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

[wolftrax]

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.

Do you see hand or finger prints there?

[Guest]

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

Hmm . . . that's not very cold, and it probably wasn't that cold for more than a few hours, right? Doesn't seem cold enough to freeze mud solid, just leave it a bit frosty. I wonder if the temperature of the mud is a red herring here and it was really just fine-scale variability in moisture/texture that left some spots softer and some sports more firm?

The apples were left out for about 3 or 4 hours, as I recall.

What's the probability that the thing that left the impression is the thing that ate the apples? Coyotes eat apples, and there are coyote prints in the cast, right? A raccoon could've come for some apples too, and maybe been too small to live imprints. Have the investigators established how they ruled out the role of these or other species that might have visited that puddle that night?

[Guest]

LAL, those two 'finger drags' referred to are merely where an elk drug its hoof across there. Follow the tracks. But once again, if better quality photographs & video had ever been available, the remainder of this mystery would be solved. I realize you tried to help offer better photos in one of those past threads, but unfortunately we aren't getting the best from the source itself. If the cast proponents want this so called evidence to be taken seriously, well they need to submit the remainder of collateral evidence to equal scrutiny. That has never happened.

This isn't simply a witness claim. Instead its a claim of physical evidence, and yet the whole of the evidence isn't shared. Why? It just doesn't make sense. Why is it like pulling teeth to simply examine high quality photographs of the area surrounding the impression? Not even the ones Derekfoot provided me would be considered that as they became pixelated once you enlarged them. Its like nobody wants such material to be subject to examination.

[Guest 127]

LAL, maybe you should ask Mr Noll to post some high res photos (i already know its an elk lay) of the mud area (before casting) and some high res of the cast after. There are actually many more elk prints that are only partially visible, some due to boot prints and some due to the elks impression over them.

You like the lighting on the scan you posted I'm sure, but maybe we can see some high res photos and see the details of those spots. ;-)

Edited October 31, 2011 by 127

[Guest StankApe]

meh, let it go people. it's probably a mis- ID. You will never know if it's a Bigfoot or not and if you cant KNOW it's a Bigfoot or not it's usefulness as evidence is zero.

Stick to the better evidence, the mass amount of sightings and the footprint evidence. IMO, these two things are far more compelling than mud lays and fake suit videos made 40 years ago...

I really think people have to be seeing SOMETHING , but by chasing your tails in circles over evidence that AT BEST is just merely a suggestion of Bigfoot you are getting further and further away from the things that could matter eventually.

[Guest LAL]

LAL, maybe you should ask Mr Noll to post some high res photos (i already know its an elk lay) of the mud area (before casting) and some high res of the cast after. There are actually many more elk prints that are only partially visible, some due to boot prints and some due to the elks impression over them.

You like the lighting on the scan you posted I'm sure, but maybe we can see some high res photos and see the details of those spots. ;-)

Why should I ask Rick Noll to post anything? The picture I posted is his (read the book for how it was done). I don't see how the full sized original could be posted on the Net but maybe it could.

How about you post a high res original of the picture you colored in without your additions so we can read the fine print and see exactly what it was meant to show. Credit would be good too.

ETA: I only see Dr. Fish's bootprints near the impression from when he nearly stepped on it. Perhaps you can find more and color them in for us.

Edited October 31, 2011 by LAL

[Guest]

You actually got 3 different boot prints there and they may not be from the same person. I've pointed this out in a past thread. Look closely at the V patterns from the left side of the left boot to the rectangle lugs on the middle one and then the two X's in the lower right print. Of course maybe each of these are the same boot if the cause is lighting and poor resolution, but we can't even differentiate that from what photos are allowed to be assessed. A ten year old problem some don't seem to want solved.

BTW, if anyone is interested, I've got my newest blog post published. Please make no comments in this thread however as I don't want to derail with off topic discussion. Have a hot cup of coffee on hand tho cause its a long one.

Edited October 31, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[wolftrax]

Why should I ask Rick Noll to post anything? The picture I posted is his (read the book for how it was done). I don't see how the full sized original could be posted on the Net but maybe it could.

How about you post a high res original of the picture you colored in without your additions so we can read the fine print and see exactly what it was meant to show. Credit would be good too.

He did when he first posted it a few days ago. You were there, but you probably forgot.

ETA: I only see Dr. Fish's bootprints near the impression from when he nearly stepped on it. Perhaps you can find more and color them in for us.

Funny how you keep lecturing people on continually giving credit for images, and then at the same time post an image without giving credit. Pot, meet kettle?

And I can see no images will be posted with closeups to show any hand or fingerprints. No images of elk lays to support the claim that elk have to put their hooves within the impression to rise. No closeups of the elk tracks to show how it was concluded what direction they were traveling in. No support for the conclusions reached.

[Guest LAL]

In case anyone missed it I posted the link to the source (Thom Powell's blog) of the "Close up of the impression prior to casting, with outline added by Noll to highlight forearm just above thigh impression (center) and heel mark (lower right). Note also finger marks and apple remains (upper right edge of photo) in this post.

PT, there's a rather distinctive "X" in the tread impressions on both bootprints nearest the impression. I think that indicates they're a pair.

Since 127 seems to have left us while he writes his article maybe the poster who originally posted what I think is one of Rick Noll's diagrams showing transiting elk tracks before 127 joined us can come up with a larger, better resolution copy. I can't read the print even on my biggest, best screen and have been unable to find anything on the Net. If I blow it up it just pixelates.

[wolftrax]

In case anyone missed it I posted the link to the source (Thom Powell's blog) of the "Close up of the impression prior to casting, with outline added by Noll to highlight forearm just above thigh impression (center) and heel mark (lower right). Note also finger marks and apple remains (upper right edge of photo) in this post.

