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

[Bodhi]

Mind you I'm not defending their intelligent being hypothesis.

But in 50 years? We dont have a lot of foot casts for this creature...............especially if you contrast it with a mundane creature such as an Elk.

we do have a LOT of claims of sightings near roads and human development so the BFRO claim of "avoiding confrontation with humans" seems hollow. Not sure if you were defending that portion of the BFRO claim.

With regard to the mention of the small number of prints in comparison to animals such as elk, why do you suppose the small number of trackways exist, particularly with the range claimed for the animal. Basically, all of north america, even some here in nv, is the claimed range and yet so few trackways and not a single roadkill incident?

This might be off topic sorry if it is off topic.

[CMBigfoot]

Hi Norseman,

 

If you click on the link and scroll down to the Skookum Cast Mis ID you may find some of the answers to your questions.

 

 

http://www.stockinghominidr.com/Hoaxes---Misidents.html

[Guest]

^

Nothing in that link proves it's an elk lay.

[Bodhi]

So looking at the elk red line picture (evidently skeptics only like red lines and not red circles) how did the elk stand up without leaving hoof prints? Ill even give you guys a pass with the front and back hooves closest to the picture that they some how didnt register with the casting because they cut it to close. What about the off side hooves that didnt register? Imagine that cast as being muddy earth. Seems to me that if the elk stood up on that patch of ground? The last act that animal does in the process of gathering itself under its own weight and standing up? And walking off with its hooves IS registering hoof prints.

I dont believe in Pegasus Elk at all, Sasquatch some and I know Bear exist.

Ok, so change the word elk in your post to sasquatch. Please show me how the sasquatch stood up without leaving prints? Hand,knuckle, foot. 

And the pegasus elk is more a dwa comment than a Norse comment  IMO.....

 

Edited August 8, 2015 by Bodhi

[Martin]

From CMBigfoot's link:

“In short,†Dr. Wroblewski continued, “there's no way anyone familiar with animal traces would fail to recognize the Skookum cast as being an elk lay.â€

[Guest]

^

Hyperbole. He's not even an animal expert. Nor an anthropologist. Nor someone who police come to.

[roguefooter]

Ok, so change the word elk in your post to sasquatch. Please show me how the sasquatch stood up without leaving prints? Hand,knuckle, foot. 

And the pegasus elk is more a dwa comment than a Norse comment  IMO.....

 

 

 

Everything is Sasquatch by default. You have to prove otherwise.

[Martin]

From the same article:

Noll’s analysis continues with “The major difference between Human hair and the samples collected (as far as I can tell) are the scale features, and the fact that the ends are tapered, not cut. All human hair would be cut at the ends.†Well, those comments made me think. I’m not a hair expert, so, I contacted Carrie Oien at the FBI Hair and Fiber Analysis Office in Quantico. I read this information to Mr. Oien over the phone and received a chuckle and blunt “Horse hockey†from him. Mr. Oien politely explained to me that human hair, amongst other reasons, breaks off, falls out, and is yanked out. All human hair does not have cut ends. Carrie Oien then laughingly expressed that human and primate hairs don’t have Spinous, or Coronal scales. Elk, rodents, and Bovine do, but primates do not.

^^

Insert finger in ears and say......" nah nah nah, I can't hear you.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Martin

[Bodhi]

From the same article:

Noll’s analysis continues with “The major difference between Human hair and the samples collected (as far as I can tell) are the scale features, and the fact that the ends are tapered, not cut. All human hair would be cut at the ends.†Well, those comments made me think. I’m not a hair expert, so, I contacted Carrie Oien at the FBI Hair and Fiber Analysis Office in Quantico. I read this information to Mr. Oien over the phone and received a chuckle and blunt “Horse hockey†from him. Mr. Oien politely explained to me that human hair, amongst other reasons, breaks off, falls out, and is yanked out. All human hair does not have cut ends. Carrie Oien then laughingly expressed that human and primate hairs don’t have Spinous, or Coronal scales. Elk, rodents, and Bovine do, but primates do not.

