QUOTE(HarryHenderson @ Jul 21 2006, 04:42 PM) 
Disclaimer: My new-found interest in this Skookum Cast™ subject is genuine and although sarcasm and contempt often flow from my fingers, I'm being totally serious in my inquiries here. I have recently waded and plodded through all the other Skookum™ threads so I am now more familar with the entire scope of the goings-on. Also, in my own little effort to end QuoteFesting_ I've kept mine to the allotted 'no more than 5' as allowed in the thread by-laws. :new_whistle:
I'm not sure if I have ever quoted myself before (knowingly), but I must here.
Regardless, there's certainly not enough contrary evidence to discount the Elk Theory_ Looking at it from a solely factual standpoint, The Elk Theory™ has several more positive indicators (including footprints) than the Bigfoot Theory_ There may be some peculiarities in the Elk Theory™ that are not totally explained or explainable, but there's no genuine 'stretches' that I've noted. The recently revised and revealed 'Positonal Motion Theory' (we're still waitng on the trademark for that) is quite a stretch in any circle. So much so that only an intelligent, cunning and savvy 'suspect' could/would try to pull it off. Seems they would be going through all those motions solely to throw us HUMANS off the 'scent'. Elk, bear, aardvark couldn't care less I bet (that Bigfoot™ was covering his tracks or not). Thus, if one knows who would be possibly sniffin' around later and then have the notion to disguise its presence so as to make it a mystery to that sniffer, would that be considered rational or logical or intelligent thinking? Or all three? No? To wit...
Anyway, I won't dispute the idea there needs to be further 'scientific analysis' applied to the cast. There does. At least if we're looking for some kind of absolute 'proof' of something. If not, an interesting discussion regardless... IMHO.
"Harry"
I'm not sure if I have ever quoted myself before (knowingly), but I must here.
QUOTE(HarryHenderson @ Jul 20 2006, 01:35 PM)
.....did they walk upon the mud impression and out of the blue declare "It must be Bigfoot!".....
Re-reading the BFRO report gave me the answer.QUOTE
Fish, Noll and Randles leave camp near 9:00am to check bait sites. Fruit gone from gravel pit bank, still present in wet area of gravel pit. Fruit gone from roadside. Mud site has fruit missing, 3 out of six apples gone. Melons pecked by birds, probably ravens. Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote. The most obvious fresh tracks were coyote and undetermined deep marks. Noll, Randles, and Fish notice an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the muddy pool area. The three trackers discuss the strange imprint, then suddenly it dawns what animal caused it. Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face. Each tracker comes closer to have another look, discussions follow for 2-3 minutes. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint.
Not being of the scientific ilk I have to ask, is that type of approach the same as the hypothesis/experiment/proof method with the hypothesis here being it was Bigfoot-As-Culprit_ Meaning is it common to have your ultimate desired result be your guiding force? I'm asking because I don't know. I know there's been many botched police investigations because primary focus was put in the wrong direction too early. And I completely understand there was enough of something there to interest the entire group into making a cast for further study, but could that desire have been even just a little a bit of 'wishful thinking'...maybe in hoping to bring back 'something' to Ma™ as the excuse to spend a week in the bush chasin' monsters? Maybe not... :wink: Regardless, there's certainly not enough contrary evidence to discount the Elk Theory_ Looking at it from a solely factual standpoint, The Elk Theory™ has several more positive indicators (including footprints) than the Bigfoot Theory_ There may be some peculiarities in the Elk Theory™ that are not totally explained or explainable, but there's no genuine 'stretches' that I've noted. The recently revised and revealed 'Positonal Motion Theory' (we're still waitng on the trademark for that) is quite a stretch in any circle. So much so that only an intelligent, cunning and savvy 'suspect' could/would try to pull it off. Seems they would be going through all those motions solely to throw us HUMANS off the 'scent'. Elk, bear, aardvark couldn't care less I bet (that Bigfoot™ was covering his tracks or not). Thus, if one knows who would be possibly sniffin' around later and then have the notion to disguise its presence so as to make it a mystery to that sniffer, would that be considered rational or logical or intelligent thinking? Or all three? No? To wit...
