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

[Guest parnassus]

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

Seriously?

K

How about this? I give your post a big "L".

Seriously.

Edited October 28, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest parnassus]

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!

If you close your eyes, it looks like a Bigfoot wallow. (Rimshot)

[Guest]

I haven't had any time to post lately but I have been following this and another thread where I can. Mulder & LAL, there are a few things you guys need to accept.

1) That Shaller is NOT an elk expert. His ungulate expertise mostly related to African ungulates. Whether you can accept it or not, they are not the same and they have different anatomies and behaviors.

2) Elk WILL bed down by rolling off their hind feet onto their rumps. And THAT is why there are NO hoof prints in the center of the impression where you want them to be in order for it to be an elk. I hope to have that proof soon so as to close this caveat out.

3) There has been no evidence presented or supported that the elk prints within the impression area occurred before the impression itself. Please explain how this is interpreted.

4) To date, quality photographs or videos of the entire scene have been withheld from public scrutiny. The impression itself is NOT sufficient evidence by itself as it is only a cross section of the rest of the tracks. Those tracks tell a story, specifically the elk tracks, a few of which WERE destroyed by those unusual pair of boot impressions. If you DDA, and Derekfoot want to talk good science here, well then detailed photographs of the scene should be made part of the evidence package. The photos DF provided me in the earlier thread were still blurry when blown up. I suspect DDA has quality photographs & video of the scene but won't share them openly because they will only add up to more evidence against the claim.

5) BTW, I also knew Leroy Fish but not too well or very long. I did not remember him initially in the Skookum discussion, but just kept it to myself when I recalled it to see where the discussion goes as far as his expertise and out of respect for him. I have noticed he is always referred to as a Wildlife Biologist such as on the bfro page, and never clarifying that his expertise wasn't large mammals. He offered his volunteer input to a project of mine on Oregon Rivers. A colorful guy. His biology focus was in fisheries and riverine ecology, not ungulates or mammals.

6) The reason there aren't more scientists willing to examine this evidence is because the evidence is 'selectively' shared. Any added photos that are shared, are quickly removed by DDA plus they are of poor resolution. Once again, I've offered to organized 3 State Wildlife Elk Biologists, one from WA and two from OR, but ONLY if they had access to ALL the evidence. I wouldn't even have known these individuals and would have to do the legwork finding candidates. But once again, the Impression itself is only a part of the evidence in that the tracks surrounding it are just as important. If proponents can't accept this, then they are being dishonest with themselves and others.

7) I have asked before as well, where is the video or photo documentation of the elk and other hairs as they are being meticulously removed from the impression? Where they came from and how they were impregnated in the mud are crucial as far as evidence goes. Why has this info never been shared?

I want to see some quality photos or video from when the impression was first discovered. Not images that blur up when you blow them up. Any more of that crap and its just more attempt to conceal evidence, and guys, that bad science!

9) No to belabor the point, but I'm not someone who doesn't believe sasquatch exists. I am an elk hunter I have seen sasquatch up close. I however will not push false evidence of their existence. The majority of tree breaks, like those seen at Skookum Meadows as a sign of bigfoot, were nothing but trees broken from the prior Winter's snow load. I too once thought these breaks were from bigfoot, but being objective in my observations taught me to discern the difference. There are other natural phenomenon out there that are being misidentified too. Some of it comes from people who have never seen a sasquatch themselves and merely want to find ways of establishing their expertise and insight into the creatures. The tree breaks at skookum meadows were nothing but a natural phenomenon, but some who did not have field savvy probably coupled with the pressure of tv film crews, and wanted them to be more. Again, I know what its like seeing meaning in these breaks because I first felt the same, until I took a good hard look at them as they were transformed under snow.

