After reading his comments about proponents on the *ahem* other board, I'm must regretfully withdraw my pledge of a jar of jalapenos that's been in my refrigerator for the last 7 years. I'm sure he can leave home without it. :wink:

Excellent idea.

I think it would be a relatively easy task to do a search for colobus' posts and DDA's posts and leave the rest of us out. I've seen more information posted on this thread than I've been able to find in months of searching. It's one of the best I've ever seen. I don't understand why it didn't get a 5-star rating.

Thanks and kudos to DDA and colobus for all their hard work and willingness to share.

Holy Hellfire Batman!! 7 year old jalapenos could be considered the same level of holding a nuclear bomb!! You might want to contact the nearest HAZMAT team!

Thanks. I didn't really do anything but be myself and apply what I know. At the very beginning we had a meeting and asked all the skeptical questions we could come up with so that we could get to work on them as fast as possible, working from the other end so to speak. Most of the results just sat around till more time could be allotted to doing something with it. I really don't like being forced into doing things though.

I still like letting other people who are more expert at something do their thing versus me buggering it up. It is very valuable to have more brains and eyes look at something then just your own and if anyone here really knew Owen you'd understand that he is capturing the skeptical side. Sorry we haven't produced anything yet but we did have the intentions and will eventually get to it. Probably not before DY publishes his though.

Now what about it? Will DY agree to come to the cast? Will he agree to be video taped in hi-def 24p for the History channel network show on the subject, showing how he examines and measures and then his conclusions? I hope so.

I watched a skeptic two nights ago look at the Orang Pendak footprint casts and could tell right off the bat that he was trying to debunk it. His notes contained nothing of merit and all he did was keep pressing it into soil to make a female of it. He fumbled at his words to make his cursory look see sound scientific. No microscopic work or even a loupe to look for skin detail (Although the casts looked pretty poorly made, I'd be surprised if stuff like that would be present). We didn't get to see him make any measurements or cross check them with anything else such as ratios of thumb distances, toe angles, what have you... against other likely suspects. He couldn't even say if one was a hand print or a footprint. Guess he wasn't pressed on the issue.

I won't get into the poorly lit lab scene because that isn't his fault... it is CSI. They set the standard for making a lab look mysterious and interesting to us commoners.

Well, no need for a fund raiser. With permission of DY, here is his response:

So its back to Halfpenny is it.

I didn't really mean for you to go to all that trouble .. But I can't complain, when it tied up Hunster for a while...

It was a simple question ..

How did the ' baited area ' look, the day before the alleged Sasquatch impression was found ?

Such a comparison, photographically documented, would be fundamental to a scientific investigation ...

Having been documented; Leaving it out of the:

“ …. Official Skookum Cast Analysis Information Thread --- “

….seems no less egregious to me than mislabeling a draft document with ‘ wrist ‘
instead of ‘ hoof ‘ …

And yes, your protests and obfuscations makes me suspect it doesn’t exist ..


Being the good, closed minded skeptic that I am, most of my pbservations are rhetorical by default..
I really don't expect an answer.. So please don't go to any trouble on my account ..


Your supporters don’t seem to mind ..

Have I lied or misled anyone here yet? Strange that you should latch on to this one piece of information, or as you say, lack of data, trying to goad me. It is almost like there is some puppeteering going on... since you have limited knowledge of the entire event. Who's prodding you up this alley?

Dr. LeRoy Fish documented each site him and Derek baited with video. Please don’t call it convenient that he passed away. The sites I baited were documented with video on the TV show produced from the expedition. Both with thermal and white light. Dan Searle and Matt Moneymaker were with me. I don't know if anybody else baited sites during. It is possible that Thom Powell did but he has never mentioned it to me. As stated before, Thom carried no camera.

I was not present at the sites Derek and LeRoy baited. I didn't even know where they baited till driving with them the next day.

LeRoy is on the TV show as well stating that the site was checked beforehand and there was no impression. I think there was even a video from him in there... but it might have been Bam Bam's... Dr. Juice. Check it out for yourself.

Yes, but as HarryHenderson pointed out, "The only other alternative is for us to throw our hands up and declare out of simple faith that it's all true. Every bit of it. Case closed!"

As long as you dot all your i's, cross all your t's, keep your ducks in a row, and leave no stone unturned, you should be fine. (and don't forget to close your eyes when you're getting dunked under the water, it's brackish) :laugh:

RayG

Sorry.