QUOTE
The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal sat down at the edge of the mud, then leaned down on its left forearm and reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit with its right hand a distance of about three feet. The group discusses the possible reasons why the animal might have done this, instead of simply walking into the wet mud to grab the fruit, as the other animals may have done. The mud is only a few inches deep. One possible explanation is immediately apparent -- the animal did not want to leave tracks. The marks it did leave are much less distinct than footprints -- relatively shallow and easy to miss from even a short distance away. There was speculation about why it didn't want to leave obvious footprints in the mud.....It's not a stretch to think this rather intelligent primate species would not want to leave its distinctive tracks at a spot where hunters would likely pass by.....
So not only would it not leave identifying and identifiable marks in the 'muddy area of contention', and that it would knowingly disguise it's approach to such, they even agreed it's not a stretch to think that this rather intelligent animal would consciously do it. Yet...QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Feb 11 2004, 07:06 PM)
.....There are quite a few errors in TP's book. I broke down and purchased it and am about a quarter of the way through. I will say one thing right now - I am getting pretty tired of listening to the wild speculations about Bigfoot's intelligence and very little disclosure as to really just how much time and effort was or is being placed on the task. It seems to be the hot excuse for a lot of researchers... these things are too intelligent, they know what a gun is, a camera, they can see infrared, have super hearing, blah, blah, blah.
So which is it? Cunning and wise enough to completely elude every manner of possible detection whilst almost dancing around in the mud? A medium completely suited for the opposite effect I might add. Or, it's just an extremely lucky but otherwise not overly and/or overtly intelligent animal? Almost seems like a case of having your cake and eat it too. It's profoundly bright when the evidence requires it yet dimwitted when the evidence requires it too? And I don't mean that to be directed only at DDA as it's been said by more than a few others over the years. On the same subject...QUOTE(Judaculla @ Feb 11 2004, 08:40 PM)
The impression in the mud was taken right next to a hard surface road. All a sasquatch had to do was step off the road and sit/lie down, eat, and roll right back onto the road.
In the 'site picture' that I'm not posting below, the distance from the edge of the road is a bit further than that I think. In fact, that further distance begs my question. If Bigfoot™ knew its prints would not show on the harder surfaced areas and also knew they would show in mud (if and when it ever encountered mud), I wonder what the indication was to him at that time there was mud around? A memo? :new_whistle: If he thought there may be mud in the area he must have also known to 'skulk around' a bit to find out where the hard surface ended and mud started so as to not 'accidently' leave a print and let the 'enemy' know his actions. I mean, he didn't crawl down the road and especially not on his back as he is theorized to have done in the mud. I will assume he was walking upright until a certain point. Yet, as the official report states, there was not a single definitive print of anything identifiable as Bigfootish™ within that perimeter that would truly indicate Bigfoot™ approached and 'investigated'...anything. Bigfoot™ isn't just good, he's REAL good. The actual point is, taking into account the less than definitive main evidence (i.e. the impression), wouldn't circumstances such as this give genuine pause so as to re-think the notion that maybe there wasn't a Bigfoot™ anywhere near that location? And that the seeming obvious explanation, while not without flaws, is in fact obvious simply because...it's true? My biggest problem with the Bigfoot-As-Culprit Theory™ is, with the possible exception of the heretofore dubiously named 'heel imprints', there's nothing in that cast that truly indicates there was a bi-pedal anything anywhere near it. For that matter, shouldn't there be some kind of knee prints somewhere around there? I'm no expert on crawling (anyone?), but my being both bi-pedal and a 'rather intelligent primate' (see above), I would instinctually tend to want to get on my knees (if not my stomach also) if I was wanting to 'sneak up' on something and not show my footprints.Anyway, I won't dispute the idea there needs to be further 'scientific analysis' applied to the cast. There does. At least if we're looking for some kind of absolute 'proof' of something. If not, an interesting discussion regardless... IMHO.
"Harry"
A worthy and astute summation of the known facts in this case Harry! There is really littler left to be said! Woops! I guess I just flaunted one of the forum's bi-laws. Sorry! But the point was worthy enough to reiterate!
