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

[Faenor]

From what ive read swindler wasn't a scofftic he "remained open"to the possibility but was still skeptical.

[Trogluddite]

Roguefooter, 

 

 I believe that's a bigfoot nose, pressed into the dirt, that you've mistaken for a hoof print. 

[roguefooter]

Looking at the casting I'm finding holes that were made after the body impression, evident from the dirt spilled onto the impression:

 

 

If the Elk were laying on it's side then it would roll over it's feet to stand up- right about where these holes are.

Edited August 11, 2015 by roguefooter

[norseman]

Your left arrow always looked like a thumb impression to me.

[roguefooter]

^That would be under the leg it was laying on (according to Meldrum's layout). Why would it put a thumb in the ground there?

Edited August 11, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Stan Norton]

Its somewhat telling that nothing was ever published in a journal on the cast. They bring in an retired 75 year old scientist who specialized in teeth to get the rubber stamp for credibility. No elk or other large mammal specialist to rule out the most probable culprits. Its just enough for to be tantalizing for tv and sell a few books to the indoctrinated.

As far as the primate hair shedding roll your head in some mud for a minute or so. Count all the hairs and multiply that by what ever factor you would think it would take to equal the area seen within the impression.

We might have to consider the possibility that bigfoot has the ability to control the shedding of its fur as to prevent detection much as it avoids leaving footprints.

So, iow, Swindler is the wrong kind of expert for you and you have no idea whether apes shed more or less hair than elk or bear. Thanks for your razorlike sciencemind input. That's cleared things up no end. Edited August 11, 2015 by Stan Norton

[Guest DWA]

I am impressed as well.  A tour de farce.

How hard is this?

 

1.  No tracks where they would have to be for an elk to get down.

2.  ...nor where they would have to be for the elk to get up.

3.  Somebody with supremely relevant world-class credentials - compared to your zero - goes from scoftic to proponent when he sees a primate calcaneum and Achilles' tendon in the imprint.

 

(Wondering what the Guinness record for not seeing something posted the most number of times is.  We may be headed for it.)

[Guest Stan Norton]

And a failure to comprehend that the evolutionary history of mammals is predominantly the science of studying teeth. Heterogeneous teeth being one of the defining characteristics of mammals.

Basic biology...

[roguefooter]

 

How hard is this?

 

1.  No tracks where they would have to be for an elk to get down.

2.  ...nor where they would have to be for the elk to get up.

 

 

It's not hard when you realize the Elk was laying on it's side and not how Meldrum illustrated. An elk laying on it's side is not going to leave tracks directly under it, the Elk is going to roll over onto it's feet and then stand.

 

Since you're telling everybody where they "have to be", show me exactly where this Elk should have hoof prints when it stands up:

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by roguefooter

[Faenor]

Swindler specialized in primate teeth look through his publications not animal tracks. Its not his specialty he was open to look at the cast and nearby. Why not call in more relevant experts who were currently working and not geriatric?

Do you see teeth in the skookum cast?

Evolutionary history of mammals is mostly decided through molecular methods nowadays. Its 2015 not 1915

[Guest]

Seems that not one person in this forum has the requisite skills to categorically state what the cast is, coupled with the fact that none of us were there. 

I have no idea what the cast is.

 

Absolutely. And that is the bottom line Stan. Everyone in this thread is a laymen without the required expertise.

 

 

But the opinion of Daris Swindler, an expert who actually saw and studied the cast, is of importance: to deny such is illogical and, importantl, unscientific.

 

 

 

 

And Swindler was, and remains, of higher merit and expertise than ANYONE who has been engaged in this particular debate.. Who should I listen to more? The guy who worked on the Ted Bundy case or the guy who used to post on internet forums under the name DesertYeti arguing against bigfoot?

Swindler specialized in primate teeth look through his publications not animal tracks. Its not his specialty he was open to look at the cast and nearby. Why not call in more relevant experts who were currently working and not geriatric?

Do you see teeth in the skookum cast?

 

 

It wasn't through 'primate teeth' that Swindler established a third woman was up on the Issaquah Bundy dump site.

 

Inform yourself Faenor. 

Edited August 11, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[roguefooter]

^Which one of them is more qualified to recognize an Elk wallow?

[Guest]

^

Which one of them is more qualified to recognise primate? Which one of them didn't going around posting on forums against bigfoot? Which one of them was repeatedly called in by the police to help with their cases? And MEGA cases at that, including two of the most amazing criminal hunts in American history.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest Stan Norton]

Swindler specialized in primate teeth look through his publications not animal tracks. Its not his specialty he was open to look at the cast and nearby. Why not call in more relevant experts who were currently working and not geriatric?

Do you see teeth in the skookum cast?

Evolutionary history of mammals is mostly decided through molecular methods nowadays. Its 2015 not 1915

Gotta love this for its audacity.

So, in one fell swoop you deny the authority of Daris Swindler based on his age (straightforward blatant discrimination there, nice touch fella) and a failure to comprehend the very tenets of the science you so desperately wish to be associated with. Trust me, the study of teeth is fundamental to the science of mammalogy...do your research chap.

Swindler wrote the text book on primate anatomy. He is therefore superbly qualified is he not to comment on the purported impression of a primate heel and Achilles tendon? He didn't comment on footprints in the cast because there weren't any. He commented on gross anatomy because he was an expert on such. That's called science....

^

Which one of them is more qualified to recognise primate? Which one of them didn't going around posting on forums against bigfoot? Which one of them was repeatedly called in by the police to help with their cases?

Which one? The anthropologist with a lifetime of studying mammalian anatomy? Or some anonymous bloke on an internet forum?

Hmmm....

Of deary deary me....

[Guest]

Stan.

 

These scoffers love to point towards experts and scientists.........except when the experts and scientists give opinions and conclusions they don't want to hear. Then they resort to trying to bash the credentials and expertise of said experts.

 

Its hilarious really. 

Edited August 11, 2015 by Neanderfoot