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

[BobbyO]

Yes, elk hair was found in the impression.

In that specific part of the impression that you initially mentioned, which is the " Buttock " area ??

I don't just mean the whole Cast.

If so, how do you know that ??

[Guest 127]

In that specific part of the impression that you initially mentioned, which is the " Buttock " area ??

I don't just mean the whole Cast.

If so, how do you know that ??

BobbyO: 15 elk hairs were found. As for their specific location in the imprint you'd have to ask Dr Meldrum or whoever else may have collected them from it. I never mentioned any buttock area. Can you point that out in my post please? Personally I see an elk impression, not the buttocks of a bigfoot. The graphic that was supposed to illustrate a bigfoot in that position is laughable. It does not explain the impression or how the figure allegedly made it or how it came to be there in the wallow.

[Guest LAL]

Well then, ask yourself if there are O Bigffot in washington then why are there ordinances in Whatcom, Skhomish and King counties that protect a non- exsistant living creature.

Skamania County was first. Their ordinance was passed because following the events of the winter of '68-'69 there were so many "bigfoot hunters" coming to the area the commissioners were afraid they'd shoot each other.

The Washington side of the Gorge was "the quiet side". They did not want tourism and it didn't happen until decades later when the Scenic Act was passed and windsurfing came in. I know. I was there.

[Guest RayG]

You also ignore (again) the fact that an elk expert (Schaller) has ALREADY rendered a "not elk" opinion.

Is that just your opinion, or is he considered an elk expert by fellow scientists?

Lay person makes field observation = "anecdote".

"Scientist" makes field observation = "data".

Double standard strikes again.

Is there a scientist who has made field observations of an actual sasquatch? I am not aware of any such scientist, but I am willing to be enlightened.

If there exists no such scientist, then there is no data to discuss, and therefore no double standard.

RayG

[Guest LAL]

This is a picture of Dr. Meldrum with the cast. He's 6' tall. The cast measures 31/2' x 5'. According to Wikipedia "Elk cows average 225 kilograms (500 lb), stand 1.3 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and are 2 metres (6.6 ft) from nose to tail. Bulls are some 40% larger than cows at maturity, weighing an average of 320 kilograms (710 lb), standing 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) at the shoulder and averaging 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) in length."

Doesn't the impression seem a bit small to be that of an adult elk?

I seriously doubt experienced outdoorsmen and a trained zoologist would have bothered to cast such an ordinary occurence as an elk lay and cart the thing all the way to Randles' workshop. They had to round up over 200 lbs. of plaster and reinforce it with tent poles. I'm really glad Thom Powell posted those videos. They show the thinking and decision-making that went on immediately after the impression was discovered.

A number of the hairs resembled hairs in Dr. Fahrenbach's collection of hairs thought to be sasquatch. Dr. Fish independently confirmed that a selection of hairs taken from the cast showed primate characteristics. (Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science by Jeff Meldrum, page 122).

[Guest 127]

This is a picture of Dr. Meldrum with the cast. He's 6' tall. The cast measures 31/2' x 5'. According to Wikipedia "Elk cows average 225 kilograms (500 lb), stand 1.3 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and are 2 metres (6.6 ft) from nose to tail. Bulls are some 40% larger than cows at maturity, weighing an average of 320 kilograms (710 lb), standing 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) at the shoulder and averaging 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) in length.[/url]"

Doesn't the impression seem a bit small to be that of an adult elk?

I seriously doubt experienced outdoorsmen and a trained zoologist would have bothered to cast such an ordinary occurence as an elk lay and cart the thing all the way to Randles' workshop. They had to round up over 200 lbs. of plaster and reinforce it with tent poles. I'm really glad Thom Powell posted those videos. They show the thinking and decision-making that went on immediately after the impression was discovered.

A number of the hairs resembled hairs in Dr. Fahrenbach's collection of hairs thought to be sasquatch. Dr. Fish independently confirmed that a selection of hairs taken from the cast showed primate characteristics. (Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science by Jeff Meldrum, page 122).

Why does it have to be an adult? Couldn't it have been a juvenile? Also, they did not cast the full area - only what they saw as relevant.

Speaking of the hairs: It was one hair - a broken one. (not "a number of hairs") Also Fahrenbach Later said (in 2010) that he felt the alleged hair had no compelling value and that they were not included in his collection of what he considered to be authentic sasquatch hairs. Also Dr. LeRoy Fish said that the alleged hair could've been from one of the BFRO members present.

