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

[CMBigfoot]

^^^^^^

I would say the opposite is true, very seldom a hooved animal will lay flat on their side with their legs sticking out to the side as if they were dead.

 

 

I have a snapshot of an elk lying flat on its side.

 

[norseman]

This is a picture of an elk laying flat on its side.........If the skookum cast is an elk because the heel impressions are really knee impressions I think its safe to say the elk wasnt laying like this.

Yes.

 

That just shows that the elk in my video, the skookum cast, and in this youtube video can get up and move away from their resting position differently under different circumstances.

 

Start video at 1:25.

 

That elk left hoof prints within that lay.

Edited August 9, 2015 by norseman

[Guest]

He has.................

 

I repeat, he's not an animal expert, not an animal tracker, not an anthropologist and nor is he somebody the police go to. I'll take Daris Swindler over him thanks all the same.

The Skookum Cast is neither proven to be a sasquatch or an elk. I wish people would stop pretending otherwise.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Faenor]

I repeat, he's not an animal expert, not an animal tracker, not an anthropologist and nor is he somebody the police go to. I'll take Daris Swindler over him thanks all the same.

The Skookum Cast is neither proven to be a sasquatch or an elk. I wish people would stop pretending otherwise.

After looking through the published work of swindler, as im sure you yourself did as well since you advocate for his supremacy, it appears he specialized in primate dentition. Since the cast doesn't feature any teeth I don't think he's really the right expert to go to with this.

Plus he was old 75 or something probably some dementia, bad vision, and other old man ailments. They probably just tried to find some poor old coot to prop up the believability of the cast. So they drag him out of the old folks home and shove a bizarre cast in front of him tell him its from bigfoot.

[CMBigfoot]

Elk, deer, bear, and coyote tracks and hair were found in and around the cast. So I think the impression has to be from one of these animals. Most likely an elk.  No bigfoot tracks or hair found in or around the cast. So I think NO bigfoot.

[Bodhi]

The conversation has passed you DWA.....

Read up on bigfoot it will help you understand what's up here.

But not Bindernagel....

Nice but stern. Are you a educator in RL?

Of course no bigfoot tracks are found there either.  Of all the bigfoot in all the bait traps in the world we had to get one that does a backflip and roll into the mudhole instead of just walking up to the fruit like any other animal (or human).  

A circus squatch, of course!<facepalm>

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by chelefoot
Removed edited quote

[Bodhi]

This thread was started in 2011. The OP started from the position that it was a sasquatch but by page 11 had concluded that skookum is an elk lay. Since then there has been so much progress in the world of sasquatch that there's been no reason to look backward.....oh no, wait...... hmmm. I meant to say that this is what happens when there is no forward progress in a "field of study". Skookum was found during a shoot of a terrible television show. The sasquatches were particularly camera shy and this wallow was the only thing around, the group grasped firmly onto that. It was shown to be an elk lay way back when and no amount of hand waving in 2015 is going to change that.

I didn't realize this thread was started in 2011, I'm jumping off this crazy train. There is NOTHING new here, this was settled to the OP's satisfaction four years ago. I don't know who decided to dust this one off again but I'm out.

 

In closing it's an elk lay. If there were something more relevant to discuss regarding this supposed animal (sasquatch) we'd be discussing that but there isn't. There isn't because, amazingly, 50 years after PGF with all of the reports right by roads and the reports near human habitation there STILL isn't a single piece of trace evidence. Not a road kill, not a single piece of scat. Think of all the reports of sasquatch running across the road or along a road. Those things lovvvvvvve roads but man, they choose the worst times to run across them. Not a single road kill incident. So, in the absence of any real evidence we end up with this retread.

