Skookum Imprint, Current Common Wisdom? Options

[MNskeptic]

Hi All

In another thread, many said that the Skookum cast was one of the primary pieces of evidence which made them a believer.

What is the current common wisdom on the Skookum cast? My understanding was that this was thought to have been made by an elk. Therefore, the story went cold? Can someone up date me?

MNSkeptic

[peregrine]

My understanding was that this was thought to have been made by an elk. 

:doh:

The tale that refuses to die.

Rick Noll addresses this contention in a presentation that can be seen on the Willow Creek Symposium DVD set.


Edited to change emoticon

This post has been edited by peregrine: Jan 26 2005, 08:30 PM

[GrandCherokee]

Might I possibly offend by suggesting a trip to the search engine and typing in...Skookum Cast?
I am not being mean here...because , I believe, you would find a lot of in depth information by doing so..instead of the dozen or so replies that your question might get on this thread!

[MNskeptic]

Hi GrandC.

Lest you think I'm lazy, I attempted several different searches before posting my inquiry...thus the inquiry. Perhaps I need a tuturial on how to use the search engine here. Lots came up though nothing under the title searched under. Should have stated that.

MNSkeptic

[GrandCherokee]

I would..maybe..start here just to get a general flavor!

Now..as you read it..you may consider it to be a slap on the wrist...but it is not! I think there is really some useful stuff after the first couple of pages of sermons! ( Including mine !!! )
Go for it!

This post has been edited by GrandCherokee: Jan 26 2005, 09:12 PM

[flightmedic]

I would..maybe..start here just to get a general flavor!

Now..as you read it..you may consider it to be a slap on the wrist...but it is not! I think there is really some useful stuff after the first couple of pages of sermons!   ( Including mine !!!  )
Go for it!

Have a Kokanee in a frosty mug.........crack them there knuckles and hit them puter keys in the search function and it will pay dividens!

[damndirtyape]

Here is one link.

Here is the BFRO's info.

The cast info is sprinkled through many different threads in here I think.

[GrandCherokee]

Can't get a better recommendation then that one!

[Terry]

I tend to think it's all bs however Rick Noll's work keeps me wondering.

t.

[VernF]

I tend to think it's all bs however Rick Noll's work keeps me wondering.

t.

Whatever it is, it is not BS. It is clearly the most important sasquatch-related artifact ever recovered. The importance relates not to the fact that it definitively "proves" anything--it doesn't--but to the fact that it has drawn the interest of important, credentialed experts who have been unable to dismiss it out of hand. Schaller is a big, big name. So is Swindler in his own field. This is a giant step toward breaking down the academic stigma associated with this pursuit. When the stigma is erased, funding will follow. Adequate funding offers the best hope of a definitive solution.

DDA (and in fairness several others) deserve kudos for recognizing the significance of the imprint and improvising a solution to the difficult problem of preservation of the artifact under adverse circumstances.

-Vern

[Sachmo]

tru dat

[cochise]

This is a giant step toward breaking down the academic stigma associated with this pursuit. When the stigma is erased, funding will follow. Adequate funding offers the best hope of a definitive solution.

This is an excellent reply. To a lesser degree, the PG film (of late) has also served to open up the subject and draw the attention of a variety of experts. It's all good!

[Huntster]

...Schaller is a big, big name. So is Swindler in his own field. This is a giant step toward breaking down the academic stigma associated with this pursuit...

Vern, rarely can one safely dispute your position.

Here I venture, and here I lay open my throat:

Please inform me of how the academic or scientific community is now "broken down" anywhere as sasquatchery is concerned.

...When the stigma is erased, funding will follow...

Please illustrate the stigma, and explain why it it exists.

Then explain how and from where the "funding" will come.



Please understand that I agree (remotely) with your premise.

I just can't see how such an ivory tower can be breached.

The academic [/I]and scientific community is far more[I] corrupt than the political community that they prey upon.

[markymark]

I came across these two pictures on the internet. But it was on an italian website. Does anybody have any information about this find? It seems to be the same kind of find as the skookum cast. Does it look legit?

[xpert4u]

I came across these two pictures on the internet. But it was on an italian website. Does anybody have any information about this find? It seems to be the same kind of find as the skookum cast. Does it look legit?

