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

[Martin]

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.

No.... its the no matter what the evidence says it's bigfoot thread.....

I love bigfoot.

Nice but stern. Are you a educator in RL?

A circus squatch, of course!<facepalm>

Martin,

Have you thought of reporting DWA for his/her disruptive posts? Might calm him/her down a notch?

No.... I'm not a a whiner and I don't think it would benefit the conversation to stifle her or his freedom to speak.

I find that sooner or later they will learn how to separate emotions from the science and possibly continue to the discussion. Hopefully sooner error rather than later.

Also.... I am not a teacher but I do have children so I have a reasonable basis continuing this type of dialog.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Martin

[Guest Crowlogic]

Consider this.  Animals are supposed to vacate an area when bigfoot comes around.  So how did all those other animals end up being all over the site?  We ended up with everything except the thing that the casters said it must be!

[roguefooter]

Well there is one angle that hasn't been considered. A Squatch rode into the area on his Elk, saw a nice mud pit to flop around in and circled around the spot, jumped off the Elk into the mud and dined on an apple, then grabbed it by the antlers and pulled itself back up, and rode out of the area on the Elk again. They're known to do that.

[norseman]

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.

I would say its probably Bear....... but I took the Sasquatch Hypothesis seriously because of Swindler and other scientists testimony.

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.

Thanks, Im icing them, it hurts......

[Night Walker]

It’s not a big deal when the usual Bigfoot scientists cry “Bigfoot!†– it is more or a surprise when they evaluate a piece of cherished potential Bigfoot evidence as “not Bigfootâ€. However, when independent scientist like Dr. Daris Swindler agrees and says, "Whatever made this was very well adapted to walking on two feet. It's not conclusive, but it's consistent with what you'd expect to see if a giant biped sat down in the mud." … then it should bear further consideration.

 

Swindler hopes that his assessment of the Skookum Cast, and a Discovery Channel documentary set to air Thursday, will generate support for further research. [https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/paleoanthropology/conversations/topics/11274]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ul7C695NQU

 

That was in 2003. Yet more than a decade later no further research has been generated by the Skookum cast. Not even in Meldrum’s own journal. Why (particularly if it is such a great piece of Bigfoot evidence)? Why weren’t the opinions of skilled independent trackers (like Dr. Halfpenny) solicited? Research or “research†(nudge, nudge, wink, wink)?

 

Besides the objective evidence (ie hairs found in the wallow, tracks found in and immediately around the cast) which indicates mundane sources, all we have are opinions and counter opinions from both qualified and unqualified folk so, once again, it boils down to who you believe and what you want to hear. Subjective Squatch reigns supreme – the value in keeping the potential evidence for Bigfoot as ambiguous as possible is in sustaining the belief of Bigfoot…

 

So, should the opinion of Dr. Swindler be taken at face value as fact? If “yesâ€, then so should this: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/amuses.htm'>“That Patterson film is just a man in a costume.â€

[norseman]

I wonder what he thought about the PGF after examining the skookum cast, and making his statement it was geniune?

If Swindler as a bona fide skeptical scientist cannot make up his mind about the evidence? Why in the heck do Bigfoot researchers still pack cameras and dental resin around?????? WHY?

We dont have Aborigines and a thriving bush meat trade in North America to do our dirty work for us...........but needing physical evicence to prove the existence of this animal is no less pertinent than it was for the Bili Ape or the Mountain Gorilla.

[Night Walker]

If Swindler as a bona fide skeptical scientist cannot make up his mind about the evidence? Why in the heck do Bigfoot researchers still pack cameras and dental resin around?????? WHY?

 

What do you mean? Swindler HAD made up his mind about the evidence (or, at least, was very clear about his opinion):

 

Skookum - "it's not conclusive, but it's consistent with what you'd expect to see if a giant biped sat down in the mud"

PGF - "just a man in a costume"

 

The PGF doesn't need to be of a real Bigfoot for the Skookum impression to have been made by some sort of "giant biped", you know. And what does that have to do with Bigfoot-researchers/"researchers" continuing to pack cameras and plaster? I still carry them around in case they come in handy...

[Night Walker]

We dont have Aborigines and a thriving bush meat trade in North America to do our dirty work for us...........but needing physical evicence to prove the existence of this animal is no less pertinent than it was for the Bili Ape or the Mountain Gorilla.

 

You got no nature lovers or hunters in the USA? I don't know if it's "dirty work" but that most supposed Bigfoot evidence is found/"found" by Bigfoot researchers/"researchers" could well be a sign that some "dirty work" is going on. Can't rule it out...

 

If Bigfoot is a subjective human phenomenon (ie not an animal) then the evidence will not get any better...

[Guest]

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.

 Of course it is. That's the way many of these threads turn out. They end up with the scoftics ranting about bigfoot in general. This has gone the same way.

I wonder what he thought about the PGF after examining the skookum cast, and making his statement it was geniune?

 

I'm pretty sure that Swindler had a re-evaluation on the PGF after Skookum. He hadn't really looked at it all that closely before and never bothered to. After Skookum he took another look (better copies/versions) and he didn't dismiss it as he did before. The Skookum cast gave him a new perspective. The old quote is from way back when, at the time he dismissed the entire bigfoot subject. He changed his mind later on, including the PGF.

I love bigfoot.

 

 Oh geez, not that old Kitakaze thang. I don't buy any 'skeptic' who claims he loves bigfoot otherwise he wouldn't be arguing against the subject so much.

 

Finally, once more for the record, Swindler trumps Wroblewski significantly in credentials, expertise and experience. It's not even close. However the cast has neither been proven to be a sasquatch OR an elk. Don't try and pretend otherwise folks. It simply hasn't been done.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[CMBigfoot]

I would say its probably Bear...

 

 

It can't be a bear because bears only lay in hammocks.

 

[Guest]

^

That's an elk in a bear suit. Clearly.

[Guest Crowlogic]

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

 New ground daily? 

Edited August 10, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

 

I'm pretty sure that Swindler had a re-evaluation on the PGF after Skookum. He hadn't really looked at it all that closely before and never bothered to. After Skookum he took another look (better copies/versions) and he didn't dismiss it as he did before. The Skookum cast gave him a new perspective. The old quote is from way back when, at the time he dismissed the entire bigfoot subject. He changed his mind later on, including the PGF.

 

Of course a Core Tenet of Bigfoot Skepticism is:  If you change your mind you have gone over to The Dark Side!  Information and evidence are supposed to bounce off you like bullets off Superman.  They'll never get that mind-changing goes on in science more frequently than drinking or harassing female scientists.

 

Finally, once more for the record, Swindler trumps Wroblewski significantly in credentials, expertise and experience. It's not even close. However the cast has neither been proven to be a sasquatch OR an elk. Don't try and pretend otherwise folks. It simply hasn't been done.

 

Plus:  Swindler was a denier who underwent a battlefield conversion when confronted directly by evidence, something one would expect a prominent mind to do.  Anton is the typical Techie in Denial.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

......Plus: Swindler was a denier.......

I don't know that your term, "bigfoot skeptic", might not be more accurate here?

Edited August 10, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

...and even funnier:  you know, kids, the elk needs those prints in that area just as much to  get *down* as to get *up.*

 

Yet all those elk prints...and none where they'd have to be.  

 

A sasquatch could do what is seen and leave what was left.

 

An elk ...can't.