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

[Guest parnassus]

Are we not reading this part maybe ~~~

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.

Bing Go ! Mind is made up ~~ what followed was for show ~~ There needs to be a BF for most of the people involved so they can have there BF game, this was the perfect little gem and it was played to all that would watch and listen, and it's still selling tickets ~

Tim

A flash of inspiration.

[Incorrigible1]

Meh.

[Guest 127]

Because they disagree with you..??

Nope. Because of what the evidence shows. I don't blame them for collecting something they felt was evidence. I do blame the scientists that insist it is a bigfoot impression and not an elk.

[Guest]

This is really entertaining!! Please don't stop. Come on Red Rat I'm sure you can do better than that! Maybe you can say something about our mothers or something.

[Guest]

Nope. Because of what the evidence shows. I don't blame them for collecting something they felt was evidence. I do blame the scientists that insist it is a bigfoot impression and not an elk.

Am I missing something? Did anyone actually come to the conclusion that it WAS bigfoot, or did they just indicate that it could have been bigfoot? I dont think any scientist has insisted that it is a bigfoot impression, only that the possibility should not be dismissed. The only people who claim to KNOW anything are people like yourself who know what it is withiot seeing it.

You â€blame†the scientists for considering a possibility. Brilliant.

[Guest 127]

Am I missing something? Did anyone actually come to the conclusion that it WAS bigfoot, or did they just indicate that it could have been bigfoot? I dont think any scientist has insisted that it is a bigfoot impression, only that the possibility should not be dismissed. The only people who claim to KNOW anything are people like yourself who know what it is withiot seeing it.

You â€blame†the scientists for considering a possibility. Brilliant.

No, This is what their conclusions were according to the BFRO website who sports it.

Their conclusions: The imprint was not attributable to any recognized animal species. The imprint was most likely made by a living sasquatch.

[Guest]

No, This is what their conclusions were according to the BFRO website who sports it.

Well then, I stand corrected. It's still wierd for you to â€blame†them for coming to a conclusion. Why is it not enough to disagree? Why can't you just reaffirm to yourself how much smarter you are than those silly scientists and be happy with that? It seems as though you will not be happy until people STOP believing in sasquatch and that just is not going to happen. If you have still not learned to deal with the fact that people- even well-educated scientific people- will have different opinions than you, then this is as good a time as any to get comfortable with that fact.

[Guest]

Nail on head!! Thank's Jon.

Agenda and motivation, well let's have a look at that. Make any money off the cast? No. Ever try to make any money off the cast? No. Improve the quality of my life because of it? No, not even close. People already think you're crazy if you investigate this subject. Attention? YES, lots of attention, most negative. Had to deactivate my cell phone because it wouldn't stop ringing. Had mass crazy people calling my house at all hours of the night disturbing my family. Yes, lot's of attention, mostly the bad kind. Major falling out with co-finder of the impression? Yes. As a matter of fact, this event was so much fun that I quit research for two years. Not really sure what motivation or agenda you speak of. Please!

We NEVER claimed this impression was absolutely made by a Bigfoot, NEVER. I have many many reasons to think that it was, but there's no way I'll get sucked into a win less debate with people who've never even seen the cast in person. What a waste of time.

DR

[Guest 127]

Well then, I stand corrected. It's still wierd for you to â€blame†them for coming to a conclusion. Why is it not enough to disagree? Why can't you just reaffirm to yourself how much smarter you are than those silly scientists and be happy with that? It seems as though you will not be happy until people STOP believing in sasquatch and that just is not going to happen. If you have still not learned to deal with the fact that people- even well-educated scientific people- will have different opinions than you, then this is as good a time as any to get comfortable with that fact.

There were no further connotations from it. If there is a blame it lay on bigfooters for accepting this crap as evidence of bigfoot (from the "bigfoot" scientists) and then crying foul when no one takes you seriously.

Edited October 27, 2011 by 127

[Guest 127]

Nail on head!! Thank's Jon.