New one for me...Very interesting....

[Bitter Monk]

Its been so long since I saw that pic I can't remember which group/org its from. I don't recall ever hearing anymore about it though.

[ecwool]

Those pictures were from our (TBRC) website. The hair samples were examined by Henner Fahrenbach and were inconclusive. Here is his determination:

The red hair consists of guard hairs (ca. 120 µm diameter) and a fine undercoat, as thin as 20 µm. The sample is highly degraded, either from lengthy weathering or from passing through somebody's stomach. I am not going to venture a guess as to species, certainly not ungulate, rodent or man, but not sasquatch for sure.

Because of the inconclusive determination, the photos were removed from the website.

[Bitter Monk]

Wow Craig, I can't believe I forgot those were from your site. I remember being pretty excited when I first saw them.

Refresh my memory though, weren't there two impressions, or am I just remembering more than one pic of the same bedding site?

[GrandCherokee]

2-fer...

Firstly; In light of the fact that the significance of the Skookum Cast was almost overlooked by the very people who set the bait trap, one has to wonder at how many other examples of evidence are laying about..either ignored, or not recognized for what they are?

Secondly; That alleged bedding area... were there signs of an approach or exit to the same? Reason I ask is because I have seen the same phenomena occur in tall grass every spring and every fall when there is a good blow happening across an open area.
First time I saw it I thought it was a bedding area..but I could not see any entrance marks..or exit marks. Then upon reaching higher ground, I found that I could see many of the same scattered about. also the wind swirls bent the grass in every direction around the perimeter, so it appeared that something was laying there and moving about.

[markymark]

If the wind did that, then it was a very artistic wind in this case. It seems to have made allowances for a head, a body, and even the feet sticking out at the bottom. A better alternate explanation is a hoax, IMHO.

[Desertyeti]

Deer and other ungulates bed down in grass like this too...

[RobUstes]

As do farm impliments ....

Which was the first thing to come to mind when i saw that pic years back. The grass surrounding the area seemed to be mowed.

But i could be wrong.

[GrandCherokee]

If the wind did that, then it was a very artistic wind in this case. It seems to have made allowances for a head, a body, and even the feet sticking out at the bottom. A better alternate explanation is a hoax, IMHO.

That could be, but you are seeing more then I can!
However, yes..the wind can make very artistic imprints in long grass! Anything from 2 feet long to 25 feet..circular, narrow, undulating..it does it all, and flattens the stalks right down to the roots. I have seen it in drainage ditches where blades of grass along the opposing banks are flattened in opposite directions. Believe me...wind could have easily made such a design. I have seen many of the same!Epecially if there are no entrance or exit marks to be found.
I am not saying that in this case it was the wind. But if no approach marks were noted..then it is a 90% chance it was wind.

[markymark]

When I look at that picture I can clearly see a definition that runs along the grass in a humanoid shape. You can see the head, and body, and the even the feet and the outline that follows it all around. In fact it is so defined, I can't accept that wind is capable of that, even in theory. I can see dust devils creating vortex shapes that may be elongated here and there that may flatten grass, but not any that can be controlled in such a small area and have such a sharp demarcation.

But why would a bigfoot lay there in the open like that? That does not make sense. And since this find has been buried in the community, I deduce that it was a hoax.

My two cents.

[inmylight]

...Schaller is a big, big name.  So is Swindler in his own field.  This is a giant step toward breaking down the academic stigma associated with this pursuit...

Vern, rarely can one safely dispute your position.

Here I venture, and here I lay open my throat:

Please inform me of how the academic or scientific community is now "broken down" anywhere as sasquatchery is concerned.

...When the stigma is erased, funding will follow...

Please illustrate the stigma, and explain why it it exists.

Then explain how and from where the "funding" will come.



Please understand that I agree (remotely) with your premise.

I just can't see how such an ivory tower can be breached.

The academic [/I]and scientific community is far more[I] corrupt than the political community that they prey upon.

I'm not VernF but for some reason I like to mix it up with people like you and so I'll give this one a shot.

Scientific community broken down: It isn't really, is it? I agree.

Illustration of "The Stigma": It's everywhere isn't it? It's like air; it's what goes into your lungs when you take a breath -- Grover Krantz was held back by taking bigfoot seriously. My friends think I'm kind of cracked....