What I see demanded is nothing short of perfection.

Jeebers, that was an attempt at interrogation humor, feeble as it was. (besides, if I was asking for perfection I would have mentioned walking on water). :laugh:

Hopefully you noted the serious part of my post, attributed to HarryHenderson, and located right above the wee bit you quoted. :wink:

RayG

Are you really missing the point or just avoiding it ?


This thread was presented as a rebuttal to DY's announcement of a paper proposed for peer review..

He has been taken to hell and back for percieved scientific shortcomings..

Do you really think your failure to include photos of the pre-impression state of the site ,
is some sort of inconsequential oversight that I ( or anyone ) need to go on a snipe hunt for ?

My point has been made ...

I'm confident it can be understood most people who can read this .. Even you ..
Your failure to acknowledge it, continues to be telling.

I think RayG commended you for providing this information, and I want to second that emotion. This was an excellent and informative post. While i've only been actively posting here for a little more than a year, I've been trying to acquaint myself in the latest bigfoot evidence over the last 2 or 3. The Skookum Cast was a fascinating "new" piece of the puzzle, but I was always bothered by the "jackpot" luck of the investigators who purportedly got a sasquatch butt & heel impression on their first and only try with the apple & mud technique. Until reading this post this morning, no where had I read that this investigation had been/was being replicated in the field. Even over the past year when I have repeatedly put the replication question to others here, no one responded that the investigation was ever tried again. Made the whole thing sound remarkably fishy to me.

Now I get it - thank you. The investigation - even if the methods have been tweaked from time to time - has been ongoing in Skookum Meadows since at least 2000, right? So the impression that is the focus of this thread is just ONE impression of many obtained on these visits? If I'm reading you correctly, then your data likely include trials in which you obtained no impressions (probably a lot of trials with that result), some in which you found evidence of other local wildlife, and this one really interesting impression that you think can't have been an elk, and possibly could have been a sasquatch?

Is that right, or have I misunderstood this post? If the research has been to bait an area of soft mud in the hope of getting high quality sasquatch footprints, and you did this 100 times and got an impression worthy of further analysis one of those times, then this whole Skookum thang makes A LOT more sense to me. Now I can finally just have some healthy skepticism about what's thought to have made the impression, instead of skepticism mixed with suspicion about the circumstances of its discovery and follow-up.

One more question: Am I to understand that in one night this same patch of mud (about 5 square meters?) was traversed by the following species:

coyote
black-tailed deer
elk
black bear
and possibly sasquatch?

Sorry, Ray, but it's just not accurate to describe the situation as "ducks in a row, no stone unturned".

Any evidence whatsoever will be picked apart until it's labelled "not evidence", or it survives and is proclaimed "proof."

A "rebuttal"? Really?

The title doesn't indicate "rebuttal":

"The Official Skookum Cast Analysis Information Thread, Newly released information and analysis."

Nor does the initial post. Colobus began with this:



I think maybe you're too focused on "rebutting" to realize that some folks are just here to learn.



Really?

Like Patterson and Gimlin were by skeptics? Like others who have claimed to see evidence?

I don't think so..........



And that is what you're focused on. Too bad you're missing the rest.

Kinda, DY posted his thread first and this was an offshoot of that. That was one of my problems, that it took that impetus to bring out this new information.


Please don't bring that into this conversation, OK? There is enough of that BS going on in every other thread where there is any disagreement about evidence. We don't need that here do we? There is a whole subforum for the PGF.

Alright, that's enough, he answered your question, photos were taken of the area before bait was placed there.

No need to apologize Huntster, I wasn't attempting to be accurate. As I've already pointed out, I was attempting to inject some humor into a thread that seems to have gotten a little too testy. :new_tiredsmiley:

RayG

Are you suggesting they can dish it out but they can't take it?

I thought "to hell and back" was too strong a phrase to describe some legitimate questioning on some pretty important points. I didn't see that they were adequately answered, either.

I'm still scratching my head over DY's rejection of a free trip to Seattle with a chance to humiliate us beyond repair on national TV. How could anyone turn down an offer like that?

Heck, I'll repledge the jalapenos and throw in $1.0382.

Actually, this is Colobus opening remarks - if I missed the words "In rebuttal" then I do apologize..



Who took DY to 'Hell and back" - I didnt think there was anyone on this board capable of questioning his expertise in this field?

Its too bad that DY wont be going to Washington to evaluate at the original cast with his own eyes. Im not sure why he wouldnt want to bolster his arguement on National Television and squash this myth once and for all, with America watching. Seems like a good opportunity to reach the masses, and DDA was willing. I wish he would reconsider.

Not being rude - Im just being sincere - I think he's passing up a great opportunity.

Me too. Edmonds is a nice town; I used to live there. I was even married to Rick - different Rick, though.

I don't suppose DY's afraid he'd be the one to be squashed instead of the "myth"...............

I cant speak to why he wont now, but I remember why he said he wouldnt before.. And that issue seemed to be taken care of, other than the $700.00 a day fee for rendering his opinion, and the fact he wasnt asked to render a qualified opinion - but I dont think he told anyone he was doing this paper until he posted it here on the BFF. If Im wrong, please correct me.

Well, O.K. then ...

Of course, I wouldn't think of asking to see them ...

It might work over taunting him.

I think I musta missed something. (wouldn't be the first time, and certainly won't be the last). Can either of you provide the link to DY's rejection of a free trip to Seattle.

RayG

Here ya go Ray. Hairyman Offered - and DY's response.

Thanks Melissa, I did indeed miss that. (so much for any proofreading skills I thought I had).

I'll toss my hat in the ring too, and urge DY to reconsider.



Data wouldn't be trying to lead you to Seattle would it? :laugh:

RayG

Your welcome Ray Wise words Ray (and DY).

And, before someone says it, Im not trying to bait DY, I would however hate to see him simply shrug off an opportunity based on hard feelings.

But, if people are willing to pay money to send him out - he should be willing to give up his $700.00 a day fee. I think its wonderful the people of this board are willing to pull together to accomplish this. Things like this do not happen often around here.

Reference:



The PG film subject is either a sasquatch or a man in a suit. I don't think anybody will argue otherwise.

If it is a man in a suit, I doubt anybody will opine that an unknown party was suited up, and waiting for Patterson and Gimlin to ride by in order to fool them. If Skeptical Greg thinks this is a possibility, I'm sure he'll reply.

After 39 years of inconclusive controversy (what I would call "to hell and back"), and by posting scores (possibly hundreds) of posts of doubt that the PG film subject is a sasquatch, Skeptical Greg (by default) implies that Patterson, or Patterson and Gimlin are liars.

It is either/or, and it is the most relevant question regarding the existence of Bigfoot.

SG has written that DY "has been taken to hell and back for percieved scientific shortcomings."

I challenged that claim, using the tactics skeptics (including Skeptical Greg) have used to attempt to degrade the PG film as a comparison.

I have scanned every post in this thread. I have not seen a single post that accuses (or implies) DY of lying, deception, skullduggery, chicanery, cunning, deceit, dishonesty, double-dealing, fraud, gamesmanship, guile, hypocrisy, one-upmanship, perfidy, treachery, or anything of the sort.

If I had, I'd jump right in and chide he/she who did, because I think DY is a pretty cool guy (although I think he has poor taste in beer :doh: ).

I have been instructed on this forum by people who claim to be scientists that when one publishes an opinion or theory, he/she can (and should) expect others to try to pick it apart. That person/party had better be ready to defend it.

Those who are involved with the casting of the Skookum Cast and the declaration that it might be a sasquatch lay are defending their position after DY has declared it to be an elk lay. They have defended their opinions honorably, as far as I can see.

DY has presented a good case, and he has defended his opinion honorably.

As far as I'm concerned, it could be a sasquatch lay, and it could be an elk lay. I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. Either way, it won't result in "discovery." It's a mute point to me.

IMO, DY hasn't "been taken to hell and back."

By claiming such, I think SG is the pot calling the kettle black, and my reasons for thinking that are outlined above.

Exactly Huntster.

It's all the BS in between we could have done without.

Um, DY didn't shrug off the offer...his reasons for not coming are stated in my earlier post. Nor did he ask for a fee of $700.00 a day. He only mentioned a fee in regards to what someone of his expertise costs a contactor. So, just so the record is straight, he didn't ask for a fee from me nor was it a factor in turning it down.

I don't think the hard feelings are keeping him entirely from doing so. He said:



I believe he would prefer somebody not privy to the likes of this thread and the whole controversy, but someone familiar with Ungulates would give a more seemingly "unbiased" report than he himself would be perceived in doing, if he went.

I never said he asked you for that Fee - he did say he would charge it if he went out to examine the cast however.

No he did NOT say that. He did say the only reason he never did examine it is because nobody asked him to, and he said how much his opinion is worth in a dollar amount, but he did not say he would charge that. He said he would foot the bill himself if after what he had seen so far would be indicative of a primate or not an elk, but he feels it is an elk. Even with people offering to pay him he wouldn't make the trip, so no, he would NOT charge that.

Melissa - this is what DY said in an earlier post. If you want to interpret that to mean he would have charged $700 to see the cast, feel free. That isn't how I read it. However, as I stated, a fee is not/was not an issue in why the offer was declined. DY stated his reasons, let's not read more into it than what it is.

Huntster,
I was only hoping to keep the PGF out of this discussion. That seems to happen quite often when the combatants from the Randi forum start going at each other here on BFF.
To be honest it’s mostly redundant and often seems to be based more on personality conflicts rather than on-topic.


So where are we now?

Owen has shown us a new scenario regarding how a sasquatch could have conceivably made the impression.

Rick has given us more information about the initial discovery of the impression, his reasons for casting it and his analysis on certain sections of the cast. He also has explained that the study is on-going and far from complete.

DY seems to be out of this discussion and we’ll most likely have to wait until he finishes his paper and it gets published or he presents it here to hear any more from him on this subject.

I for one still don’t have enough information to make a final determination one way or the other whether it was formed by a sasquatch, some other animal or a combination of animals and I sincerely doubt most people here do. I have an opinion but it doesn’t mean any more than anyone else’s who isn’t qualified.

Meteor Bert: Well, it aint a meteor.
Joe Dirt: Yeah it is. It came out of the sky.
Meteor Bert: Well I'm sure it did but it aint no meteor. It's a big ol frozen chunk uh s**t.
Joe Dirt: What!
Meteor Bert: Oh yeah, see them airplanes they dump their toilets 36,000 feet. The stuff freezes and falls to earth. We call 'em bowing bombs.
Joe Dirt: No that can't be. Thats not what it is.
Meteor Bert: Oh, afraid so. See that peanut? Dead giveaway.
Joe Dirt: Uhhh, no, thats a space peanut.
Meteor Bert: No, afraid not. That just a big ol' frozen chunk of poopy.
Studio manager: Dude you were eating off it!

I think it's official now, the Skookum Cast™ is whatever anyone wants it to be. To reiterate a familiar refrain, we will never truly know what made it. Why? Mostly because it's not worth caring about. It's not that interesting! Really! Not even once did I dream I'd be 'debating', on an internet discussion board no less, what a friggin' elk (or Bigfoot™) lay is or isn't. And if Bigfoot™ really was there, maybe he made it look like an elk lay so as to throw us off the scent - I give, he wins. I'm off the scent.

And yes I do understand the initial rationale that dictated making the cast, but such a hastily made decision does not translate into ultimate truth 'years later' simply because it is 'years later'. As it turns out, what one might have intially thought was there apparently really isn't. Eh! Better luck next time. The cast was made 6 years ago, studied intensely at least for a little while, pondered, looked at, fondled, re-fondled, studied again, put in cold storage, used as a serving platter for a small wedding once, studied yet once again and then finally...nothing. "...they was takin' plaster tire tracks, footprints, dog-smellin' prints and they took twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explainin' what each one was..." No 'official conclusions', no 'papers' worthy of publication nor even an agreement amongst its 'guardians' as to what exactly it is. Then along comes a duly educated 'scientific expert' in the very science necessary for its proper study, who not only says he knows what it is, but can prove it and that he's publishing such opinion in a properly channeled treatise for essentially the world to see. Sadly, what he determines it apparently is isn't what any number of people want it to be. So what? There are no space peanuts either.

It's an old news 'curiosity' that was 'interesting' at one time. Many may disagree, but in my opinion it's the exact type of 'evidence' that gives Bigfooting™ a bad name. The general public would NEVER be convinced it is of Bigfoot™ origin regardless of who 'blesses' it. It's the kind of thing they'd point to and giggle as they say incredulously "...that's evidence of Bigfoot™ ?..." There's more value in just hoping Bigfoot™ will get hit by a bus than arguing about casts of muddy elk lays. I think 'we' need to heed the 'general public' and establish a higher threshold of what is actually worthy of study. Cripes, nevermind, that would be the can of worms of all cans of worms. :wink:

"Harry"

Well that rules out horse if nothing else.