Just as when he originally posted the image with his interpretation of the added hoof prints he said he used the diagram. Fingerprints? You have a closeup of that image, or that it's not elk hooves dragging?

PT, there's a rather distinctive "X" in the tread impressions on both bootprints nearest the impression. I think that indicates they're a pair.

Since 127 seems to have left us while he writes his article maybe the poster who originally posted what I think is one of Rick Noll's diagrams showing transiting elk tracks before 127 joined us can come up with a larger, better resolution copy. I can't read the print even on my biggest, best screen and have been unable to find anything on the Net. If I blow it up it just pixelates.

So apparently you know what the source of the image is, and just how you don't credit the photos each time you post you realize it is a bit redundant to do so. No, I don't have a higher resolution of that image, and it's not likely one will be posted. DDA was pretty upset that I reposted that image after he put it up and took it back down again, probably because it shot the whole contention that elk couldn't have made the impression full of truck sized holes.

So how about those images of the hand and fingerprints, comparative elk lays, etc.? Again, probably not going to happen, instead it's going to continue for the next few pages with petty arguments over crediting the same images we've all seen hundreds of times and how those who have seen reasonable evidence that the impression was made by an elk are hostile against bigfoot. We've seen this same sort of behavior in politics, hang the evidence, just paint the opposition as the bad guy, it's easier that way.

Edited November 1, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest Kerchak]

Again, probably not going to happen, instead it's going to continue for the next few pages with petty arguments over crediting the same images we've all seen hundreds of times and how those who have seen reasonable evidence that the impression was made by an elk are hostile against bigfoot. We've seen this same sort of behavior in politics, hang the evidence, just paint the opposition as the bad guy, it's easier that way.

Which was only brought up in the first place because there was a lot of finger pointing aimed at the proponents regarding their emotions and motives beforehand. Their honesty and integrity was being called into question by some. I thought it was only fair to mention the behaviour and mindset of particular detractors. I just tried to balance it out. Nothing wrong with that. At all.

Did you complain when just the proponents were being picked on calling it "petty"? No you didn't. You didn't have a problem with it. But now just because your buddy was (quite rightly)exposed to the newbies here as somebody who has openly mocked and ridiculed "woo" researchers on another website you don't seem to like it and you are now complaining about it being "petty"???

Edited November 1, 2011 by Kerchak

[wolftrax]

Yeah, it is petty. Worblewski made comparisons to real elk that made it so apparent that was what we are looking at. Every anatomical detail matched. And when that was done those who promote the cast did not provide evidence to support their claims that an elk couldn't have done it, instead they cried like little girls, and that is the only defense that is used today. Experts words are used, but an expert would know it is not their word but the data to support it that matters. No data. No closeup images of hand or finger prints claimed, not one answer or image supporting how many lays were examined to determine that an elk can only place their hooves within the impression to rise. No closeups of the tracks to show how direction of travel was determined, no reasoning given for how the age of the tracks and the impression were arrived at. No gorilla impressions to compare. Just crying that Worblewski and others are killing sasquatch. Wah.

[Guest 127]

If DDA is willing to share, I think we would all love to see some high res photos to see some details on what is really there. I can't see any reason for not sharing unless you don't want people to see that detail. I'm sure someone there documented the entire thing well before and after the casting process.

[Guest]

Appx what time was daylight that morning? If they left the apples around 3 am, that seems like a pretty short amount of time for a coyote, a BF, and an elk to all converge on the same spot right next to the road. Were the apples sealed, and rubber gloves used to set them out? It just seems to me that if BF's are smart enough to be self-aware that they make tracks, and would go through the tedious process of crawling up to the apples, that they would also be smart enough to know that they were obviously placed there for a reason, by humans, and avoid that area at altogether. Let alone the fact that they would've had to know there were people nearby in the first place. Huge risk=Little reward. Not saying that it wasn't a BF, but it just doesn't seem likely to me.

I've never really paid too much attention to the parties involved, but how many wildlife professionals were there, and what did they have to say about the impression before

Noll's theory was unveiled?

[Guest StankApe]

Appx what time was daylight that morning? If they left the apples around 3 am, that seems like a pretty short amount of time for a coyote, a BF, and an elk to all converge on the same spot right next to the road. Were the apples sealed, and rubber gloves used to set them out? It just seems to me that if BF's are smart enough to be self-aware that they make tracks, and would go through the tedious process of crawling up to the apples, that they would also be smart enough to know that they were obviously placed there for a reason, by humans, and avoid that area at altogether. Let alone the fact that they would've had to know there were people nearby in the first place. Huge risk=Little reward. Not saying that it wasn't a BF, but it just doesn't seem likely to me.

I've never really paid too much attention to the parties involved, but how many wildlife professionals were there, and what did they have to say about the impression before

Noll's theory was unveiled?

Alright... If you are hungry and in the woods, do you think "i might leave prints I should shimmy up to the apples!" No... The immense amount of prints would say that they seem to not be too concerned with leaving them! You can't pick and choose the evidence that suits you! If Bigfoot haphazardly leaves prints in substrate that allows prints then there is no reason to assume that in the case of the Skookum Cast it suddenly got Print aware.. That's trying to twist the facts to suit an agenda and it's bad science... Sorry, but it's just awful science!

IMO, the logical answer is that it's an elk. So what? Bigfoot is now a phoney? Nope. The dismissal of bad evidence is equally if not more important than a debate over what could be great evidence. In fact I would state that removing the chaffe doth giveth the flock a greater chance at finding the wheat of the matter