Why the stigma exists: Another obvious one - because it's just so unbelievable and there is no body, plus there has been faking.

Funding: It would probably come from the National Science Foundation. Or any funding agency that supports wildlife research, anthropology - things to do with such a discovery.


Ivory Tower: Science is kind of screwed up but not nearly as badly as politics is. Science at least adheres (largely) to a methodical, testable, reviewable system. Everything else in the world - business, religion, government (same as politics, I suppose) - is royally corrupt. Science is the best thing going. If only all that other stuff was as good. The Ivory Tower can be breached with good enough evidence (those other things, I'm afraid, are hopeless).

[Desertyeti]

True true...

[rockinkt]

Science is kind of screwed up but not nearly as badly as politics is. Science at least adheres (largely) to a methodical, testable, reviewable system.

In a large way - Science is very much attached to politics. I am not talking about politics - as in "government" - I am talking about what is politically correct research.
For the most part, scientists are reliant on outside (not their own) funding for research. That said - funding is usually given to scientists based on a review of their work and what their proposal is. Unless you have a particular "flavour" to your work - money will not usually be forthcoming.
That does not mean that I think results are tainted - I just think many scientists look to their pocketbook when deciding whether to propose to do some types of research. This is a natural thing to do.
When I was attending university - this was amply displayed when the funding was never forthcoming for work on certain types of research because they were thought to be "out of the mainstream" or not "politically correct".
The profs. who did the same old stuff year after year after year had a niche and they were not leaving that comfortable place for anything!
There are some notable exceptions - I will not point them out as I would no doubt miss a few - but we know who they are in this field.
I hold them in high regard for their personal integrity and self sacrifice.
That does not mean that I will not debate their findings, of course!

[VernF]

...Schaller is a big, big name.  So is Swindler in his own field.  This is a giant step toward breaking down the academic stigma associated with this pursuit...

Vern, rarely can one safely dispute your position.

Here I venture, and here I lay open my throat:

Please inform me of how the academic or scientific community is now "broken down" anywhere as sasquatchery is concerned.

...When the stigma is erased, funding will follow...

Please illustrate the stigma, and explain why it it exists.

Then explain how and from where the "funding" will come.



Please understand that I agree (remotely) with your premise.

I just can't see how such an ivory tower can be breached.

The academic [/I]and scientific community is far more corrupt than the political community that they prey upon.

My positions are no more infallible than those of the next person. I do try to make it a practice to engage my brain before opening my mouth. I find it a salutary practice.

Huntster, your throat is safe from my knife. I love the natural world on an intellectual and esthetic level. I take you to be a careful observer of that natural world. I appreciate that.

As for the rest of what you say, it would take a small treatise for me to adequately respond. I don't have the leisure to write one, but I'll try to abridge it.

You'll have to trust me (or not, as you choose) when I say that I have more than a passing acquaintance with the scientific side of academia. I don't see the widespread "corruption" you assert. True, a few have sold their souls to become career expert witnesses. By and large, they contribute little to our store of human knowledge and are not well thought of by their peers. A few--very few--succumb to pressures to produce by falsifying data. Since such behaviors are the antithesis of what science is about, their careers are typically and rightly ruined. But with very few exceptions, a scientist from the academic world will approach a problem within his or her discipline with intelligence and integrity. The "stigma" has nothing to do with "corruption," and I take your assertions in this regard to be nothing more than a reflection of your general counter-culture views. I don't mind people who are only mildly and pleasantly antisocial, only the genuine sociopaths. They scare me.

Consider with me a hypothet. You are a first year asistant professor of primatology at UC-Davis, a premier institution in that field. You are planning your summer. You can go to Sumatra and research orangs. Or you might go to Oregon to research sasquatch.

If you take the first course, and if your grant proposal is well thought out, there is a good likelihood of support from any one of a couple of dozen foundations. Orangs have cachet. There are still many interesting problems to be explored with this species. When you have a grant committment in hand, the department may well pony up a few dollars to met any budget shortfall.

The orangs will be waiting for you. If you have any gumption, you will likely gather enough data for two or three publishable papers. Your career is underway.

