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

August 11, 2015

^

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?

Being called by police is irrelevant, same with posting on a forum.

He is only qualified to recognize known primates, not a completely undocumented species. Even the Bigfoot field can't agree on what it is. No, he would be guessing just like every other unqualified person out there.

Neanderfoot, on 11 Aug 2015 - 12:53 AM, said:

Then they resort to trying to bash the credentials and expertise of said experts.

Weren't you the one who just said that Wrobleski's opinion was all hyperbole? That he was just a guy who studied rocks for a living? That he went on a forum speaking against Bigfoot?

Edited August 11, 2015 by roguefooter

August 11, 2015

Swindler wasn't unqualified to recognize primate. What part of this can't you grasp?

Again, who should I listen to more? An anthropologist who worked on the Bundy case or a geologist who spent lots of time arguing against bigfoot on internet message boards? He has no credentials in animal tracking or anthropology and wouldn't recognize primate evidence if it sat on him as he has no expertise in that field. This is the point.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Neanderfoot

August 11, 2015

^

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?

Being called by police is irrelevant, same with posting on a forum.

He is only qualified to recognize known primates, not a completely undocumented species. Even the Bigfoot field can't agree on what it is. No, he would be guessing just like every other unqualified person out there.

No. His would be an informed opinion. Based on his knowledge of primate and general mammalian anatomy. The working hypothes is (crucial to science) is that sasquatch is an ape, and therefore unsurprisingly related to other extant and extinct apes. Quite far from an uneducated guess really. You can't have it both ways...as there are no bigfoot experts then by your logic no-one can have anything but a guess on any purported evidence. That's just silly. Would you suggest my opinion of a footprint is equal to that expressed by a footprint expert? I certainly would not say so. Edited August 11, 2015 by Stan Norton

August 11, 2015

Weren't you the one who just said that Wrobleski's opinion was all hyperbole? That he was just a guy who studied rocks for a living? That he went on a forum speaking against Bigfoot?

I see you left out the first part of my argument. I'm not the one going on about 'science, science, science' all the time like the dismissers here.

Why did you leave that part out?

No. His would be an informed opinion. Based on his knowledge of primate and general mammalian anatomy.

Swindler over Wroblewski every time. More qualified in recognising primate structure and with far more impressive credentials behind him. If these scoftics want to appeal to authority, then Swindler's authority was higher than Wrobleski's. End of story.

Having said that I still don't know what that cast is.

August 11, 2015

No. His would be an informed opinion. Based on his knowledge of primate and general mammalian anatomy. The working hypothes is (crucial to science) is that sasquatch is an ape, and therefore unsurprisingly related to other extant and extinct apes. Quite far from an uneducated guess really. You can't have it both ways...as there are no bigfoot experts then by your logic no-one can have anything but a guess on any purported evidence. That's just silly. Would you suggest my opinion of a footprint is equal to that expressed by a footprint expert? I certainly would not say so.

An "informed opinion" on a completely unknown creature is a shot in the dark every time. This "informed opinion" surely didn't benefit Meldrum when he stated the Blue Creek Mountain tracks were real. Should we consider them to be real because he is more "qualified" than the common man? That the amazing matches to the Wallace stompers must be wrong?

Was expert Jimmy Chilcutt right about those dermal ridges? Even though they can be reproduced just by pouring plaster?

I see you left out the first part of my argument. I'm not the one going on about 'science, science, science' all the time like the dismissers here.

Why did you leave that part out?

There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and yes you are using science to back your argument.

We have a scientist that specializes in known animal imprints saying it's an Elk wallow, and we have primate specialists saying it's a Bigfoot, which is a completely unknown creature with a completely unknown anatomy.

Known versus unknown. Which holds more weight?

Swindler wasn't unqualified to recognize primate. What part of this can't you grasp?

I never said he wasn't. I said he was qualified for known primates, not creatures with unknown anatomy.

August 11, 2015

Do you suggest that sasquatch has an anatomy completely unrelated to any organism on earth? Or is it plausible that its anatomy is quite similar to other terrestrial vertebrates of the primate guild? I'd say the latter and therefore a primate anatomist has something to add. Science is really quite simple.

August 11, 2015

There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and yes you are using science to back your argument.

I never go around here going science science science all the time. Not me. If fact I don't even really care all that much if sasquatch isn't ever officially recognised by science. Swindler was already being talked about here. I didn't go looking for his name to bring into the equation. He was already brought up. Same as in the other thread on the other sub section of this forum. I didn't bring his name up first there either.

The point is, the scoftics are always going on about science and experts and that we should listen to them, yet when bona fide scientists and experts are shown to support any aspect of sasquatch in the positive then those scientists or experts credentials are called into question in an attempt to discredit the worth of their opinion.

I'll will take Daris Swindler, a highly reputed expert in the relevant field who spent much of his time working on some of the most infamous crime cases in US history such as Ted Bundy and The Green River Killer, over somebody of lesser standing who spent much of his time posting against bigfoot on internet forums.

But I still don't know what that cast is. I'm not saying it is a sasquatch impression. But nor has it been established it's an elk impression either.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Neanderfoot

August 11, 2015

Stan Norton, on 11 Aug 2015 - 02:11 AM, said:

Do you suggest that sasquatch has an anatomy completely unrelated to any organism on earth? Or is it plausible that its anatomy is quite similar to other terrestrial vertebrates of the primate guild? I'd say the latter and therefore a primate anatomist has something to add. Science is really quite simple.