^^

Insert fingers in ears and say......" nah nah nah, I can't hear you.

martin,

Is the link to this article somewhere earlier in this thread?

[roguefooter]

^

Hyperbole. He's not even an animal expert. Nor an anthropologist. Nor someone who police come to.

 

He has a masters in Sedimentary Geology and Paleontology, specializing in Ichnology.

 

Ichnology: the branch of geology and biology that deals with traces of organismal behavior, such as burrows and footprints. It is generally considered as a branch of paleontology; however, only one division of ichnology, paleoichnology, deals with trace fossils, while neoichnology is the study of modern traces.

 

In other words his specialty is 'animal traces', like imprints, etc. He would be the 'go to' guy for identifying an impression.

Edited August 8, 2015 by roguefooter

[Martin]

Hi Norseman,

 

If you click on the link and scroll down to the Skookum Cast Mis ID you may find some of the answers to your questions.

 

 

http://www.stockinghominidr.com/Hoaxes---Misidents.html

Here is the link provided by cmbigfoot

[Bodhi]

thanks!!

[norseman]

Why would I compare it to a common animal like an elk? We're not talking about a common animal- far from it.

 

Several hundred foot castings and several thousand reported tracks and photos is a lot. That doesn't sound to me like any creature with an "ancient survival strategy" of not leaving footprints. That story sounds completely fabricated for the purpose of validating their evidence.

Right. Which is why we find SO FEW of its tracks. But when we do find them? Obviously it causes quite a stir.

I think other factors could be at work, such as the rarity of the species and the fact that a soft flexible track does not leave as much evidence behind of its passing as a hooved animal does.

I agree with you that their "ancient survival strategy" theory seems rather convenient. But a lot of theories abound why this creature avoids our scrutiny. And some of those theories are way wilder yet.

I baited bears for years in one spot on my ranch, and I never got one track that was castable.

we do have a LOT of claims of sightings near roads and human development so the BFRO claim of "avoiding confrontation with humans" seems hollow. Not sure if you were defending that portion of the BFRO claim.

With regard to the mention of the small number of prints in comparison to animals such as elk, why do you suppose the small number of trackways exist, particularly with the range claimed for the animal. Basically, all of north america, even some here in nv, is the claimed range and yet so few trackways and not a single roadkill incident?

This might be off topic sorry if it is off topic.

I am not a proponent of the suburban sasquatch theory. They cannot hang out in our back yards and avoid detection, the idea is ludicris.

The rest of my answer for you I think is one post above.

Ok, so change the word elk in your post to sasquatch. Please show me how the sasquatch stood up without leaving prints? Hand,knuckle, foot. 

And the pegasus elk is more a dwa comment than a Norse comment  IMO.....

 

Who said a Sasquatch stood up to leave? Or a Bear? Both Apes and Bears can roll and somersault and move in ways unavailable to a ungulate.

My Pegasus statement comes from my frustration that you and others fail to see the significance of the fact that the Skookum cast does not have elk hoof prints in it. Elk cannot roll four times in a somer sault and then get up and crawl or walk away.

I'm not saying that is a Sasquatch lay, but I will say that is NOT an Elk lay.

Hi Norseman,

 

If you click on the link and scroll down to the Skookum Cast Mis ID you may find some of the answers to your questions.

 

 

http://www.stockinghominidr.com/Hoaxes---Misidents.html

Nothing comes up for the skookum cast, im using an Ipad, not sure if that is the problem.

[Guest Crowlogic]

no need to quote after all.