I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, so in my brazen way I'll point out the particular elephant in the living room that I see. And, let me say at the start - this is pure speculation on my part... but speculation that is based in real world experiences.

I speculate that a primary reason for DY turning down the offer of a free trip to see the cast was DDA's condition that his examination be recorded and he be interviewed for use in a television program being produced for the History Channel, with all appropriate releases being signed of course.

He would be a fool to do that. An absolute, utter, and unredeemable fool.

Not everyone jumps at any chance offered to be on TV, although - God knows - many people do. Offer to stick a camera in their face and watch them line up. Anyway, what professional in their right mind would agree to being intimately scrutinized during work sessions with the ultimate documentation of a video camera, microphone, and interrogator... er, I mean, interviewer... with a publicly started conflicting theory nonetheless... AND, not have ANY rights whatsoever in how the resulting video and audio is used, presented, edited, or marketed???

I think requiring that as a condition of working with the cast is a pretty steep price. Of course, if that's the precondition for anyone with professional expertise to gain access to the cast, then I reckon DY is not personally being singled out. And, I don't think anyone does their best work when being observed by a video camera. If the goal here is 'science' and not 'entertainment', a professional should be allowed to do their work in as non-restrictive enviornment as possible. IMHO



"If speculation were gold, the bigfoot field would be Ft. Knox." Source Unknown

Elk proponents: 0

Squatch proponents: 1

Well, I dont think Im reading anything into his comments. In fact, Wolftrax gave me an idea I may just run by my boss today.. I know many in my profession who would love to find a way around some of the fee's (which are much higher than DY's) for giving an opinion.

If he is asked to render an opinion - he should be paid the $700.00 a day, expert opinions are typically paid for. This situation is different - and should be either accepted or refused by him though - and he did put it out there. And again - I NEVER said a discussion of a fee was the reason why this offer was declined by DY.. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. DY did however throw that out - and I think for anyone to "assume" he would not expect to be paid for rendering an expert opinion - assumes too much. I would never expect an expert to not charge a fee for their services.. But, this situation is much different and to not acknowledge the usual daily fee for an expert of his calibur - well, it sets up the opportunity for a lot of hard feelings.

I get the feeling he'd have declined without the condition. Didn't he say somewhere he didn't think there was that much difference between the cast and the copies?

An Irishman who knows his horses? I'm really starting to warm up to you. So do you prefer Beamish, Murphy's, or Guinness?

Interesting thought... do you know if he knew of the precondition or not when he answered no?

He must not think anybody will ask him if he had a chance to see the original or why he did not take it. Strange that we can get scientists to state on TV the pro side but not the negative side. Maybe he just doesn't want to be associated with the subject now... thought better of it... but then he is writing a paper on it isn't he?

Fair enough, and true.

No more on that here from me.

:yeahthat:

It is also interesting that the skeptical find no pause with DY not wanting to show his methodology on TV... now if it were something like a skeptical TV program (NatGeo comes to mind here) maybe he would come then. This says alot about what a few think of me. Paint him in a bad light or something. Great!






Daris asked me to contact you directly ... you did know he lives a few houses away? He wondered why you didn't mention me or Owen to him.

No assumption there, just read what the man said.

If you want some entertaining video, get Penn and Teller to come and examine the cast. :laugh:

RayG

DDA-

I'll PM or email you on the Daris thing in a minute- no need to bog this thread any more.

Also, in my "Yeah that" I wasn't implying any malintent or your or anyone's else part. I tried to edit what I quoted to make that clear, sorry if it wasn't or if I offended you. Though I don't know you well, I think I know you better than that and your reputation obviously speaks for itself. (I think our posts crossed also?) I was simply trying to affirm what Nightowl said, as a scientist that has found himself distracted in front of the camera or under the spotlight more than once. That's all.

For my 2 cents, I honestly don't think DY would be interested in coming to see the origincal cast under any but the most convenient (for him) circumstances at this point. It seems to me that he has absolutely nothing to gain (in his eyes) but a fair amount to lose by doing so- regardless of cameras, waivers, or anything else. Unscientific? Perhaps, but it's his decision and he seems to have already made it.

Apeman