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

[Guest]

There [sic] all BF Enthusiasts looking for one answer

So are you saying they are delusional or are you accusing them of fraud? It has to be one or the other...

[Guest parnassus]

Those who's behavior is close-minded, illogical, and rooted in sloth, lack of knowledge, or corruption I consider deniers. I see that at least someone above finds the word offensive. I'll be happy to accomodate the thought police by using an alternative word if an acceptable one is offered.

You insist on putting your lack of knowledge on public display by insisting there is no evidence of a bigfoot creating the Skookum impression. One can say that only by ignoring the cast itself and the extensive analyses of it that have been laid out in multiple reports. Yes, there is evidence of elk everywhere, as there is in the middle of any elk habitat. Most of the hairs found in the impression were elk, but one was classified as presumptive bigfoot -- just one of many facts that has escaped you or you chose to ignore. You choose to ignore aural evidence of possible bigfoot presence in the area, as well as track evidence (albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the impression of interest). You choose to ignore that the hair impressions are much too long and thin to have been made by elk, and that the cross section of the possible bigfoot heel or elk foreleg knee is better explained by a primate heel than an elk leg. The sum total of the evidence does not, in my opinion, prove the Cast was made by a bigfoot, but neither do illogical arguments based on cherry picked facts prove that it was made by an elk.

I haven't read every post in this thread, so have not seen a photo of an elk lay with no hoof prints inside it. Please inform me which post it's in, and I shall take a look at it. I'll be happy to finally see some evidence offered to back up the frequent claim that elk arise without putting their feet underneath them.

Yes, people are capable of bending the truth -- I offer your posts as proof of your claim. If you continue to post irrationally I shall be forced, in the name of humanitarianism, to report you to the moderators for public self abuse. You should really confine such activity to behind closed doors.

I have no idea who you think a noble leader scientist is, but I assure you my open-minded skepticism on this matter is rooted in empiricism, not in faith as your position must be. I worship no man, but it appears that you do. How's that working out for you?

Guess you got up on the wrong side of bed... But even that doesn't justify this sort of of personal and ad hom stuff directed at other posters. Hope you have a better day tomorrow.

By the way, could you show us an example of a primate wallow? (plz no mud wrestling) while you're at it, find one with no hand or footprints or hair or DNA.

Edited October 15, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest RedRatSnake]

So are you saying they are delusional or are you accusing them of fraud? It has to be one or the other...

LOL like how you sliped that [sic] in there.

I think they all see what they want too see, kinda go's both ways dont it ~ hahaha

Tim

[Guest]

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

That's convenient. So no scientist will EVER analyze it, because if they do and conclude it might be BF then that means they cease to be scientists and become "enthusiasts". You have actually insulated yourself quite well with that one, well done!

[Guest]

LOL like how you sliped that [sic] in there.

I think they all see what they want too see, kinda go's both ways dont it ~ hahaha

Tim

So the former then...which is an attack on another forum member in at least one case (Dr Meldrum).

Edited October 15, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest RedRatSnake]

So the former then...which is an attack on another forum member in at least one case (Dr Meldrum).

LOL

Nice try ~ ya got too be pretty slick too get one by me, keep trying

Tim

Edited October 15, 2011 by RedRatSnake

[Guest RayG]

So are you saying they are delusional or are you accusing them of fraud? It has to be one or the other...

It does? Why, they couldn't possibly be biased/mistaken/incorrect in their methods, perceptions, analysis, or conclusions?

You've certainly not convinced me that this group of scientists are impervious to error and bias in their methods, perceptions, analysis, and conclusions. These scientists ARE humans, right?

RayG

[Guest krakatoa]

Those who's behavior is close-minded, illogical, and rooted in sloth, lack of knowledge, or corruption I consider deniers. I see that at least someone above finds the word offensive. I'll be happy to accomodate the thought police by using an alternative word if an acceptable one is offered...

...I haven't read every post in this thread, so have not seen a photo of an elk lay with no hoof prints inside it.

You can use whatever words you like, whether I find them in poor taste or not. I'm not offended, so much as I find it illuminating.

Please do, carry on. You were saying something about people who were close-minded, illogical, slothful, ignorant and corrupt...

[Guest RedRatSnake]

That's convenient. So no scientist will EVER analyze it, because if they do and conclude it might be BF then that means they cease to be scientists and become "enthusiasts". You have actually insulated yourself quite well with that one, well done!

I was going to ignore this but i figure i might be able to use it too explain my position better, I have respect for everyone in this BF thing or field, i respect everyone's opinion and always come here knowing i am talking to a person / people and not a screen, in return i would like that same same respect and not have accusations thrown against me.

I call the folks that looked at this mud pile BF enthusiasts cause that's a term that fit's well in my mind, we all are that one way or another, my logic is simple too me, so far there has never been one single BF to study, no evidence that passes far enough to prove there is one, so how can anyone no matter what degree or experience they have say anything is BF related, we don't even know if it is an ape or a hairy human species, before you know what it is there has to be one to study, right now it's all guess work.

Tim ~

[Guest 127]

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.

LAL: They call it a "

" there at the find?

Those who's behavior is close-minded, illogical, and rooted in sloth, lack of knowledge, or corruption I consider deniers. I see that at least someone above finds the word offensive. I'll be happy to accomodate the thought police by using an alternative word if an acceptable one is offered.

