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

[CMBigfoot]

Ive been a hunter all my life and Ive never seen a deer bed down in a mud wallow. a trail or a road are general hard packed because humans are driving heavy objects on them. mud wallows are soft, which is exactly the reason why they left the fruit there in the first place!

 

Hi Norseman,

 

You say you've been a hunter all your life and have never seen a deer bed down in a mud wallow. You've also said you have never seen a bigfoot either. So what does that mean? 

 

I've personally never seen a deer bed down in a mud wallow either. The deer I saw bedded down on my atv trail was on loose dirt and it didn't leave any tracks in its bed. 

 

I'm very open to the possibility that it could have been a black bear, but I'm still at 0% for a bigfoot.

[norseman]

I think it's an elk because I can clearly see the impressions made by elk or an elk like creature. Exactly like the animated gif. In my opinion it is a near exact match.

The cast was full of elk hair.

Like you have experience with elk I have experience with people:

Brian Smith, who once upon a time was a respectd, active and trusted researcher in this field, worked with Noll and possibly Randles tells a compelling story. He knows them much better than internet bigfoot buddies.

Peel then onion.

As i said earlier elk were using this wallow so it stands to reason that if was full of elk hair.

If i put fruit in your bath tub that you have used for years and a bear comes along and eats the fruit out of it? who's hair sample are we going to find more readily? And there was one unidentified hair associated with the skookum cast. But just one.

Which stands to reason for me.

[norseman]

Hi Norseman,

 

You say you've been a hunter all your life and have never seen a deer bed down in a mud wallow. You've also said you have never seen a bigfoot either. So what does that mean? 

 

I've personally never seen a deer bed down in a mud wallow either. The deer I saw bedded down on my atv trail was on loose dirt and it didn't leave any tracks in its bed. 

 

I'm very open to the possibility that it could have been a black bear, but I'm still at 0% for a bigfoot.

Not sure what your driving at.......what does what mean?

Look at it this way.........lets say that the animal exists.

your at zero with bigfoot because we have no proof. In order to get proof we proponents have to provide it, our time is valuable and so we have to look at the evidence with a different eye than most.

Boiled down to brass tacks? We have two scientists saying that a sasquatch was at this lay (Swindler and Farenbach) I personally am convinced it was not an elk. So I would dare to say that Im going to go hunt the creature in the Gifford Pinchot NF? As opposed to following a report of Sasquatch dumpster diving behind a MacDonalds in Trenton, NJ.....

I have to set myself up for success, and the skookum cast is not just another hoo hum report. It might be a known animal........but it might not be. If proof is what you seek? It certainly is an area of interest.

[Rockape]

Also, I've seen a lot of back and forth about why no prints of either elk or sasquatch nearby but JohnT had noted that there is a paved road nearby, so I think the talk of prints for any animal going to or from the wallow is irrelevant.

It's my understanding there were Elk tracks (and coyote) all around the "skookum cast site", just none in the cast itself. Is that wrong?

[norseman]

No.

[Bodhi]

It's my understanding there were Elk tracks (and coyote) all around the "skookum cast site", just none in the cast itself. Is that wrong?

JohnT stated that there was a paved road.

 

I've also seen this written about the tracks though (lifting a quote here could be from BFRO but I'm not certain, so please keep that in mind)

Sept. 21, 2000- Randles and Fish both hear a distant return call coming from south of base camp.

Between 2:30am and 3:30am Randles and Fish place fruit piles. One fruit pile in the general direction where the vocalization 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.

 

Not sure if they mean directly in the elk wallow or if they mean immediately outside or what....

[Martin]

As i said earlier elk were using this wallow so it stands to reason that if was full of elk hair.

If i put fruit in your bath tub that you have used for years and a bear comes along and eats the fruit out of it? who's hair sample are we going to find more readily? And there was one unidentified hair associated with the skookum cast. But just one.

Which stands to reason for me.

Are you aware that Henner F. mis-identified hair from known hoaxes as sasquatch? He classified this one hair as uncertain. He even said it could have come from one of the people doing the casting.

Im taking nothing away from the Dr. He was a fine man and honestly gave his opinion.

One of the problems with bigfootery is that everyday is like the movie "Ground Hog Day"... No progress can be made when footers creditential evidence as being valid when it is not even close.

Another reason I believe the cast is not a bigfoot is because there was no sign of bigfoot in the area except one hair that, in Henner's words could have come from one of the people on site.