If you go to Oregon, you will do it entirely on your own dime. When you get there, what data will you gather. What will you write? "How I Wasted My Summer Vacation"? Who will publish it?

What underlies all of this are the all too real pressures of the tenure system. You have six years to make your case for tenure. You will be judged on teaching, scholarship, and service. The third component is a joke. You almost have try in order to come up short. But the other two won't be weighted equally either. At a premier research institution, scholarship will be the overriding consideration. And this will be measured largely by your papers published in peer reviewed journals, plus what the department (and sometimes faculty at other institutions) think of your work.

Fail to make your case in the alloted six years, and you are out. At best, you will start the process over at a second or third tier institution. At worst, you will be trying to sell life insurance to support your family and pay off the loans you took out to get your PhD.

Even if you make tenure, you will face unremitting pressure to continue research productivity (and the attraction of grant money) for the rest of your career. Come up short, and you will be marginalized, you will never be promoted, and sooner of later, you will face enormous pressure to accept early retirement.

Even without these ever-present pressures, how can one blame a scientist for confining his work to problems which are adapted to the scientific method? How do you scientifically study the locomotion, the phylogeny or the social relationships of mythological animals? Those who say derisively that the scientists will come out of the woodwork when a carcass is produced are right, of course. But the derision isn't deserved. A carcass would present a host of fascinating problems which [i]can be studied scientifically.

So the problem is how to move sasquatch from the realm of mythology to the world of reality. Most mountains are moved one shovelfull at a time. But some people wield bigger shovels than others--widely respected senior people like Schaller and Swindler. When they speak, they raise the problem to the level of a blip on the scientific radar screen for the first time. Somewhere, a few grad students will hear them. A couple of PhD thesis advisors will listen. Some other widely respected senior scientists will scratch their heads, and wonder whether there really is a problem worthy of investigation.

I never said the dam had been breached, only that this was an important first step. And it is.

-Vern

[Apeman]

Science is kind of screwed up but not nearly as badly as politics is. Science at least adheres (largely) to a methodical, testable, reviewable system.

In a large way - Science is very much attached to politics. I am not talking about politics - as in "government" - I am talking about what is politically correct research.
For the most part, scientists are reliant on outside (not their own) funding for research. That said - funding is usually given to scientists based on a review of their work and what their proposal is. Unless you have a particular "flavour" to your work - money will not usually be forthcoming.
That does not mean that I think results are tainted - I just think many scientists look to their pocketbook when deciding whether to propose to do some types of research. This is a natural thing to do.
When I was attending university - this was amply displayed when the funding was never forthcoming for work on certain types of research because they were thought to be "out of the mainstream" or not "politically correct".
The profs. who did the same old stuff year after year after year had a niche and they were not leaving that comfortable place for anything!
There are some notable exceptions - I will not point them out as I would no doubt miss a few - but we know who they are in this field.
I hold them in high regard for their personal integrity and self sacrifice.
That does not mean that I will not debate their findings, of course!

There is a difference between being 'attached' to politics, being comfortable and lazy, and being corrupt.

Most of what you have said is of course true Rockinkt, but it doesn't change Inmylight's point...which, as a reminder, was that Hunster's statement

The academic [/I]and scientific community is far more[I] corrupt than the political community that they prey upon.

is baseless and absolutely absurd. Another example of thinking that simply stating something in this forum makes it true.

This notion is part of a very feeble excuse that is often employed here- that lazy or corrupt scientists are to blame for the lack of funding and research that would prove these animals exist. First, I've yet to be convinced that funding would really make a difference (see the thread on what to do with endless funds), and second there are plenty (ok maybe just a handful) of scientists skimming available funds and/or creatively finding ways to get money to pursue various practical research avenues.

This is really a topic for a different thread so we should get back to the Skookum cast.

My opinion is that the Skookum imprint/cast (which I have seen) is definitiely not an elk, is quite intriguing, but COULD also have been faked or somehow misinterpreted.

I think the grass imprint has many, many more plausible explanations than a sasquatch lying there but I also don't know what supporting evidence there is.

[Huntster]

Well, once again, pwease stand by while I extwact my boot fwom my mouf.......

Ahhh....... dat’s a wittle better.

