Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

These are just human dermal ridges. Note what the experts say at the bottom of the report. They are all basically saying that the ridges are the same as human friction skin.

I guess they are claiming the prints couldn't be human because of their size, but we all know exactly how that could be faked.

 

[LAL]

Because John Green is just another mythmonger. Green makes profits from the Bigfoot myth. These people (like him) are considered experts in Bigfootology. There is no good reason to believe these people aren't putting their own spins on hoaxes created by others. Imagine a hoax stacked on top of a hoax.

LAL seems to argue from the position that these guys are saints. But their confirmation bias permeates all of their 'work'. When virtually all of the Bigfoot evidence comes from and is disseminated by Bigfoot believers, skeptics are at a continual disadvantage. Imagine if law enforcement only asked for and only used evidence against accused criminals that was voluntarily provided by the accused.

In many ways, the Bigfoot believer community is analogous to the Mafia. They cannot be trusted to voluntarily provide information that would incriminate the whole realm.

AFAIK, none of the 'primary evidence' (track depth, stride, etc.)that came from the Bluff Creek-PGF site was presented to the world by anyone other than those who would have created the hoax itself (P&G) and those who had already 'sold their soul' to Bigfoot (Laverty & Titmus).

What a crock.

Green started collecting reports in the fifties. He was able to investigate some events at his own expence. He's made some money off his books, but they've hardly been best sellers. Krantz gave it about a 10% chance of being real when he first studied casts and then came to the conclusion, "It can't be, but it is. He spent considerable time and money on the investigation at a cost to his reputation. As he put it, "My university supports my reasearch; they don't fire me." Titmus was a taxidermist at Anderson, California, when huge footprints started showing up in 1958. He taught Jerry Crew how to make a cast. He and a friend found slightly smaller tracks of a distinctly different shape a few weeks later, which showed there wasn't just one freak individual. He was very thorough and methodical and never sought publicity. Laverty was called in at Bluff Creek to photograph the tracks. Do you have a citation that shows he "sold his soul" prior to that event?

Your attempted character assassination misses the mark and indicates how little you know about this and the people involved. But thanks for showing how weak and biased the sceptical side's arguments tend to be. It seems the only way scofftics can justify their emotionally based rejection is by claiming the evidence is hoaxed or tainted and the researchers money-grubbing wackos. Never mind the researchers you mentioned did their work at their own expense.

I'm sure you've impressed a lot of lurkers with your pompous, opinionated, ignorant statements. Thanks for sharing.

 

[LAL]

Read the Bible, I mean, Krantz.

You said you read it. You didn't understand what he was saying? Meldrum's book will probably outdo Krantz' but it's not out yet.

Just for the record, I believe in nothing paranormal and I'm an atheist, so your implication I've made this into some sort of religion is about as far off-base as some of your other assertions. Thanks for the Amazon geography lesson, though. I guess I can relax about the Rain Forest since it would seem there's nothing new to be found there either. We know it all. *sigh*

 

[LAL]

Here is a listing for the NG channel in Australia ..
BF Show to be aired Sept 4..

http://www.nationalgeographic.com.a...p?mode=program&tdatetime=9/10/2005+4:00:00+PM

I wonder who the guy in the pic is.. Looks like he's got a cast from Alderfoot...

There are pictures of "a guy" holding a pair of Wallace's fake casts on the Onion Mt/Blue Creek Mtn. thread on BFF (that's been posted several times). Site's down again right now, but you might want to take a look so you can tell the difference.

From the shape and color it looks like a wooden foot to me. I couldn't find the DVD/video for sale yet, but I'll be happy to purchase it if and when it becomes available. In the meantime, someone who saw the show may be able to identify the "guy", whom I suspect is a Wallace family member. I'm unwilling to try to identify him without more information. Perhaps you could do that for us.

In the meantime, here's this:

"Question: How many successful bigfoot hoaxes did Ray Wallace perpetrate during his lifetime?

Answer: None. Wallace didn't even claim publicly to have perpetrated any successful bigfoot hoaxes. These assertions were publicized after Wallace's death, by Wallace's heirs, and a freelance publisher/writer on the East Coast. Wallace cannot be given credit for any successful hoaxes because researchers in general were never duped by his fake evidence. Many who knew Wallace said he indeed faked some evidence to sell at his shop. He told lots of people tall-tales about his alleged interactions with sasquatches, but he did all these things while firmly believing sasquatches existed somewhere in the forests of the northwest, according to friends who knew Wallace for years.