10) This 'levitating elk' claim is bull crap! If you guys knew anything about elk and their movements, well you would see it. You rely on so called experts that aren't actually elk experts. You rely on Meldrum when even he has not completely accepted its not elk. Mulder, scientists make mistakes ALL THE TIME. Meldrum is not an elk expert either. Shaller wasn't an elk expert. Fish wasn't an elk expert. All these people together WANTED it to be bigfoot and that was the driving impetus. It was Groupthink, everyone was analyzing the evidence in a vacuum. Any detractors were likely quietly overruled in favor of the group consensus. This was further established by omission of certain evidence in the analysis, such as a lack of detailed photographs of the scene to analyze by those who had a intimate knowledge of the species (elk) most likely to have caused the impression and tracks. Preventing this open process has been nothing short of a Selective Analysis.

11) Finally, the alleged Achilles Heel is also relying on Selective Analysis. This claim about curling is actually what you find on the side of an elk's leg and FITS exactly what you see in the impression. I'll make sure to cut a leg during this years hunt that matches that impression, that is assuming I fill my tag. There was something 'odd' about the elk leg that DDA used. For one thing, it was from a mature bull, and from the size of the impression, we don't seem to be dealing with a mature animal in the Skookum impression. Another error by Skookum proponents. The Achilles Heel truly is the achilles heel of the claim, and if the whole of the evidence were made available for public review, well that would become clear for all.

I'll soon be around elk every day for long periods at a time. I'm going to be around literally hundreds of beds and will be taking more photos and videos of beds and hopefully elk bedded down then I have ever done in my life. When I get back, we will hopefully dispel this charade of false claims that elk need to put their hind hooves under their bodies to bed down and rise. The truth of the matter is, that they will role onto and off their rumps to do so. The Skookum Cast is nothing but false evidence of bigfoot and does no benefit to the science that some claim is needed in the field. Sadly you have only hurt the larger cause and you don't even know it because of the blind belief you desire to pursue. And BTW, when you stop trying to prove bigfoot exists, you might have a meaningful encounter. That's what it means by 'on their terms'.

Derekfoot previously remarked in another thread on his displeasure that the evidence was basically hoarded by DDA and kept from a more open analysis. This is true and DDA does indeed selective share material and what he does, he quickly removes. Is this science? I don't think so. Sheesh DDA, if you really wanted the scientific value of the cast to be shared by science, you wouldn't hide so much. But your actions of keeping photos from the public under the reasons you claim don't really bode well for wanting to be science driven. Scientific discoveries don't keep certain parts secreted when the discoveries are touted to the world. Sounds fishy to me to not share all evidence of a claim.

[Guest StankApe]

Great post bravo sir! +1 to you!!

[Guest parnassus]

I haven't had any time to post lately but I have been following this and another thread where I can. Mulder & LAL, there are a few things you guys need to accept.

1) That Shaller is NOT an elk expert. His ungulate expertise mostly related to African ungulates. Whether you can accept it or not, they are not the same and they have different anatomies and behaviors.

2) Elk WILL bed down by rolling off their hind feet onto their rumps. And THAT is why there are NO hoof prints in the center of the impression where you want them to be in order for it to be an elk. I hope to have that proof soon so as to close this caveat out.

3) There has been no evidence presented or supported that the elk prints within the impression area occurred before the impression itself. Please explain how this is interpreted.

4) To date, quality photographs or videos of the entire scene have been withheld from public scrutiny. The impression itself is NOT sufficient evidence by itself as it is only a cross section of the rest of the tracks. Those tracks tell a story, specifically the elk tracks, a few of which WERE destroyed by those unusual pair of boot impressions. If you DDA, and Derekfoot want to talk good science here, well then detailed photographs of the scene should be made part of the evidence package. The photos DF provided me in the earlier thread were still blurry when blown up. I suspect DDA has quality photographs & video of the scene but won't share them openly because they will only add up to more evidence against the claim.

5) BTW, I also knew Leroy Fish but not too well or very long. I did not remember him initially in the Skookum discussion, but just kept it to myself when I recalled it to see where the discussion goes as far as his expertise and out of respect for him. I have noticed he is always referred to as a Wildlife Biologist such as on the bfro page, and never clarifying that his expertise wasn't large mammals. He offered his volunteer input to a project of mine on Oregon Rivers. A colorful guy. His biology focus was in fisheries and riverine ecology, not ungulates or mammals.