I jumped overboard with the use of the word “corrupt”, and I got caught. “Science” (as I often broadly type), obviously, isn’t any more “corrupt” than other human endeavors. When I get loose with my wordsmithing, please don’t hesitate to correct me, folks. Everybody needs a spanking now and then, especially when they’ve been naughty.

I consider the replies by inmylight, apeman, and rockinkt pretty much on target. And (as I expected), Vern’s response was an outstanding outline of why things are as they are.

Let me type further, trying to exercise proper caution;

I consider the biological and anthropological research communities to be a huge disappointment with regard to sasquatchery (is that more palatable?).

It appears to me that government biologists (at least here in Alaska) have dealt with sasquatchery in an appropriate fashion. Evidence has been looked at, and measures have been taken to protect sasquatches as an undefined wildlife species. Other state biology officials have done the same. Thus, the official government side of sasquatch science, if not completely on board, is at least on the gangplank.

But the research/academic side of biological/anthropological science (as a group, or industry) looks to me like they’re still standing on the dock laughing at the ship that they swear can’t float. All significant effort and discovery within sasquatchery has been expended/achieved by laymen (as in Patterson/Gimlin, et.al), or scientists who are considered loose guns within the scientific community (such as Krantz). As far as I know, these scientific communities haven’t even sought funding from government for sasquatch research.

Other fields of science don’t seem to be shy seeking (or even demanding) funding and even government action regarding other scientific issues (for example, global warming).

I suggest that there is more evidence supporting the existence of sasquatches than there is that global warming is a result of human activity, and I further submit that finding a sasquatch (even if they don’t exist) would be easier than solving global warming (even if it does exist).

I’ll happily reconsider my view of the scientific community when I at least hear of them stepping before funding entities with even just the existing evidence and assuming a little risk in pursuit of the truth. Lots of other careers (cops, soldiers, firefighters, etc) risk their very lives in their pursuits. Fear of a little ridicule or the loss of a few rungs on the ladder to “success” doesn’t seem to be very bold to me.

[VernF]

It appears to me that government biologists (at least here in Alaska) have dealt with sasquatchery in an appropriate fashion. Evidence has been looked at, and measures have been taken to protect sasquatches as an undefined wildlife species. Other state biology officials have done the same. Thus, the official government side of sasquatch science, if not completely on board, is at least on the gangplank.

Huntster, are you stating that Alaska has actually adopted a regulatory stance toward sasquatch?

At the risk of perpetuating the off topic direction in which this thread has veered, by the way, my own observation of state Wildlife Divisions (or whatever they are called locally) is that while most do a decent job of managing game species, their handling of non-game species tends to be much more spotty. I suppose this is to be expected, given their histories and the fact that the lion's share of their budgets comes from sportsmen's licenses.

East of the Mississippi, most of them have a great deal of difficulty in recognizing ecological changes which have allowed formerly extirpated species to filter back in, though in very small numbers. In their defense though, all of them have handled their share of cougar reports which turn out to be golden retrievers.

-Vern

This post has been edited by VernF: Jan 28 2005, 07:24 PM

[Huntster]

Huntster, are you stating that Alaska has actually adopted a regulatory stance toward sasquatch?...

Well, it's not targetting sasquatches specifically. The reg states:

"If the species is not listed, you may not hunt it."

That's in large, bold font, and in a colored box (page 6 of 23) http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/regulations/pdfs/general.pdf

Wisely and responsibly, it covers all unknown species.

I also found that ADFG included an article in it's January, 2000, Alaska Hunting Bulletin on sasquatch (http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/huntbull/hntbul8.htm), but it's a basic "Creature of Lore or Reality?" type article.

A situation of great interest to me involving both an ADFG Habitat Biologist and a U.S. Forestry official on Prince of Wales Island was included in Robert Alley's "Raincoast Sasquatch" (pgs. 239-244). It's one of my favorite sasquatch reports of all time specifically because of what the biologist told Alley when interviewed.

...my own observation of state Wildlife Divisions (or whatever they are called locally) is that while most do a decent job of managing game species, their handling of non-game species tends to be much more spotty...

What kind of critters do you mean by non-game species?

[VernF]

What kind of critters do you mean by non-game species?

Anything you can't legally hunt, trap or fish. Songbirds. Raptors. Some herps. Some fish. Some predators.

-Vern