scookum cast analysis?, Are only BFRO people allowed to examine? Options

[magikern]

Read the Sceptical Enquier the other day and Benjamin Radford claimed that BFRO refused to let outsiders examine the Skookum cast. The only ones that are allowed to examine it are people handpicked by BFRO according to him.

Any comments?

[The Forest Ape]

Doesn't surprise me. I'm sure they don't want just anyone fooling around with it, it's valuable evidence!

[magikern]

It´s not hard to imagine why the sceptics are sceptics if only people selected by BFRO are allowed to examine the cast.

Let 5 or 6 of the worlds leading primate anatomy specialists examine the cast and the footprints instead of 1 o 2 selected by BFRO.

The idea of such a massive creature as a Sasquatch lying down on the ground to grab something seems to be pretty farfetched to me. I understand where the sceptics are coming from when it comes to Skookum cast

[ranshirl]

Why do you say it is so hard to understand that a large thing could lie down to do something. I believe that it was said that the creature was lying down to eat at the time not to reach for somethng anyway. It really don't matter what it was doing at the time. What matters is that it was gotten and being studied. People like you will not listen when it is proven because you have total blockage when it comes to the truth, because you choose not to believe anyway, no matter what anyone does to prove it you will not believe, because you have shut your mind to the facts that it could exist.

[magikern]

You got me wrong!


I believe in the existence of Bigfoot but I also understand why the sceptics are sceptics.

[Fishbone35]

Who told you that only BFRO or people they select are allowed to examine the Skookum Cast?

It sat in the Willow Creek - China Flats Musuem for the entire duration of the symposium for anyone who cared to walk in and inspect it.

That doesn't sound too exclusive to me. Does it to you?

[tugboatwa]

I had heard the same story - only viewing by selected scientific types - before I saw it at Willow Creek.

Perhaps DDA can add his answer?

[damndirtyape]

The only hand picking done was with getting the very best people who could help understand it, not just anybody. George Schaller because of his Gorilla work and ungulate studies, Daris Swindler because of his anatomy knowledge and skepticism, Esteban Sarimento for his current work in Africa on the Bili Ape and knowledge of just what museums might have in their basements. These are main stream scientists and naturalists, not magazine editors. We went with a magazine editor once and a major newspaper reporter another time, both at their request, and they didn't know diddly squat and their stories reflected it. Let them keep crying about it or making up stories concerning it, just remember that what ever they say, it is just their opinion and the only opinion they can offer is one coming from ignorance.

I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford. Cliff because he has an agenda to get his name into the news anyway he can and Mr. Radford because he seems too easily hypnotized (from his first story written about the cast and me). Editors and writers should learn to not burn bridges. The Skookum cast is not a side show attraction. It is being preserved for people who have knowledge of such things to see it in a prime condition both physically and without prejudice.

I brought it to the Willow Creek Symposium at the request of John Green because he thought it the perfect opportunity for Jane Goodall to see it. The only thing I would have done differently would have been to have displayed it at the school maybe instead of the museum, but I think everything is working out just fine the way it was. Radford has to write something, and probably something negative, that is about all he can write on the subject because he has been turned down in viewing it or taking pictures for his magazine articles. He wants to exploit the cast, in his own little way.

[damndirtyape]

Also, we have more on the list of who we would like to view or study it. All scientists, trackers or naturalists again.

If all of a sudden you tuned into Leno or Letterman and saw the cast there, I would begin to wonder about the entertainment content versus anything scientific, but right now I am doing what I can to get the very best to examine it. It is only a small part of the bigger picture anyway and I think that picture eludes the skeptics as well.

[The Forest Ape]

Thanks for that clarification DDA, I am enlightened. (Seriously.)

[SgtFang]

Hi Rick,

I remember a couple years ago there was some talk of making copies of the skookum cast so that more people would have access to it. I know copies wouldn't have anything like latent hair left or anything, but all the critical details would still be there.

Any new thoughts on this?