6) The reason there aren't more scientists willing to examine this evidence is because the evidence is 'selectively' shared. Any added photos that are shared, are quickly removed by DDA plus they are of poor resolution. Once again, I've offered to organized 3 State Wildlife Elk Biologists, one from WA and two from OR, but ONLY if they had access to ALL the evidence. I wouldn't even have known these individuals and would have to do the legwork finding candidates. But once again, the Impression itself is only a part of the evidence in that the tracks surrounding it are just as important. If proponents can't accept this, then they are being dishonest with themselves and others.

7) I have asked before as well, where is the video or photo documentation of the elk and other hairs as they are being meticulously removed from the impression? Where they came from and how they were impregnated in the mud are crucial as far as evidence goes. Why has this info never been shared?

I want to see some quality photos or video from when the impression was first discovered. Not images that blur up when you blow them up. Any more of that crap and its just more attempt to conceal evidence, and guys, that bad science!

9) No to belabor the point, but I'm not someone who doesn't believe sasquatch exists. I am an elk hunter I have seen sasquatch up close. I however will not push false evidence of their existence. The majority of tree breaks, like those seen at Skookum Meadows as a sign of bigfoot, were nothing but trees broken from the prior Winter's snow load. I too once thought these breaks were from bigfoot, but being objective in my observations taught me to discern the difference. There are other natural phenomenon out there that are being misidentified too. Some of it comes from people who have never seen a sasquatch themselves and merely want to find ways of establishing their expertise and insight into the creatures. The tree breaks at skookum meadows were nothing but a natural phenomenon, but some who did not have field savvy probably coupled with the pressure of tv film crews, and wanted them to be more. Again, I know what its like seeing meaning in these breaks because I first felt the same, until I took a good hard look at them as they were transformed under snow.

10) This 'levitating elk' claim is bull crap! If you guys knew anything about elk and their movements, well you would see it. You rely on so called experts that aren't actually elk experts. You rely on Meldrum when even he has not completely accepted its not elk. Mulder, scientists make mistakes ALL THE TIME. Meldrum is not an elk expert either. Shaller wasn't an elk expert. Fish wasn't an elk expert. All these people together WANTED it to be bigfoot and that was the driving impetus. It was Groupthink, everyone was analyzing the evidence in a vacuum. Any detractors were likely quietly overruled in favor of the group consensus. This was further established by omission of certain evidence in the analysis, such as a lack of detailed photographs of the scene to analyze by those who had a intimate knowledge of the species (elk) most likely to have caused the impression and tracks. Preventing this open process has been nothing short of a Selective Analysis.

11) Finally, the alleged Achilles Heel is also relying on Selective Analysis. This claim about curling is actually what you find on the side of an elk's leg and FITS exactly what you see in the impression. I'll make sure to cut a leg during this years hunt that matches that impression, that is assuming I fill my tag. There was something 'odd' about the elk leg that DDA used. For one thing, it was from a mature bull, and from the size of the impression, we don't seem to be dealing with a mature animal in the Skookum impression. Another error by Skookum proponents. The Achilles Heel truly is the achilles heel of the claim, and if the whole of the evidence were made available for public review, well that would become clear for all.

I'll soon be around elk every day for long periods at a time. I'm going to be around literally hundreds of beds and will be taking more photos and videos of beds and hopefully elk bedded down then I have ever done in my life. When I get back, we will hopefully dispel this charade of false claims that elk need to put their hind hooves under their bodies to bed down and rise. The truth of the matter is, that they will role onto and off their rumps to do so. The Skookum Cast is nothing but false evidence of bigfoot and does no benefit to the science that some claim is needed in the field. Sadly you have only hurt the larger cause and you don't even know it because of the blind belief you desire to pursue. And BTW, when you stop trying to prove bigfoot exists, you might have a meaningful encounter. That's what it means by 'on their terms'.

