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

[Guest krakatoa]

I'm as big an advocate for a dry and boring analysis of data you will find.

Absolutely I think the case is compelling that this is an Elk lay.

Calling people who believe otherwise "cultish" is a pretty sad argument no matter what side of the topic you are on.

You need to start a new thread if you think that's a position worth defending, but it's completely separate from the topic at hand.

edited to add:

habber...why don't you just write the mod team directly and asked to be banned.

Ha!

Edited October 12, 2011 by krakatoa

[Guest habber]

Mr Habber, if you weren't so waaaaayyy off the mark with what you just wrote where i'm concerned, i'd reply with a decent retort..

But you are, so i won't, i won't waste my time on you because i can see clearly that with you, it really wouldn't be worth it..

really?

[BobbyO]

really?

Yeah really, so good luck with that..

[Guest LAL]

Particularly the last is what I think is one of the most effective glass of cold water demonstrations for those who would cling to the notion that a Bigfoot made that. No words necessary. Completely self-explanatory.

That is the graphic referred to in the bolded part of my quote from DDA. He's done an excellent job of demolishing it on the old forum as well as here. Hopefully the achives will eventually be posted so we can all enjoy the threads. My favorite post was the one where DDA identified one of the supposed elk wrist impressions as a slipped hoof print. DDA's the curator of the cast. He should know.

The photo in Murphy's book shows details that are completely lost in the photo of the copy. The copy's measurements do not exactly match the original either. There were distortions and the copy was painted. That kind of messed up the hair imprints.

Dr. Krantz' take:

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I am a partially retired Full Professor of Physical Anthropology from Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Presently I reside in Port Angeles, WA and teach one course per year back to Pullman via TV connection. My connection with the sasquatch phenomenon dates back to the early 1960s, though for a long time that of a curious onlooker rather than one who accepted its reality. In 1970 I studied a pair of casts of apparently crippled feet, 17 inches long, and deduced the major aspects of the foot anatomy to be consistent only with an 8-foot tall, powerfully built bipedal primate. The problems involved in producing such tracks were such that any human manufacture could be ruled out. After continuing studies I published a book “Big Footprints†(1992) which summarized all my scientific information on this animal. It was reprinted with an addendum in 1999 under the title ‘Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence’. I have read the statement by Dr. Jeff Meldrum about this subject and the need for a high-level, official inquiry about its existence. I fully concur with his request and the reasoning behind it. He and I are personally acquainted and I would judge his scientific qualifications and personality as beyond reproach. On two occasions he and I were able to study the recent body cast, and his observations are correct. Grover S. Krantz, Professor. Signed February 2, 2001″

http://www.cryptomun...krantz-skookum/

The initial examination was attended by Grover Krantz, John Green, Ron Brown, Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel, Rick Noll and Derek Randles.

Edited October 12, 2011 by LAL

[Guest habber]

I'm as big an advocate for a dry and boring analysis of data you will find.

Absolutely I think the case is compelling that this is an Elk lay.

Calling people who believe otherwise "cultish" is a pretty sad argument no matter what side of the topic you are on.

You need to start a new thread if you think that's a position worth defending, but it's completely separate from the topic at hand.

edited to add:

Ha!

krak, I also think ufo'ers have a very strong leaning that way, they accept some really stupid premises as fact with no basis and obsess on blurry photos, that NEVER happens here? Sightings are not fact.

4x4 mode is an invention.

So is the expert standing of Meldrum to prop up a belief. He's probably a very nice guy, his fans have not helped him.

I'm done.

[Guest habber]

Yeah really, so good luck with that..

really?

[Guest habber]

That is the graphic referred to in the bolded part of my quote from DDA. He's done an excellent job of demolishing it on the old forum as well as here. Hopefully the achives will eventually be posted so we can all enjoy the threads. My favorite post was the one where DDA identified one of the supposed elk wrist impressions as a slipped hoof print. DDA's the curator of the cast. He should know.

The photo in Murphy's book shows details that are completely lost in the photo of the copy. The copy's measurements do not exactly match the original either. There were distortions and the copy was painted. That kind of messed up the hair imprints.