Agenda and motivation, well let's have a look at that. Make any money off the cast? No. Ever try to make any money off the cast? No. Improve the quality of my life because of it? No, not even close. People already think you're crazy if you investigate this subject. Attention? YES, lots of attention, most negative. Had to deactivate my cell phone because it wouldn't stop ringing. Had mass crazy people calling my house at all hours of the night disturbing my family. Yes, lot's of attention, mostly the bad kind. Major falling out with co-finder of the impression? Yes. As a matter of fact, this event was so much fun that I quit research for two years. Not really sure what motivation or agenda you speak of. Please!

We NEVER claimed this impression was absolutely made by a Bigfoot, NEVER. I have many many reasons to think that it was, but there's no way I'll get sucked into a win less debate with people who've never even seen the cast in person. What a waste of time.

DR

What do you think made the impression?

[Guest]

I used to be pretty sure it was made by a Sasquatch. Today, not quite sure where I stand. As I said, I have a lot of reasons supporting Sasquatch, but I wouldn't swear to anything. When it all boils down, the cast is really worthless. It's a piece of hydro-cal and plaster with tent poles inside, that's it. It doesn't, and never will prove anything. It's really cool and all, but that is really the bottom line. Sure does incite conversation though.

I will say that the expedition was amazing though. I am 100% sure we had Sasquatch activity. Tracks were found and the return vocalization was the most amazing thing I've ever heard in the wild. That trip would have made believers out of many of you.

DR

[Guest 127]

I appreciate your opinion on it. I love being in nature and going off the trails and exploring.

[Guest LAL]

Speaking of the BFRO site, what about this scenario?

"Why did it lay down at the edge of the puddle to reach over such shallow water, instead of walking through the puddle to pick up the fruit? The investigators can only speculate. Some speculate that the sasquatch came to the puddle to drink the rainwater and noticed the fruit in the process. If so then perhaps it was being careful to avoid stirring up mud in the clear rainwater."

Did that make sense to you at the time, Derekfoot?

Or this?

"Or perhaps the animal simply didn't want to get caked with wet mud from stepping into the puddle. The place where it did make contact with the soil was soft enough to leave an impression, but firm enough to prevent the mud from sticking to the animal."

You said in Thom's video the proportions were all wrong for an elk. Can you be more specific about that?

[Guest]

Are we not reading this part maybe ~~~

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.

Bing Go ! Mind is made up ~~ what followed was for show ~~ There needs to be a BF for most of the people involved so they can have there BF game, this was the perfect little gem and it was played to all that would watch and listen, and it's still selling tickets ~

Tim

I read it just fine. And that comes AFTER extensive examination of the impression and surroundings as you yourself noted and deliberation over other traces in the vicinity.

Are "we" getting it yet? They examined the scene, came to a preliminary determination, collected the data, gave that data due consideration and reaffirmed their preliminary theory.

The only "rush to judgement" is that of the Skeptics with their magical levitating elk.

[Guest]

I don't see were it says anything about a 1st or Re Exam.

Since you insist on having it broken down for you:

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.

Initial observation of the scene sufficient to note all pertinent and many extraneous details.

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.

They take the time to discuss the imprint and debate it's origins before coming to the preliminary conclusion that it just might be a bf impression.

Each tracker comes closer to have another look

, discussions follow for 2-3 minutes.

The 2nd examination (length of time unstated) and 2-3 minutes of follow on discussion.

The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint.

More observations made, for a total of 3 separate periods of observation and debate.

Any way ! What's the difference if they looked at it for a month, they all made there mind up right then and there regardless of what anyone else said about it . . .

They made a preliminary determination (or to use the technical term they "formed a hypothesis"). They then gathered data (by casting the impression for further study), analyzed the data, conducted experiments and consulted other experts to attempt to refute the hypothesis (the experiments with elk parts and the consultation with experienced wildlife workers and scientists). Only then did they reach what they felt was a defensible final conclusion: not elk, but rather unknown apparent primate.

That's called the scientific method. It's how science is done. Study up on it some time.