I KNOW BIGFOOT I know about Bigfoot.
← The Files

The Evidence

The Skookum cast

A plaster cast poured in a Washington forest in September 2000 is a real object, and a quarter century on, the people best qualified to read it still do not agree what lay down in that mud.

The Skookum cast forces a distinction most Bigfoot arguments never make. An object exists. It was poured by a named party, on a known date, in a place you can drive to. That much is DOCUMENTED. What pressed the mud is a separate question, still CONTESTED, with published argument on both sides from people who know anatomy.

The expedition

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization ran a field expedition in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, in the Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams country of southern Washington, from September 16 to 23, 2000. BFRO's own expedition log names thirteen participants: Moneymaker, Bambenek, Fish, Henick, Lemley, Lee, Mort, Noll, Powell, Pugsley, Randles, Terry and Searle. DOCUMENTED Matt Moneymaker founded the BFRO. LeRoy Fish was a retired wildlife ecologist who consulted for the group; he died on March 20, 2002, at 59. An Australian film crew was along, and footage was later posted online under the television series name Animal X.

The method is worth stating exactly, because everything downstream depends on it. The team set out piles of fruit as bait. BFRO's own slideshow describes the key one: "One of the fruit piles was set in the middle of a shallow puddle of fresh rainwater. The underlying mud in the puddle would allow for clear tracks of any animals attracted to the fruit pile."

On the morning of September 22, 2000, Fish, Noll and Randles left camp around 9:00 a.m. to check the bait sites. The fruit was gone from the gravel pit bank and still present in the wet area. In the firmer mud at the edge there was a large impression.

They spent hours casting it. BFRO's log records "about 150 pounds of Hydrocal B-11 and some 50 plus pounds of Plaster of Paris," and that "aluminum tent poles are offered to reinforce the large cast." An Idaho State University press release dated October 23, 2000 gives the same order of magnitude, "more than 200 pounds of plaster." Neither account mentions dental cement, despite that detail circulating.

The finished cast is reported inconsistently, including by the people who made it. BFRO's log says "roughly 3.5X4.5 feet, weighing a few hundred pounds." The ISU press release describes the impression as "3-1/2 x 5-foot." Wikipedia gives 3.5 by 5 feet and approximately 400 pounds. The widely repeated "400-pound" figure sits at the top of that spread and does not appear in BFRO's own log. CONTESTED

What the cast is said to preserve

BFRO reads the impression as an animal that "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." A sketch on the BFRO site carries the caption "This sketch depicts the position the sasquatch was in when it left the impression that was cast a few hours later." The identification is built into the caption.

The ISU press release of October 23, 2000 is the founding document of the sasquatch reading, and it helps to be clear about what kind of document it is: a press release from the employer of the cast's principal advocate, not a peer-reviewed finding. It names five examiners. Jeff Meldrum, at that point "associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University" (he became a full professor later, and retellings tend to promote him to that rank at this earlier date). Grover Krantz, "retired physical anthropologist from Washington State University." John Bindernagel, "Canadian wildlife biologist." John Green, "retired Canadian journalist and author." And Ron Brown. The release reports "hair on the buttock and thigh surfaces and a fringe of longer hair along the forearm," and "skin ridge patterns on the heel, comparable to fingerprints, that are characteristic of primates." The five "agreed that it cannot be attributed to any commonly known Northwest animal and may represent an unknown primate." ALLEGED

Daris Swindler examined the cast afterward, and he was a genuine authority on primate anatomy: professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Washington, retired in 1991 after more than thirty years there, and author of An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy, a standard reference. Speaking to Theo Stein of the Denver Post for an article of January 5, 2003, he described "a hairy forearm the size of a small ham, an enormous hairy thigh, an outsized buttock, and a striking impression he feels confident was made by the Achilles tendon and heel of a creature that is not supposed to exist." His summary was that "whatever made this was very well adapted to walking on two feet." ALLEGED Swindler had been skeptical of Bigfoot beforehand and changed his position after a detailed examination in 2002 that was filmed for television. He died on December 6, 2007, in Spokane, at 82.

Stein also recorded how the proponents themselves framed the question: "Meldrum and Swindler concur there are only two logical explanations for the cast: Bigfoot and elk." That framing matters later.

The Krantz problem

Grover Krantz appears on both sides of this, and skeptical retellings usually give only one.

He was one of the five who signed the October 2000 ISU conclusion. He also, in Bruce Barcott's Outside piece of August 2002, published after his death on February 14, 2002, is quoted saying: "I don't know what it is. I'm baffled. Elk. Sasquatch. That's the choice." Loren Coleman, reviewing the dispute in 2007, wrote that "even after inspecting the Skookum Cast three times, [Krantz's] opinion of it was tempered by a cranky ambivalence," and recorded that John Green insisted he had personally witnessed Krantz endorse the cast while skeptics questioned whether any published endorsement existed. CONTESTED

Both versions of Krantz are in the record. An account that offers only the endorsement, or only the bafflement, is incomplete.

The elk reading

Elk lie down in mud and wet ground, roll, and get up. The depression left behind is large, asymmetrical, and full of soft-tissue contours.