Dr. Krantz' take:

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I am a partially retired Full Professor of Physical Anthropology from Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Presently I reside in Port Angeles, WA and teach one course per year back to Pullman via TV connection. My connection with the sasquatch phenomenon dates back to the early 1960s, though for a long time that of a curious onlooker rather than one who accepted its reality. In 1970 I studied a pair of casts of apparently crippled feet, 17 inches long, and deduced the major aspects of the foot anatomy to be consistent only with an 8-foot tall, powerfully built bipedal primate. The problems involved in producing such tracks were such that any human manufacture could be ruled out. After continuing studies I published a book “Big Footprints†(1992) which summarized all my scientific information on this animal. It was reprinted with an addendum in 1999 under the title ‘Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence’. I have read the statement by Dr. Jeff Meldrum about this subject and the need for a high-level, official inquiry about its existence. I fully concur with his request and the reasoning behind it. He and I are personally acquainted and I would judge his scientific qualifications and personality as beyond reproach. On two occasions he and I were able to study the recent body cast, and his observations are correct. Grover S. Krantz, Professor. Signed February 2, 2001″

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/krantz-skookum/

The initial examination was attended by Grover Krantz, John Green, Ron Brown, Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel, Rick Noll and Derek Randle.

he only lets those friendly to his cause and bigfootery lifeline see the evidence, please....

[Guest]

yet even if it's not definitively an elk, the mokey is NOT the only other alternative, thats just culty nonsense.

By definition cults have an "Us VS. Them mentailty"

Pot meet kettle

[BobbyO]

I'm done.

& there was me thinking you were serious, ****..

[Bonehead74]

As a dully appointed member of that forum, you're mad emy point nicely, well done. "Let's not explore all the possibilities, god forbid the likely ones, lets just assume it must be the monkey."

good luck with that.

I don't see anyone assuming "it must be the monkey" as you so condescendingly put it. They are discussing what could have made the impression. It's a bit ironic that your "all the possibilities " doesn't include a sasquatch.

[Guest habber]

I don't see anyone assuming "it must be the monkey" as you so condescendingly put it. They are discussing what could have made the impression. It's a bit ironic that your "all the possibilities " doesn't include a sasquatch.

nope, just that its the least likely.

[Guest Primate]

Thought you were done..

[Guest habber]

Thought you were done..

guess not.

[Guest LAL]

John Green:

"For more than 40 years I have held the opinion that science can not be convinced of the existence of sasquatches by anything less than physical remains. I have now changed my opinion. I think the Skookum cast can do it, provided that enough influential zoologosts, mammalogists, anatomists, primatologists, etc. will take a serious look at it. I have had the privilege of being able to spend considerable time examining the cast on two occasions, once before much of the dirt was removed from it and once since, both times in the company of Dr. Grover Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum among others.

On the first occasion dirt still hid most of the dermatoglyphics, the forearm imprint was still just a questionable dirt-covered hump, and estimates of the length of the body parts were largely guesswork. Even then all of the people present, five of whom held doctorates, agreed with the trio who found the imprint that the only thing that could have made it was a huge bipedal primate which had sat down in the mud and then turned on its side.

After that Jeff Meldrum spent several days carefully uncovering the details, revealing consistent hair patterns on all parts of the imprint, including the forearm, and large areas of clear dermal ridges where the heels had dug in.

Since no large creatures except primates have dermal ridges at all, there is no possibility that any animal other than a higher primate could have made the heel imprints. Each species of higher primate has a different pattern, and none has a heel this large. Further, Dr. Meldrum, who is a professor of anatomy, was able to determine the position of the joints for some of the limbs, establishing that the bones were 40 to 50 percent longer than those of a 6-foot human.

The evidence that this imprint was made by a very large, unknown, higher primate is, in my opinion, compelling. I would not anticipate that every qualified person who examines would come to the same conclusion, but I feel sure that the vast majority would have to, whatever their preconceptions."

[Bonehead74]

nope, just that its the least likely.

Sorry. Didn't realize we weren't to discuss less likely scenarios involving bigfoot here on the bigfoot forums. Once again I was tricked by that "all the possibilities" clause.