Question: Did Wallace ever fake any bigfoot evidence?

Answer: Yes. Over the years Wallace faked perhaps a dozen or so bigfoot track casts, and a smaller number fake bigfoot photos and films. He started faking evidence long after the first "Bigfoot" story hit the media in the late 1950's. For decades he tried to sell crudely faked casts at his roadside tourist shop in southern Washington State. He wasn't interested in perpetrating a major hoax, as much as he was eager to sell fake casts to tourists. He didn't sell much. He was more prolific at telling outrageous stories. His stories and his evidence had been repeatedly examined over the years, by a long list of qualified researchers, all of whom concluded that it had no credibility.




Question: Was Wallace responsible for the various high-profile bigfoot evidence referred to in the 12/02 news stories?

Answer: No. Wallace's material was always clearly identifiable as fake, and thus was disregarded along with many other pieces of fake evidence that various people tried to sell over the years in roadside shops in the northwest. The facts and physical evidence clearly demonstrate that Wallace had nothing to do with the many tracks and casts, and the best footage, found in more remote areas in the northwest, which are thought to be authentic. Wallace never publicly claimed to have faked any of that high-profile, credible evidence, though his heirs are now claiming that he took responsibility for it all shortly before he died.





Question: Why would Wallace's heirs claim he faked all the evidence and started the Bigfoot mystery if he really didn't?


Answer: Many assume it is because his heirs inherited lots of worthless, unsold, fake evidence from his roadside tourist shop. They believe his heirs may be hoping that their stories about Ray, and his personal belongings, will be much more valuable if there is a big sensational story attached to it.





Question: Why did the 'Death of Bigfoot' story become such a big, worldwide news event so quickly, if the physical evidence clearly shows that Wallace was not responsible for the original "Bigfoot" tracks?

Answer: The first story was a long, slanted obituary wherein the family and the freelance publisher made their claims about Ray Wallace. This obituary instantly became a hot item on the AP wire service, and became progressively distorted as it exploded out across other wire services, newspapers, television and radio stations, around the world. This happened over the course of a few days in early December. There was apparently no time for any newspaper (except the Denver Post), to seek out the truth behind the Wallace story. Every other newspaper was eager announce the 'Death of Bigfoot', mainly because other 'confession' stories purporting to debunk major mysteries, such as Loch Ness and crop circles, were always major world headlines when they first appeared. The investigation by the Denver Post is still ongoing.



Question: What is the physical proof demonstrating that Wallace did not create the original "Bigfoot" tracks?

Answer: The fake track stompers said by the Wallace family to be those which created the famous "Bigfoot" tracks, physically do not match the casts of the famous "Bigfoot" tracks. Wallace's fake track stompers are crude, carved representations of some Bluff Creek tracks from that era, based on copies of casts shared among locals years after the fact. The details of Wallace's stompers show they are simply not the molds, so to speak, which created the original tracks found in the ground by Jerry Crew and Bob Titmus in Bluff Creek in the 1950's.



Question: Is it possible that someone else could have faked all the best evidence obtained around Bluff Creek in the 1950's and 1960's?

Answer: As any school child will point out, anything is possible. It is possible that everything in the world which appears to be natural and organic, is actually fabricated by pranksters. By the same token it is possible that all the physical evidence of sasquatches from across the continent is fabricated by pranksters. What is not possible is the idea that the consistent, subtle hallmarks of all the tracks believed to be authentic could have been fabricated without a lot of expensive, high-tech mechanical engineering. Wallace's methods for faking tracks, by contrast, were very crude and produced obviously fake casts. Wallace endeavored for decades to sell every bit of fake bigfoot garbage that he could, but never had anything better than his typical crude casts for sale in his shop. He never displayed any casts in his shop that had these subtle hallmarks of authentic casts. Neither Wallace nor his heirs have ever displayed, or claim to possess, any of the advanced technology or collateral items required to fake the original Bluff Creek tracks. No one else has ever been able to demonstrate the methods or elaborate gear required to fake the authentic casts, and this gear would had to have been in use since the 1940's, when sasquatch tracks first started to be investigated. Because of the time-line of the evidence, one couldn't rely on the most modern technology to fabricate the distinguishing characteristics.



Question: What has been the effect of the 'Death of Bigfoot' story on the researcher efforts into the bigfoot/sasquatch phenomena?