The links to his direct statements are in the previous pages of this very thread.

Is the "noise" keeping people from grasping this simple fact. That's what I call ground hog day.... the person who you speak for (Henner) was unsure but proponents continue putting words in his mouth.

Beside being plain disrespectful to Henner......the next newbie is going to come along and read these statements and start saying " Well Henner Fahenbach identified the hair from the Skookum Cast as being from a sasquatch....". and claim that everyone is ignoring science.... duh

Edited August 6, 2015 by Martin

[Bodhi]

So if there is copious elk hair found, why no sasquatch hair/fur?

 

Not to be snarky but everything points to an elk (IMO). Norse states that there were tracks, the BFRO (maybe) says that there were tracks of prosaic animals and elk hair is found IN THE IMPRESSION ITSELF. JohnT claimed paved road but????

In any event:

The impression has been shown to fit the profile of an elk and yet some insist a fantastic animal/ the impression had lots of elk hair imbedding within it so why NOT an elk? How can one ignore the prosaic and insist a completely unknown animal created the impression and yet left no prints to or from and not a single hair in the wallow/impression? How is sasquatch the reasonable thought?

[CMBigfoot]

Sept. 16-23 is coming up pretty soon, so I think it could be fun to get a group of BFF members and some of the original Skookum Expedition members together for a Skookum Expedition 2.0. The original expedition members could show us what they did and where and repeat it. Except I would like to set my FLIR at one of the mudhole/bait sites. Who knows maybe I'll learn something new to change my mind?

[Martin]

^

I could be wrong but I believe they had thermal on the original skookum expedition.

If memory serves they picked up a residual signature on the ground from some distance away.

[Rockape]

The BFRO report itself says there were Elk tracks along with several other animals, however it does say they were "old tracks".

 

 

Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote. The most obvious fresh tracks were coyote and undetermined deep marks

 

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

[norseman]

Are you aware that Henner F. mis-identified hair from known hoaxes as sasquatch? He classified this one hair as uncertain. He even said it could have come from one of the people doing the casting.

Im taking nothing away from the Dr. He was a fine man and honestly gave his opinion.

One of the problems with bigfootery is that everyday is like the movie "Ground Hog Day"... No progress can be made when footers creditential evidence as being valid when it is not even close.

Another reason I believe the cast is not a bigfoot is because there was no sign of bigfoot in the area except one hair that, in Henner's words could have come from one of the people on site.

The links to his direct statements are in the previous pages of this very thread.

Is the "noise" keeping people from grasping this simple fact. That's what I call ground hog day.... the person who you speak for (Henner) was unsure but proponents continue putting words in his mouth.

Beside being plain disrespectful to Henner......the next newbie is going to come along and read these statements and start saying " Well Henner Fahenbach identified the hair from the Skookum Cast as being from a sasquatch....". and claim that everyone is ignoring science.... duh

Duh? We are not talking proof here, so you dont have to man the fortress walls so viciously.

Sasquatch is an unidentified animal, and so is the hair because it lacks a medulla. But its not a human hair because it was worn away and not cut.

So its ok to say "we dont know". But a anthropologist of Swindler's reputation stating a large biped made it? Because of the heel imprint? Is better than most reports from a proponents point of view you understand.

Would we rather just have the heel itself? Absolutely.

[BigTreeWalker]

Sept. 16-23 is coming up pretty soon, so I think it could be fun to get a group of BFF members and some of the original Skookum Expedition members together for a Skookum Expedition 2.0. The original expedition members could show us what they did and where and repeat it. Except I would like to set my FLIR at one of the mudhole/bait sites. Who knows maybe I'll learn something new to change my mind?

That's archery elk season this year. Maybe I'll see you out there when I hunting one of those elk that supposedly made that impression. And maybe we'll find more tooth impression evidence as well. ;-)

[CMBigfoot]

 

I don't know, looking at a bigger picture of the area sure makes me think an elk made the impression and not a bigfoot.

 

 

[Trogluddite]

Well, someone else hit my observation that if elk won't bed down by a road, why would the ninja-of-the-forest do so?  There is a thread somewhere in the premium section where (former, I believe) BFF member Desert Yeti has a detailed analysis of the cast and outlining the case for it being an elk wallow.  I'd suggest that people new to the topic (cough up the $20.00 and) wander on over to the premium section to browse that thread.