Source for next two quotes

Fahrenbach 2010:

The Skookum story is a long way in the past and all I remember [is] that the one or two hairs that came to me from it had no compelling value. I don't even remember if it came out as Sasquatch hair, but I dimly remember that it didn't. In any case, my Sasquatch hair collection, which contains only what I consider authentic examples, does not contain the Skookum case.

Dr. LeRoy Fish:

(the primate hair could also have come from any one of the BFRO's members on site)

A co-founder of the BFRO even said it was an elk lay.

Many individuals, including the co-founder of the BFRO, Ron Schaffner, recognized several anatomical features that led them to conclude it was made by a resting elk. The cast apparently reveals landmarks that can be recognized as the hindlegs, hip, chest, and wrists of a reclining elk.

Edited October 19, 2011 by 127

[Guest LAL]

From the ISU press release:

"Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as 'Sasquatch.' "

http://www.bfro.net/...rticle.asp?id=3

Also from your source:

"From: HennerF@aol.com

Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:42:12 EDT

Subject: Update

To: sierra@n2.net

Dear Bobbie,

I had a visit today from a participant of the sasquatch print expedition (Dr. Fish; lives between Eugene and the coast). He had lots of hair samples and a good digital video record of the cast. The cast is complex and large, but has some excellent heel prints in it (4" wide) and apparently shows ample dermal ridges on other parts (edge of the hand?). The muddy area was evidently an elk wallow. The hair was mostly elk, plus bear, other carnivore (coyote) and one hair that matched my sasquatch hair collection. The Discovery crew did not tape the sasquatch call, only the teaser broadcasting! Dumb, huh?

Talk to you soon.

Henner."

I wasn't aware Ron Schaffner was on the expedition or was one of the initial examiners of the cast. The "hip" is a pushed up hunk of mud.

127, if the impression is of a calf why are we continually shown a photo of an apparently full grown cow hovering over an inexact copy of the cast?

ETA quote from Henner.

Edited October 19, 2011 by LAL

[Guest 127]

Not so fast, Prag...Rick Noll has made his requirements quite clear: OBJECTIVE scientists under proper conditions and with him being able to fully document the examination.

You want to put together a panel of people who will more than likely give you the opinion YOU want. (Hey, if Drs Meldrum, et al can be accused of confirmation bias, why not "elk experts"?) "Elk biologists" have no credentials in analyzing or commenting on primate trace evidence. Why then do you exclude primate experts from your "impartial" panel?

You also ignore (again) the fact that an elk expert (Schaller) has ALREADY rendered a "not elk" opinion.

Experts in primate anatomy have stated otherwise, and DID consult with people with ungulate knowledge before saying so.

It seems like this might not be correct. From the BFRO page on where John Green makes a statement on the skookum cast.

If you are a qualified scientist or forensic specialist (either active or retired) in any relevant discipline, and you would like an opportunity to examine this cast in Washington State, please contact the BFRO at Cast@bfro.net

Friends or family members, or students of people who are considered qualified, may accompany them to view the cast in person.

[Guest 127]

From the ISU press release:

"Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as 'Sasquatch.' "

http://www.bfro.net/...rticle.asp?id=3

Also from your source:

"From: HennerF@aol.com

Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:42:12 EDT

Subject: Update

To: sierra@n2.net

Dear Bobbie,

I had a visit today from a participant of the sasquatch print expedition (Dr. Fish; lives between Eugene and the coast). He had lots of hair samples and a good digital video record of the cast. The cast is complex and large, but has some excellent heel prints in it (4" wide) and apparently shows ample dermal ridges on other parts (edge of the hand?). The muddy area was evidently an elk wallow. The hair was mostly elk, plus bear, other carnivore (coyote) and one hair that matched my sasquatch hair collection. The Discovery crew did not tape the sasquatch call, only the teaser broadcasting! Dumb, huh?

Talk to you soon.

Henner."

I wasn't aware Ron Schaffner was on the expedition or was one of the initial examiners of the cast. The "hip" is a pushed up hunk of mud.

127, if the impression is of a calf why are we continually shown a photo of an apparently full grown cow hovering over an inexact copy of the cast?

ETA quote from Henner.