Answer: Long-time reseachers are stunned at the lack of integrity and diligence on the part of the wire services and the mainstream media. The media (and even Jay Leno) implied that bigfoot researchers were hoaxed for years by Ray Wallace's efforts. Bigfoot researchers say the AP wire service, etc., were hoaxed by the 'Death of Bigfoot' story. The fact is, Ray Wallace's efforts at fabricating evidence and stories were well known to researchers for decades. Ray Wallace was a fountain of bogus stories, and everyone knew it. He always sought attention for his stories, but never got much. Nor was he the only pathological liar out there spouting ridiculous stories and peddling crudely faked evidence. The only Wallace story that made big news happened after his death -- the 12/02 'Death of Bigfoot' story. Ironically, this bogus story didn't come directly from Wallace, but was attributed to him by members of his family. It was as if someone helped the heirs realize that a "deathbed hoax confession" story was the only story the wire services and mainstream media would circulate without hesitation or any due diligence."

http://www.bfro.net/news/wallace_faq.asp

 

[LTC8K6]

The famous Patty pressure ridge photo is just another of Ray Wallace's tracks. All that gobbledygook about mid-tarsal breaks, etc., is based on a faked track.

You can see where the wooden heel has dug in and then was lifted up before the split ball and toe end was set down.

Here we see the classic shape of an Alderfoot:

Look at the back of the heel impression. You wouldn't get that stepped look with an actual foot. I am surprised this track was ever accepted by anyone.

 

[LAL]

Noll's denial is sad as well.

Sad? He's been investigating for thirty years, and you're done what? Read a couple of CSICOP articles, Googled up an error-riddled but sceptical site and a movie site, quote-mined a few articles by legitimate investigators and let your imagination ramble for a few weeks on a message board?

It is clear that the track is a Ray Wallace special.

Maybe to you and some of your fellow armchair sceptics. Are there courses in critical seeing? I think you and some of the other posters on this board could use one.

 

[LAL]

The famous Patty pressure ridge photo is just another of Ray Wallace's tracks. All that gobbledygook about mid-tarsal breaks, etc., is based on a faked track.

You can see where the wooden heel has dug in and then was lifted up before the split ball and toe end was set down.

Here we see the classic shape of an Alderfoot:

Look at the back of the heel impression. You wouldn't get that stepped look with an actual foot. I am surprised this track was ever accepted by anyone.

Wallace had nothing to do with the Patterson film, although it's been claimed he told Roger where to look. Anyone trying to make a case for his itty-bitty wife being the creature in the film will be filtered without further ado. If you'd bothered to read the BFF Onion Mt./Blue Creek Mt. thread.thread or Krantz' book you'd know what fake feet do and would never have posted anything as inane as the above.

The print shows the midtarsal break. There are many other examples. That kind of a bend is not achievable with a rigid wooden foot. Nor do rigid feet produce articulating toe marks. Are you going to try to pin the Powder Mountain tracks on Wallace too? Bossburg? The Sierra Nevada this year? Nelson Creek? Do you suppose his heirs are flying around the continent pulling hoaxes?

I had no idea anyone could take the Wallace family claims seriously. You've certainly opened my eyes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You said you read it. You didn't understand what he was saying? Meldrum's book will probably outdo Krantz' but it's not out yet.

Is it going to include the Wallace prints ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Can anyone see any way to get that stepped look with an actual heel?

My guess is that Wallace had to push the heel part down several times to get it that deep, and that caused the steps in the heel print. With the angle, the foot would have walked forward a bit each time it was pressed on or hit.

 

[LAL]

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

These are just human dermal ridges. Note what the experts say at the bottom of the report. They are all basically saying that the ridges are the same as human friction skin.

I guess they are claiming the prints couldn't be human because of their size, but we all know exactly how that could be faked.

You mean this? Read it:

"I see the presence of ridge structure in these track casts which, in my examination, appears consistent with that type of ridge structure you would find in a human. Under magnification, they evidence all the minute characteristics similar to human dermal ridges. The sizes, distributions, and orientations of the ridge patterns are consistent with those found on a human foot. Of the ridge structure visible in the impressions, I believe it was produced concurrent with the creation of the overall impressions, and not added later.

If hoaxing were involved, I can conceive of no way in which it could have been done. They appear to be casts of original impressions of a primate foot — of a creature different from any of which I am aware.

Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom, Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, and Silastic lifts in early 1983. Examined original casts and two-color lifts in June, 1983, for several hours.

Based on everything I see, there is nothing in these tracks that is inconsistent with the impressions of an actual living primate foot. Ridges and pores are consistent with real primate skin. I'm convinced that this represents real friction skin and shows no inconsistencies in structure or orientation.

