Talk:Skookum cast

Bigfoot / August of 2006 / Any new evidence ?
Is there at all any new concrete and irrefutable evidence for August of 2006 and any time prior to that. Of that which has come to light in the world that helps to support the existence of Bigfoot. Are there any new videos at all that have surfaced of Bigfoot. Are there any new casts taken of his feet and the dermal ridges and prints of those feet. Have any forestry heliocopters over head ever gottan a clear and unmistakable aerial shot of him as they passed over him in some open field somewhere. Now strange brown hair samples that are taken to labs are a nice little Bigfoot story teaser. And yes even samples of unknown animal feces in the forest of which are taken to labs for conclusive testing prove somewhat boring to me in the end. My question is this. Have any skulls been recovered. Are there any new and reliable credible eye witness accounts of Bigfoot or Sasquatch to this present day and moment. Have any photos been taken with digital cameras ever surfaced. Well to me it would seem that everything falling short of that seems to seriously diminish the interest of the existence of Bigfoot. Even though I am a hard skeptic. I want to be able to beleive there is a Bigfoot of who is real. Can anyone out there bring something valueable to the table that cannot be easily dimissed nor discounted.www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
There seems to be an entry here on this page which baldly states that the Skookum Cast is that of an elk, without any specific supportive evidence or cites. Can this be amended or altered to reflect actual research and not user opinion - User:Chy

Conversely
There seems to be an entry here on this page which baldly states that the Skookum Cast is that of a Bigfoot, without any specific supportive evidence or citations. Can this be amended or altered to reflect actual research and not user opinion? 198.6.46.11 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says "Some researchers believe the imprint was made by a living Sasquatch..." There's nothing bold about that statement. The criticism section, however, needs to be referenced. --Mad Max 08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
This entire article consists only of what BFRO claims, barely even mentioning the idea that these are mere claims or reports. The solitary attempt to demonstrate the other side (and, honestly, the "other side" is by far the major opinion of the rest of the world other than BFRO, so by all sensible standards should have the lion's share of the space of the article) is just a one off sentence tagged as lacking no citation.

Matt Moneymaker jumped in here to say:

The first paragraph in this NPOV section is positively deceitful. Skeptic Ben Radford has sided with a handful of BFRO rivals to spread a wholly unsupported rumor about the cast being derived from an elk impression, even though formally trained senior scientific examiners have explicitly ruled on that hypothetical possibility. If people outside the BFRO have a different opinion it is because of a campaign to spread that misinformation. The only way one can ascertain what "the rest of the world other than the BFRO" thinks about this cast is by searching for statements online. Those statement are largely angry anonymous posts on some famously anti-BFRO message boards operated by rival bigfoot organizations. They are re-statements of the original false assertions, not any type of qualified analysis addressing the findings of the scientist who have actually examined the evidence themselves. This whole page Skookum page is completely skewed in that direction, which is why I have re-written it to be more factually correct. I have supporting footnotes for the changes I have made, but I don't know how to add them. If any Wikipedia people read this who have a shred of fairness and unbiased objectivity, then please email me so I can send the links supporting the changes I have made to the article. If there is going to be a page about the Skookum cast it should really avoid all of the unsupported speculation by demonstrably biased people. The scientists are the objective ones here, and their statements should be given more credit than anonymous posters on public message boards, or by professional skeptic writers.



I frankly am not even sure this rates an article to begin with, but if it is going to stay it needs to follow WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the NPOV tag, for the following reasons:

A) This item deserves a page because it is a physical artifact that has been the subject of scientific interest, and has earned news coverage; B) A number of recognized scientists have commented publicly on the artifact, stating their conclusions as to the object's likely origins; C) I agree that the article is skewed towards the proponents' points of view, but this partly because the article gives a detailed description of the artefact, and a detailed explanation of why the proponents have concluded what it is. The artifict has largely been ignored by skeptics, as is typical of cryptozoology and other "Fortean" subjects. I'd love to be able to cite a recognized anatomist or primate expert who's said publicly that this artifact is not what Krantz et. al. said it was, because of evidence x, y and z s/he dicovered after examining the artifact. But for good or ill, very, very few reputable scientists will even consider the subject, and after 30 minutes of internet searching, I haven't been able to find anthing of the sort from a skeptic or debunker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk • contribs)

Putting the tag back, because A is debatable, B is ridiculously POV, and C is proof that even the anon user admits it doesn't meet NPOV policy. DreamGuy 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

POV and Conflict Of Interest
This article has a long history of anonymous edits being made to remove any criticism of the casting. These IPs also seem to have an ax to grind with Ben Radford. I encourage the editors using these IPs to register an account, I also encourage them to disclose any relationship they have with Matt Moneymaker. Any and all COI/POV edits to this article will continue to be removed unless there is first consensus established on this talk page. Ridernyc (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Page rewritten
This page was in bad need of cleanup. It took a few days and here is what I was left with. I clipped about a dozen newspaper clippings but when I went to review them they mostly just said the same things as the other articles. I am using only five citations, it's amazing that this "artifact" cast of an elk laying down in the mud has a Wikipedia page at all, but here it tis! There were a lot of articles I could not use as they were newsletters, websites, forums and lots and lots of people saying they spoke to so-in-so all not reliable sources. I left in that the BFRO said they were turning in the apple pieces for DNA, but I could not find any mention of their results, it's been 23 years and nothing. Also the one hair that one of these people said matched other hairs he had that belong to Bigfoot I left out, all the other hair found was elk or bear. Nothing even in 2023 has been said of that one hair, and how can it match other Bigfoot hairs when there is no evidence that Bigfoot exists. I thought that was confusing so I left mention of the one specific hair out. Besides the footage of these researchers collecting hair at the scene of the mud wallow you can see that no one's hair was covered, as that was unmentioned in the RS I left it out.

Because of the FRINGE topic of Bigfoot, I recommend that anyone wanting to do more than fix my typos and grammar should come to this talk page to discuss significant changes. Other than that, enjoy! Sgerbic (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I left the "Further reading" section alone, they are all books, I have no access to them and no idea what is in them. Hopefully readers will be intrigued and look further.Sgerbic (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)