Let's see.  Bigfoot it seems according to some has developed among other things a compulsive propensity to hide it's tracks.  But it's not a perfect system and some bigfoot tracks are left in place and some of those are found and recorded by human beings.  OMG!   Do you know what this implies?  This means there are many, many more bigfoot out there than ever suspected.  They have been hiding their tracks most of the time.  So what do the bigfoot experts say about the ratio of hidden trackways vs visible tracks and trackways.  Are the bigfoot 90% successful in hiding thier tracks?  60% successful exactly how successful are they?  Let's assume for a moment that they are just 50% successful.  That means there are twice as many sauntering about that we don't have indication of.  But really if that's the case why aren't we seeing many  more bigfoot?   Oh they're stealthy....................

Edited August 8, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Martin]

Here it is:

Skookum Cast Mis-Identification:

This opinion is shared by myself and several other veteran researchers, but in a less advertised way. The famous Skookum Cast. To the possible peril of reputations, let me state that this was not a hoax in the general sense of the word. It was more an opportunity handed to the BFRO, a simple probable Elk wallow turned into a major production. Here is the alleged imprint of a Sasquatch reclining on the ground to reach, and bite into a piece of fruit. As stated by Matt Moneymaker at the time, “we need to have something to show Animal Xâ€. A film crew for Animal X was with the team in hopes of catching something on video/audio for the show. At the Elk wallow, there were no Sasquatch footprints found. This begs the question; did the big hairy guy fly there?

In an analysis written by Richard Noll he states, “Three out of the 56 collected [hair samples] at the site and from the cast have been identified as unknown primate. Humans are considered primate in this analysis.†I spoke to Dr. Henner Fahrenbach about the primate hairs; he stated to me that only “1†hair was primate. Dr. Fahrenbach also stated that the primate hair was just a fragment of hair. Basically, it did not have a root, but was determined primate because the hair did not have a medulla. Usually, animal hairs have a very distinct medulla. Noll’s analysis continues with “The major difference between Human hair and the samples collected (as far as I can tell) are the scale features, and the fact that the ends are tapered, not cut. All human hair would be cut at the ends.†Well, those comments made me think. I’m not a hair expert, so, I contacted Carrie Oien at the FBI Hair and Fiber Analysis Office in Quantico. I read this information to Mr. Oien over the phone and received a chuckle and blunt “Horse hockey†from him. Mr. Oien politely explained to me that human hair, amongst other reasons, breaks off, falls out, and is yanked out. All human hair does not have cut ends. Carrie Oien then laughingly expressed that human and primate hairs don’t have Spinous, or Coronal scales. Elk, rodents, and Bovine do, but primates do not. So, when Mr. Noll states that one of the differences between human hair and the samples collected are the scale features, this simply shows that none of the collected hairs are Sasquatch hair. There should not be any difference between the hair scales if the hairs are from a Sasquatch.

The entire Skookum incident was filled was contradictions, and unanswered questions. By using principles such as Occam’s Razor (“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.â€) researchers would have investigations that are much more precise in the evaluations. With Skookum , not one Sasquatch footprint was found. Logic has us asking; why would a Sasquatch walk up, lie down, and reach for food? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Sasquatch to simply walk up, bend down to retrieve the food, and walk away? Of course, they probably hide their tracts, as suggested by Matt Moneymaker. So, here’s the Skookum scenario. Sasquatch walks up to the Elk wallow, backwards, brushing it’s tracks away. It stops, and LIES DOWN, making a very large imprint in the mud. Now, it reaches for an apple, takes a bite or two and drops it on the ground. The Sasquatch wasn’t very hungry, so, it rises up and continues walking, backwards, to the tree line covering it’s track as it leaves the area. But what about the alleged Sasquatch heel and tendon imprint? Elk use their legs to lie down and stand up. Could this imprint be nothing more than an Elk bending at the “knee†in an effort to recline in the mud to wallow in it?

This was supposed proof of a Sasquatch, thrown out to the public. Mega hype and notoriety over nothing more than a probable Elk wallow. This type of sensationalistic hype is detrimental to Sasquatch research. Devoted researchers must have integrity, and use common sense when it comes to investigations involving Sasquatch. In the decades that have past, why is it that science doesn’t take this subject more seriously? Why should they, when our own researchers don’t.