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

[Guest Crowlogic]

Martin the only flaw I find in the report is that there are reports that bigfoot can fly but also if a portal opened sufficiently close the bigfoot could have made it's way in and out of the site without leaving footprints. Italso may have shape shifted into elk form which then put the entire matter into the elk realm.  However in this case it was not a normal elk.  

Edited August 8, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

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€

Sure there is.  One could see something else - because oh I don't know, someone is a *world-class expert* - and point it out.  Someone could see that elk have never been observed to levitate, and point that out.

 

One can be familiar with stuff and be wrong.  Someone who *thinks* he is, Anton, might be wrong.  Someone who is in *denial*, Anton, is just wrong.

 

Throughout the mainstream, scientists say Stuff That Ain't Right And They Should Know It when it comes to this topic.  What denial does to you.  (They also think no one is smart enough to gainsay them so everyone will go back to sleep.  Whoops.)

Edited August 8, 2015 by DWA

[CMBigfoot]

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. 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

That elk...can't get up.

 

(Correction:  *those elk* were already up.)

 

One more time!

 

NO PRINTS IN THE CAST *WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE!*  FOR AN ELK TO GET OUT OF THAT IMPRINT.

 

Sensible Scientific Conclusion Dept.:  calcaneum found.  Vouched for by someone one would *expect* to see it...one of the last century's more prominent primate experts.

 

Trump card.

[norseman]

skookumelkprints.jpg

Ok so it does have elk tracks it it? Where did that image come from? I guess I should go look at this cast for myself.

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.

Thanks.

Who wrote this?

[CMBigfoot]

Hi Norseman,

 

I got it from post #327 of this thread.

 

 

As for your question to Martin check out my post #737.

 

 

Hi DWA,

 

If it wasn't an elk, why were there more elk hair found in it than any other animal?

 

Does elk hair + elk tracks = Bigfoot?

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum-cast-hair.htm

Edited August 8, 2015 by CMBigfoot

[Trogluddite]

Norse,

 

I understand that the long article you clipped was written by Dianne Stocking, a former BFRO curator who was among those who left the organization (or were purged) in 2000.  

 

Edited to add:

 

There are two positions being discussed on this cast - which is critically thought out?

 

1) There are no elk prints leading to or from the cast (oh, wait, there are - better move the goalposts) where I say they have to be, this cannot be an elk. 

 

2) There are no bigfoot prints leading to or from the cast, so this must be a bigfoot. 

 

By the by, here is a picture that I understand is from the casting sight - it shows that a very small amount of the area is actually casted and if there are detailed photos or diagrams laying out the missing area, they have not been cited recently in this thread. 

 

Edited August 8, 2015 by Trogluddite

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

Would someone be so kind as to find a video of an elk moving to a standing position, please? I'm not joking and I have been unable to find any. I was going to look for a Sasquatch getting up from a lay-down position but I think you already know what the results of that search would be.....

Edited August 8, 2015 by hiflier

[norseman]

Norse,

 

I understand that the long article you clipped was written by Dianne Stocking, a former BFRO curator who was among those who left the organization (or were purged) in 2000.  

 

Edited to add:

 

There are two positions being discussed on this cast - which is critically thought out?

 

1) There are no elk prints leading to or from the cast (oh, wait, there are - better move the goalposts) where I say they have to be, this cannot be an elk. 

 

2) There are no bigfoot prints leading to or from the cast, so this must be a bigfoot. 

 

By the by, here is a picture that I understand is from the casting sight - it shows that a very small amount of the area is actually casted and if there are detailed photos or diagrams laying out the missing area, they have not been cited recently in this thread. 

 

1) I stand by my statement that a ungulate like an elk has to pull its legs under it to get up. Which would show up in a body cast lay of an elk. CMBigfoot has shown an image that highlights at least four hoof prints within the lay........which I find much more plausible in favor of a Elk theory. But I also said that I understood that Elk were using the wallow and tracks were found in the vicinity.

2) From the bucket to the plywood in the picture you posted? How far do you think that is?

[Bodhi]

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.

 

I see no evidence of rolling in any of the photos showing the larger scene. I would imagine that say, a 500lb animal rolling in mud would have left it's own sort deep rut in the area. I see no evidence of that. The idea that an animal could somersault out of a mud wallow without leaving two points of thrust seems to be a large stretch. Think of an acrobat, the start of any maneuver requires the performer to exert a large amount of force and that isn't from a prone position in soft mud. And again, loads of elk hair.

It just seems an unreasonable stretch to conclude a somersaulting sasquatch, barrell rolled into and out of a mud wallow. Why would it? If it wanted to be stealthy it seems more likely that it would have selected a wallow which wasn't located adjacent to a road????

You're a solid guy and all but this just seems so unlikely.

[Faenor]

Here is a video of an elk in a wallow https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XzJ8BCtO6hw

It rolls around a bit and appears to spring up by the force of its forelimbs and then rear hooves.

[Bodhi]

Hello All,

 

Would someone be so kind as to find a video of an elk moving to a standing position, please? I'm not joking and I have been unable to find any. I was going to look for a Sasquatch getting up from a lay-down position but I think you already know what the results of that search would be.....

Hif,

 

Here is a video of an elk walking to a wallow where it begins to....wallow. The animal is then shot by a hunter with a bow.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzJ8BCtO6hw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

This is a link to the examination of the video as a part of an larger examination of the skookum cast. It is very evident from the video that an elk does NOT have to have all of it's hooves under itself as shown in the Meldrum drawing.

 

http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/

Edited August 8, 2015 by Bodhi

[hiflier]

Hello Faenor and Bodhi,

I do appreciate the follow-ups. What I did also notice in Faenor's link is that the animal does not rise from it's side even though it rolls onto it. It actually returns to more of a "sphinx" posture rolls to it's front knees and almost in one motion continues to all hooves That part was pretty fast actually so I'll need to watch it some along with your vid link too, Bodhi.

Thank you both. Am I on the right path asking about these vids? I think so. Just trying to visualize this stuff can led to a slippery slope of errors.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

OK. This is what I see:

The animal haunches down at the rear and at the front knees (wrists?) and rolls down onto it's right side. The spine is an obvious indicator of this action and it wallows back onto it's right hip and front knees several times. When alerted it rolls onto it's right hip with front knees underneath, and in one motion launches it's head and neck forward using the power in it's hips. Weight is now distributed further forward over it's front knees which, acting like a fulcrum lightens the weight over the rear hooves. Once the rear hooves are dug in it pushes up as if jumping an obstacle which then allows the front knees and hooves the clearance need to unfold and catch the animal's weight as the chest, head and neck weight pitch toward the ground. This momentum allows the rear legs to then reposition for the next power stride.

A truly powerful maneuver from a lay-down position for such a large and magnificent animal. It's difficult to imagine one man being any match for a Bigfoot in the same situation.

Edited August 8, 2015 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

....

2) From the bucket to the plywood in the picture you posted? How far do you think that is?

Norse, 

 

Not very far I think.  That looks like a standard 5-gallon paint bucket, maybe a little smaller.  Also looking at the people in the picture.  Could be as little as 4 feet from the bucket to the edge of the plywood to the dry, hard ground that the bucket is on.  I'd guestimate no more than 7, at most.  That short of a distance explains a certain lack of tracks, whether they be bigfoot, elk or elf.  But one would expect a bipedal animal going down to a semi-prone, or prone position to leave distinct knee prints, handprints, or knuckle prints.  Unless they do yoga. 

 

Again, not faulting the people who made the cast for not doing so (if they didn't), but this shows why documentation of a scene, footprint, trackway is so important.  And it would be time-consuming.