Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
He found evidence allright...

anatomy2.jpg


"..... flattened arch, wide heel, and double ball, as well as the uniformly sized and nearly squared-off toes. "

Sound familiar ?

No line on the heel, no match on the shape, no squared off toes.......

Copies of Titmus' cast of that track were for sale in the area.

John Green at the 2003 International Bigfoot Symposium:

"I have said that the events at Bluff Creek in the 1950s and 60s can best be dealt with at the panel discussion tomorrow, but there is one aspect that very much involves the present, and perhaps I can dispose of it now.

I am referring to the claim made last year by his family that the late Ray Wallace the contractor on the road construction job where the first “Bigfoot” track was cast, made those footprints by walking around wearing a pair of wooden feet.

Had the first newspaper to carry the story behaved responsibly, and asked the Wallaces to demonstrate that they could duplicate those tracks with the wooden feet that they displayed as proof, that story would never have been printed. Instead it was treated as revealed truth, and it was republished and broadcast all over the world, with some wonderful embellishments.

One newspaper quoted a Wallace nephew saying that Ray had sent younger members of the clan out to make all of the big tracks that have been reported all over the continent. Others took a mention of Ray making movies of his wife in a fur suit and twisted it to include the Patterson movie.

Even the newspaper in Eureka, which had printed the original stories that introduced “Bigfoot” to the world, got on the bandwagon with a yarn about how the publisher at the time had known all along it was a Ray Wallace hoax.

It was a totally irresponsible performance by the media, and frankly a lot of people involved in Bigfoot research weren’t any better. Their reaction might be summed up as: “Okay, Ray Wallace faked the Bluff Creek tracks but we have other tracks that are genuine.”

They didn’t bother to find out, any more than the media did, whether the Wallace claims were true, and seemed perfectly willing to discard as evidence tracks that are the most thoroughly investigated and best authenticated of any that have ever been found.

The current Wallaces actually don’t show any sign of knowing much about the Bluff Creek tracks and may even believe that what they are saying is true, although one of them told Rick Noll that his father never actually said he had faked the tracks, they just grew up knowing he had.

The wooden feet that they showed the media, as you can see in the full-size photos of them on display here, do not match the original “Bigfoot”. They do appear to be attempts to duplicate the casts made by Bob Titmus of the different set of tracks he found on a Bluff Creek sandbar, but one of them is so crudely carved that they would not likely fool anybody.

I expect those feet were just made to see whether tracks could be faked with them, something that probably, like myself, some of you have also tried. The answer, of course, is that you can make passable tracks in flat ground if it is soft enough, but in firm materials or up and down slopes, forget it.

Some of the original tracks were in very firm materials, and some went up and down steep slopes. This museum has had an offer in circulation for several months now of $100,000 for anyone who can show how they could have been faked.

So far there is no sign that any Wallace cares to try for the money, but perhaps they haven’t heard of it. The same editors that swallowed whole their nonsensical story refused to believe a real one. Priding themselves, I suppose, on not falling for a publicity stunt, they gave the $100,000 offer no publicity at all.

Granted that the $100,000 was put up in an attempt to get publicity, since all other attempts to get the media to counteract the damage they had done had failed, but it is a genuine offer. The first person who can demonstrate how the Bluff Creek tracks could have been faked will be paid $100,000. Tomorrow, you when you hear the people who were involved at the time describe what they observed; I think you will agree that there is no cause for concern that the money will ever be claimed.

What is the story about Ray Wallace? I never met him, because he was never around Willow Creek the times I was here, but I was told early on about his reputation as a practical joker, and in later years I got occasional letters and phone calls from him.

According to newspaper stories he was pretty upset in 1958 about people suggesting he had faked the tracks, pointing out, undoubtedly correctly, that the whole thing was interfering with his contract and costing him money.

It wasn’t long, though, until he began to try to get in on the action, telling outlandish tales about his adventures with Bigfoot. He even tried to sell Tom Slick a movie of Bigfoot he that claimed to have taken. I wasn’t there, but I was told that Ray asked for $10,000 and wouldn’t show Tom the film until he had the money.

