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

[Guest]

Slippage, possibly? And I did look at other pics of chimp/gorilla feet, and noticed that on some the hair cover does extend considerably, but it *appears* to me at least, from the admittedly small illustration, that the hair flow shown extends around the purported calcaneus to what should be the hairless sole. I will admit that it is a hard call to make, with a fair amount of "eyeballing" involved. I will admit that I lean toward elk lay, but I am still on the fence...but the *possibly* overextended or inconsistent hair cover over the purported heel are yet other reasons why I am reluctant to accept the lay as a primate trace...<shrug> But hey, what do I know, I am just an armchair footer, right?

[CMBigfoot]

Some Skookum Cast facts according to the BFRO and my opinions.

 

Sept. 21, 2000- Randles and Fish both hear a distant return call coming from south of base camp. My opinion they probably heard a coyote.

 

Between 2:30am and 3:30am Randles and Fish place fruit piles. One fruit pile in the general direction where the vocalization (coyote?) was heard.

 

Sept. 22, 2000- Near 9:00am Randles, Fish, and Noll check bait sites. They find elk, deer, bear, and fresh coyote tracks. No distinct Sasquatch tracks. Missing and chewed fruit. And one unusual impression.

 

My opinion of the impression found is 99% from an elk, 1% from any combination of the four known animals that were there, and 0% from a Bigfoot.

 

The apple pieces are collected prior to casting for DNA analysis (No results); because quote-" it is noted that an elk, deer, coyote, etc., would probably have eaten the entire apple and not spewed out the seeds or core" end quote.

 

This is not true at all. It is a fact the deer that visit my apple tree don't always eat the entire apple. Sometimes they just take a bite or eat half the apple.

 

Hair Samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. Henner Fahrenbach analyzed some hairs and claims to have identified a single specimen, which he believes belongs to a Sasquatch. Although he admits this identification is very tentative and impossible to test.

 

My opinion is the single hair is probably from one of the men at the site.

[BobbyO]

I would be surprised if Derek Randles misheard a Coyote personally.

And I base that on his field time of listening to animals like Coyote's which I think would run into the hundreds if not thousands.

I may be wrong.

[Guest]

In 45+ years of woods runnin' I've NEVER seen where an elk bedded down right next to a road. Logging road, paved forest road mainline, or highway......never. I guess it could happen, but then a bigfoot could happen by to boost a couple apples too.  Hindsight gives us the luxury of better execution of the apple deployment, evidence documentation, but sadly, what was recorded is all we have available. They did their best, no accusations here, but the cast won't convince some people. To go to either side of the discussion and state for certain which theory (elk or bigfoot) is correct is a reach. 

[CMBigfoot]

According to the BFRO site.

 

Sept. 16, 2000- Coyote close to base camp during night, retreats to nearby canyon, yips & barks.

 

Sept. 17, 2000- Native mammals and spoor observed- coyote.

 

Sept. 18, 2000- Distant coyote howl & yips across creek canyon.

 

Sept. 19, 2000- Return call sounded similar to broadcast vocalization. Coyote?

 

Sept. 20, 2000- Several coyotes began howling from different locations.

 

Sept. 21, 2000- Randles and Fish both hear a distant  return call coming from south of base camp. No further sounds heard.

                          Placed one fruit pile in general direction where vocalization was heard.

 

Sept. 22, 2000- Find fresh coyote tracks and later coyote hair from the cast.

 

 

So according to the BFRO coyotes were in the area everyday. That's why I think they probably heard a coyote. But I don't know I wasn't there and I could be 100% wrong.

 

 

John T,

 

I've seen a herd of elk bedded down on the Butte ML in Clackamas County, Oregon.

Edited August 5, 2015 by CMBigfoot

[Guest DWA]

The elk-lay crowd prefers the idea that a flying elk levitated into the mud, landed on one of its front knees, twisted sideways to imprint its hind quarters, bit the apple, and then levitated away.

 

I don't see what's so hard about this.  It's an obvious answer.