-Sarge

[tugboatwa]

If I could ask another question, Rick:

Will the Skookum Cast be on display in Vancouver, B.C. at the museum exhibition next summer that Chris Murphy is coordinating?

[Paul1968UK]

Hi Rick,

I remember a couple years ago there was some talk of making copies of the skookum cast so that more people would have access to it. I know copies wouldn't have anything like latent hair left or anything, but all the critical details would still be there.

Any new thoughts on this?

-Sarge

As I understand it, DDA is still looking into the practicality of copying such a big cast - it isn't like duplicating a 15" footprint.

As someone who got to study the cast up close at the syposium (Al Hodeson and I were hanging around the museum for 1/2 hour waiting for Rick Noll to arrive and load it up, it is impressive, and I can understand why he is taking a lot of care with it, and not making any haphazard attempts to duplicate it.

That said, I have no idea what made the cast, but am grateful for Rick's presentation at the symposium - it makes a lot more sense now.

[SgtFang]

As I understand it, DDA is still looking into the practicality of copying such a big cast - it isn't like duplicating a 15" footprint.

Well... err, Paul, In all professional humility, to "me", it is. It's the same, exact process, just more material.

The mold medium I use, (GI-1000 from Silicones Inc.) is capable of lifting a fingerprint, and as such, WELL capable of copying every single molecule of that plaster cast. To be honest, I'd probably pick up Jeff M's and Estaban S's earlier fingerprints as well.

A big part of what I do for a living, consists of making high quality molds, and I've impressed a few Hollywood professionals in my time, with a few, elementary inovations. I can cite references if you like.

If Rick would be willing. I might be able to provide museum quality copies of this thing to everyone who'd ever need one. I'd be cheap too, for the intial process - just cover gas money and molding materials. I'd sleep in the bed of my partner's truck if I had to. I just want a copy to stick over my fireplace. This thing is the Rossetta Stone of Sasquatch Research, and I really want a copy!

-Sarge

This post has been edited by SgtFang: Nov 20 2003, 05:44 AM

[magikern]

Very interesting. I didn´t knew anything about Radford but know I do.

I still believe that more people from the scientific community should examine the cast!

There was also talk about some longhaired guy who did the cast and somehow some of his hairs got stuck to it and were mistaken for Sasquatch hair.

Anybody know more about it?

[damndirtyape]

Esteban had long hair and during LMS was seen picking hair from the cast. The only hair left on the cast is actually imbedded in it. How could Esteban's hair fall out of his scalp, land on the cast and imbed itself within for him to then pick it back out?

This is type of story that gets past around till it doesn't even resemble the truth anymore.

[Paul1968UK]

In all fairness DDA, I work in the field of Forensic Science, and what little hair I have would have been covered up if I were examining evidence that may contain hair and DNA.

Esteban should have had his hair tied back and covered whilst examining the cast, since the alternative is to provide hair and DNA samples yourself so that they can be eliminated from any investigation.

Covering up is more cost effective !

[robo]

I am wondering if hair being embedded in the cast is one of the reasons that re-casting it would be problematic? Would the 're-casting' material possible damage the embedded hair, or pull it out?

Oh, and i saw LMS, and did think Dr. Sarmiento's hair lying all over the cast was a bit odd, but i assume that he knows what he's doing, and knows that his hair is going to be easily told apart from any other hair on the cast...

[damndirtyape]

True, it would of been better to have a hair net. Esteban used an electron mic on the hairs and was looking at the scaling attributes. He has since been side-tracked with the Bili Ape project but will soon rejoin the Bigfoot fray in ernst.

[GEORGEKARRAS]

Read the Sceptical Enquier the other day and Benjamin Radford claimed that BFRO refused to let outsiders examine the Skookum cast. The only ones that are allowed to examine it are people handpicked by BFRO according to him.

Any comments?

Im not a member of the BFRO (Im an outsider) and I have seen the Skookum Cast myself and not at some public event behind glass either but at a private home at Rick Nolls invitation.

