysis and conclusion)for the money too?

Or Dr Schaller (sp?)

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Mulder ~

What is the the known population of BF in the area , as listed in any wildlife magazine or state records ?

Tim

[wolftrax]

I haven't seen ANY experts on ungulates comment on the cast. People keep saying they have, but there have been no names or quotes.

Swindler keeps being mentioned, I like how he says there are similarities to an elks wrist and the "Heel" on the cast. at around 9:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8SEqy_5Jk&feature=related

How do I know it's an elk lay? Doesn't look much like the Skookum impression, does it? Maybe you could fit a dog into it................

lol I guess there is the answer to how an elk rose from the lay without leaving tracks within the depression.

[Guest]

Cervelo, on 12 October 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:

I don't believe that bigfoot belly crawls anywhere much less from the treeline in that photo to the snacks left for him. Mine is a very simple mind and I go with the most obvious answer when the evidence requires a lot of interpetation. I want biggie to be out there but until I come face to face with him....the current evidence is not very compelling. I'm very much over who's got what education or how much time they spent in the field when it's comes to this subject they don't know any more than you or I

Well said, Cervelo.

What a load of crock...Drs Meldrum, Swindler, Schaller, Kranz, et al have degrees in various wildlife disciplines and or anthropology, or other appropriately related sciences.

Of course the Skeptics summarily dismiss that expertise simply on the basis of their proponent supporting conclusions.

What's the point of this forum then?

Hi

In this case the forum should first rule out beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not

an Elk, then start with the super rare elucive never captured BF, basic common sense

Tim:)

which has been done by Drs Meldrum, Swindler, et al.

LAL,

I respect your position and have read most of the info. I do not think it's incumbent for anyone to recreate, the elk lay, PGF, Jacobs photo or any other "evidence" to prove it's not Bigfoot.

It absolutely IS incumbent on "elk proponents" to put forth evidence that counters the informed scientific opinions of Drs Meldrum, Schaller, Swindler, et al.

The reason why you are trying to duck that is because you can't pony up your proof.

Rick Noll won't allow it.

Rick Noll won't allow it.

Rick Noll won't allow it.

Factually incorrect, as even you admit below. He simply will not permit his work to be used carte blanche without ensuring his entirely relevant interests in maintaining the evidentiary value and data integrity associated with the cast are met.

Rick Noll won't allow skeptical analysis on the cast in person without unfavorable filming conditions.

Explicit admission that what you said above is factually in error and you know it, wolf.

The photos are all that is allowed to be researched, and they match an elk.

1) Data from examining the actual cast or moldings from (such as that collected by Dr Meldrum, et al) trumps simplistic casual observations of some photographs.

If these complaints are really a problem for Mr. Noll, and not merely just him pointing out his own resistance to having such a detailed analysis done on the cast, than the blame falls on him for not allowing these things to happen.

He has said he would be willing, so long as his conditions about quality of research, data preservation, etc are met.

Once again you are factually in error.

The 3d recreation has the right proportions, and they fit.

As noted above by various persons, that also is factually in error.

So far, every claim made about the cast has been shown to not be true.

And just to round out your post full of factual errors, one final example in the above.

[Guest]

I can not look at the above or below and see anything but the very obvious sign of an elk...

Particularly the last is what I think is one of the most effective glass of cold water demonstrations for those who would cling to the notion that a Bigfoot made that. No words necessary. Completely self-explanatory.

Says the master of misaligned lines and shoddy proportions work, as anyone following your art projects over in the PGF threads knows well.

[Guest]

There has been overwhelming evidence that it is an elk,

Factually in error.

and no evidence at all for it to be a sasquatch.

also factually in error.

Being in denial in the face of that does not demolish it.

Correction, continuously repeating things demonstrated to be factually in error does not make them true.

However, what it does do, in combination with not allowing access to the cast or the 3d scan of the cast, is further lend doubt to the authenticity of the cast.

The materials are available to those willing to meet the specified conditions to protect the curator's legitimate interest in having it properly analyzed and presented.

Too bad for you that he won't simply give you what you want given your (and other Skeptics') public statements that show you are not to be trusted to be impartial and objective with it.

[Guest]

Says the master of misaligned lines and shoddy proportions work, as anyone following your art projects over in the PGF threads knows well.

As much as I, too, am not a fan of the techniques and approaches of certain folks, this very pic is the one that convinced me that there is a very good chance that the Skookum impression is not BF. It really does speak for itself, and I think that if it were shown to most laypersons that they, too, would find it compelling. That makes the Skookum print pretty poor quality evidence, IMHO.There are plenty of actual elk prints involved, but not a single clear BF track.