Jump to content

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

Guest

By Guest
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Faenor Bukwas

Faenor

Posted
Posted

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.

Swindler didnt identify the third girl ted bundy did. Swindler noticed there were three different femurs and vertebrae a feat that could be accomplished with a ruler and calipers. The two girls were identified by teeth and dental records. Whats that word TEETH.

Who said i was a skeptic anyway maybe im a knower. Im just like you we are on the same side.

Swindler was a good scientist and an expert in teeth. That was his specialty not animal imprints and not limbs or heels. Saying a specialist examined the skookum cast isn't exactly correct. He was a specialist but the skookum cast had nothing to do with his speciality. If you have heart disease and go to a podiatrist sure the podiatrist is a specialist but not the kind you would want to treat your heart disease.

You're charming.

You were wrong and whats worse you tried to act snarky and superior while stating something incredibly wrong.

"the evolutionary history of mammals is predominantly the science of studying teeth. " boo yea sorry about grandma

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Guest OntarioSquatch

Posted
Posted

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.....

 

It's at the 24:00 mark.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM3QV3OYzoc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Yowie

Martin

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm in a terrible area for streaming video. No cell service and dsl wifi....extremely painful.

I saw the 2 min segment with Swindler.

Where is the paper version of this study?

Where is his endorsement of the pgf his battlefield conversion as discussed prior?

Is there more?

Edited by Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Stan Norton

Guest Stan Norton

Posted
Posted

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.

Swindler didnt identify the third girl ted bundy did. Swindler noticed there were three different femurs and vertebrae a feat that could be accomplished with a ruler and calipers. The two girls were identified by teeth and dental records. Whats that word TEETH.

Who said i was a skeptic anyway maybe im a knower. Im just like you we are on the same side.

Swindler was a good scientist and an expert in teeth. That was his specialty not animal imprints and not limbs or heels. Saying a specialist examined the skookum cast isn't exactly correct. He was a specialist but the skookum cast had nothing to do with his speciality. If you have heart disease and go to a podiatrist sure the podiatrist is a specialist but not the kind you would want to treat your heart disease.

You're charming.

You were wrong and whats worse you tried to act snarky and superior while stating something incredibly wrong.

"the evolutionary history of mammals is predominantly the science of studying teeth. " boo yea sorry about grandma

Keep going charming guy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
norseman Sasquatch

norseman

Posted
Admin
Posted

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html

Huh? Fossil teeth are stoopid........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
norseman Sasquatch

norseman

Posted
Admin
Posted

Bamboo mostly to be exact........

No we do not have Bigfoot teeth, meaning we dont have any thing to attribute to a giant hairy ape or archiac homonid in north America at this time.

But considering we did not have a single chimpanzee fossil until 2005, and the Mountain Gorilla was not discivered until about 100 years ago?

I think we can afford to give some more time.

Ribs hurt like a banshee, but cryptid hunting has its risks.......thanks for asking Bohdi

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rockape Sasquatch

Rockape

Posted
Posted

Giganto was thought to have a mostly vegetarian diet http://www.pnas.org/content/87/20/8120.short

Bigfoot is reported to actively kill and consume deer and elk. The esteemed Johnny dagger has a paper out on the bones of bigfoots meals. The teeth would be different.

Fossil chimp teeth doesn't equal human teeth.

OK, so you believe BF is a carnivore? An omnivore that has a predominantly carnivorous diet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiflier Sasquatch

hiflier

Posted
Posted

Hello Norseman,

Does that rule out the Meganthropus tooth found in Santa Cruz, CA? A curious artifact to be found in North America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Faenor Bukwas

Faenor

Posted
Posted

Giganto was thought to have a mostly vegetarian diet http://www.pnas.org/content/87/20/8120.short

Bigfoot is reported to actively kill and consume deer and elk. The esteemed Johnny dagger has a paper out on the bones of bigfoots meals. The teeth would be different.

Fossil chimp teeth doesn't equal human teeth.

OK, so you believe BF is a carnivore? An omnivore that has a predominantly carnivorous diet?

I believe bigfoot could not be entirely vegetarian. The caloric requirements would not permit such a large mammal the luxury of hiding from humans at all costs. We would see them grazing more regularly. Bigfoot is not hanging out munching on bamboo and other plants as giganto is thought to have. Teeth are gonna be different unless the scientists who have studied the fossils and/or bigfoot reports are mistaken. So little is known if giganto would bigfoot be a direct evolutionary descendent or an offshoot of a more archaic form shared by both giganto and bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MIB Skunk Ape

MIB

Posted
Moderator
Posted (edited)

Regarding the original question?

 

I will give you the final, definitive answer:  anything being debated AS evidence by definition IS evidence.   Engaging in the discussion of an item of evidence 's validity is tacit acknowledgement that valid or not, it IS evidence.

 

The end. 

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
norseman Sasquatch

norseman

Posted
Admin
Posted

Hello Norseman,Does that rule out the Meganthropus tooth found in Santa Cruz, CA? A curious artifact to be found in North America.

As they say in Missouri? Show me!

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...