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

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Huh?!

edit....off topic

Confusing isn't it that's how i feel once the big words start getting thrown out ~ i ain't complaining cause it is doing wonders for my education.

Tim

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hey! anyone know if the fruit / apples were store bought

or native too the area

Thanks

Tim

Still wondering if anyone knows about this.

I am thinking that a BF being as intelligent as it is suppose to be, would know that the fruit was not native and therefor would not have fallen for the bait ~

Good idea huh ? Go figure * i hit my head on a Tractor fender today and BANG ! this idea bleeds it's way into me head ~

Tim

[Guest 127]

The tracks were older and not related to the impression.

Elk hairs in an elk preserve are to be expected - and were expected.

The impression is not in the exact shape of an elk by actual measure and even if it were the elk could not rise straight up and leave a perfect imprint. There's no impression of a left hind leg as it rested, no smearing from rolling out of the impression or drag marks of hooves if an elk sproinged out of the mudhole. The mud was too firm to swallow the prints that should have been there if an elk had merely laid down, eaten apples (how did it strew bits over the impression?) and then got up and left. Please note the direction of those older tracks. I'm tired of posting the diagram.

There was abundant bear scat in the area too. Does that mean a bear did it? There were coyote tracks therefore a coyote did it?

Skamania County had the first legislation imposing penalties for wantonly killing a sasquatch. Their existance in the county has been taken somewhat seriously over the last several decades. The area is prime habitat and sightings such as that of a pair crossing a meadow by five DNR workers might possibly indicate there is a population there. Skamania County was home to the Ape Canyon incident, for whatever that's worth. This sighting is the one that got my attention:

Skeptics: "It's trees and leaves"

Proponents: "It's a Face!"

Truth: "It's artwork"

Only with bigfoot, it's in the descriptions and stories. Not the evidence itself.

Edited October 28, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

Ya got my daily 'Plus' on this one!

Thank you, but the original observation I'll credit to Steven Goldberg, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at City College of New York. The concepts laid out in two of his books shine light on the insideous nature of political correctness:

• When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe Is False, 1992
• Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences, 2003.

Prof. Goldberg seems like the academic liberal one would expect to find dwelling in a sociology department in New York City, except that he's an honest scientist devoted, unlike many, to empiricism, as all functional scientists must be. When the data don't fit the theory, the scientist doesn't throw out the data, he modifies or scraps his theory.

I've been in the environmental science field for more than three decades, and I realized that Prof. Goldberg's observations of the dysfunctions in the social sciences explain much of the malpractice committed in the environmental field. The environmental sciences are still relatively soft in that obvious conclusions are rare -- statistics are needed to draw inferences in most cases. Political correctness is generally not encountered in the hard sciences -- e.g., chemistry and physics -- because it's difficult to impose one's ideologies on experiments that generate relatively clear answers.

Cryptozoology, by its nature, is also a soft science. The unscrupulous, detractors or proponents, find it easy to impose their desired vision on the subject.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Pteronarcyd

[Guest LAL]

I am thinking that a BF being as intelligent as it is suppose to be, would know that the fruit was not native and therefor would not have fallen for the bait ~

I assume it was store-bought but DDA or Derekfoot should know.

That's not good apple-growing country. Late frosts get the blossoms even lower down and closer to the river. There are orchards to the east but the fruit might have been unfamiliar and something to be approached with caution. Anything that smells good, like apples and melons, would be worth a taste. I don't know if attempts were made to remove any smell of humans or insecticides. It's a little strange it wasn't all eaten by whatever took it.

People who live with bears know what they look like, Tim.

[Guest krakatoa]

... The environmental sciences are still relatively soft in that obvious conclusions are rare -- statistics are needed to draw inferences in most cases. Political correctness is generally not encountered in the hard sciences -- e.g., chemistry and physics -- because it's difficult to impose one's ideologies on experiments that generate relatively clear answers....

It's like reading my own words from a different debate on a different website. I couldn't agree more.

Cryptozoology, by its nature, is also a soft science. The unscrupulous, detractors or proponents, find it easy to impose their desired vision on the subject.

As I've said here and in other threads, I generally find all the heated debate surrounding this and other soft evidence to reveal far more about the human condition, than that of 'foot.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I assume it was store-bought but DDA or Derekfoot should know.

That's not good apple-growing country. Late frosts get the blossoms even lower down and closer to the river. There are orchards to the east but the fruit might have been unfamiliar and something to be approached with caution. Anything that smells good, like apples and melons, would be worth a taste. I don't know if attempts were made to remove any smell of humans or insecticides. It's a little strange it wasn't all eaten by whatever took it.

People who live with bears know what they look like, Tim.

I am interested in the native fruit theory thing only cause BF has been built up as some sort of a super being if you will by many, if this was store bought and not native to the area then in my mind BF is just a dumb animal and would have been bagged long ago if it exists .

