kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
WP was so right. Bigfoot tracks are folk art. How anyone could ever think a real foot made those Wallace tracks makes the palm want to find the face.
Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3
- Thread starter JcR
- Start date
- Status
Forget about the toes, just look at where the ball pushes out horizontally. It definitely came from Wallace.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
The Shrike
Philosopher
No one other than Wallace made stompers with that feature?
Plus the ball on the cast in Drew's photo sticks out quite a bit, but not nearly so much in the photo of the impression.
Is a horizontally-splayed ball something that never appears in human footprints? Neither of the casts in Kit's post show this feature. In fact, their shape is quite similar to the living human foot cast I'm looking at on my bookshelf right now.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Check DesertYeti posts regarding a test he made to probe how good people are (actually think) they are in detecting fake footprints. There were some nice hints on what to look for.
It was fun to see how certain people were fooled.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Green was so much fooled by alderfoot, that he used the split ball as proof that a track was real...if they had the split ball, that meant they were genuine tracks...
The Shrike
Philosopher
Actually, it's decidedly less clear than you think. The form in this photo is quite different than the image you posted in #3994.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
You are correct, the one I diagrammed has the double ball, the one I am comparing as an exact match is the cast on the desk, with the left print on the photo.
The diagrammed cast does not match.
The Shrike
Philosopher
So why use it in post #4003, to intentionally muddy the waters?
What I'm hearing/seeing is that there were at least two types of stompers crafted by Ray Wallace. You think the one you posted earlier (#3994) is a match for the photo in Kit's post. I don't think it's an obvious match. To me, the ball doesn't stick out that much in the photo, and the deep shadow precludes any meaningful comparison of the shape, size, and arrangement of the toe impressions. I'm not saying it's not a match, just that I'm not convinced it is merely by comparing these photos.
The Shrike
Philosopher
More of the same if you ask me. The only way to make sense of this is to construct some kind of a timeline/organizational chart of who found what impression when and where. From what I read there are fakes of Wallace's footprint forms? There's a "real" Titmus cast and a "fake" one? Green compared "fake" versions of Wallace's forms to the casts of the footprints found in 1958 and declared they didn't match?
yes, Wallace stompers come in two flavors. To John Napier, this was certain evidence of hoaxing. The prints could not have come from the same species. He classified them as the non-human and the human-like.
Here are more examples of the human-like, along with some Bigfoot toys.
It appears that both types were present after the Labor Day weekend, and Green says they were only a few hundred yards from the film site.
Here are more examples of the human-like, along with some Bigfoot toys.
It appears that both types were present after the Labor Day weekend, and Green says they were only a few hundred yards from the film site.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Good luck with that...
The Shrike
Philosopher
Right, it's completely bewildering to the uninitiated - and mostly bewildering to me who's been trying to follow this stuff more closely than the vast majority of people.
Newbies who really aren't sure if there's a bigfoot or not have probably heard about "that guy who faked bigfoot prints." They probably make the assumption that there are "hoaxed" prints and "real" prints out there, and right now it's guys like Meldrum who are instructing them how to do that. He does that with very simple messages like "See the mid-tarsal break?" and "See how the toes move from one impression to another?"
Skeptics need equally simple counters to Meldrum's BS to demonstrate to newbies our confidence that there are no "real" bigfoot prints. It can't be as complex as Wallace, Patterson, Green, Crew, Titmus, Laverty, Krantz, etc., and the timeline that each of them found what where.
We need barefoot Shaq on a sandbar . . .
PS: No worries Drewbot; I was just muy confused.
Newbies who really aren't sure if there's a bigfoot or not have probably heard about "that guy who faked bigfoot prints." They probably make the assumption that there are "hoaxed" prints and "real" prints out there, and right now it's guys like Meldrum who are instructing them how to do that. He does that with very simple messages like "See the mid-tarsal break?" and "See how the toes move from one impression to another?"
Skeptics need equally simple counters to Meldrum's BS to demonstrate to newbies our confidence that there are no "real" bigfoot prints. It can't be as complex as Wallace, Patterson, Green, Crew, Titmus, Laverty, Krantz, etc., and the timeline that each of them found what where.
We need barefoot Shaq on a sandbar . . .
PS: No worries Drewbot; I was just muy confused.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I think Meldrum counters himself nicely with his own papers...look again at what he's got on this one...all supposedly the same basic foot on the same basic creature...
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
That reminds me..
Did Munns ever say whether his hi-res scans of the 1st gen copy showed the toes like this image does ?
Did Munns ever say whether his hi-res scans of the 1st gen copy showed the toes like this image does ?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
And what of blockfoot in high res?
Bill Munns
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 449
"Munns will try to tell you that you can't use the foot as a ruler to determine the height of the subject because the foot is moving fast/you can't tell the length/it's moving too fast. What ever."
Munns will not tell you any such thing.
Munns will tell you that the foot is one of the fastest moving parts of the body in a walk cycle, and so there should be an analysis of motion blur as a factor before the foot-as-ruler concept is accepted as a determination. Where is that analysis of how much of a variable the motion blur issue might afect the apparent foot size as seen in the image?
Munns will say that there is a variable apparently not yet considered, but should be, before a conclusion is reached.
Please beware of other people telling you what Munns is trying to tell you, because they clearly don't know what Munns is actually saying.
Bill Munns
Munns will not tell you any such thing.
Munns will tell you that the foot is one of the fastest moving parts of the body in a walk cycle, and so there should be an analysis of motion blur as a factor before the foot-as-ruler concept is accepted as a determination. Where is that analysis of how much of a variable the motion blur issue might afect the apparent foot size as seen in the image?
Munns will say that there is a variable apparently not yet considered, but should be, before a conclusion is reached.
Please beware of other people telling you what Munns is trying to tell you, because they clearly don't know what Munns is actually saying.
Bill Munns
- Status