LAL: your quote from Farhenbach is older than the one I posted. I would hope you would accept his latest findings most relevant. Why would you post one of the earliest articles available? Also Farhenbach stated the hair was "presumptive" sasquatch not "sasquatch"(he's very careful about labeling it that way) He later stated in 2010 (as posted above) that the hairs had "no compelling value". Also he did not include them in his collection of alleged authentic sasquatch hairs. Wouldn't you rather have his latest opinion?

Another interesting quote I found:

Co-founder of the BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) Ron Schaffner, Ohio, noted the following on June 5th: Great Job. I'm thrilled that there are still some researchers who ask tough questions. I applaud you for the Skookum-hokum piece. I was still a member of that group when the Skookum cast scenario played out. The critical thinkers of the group cautioned the expedition team that the imprint had striking similarities to that of an elk wallowing in the mud. It was obvious to us that the imprints showed hind legs, thighs and hooves of an ungulate. We also questioned the lack of any alleged Sasquatch tracks in the vicinity. Furthermore, we questioned the theory they suggested about an animal lying down in a mud wallow and reaching for fruit. That is wasted motion - why not just reach down and pick it up?

Unfortunately, the expedition and the scientific believers saw what they wanted to see - a common error in Sasquatch investigation. I feel a bit more vindicated on this and I am hopeful that researchers will learn from this misinterpretation. Eliminate all natural explanations before reporting an unknown creature.

As for a calf or adult from my hunting experience and the dimensions Noll stated on video (of the section he saw as relevant) I'd say a smallish or almost full grown elk but not a large adult. That is JMHO of course. (picture an elk the size of a large deer)

[Guest RayG]

According to Wikipedia "Elk cows average 225 kilograms (500 lb), stand 1.3 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and are 2 metres (6.6 ft) from nose to tail. Bulls are some 40% larger than cows at maturity, weighing an average of 320 kilograms (710 lb), standing 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) at the shoulder and averaging 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) in length.[/url]"

And this wiki entry for Roosevelt Elk, (which freely roam the Gifford Pinchot National Forest), shows they get even larger...

"Adults grow to around 6–10 ft (1.8–3 m) in length and stand 2.5–5 ft (0.75–1.5 m) tall at the shoulder.[4] Elk bulls generally weigh between 700 and 1100 lb (300–500 kg) while cows weigh 575–625 lb (260–285 kg)."

When you say the cast measures 3 1/2' x 5', do you mean the whole cast, or just the imprint of the bigfoot/elk? Either way I don't get it. If elk are on average 6.6 - 10' in length, how does the 5' imprint eliminate elk as a possible culprit?

RayG

[Guest LAL]

Wouldn't you rather have his latest opinion?

As DDA asked on another thread how old is Henner now? He seems to have disremembered. I'd rather have quotes and other material from a time when memories were fresh. I'll check Dr. Fish's article if and when I find it to see if he wrote anything about the hairs.

The hair in question wasn't cut. As far as I know all members of the expedition had had haircuts and/or beard trims at one time or another.

[Guest sierra4]

I pulled the email exchange from Oct 4, 2000 - includes Dr. Fish's comments:

October 4, 2000

This is what Dr. Fish had to say about the hair findings:

"I personally spent several hours today with Dr. Wolf Henner Fahrenbach.

Henner is most congenial, and fun to talk with; we both enjoyed becoming acquainted.

Henner showed me his office, and laboratory facilities. He showed me how he samples a

representative cross section of the collected hairs (23 examined out of 58 potential hairs

collected of which 31 were plant fiber)

These hand-delivered hairs were pre-sorted by Jeff Meldrum, Ron Brown and myself yesterday.

The samples that Henner examined were taken randomly from each of the five sorted lots of wildlife

hairs, both from the mud wallow on the mountain before casting and all those that we collected from

the layers of mud adhering to the cast or actually imbedded in the splash coat of the original cast.

We did not sample the plant fiber lot. Henner categorized each hair as Ungulate, Carnivore, Primate;

he explained and showed me the characters of each in the light microscope. Characters pertaining to

the anatomy of the medulla (inner core usually stacked dead keratinized cells), cortex with cuticle

(outer overlapping scales, also dead keratinized cells), and characteristic pigmentation, and relative

size (microns) for each animal species that we encountered from the mud wallow.

Of the 23 hairs examined: 15 were ungulate, 6 were carnivore, 1 was primate (likely PNW Sasquatch), 1 plant fiber.