Yes i know most people that at least have a children's story book know what a bear looks like, but do you know how many people are naive or unaware of there surroundings ?

Tim

[Guest]

Guess Mulder hasnt done that LMS thing and doesn't even know what he's defending. Oh, I forgot... It's WMS ...."whatever Meldrum says."

I know exactly what I'm defending, thank you very much. Until a day or so ago I was having computer access problems and you caught me with my session at the public one at the library almost up.

I'm not going to retype verbatim what Dr Meldrum writes in LMS, but (to answer your original question) I think some of the most important observations (indeed the critical ones) have to be those of Dr Schaller, who is both an expert on primates AND ungulates (and therefore eminently qualified to judge between the two). Dr Sariamento's comments are also very important as to the biomechanics and biometrics of the achilles tendon impression and it's distinctive primate nature.

[Guest]

Meldrum didn't submit any peer reviewed paper so his opinion is presently just an opinion. I offered up a credentialed scientist who disagreed with the findings and said it was an elk lay. But you said he didn't believe in Bigfoot so his opinion didn't matter...

I honestly can't do anything else. As has happened time and time again, any scientist who says some evidence isn't Bigfoot he gets accused of being a witch.... Or has apparently some bias as to make his opinion worthless, yet this never comes up when other scientists with an apparent similar bias (the exception being they happen to agree with your position) give a completely different opinion. Whereas all opinions based on pre-conceived bias are equally worthless as science should not be about picking a sports team...

Meldrum The "elk expert" didn't submit any peer reviewed paper so his opinion is presently just an opinion. I offered up a credentialed scientist who disagreed with the findings and said it was an elk laybigfoot. But you said he believed in Bigfoot so his opinion didn't matter...

I honestly can't do anything else. As has happened time and time again, any scientist who says some evidence isn'tis Bigfoot he gets accused of being a witch.... Or has apparently some bias as to make his opinion worthless, yet this never comes up when other scientists with an apparent similar bias (the exception being they happen to agree with your position) give a completely different opinion. Whereas all opinions based on pre-conceived bias are equally worthless as science should not be about picking a sports team...

Same thing, other direction.

[Guest]

I can't remember exactly where the fruit came from, but I think Leroy Fish brought it. He lived in Triangle Lake Oregon. If memory serves he had fruit trees on his property. I think I remember him bringing a large box of fruit. I could be wrong.

DR

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Thank you for that if you think of anything else please post it, if anyone else has some input that would be cool too cause i think it has value, i know many animals will not eat things they are not familiar with ~

Tim

[Guest]

LOL "that's not how science works" Sorry but you are off on that.

Science works by publishing your work in peer reviewed journals and thus inviting criticism and stimulating more investigation. Eventually the value of the work becomes clear.

On that basis, your guy is as bad off as the proponents...don't see HIS "peer reviewed" paper anywhere.

The fact remains that his analysis is superficial, shallow, and comes from a documented position of not just being skeptical, but openly hostile to bf (based on his past statements as reported).

[Guest]

Redratsnake, that's a good point, but also consider that the best way to bait a bear is with doughnuts, honey and sugar. There are no doughnut trees in the forest. High altitude ungulates, Mule Deer will go hog wild for apples. There are no apple trees up in the peaks where they live. Mountain Goats LOVE carrots, but they spend no time in Grandmas garden. Just saying..

DR

Edited October 28, 2011 by Derekfoot

[Guest]

PUHLEEZ tell us you're not referring to the (drum roll) Paul Freeman Butt Cast(Rimshot). I may ROFL and can't get up. Tell me you have a cast of Freeman's butt for comparison. I mean bad science is one thing, but this wasn't even good police work...no ifs, ands or butts (Rimshot).

I think Meldrum was going to submit that to a beer-reviewed journal (Rimshot)....the International Journal of Escatology? I could be wrong...

Your snideness aside, it could not be Freeman's but, since Dr Meldrum found evidence that it was in fact made by a FEMALE. (LMS pp112). In addition it was anatomically correct in all observed respects, but it's size, proportions, and the presence of longish hair impressions indicated it was NOT that of a human posterior.

Once again, real science trumps your snarkery.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

That's cool and i know a ton of animals will go for a fruit treat full steam head on with out care for it's safety or yours if your the one offering the treat, i grew up with pony's, goats and pet deers, there just dumb basic living animals, When we get to talking about BF things always take a change for what i will call the Harvard syndrome, BF is smart, cunning, allusive,stealthy,undetectable,capable of detecting electronics's and having a knowledge of how to avoid them, it can enter a small town at night and navigate the streets like a pro, make noises that stun, cover it's foot prints, blur pictures with a pungent odor, no need to go further cause we all know the rest right, it's just a never ending excuse for something that just don't exist ~

Tim ~ Insert tired Icon