Derekfoot previously remarked in another thread on his displeasure that the evidence was basically hoarded by DDA and kept from a more open analysis. This is true and DDA does indeed selective share material and what he does, he quickly removes. Is this science? I don't think so. Sheesh DDA, if you really wanted the scientific value of the cast to be shared by science, you wouldn't hide so much. But your actions of keeping photos from the public under the reasons you claim don't really bode well for wanting to be science driven. Scientific discoveries don't keep certain parts secreted when the discoveries are touted to the world. Sounds fishy to me to not share all evidence of a claim.

I am glad you raised the issue of the hair: the image I have seen looks like a single old man hair that doesn't look wallowed on. And I haven't seen any images of the many elk hairs, which are likely muddy. Furthermore, it has been stated that it would be expected to find elk hair simply because elk inhabit the area. If that were true, then the number of elk hairs per sq ft would be the same outside the wallow as inside it. Was this idea tested by determining the concentration of elk hairs outside the wallow? I'll wager it wasnt.

Edited October 28, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest 127]

Excellent post PragmaticTheorist. (gave you a +1) I hope more proponents will take this stance in the future. If the goal is to legitimize the subject - this is how it will be done. As long as proponents accept these type of claims they will continue to occur. Seeking truth is much different than seeking anything that could be misconstrued - which is unfortunately routine in this subject.

Edited October 28, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

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

Credentials? No. Credibility? Well, you didn't have much (esp on this topic) to begin with...even less now.

[Guest]

Credentials? No. Credibility? Well, you didn't have much (esp on this topic) to begin with...even less now.

That's OK, if I ever need any I'll just pretend that I agree with something that Dr. Meldrum has stated and I'll be right as rain.

[Guest 127]

Credentials? No. Credibility? Well, you didn't have much (esp on this topic) to begin with...even less now.

This is humorous in that Saskeptics conclusions and opinions about bigfoot have been far more accurate than Meldrums. Can you show me one post where you can prove Saskeptics conclusions are wrong? I can easily point out many conclusions Meldrum had that were wrong about bigfoot. (snow walker huh? skookum wut? freeman hah!) So in this light - Saskeptic is a much better and more accurate and reliable/objective authority on bigfoot than Meldrum.

Edited October 28, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

This is humorous in that Saskeptics conclusions and opinions about bigfoot have been far more accurate than Meldrums.

Wrong. We can never know who's conclusions are "accurate". You (you) could say that they are more reasonable, but not more accurate. Sasquatch might be real and might not, and even if he is, we can never know if he made the skookum impression or not.

[Guest 127]

Wrong. We can never know who's conclusions are "accurate". You (you) could say that they are more reasonable, but not more accurate. Sasquatch might be real and might not, and even if he is, we can never know if he made the skookum impression or not.

Yes we can actually. In this case we can rule it out.

[Guest]

Yes we can actually. In this case we can rule it out.

Again, some people disagree. You'll get the hang of it.

[Guest 127]

I've noticed that proponents often take this stance with alleged evidence. Leave it unidentified pleeeassseee. Sometimes regarding claimed sasquatch evidence we can rule it out. Misidentification happens in this field of study quite often. This is another case of it. When a tenured professor continues to endorse something like this as most likely bigfoot, and rules out the obvious culprit - I start to question the credibility of other claims. In this case, it seems there is a positive identification of the impression but whatever you do, don't officially correct it. That's just not good bigfooting. Leave it ambiguous and don't look too deep or ask hard questions.

Meanwhile the root of evidence for sasquatch becomes exenterated. By meanies who search for truth.

[Guest parnassus]

Wrong. We can never know who's conclusions are "accurate". You (you) could say that they are more reasonable, but not more accurate. Sasquatch might be real and might not, and even if he is, we can never know if he made the skookum impression or not.

When you say "we", you are of course speaking for yourself only.

And it seems you are forever steeled against coming to a conclusion based on the evidence.

Duly noted.

[Guest LAL]

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.

Should I post this larger? The arrows darker? Can everybody see this?

The elk tracks were made before the impression, the coyote tracks after. The lower green circles show the possible imprints of the side of the hand with fingers, not hoof prints.

ETA these:

Edited October 29, 2011 by LAL