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

[Guest]

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.

By definition, conclusions are just that- conclusions. If we had video of the Skookum cast being made, then there would be no conclusions necessary, we would KNOW what created it. You've come to the conclusion that Bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence. That's not an unreasonable conclusion, but how can someone declare them "accurate"? We don't know for sure one way or the other. We can only come to conclusions based on the evidence.

[Guest Dr. Boogie]

Is The Skookum Cast Still Considered To Be A Potential Bigfoot Lay? The only real answer has to be both yes and no. Regardless of whether you distinguish between the lay person and those scientifically qualified or not you find differing opinions on it and it has struck my mind that those that want to believe in it do and those that don't want to believe in it don't, lay people and scientists alike.

In fact psychology appears to be playing a large role in the whole Skookum Cast history right from it's 'discovery'. Watch this video of the discovery from about the 1;25 mark.

Rick Noll explains his theory as to how the marks had been made presumably just after the idea first occurred to him. Rick sounds very confident when he explains his idea and it soon catches on and from that point onwards everybody explores his theory further and starts looking for evidence in alignment with his theory. That seems very typical of the way people behave in general when confronted by somebody who seems confident about his views, it's very easy to just assume that there must be a good reason behind somebody's apparent certainty and go along with it. I have learned though that in reality some people just have that ability to sound confident about virtually anything regardless of whether they actually have good reason for their confidence. I'm not implying that Rick Noll doesn't have good reason to be confident of his theory, just pointing out something I think was an important stage in how the Skookum Cast was investigated and presented from that moment on.

So rightly or wrongly Rick's idea was accepted to the degree that a huge cast was made and then transported at what must have been considerable effort. All those involved have now invested and committed themselves firmly in the pursuit if Rick's idea and are naturally more invested in a 'positive' outcome for their endeavours.

In terms of actual physical evidence I personally do and always have found the Skookum Cast to be very unconvincing. It just looks like a mish mash of animal sign in mud that could be interpreted in many different ways. One thing I'm confident of is that most people would find a decent set of Bigfoot prints much more convincing and definitely easier to relate to due to their biologically familiar shape.

So to people who already believe in Bigfoot it could still be considered a potential bigfoot lay but to anybody else it's not convincing enough and there are far more obvious explanations to satisfy themselves with as to it's probable origin.

[wolftrax]

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

Yep, the only one I'd like to see a closeup of is the bottom V slide, to see why they are saying it is headed up instead of down.

The elk tracks were made before the impression, the coyote tracks after.

How was the conclusion reached that the elk tracks were made before the impression?

The lower green circles show the possible imprints of the side of the hand with fingers, not hoof prints.

Have you ever seen closeups of those areas to see if they actually do show a hand with fingers?

These questions keep being asked, yet they are ignored and the only response is to just keep parrotting the same claims over and over again without any explanation. What becomes apparent is that nobody here knows the answer to them and probably won't, and these observations remain unsupported.

[Guest 127]

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.

Please do post a closeup of your claimed fingers area. (with no markings if possible) Do you know of any high res photos of the impression from above/ (can you post?) Thanks.

I've already shown you some of the elk tracks that occured "after" the fur impression.

[Guest 127]

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.

I think you make some great points in this post. I for one find Meldrum to be very charismatic and engaging in his presentations. I think this explains his popularity. I like the guy (which many might find hard to believe with my criticisms of his findings) and think he is a very nice gentleman. He's extremely politically correct.

of one of his presentations would be enjoyable to just about anyone, proponent or skeptic as long as they have interest in the subject. The part I'd like to see more challenged is the findings. The important scientific points. The stories are great, the presentation (of bigfoot) gets a 9.5 and the techniques of those telling the stories, misrepresenting common animal sign and those whom try to call the animals get a definite 9.4. The lacking part, isn't the culture or the lore at all. It is quite enjoyable. (including folks like me!) The lacking part is the real evidence. We can still have the stories and lore and culture without having completely bogus evidence presented and accepted. That is all.

.

In his presentation I picked up on something when he

. A "half track". I think what he doesnt realize is that most likely that big rock right before the imprint probably stopped the stomper from making the impression at the heel, and the front of the foot shows the angle. His theory

is laughable. Listen to his explanation about the untouched soil in between the ball of the foot and the toes. Hilarious

I like his description of the Patterson tracks. Fits with a certain theory of mine

Edited October 29, 2011 by 127

[Guest LAL]

Best I can do for an image of the actual Skookum cast. I suggest buying the book and other sources (such as the WCS 2003 DVD) and being nice to the two eyewitnesses who have been gracious enough to answer questions. I suggest reading the answers.

[wolftrax]

I would suggest posting images and evidence of the areas you claim indicate it is not an elk if you want to convince people, when so far everything shown indicates it is an elk.

[Guest LAL]

Now, what part of this mess is supposed to be hoofprints at the end of an elk's hind legs? Where was that properly placed front print again?

[Guest]

Once again LAL, if higher resolution photographs of the scene were made available, well then a better delineation of prints would be possible. But I suspect that some don't want this to take place.