Rick had publicly posted a response to critics that he would make it available to ANYONE who wanted to see it and I took him up on his offer. Rick delivered.

So I can not agree with what you are posting.

I dont know what the current policy is but that was my experience.

[Tsiatko]

The cast was also shown in public in Bellingham Wa. at the Sasquatch symposium. As far as I know it has never been locked away other than for it's own safety. I know Rick didn't want to take it to Willow creek for fear it could be damaged on the long trip. He is keeping it in the best condition so that any further scientific investigation can be done. More can still be learned from the cast and Rick has just taken what stept need to be taken to assure it will be in top shape when that happens. I feel Rick would show it to anyone who has a gunuine interest in seeing it. The only people who need not ask are those who made up there mind before the facts and have tried to use the cast for their own self promotion. Not the truth.

John D. Pickering

[Bfootery]

Hello all,

Benjamin Radford here, skeptical straw man available for birthday parties and Bigfoot conventions! I saw a few postings about my recent piece in the Skeptical Inquirer regarding the Skookum cast and the BFRO, particularly about the BFRO’s refusal to allow access to it. In this forum the BFRO has had their say. But there are, of course, two sides to every story. Here’s (a short version of) my side:

I was indeed refused access to the Skookum cast by the BFRO (Matt Moneymaker himself). I was planning to be in the Seattle area, and politely e-mailed the BFRO to ask if I could see the cast while I was there. I had written briefly about it before, and followed some of the published accounts of it. I was even quoted in Loren Coleman’s book as saying that it was potentially the biggest Bigfoot evidence find in the last few decades. Skeptics are often accused of not looking at the evidence, so I asked to see their evidence. He implied that I was not “qualified” to see the cast, but I did not ask to do any analysis or even touch the cast; I was perfectly happy to hear the BFRO experts’ analysis. I am not an anatomist (neither is Moneymaker, I might add), but, like most people, I can listen to evidence and make a judgement for myself. After a few e-mail exchanges, Moneymaker finally refused and that was that. It was apparently my status as a skeptic that disqualified me from viewing the cast. Moneymaker’s depiction of me as a blind and rabid debunker is unfair; I am open-minded (though skeptical) about Bigfoot and have never said that it does not exist.

It may be true that the cast was available for public exhibition at times; all I know is that it seemed that the BFRO wants to keep a tight rein on who is allowed to see it. If the BFRO could provide a list of skeptical investigators who have been allowed to see the cast, I’d love to see it. This is not how scientific evidence is handled; the BFRO and the actual scientists in it (i.e., Jeff Meldrum) should know better.

One poster (I assume it was Moneymaker) wrote a few things that deserve response:

• “We went with a magazine editor once and a major newspaper reporter another time, both at their request, and they didn't know diddly squat and their stories reflected it.” Well, I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with a magazine editor and a reporter who didn’t know anything about Bigfoot or cryptozoology. In addition to being a magazine editor, I am also a cryptozoologist and have written about Bigfoot, the Champ lake monster, and other creatures for years. I would think that the BFRO would welcome a magazine editor who does in fact know something about the topic—unless, apparently, he or she might be even a little skeptical…

• “Let them keep crying about it or making up stories concerning it, just remember that what ever they say, it is just their opinion and the only opinion they can offer is one coming from ignorance.” I’m not crying about it or making up stories about it; it is ironic that Moneymaker refuses to let me see his evidence, then accuses me of offering an opinion writing from ignorance of his evidence.

• “Radford has to write something, and probably something negative.... He wants to exploit the cast, in his own little way.” Sorry, that’s the chance you take opening your evidence up to others; that’s the scientific process. If you don’t want anyone to question your findings or results, just keep it away from anyone who might say something you don’t like. My request to see the cast was sincere; I was not trying to debunk the cast, criticize the BFRO, or write something negative. And the idea that I want to exploit the Skookum cast? Hilarious! I’m not making money off the cast; it’s the BFRO who is offering their documentary on the cast on DVD for $35 a pop… Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[GEORGEKARRAS]

You asked the wrong person ...

