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

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Why is everyone trying so hard to make it an elk when it doesn't seem to fit either...

I ain't no woods man or nothing but i think it's because of the ELK hoof prints ~ ???

Tim

[Guest LAL]

Is it my fault you guys didn't read the description in Jeff's book, watch Thom Powell's videos or pay attention to this?

There were elk, deer, bear, coyote and bird tracks but none were associated with the cast. I'll go with the 18" forearm, possible toe prints and the fact that the ground was frozen around the mud and unlikely to show sasquatch footprints, especially if the animal belly-crawled.

Edited October 23, 2011 by LAL

[Guest HairyGreek]

I ain't no woods man or nothing but i think it's because of the ELK hoof prints ~ ???

Tim

How can you tell that by a picture? They have tracks through it, but how can you even tell scale? Everyone on here is up in arms because they haven't been able to study this thing up close and in person. Are you so sure of what you are looking at based on Kit and 127's arguments? I guess the first part of your first statement says it all Tim.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to wildlife experts who have actually examined the physical original cast. When one or two of those guys sees, feels, and touches it and isn't predisposed one way or the other towards the existence of BF, then my mind will be made up.

It's like I said a couple posts back. Why get worked up for either side when the opposite side is doing such a great job of creating reasonable doubt? You already have made up your mind on BF Tim, so the cast is an afterthought. You have no objectivity left. Bottom line, it's useless as any sort of proof or evidence any more.

[Guest 127]

Is it my fault you guys didn't read the description in Jeff's book, watch Thom Powell's videos or pay attention to this?

There were elk, deer, bear, coyote and bird tracks but none were associated with the cast. I'll go with the 18" forearm, possible toe prints and the fact that the ground was frozen around the mud and unlikely to show sasquatch footprints, especially if the animal belly-crawled.

No one observed a bigfoot on frozen ground. What time precisely did the bigfoot enter and what time did it leave? (see what i mean) How can you say it was frozen when the impression was made? You can't. Also, belly crawling leaves marks in the mud. Was it frozen when the elk "walked across" in your theory?

Edited October 23, 2011 by 127

[Guest 127]

How can you tell that by a picture? They have tracks through it, but how can you even tell scale? Everyone on here is up in arms because they haven't been able to study this thing up close and in person. Are you so sure of what you are looking at based on Kit and 127's arguments? I guess the first part of your first statement says it all Tim.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to wildlife experts who have actually examined the physical original cast. When one or two of those guys sees, feels, and touches it and isn't predisposed one way or the other towards the existence of BF, then my mind will be made up.

It's like I said a couple posts back. Why get worked up for either side when the opposite side is doing such a great job of creating reasonable doubt? You already have made up your mind on BF Tim, so the cast is an afterthought. You have no objectivity left. Bottom line, it's useless as any sort of proof or evidence any more.

HairyGreek: Take a look at this video. It will give some scale. (seeing as there are people next to it, and they measure it)

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Are you so sure of what you are looking at based on Kit and 127's arguments.

I can assure you that my belief has nothing to do with there arguments at all . . . .

I base my thoughts on what was posted on the prior BFF, this is a good forum and all but i must say it just don't have an inkling of the power the old one had.

Tim

[Guest HairyGreek]

HairyGreek: Take a look at this video. It will give some scale. (seeing as there are people next to it, and they measure it)

And did you and Kit measure the elk you both use to attach it to the cast?

I can assure you that my belief has nothing to do with there arguments at all . . . .

I base my thoughts on what was posted on the prior BFF, this is a good forum and all but i must say it just don't have an inkling of the power the old one had.

Tim

I would be interested in learning what you did on the old forum that made up your mind.

Edited October 23, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Let's just say there were way more posters and a lot more folks that had the knowledge to get right in there and point out the facts, as a comparison i could say the entire forum was very much like the Munns PGF thread ~

Tim

[Guest 127]

And did you and Kit measure the elk you both use to attach it to the cast?

I would be interested in learning what you did on the old forum that made up your mind.

HairyGreek: This article is a good read along with the videos and photos.

Edited October 23, 2011 by 127

[Guest LAL]

No one observed a bigfoot on frozen ground. What time precisely did the bigfoot enter and what time did it leave? (see what i mean) How can you say it was frozen when the impression was made? You can't. Also, belly crawling leaves marks in the mud. Was it frozen when the elk "walked across" in your theory?

No one observed elk, bear, birds or coyote either. The impression was made between 3 and 6 AM. The temperature was 28°, right? It looks like the ground around the mud was still frozen in the video. If the animal belly crawled then sat up what marks would be left in the mud?

The elk prints were older and were not associated with the impression.

ETA: We just had two eyewitnesses here. Why aren't you asking them these questions instead of me? I wasn't there - and neither were you.

Edited October 23, 2011 by LAL

[Guest 127]

No one observed elk, bear, birds or coyote either. The impression was made between 3 and 6 AM. The temperature was 28°, right? It looks like the ground around the mud was still frozen in the video. If the animal belly crawled then sat up what marks would be left in the mud?

The elk prints were older and were not associated with the impression.

ETA: We just had two eyewitnesses here. Why aren't you asking them these questions instead of me? I wasn't there - and neither were you.

We have their testimony fresh from the find on video. So the bigfoot left no marks belly crawling,(why was it belly crawling again? only to sit in the mud to eat out in the open, not pick the apples up and walk away?) and only where it sat? No marks for it leaving? 10 for style! Only, in the real world all of the other animals including small birds left tracks and sign of their presence including hair and other verifiable means of identification other than pure speculative opinion about a fur impression. Also I suppose you have to assume those elk tracks were "before" (and i guess after too, because if you look at the end of the leg prints - you can see hoof marks) and you have to ignore the elk hairs. So the elk going up to the impression, and away from it didn't leave the impression. The bigfoot with no tracks (hes lighter than a bird, and had a hair net) levitated to the elk imprint, places himself right where the elk laid before him very lightly as not to destroy the imprint, and leaves without leaving any tracks away from the impression and leaves this kickass hair impression in the mud but no hairs. Only the elk before it, left the hairs in the frozen mud. That the bigfoot melted, in order to leave an impression, not the elk. Right. I got it now. Dang, I'm glad I thought that through well because now I'm gonna have to agree with you. Must've been a bigfoot. (even though the illustration of a bigfoot leaning did not fit the impression made, but ok)

Edited October 23, 2011 by 127

[Guest LAL]

Did anyone who was actually on the expedition insist the impression was just an elk lay and that it would be a waste of good Hydrocal to cast it?

Have we heard from the camp cook yet?

[Guest 127]

I'm glad I watched that again, thanks for linking it. At

(8:09) the video seems to be either stopped and started, or edited. Right after the question: "So this elk come through before or after?"

Wonder why.

[Guest Kerchak]

I'm glad I watched that again, thanks for linking it. At

(8:09) the video seems to be either stopped and started, or edited. Right after the question: "So this elk come through before or after?"

Wonder why.

Cynic logic.

There are edits all over that footage. I spotted 2 further edits in the following minute alone.......where there was no dialogue.

Shock horror. What can that mean. Oh boy I've found the smoking gun. The Skookum Cast must be an elk lay......because some footage is edited.

Seriously, is this the level we are at now? Cynics crying 'foul' because of an edit? Give me strength!!!

Edited October 23, 2011 by Kerchak

[Guest Kerchak]

I have to tell y'all, as a non hunter (I have spent a good deal of time in the woods but I know diddley about elk or deer really) I am completely at the discretion of the experts on this one.

Don't worry. A fair few people in this thread don't know diddley either, although they like to pretend they do.