If they are faked, the individual would have to know an extraordinary amount about fingerprinting. I could not have done it. A faker would have to be an accomplished artist as well as an expert on dermatoglyphics. He would also need a knowledge of gross anatomy of feet. The amount of time needed to do all this work is beyond the realm of believability.

Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982 — inked these and traced print pattern extensively. Had cast copies to examine at leisure. Saw original casts for several hours in early 1983 — made Duplicast impressions of critical parts, and took photographs for further study.

My professional opinion of the three casts is that they represent footprints of a living higher primate of an unknown species. The over-all configuration of the foot is roughly human, but it is too wide — a human foot would not be over five and one half inches [wide] for this length, and thus these impressions could not be human. The actual width is represented and supported by ridge pattern.

My study of the tracks concentrated more on the sole than on the more conspicuous details of the toes. I traced the ridge pattern over the entire breadth of the forefoot, finding triradius landmarks appropriate in their respective positions with intervening ridges flowing in proper directions. It could not have been patched together from smaller parts that were copied from skin of a known primate.

The detailed morphology of the ridge and furrow structures and patterns are especially convincing to me. In all details, they conform perfectly in design and size to real friction skin. The sweat pores are clear and are lined-up and spaced just as expectable, and can be distinguished from occasional air bubbles in the casts.

I began this investigation with the goal of showing how these prints were, or might have been, faked. All evidence now tells me that any faking would be impossible.

Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982, and cast copies shortly thereafter. Saw original casts for several hours on two occasions in early 1983.

These track casts show all the characteristics of real friction skin derived from a higher primate footprint. The ridge details, in all respects, duplicate that found in human feet. Parts of the pattern on right and left feet are near-mirror images; some displacia is indicated in the areas where it could be expected; smoothing by wear shows on the weight-bearing areas. In addition, the footprints indicate that an unusual proportion on the body weight fell on the front of the foot, and the arches are evidently flat.

This kind of print could not have been made by a human foot, nor that of any known animal. It could not have been manufactured by any hoaxer; the design is too dermatoglyphically correct, and the engraving job would be beyond the capabilities of the best forger. Descriptions of the supposed Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, are consistent with the traits found in these footprints."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Is the ' Freeman ' mentioned in your article the same Freeman who made the video of someone in a gorrilla suit ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Some of the larger "pores" seen here are probably exaggerated artifacts caused by air bubbles in the cast.

Oh really ? So, there is no possibility that the smaller ' pores ' could not be air bubbles ?


This is really absurd.. Do you realize how fine the soil would have been, for pores to have been left in the print? We are talking about dust; any details in the print would have been destroyed in the casting process..

I'll say it again.. This is absurd, and shows your experts to be idiots, to expect anyone to believe they are casting prints with pores showing up...

 

[LTC8K6]

This kind of print could not have been made by a human foot, nor that of any known animal. It could not have been manufactured by any hoaxer; the design is too dermatoglyphically correct, and the engraving job would be beyond the capabilities of the best forger.

It's such an exact duplicate of a human foot that it has to be real! No one could hoax an enlarged human foot!

 

[LTC8K6]

Well Diogenes, if you made the pores and ridges and the foot larger through a well known process.....

 

[Correa Neto]

You said you read it. You didn't understand what he was saying? Meldrum's book will probably outdo Krantz' but it's not out yet.

Just for the record, I believe in nothing paranormal and I'm an atheist, so your implication I've made this into some sort of religion is about as far off-base as some of your other assertions. Thanks for the Amazon geography lesson, though. I guess I can relax about the Rain Forest since it would seem there's nothing new to be found there either. We know it all. *sigh*

Reductio ad absurdum doesn´t work this way LAL. At least try to use subjects that do have some link.

There´s plenty of things to be found in the Amazon forest:
-Ore deposits
-Archeological remains
-New species of real plants and animals

All the above quite probably also apply to North America.

However, regardless on how hard you search, you will never find things that do not exist, such as the mapinguari in the Amazon Forest and bigfoot in North America.

Slightly OT digression- How many new species were found by cryptozoologists? Are there any? New species, as far as I know, are found by "regular" biologists. And before you ask, yes, I know a handfull of biologists who managed to find new species, and even helped one of them. No cryptozoologist was around.

Again on Krantz, Meldrum & Co- I have wrote this before. They have not managed to convince me as well as other people (including within his field of expertise). Why? Because the nature of the evidence, the raw data, they use to back their analysis and conclusions. Its just too weak. Reports, footprint casts and a blurry footage of a fuzzy thing. And there are shadows of mistinterpretations and hoaxes over some of what is considered the best evidence. It does not matter how sophisticated are your analysis techniques if the data you are analysing is of poor quality. Its the old BS in - BS out rule.

Therefore it convinced me almost as much as the Bible convinced me as a report of true facts. Thus, your "read Krantz" appeal, suggesting that this what would convince us, is useless.

Answer me, please, why should I, considering the quality of evidence avaliable, belive that bigfeet are real, but UFOs and ghosts are not? Maybe this should be for another thread.

I stick to my initial position. There may be an unknown to the science giant primate roaming in North America. However, given the avaliable data, the chances of this creature being real are very small. And this is the position of most people here, I think. What is very reasonable and rational.

 

[Thurkon]

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

These are just human dermal ridges. Note what the experts say at the bottom of the report. They are all basically saying that the ridges are the same as human friction skin.

I guess they are claiming the prints couldn't be human because of their size, but we all know exactly how that could be faked.

Whew. I read that whole stinkin' report. What a bunch of hot air.

I like how he continually consults experts throughout the "investigation", most of whom disagree with him, and then he explains why the experts are wrong. Okay, guy...whatever you say!

I also like how nobody questions why Freeman keeps finding all these tracks. He gets a Foot on film, too. He knows exactly where to go every time. That guy must think like a squatch!

Then we wrap up the whole report with this revelation:

Either they were fabricated somehow by a modern human hoaxer, or else they are the tracks of a presently unrecognized animal.

I could have told you that...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's such an exact duplicate of a human foot that it has to be real! No one could hoax an enlarged human foot!

And they keep talking about ' engraving '; as if this is the only way to make a copy of something...



I would be insulted if I thought I was the target audience for this crap.... ( there is a clue in there somewhere ... )

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I also like how nobody questions why Freeman keeps finding all these tracks. He gets s Foot on film, too. He knows exactly where to go every time. That guy must think like a squatch!

I thought I read somewhere that Freeman had pretty much been discredited.. Is he still held in high regard in Squatcher circles?

I've seen his video. It really stinks..

 

[Thurkon]

He spent considerable time and money on the investigation at a cost to his reputation.

Come on. According to whom...himself? Of course he would paint himself as the tireless, sacrificing researcher. Maybe he is honest about his pursuit, but this much is clear:

1. He is making money from the Bigfoot books
2. He is making money from the Bigfoot circuit and conventions


It is asinine of you to constantly state authoritatively that the Wallace family and Heironimous are motivated by money, and yet you accuse us of "character assassination" if we so much as imply that Bigfoot researchers might have similar motivations to keep the Foot industry rolling...

Objective as ever, Lu.

 

[Thurkon]

In the meantime, here's this:

"Question: How many successful bigfoot hoaxes did Ray Wallace perpetrate during his lifetime?

Answer: None. Wallace didn't even claim publicly to have perpetrated any successful bigfoot hoaxes. These assertions were publicized after Wallace's death, by Wallace's heirs, and a freelance publisher/writer on the East Coast. Wallace cannot be given credit for any successful hoaxes because researchers in general were never duped by his fake evidence. Many who knew Wallace said he indeed faked some evidence to sell at his shop. He told lots of people tall-tales about his alleged interactions with sasquatches, but he did all these things while firmly believing sasquatches existed somewhere in the forests of the northwest, according to friends who knew Wallace for years.


Question: Did Wallace ever fake any bigfoot evidence?

Answer: Yes. Over the years Wallace faked perhaps a dozen or so bigfoot track casts, and a smaller number fake bigfoot photos and films. He started faking evidence long after the first "Bigfoot" story hit the media in the late 1950's. For decades he tried to sell crudely faked casts at his roadside tourist shop in southern Washington State. He wasn't interested in perpetrating a major hoax, as much as he was eager to sell fake casts to tourists. He didn't sell much. He was more prolific at telling outrageous stories. His stories and his evidence had been repeatedly examined over the years, by a long list of qualified researchers, all of whom concluded that it had no credibility.




Question: Was Wallace responsible for the various high-profile bigfoot evidence referred to in the 12/02 news stories?

Answer: No. Wallace's material was always clearly identifiable as fake, and thus was disregarded along with many other pieces of fake evidence that various people tried to sell over the years in roadside shops in the northwest. The facts and physical evidence clearly demonstrate that Wallace had nothing to do with the many tracks and casts, and the best footage, found in more remote areas in the northwest, which are thought to be authentic. Wallace never publicly claimed to have faked any of that high-profile, credible evidence, though his heirs are now claiming that he took responsibility for it all shortly before he died.





