...I know the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab in Ashland, Oregon. Ken Goddard. Good guy........HUGE skeptic in Bigfoot. He has admitted that there are four things he has seen that defies explaination

3. He admits that they have in their possesion a Hair sample that just does not identify with any known Primate. When they test it out the result comes back the same. Primate Unknown.

4. The Skookum Cast. He has seen a lot of the break downs on it that Colobus is eluding to, to start this thread. He admits that no known species would have been able to make some of the various Body part impressions found in the Skookum Cast.

Just food for thought.

His belief is that all of this can be resolved in short order with a corpse from a freshly killed Bigfoot, or the remains of one that have decayed. That of course means Bones.

I think we all agree with that statement. However, we are 40 years past the Patterson film and no body has been discovered. The 4 points noted above is why I lean towards the existence of bf. The problem is that if bf does not exist, this matter will remain unresolved indefinitely. The question I ask myself is how much time has to elapse without conclusive proof until I come to the conclusion that bf does not exist. If I am fortunate to live to 2050 and this controversy is unresolved, I will definitely be leaning towards non-existence.

Furthermore in spite of the hypothetical creature entering the bait zone it left no foot prints either leading up the site or leading away. I consider that Skookum Cast as one of the most silly and desperate pieces of evidence out there.

Hi

I was excited when i first learned about this cast, As time went on and it was debated and researched things start to come out, I have to ask Why no foot prints ? And for the life of me i can't imagine why a BF would lay down out in the open next to a road lean over and grab an apple like it is supposed to have happened, I would accept it if the cast was cut and dry with no other possible explanation but thats not the case here, Grabbing for Apples, Hum

Peace
Tim

The " Grabbing for Apple's " part isn't something that makes me confused Tim, i've read numerous ( well a very detailed one at least in a Book on the Subject but i'm pretty sure i've read others too ) eyewitness accounts of this kind of thing, it would also coincide with the theory that they are not too fond of leaving their Tracks here, there & everywhere when maybe they don't need to, too..

Edit : I found reference to it here Tim but can't find the actual Story itself Online, if you want me to Scan it, let me know & i will.

<a href="http://www.[URL removed]/showthread.php?t=1327" target="_blank">http://www.[URL removed]/showthread.php?t=1327</a>

No footprints at the site? Apparently because the ground was too firm in the area surrounding the muddy wallow.

Me, I'm thinking the only way for the big guy to get positioned the way he did, without leaving any obvious footprints (or handprints), was to pull off a flying elbow drop from his ole wrasslin' days with Bubba-squatch.

Click to view attachment

RayG

Still nothin' ? It's a perfectly logical question. Any thoughts ?

Pat...

Oh, I know why.
:rolling:
sorry...that's just very funny to me.
all the rest is just sad.
Your right -- but its more "sad" for those of us (like myself) who havent made a decision one way or the other - you simply assume I have made up my mind - because your conclusions do not make sense to me. You ridicule me - because you havent done the work to answer that one VERY important question -- you seem fine with turning back on those who seem to think this could be a bigfoot lay ---- How did your elk stand up, and not leave any prints.

You can no more answer that question now than you could the day you started this thread. Your right - it is sad, I shouldnt have to argue with someone, to try and understand information they say is so easily seen.

Now you can simply answer the question - which in your opinion is so obvious, or admit you can not answer it. Seems simple to me. LAL made a very good point - she even posted a pretty picture ( Thank you LAL). I dont know why your so against explaining this so those of us, like myself, who do not understand how you reached your conclusion -- might understand.

Or is it that you can't answer the question? How did the elk - stand up from a sitting position without

1. Distroying the impression of what you call a "knee"?
2. Without leaving prints in the impression itself? As we know, ugulates gather their front legs under their bodies to lift themselves up.. How are their no "Elk" tracks in the body of the impression?

If the answer is so simple - then tell me

There were elk hairs and tracks present in the cast and the mud there. No primate or other hairs or tracks found. Amazingly enough, it looks just like an elk lay also. How it was determined to be a possible sasquatch lay I'm not sure.

It showed no tracks... no elk tracks... no human tracks... no 2 ton truck tire tracks.

Go to a beach, draw a square in wet sand 5'x5', stand outside of it, sit down in it and roll to your side away from where your feet are, onto your upper arm for support if need be. Use only your heels if you want to move around within the square. When done, roll back out and use hands by your feet to get back up. The area outside of that square mimics the area at the Skookum cast site that was hard packed. It showed no tracks... no elk tracks... no human tracks... no 2 ton truck tire tracks. Come back to this thread with proof that this can not be done.

Given the circumstances that elk are naturally occurring throughout the western US, where would you not find elk hair?