Either way, at the bottom of the cast, there are a number of deep impressions visible. What is their topography? Unfortunately we don't know, although a few of them within the cast do bare resemblance to elk hooves as they slide forward to stand. Hard to tell though with what is allowed for us to analyze.

Plus, at the very bottom edge of the cast, there are what appears to be edges of possible hooves. There may also be hoof remnant on the bottom left quadrant of the impression, but unfortunately once again we don't have adequate material to analyze. Same goes for where the front hooves may be. Without detailed photographs of the scene, and the cast, that assessment can't be accurately made can it? Hence the flaw with the present and long term analysis of the Skookum cast.

[Guest]

Yes, unless the ground was frozen, then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?

But the rear hooves are within the lay, and the Skookum impression was formed after the body heat of the mammal melted the mud. The video thus affirms Meldrum's hypothesis.

[wolftrax]

Now, what part of this mess is supposed to be hoofprints at the end of an elk's hind legs? Where was that properly placed front print again?

You already know where they are, the areas that you covered up. Strange, I don't see hand or fingerprints there.

Edited October 30, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest StankApe]

But the rear hooves are within the lay, and the Skookum impression was formed after the body heat of the mammal melted the mud. The video thus affirms Meldrum's hypothesis.

Hmmm, the bio mechanics of this seem to not really be possible. Heavy hair cover helps insulate an animal and cut down on it's heat loss. if the Bigfoot laid down and ate only half an apple (and I forgot what the estimated size was so cut me a little slack here) and was... 7 feet tall and 400 pounds, It would eat half an apple in pretty much no time, I would think that it would eat an apple faster than it could melt a frozen ground to an extent that it would leave a cast that deep. (especially near a road if it's as elusive as suspected). It's not snow we are discussing here, but rather hard frozen ground. Frozen hard enough to keep there from being any prints from a critter this big correct? (and also the argument that all the elk prints were earlier before the ground froze) I have laid on hard frozen ground in the army in a jacket that kept me reasonably warm and I didn't thaw through anything. i submit that any fur that allowed enough heat loss as to allow that sginficant of a melt in hard ground in that short amount of time would probably be ineffective against sub freezing temperatures and the critters would probably be perpetually in hypothermia....

Now, If an elk were to lay there for a longer period of time It MAY be able to melt throught it ... but it still seems like it would take a bit (long enough to have eaten most of the food I imagine) so i doubt an elk was sitting there on frozen ground long enough to melt it either .

Which brings us to possiblity number 3. The ground was soft frozen on the surface when the bait got dropped off and/or last checked . An elk came and lay down and ate on the food. It may have heard something approach and it got up and left. It may have even come back to graze some more and got startled by the team. Or a bigfoot laid on soft ground and thawed it but left without leaving any tracks. at all.... which sounds unlikely too.

[Guest LAL]

Sometimes it helps to look at things upside down to get away from preconceptions.

Corner of 127's diagram and corner of Rick's photo:

I don't see hoofprints there. The shapes that are colored in in orange don't look at all like that in the original photo.

[Guest]

Heavy hair cover helps insulate an animal and cut down on it's heat loss.

Hair cuts down on heat loss, it doesn't eliminate heat loss. Snuggle a sheep dog and feel the warmth.

if the Bigfoot laid down and ate only half an apple (and I forgot what the estimated size was so cut me a little slack here) and was... 7 feet tall and 400 pounds, It would eat half an apple in pretty much no time, I would think that it would eat an apple faster than it could melt a frozen ground to an extent that it would leave a cast that deep. (especially near a road if it's as elusive as suspected).

A 500-lb elk would eat an apple slower?

It's not snow we are discussing here, but rather hard frozen ground.

Frozen mud. As I recall the temperature at the camp was reported to have dipped to 28F that night.

Frozen hard enough to keep there from being any prints from a critter this big correct? (and also the argument that all the elk prints were earlier before the ground froze)

Probably not in all locations. Dr. Fish left a partial boot print shown in the Cast. The impression was near the edge of the mud puddle, with the outer edge being less receptive to taking imprints. The team covered the impression to shade it from the morning sun to prevent melting prior to casting.

I have laid on hard frozen ground in the army in a jacket that kept me reasonably warm and I didn't thaw through anything.

Try that on a mud puddle only 4-degrees below freezing and let us know how it goes.

i submit that any fur that allowed enough heat loss as to allow that sginficant of a melt in hard ground in that short amount of time would probably be ineffective against sub freezing temperatures and the critters would probably be perpetually in hypothermia....

The apples were left out for about 3 or 4 hours, as I recall. That some warm-blooded organism left the impression is beyond dispute, so one had to have been there long enough to melt the mud.

Sometimes it helps to look at things upside down to get away from preconceptions.

Corner of 127's diagram and corner of Rick's photo:

I don't see hoofprints there. The shapes that are colored in in orange don't look at all like that in the original photo.

Are you implying that a so-called skeptic fabricated evidence?

Who created the the mult-colored graphic with the hoof prints dubbed in?

[Guest LAL]

(and I forgot what the estimated size was so cut me a little slack here) and was... 7 feet tall and 400 pounds,

8-9'. I don't recall an estimated weight but will try to find one.