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

[Guest 127]

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.

It is how science works Mulder. You base findings on solid conclusions that the evidence backs up. Not wishful thinking, or confirmation bias. The facts in this case are overwhelming. You have elk tracks present coming up to and going away from the impression. You have elk hairs present in the impression. (a large number of them) You also have the clear impression of an elk. That is real evidence. Now lets take a look at the evidence for bigfoot. Bigfooters "claimed" the hair pattern and impression looked to be primate in appearance. Also the figure they have represented in the position claimed, would not make such an impression in the ground much less put the subject in that spot to begin with (no entering or leaving marks, no hairs, no tracks at all) The only "evidence" of bigfoot present was in the peoples minds. No physical verifiable evidence. (like usual) Sorry, but science uses "real" evidence. Not imagined.

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

And exactly how do you know bigfoot is a primate? Speculation? Yep, thats all you have. Much less that bigfoot is present to do it.

[Guest Cervelo]

Bravo 127!!!!

[Guest parnassus]

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.

By "deduce" I take it you mean " rationalize."

And as a bowhunter whose efforts to approach or impale an elk are not always successful, I will assure you that a hit is not necessary to elicit this behavior.

Since you arent a bowhunter, check it out with your elk experts and get back to us. Be sure to include their names, if any.

[Guest parnassus]

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

How about levitate and cold mud wallow while wearing total body hairnet?

Established primate behavior? Video plz.

[PBeaton]

I'd say that would be about equal to those proving beyond a doubt that it is an elk, which hasn't been done either by the way.

For the record, I'm on the fence. Nothing I have ever read conclusively proves it an elk lay. On the other hand there are a lot of interesting observations from people who actually studied it in person (as opposed to armchair critics)that make the Skookum Cast at the least very very interesting.

I think there should be room on a bigfoot forum for people to at least be allowed to go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!" about the Skookum cast without being made to feel they are way offside for even thinking such a thing.

Kerchak,

Well said. I started readin' this post as the Skookum cast is interestin', an I have my own questions. However, I may disagree with some, doesn't mean I don't respect thier opinions on this or other matters when it comes to this subject. Hell, I have no problems bein' a fan as they say, of Jeff an others, I appreciate an respect thier work. As I said, with this cast etc., I have my questions, an for me questions unanswered simply leaves me questionin' thin's is all.

Thin's that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm !

Pat...

[Guest LAL]

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?

No, I didn't say that and I don't use the word "theory" except in the scientific sense. Since you apparently don't want to read up on this why don't you ask our eyewitnesses about the frozen ground?

[Guest 127]

No, I didn't say that and I don't use the word "theory" except in the scientific sense. Since you apparently don't want to read up on this why don't you ask our eyewitnesses about the frozen ground?

I've already watched the two videos of the discovery a few times. The event seems well documented. I wanted you to clarify your use of the frozen ground "theory" or suggested scenario. Basically, if the ground were to have been frozen, why didn't the bigfoot just walk up and pick up the apples and leave? No prints. The ground is frozen, it wouldn't have to stay out in the open. But no, the proponents for the most part suggest that it rolled or belly crawled up to a mud hole in order to eat an apple and sit in the mud. (for what reason? we dont know yet, and it left no marks doing either of those maneuvers) The other animals left impressions just fine, and other evidence of their presence. Real evidence, not opinion.

Edited October 25, 2011 by 127

[Guest krakatoa]

I've already watched the two videos of the discovery a few times. The event seems well documented. I wanted you to clarify your use of the frozen ground "theory" or suggested scenario. Basically, if the ground were to have been frozen, why didn't the bigfoot just walk up and pick up the apples and leave? No prints. The ground is frozen, it wouldn't have to stay out in the open. But no, the proponents for the most part suggest that it rolled or belly crawled up to a mud hole in order to eat an apple and sit in the mud. (for what reason? we dont know yet, and it left no marks doing either of those maneuvers) The other animals left impressions just fine, and other evidence of their presence. Real evidence, not opinion.

