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

[Guest Cervelo]

Thx Kit!

[Guest]

true enough and the 4 by 4 thing seems of invention of the MABRC from their we get evidence everytime period.

There are sightings where they have been observed in the prone position. There is a reason soldiers and hunters use the prone position, high and low crawls for movement,,,because it works. I think Sasquatch are quite capable of doing whatever they need to remain hidden if they choose. But in this case I just don't see one exposing itself for a few pieces of fruit no matter how it got to the spot.

[Guest LAL]

This whole thread is worth reading.

""Notes on comparing the Skookum Cast to an Ungulate and a primate

Heel and Achilles tendon versus Elk Wrist

The heel and Achilles tendon area on the Skookum cast are what elk proponents are indicating as an ungulate wrist, from the front leg. This wrist is a rear-bending joint, covered in the same type of short thick and hollow hair flowing in a downward direction towards the hooves on the elk. When it bends, it places the hoof in a rearward facing direction with the plantar portion of the two toes against the ground when lying down. The hoof is made from different material than the rest of the limb and shows easily this differentiation when placed in wet soil. It is like the difference between your own fingernail and that of the surrounding skin of the finger.

The Skookum cast does not contain these hoof marks at the end of the Achilles tendon area. The cast shows that this appendage is being forced in an almost straight up and down or perpendicular aspect in respect to the ground surface. This section also contains a marked difference in surface detailing from the rest of the impression that shows it to be covered in thin, 2†long hair. The Achilles tendon shows very fine hair markings but this pattern stops short when reaching the supposed heel. The heel area contains what looks more like skin folds, creases and dermatoglyphics than that of a continuation of hair.

A large dismembered elk leg was obtained for experimentation and it was shown that the hair on it continued similarly throughout the impacting surface. The hair was also of different length and texture than that on the cast, but more importantly, the elk leg clearly showed joint protuberances when placed in duplicating substrate material (play-do). These are not present in the Skookum cast or the impression it came out of.

Elk proponents have depicted a likely body posture in that this foreleg is bent towards the side of the body and not straight down. Investigators have collected reclining elk limb impressions where this limb was bent to the side on live animals and it clearly shows a curled look at the joint location. This is not visible in the cast, indicating once again that these were struck almost straight on with the ground. For an elk to have done this, these sections would have had to be under the main chest cavity and also below a very heavy head. This would most certainly have impressed the entire leg into the surface, down to the hooves.

“Vâ€

There is another area on the cast that looks like a sharp “V†and that the elk proponents are claiming indicate the placement of the front and rear hooves in a sideways reclining prone body posture. Investigators have looked at this area and determined that it is not a part of the overall impression. It clears shows ridged grooves running it’s entire length, is too sharp of a “V†to have been created by a prone ungulates front and rear hooves and most likely is where an ungulate place a hoofed leg while standing or walking and slipped twice into the same hole or soft spot, sliding the hoof along the surface.

This “V†detail was made before the rest of the main impression body, as indicated by overlaying surface details. It does not contain any indication that it was made with a parallel to the ground elk leg.

Rear Legs versus lower arm

The rear portion of the cast depicts another section called the arm and wrist of a primate. Elk proponents claim it shows the rear leg. This section is far too wide, long, and containing surface details indicating it was made with one strike. In other words it was not made with something less wide and just rolled in place to create the effect, such as an elk leg. First of all, an elk leg is attached to the rest of the body of the animal and cannot be dissociated with it so there would have to be other indications that the limb and body both rolled the impression. This is not evident in the cast. Secondly, this limbs surface detail indicates a shape, hair patterning and texture not matching that of an ungulate. The rear leg of an elk is cylindrical, with an hourglass shape. The cast depicts a big boned and thickly muscled forelimb tapering down to what is thought to be a primate wrist, starting at the elbow. The apex of this elbow also shows cracked skin and folds similar to other primates, nothing like the wing-like shape of an ungulates back knee.

Buttock crease

The knee section of the ungulate theory versus the crease between buttock and upper thigh region on a primate also lacks some details that would link it to an elk. The skin and muscle on that section of an elk is quite thin and placing a couple of hundred pounds on it, pushing it into soft soil would leave tell-tale boney features, evident in collected images from elk lays. They are not present in the cast. The hair pattern also flows through the area continuously, unlike that from an elk leg pressed up against the belly or chest, which would have a different hair pattern. The elk leg has hair pointing downwards and laying in the direction of the hooves. The belly of an elk has the hair going crossways, from the left side to the right side or vice versa. The Skookum cast shows a hair pattern that flows through this area consistently, in fact continuing all along the length of the impression towards the heel areas.

Side impressions

The Skookum cast contains heel like areas on one side of the main body and the arm like feature at the other end, but on the opposite side from these. An ungulate would have to have been twisted severely in order to accomplish this, since the hair pattern indicates a single sitting and not multiple strikes."

Also:

"...You can listen to the others who claim it to be nothing but an elk but from where is this conclusion drawn? Have they presented similar impressions? No. Have they even identified the impression sections correctly for interpretation? No. Have they taken measurements on the actual cast? No. Have they measured the minute detail of skin folds, creases, hair patterns, hair lengths in the cast? No. Have they produced a topography of the cast, indicating where weight was applied and the proportions of it? No. Can they explain missing features that an elk would surely have to leave? No. Have they cross examined it with real life body parts of other animals? No, just computer playing with unscaled line or vector based graphics overlain erroneously onto a painted copy of the cast." - DDA

<emphasis mine>

[Guest RedRatSnake]

What's the point of this forum then?