Neither Matt Moneymaker nor the BFRO own the Skookum cast ...

Rick Noll owns it and he is the appropriate person to ask about it.

I can not say that you would have gotten a different answer from Rick Noll but I can tell you that I was allowed to see it, touch it and talk to Rick about it and all I had to do was ask.

I am not an anthropology expert nor especially "qualified" in any particular field.

Im just an average guy with a strong interest in the subject.

I am not a member of the BFRO either.

[SkunkHunter]

Me thinks Bfootery is making things up or extremely confused. Considering Georges post that is. I could be wrong though.

Why would he have to ask Moneymaker if Rick owns it?
Why would the BFRO not allow "unqualified" folks to view it if it is Ricks and not the BFRO's.

I know of a few folks who have seen it and they certainly are not scientists.

Why do I get a feeling his post has a hidden agenda?
again I could be wrong.

This post has been edited by SkunkHunter: Dec 5 2003, 11:27 AM

[robo]

Hi Benjamin, and welcome to the BFF. Rick Noll often posts here, and i'd be interested in his response.
As i understand it, Rick Noll was the one who led the expedition on which the imprint was found. Matt Moneymaker is the head of the BFRO, to which Mr. Noll, but not the bodycast, belongs.

Anyway, perhaps if you are able to get into direct contact with Rick Noll, you might get a second chance to see the cast in private. Or, you can just go to the next conference or event where the cast is displayed to the public, and see it along with everyone else.

It has not been 'held in secret' and has been publicly displayed a number of times already. As i understand it, the only reason it is not even more accessible is that Mr. Noll is trying to preserve what is apparently a unique and very fragile (not to mention extremely heavy) piece of evidence. It would appear that you were refused an appointment to see it the first time not because of secrecy, but because Mr. Moneymaker, rightly or wrongly, viewed you not as a worthwhile investigator but someone who would be wasting his or his colleagues' time.

The basic suspicion, it seems, was that you had already made up your mind that Bigfoot was a myth kept alive by hoaxers and the gullible, and you merely wanted to add weight to your dismissal of the cast by being able to say that you had examined it, and determined that it was nothing more than a cast of a mud puddle or suchlike.

If you can convince Mr. Noll otherwise, i think there is a good chance he would invite you to examine the cast.

-robo

[Bfootery]

Thanks, robo.

"Matt Moneymaker is the head of the BFRO, to which Mr. Noll, but not the bodycast, belongs." Fair enough; I assumed that since the cast was found under the auspices of the BFRO, Moneymaker had authority over who sees it (he certainly implied that to me in our exchange!). Perhaps Mr. Noll is the one to contact, and I would be delighted to do so.

I respect the fact that Moneymaker and Noll do not want laymen poking around the cast, and they have the right to do with it what they like. But I just think that this was all handled very poorly. I made a genuine and sincere request to see their evidence. I don't know if I will find it convincing or not, but being denied access to it told me a lot about how the BFRO (or at least Moneymaker) operates.

I don't have any current plans to write anything on the cast or on Bigfoot, but if Mr. Noll would allow me access the next time I'm in the area, I would be pleased to give it a fair hearing.

BR

[SkunkHunter]

But I just think that this was all handled very poorly. I made a genuine and sincere request to see their evidence. I don't know if I will find it convincing or not, but being denied access to it told me a lot about how the BFRO (or at least Moneymaker) operates.

BR,

I hope they let you see it. I think it is good for skeptical folks to take a look at certain claims. As long as it is honest and open minded. Some skeptics can be quite close-minded and will dismiss issues that may conflict with their bias. RogerK refers them as Scoftics.

I have seen some reports of yours on the net critiquing some books and it seems that your attention was focused more on the fact that some witnesses were either now dead, or children. No mentions of professionals or respected scientists like Jane Goodall or others. Some skeptics never mention things like dermal ridges found on some tracks and pretty interesting things like that. They seem only to focus on the generic assumption that it is all bunk and will not even mention or publish anything that points to a good possibility for the existence of a rare primate such as BF. I know reputations are everything in the media world. Is it possible that your reputation at Skeptical Inquirer will be tarnished if you publicly admitted that some alleged evidence was hard to dismiss or at least was in some favor for a BF believer?