You insist on putting your lack of knowledge on public display by insisting there is no evidence of a bigfoot creating the Skookum impression. One can say that only by ignoring the cast itself and the extensive analyses of it that have been laid out in multiple reports. Yes, there is evidence of elk everywhere, as there is in the middle of any elk habitat. Most of the hairs found in the impression were elk, but one was classified as presumptive bigfoot -- just one of many facts that has escaped you or you chose to ignore. You choose to ignore aural evidence of possible bigfoot presence in the area, as well as track evidence (albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the impression of interest). You choose to ignore that the hair impressions are much too long and thin to have been made by elk, and that the cross section of the possible bigfoot heel or elk foreleg knee is better explained by a primate heel than an elk leg. The sum total of the evidence does not, in my opinion, prove the Cast was made by a bigfoot, but neither do illogical arguments based on cherry picked facts prove that it was made by an elk.

I haven't read every post in this thread, so have not seen a photo of an elk lay with no hoof prints inside it. Please inform me which post it's in, and I shall take a look at it. I'll be happy to finally see some evidence offered to back up the frequent claim that elk arise without putting their feet underneath them.

Yes, people are capable of bending the truth -- I offer your posts as proof of your claim. If you continue to post irrationally I shall be forced, in the name of humanitarianism, to report you to the moderators for public self abuse. You should really confine such activity to behind closed doors.

I have no idea who you think a noble leader scientist is, but I assure you my open-minded skepticism on this matter is rooted in empiricism, not in faith as your position must be. I worship no man, but it appears that you do. How's that working out for you?

Instead of a similar ad hom than a serious reply perhaps we can discuss the impression instead. Lets do a simple review of the facts. Sound fair?

The proponent argument is that a bigfoot allegedly rolled or levitated from the road (what, no bigfoot tracks found on the dirt road beside the lay imprint either?) then kneel/reached out over the rest of the mud it just laid in and left a detailed fur impression (that it also left no hairs in the "mud" there even though there are hairs pulled from the impression that end up being other known animals they are discarded as the source) in to grab food and then roll out/levitate out to the road where it again left no prints or other evidence of its presence. Got it. It left no trace other than this weird body impression that happens to look just like an ungulate lay. No bigfoot tracks leading up to, or away from the "mud" wallow there either. No bigfoot hairs or DNA discovered there. Just an impression in mud that was decided to have been left by a bigfoot by bigfoot researchers. That's a very interesting conclusion and sounds like its based on a heck of a lot of speculation, and biased thinking.

Lets take a look at the evidence for it being an elk lay. It appears to be an ungulate lay outwardly and outlines of elk have been placed over this impression that seem to explain what is seen fairly simply. The impression had elk hairs present. The impression also had elk tracks surrounding it and leading away. (how close in inches?) I guess elk can't roll like bigfoot can either. Especially in a wallow. Wow, physical evidence and track impressions that show something was there. Something completely explainable and ordinary. I'm sorry about not responding to your "worship" talk or your other empirical accomplishments - I'd rather stick to the facts and the evidence and leave the attacking of the poster out of it. Lets argue the evidence, not each other. Thanks.

is a pretty nice link to check out the impression.

LAL: again they call it a "

". I believe that is Rick Noll stating it. Edited October 16, 2011 by masterbarber

[Guest 127]

Here is a great example of how the thing may have stood up. You can see in the video how it was laying very easily, (if you need me to point it out, I'll be glad to but I'm sure most people here can see) and you can see what could be the hind leg hoof prints in this image I'm posting which is a screen cap from

. Simple enough? No levitation, a simple explanation with footage directly from the find. There are elk prints all around those impressions. Also elk can roll & "wallow" in these wallows.

Edited October 16, 2011 by 127

[Guest LAL]

LAL: again they call it a wallow.

Thom Powell, who took and posted the video, said on his blog it wasn't a wallow. I posted the quote.

Note too how elk is considered at the beginning.

Edited October 17, 2011 by LAL

[Guest LAL]

The sad part is - you have proponents pointing fingers from behind their noble leader scientist position on the thing, and he refuses to update or change his position. Why? Likely because he enjoys the adoration and following - not because his academic honor calls at him. I find it disgusting personally.

Has anything about the cast changed since Dr. Meldrum cleaned and studied it? Why should he change his position? Did Sarmiento, Schaller or Swindler change theirs? Apparently Dr. Wroblewski failed to convince.

Do you have a quote that backs up your assertion about Dr. Meldrum enjoying the adoration and following or is this pure conjecture on your part? Perhaps his academic honor calls at him to stick by his guns and support the work that led him to his conclusions. That's my conjecture.

[Guest]

Let's jump to the wildest, most unsubstantiated conclusion possible: "In my opinion, the Skookum body cast is that of an upright descendant of Gigantopithecus" --- Dr. Daris Swindler, p. 122, Meldrum's SASQUATCH.

Even after naturalist Dr. George Schaller viewed the Skookum cast, and despite Meldrum putting as pretty a face as possible on the naturalist's opinion of the cast (it's not conclusive), Schaller's introduction to Meldrum's book makes it clear he is not a Bigfoot believer, he has an open mind on the subject, and he notes, importantly, "but there is still no proof" of the existence of sasquatch. ("No bones, no skin, no conclusive DNA analysis from hairs.")

Meldrum brings Dr. Esteban Sarmiento into the mix. Sarmiento is a primatologist and associate researcher at the American Museum of Natural History. He is a cautious analyst and crypto-zoo friendly and is seen on Monster Quest. Despite his unique credentials, apparently Meldrum could only draw this out of him for publication: " Dr. Sarmiento, with extensive field experience observing primates, was particularly interested in the hair strands, a few which could still be seen trapped in the plaster of the cast." (Meldrum, p. 122).

[Guest LAL]

Swindler, on LMS said that, in his opinion, it was the impession of an unidentified North American hominoid primate. He did come to agree with Dr. Krantz about it being a descendant of Gigantopithecus.

Try YouTube for Dr. Sarmiento. I've got to run.