We had learned by then that Tom could be very gullible at times, but that wasn’t one of the times, so we never knew what would have happened if he had agreed to pay.

We thought then that it was an attempted swindle, but having learned more of Ray’s reputation from people who knew him well and admired him I feel sure now that it would have turned out to be just one of his pranks.

A while later, after he had returned to the area in Washington where he came from, Ray got involved in selling very odd looking footprint casts, supposedly from the Mount Saint Helen’s apes. I never heard that he had casts from Bluff Creek, and I’m sure he never claimed publicly that he had faked the tracks there; because he would certainly have been called on to prove it."
 
Last edited:
Lu,

Why is it that when we point out differences in Sas prints, the reply is all about rain damage and differences in individuals ?



Why would prints made with fake feet be perfect matches with the foot that made them?

Wouldn't they slip ( in all directions ) ? Diference in soil, moisture, etc... ?


Isn't the match to that double ball, just a bit much of a coincidence ?

Do you really think the natural looking crack in the Wallace foot was carved to match the print ?



What does Meldrum say about the distinctive ' squared off toes ' ?


Why don't Patty tracks have double balls and squared off toes ? What does Krantz say ? Meldrum ?
 
It amazes me how you could take a photo of of one track in a line of forty as a bear track

I don't. I referred to the other tracks and the trackway as well. The trackway is also a dead giveaway, imo.

Sorry, but they are all bear tracks to me. Second possibility is Freeman specials.

Huntster is just a guy on a board and has no special insight over you or me regarding tracks.

I really do wonder how sasquatch tracks are sometimes in a perfectly straight line and sometimes show quite a left/right bias.

The John Green straight line photo vs Meldrum's trackway photo for instance.
 
There's no way the 1089 tracks counted by Dahinden at Bossburg (and there are photos of the trackway, not just the one print), could be identically placed overlaid bear tracks.

No, but Ivan Marx was there and made a film of a cripplefoot.....

So, there go your 1089 tracks, imo. Yes, we've already discussed how long it would take to make them.
 
Yes. John Green was fooled by both Wallace and Patterson. Nothing wrong with that. I believe that could have happened to anyone interested in the subject.

What is wrong is that today Green now comes out with letters written by Wallace to him and he tells us that no one was ever fooled by Wallace.

Where were those letters years ago when they were first written to Green? Why did I only read about Ray Wallace, the hard-nosed businessman who was a skeptic-turned-believer after several of his men quit due to giant footprints and barrel-tossing? I should have heard more about Ray Wallace the fake footprint maker, but that was hardly spoken of. The story of the men Ray hired seeing a Bigfoot while attempting to track it I did read years ago, however.

The first thing I noticed when I saw the actual photos of the prints at Bluff Creek (which Green said had nothing to do with the Wallace feet) is that they DO match the Wallace feet.

The second thing is that the prints are in a straight line in the soft part of the dirt along the edge of the road with no signs of push-off at all. It's as if the print-maker was deliberately walking in the soft dirt and trying to leave perfectly flat prints by hesitating between steps while balancing on one leg. If you ever watch the demonstration by Wallace's pals as they are pulled by a rope tied to a pick-up truck you'll see that this is just what they do. The truck allows them to be pulled further forward than they could step. The hesitation allows the print to be perfectly flat and imprinted in the soft dirt (no deeper than that of any of the bootprints these same men would make walking in that same soft soil).

Below is a photo from the Oct. 15, 1958 Eureka Standard of one of the earlier giant prints found at Wallace's site. Wallace's family noted that his fake feet improved as he went along. Based on this earlier print, I'd say that was a true statement.

Wallace first heard of the legendary hairy giants from Indians working for him. A friend of his says he made his first prints just to scare some of the guys. When the Crew cast got wide coverage, Wallace got a kick out of the stir he caused and he adopted faking "Bigfoot" as a life long hobby.

