You know I have been thinkin about the skookum cast of the supposed SAS outline in the mud.

If the researchers set bait out for a squach why did they not set up a motion activated camera.

Why does It always seem like the same mistakes are made over and over.Like a bad horror film "Ya know they shouldnt go into the house or check on the body they just shot but they always do."

Another thing.

Why when they are scanning the cast for DNA evidence does the long haired researcher not have a hair net on.Cmon guys those hairs they tested were his more than likely.

I think they had set out too many sites to have covered them all with cameras or thermal detectors and such...

I agree in that the Esteban dude was rather unprofessional letting his Tiny Tim locks fall all over the cast.......

I bet long-haired restaurant workers similarly distress customers worried about getting hair in their food. But look at it logically: a hair is just as likely to fall off a person's head if he has short hair. If it's contamination that's the problem, the length of the hair that falls is the least of it.

BTW, when skeptics say that a supposed BF hair was actually more likely a human hair, they ignore the fact that hair analysts can look at hair ends to make that determination. Human hair is readily identifiable as such from its cut-off ends.

I think we all can agree that the long hair should have been kept away from the cast and that it looked like it would contaminate the findings. That really wasn't a problem however. They were looking for hair that was cast into the plaster and not just sitting on it. Any loose hair would have been obviously not what they were looking for. As for being close to human hair. Well it is my understanding that sasquatch hair is very close to human hair.

john

Heh. This topic has been covered ad-nauseum in here, but anyway:

I think, regarding the camera trap thing, the team wasn't able to put camera traps _everywhere_. The bait pile that yielded the cast was one of many. Presumably many other bait piles yielded no evidence at all. DDA could give you the best answer, but a search for Skookum cast threads will give a wealth of info.


As for Dr. Sarmiento's hair, on the video, i suspect, not being an expert, that he knew what he was doing. I think he knew what his own hair looked like, and that it was easily identified as his hair, and he was searching for something else. I have trouble believing that a respected scientist could be so idiotic as to contaminate evidence like that if the presence of his hair _was_ actually going to compromise the evidence. I think, rather, it just appeared that way to the layperson. Certainly, it wasn't a good thing to show on the video, simply because it raised laypeople's doubts about him and the everything else by association.
The other point that has been made in the past was that he was searching for hair embedded in the casting material. His own hair would clearly be lying on top.


Finally, we must realize that this is a documentary that we are watching. In all likelihood, Dr. Meldrum and Sarmiento, the cast, etc were all dragged to a studio, set up, and then they told Dr. Sarmiento to look busy examining the cast while the cameras rolled. He probably wasn't prepared for an actual examination of the cast and didn't bring a hair net, etc.


Anyway, that's my take on it.

According to Thom Powell, in his book 'The Others'.. they did have cameras out at many sites, but the skookums were avoiding the cameras.
He did not state if any of the crew had a camera at that particular site where the imprint was made. But seeing he made no reference, one could be lead to believe that they had given up on the picture angle!

....that should have been ' The Locals'!

...didn't he say last night on the radio that he wrote up the story on the Skookum Cast and offered it to National Geographic....only to be surprised that they turned him down?? Well Duh!

I wonder why they would do that? (Someone looking for their fifteen minutes of fame?)

So he wrote the Locals instead! Wasn't that our gain? (Up unilt about page 200!)
Kinda informative until he started to lose it!

At no time were remote camera traps employed on the Skookum expedition. Only one member had such equipment then, Derek Randles, who at that time had been unsuccseful in using them and thought them defective. These cameras were on loan to Derek from Dr. Jeff Meldrum, but they were not brought along for this trip.

The theory that put the nail in the coffin for using them on the expedition was really the amount of time they would be in place... it was felt to be way too short a time period to result in anything significant. Distrubing the environment needs time for animals to become adjusted to this type of thing being present.

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.

Here are my reasons for all the failures:

1. No one is spending enough time in the woods on the search,

2. Not many know what to do in searching, overlooking things, or vice-versa, seeing things that arn't significant to the task,

3. There are not many of these animals around,

4. They, like most animals who live in the forest, know how to camoflauge themseleves quickly and easily,

5. Most encounters with humans are probably mistakes on the part of the Bigfoot, yet researchers are trying to fill in the picture with them as to being something significant,

:fall off soap box: ummmph!

Rick..
Your 5 reasons that the search so far has been unsuccessfull should be required reading.
(jmho)

I like that!

Yup, and how many bigfoot prints were found around the Skookum print? None.

Yup, and how many reports of encounters with a bigfoot reveal no tracks, but are believed? A lot!

But nobody saw a bigfoot here, so we have

1. No sighting
2. No bigfoot tracks but lots of other animal tracks including elk (hint, hint)

My money is on this being an elk wallow.

Spot on DDA. My thoughts exactly.

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.

There was not mud 360 degrees around the mud wallow several feet in every direction. DDA has shared a picture of the site before clearly showing the road.

The cast has already been examined by folks who know much more about these things than many of us (or at the very least, me!), and they have ruled out elk.

The skookum cast has been turned inside and out on this forum, and, IMHO, DDA has been admirably patient about responding to all of it. Given how much scrutiny it got here, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want to respond to another question about it ever again.

If you're going to be critical of the cast, that's fine. But, please take some time to review what has already been discussed in detail in other threads.

Thanks Judaculla. Geno, just how much money are you spending on this anyway? By the way, see this cast... no one saw a bigfoot make it either.

Well said, Judaculla.

As for myself, the clincher for me was Rick's presentation at the Willow Creek Symposium. He showed quite clearly why it couldn't have been produced by an elk to the point that even a layman with no knowledge of elks whatsoever would have been able to follow the logic.

What puzzles me is that, even after scrutiny and study by people much more knowledgable about anatomy than Joe Public, some folks still insist that this is an elk impression. Some of them even insisting this without ever having laid eyes on the cast for themselves. Weird, I tell ya'.

Right on Jud!

Damn straight DDA!

DDA -

Thank you for posting here. A real pleasure to have your input.

I feel the same way about the Patty film. Extensive scientific scrutiny by highly qualified pros who are as objective as you can get suggests that the creature is doing things a human could not duplicate physically --

-- but it's a guy in a monkey suit anyway.