Hi

In this case the forum should first rule out beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not

an Elk, then start with the super rare elucive never captured BF, basic common sense

Tim:)

Edited October 12, 2011 by RedRatSnake

[Guest habber]

There are sightings where they have been observed in the prone position. There is a reason soldiers and hunters use the prone position, high and low crawls for movement,,,because it works. I think Sasquatch are quite capable of doing whatever they need to remain hidden if they choose. But in this case I just don't see one exposing itself for a few pieces of fruit no matter how it got to the spot.

1) Sightings are anecdotal evidence and not verbatum,

2) the 4x4 thing is an example of made up attributes by folks who also suffer from pofit motive stink (Honobia)

[Guest habber]

What's the point of this forum then?

Hi

In this case the forum should first rule out beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not

an Elk, then start with the super rare elucive never captured BF, basic common sense

Tim:)

yet even if it's not definitively an elk, the mokey is NOT the only other alternative, thats just culty nonsense.

[Guest Kerchak]

Hi

In this case the forum should first rule out beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not

an Elk,

I'd say that would be about equal to those proving beyond a doubt that it is an elk, which hasn't been done either by the way.

For the record, I'm on the fence. Nothing I have ever read conclusively proves it an elk lay. On the other hand there are a lot of interesting observations from people who actually studied it in person (as opposed to armchair critics)that make the Skookum Cast at the least very very interesting.

I think there should be room on a bigfoot forum for people to at least be allowed to go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!" about the Skookum cast without being made to feel they are way offside for even thinking such a thing.

[Guest Cervelo]

LAL,

I respect your position and have read most of the info. I do not think it's incumbent for anyone to recreate, the elk lay, PGF, Jacobs photo or any other "evidence" to prove it's not Bigfoot.

[Guest habber]

LAL,

I respect your position and have read most of the info. I do not think it's incumbent for anyone to recreate, the elk lay, PGF, Jacobs photo or any other "evidence" to prove it's not Bigfoot.

right, its the job for those making the claim to prove the claim not for the rest of us to prove the most likely cause. The cultists can make their own case. I hear they make a mean cup of cool aid though.

[BobbyO]

I think there should be room on a bigfoot forum for people to at least be allowed to go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!" about the Skookum cast without being made to feel they are way offside for even thinking such a thing.

Without a doubt Kerchak as, as you say, this is a Bigfoot Forum believe it or not..

& it can be thought about even more so when you take the previous nights happenings into consideration too, as derekfoot pointed out maybe yesterday..

[Guest RedRatSnake]

yet even if it's not definitively an elk, the mokey is NOT the only other alternative, thats just culty nonsense.

Hi

I agree, go with known animals

Tim

[Guest habber]

Without a doubt Kerchak as, as you say, this is a Bigfoot Forum believe it or not..

& it can be thought about even more so when you take the previous nights happenings into consideration too, as derekfoot pointed out maybe yesterday..

Sightings, again, are anecdotal, and known animals, even if not an elk are your likely answer, BF needs proof, and none of so called experts have provided anything concrete.

[wolftrax]

"...You can listen to the others who claim it to be nothing but an elk but from where is this conclusion drawn? Have they presented similar impressions?

Have they even identified the impression sections correctly for interpretation?

Yes.

Have they taken measurements on the actual cast?

Rick Noll won't allow it.

Have they measured the minute detail of skin folds, creases, hair patterns, hair lengths in the cast?

Rick Noll won't allow it.

Have they produced a topography of the cast, indicating where weight was applied and the proportions of it?

Rick Noll won't allow it.

Can they explain missing features that an elk would surely have to leave?

Yes.

Have they cross examined it with real life body parts of other animals? No, just computer playing with unscaled line or vector based graphics overlain erroneously onto a painted copy of the cast." - DDA

Rick Noll won't allow skeptical analysis on the cast in person without unfavorable filming conditions. He also will not release 3d scan data of the cast for research purposes. The photos are all that is allowed to be researched, and they match an elk. If these complaints are really a problem for Mr. Noll, and not merely just him pointing out his own resistance to having such a detailed analysis done on the cast, than the blame falls on him for not allowing these things to happen.

The 3d recreation has the right proportions, and they fit.

So far, every claim made about the cast has been shown to not be true.

Edited October 12, 2011 by wolftrax

[kitakaze]

Never mind that elk pieces didn't fit

or that elk place their feet under themselves in order to get up.

Elk tracks in yellow.

The hair flow doesn't fit elk either.

Show that it doesn't match.

Jimmy Chilcutt found patterns on the heel cast he was sent that correspond to other casts he finds authentic.

Nope. The pattern of ridge flow that Chilcutt identified on foot casts has a ridge flow pattern going horizontally across the heel. On the Skookum "Heel" the pattern runs vertically.

I can not look at the above or below and see anything but the very obvious sign of an elk...

Particularly the last is what I think is one of the most effective glass of cold water demonstrations for those who would cling to the notion that a Bigfoot made that. No words necessary. Completely self-explanatory.

[Guest]

yet even if it's not definitively an elk, the mokey is NOT the only other alternative, thats just culty nonsense.

Uh oh, better scale it back a bit. You are gonna make it too obvious that you are trying to be insulting! I'd wait a bit, find a thread where two believers are enjoying a discussion, then BAM!- break out the old "cult" schtick. It'll work like a charm, and accomplish exactly what you are interested in accomplishing.

Good luck!