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

[Guest parnassus]

There's a fabulous little Parnassus quote in the comments of that link to be added to " The List "..

Thanks for the props! LOL

[Guest]

That pain and shock can make an animal behave abnormally does not take a hunter to deduce. The majority of times (normal) will have an elk leave its tracks in the bed it is exiting. Might as well have cut up an elk body and lain the remains down the way you want in order to simulate. That would work to you know.

[Guest LAL]

I guess I'd better downscale my "dog lay" to chihuahua. Thanks, DDA. Context is everything. I'll try to stop laughing now...............................

[Guest 127]

That is pretty funny

[Guest krakatoa]

Lol. Seen that. Don't agree with the conclusion. Artificially induced response.

(emphasis mine)

Well maybe the elk that produced the Skookum cast was frightened by a bigfoot.

[Guest LAL]

There's a fabulous little Parnassus quote in the comments of that link to be added to " The List "..

And River seems to be referring to the 8" print.

127, Dr. Fahrenbach's initial opinions count even if he forgot what he said years later. Of course it was possible a hair was shed from a researcher and Dr. Fish was correct in considering this. That doesn't mean it was. He was quite clear in his opinion the impression was left by a sasquatch.

The drawing in Dr. Meldrum's book shows where a resting elk's hoofprints should be, not where they'd be when the elk gathered its legs. Either way there were no hoofprints in the middle. If the mud was stiff enough to preserve hair impressions how was it squishy enough to absorb the prints as Dr. Wroblewski stated it did?

Looks to me like the front hooves would have to drag even here:

Shouldn't the rear hooves have left deep impressions with all that weight on them?

<,removed unnecessary link>

Edited October 24, 2011 by LAL

[Guest 127]

And River seems to be referring to the 8" print.

127, Dr. Fahrenbach's initial opinions count even if he forgot what he said years later. Of course it was possible a hair was shed from a researcher and Dr. Fish was correct in considering this. That doesn't mean it was. He was quite clear in his opinion the impression was left by a sasquatch.

The drawing in Dr. Meldrum's book shows where a resting elk's hoofprints should be, not where they'd be when the elk gathered its legs. Either way there were no hoofprints in the middle. If the mud was stiff enough to preserve hair impressions how was it squishy enough to absorb the prints as Dr. Wroblewski stated it did?

Looks to me like the front hooves would have to drag even here:

Shouldn't the rear hooves have left deep impressions with all that weight on them?

<,removed unnecessary link>

LAL: If you think that one hair means something - it can be DNA tested now free of charge via Ketchum. Now days we can DNA, its not just a visual inspection ID. Also, the elk did leave hoof prints where the legs were resting. Look at the end of the legs, there are hoof prints.

Also, I wanted to ask you something about your bigfoot theory with the skookum cast. You said the ground was frozen, and the bigfoot rested there and ate an apple and melted the ground correct?

Edited October 24, 2011 by 127

[wolftrax]

This is an elk imprint made at an elk farm. It was done for comparison a few weeks after the cast was made.

You're saying that this entire impression is just from a leg and only 8"?

If that is the case, why did you post it in comparison to only the full body impression of the skookum cast and not specify what part it was supposed to represent? What was this supposed to represent?

Edited October 24, 2011 by wolftrax

[wolftrax]

Come on RayG! You know very well what is being talked about in that picture.

It is not a full body impression of an elk. It is a detail picture of an elk leg joint impression, about 8" long.

It was made several weeks after the Skookum impression, hundreds of miles away at an elk farm. We wanted to see what an elk leg joint impression could look like. This picture is part of a series of images on elk leg impressions taken then. They are all from live animals.

Years later, Owen Caddy and I obtained a dismembered elk leg and made a series of impressions and castings from it in play-dough. This picture is not from that experiment.

How would Ray or anyone else know that is from the leg? You said it was an elk imprint, when you first posted it you compared it to the entire body impression of the skookum cast. This is the first time you ever specified it was a leg. What exactly was trying to be accomplished using the leg to make the impression in that shape? What part of the cast was that posted to resemble? Why was it posted in the first place?

Edited October 24, 2011 by wolftrax

[bipedalist]

Shouldn't the rear hooves have left deep impressions with all that weight on them?

Yes, unless the ground was frozen, then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?

[Guest]

What do you think is the best argument he presents re the Skookum imprint?

I'll re-read what he says about it in LMS and get back to you when I have the chance to formulate a better response (I'm at the library and don't have enough access time to do it right now).

[Guest]

It is a huge disappointment to see Meldrum (still?) endorsing these as a bigfoot impression. All of the degrees or "leg ups" in this case did not prevent Meldrum from confirmation bias. I find it an embarrassment to academic standards, and yet another reason this subject is not taken seriously. Bigfoot enthusiasts often say they want the subject taken more seriously, as do the scientists involved in this "discovery". Yet, they will tout an elk impression as "some of the best evidence" of bigfoot. It is ridiculous, and incredibly ironic. As long as things like this remain "bigfoot evidence" enthusiasts and accredited scientists alike will continue to accept mockery and bathe in the irony of why "science won't take the subject more seriously."

That's not how science works, 127...you don't get to dismiss the valid scientific analyses of Drs Meldrum, et al with an "its an obvious elk lay, so they're wrong/stupid/bad for saying otherwise".

They've given specific, evidence-grounded reasons WHY it's not an elk lay. The Skeptics have yet to pony up anything other than blanket dismissals.

[Guest]

Practical ~ There has never been a BF brought forward from any source, that leaves only one conclusion, ELK ~

Logical fallacy. Lack of a BF body does not automatically make the impression an elk lay.

Is there a BF living out there ? could be cause folks are seeing something at times, But that BF could be anything but BF ( Primate ) might just be Seal Team six out there doing stealth training.

Tim

You know, I was going to type several paragraphs in response to this, but it isn't worth it. You're not interested in facts OR evidence.

[Guest]

In fact, the absence of any primate footprints at all is pretty good evidence against a primate. Furthermore, your video is irrelevant to the behavior of lying down in a very cold mud puddle, which is what actually happened at Skookum, is classic elk behavior and certainly not a characteristic of primate behavior.

"Lay and reach" feeding is an established primate behavior, and has been documented by primatologists.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I am interested, problem is it's all just the same ole deal every time, you know i forgot my camera, it scared me so i ran, there were no foot prints cause it covers them up, BF don't take good pictures, we got DNA Opp's it was a bear, we got BF hair o well it was horse hair, I've come to face it ! if this thing were out there being as big and heavy as it is alleged to be, then there should be clear cut evidence like a body, shot, trapped, hit, natural causes, killed by another BF during mating season that sort of thing.

I came here what about 4 years ago with really high hopes, but over the years i have heard the same story repeated over and over again one way or the other, now even this DNA thing has seemed to hit the skids, sure folks are seeing something but i didn't think it is a 500 gorilla, it's got too be miss identification or just the mind doing it's thing ~

Tim