My opinion of what Sasquatch anatomy is like is irrelevant- same with yours. It's not going to make it suddenly be that way. Nor is anyone else's opinion including a scientist. Everybody is guessing because nobody knows.

Neanderfoot, on 11 Aug 2015 - 01:27 AM, said:

I never go around here going science science science all the time. Not me. If fact I don't even really care all that much if sasquatch isn't ever officially recognised by science. Swindler was already being talked about here. I didn't go looking for his name to bring into the equation. He was already brought up. Same as in the other thread on the other sub section of this forum. I didn't bring his name up first there either.

Actually you all have been since this thread was brought back up. It doesn't matter who brought it up, when it keeps getting repeated like a trump card then that's appealing to authority:

DWA: "What you think, but yours isn't an expert opinion. Swindler's, on the other hand...is. As is Meldrum's."

DWA: "Somebody with supremely relevant world-class credentials - compared to your zero"

Neanderfoot: "Swindler was and remains, despite his passing, a man of high expertise and repute. We can't dismiss his testimony just like that. Sorry, can't be done. Least of all by laymen internet experts of absolutely zero repute, nor by somebody who looks at rocks for a living either."

Neanderfoot: "Everyone in this thread is a laymen without the required expertise."

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

Every stance an appeal to authority: science experts for the win, and everybody else is zero. You're all basically saying the same thing- that science trumps all and is the only option for this discussion.

The point is, the scoftics are always going on about science and experts and that we should listen to them, yet when bona fide scientists and experts are shown to support any aspect of sasquatch in the positive then those scientists or experts credentials are called into question in an attempt to discredit the worth of their opinion.

That's just debate. Both sides have scientists, both sides have been discrediting the others. Why would you say it was just "scoftics"?

Edited August 11, 2015 by roguefooter

August 11, 2015

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.

..

No no no you said evolutionary history of mammals is predominately the science studying teeth. Type in mammalian evolution in google scholar for the past few years. You see lots of journal articles on teeth do you? Its not teeth anymore dude its all molecular. Put away your grandpa books and look at the current research. You cant wiggle away

The study of teeth is important in the study of mammals sure but so are bones, organs, body fluids, behavior, etc etc etc. Go count up all the current journal articles and see how many are based on teeth. Teeth really are not currently the predominant method for work on mammalian evolution.

Daris swindler was old when he looked at the skookum cast. Old people suffer dimentia, memory loss, and their cognitive abilities as a whole are below that of their younger selves. Old folks who needs them anyway.

August 11, 2015

You're charming.

August 11, 2015

"The point is, the scoftics are always going on about science and experts and that we should listen to them, yet when bona fide scientists and experts are shown to support any aspect of sasquatch in the positive then those scientists or experts credentials are called into question in an attempt to discredit the worth of their opinion."

Note that it is their *credentials*, never their *work.* In the meantime, the *credentials* of people any educated person knows - upon, you know, *analysis* - did no *work* are bandied about as question settled.

I'll will take Daris Swindler, a highly reputed expert in the relevant field who spent much of his time working on some of the most infamous crime cases in US history such as Ted Bundy and The Green River Killer, over somebody of lesser standing who spent much of his time posting against bigfoot on internet forums.

So.VERY.Much.This.

But I still don't know what that cast is. I'm not saying it is a sasquatch impression. But nor has it been established it's an elk impression either.

August 11, 2015

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.

..

No no no you said evolutionary history of mammals is predominately the science studying teeth. Type in mammalian evolution in google scholar for the past few years. You see lots of journal articles on teeth do you? Its not teeth anymore dude its all molecular. Put away your grandpa books and look at the current research. You cant wiggle away

The study of teeth is important in the study of mammals sure but so are bones, organs, body fluids, behavior, etc etc etc. Go count up all the current journal articles and see how many are based on teeth. Teeth really are not currently the predominant method for work on mammalian evolution.

Daris swindler was old when he looked at the skookum cast. Old people suffer dimentia, memory loss, and their cognitive abilities as a whole are below that of their younger selves. Old folks who needs them anyway.

You don't know the first thing about Daris Swindler. He didn't examine 'teeth' of the 3rd poor gal up near Issaquah from the Bundy dump site. In fact there wasn't even her skull there.

As for the rest of your post, that just goes to show the type of 'skeptic' we have posting here. Congrats for being a classic example of 'your side'. Excellent.

August 11, 2015

There is no better advertisement of the evils of scofticism...than reading it.

It just isn't an intellectual exercise. I have to leave my computer and go outside to laugh when a scoftic lauds "critical thinking." It is Orwellian doublespeak; I'd be taken out by security were I to have my laugh fit indoors.

August 11, 2015

Hello DWA,

"Evils"??!?

August 11, 2015

I just don't get it.....

I believe that the Skookum Cast is an Elk. My train of thought is supported by some notables in the scientific community.

This makes me a denier and or a scoftic?

It is a cast that looks like an elk, is full of elk hair, surrounded by elk tracks and people who are specialists in trace evidence identify as elk.

DWA mentioned that Swindler change his claims regarding the pgf after looking at the cast. Where is the article?

I am willing to reconsider if someone, DWA, Neanderfoot? ??, can point me in the direction of Swindler's further discussions of the cast and the pgf.

I would like to read some of Swindler technical notes on the cast also. Could you please link for me.

This is a teachable moment so no insulting comments or labeing me please.....

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

Guest

Guest Stan Norton

Guest

roguefooter

Guest Stan Norton

Guest

roguefooter

Faenor

Guest Stan Norton

Guest DWA

Guest

Guest DWA

hiflier

Martin

Browse

SSR

Policies

Activity