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

[Guest Kerchak]

Without a doubt Kerchak as, as you say, this is a Bigfoot Forum believe it or not..

You'd never know it judging by the comments of some people.

It's like walking into a sauna and then being amazed when some people bring up how hot they feel.

[Guest LAL]

You nailed it LAL.

You could probably put a picture of a WW2 Spitfire next to it match up a lot of lines.

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.

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.

I think this pretty well sums things up:

"Body castThe Skookum Body Cast was collected in the summer of 2000 after the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) set out fruit bait in a rain run-off puddle near Skookum Meadows in the Gifford Pinchot National forest (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization web site). A handful of top U.S. primate anatomy experts argue that the impression left in the mud near the fruit is the impression of a Sasquatch. 325 pounds of casting material was used to capture a "half-body print" consisting of an imprint of what has been called "a Sasquatch's butt, ankles, hip, thigh, left arm, and apparent hair on the body." Skookum is the Native American Chinook word for Bigfoot or Sasquatch and according to Chinook Indian historian Joel Freeman, "Skookum" simply meant "powerful".

All of the scientists who have examined the Skookum Cast in person, including, but not limited to, Dr. Jeff Meldrum (Anthropologist - Idaho State University - Pocatello), Dr. Daris Swindler (Anthropologist - University of Washington) and Dr. Esteban Sarmiento (Anthropologist - The American Museum of Natural History - New York City) have unanimously confirmed that the Skookum impression is not an elk impression.

In March 3, 2001, journalist Marc Hume wrote an article for the National Post in which he claimed he recognized, based on some photos of the cast, the tracks of an elk and described, "imprints left that would match perfectly with an elk's legs." In his opinion, the cast was "if anything, a cast of the impression made by the hindquarters of an elk." Hume never saw the cast in person, however, and was not aware that there were a few elk tracks in the large slab cast. There were tracks of a least five different mammal species in the cast, including coyote, elk and human (the finders of the impression almost stepped on it).

In July 2006, a geologist named Dr. Anton Wroblewski saw a gallery duplicate of the cast at science exhibit in Texas. It was the first time that Wroblewski, a long-time skeptic of the Skookum cast, saw a duplicate in person. After seeing the duplicate at the exhibit, Wrobleswki wrote up an analysis which agreed with his prior skeptical opinion about the cast. His analysis disagreed with the scientists who examined the actual cast and who positively ruled out elk as a cause. Unlike the prominent anthropologists who carefully studied the cast in Seattle in late 2000, Wroblewski has no training in any field relevant to the study of mammals and their impressions."

http://saintclaircountybigfoot.wetpaint.com/page/Scientific+Data+and+Research

Wroblewski showed his photos of the copy to his own elk experts who after one minute (or was it 1 1/2 minutes? - he timed them) pronounced iit elk. This his the same person who said originals should be examined wherever possible but declined the chance to do so. This reminds me of Rick Baker's "in depth" analysis of the PGF.

If you want to start an argument on a message board I know of no better way to do it than to mention the Skookum Cast - or the MDF or Paul Freeman.

[Guest Cervelo]

Someone did, in Post #4..

Hey I was just answering the question that LAL already knew the answer to! So why dont you guys just get Mulder over here and let the rhetorical, repetitive, same old, same old get stepped up to a new level!!! I've read it all, seen it all, what is it most likley an elk lay IMO. Show me a picture of a Bigfoot sneaking up on an apple and I'm in but until then its most likley an elk lay. Could it be Bigfoot sure it could be anything you want it to be

[Guest LAL]

Mulder's been here. Didn't you notice?

[Guest]

LAL,

Did Dr. Esteban Sarmiento agree that the cast represented a reclining sasquatch?

[Guest Cervelo]

Mulder's been here. Didn't you notice?

I had not but I can only assume he would be here if logic was being used in the discussion

[BobbyO]

Hey I was just answering the question that LAL already knew the answer to! So why dont you guys just get Mulder over here and let the rhetorical, repetitive, same old, same old get stepped up to a new level!!! I've read it all, seen it all, what is it most likley an elk lay IMO. Show me a picture of a Bigfoot sneaking up on an apple and I'm in but until then its most likley an elk lay. Could it be Bigfoot sure it could be anything you want it to be

[Guest Cervelo]

Cool awesome drawing who did it?

Crud u got me ok it's biggie!

Edited October 15, 2011 by Cervelo

[Guest]

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.

Dr Schaller, cited by Dr Meldrum in LMS. He has studied ungulates on two continents.

[Guest]

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.

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.

[Guest]

LOL! It has nothing to do with maintaining evidentiary value and data integrity!!! The process for analysis of any evidence has never required the analyst to be filmed and allowed the footage to be used for a "Bigfoot documentary".

No, if he wanted it examined he would have let it be done without having to film it or requiring permission for him to use the footage any way he pleased.

The footage is also supposed to ensure the integrity of the examination by documenting what the researchers do and don't do during the examination.

Why would you be opposed to him documenting the inquiry?

So Anton Wroblewski's analysis of the molding from the cast is valid.

Insofar as the reproduction is accurate. My understanding is that particular molding has proportion issues. In any event, examining said reproduction would be trumped by the primary observations made by Drs Meldrum, et al.

lol. It has not been shown to be in error. The reasoning given for not allowing the 3d scan to be analyzed was because of the supposed lack of hardware and software. I have both, so therefore the reasoning for not allowing it to be used for analysis is not valid.

Nice try, but it is well known that you are not an honest inquirer. Rick Noll is under no obligation to allow you access to evidence you have already dismissed out of hand when he has the expert observations of far better researchers (Drs Meldrum, et al) on hand.

Next fail?

[Guest]

lol! What I want? I really don't care enough about the elk imprint to want it. But you've proven my point, only those who will give a result of it being a sasquatch are allowed to meet your analysis standard.

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.

Rick Noll is under no obligation to allow you or any other Skeptic/Debunker a free shot at his evidence and research. You are not objective inquierers.

And yes, it has been shown overwhelmingly that it was made by an elk.

I have yet to see a single paper (formal or informal) refuting the scientific observations of Drs Meldrum, et al.

What I DO see is a lot of Skeptic/Debunker chest beating and poo-flinging.

[Guest]

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

The most obvious fresh tracks were coyote and undetermined deep marks. Noll, Randles, and Fish notice an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the muddy pool area. The three trackers discuss the strange imprint, then suddenly it dawns what animal caused it. Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face. Each tracker comes closer to have another look, discussions follow for 2-3 minutes.

On the BFRO site it is even published how long it took for those 3 trackers to make up there mind what it was, from then on as we all know with the BFRO ~ it was a BF print and nothing else.

Tim

You conveniently leave out the detailed scientific observations documented by Dr Meldrum by himself, Dr Swindler, Dr Schaller, etc. All of whom are credentialed scientists in appropriate fields of expertise.

[Guest]

Skamania County also has a number of UFO sightings, but not as much as adjacent Yakima County.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/topufos.htm

So who's to say it wasn't an alien Grey that ate the fruit while riding on top of the elk?

Or maybe a UFO levitated the sasquatch above the elk impression, so that he could pluck up the fruit without leaving any sign?

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.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

You conveniently leave out the detailed scientific observations documented by Dr Meldrum by himself, Dr Swindler, Dr Schaller, etc. All of whom are credentialed scientists in appropriate fields of expertise.

Hi

Didn't think i needed to repeat myself, but i will ~ There all BF Enthusiasts looking for one answer

Thank you and have a wonderful day

Tim