Remember, that this wildlife wallow had tracks in our casting area that included: Pacific Northwest Sasquatch,

Black-tailed Deer, Roosevelt Elk, Black Bear, Coyote. Hair from each of these species was identified today

among our collected samples."

Sincerely

LeRoy Fish

Wildlife Biologist

541-927-3259

-------------------------

Here is what Henner had to say on the matter:

From: HennerF@aol.com

Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:42:12 EDT

Subject: Update

To: sierra@n2.net

Dear Bobbie,

I had a visit today from a participant of the sasquatch print expedition (Dr. Fish; lives between Eugene and the coast). He had lots of hair samples and a good digital video record of the cast. The cast is complex and large, but has some excellent heel prints in it (4" wide) and apparently shows ample dermal ridges on other parts (edge of the hand?). The muddy area was evidently an elk wallow. The hair was mostly elk, plus bear, other carnivore (coyote) and one hair that matched my sasquatch hair collection. The Discovery crew did not tape the sasquatch call, only the teaser broadcasting! Dumb, huh?

Talk to you soon.

Henner.

- ---

Ten years later, Fahrenbach recalled it this way, which is excellent testimony to keeping track of previous recollections although there tends to be no discrepancies or errors in Dr. Fahrenbach’s recall. "The Skookum story is a long way in the past and all I remember [is] that the one or two hairs that came to me from it had no compelling value. I don't even remember if it came out as Sasquatch hair, but I dimly remember that it didn't. In any case, my Sasquatch hair collection, which contains only what I consider authentic examples, does not contain the Skookum case."

Dr. Wolf Henner Fahrenbach, retired August 29, 2010 BigfootTimes September Issue.

-----------------

I also have in the data, the words of Brian Smith in Washington who wrote to me out of the blue in 2008, telling me the the Skookum Cast

was contrived - by Derek Randles and Rick Noll who were at the time under extreme pressure from Moneymaker to produce something for the

Discovery film crew....the elk wallow to them looked promising.

Brian Smith upon learning of the fraud, went to Meldrum and told him. So Jeff was fully aware all along of the hoax possibility yet

he went ahead with the BFRO's publicity train and his own portrayal in his 2004 book, "Legend Meets Science."

Brian Smith, I did not know before this email exchange in 2008 but he worked with Jeff closely on the NAAP project and

also was party to Jeff's finding BF tracks in the Blue mountains of Walla Walla, Washington yet he dropped Smith when told.

I asked Derek about it, he was cordial at first, then blew his top. All I did was

ask and it got ugly. The photographs that were taken the day before the alleged finding of the skookum cast was

apparently the reason for the blowup between Noll and Randles - so I was told. Meldrum dropped Smith like a hot rock -

You can take what you like from it, I can produce

those emails, but why? The damage has been done - the principles continue to deny deny deny.

Bobbie Short 10/18/11

postscript: I think of all this rehash, what bothers me the most is that critics, bloggers and newomers don't bother to think for themselves.

They simply believe (seemingly without question) credentialed men or others with name recognition and do no deep investigations couple with it helps to

have been around when all this went down. The DECEPTION by seniors in this field, and those with the bully pulpit access is mind boggling and very real !!!

I've seen it first hand. There is no wonder this research has been bogged down for 44 years, no question in my mind that research has been

deliberately misled. For all the zoologists and biologists and newspapermen who inspected the skookum cast, they called NO elk experts, not one.

You can read elk expert Dr. Anton Roblewski's assessment in Perez's newsletter or here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm

[Guest LAL]

Please at least spell Dr. Wroblewski's name correctly.

Brain Smith said all sorts of things about Paul Freeman, too, didn't he, when he was temporarily unbanned from BFF1. I really had no reason to doubt all that - until now.

Here's Brian's side:

How goes the Massacre Theory, sierra?

[Guest LAL]

When you say the cast measures 3 1/2' x 5', do you mean the whole cast, or just the imprint of the bigfoot/elk? Either way I don't get it. If elk are on average 6.6 - 10' in length, how does the 5' imprint eliminate elk as a possible culprit?

Apparently that's the whole cast. How does an even larger elk help your case?

[Guest]

Folks, I realize the email addresses you are posting are old and probably outdated, but please refrain from posting someone else's address on the open forum. Thanks, Mark