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

[Guest]

In this case, empiricism supports an elk as the maker of the impression in the Skookum Cast: Elk are abundant in the area, elk habitually bed down, elk like to wallow in mud puddles, elk often occur in the open along roadsides, elk are happy to nibble apples,

None of which proves it was an elk, esp given the anatomical evidence as identified by the examining scientists that showed it was NOT an elk.

there are elk prints in the cast,

Not where they MUST be for it to have been a bedding elk. How many times do you have to be told that before you stop misrepresenting things in this manner?

and the shape of the impression closely matches the anatomy of an elk when doing something that elk do every day.

Not so, as DDA's illustration showing which parts of the cast are relevant to the discussion and which are not demonstrates.

[Guest]

I think a scientists credibility should and does rely on how solid their conclusions are and what they relied on to reach them. If you disagree - please explain. Whether or not one likes the other personality has absolutely nothing to do with how solid their conclusions are, and that they have a solid foundation based on real physical evidence and not speculation or opinion only. (which is an arrogant position to not only form, but hold after you've been enlightened)

Funny, that cast seems pretty physical to me. It incorporates biometric data showing it was made by a bipedal primate, not an elk. That's not "opinion", or "speculation". That's what the cast shows.

[Guest RayG]

...Dr Meldrum found evidence that it was in fact made by a FEMALE. (LMS pp112).

Just to clarify, Dr. Meldrum found no indication it was made by a male, and only possible evidence that it was made by a female. (LMS pg. 112)

RayG

[Guest 127]

Funny, that cast seems pretty physical to me. It incorporates biometric data showing it was made by a bipedal primate, not an elk. That's not "opinion", or "speculation". That's what the cast shows.

Demonstrate the position your "primate" was in, and how it entered the area and left. Also, your primate left a hair. Why not have it DNA tested? (for free via ketchum project) Who is in possession of the hair now?

Show the physical composition of your subject, perhaps with examples of known morphology to sasquatch. Also, while you're at it - Please show me any solid proof that bigfoot is a primate. (since you're going to use bipedal primate in your argument and you're assuming bigfoot) Thank you.

[Guest LAL]

Not where they MUST be for it to have been a bedding elk. How many times do you have to be told that before you stop misrepresenting things in this manner?

Well, maybe if the levitating elk had its feet on backwards......................

[Guest 127]

Funny, that cast seems pretty physical to me. It incorporates biometric data showing it was made by a bipedal primate, not an elk. That's not "opinion", or "speculation". That's what the cast shows.

Also why not have meldrum show where exactly each hair was collected on the cast? (instead of it being kept scecret squirrel)

[Guest 127]

Well, maybe if the levitating elk had its feet on backwards......................

Why do you insist on using levitating elk as if it applies? There are elk prints all over the place, including in the cast and including hoof impressions at the ends of the hind legs.

The levitating bigfoot would be much more appropriate. Absolutely no prints of bigfoot in the area.

[Guest 127]

The tracks were older and not related to the impression.

I guess the elk must have come back after the bigfoot left and decided to leave hoof prints exactly where the elk legs end.. Note the hoof prints at the end of the hind legs of the elk(that had to occur after the fur impression was made there)

The bottom green circles.

Edited October 28, 2011 by 127

[Guest StankApe]

Hmmm, I never noticed that before. Good spot 127!

I admit, I've always been skeptical of the validity of the cast. It's always been a waste of time IMO and i think people should be more concerned with trying to locate the critters via high canopy blinds and multi directional night vision cameras and such. Try to spot the things and get em on tape and photographs.

I actually like the face print on the car window more than the skookum cast. It seemed much more easily explained and there were prints found nearby as well. I think the cast's biggest problem before I saw the elk tracks IN the laid on area, was that there was no other bigfoot evidence around. How would it get up with out laying a hand down?

[Guest 127]

Well, maybe if the levitating elk had its feet on backwards......................

Those scratches you are refering to (I'm guessing it is those, be specific?) from the front hooves probably were made as it rose. The elk was on its wrists (that is how they lay) and it pushed off on its wrists (probably in a hurry, as the wrist impressions were pushed to one side) and the front hoof scraped the ground. Also, it could be from a previous ungulate scratching the ground/mud. No need for special backwards feet, or special pleading for there to be an elk present and making this impression in the mud.

[wolftrax]

Those who claim that elk need to put their hooves directly in the impression (as if they are actually looking to see what imprinted in the ground and then purposefully only put their hooves where their body left sign) need to present actual evidence in the form of a study or data set to support that elk only put their hooves in the impression to rise. That is what theories are made of, data, not opinion. If you want an opinion, I asked the president of the Arizona Elk society to look at photos of the cast and told him that elk was excluded because it was claimed elk need to put their hooves in the impression in order to rise. He not only said the cast looked like elk impressions he had seen, but also that elk rise to their feet in a variety of ways, don't need to keep their feet in the impression, and that anyone who made the claim that they had to do that to rise had no idea what they are talking about. His words, not mine.

You say this is science, provide the evidence.

[Guest Kerchak]

......or just anytime he pretends he hasn't been pwned.

A supposed credentialed scientist using the kiddy term "been pwned"?

Seriously?

[Guest 127]

A supposed credentialed scientist using the kiddy term "been pwned"?

Seriously?

You like multiple witnesses to bigfoot if I remember right. What would you say if I claimed to have not only seen a bigfoot, but claimed that it lifted the front of my car by the bumper? Then, I later claimed to film a live bigfoot in a completely different area states away. Sound possible?

Edited October 28, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

A supposed credentialed scientist using the kiddy term "been pwned"?

Seriously?

Indeed. Have I now lost my credentials because I occasionally use humor and colloquialism in my posts?

[Guest]

Why do you insist on using levitating elk as if it applies? There are elk prints all over the place, including in the cast and including hoof impressions at the ends of the hind legs.

The levitating bigfoot would be much more appropriate. Absolutely no prints of bigfoot in the area.

DING DING DING! "Levitating elk" has me laughing this week almost as much as "4X4 mode."

It's astounding to me that people could look at an casting impression with multiple elk prints and claim that "elk" has been effectively ruled out as the maker of the impression. Meantime, they argue vehemently for the impression-maker to have been something for which we have no physical confirmation that it even exists, doing something unprecedented in the anecdotal lore associated with such a creature (i.e., lying down in the mud on the side of a road to retrieve fruit obviously left by humans), and for which there are no prints in the cast itself. Yet we "elk people" are the ones ignoring the so-called evidence? Comedy gold!