 

You all have fun. Norse, wrap those ribs. I'm off this one though.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Bodhi

[Trogluddite]

^^^^

To add further, there is another thread from March 2011 which starts of with the very first post as, "Skookum Cast - elk lay or bigfoot butt? GO!" and runs for 11 pages.  There is a very long thread in the premium section where (I believe) Derek Randles, one of the people present for this expedition, lays out the background in several posts.  That goes on for about 60 pages.  Pay your premium membership folks.  There's also a thread started for the sole purpose of identifying all the skookum cast threads.  There are skookum cast threads going back to 2003 in the premium (pay your $20.00) section.  I do believe that the grandfathers of some of the current elk/bigfoot proponents now were making the same arguments then. 

[Martin]

^ and ^^

Thats why I propose that everyday is groundhog day when it comes to bigfoot.

When people new to bigfoot, who haven't read up on these topics, jump in with uniformed opinions the process starts over again.

That one reason these studies never moves forward.

[Faenor]

^ and ^^

Thats why I propose that everyday is groundhog day when it comes to bigfoot.

When people new to bigfoot, who haven't read up on these topics, jump in with uniformed opinions the process starts over again.

That one reason these studies never moves forward.

^ and ^^

Thats why I propose that everyday is groundhog day when it comes to bigfoot.

When people new to bigfoot, who haven't read up on these topics, jump in with uniformed opinions the process starts over again.

That one reason these studies never moves forward.

Im guessing you have not read up on the nawac then they break new ground practically daily in their bigfoot research.

[Martin]

Im guessing you have not read up on the nawac then they break new ground practically daily in their bigfoot research.

No I haven't... can you point me in the direction of these new discoveries?

I hope they shoot one and soon..... it would be a great day. Really.

When your untimate goal is the worthy and noble peak of bigfootery, proving a type specimen, then ancillary things like the evidence becomes unimportant. Especially when you are so close to achieving the ultimate result.

I figured that's why they are light on any evidence other than campfire stories.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Martin

[Guest Crowlogic]

Every time I hear the term "wood ape"  Or the NA---"Wood APE"......C I cringe.  I cringe because it reeks of a sell job.  That is to say when the person/persons got the idea to create an organization they figured they'd get more traction and credibility if they came up with a clever albeit silly new term for the big smelly hunka folklore folks might be persuaded to buy into.  Yessir we be huntin "wood apes" not those silly bigfeet....

Edited August 9, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest]

This thread was started in 2011. The OP started from the position that it was a sasquatch but by page 11 had concluded that skookum is an elk lay. Since then there has been so much progress in the world of sasquatch that there's been no reason to look backward.....oh no, wait...... hmmm. I meant to say that this is what happens when there is no forward progress in a "field of study". Skookum was found during a shoot of a terrible television show. The sasquatches were particularly camera shy and this wallow was the only thing around, the group grasped firmly onto that. It was shown to be an elk lay way back when and no amount of hand waving in 2015 is going to change that.

I didn't realize this thread was started in 2011, I'm jumping off this crazy train. There is NOTHING new here, this was settled to the OP's satisfaction four years ago. I don't know who decided to dust this one off again but I'm out.

 

In closing it's an elk lay. If there were something more relevant to discuss regarding this supposed animal (sasquatch) we'd be discussing that but there isn't. There isn't because, amazingly, 50 years after PGF with all of the reports right by roads and the reports near human habitation there STILL isn't a single piece of trace evidence. Not a road kill, not a single piece of scat. Think of all the reports of sasquatch running across the road or along a road. Those things lovvvvvvve roads but man, they choose the worst times to run across them. Not a single road kill incident. So, in the absence of any real evidence we end up with this retread.

 

You all have fun. Norse, wrap those ribs. I'm off this one though.

yep....

many road sightings

 

you would think that one would have a drowning accident and float down stream, be hit by a snow plow, train or tractor trailer.

One would die of old age or disease.

maybe even fall and can't get up

 

Patty might be living in the SSQ old folks home by now and using her life alert. She was wearing depends under her monkey suit way back then anyway

[Guest Stan Norton]

Another hijacked thread. This isn't the 'I hate everything bigfoot and I wanna make sure you all know it, again' thread is it? Is it? Oh. It is. Sorry.

[Guest DWA]

Gotta say:  they sound smarter on Ignore.