Wallace (and others) had many different versions of feet. Despite BFRO matching up the wrong wooden feet with the Crew photo, the Crew casts actually match one of Wallace's set of feet from that time. This is similar to the kind of bad science shown in the "arm length" demonstration at BFRO by taking something out of context and misrepresenting the facts.

When various sets of wooden feet owned by hoaxer Wallace match the various sets of prints left at Wallace work sites... one might conclude that it's just possible Wallace had something to do with them.

Of course, one could also make a speech at a Bigfoot convention denying that this ever happened to save face. If the audience is willing to buy that, then they'll buy anything as long as you give them what they want.

It takes a big person with more than a big foot to admit that he's been wrong about something and now has more info. There are too few people big enough for that involved in bigfoot research.

Gimlin needn't fear his half-secret being discovered by Bigfoot researchers. All he has to do is sit next to John Green at a convention and wait for the applause.

- Dfoot
 

Attachments

  • RANDI-oct15EurekaStandard-58.gif
    RANDI-oct15EurekaStandard-58.gif
    36.4 KB · Views: 10
John Green was clearly totally fooled by Ray Wallace. This is as clear as it can be.

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/bluff_creek_bigfoot.html

BCMpic.jpg



Note the square toes Lu..

What does Dr. Meldrum have to say about the evolution behind square toed
Bigfeet..

Exactly what are the advantaged of having square toes in the rugged PNW ?



Why don’t you post this question in the thread at BFF where Dr. M is clearing
up all the questions..
 
Last edited:
Are you just joking around, or is Dr. M actually answering questions over there?

I just tried to post a pic of a breast attached to a foam body (which I made in a few minutes) along with an example of the water bag breasts of a female gorilla suit in response to someone attacking the idea that I said Patty's breasts were not real. I found I'm STILL unable to post a response to anything being said about my investigation into the PG film.

Isn't that one of the traits found in cult group behavior? Doesn't that tend to prove my point that a cult mindset can sneak into this kind of thing?

Too bad... IF Dr. M were posting I'd certainly have a few questions for him as well. I'm sure his answers would shed light on all of this evidence as well as the thinking that goes along with it.

- Dfoot
 
Are you just joking around, or is Dr. M actually answering questions over there?

I just tried to post a pic of a breast attached to a foam body (which I made in a few minutes) along with an example of the water bag breasts of a female gorilla suit in response to someone attacking the idea that I said Patty's breasts were not real. I found I'm STILL unable to post a response to anything being said about my investigation into the PG film.

Isn't that one of the traits found in cult group behavior? Doesn't that tend to prove my point that a cult mindset can sneak into this kind of thing?

Too bad... IF Dr. M were posting I'd certainly have a few questions for him as well. I'm sure his answers would shed light on all of this evidence as well as the thinking that goes along with it.

- Dfoot

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14342

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14377

Approach the altar with head bowed, please...



If he responds, could you ask him about the square toes ?

I'm sure there is a sound, morphological reason, but an anthropological retard like myself,
can't put a handle on it...
 
Last edited:
...snip...
So... nobody needs me to fake evidence. It seems to be already being accomplished by veterans of the craft.

Good evidence is where you find it... near Gimlin.:wink:
...snip...- Dfoot

That was not exactly what I am trying to suggest.

The PhotoPattyShop was created to probe the bias from BFF folks, OK?

You posted the pic as being of your suit, so the folks already knew it was not an actual bigfoot (assuming such thing really exists). Bias may -and IMHO- have seeped in.

So, submitting it to BFRO as an alleged pic of the real deal could perhaps provide a better evaluation of their bias and analisys skills. That could be part of a double blind test or control sample, for example.

Then, once your suit is ready, the final test could go on. Personally, I would submitt the footage as of being of a real bigfoot, and see the outcome. Then, after some time, I would expose the whole thing. Sure, many individuals would become really p!ssed of...
 
That was not exactly what I am trying to suggest.