'foot is too squatchy for that. Instead he squatched on the ground in such a way to mimic an elk lay so that the average elk hunter would not learn of his existence.

The level of intelligence demonstrated vis-a-vis Skookum is off the squatchometer!

[Guest LAL]

Watching a video is the same thing as reading up? Try the field notes:

"Friday 22 Sep 2000

Conditions: Weather clear, windy, night clear, windy, freezing (24F), frost heave on dirt tracking areas.

On scene: Moneymaker, Bambenek, Fish, Lemley, Lee, Mort, Noll, Powell, Pugsley, Randles, Terry, Searle

Activities

Check and monitor fruit placement, kind of fruit eaten, determine tracks and visitation of cache locations.

Broadcast Sasquatch calls around midnight. Every person stays at base camp.

Use boom box to broadcast tapes of children playing and baby crying.

Place additional fruit and peanuts at baiting sites.

Observations & Results

• Fish, Noll and Randles leave camp near 9:00am to check bait sites. Fruit gone from gravel pit bank, still present in wet area of gravel pit. Fruit gone from roadside. Mud site has fruit missing, 3 out of six apples gone. Melons pecked by birds, probably ravens. Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote. 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. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint.
  The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal sat down at the edge of the mud, then leaned down on its left forearm and reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit with its right hand a distance of about three feet. The group discusses the possible reasons why the animal might have done this, instead of simply walking into the wet mud to grab the fruit, as the other animals may have done. The mud is only a few inches deep. One possible explanation is immediately apparent -- the animal did not want to leave tracks. The marks it did leave are much less distinct than footprints -- relatively shallow and easy to miss from even a short distance away. There was speculation about why it didn't want to leave obvious footprints in the mud. Another possible explanation involves the animal also being cautious by simply sitting down to observe the new situation before taking overt action.
  The mud site is within earshot of our camp. If the animals had been generally circling our camp for the past few nights, they would have walked passed or near this mud site more than once. The general area sees a lot of hunters at certain times of year. It seems that even a less intelligent species inhabiting this area would try to avoid humans. It's not a stretch to think this rather intelligent primate species would not want to leave its distinctive tracks at a spot where hunters would likely pass by. If these animals have been avoiding confrontations with humans for thousands of years, might this behavior -- avoidance of leaving distinctive footprints -- be an ancient survival strategy?
• Several experienced Sasquatch field researchers in the group noted that they had likely seen this behavior before -- track patterns suggesting the animals did not want to leave obvious tracks behind -- relatively consistent avoidance of soils that would have left the most clear track impressions. This is in contrast to most other large mammals, which usually don't make special efforts, or take special paths, to avoid leaving tracks behind. We also noted that in cases where lots of clear Sasquatch tracks have been found, the locations were usually in very remote areas that saw little to no human human traffic -- such as Bluff Creek in the late 1950's.
• Light coyote tracks are observed on the surface of the rump and thigh of the body print, suggesting that coyotes arrived sometime after the Sasquatch left or were kept at bay during the primate visit. A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved. It is noted that an elk, deer, coyote, etc., would probably have eaten the entire apple and not spewed out the seeds or core.
  Two other important things noted:
  1. The evidence indicated the impression must have been left sometime between 3:00am and 9:00am.
  2. The distant scream heard the night before came from the general direction of this mud area, which is why some fruit piles were placed in this direction from camp.

As photos and videos and measurements are taken of the body print by various BFRO people, discussion shifts to physically preserving the imprint. The imprint must first be protected against drying in the sun. The print is already starting to dry out. If the mud dries completely the impression will crack and crumble as the casting materials are applied. The fine details will turn to dust. A make-shift cover is constructed from large rocks holding up a sheet of plywood to protect the mud from drying in the morning sun.

A full tally of available plaster and other casting materials is calculated to see if one large cast can be made of the body imprint. Among the group there is about 150 pounds of Hydrocal B-11 and some 50 plus pounds of Plaster of Paris. Aluminum tent poles are offered to reinforce the large cast. Sleeping bag pads and air mattresses are offered to cushion the cast for transport off the mountain.

Noll directs the casting process. The various people document the entire process of making the cast with their camcorders.

A cast is produced that is roughly 3.5X4.5 feet, weighing a few hundred pounds. Several people are required to lift the cast out of the mud. Several pounds of mud are removed from the underside of the cast before it is lifted onto a pile of sleeping bag pads in the back of a truck.

The apple pieces are collected prior to casting, with the hope that saliva with buccal, cheek, and gum cells will be present on the apple pieces and can be used for DNA analysis.

Saturday 23 Sep 2000

Conditions: Morning: sunny, clear, slightly cold and breezy

On scene: Moneymaker, Bambenek, Fish, Lemley, Lee, Mort, Noll, Pugsley, Randles, Searle Activities

Break camp travel home

Check fruit cache locations

Observations

• Ravens present at fruit cache during early morning check.
• No fresh tracks of large wildlife present because the mud imprint area was frozen and frost heaved..
• Participants pack up and leave steadily through morning and mid day.

There's nothing unusual about the behavior - for a primate. Why would an elk lie down and then get fruit? Wouldn't one just walk up and grab the fruit? Wouldn't any ungulate?

I think I have the elk getting up without disturbing the imprint thing figured out. My "theory":

Edited October 25, 2011 by LAL

[Guest 127]

LOL: I love how I pointed out you could see hoofs at the end of the legs and your graphic so conveniently covers that part too. :-P

Note the deep wrist impressions, where the elk pushed off on... which meldrum said was a primate heel and that it took great force or weight to make....

Edited October 25, 2011 by 127

[Guest LAL]

Yes, most elk have hooves at the ends of their legs. I can see how a primate could lift its heels straight up leaving hair impressions, coarse dermatoglyphics and the imprint of the tendon of Achilles. I don't see how an elk can lift its wrists straight up or roll out leaving such clear impressions (not so clear in the painted copy). I added arrows the ends of the lines to indicate the direction of levitation.in case anyone didn't understand what Mickey was doing.

DDA went into a lot of detail on some of this. Have you read the other threads?

E.g.:

"DY studies ancient animal traces in the petroleum industry, specifically those of invertebrates, like ancient worms going through shale stone. Maybe that is a way to indicate the presence of fossil fuels. I don't know. How is that applicable over someone who is an expert on primates or ungulates on four different continents and has actually seen the original cast with measurement equipment in hand? Because he could draw a pretty picture, inaccurate but pretty? He even admitted he had never encountered elk or it's sign outside of literature. So his theory was probably based off a perfunctory searching on the internet for animal lays and then further refined to that of elk, after having determined Skookum meadows is in fact an elk preserve. Get that? Skookum meadows is an elk preserve and everyone on the expedition knew that. So we all understood that that was the first likely suspect. Not one member of the expedition reported that they had found fresh elk sign during it either. Only those tracks found at the cast site were seen. Bear season just started and that was the flimsy excuse Todd N. gave me when I discovered him trying to sneak to the back side of our camp. He was hunting bear. Laughable really since he didn't have a gun with him. I don't think anyone saw any dear or bear either on the expedition, even though right by the main camp was a berry field and huge amounts of bear scat, and I found many overturned mushrooms lying on downed logs. Plenty of places for their tracks to show up too, but nada. Only coyote."

And:

"The cast was first displayed at an outdoors-man symposium to try an see if any EXPERIENCED elk hunters had ever seen anything like it. No one stepped up saying yes they have and that it looks like an elk lay. In fact some of these hunters came forward and said it looked like a human made it. Just across the aisle was a taxidermy exhibit with goat, elk, deer and bear on display. All but the bear was in a prone position. The taxidermist also stopped by to examine the cast. He should know what with positioning all the limbs of the animals for displays wouldn't ya think? "

And:

"The elk tracks came first then the body impression, only later did the coyote walk through the site. there is an age difference between the elk tracks, body impression and coyote tracks. Since I was there when this all happened, I can tell you that the ground was frozen when we found it. The likely scenario then would be that the elk tracks came through when it was pretty unfrozen. The ground froze and then whatever made the body imprint sat there, possibly heating up areas with body heat. Either the coyote came through close behind or the sun peaked through some of the canopy and heated the impression for it to leave tracks. Then it began to solidify again when we discovered it."

And:

"You cannot roll an object in mud, to make a bigger impression without significantly degrading the surface details. Details measuring down to .020" (skin patch surface, fine hair)."

And:

"I began using various commercial grades of plaster over 30 years ago. I became a Plaster Pattern Maker in the aerospace industry while working at Northrop on the B-2 program. This job entailed being able to construct complex curves using plaster as the finished surface in a tooling capacity. I went from a C, to a B, then on to an A and after incorporating multiple head Theodolite and Laser Tracker equipment in to the process, to a Tooling Developer. One of the main requirements of the job is to make surfaces that are extremely accurate, robust and defect free. The accuracy is on the order of .010" and scaling is on a 1:1 basis @ 68 degrees F., . Robust in that the surfaces constructed will not break free when later making plastic face casts off them and defect free meaning the surfaces are uniform in hardness, without holes, pits, rocks, runs, discoloration, or any other artifact not desired in the final product. Suffice it to say I am considered in the industry an expert at the job of using plaster, otherwise I wouldn't get paid as much as I do (LOL). Aerospace plaster tooling masters are life rated to 50 plus years.

A splash coating on a surface that you wish to duplicate has the least potential of producing casting artifacts that Matt Crowley has expounded on. Most, if not all of his findings, as well as that of other experimenters, are things I had to learn to eliminate when I was a C Tool Builder. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the Skookum cast does not contain any casting artifacts. I am also completely at ease if someone like Crowley would want to examine the cast to corroborate this statement. He may not know everything about the causes of surface defects but has experimented enough to bear witness the Skookum cast does not contain them.

Casting artifacts are produced by inexperienced people. They either add air to the mixture of plaster and water (by mixing in air or pouring water into plaster), do not arrest the effects of the substrate (apply moisture barriers), mix the plaster too thick or wait to long before using (allowing the mixture to shorten it's pot-life or cure cycle), add an ingredient that can produce detrimental surface effects (oils), or pull the cast from the substrate before fully curing.

Casting a track made in mud is not an overly hard process, even with surfaces that are undercut (jig-locked) or are found in aspects defying gravity (vertical, upside down). The splash coat process is one that produces the least amount of stress to the substrate when applied. It also has enough surface tension and minimal weight to adhere even if trying to counteract the forces of gravity. Only thicker plaster mixes that do not flow into every nook and cranny have the potential of deforming the original impression or the potential of pulling away from the surface and creating it's own.

As a side note: Plaster mixes in a B stage of curing, when deformed, will produce crack like structures, as will even mud. This has led to the conclusion that the Skookum cast heel/achilles tendon area shape is not a product of mud slumping. The impression and the cast are crack free in that area, and the fine hair tracings on it do not show any deformations in their splines.

The surface features on this area are quite unlike anything Matt Crowley has ever found during his experiments. They are in fact identical to features you could find on primate skin. The hair tracings are very fine or thin in diameter. They are also on average between .1" and .15" in density, allowing for areas to have skin surfaces exposed and casted. On the other hand, ungulate hair density is so small as to make it all but impossible to cast the skin beneath it without going to extreme measures (such as shaving the hair off.) Ungulate hair is also very thick and brittle, what with being hollow so as to insulate the body better. All one needs to do is compare between the two surfaces (ungulate - Skookum cast) to understand the differences. "

All above quotes from DDA are on the same thread.

[Guest 127]

damndirtyape: What kind of large resolution photos do you have available of the impression before casting and of the cast? If you don't mind (or if you do, we understand also) can you link? If you have a variety of angles or different lighting etc that could be helpful too. Thank you.

(maybe some showing the whole scene and or cast from above, and some closeups so we can make out the claimed striations and their patterns.)

Also, do you know which part of the impression which hairs came from? (any sort of hair map etc)

Lastly, how long was the suspected primate hair and what color was it in appearance? Who has it now? Thanks.

Edited October 25, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

Damndirtyape,

yes I did try to secure the photo from Randy, but you were there. I wasn't trying to do anything behind you back. We met with him together at Denny's, remember??? Pretty sure that was you sitting next to me in the booth. Then we went to see Grover, together, remember??? Doesn't matter at this point. You see it your way and I'll see it mine. For he record, I was upset at you because the three of us had an agreement. Anything happening with the cast was to be decided upon by the three of us, you, I and Leroy. That WAS the deal and you know it. Once you took control of it that was that. I'm sure you feel that you were acting in the casts best interests, and you did a fine job preserving it, a fantastic job actually, but you did not hold true to our agreement plain and simple. You horded it like some fine possession. I had to make an appointment with you just to come see it. As far as the loan goes, I certainly didn't need any friends with me to come collect it..lol What pissed me off about that Rick was the fact that you went out and bought a new truck before you bothered to pay me back. That's a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.

Spin it ant way you want Damndirtyape, just don't throw me under the bus in the process.

DR

[Guest]

You base findings on solid conclusions that the evidence backs up.

Which Drs Meldrum, et al have done. Examined the evidence and reached conclusions therefrom.

Not wishful thinking,

Nice backhand to the face of credentialed scientists.

or confirmation bias.

But of course the proposed panel of "elk experts" would be 100% imparial and objective...

The facts in this case are overwhelming.

Yes, they are. No elk track where elk track MUST be for it to be an elk lay. Multiple datapoints examined and documented by professional scientists who determined the impression was made NOT by an elk, but most likely by a large hairy primate.

You have elk tracks present coming up to and going away from the impression.

Which has nothing to do with the impression itself. Again, NO elk tracks where they MUST be for an elk to have made that impression. You could surround the impression with an entire FIELD of elk track and it would be absolutely meaningless in terms of the impression itself.

You have elk hairs present in the impression.

Gee, an environment where elk have been has elk hairs...who would have figured...

Elk hair does not an elk lay make.

How about dealing with the actual scientific findings of Drs Meldrum, Schaller, et al instead of chasing your phantom levitating elk?

You also have the clear impression of an elk.

No, you have an impression that was examined by professional scientists, gamekeepers and others and determined NOT to be an elk lay.

[Guest]

b] That [/b]is real evidence.

No, it's Skeptic bloviating. The REAL evidence supports the proponent case that it's a BF lay.

Now lets take a look at the evidence for bigfoot. Bigfooters "claimed" the hair pattern and impression looked to be primate in appearance.

Ad hom attack on credentialed scientists. Pony up some scientific data that counters their claim...hasn't been done yet, and I predict will not be done in the future.

Also the figure they have represented in the position claimed, would not make such an impression in the ground much less put the subject in that spot to begin with (no entering or leaving marks, no hairs, no tracks at all)

In your opinion. Drs Meldrum, et al disagree, and they're the credentialed scientists.

The only "evidence" of bigfoot present was in the peoples minds. No physical verifiable evidence. (like usual)

Opinions presented as fact.

Sorry, but science uses "real" evidence. Not imagined.

Yes, Drs Meldrum et al used REAL evidence, not imaginary levitating elk.

And exactly how do you know bigfoot is a primate? Speculation? Yep, thats all you have. Much less that bigfoot is present to do it.

If it looks like a primate, acts like a primate, leaves trace evidence OF a primate, then it must be...a duckbilled platypus! Genius deduction 127!

And yes that WAS sarcasm. About all I can muster any more against Skeptics repeating the same tired old psuedo-logical claptrap...if you ever present some SERIOUS data or information to debate I'd be glad to do so...but I'm not holding my breath.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Mulder