Question: Why would Wallace's heirs claim he faked all the evidence and started the Bigfoot mystery if he really didn't?


Answer: Many assume it is because his heirs inherited lots of worthless, unsold, fake evidence from his roadside tourist shop. They believe his heirs may be hoping that their stories about Ray, and his personal belongings, will be much more valuable if there is a big sensational story attached to it.





Question: Why did the 'Death of Bigfoot' story become such a big, worldwide news event so quickly, if the physical evidence clearly shows that Wallace was not responsible for the original "Bigfoot" tracks?

Answer: The first story was a long, slanted obituary wherein the family and the freelance publisher made their claims about Ray Wallace. This obituary instantly became a hot item on the AP wire service, and became progressively distorted as it exploded out across other wire services, newspapers, television and radio stations, around the world. This happened over the course of a few days in early December. There was apparently no time for any newspaper (except the Denver Post), to seek out the truth behind the Wallace story. Every other newspaper was eager announce the 'Death of Bigfoot', mainly because other 'confession' stories purporting to debunk major mysteries, such as Loch Ness and crop circles, were always major world headlines when they first appeared. The investigation by the Denver Post is still ongoing.



Question: What is the physical proof demonstrating that Wallace did not create the original "Bigfoot" tracks?

Answer: The fake track stompers said by the Wallace family to be those which created the famous "Bigfoot" tracks, physically do not match the casts of the famous "Bigfoot" tracks. Wallace's fake track stompers are crude, carved representations of some Bluff Creek tracks from that era, based on copies of casts shared among locals years after the fact. The details of Wallace's stompers show they are simply not the molds, so to speak, which created the original tracks found in the ground by Jerry Crew and Bob Titmus in Bluff Creek in the 1950's.



Question: Is it possible that someone else could have faked all the best evidence obtained around Bluff Creek in the 1950's and 1960's?

Answer: As any school child will point out, anything is possible. It is possible that everything in the world which appears to be natural and organic, is actually fabricated by pranksters. By the same token it is possible that all the physical evidence of sasquatches from across the continent is fabricated by pranksters. What is not possible is the idea that the consistent, subtle hallmarks of all the tracks believed to be authentic could have been fabricated without a lot of expensive, high-tech mechanical engineering. Wallace's methods for faking tracks, by contrast, were very crude and produced obviously fake casts. Wallace endeavored for decades to sell every bit of fake bigfoot garbage that he could, but never had anything better than his typical crude casts for sale in his shop. He never displayed any casts in his shop that had these subtle hallmarks of authentic casts. Neither Wallace nor his heirs have ever displayed, or claim to possess, any of the advanced technology or collateral items required to fake the original Bluff Creek tracks. No one else has ever been able to demonstrate the methods or elaborate gear required to fake the authentic casts, and this gear would had to have been in use since the 1940's, when sasquatch tracks first started to be investigated. Because of the time-line of the evidence, one couldn't rely on the most modern technology to fabricate the distinguishing characteristics.



Question: What has been the effect of the 'Death of Bigfoot' story on the researcher efforts into the bigfoot/sasquatch phenomena?

Answer: Long-time reseachers are stunned at the lack of integrity and diligence on the part of the wire services and the mainstream media. The media (and even Jay Leno) implied that bigfoot researchers were hoaxed for years by Ray Wallace's efforts. Bigfoot researchers say the AP wire service, etc., were hoaxed by the 'Death of Bigfoot' story. The fact is, Ray Wallace's efforts at fabricating evidence and stories were well known to researchers for decades. Ray Wallace was a fountain of bogus stories, and everyone knew it. He always sought attention for his stories, but never got much. Nor was he the only pathological liar out there spouting ridiculous stories and peddling crudely faked evidence. The only Wallace story that made big news happened after his death -- the 12/02 'Death of Bigfoot' story. Ironically, this bogus story didn't come directly from Wallace, but was attributed to him by members of his family. It was as if someone helped the heirs realize that a "deathbed hoax confession" story was the only story the wire services and mainstream media would circulate without hesitation or any due diligence."

http://www.bfro.net/news/wallace_faq.asp

Yeah, I read all that drivel from the BFRO web site a long time ago. Got anything new?

Moneymaker sure likes rewriting history and making crap up. Let's have him take a wack at the Vietnam War. Maybe he can make us win this time...

Has he seen any more squatches mating? How about birth rituals?