 

Yes, there are elk prints in the mud, but there appears to be an important lack of elk prints in the mud where the supposed elk would have needed to place its feet in order to rise or lay.

 

The funniest part of ^^that is that they'll *actually show* sequences that they think substantiate that Skookum's an elk...and the sequence shows the elk leaving prints that don't occur in the Skookum cast, i.e., right under the elk.

 

There is simply no way that 'elk' stands up...but apes have been observed feeding in zoos iin a posture that supports the imprint.

 

Denial is a very very powerful thing, Anton.

[Guest Crowlogic]

The Skookum cast is to bigfoot evidence as a Flexible Flyer sled is evidence of Santa Clause.

There is simply no way that 'elk' stands up...but apes have been observed feeding in zoos iin a posture that supports the imprint.

 

Denial is a very very powerful thing, Anton.

Apes spend most of their time sitting.  How did the prone bigfoot leave the site without leaving footprints? How did it get there without leaving footprints?  

Edited August 5, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest]

Paved road.......

[Guest Crowlogic]

Paved road.......

Oh OK what was I thinking.........and it stayed on the road?  It left no muddy foot prints on the paved road when it left?  Was the paved road a heavily traveled road that might have wiped away prints it may have left?  Seem it had to leave the paved road in order to wallow in the mud or else we'd have no Skookum cast.  

[Martin]

In 45+ years of woods runnin' I've NEVER seen where an elk bedded down right next to a road. Logging road, paved forest road mainline, or highway......never

Elk don't lay down next to the road?

But bigfoot, the most elusive creature in the world, does lay down by the road?

Do elk woller in the mud for various reasons? Yes

If mud is next to the road then why wouldn't he lay in it?

Is "bedding down" the same as laying in the mud?

[norseman]

Elk tracks around the lay but not within the lay itself seals it for me that its not an Elk. Daris Swindler thought it was a giant biped. I could accept a Bear because if you have ever baited Bear they tend to just mash everything down around the bait site.

But Randles says no to a bear, I wasnt there, but a skeptical primatologist from a major university (swindler) proclaimed it to be a authentic Sasquatch body cast.......... you would think this would make a few skeptics sit up and take notice. But no such luck.

Its gonna take a body, so the next time you set up a Sasquatch bait sight? Be prepared to sit on it all night long. Preferrably with a large caliber rifle and a light source, nightvision or IR. If in Washington buy your small game license and if asked tell the game warden your hunting coyote which is legal at night. If he balks at your caliber selection tell him its your elk rifle and your just plain attached to it.

[MrSkwatch]

I was watching a few videos of elk using wallows and I noticed that sometimes they roll onto their back. Could it be possible an elk does this and rolls completely out of the wallow before standing?

[MIB]

^^^ Yes, it could, but, just like the horses we had when I was growing up

which would do that, an elk would leave a body-wide "track" where it rolled

over. Just as an elk can't walk in mud without leaving foot tracks, it can't

scoot on its back or roll on its back in mud without leaving "back tracks."

So ... good question, but not one that provides a useful / viable explanation.

I can't say with great certainty that the Skookum Cast was from a bigfoot.

I can say with great certainty it wasn't an elk. Attempts to explain it away

have to look elsewhere.

MIB

Edited August 6, 2015 by MIB

[MrSkwatch]

Thanks MIB, that makes sense.

[MIB]

Couple other thoughts ...

1. An elk isn't going to lie on its back to eat apples. If an elk got

them, there still should be very clear hoof tracks from it doing so.

2. Elk are sloppy eaters when it comes to apples. There should have

been saliva trails and some crushed apple pieces on the ground. Large

animals like horses and elk have to be careful to break an apple up

with their front teeth before swallowing else they risk choking. Dad

always made us step on the apples and break them into irregular shapes

before feeding our horses.

3. A bull elk on its back leaves clear antler point impressions in the

mud/dirt. No such were reported. I'm pretty sure that would have been

a dead giveaway to several of the guys present who were hunters.

MIB