The PhotoPattyShop was created to probe the bias from BFF folks, OK?

You posted the pic as being of your suit, so the folks already knew it was not an actual bigfoot (assuming such thing really exists). Bias may -and IMHO- have seeped in.

So, submitting it to BFRO as an alleged pic of the real deal could perhaps provide a better evaluation of their bias and analisys skills. That could be part of a double blind test or control sample, for example.

Then, once your suit is ready, the final test could go on. Personally, I would submitt the footage as of being of a real bigfoot, and see the outcome. Then, after some time, I would expose the whole thing. Sure, many individuals would become really p!ssed of...

I understand what you are saying. But simply submitting a film or photo to BFRO today brings on all sorts of questioning and attacks that Gimlin doesn't have to go through at any BFRO expedition.

Check out anyone who attempts to describe his or her encounter online. You'll see that much more intense skepticism is used with anything new. The PG film is held up as the Holy Shroud of Bigfoot. Thinking about it centers mainly on why it has to be real and any evidence to the contrary is attacked. New footage is slammed - or at least not taken as definite proof - most of the time.

Instead of trying to emerge from the forest with a broad daylight video of a Patty-type strolling horizontally up a logging road and never once attempting to duck behind a tree or flee into the forest - I might suggest the following:

BFRO has requested a video cam set-up deep in the Pacific Northwest that would allow 24 hour viewing online by researchers. Thus they can watch animal life pass by without being a disturbing presence in the forest. The hope is that one day a Bigfoot might stroll by and maybe even leave a butt impression.

I propose that a very Patty-ish looking (Remember IF it doesn't look like Patty it can't be a Bigfoot. Patterson has established what a Bigfoot must look like.) creature stride past such a lens. Maybe with a bloodied rabbit in its mouth. These clouded, jerky images would be dissected all over the world and speeding tickets would be issued to those rushing to reach the remote camera location.

Again... this would be using the old Wallace tactic of simply allowing the researchers to discover the evidence for themselves. It would be BFRO'S video and the first question of hoaxing would be directed at them. The debate over the images and the sci-fi attempts at examining mid-tarsal breaks and blocky teeth would be something to stare at on the Internet for a while.

Just a thought.

The main difference here would be doing as you suggest (and as I did when I posted the Patty vs. Patty images at BFF). Stepping forward later - not as Bob H. with only a bunch of witnesses to his account - but with clear video of the preparation for the hoax.

Of course, that would mean loud cries of "You were only fooling yourself - hoaxer!" like those I have recently heard.

- Dfoot
 
Here is the shot where you can really see how phoney the tracks and the trackway are.
I can't believe folks didn't bust out laughing at the poor hoax....

post-2-1107224808.jpeg


Wait, I'm confused-- don't bigfeet avoid leaving prints?

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

Several experienced Sasquatch field researchers in the group noted that they had likely seen this behavior before -- track patterns suggesting the animals did not want to leave obvious tracks behind -- relatively consistent avoidance of soils that would have left the most clear track impressions

Cause otherwise it looks kinda like they walked in the only part of the road where they...
 
What is it? Damage from rain or another individual ?

Huntster argued that the Laverty print was protected from the rain...

No, I proposed possibilities to answer the silly questions posed about how come the print photographed by Laverty wasn't destroyed by the heavy rainfall.

One proposal, that Gimlin had stated that he covered some prints with bark, was then answered with the ridiculous proposal that the bark was somehow perfectly carved to fit the print.

My other proposal, that the soil was compressed by the subject who made the print, and that it would then be more able to withstand a heavy rainfall than the surrounding soil, was ignored.

I don't know how heavy the rainfall was, how well the soil drained, how compacted the print was, which prints were covered with bark, how big the bark was, what shape the bark was, what was in Laverty's mind when he investigated the site, why he would even go there to have a look if he was skeptical, etc, etc, etc.

And you don't know any of that either.

You're just injecting doubt, and I'm still open to possibilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom