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

[Guest]

I just want to know what a "credentialed" scientist is, and why the opinion of such people is above reproach.

By any objective criteria, I am a credentialed scientist. I have examined photographs of the Skookum Cast and read about the circumstances of its origin, as well as various interpretations. There is nothing in the peer-reviewed literature on the Skookum Cast, so any opinions on its interpretation are just that: opinions. In my opinion as a credentialed scientist, both the physical and circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly point to an elk as the source of the impression.

So Mulder et al., can I count on you to defend my position as vehemently as you do Dr. Meldrum's? Can I count on you to lay the smack down on anyone who makes a disparaging remark toward me on the BFF? If not, why not?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Nice one ~ SAS ~ I am very interested to hear the

answer to that one myself.

Tim

[Guest LAL]

Hair flow:

What hair flow?

[Guest krakatoa]

I just want to know what a "credentialed" scientist is, and why the opinion of such people is above reproach...

Agree.

The scientific landscape is littered with shreds of many a "credentialed scientist's" opinions.

Most of the detritus are from earnest hypotheses that didn't turn out on further investigation they themselves carry out.

Some are from a ridiculous flight of fancy by a scientist who has left the Scientific Method reservation, and wouldn't have passed a review by 8th grade students, much less a review of peers.

Many are from good scientists who have lost objectivity on a subject and blunder on without recognizing critical errors.

Honest and rigorous peer review tends to be the most efficient machine to reduces all the above to the dustbin.

You cannot take the human element out of the scientist. They are subject to the same foibles as the rest of us, and the word of one generally should carry no real significance unless they can defend their position in the scientifically accepted manner.

[Guest LAL]

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!!!!!!

Who? Me?

[Guest krakatoa]

Hair flow:

That flow impression looks to me to be far more like the relative short hair of an Elk, than the longer hair that is generally accepted to be on a bigfoot.

I'd also sort of expect to see evidence of clumps & matted hair from a longer-haired subject that reclines in mud.

[Guest LAL]

Possible forearm impression:

Tom Lines saw long hair on the forearms on the figure in the MDF, also in Washington State.

I suspect elk spend more time in mud than sasquatches do.

[Guest krakatoa]

I suspect elk spend more time in mud than sasquatches do.

But elk hair is shorter, and less prone to tangling & matting.

I found this picture off a quick search. Most reports I've read don't give me the idea that 'foot hair is generally this long (though some reports most certainly do), but I think it makes my point. I would expect to see a different hair impression than from Skookum

edited to add - if the picture doesn't show (it's not for me, though it does in preview), here is the picture link:

http://image40.webshots.com/41/9/67/32/339996732aedeHR_ph.jpg

Edited October 26, 2011 by krakatoa

[Guest StankApe]

Who? Me?

No, we were just joking how sometimes the skeptics (or just scientists who view evidence and dismiss it as say, and elk lay ) can sometimes be countered with a very "burn the witch" type of treatment. Then I put a monty python picture just to show this is all light hearted and not meant to be taken too seriously!

[Guest 127]

I just want to know what a "credentialed" scientist is, and why the opinion of such people is above reproach.

By any objective criteria, I am a credentialed scientist. I have examined photographs of the Skookum Cast and read about the circumstances of its origin, as well as various interpretations. There is nothing in the peer-reviewed literature on the Skookum Cast, so any opinions on its interpretation are just that: opinions. In my opinion as a credentialed scientist, both the physical and circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly point to an elk as the source of the impression.

So Mulder et al., can I count on you to defend my position as vehemently as you do Dr. Meldrum's? Can I count on you to lay the smack down on anyone who makes a disparaging remark toward me on the BFF? If not, why not?

Saskeptic: You point out some important points that I've noticed amongst adamant proponents. (not all, but the more ademate ones certainly) This pattern seems to illustrate that the evidence itself isn't important. The facts surrounding it aren't either. Just that it remain unidentified, or misidentified. That is important beyond truth. It's really sad because as Stankape expressed it is this sort of biased thinking and reasoning that will do the subject no favors. (if you wish to be legitimate) It's all a matter of do you wish to be taken seriously, or do you wish to hold up an apple and talk for days/years about the pear in your hand.

[Guest StankApe]

I have always found being wrong more educational than being right. The times the evidence has worked against my concepts of evolution or line of thought the narrower I was able to focus my gaze onto the real truth of things.

In other words, when you can eliminate something as evidence for your belief, the closer you can get to the truth. Whereas if you refuse to acknowledge that said evidence is false, the further you will stray and maybe the truth will never come to you, because you are swimming in the wrong pool.

If I lived in one of these "hotspot" areas I think I would drop all presumptions and start anew as if I had just learned about this bigfoot creature the day before. I think that a fresh line of thinking, method of discovery , hard scientific bent on location scouting, camera placement and lighting sources combined with no assumptions based on prior "evidence" would yield the best results.

It couldn't hurt eh?

[Guest 127]

snipped for brevity

LOL?

That is all I can respond with at this moment. Please excuse me.

LAL: Thanks for posting the hair photo. Certainly looks human to me. Do you know who is in possession of it now? Why not DNA test it against those in the group?

[Guest]

You mean unlike Green, Krantz, Meldrum, Noll, Moneymaker, etc. etc.?

Why not? None of the people that examined the original have any special expertise in bigfoot impressions.

RayG

Plenty of primatology (and some ungulate) experience, which is all that is needed.

I'm getting sick of the "we can't know anything or say anything about anything until it's 'known'" argument.

[Guest]

You left out the important part. That the 'expert' you are referring to was completely biased against bigfoot and was very outspoken against bigfoot and, in his own words "woo" research. He had his own axe to grind.

Um, he was a frequent poster on the old BFF and on the cynic's hangout JREF Forums. A well known bigfoot detractor. Hardly unbiased in his mindset.

Plussed.

[Guest StankApe]

It's a valid argument though.... How can someone look at the cast, see all the tracks and elk hairs, see no bigfoot tracks , find one alleged primate hair (not cross checked against the group) and come to the conclusion "oh well it has to be a bigfoot"? Then construct a story to fit all the facts and avoid all the problems (like the belly crawling... I've seen enough primate videos and have never seen a known primate belly crawl up to food, I've seen them sneak, I've seen them tip toe, I've seen them while already laying down roll over to one side to grab some food or a child...etc).

It seems to this observer that someone decided it was a Bigfoot lay and that was the end of the debate. any possible alternative ideas were quashed and the perpetrators of said opinions derided. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary... I mean seriously, the proper way would've been to hope for the best but assume the worst. They should have been trying to prove it's an elk lay first, then if that becomes IMPOSSIBLE then you start to think of alternative sources.