Mark Hume made the argument in print early, in the National Post of March 3, 2001, page 26, under the headline "Bigfoot, big ... well, maybe not." He reported clear tracks of an elk at the site and imprints "that would match perfectly with an elk's legs," and concluded the cast recorded the hindquarters of an elk. Wikipedia spells his first name "Marc" in its body text and "Mark" in its own citation to the paper; the citation matches the byline of the Canadian journalist Mark Hume.

The more serious challenge came later. Anton Wroblewski holds a PhD in geology and specializes in ichnology, the study of traces animals leave in sediment, which is the discipline this problem actually belongs to. In July 2006 he studied copies of the cast and concluded it was made by a large cervid, probably an elk. Matt Crowley, writing in Skeptical Inquirer in 2016, said Wroblewski had demonstrated "definitively and unambiguously" that the impression represented a reclining elk. CONTESTED

The popular skeptical version drops two things about that last sentence. Crowley's 2016 remark appears in an obituary of John Green, not in a technical paper on the cast. And "definitively and unambiguously" is Crowley's characterization of Wroblewski's photographic comparisons rather than a phrase from a peer-reviewed analysis. No peer-reviewed publication of Wroblewski's Skookum work could be located for this entry.

Claim about the castWho says itStatus
Hair on the buttock, thigh and forearm surfacesISU press release, October 2000ALLEGED
Skin ridge patterns on the heel, "comparable to fingerprints"Meldrum, via the ISU press releaseALLEGED
No elk hoofprints in the center of the castNoll, Denver Post, 2003ALLEGED
Clear elk tracks at the siteHume, National Post, 2001CONTESTED
Made by a reclining large cervid, probably an elkWroblewski, July 2006, as reported by CrowleyCONTESTED
One hair from an unidentified primateBFRO; FahrenbachALLEGED
Elk hair present in the recovered materialWikipedia; ColemanDOCUMENTED

Rick Noll's counterargument is specific and deserves quoting rather than paraphrase. Noll, an aerospace toolmaker who had spent thirty years on the subject, told the Denver Post: "An elk will gather their feet under them when they get up. But there are no elk hoofprints in the center of the cast." That is a real observation about how a bedded elk rises. It is also not decisive, because the cast is a partial record of a churned surface rather than a complete floor plan of the night.

The skin-ridge claim is the one sub-claim that could in principle be tested, and it has never been published anywhere it could be checked. It rests on Meldrum's reading, relayed through his university's press office.

The hair

Hair was recovered from mud adhering to the cast. Wikipedia states that the hair found was analyzed and found to be from an elk. Loren Coleman's account adds that elk hair and bear hair were both found. BFRO's page says "Hairs of various animals, including one unidentified primate, were extracted from this final layer of mud."

The primate hair rests on one man's assessment. Henner Fahrenbach, a retired biomedical researcher from Beaverton, Oregon, in Coleman's words "claims to have identified a single specimen, which he believes belongs to a Sasquatch, although he admits this identification is very tentative and impossible to test." That admission is the whole story. A hair that cannot be typed, matched or tested is not an identification of anything. No published DNA result on Skookum hair establishing an unknown primate could be found for this entry. The hair that was successfully identified belonged to animals everyone agrees live there.

How it was handled

The find was announced by press release and on television. No peer-reviewed publication analyzing the cast, by proponents or by critics, could be located. Crowley's account is that the proponent narrative "remained relatively unchallenged until July 2006, when cast copies were studied by Anton Wroblewski." Wroblewski worked from copies rather than the original.

John Green, one of the five original examiners, wrote in his own statement on the BFRO site that the cast could settle the question "provided that enough influential zoologists, mammalogists, anatomists, primatologists, etc. will take a serious look at it." That review never happened in any venue that left a citable record.

BFRO's expedition log does address the missing footprints. It theorizes that the animal "did not want to leave tracks," and discusses this as a possible ancient survival strategy against human hunters in the area. ALLEGED An explanation that accounts for absent evidence by attributing intent to the unidentified animal can accommodate any result, which is the standing objection to it.

Meldrum devoted a chapter of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (2006) to the cast. In Crowley's summary, Meldrum argued that it "was made by Bigfoot and not any other animal," and "went as far as to suggest there was a heel that bore apparent fingerprints." Speaking to National Geographic for an article of October 23, 2003, Meldrum said, "Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified." The same article gave Michael Dennett the standing reply: "The bottom line is, they don't have a body."

Where it stands

Nobody has shown the Skookum cast to be a fabrication. There is no admission, no exposed mechanism, no evidence that anyone pressed a fake body into that mud. Calling it a hoax is not supported by anything in the record. CONTESTED

What happened instead was quieter. The proponents' own framing reduced the question to two options, sasquatch or elk. A geologist trained in reading exactly this kind of impression then picked elk. The most committed academic proponent in the field was recorded saying he was baffled by it. The hair that could be identified was elk, with bear reported alongside it. The one testable sub-claim, the skin ridges, has never been published where anyone could check it. Wikipedia's summary is that the cast is "widely dismissed, even by some prominent Bigfoot proponents, as nothing more than a cast of an elk wallow."

Meldrum, who defended it longest, died in September 2025 at 67 without the question resolving on his terms. Sources give two dates: Wikipedia says September 9, the Skeptical Inquirer obituary says September 11.

The object is real. The event is documented. The identification is not. The gap between the first two and the third is where most Bigfoot evidence lives.

Sources

All sources below were opened and read directly for this entry.

← The Files