I hope you stick around here, as having a skeptic to keep things in check is never bad.

PS about them not letting you see the evidence. That can be frustrating. But the fact is they have made it available unlike others in this field. Would skeptics like you be interested in a sample of alleged DNA? Would any effort be put into it to see if in fact it was an unidentified primate in North America? Is there an interest in it? There is a group out there that claims to have just that and perhaps you guys may be able to acquire a sample, if it actually exists that is. I think it would be great for the hardcore skeptics to have something that makes them scratch their heads. It would certainly not hurt the BF "community".

[robo]

I respect the fact that Moneymaker and Noll do not want laymen poking around the cast, and they have the right to do with it what they like. But I just think that this was all handled very poorly. I made a genuine and sincere request to see their evidence. I don't know if I will find it convincing or not, but being denied access to it told me a lot about how the BFRO (or at least Moneymaker) operates.

But i'm not sure that's the issue. From what i have heard, they have no problem with laymen poking around the cast (ok.. maybe not 'poking', but you get the idea )
AFAIK, only two people have been refused access to the cast, yourself and Cliff Crook, a well known hoaxer that i'm sure you are familiar with. In Crook's case, it was because he has made a name for himself by loudly declaring evidence such as the PG film to be fake (based on such questionable reasons as zippers dangling off the suit, despite the fact that film experts have repeatedly stated that anything the size of a zipper would be much smaller than the film grain, and therefore impossible to identify in the PG film) and pushing his own set of rather clearly hoaxed photos. As for you, it was probably because you were viewed as a 'professional debunker' who would not consider the cast on the merits of evidence, but would just dismiss it out of hand, having seen it or not.

Perhaps Mr. Moneymaker made the wrong appraisal of your motives. I can't say for sure. But in general, the BFRO is one of the few Bigfoot research groups that has tried hard to be as open and credible as possible, and their refusal to give you a private appointment to see the cast was definitely not because you aren't an 'expert' or 'believer'.

-robo

This post has been edited by robo: Dec 5 2003, 12:43 PM

[robo]

Oops. Skunkhunter pretty much beat me to it.

Oh well. I did want to ask you why, in my quick perusal of the www.csicop.org/si site, did I see no mention of, for example, analysis of the PG film by anatomists and animators, or descriptions of the dermal ridges and unique bone structure found in many widely distributed footprints?

I saw only mentions of known faked footprints.

Being a skeptic doesn't mean refusing to consider evidence that runs against one's viewpoint. It doesn't mean only debunking the 'low hanging fruit', the obvious fakes and questionable reports. If you are truly a skeptic, and not a so called 'scoftic', what is your educated take on the various analyses of the PG film (for example, Dr. Grover Krantz's extensive examination of the film), or the dermal ridges on alleged footprints, that don't fit either human or known great ape ridges? What about the double ball foot structure?

If you are going to be a respectable skeptic, then at least be ready to rebut the arguments of the opposing camp, rather than ignore them.


-robo

ps. I didn't spend a long time on the Skeptical Inquirer site, so if you do have sections debunking the PG film, dermal ridges, foot anatomy, etc, i apologize, and i'd be interested to read them.

This post has been edited by robo: Dec 5 2003, 12:21 PM

[RB]

Welcome, Ben!

I dunno... but I think that if I were the owner of that cast...

I'd be standing right next to it the entire time it was on public display...

All it takes is one lunatic to render it useless for research purposes...

And I saw at least one lunatic at the symposium...

Don't get me wrong... I'm sure you're a very nice and sane fellow, Ben... but for all I know (and for all the BFRO knows) you are the lunatic to which I refer...

This post has been edited by RB: Dec 5 2003, 01:06 PM

[RayG]

Hello all,

Benjamin Radford here...

Welcome to the board BR.

I read your comments in SI and was initially somewhat puzzled by your comment that the BFRO had "refused to provide outside investigators...access to the cast." since it's been brought to my attention that scientists, apparently outside the influences of the BFRO, have indeed examined the cast. I have no idea if these scientists were "hand-picked by the BFRO", but those that examined the cast, and believe it to be made by a sasquatch, already seemed to have a prior belief in bigfoot.

I was indeed refused access to the Skookum cast by the BFRO.... Skeptics are often accused of not looking at the evidence, so I asked to see their evidence....It was apparently my status as a skeptic that disqualified me from viewing the cast.

It should be just the opposite. It's the scientists/skeptics who don't believe who should be given the greatest opportunity to view the evidence. I've not seen the cast myself, but dermal heel prints, forearm impressions/measurements, etc. etc. could be a great catalyst for convincing those scientists that have, for so long, held the whole bigfoot phenomena at arms length, to at least look at the evidence.

If the BFRO could provide a list of skeptical investigators who have been allowed to see the cast, I’d love to see it. This is not how scientific evidence is handled; the BFRO and the actual scientists in it (i.e., Jeff Meldrum) should know better.

I've already asked elsewhere on the board:

• How many independant/non-biased scientists have examined the cast, who were they, and what were their thoughts? (It's been 3 years.)
  
• Have any of the scientists that examined the Skookum cast written up anything in a scientific journal like Nature? That would not only bring their comments to the attention of mainstream scientists, it would add some further legitimacy to the whole field of bigfoot.

Awaiting a reply.

RayG

[Bfootery]

No, no, fair enough. I assume robo is referring to my “Bigfoot at 50” article… The piece was meant, as noted in the article, simply as an overview of Bigfoot literature, an introduction for skeptics. Mine was the first to cover the topic in any depth in the pages of Skeptical Inquirer, and because I was limited to about 5,000 words, I could not go into details about the PG film (though David Deagling did, in a previous issue, answering Krantz’s assertion that the Bigfoot was too large to be human, and that the gait was not possible to duplicate). It was all I could do to give a brief mention of the types of evidence and a discussion of its implications. In the article, I explicitly encourage readers to do further research on their own. (I got criticized by John Green for it not being an investigaitve piece, which it was never meant to be, and by Bobbie Short because I included a photo of what she claimed were obviously alligator prints (the Honey Island tracks). She missed the fact that I had never claimed the tracks were from a Bigfoot—just that they were CLAIMED to have come from a Bigfoot, which is entirely true. See http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/bfat50.htm.)

“It doesn't mean only debunking the 'low hanging fruit', the obvious fakes and questionable reports.” True enough, but why is it up to skeptics to spend their time clearing away the “low-hanging fruit, the obvious fakes and questionable reports’”? Why aren’t the standards of Bigfoot research rigorous enough that these sorts of things haven’t been dismissed long ago instead of lingering around like evidential detritus? I don’t disagree that skeptics have a responsibility to reply to valid claims, but where are the Bigfoot researchers trying hard to clean up their own field?

As for dermal ridges, foot anatomy, etc., I have not written up anything on the topics. I do of course have some opinions on them but I have not analyzed the literature in enough depth to proffer a suitable skeptical response. Just because I haven’t written anything on the topics doesn’t mean that I’m ignoring them. I’m not being cagey, but because I do not believe in blanket acceptance (or debunking), I know when to say I don’t have enough of an opinion to publish. (Others, though, such as Mike Dennett, have written about dermal ridges and I generally accept his findings.) Unlike some people, both skeptic and believer, I try to make sure I have informed, solid opinions before I publish on them. As with most here, Bigfoot is only a sideline, and I don’t have the time I’d like to devote to writing on Bigfoot…

[RayG]

...where are the Bigfoot researchers trying hard to clean up their own field?

You've already met a few in this forum BR, stick around and you'll meet some more.

RayG

This post has been edited by RayG: Dec 5 2003, 01:25 PM