Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LTC8K6]

Green had it from Hodgson that Wallace wasn't even in the area at the time the Crew tracks were found (the ones his family claimed he faked, in 1958).

Objection your honor, hearsay.

If I were John Green, I wouldn't want Wallace to have been there either.

I'll remind everyone of Lu's lie:

There is nothing to indicate he faked tracks at Bluff Creek or anywhere else.

It is nothing but a big, fat, deliberate lie.

 

[fsol]

Green has plenty of reason to stand up for the authenticity of those tracks and all others he's investigated.

I can think of one big one.


hint: It's not because bigfoot is real.

 

[LAL]

One could also say... "believers tend to support the matter because they really know nothing about the subject and so can speak of it with the most authority."

Either way it's just as correct.

It's hard for anyone to know a lot about an undiscovered, unproven, uncatalogued, unidentified, biped.

Show me a bigfoot proponent who can speak with authority about any of the following:

eating (when, how often, amount, etc.)
sleeping (when, where, how, etc.)
mating (method, gestation period, etc.)
range (migration, nomadic, static, etc.)
definitive physical details (foot structure, thumb/finger relationship, facial appearance, etc.)
RayG

Read Bindernagle.

 

[LTC8K6]

The biggest problem with seeing the cast for what it is is that it's inversed. That works OK with a footprint cast because you immediately react to it as the bottom of a foot. But this thing is just a bunch of unidentifiable little slopes and valleys with hair imprinted on them. We've learned from experience that it takes a person quite a long time to really get the hang of it. I mean, they had enough trouble when they saw it as an imprint making out what it was. Took them a while to figure it out - they had already stepped on it, fortunately not in a critical place - before they realized what they were dealing with.

John Green being interviewed by Gerry Matthews July 23 2004 for the Bigfoot Information project. He is talking about the Skookum cast, of course.

 

[RayG]

Read Bindernagle.

Ha ha, very funny. He has a fine speculative book, filled with opinion, but to my knowledge he's never had so much as a fleeting glimpse of a bigfoot.

Sorta like Krantz.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

RayG, when Krantz gave the 1.66mm film height for Patty, was he using the original film, or the zoomed copy?

 

[RayG]

RayG, when Krantz gave the 1.66mm film height for Patty, was he using the original film, or the zoomed copy?

I believe he meant the original film. This is what he says in Big Footprints (page 93):

"...at its closest, the figure stands only 1.66mm on the actual film, inside an area measuring 10mm wide by 7.5mm tall."

If by 'zoomed copy', you mean the LMS footage, I'm guessing it wasn't available in 1992.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, we have no idea when the zoomed film copy was made do we?

It was probably done when the film was first copied, since the zoomed copy appears quite old as well.

 

[LTC8K6]

Now that I know what I am looking at thanks to Diogenes, this is obviously a film copy of PGF that has been zoomed in.

I don't know what you'd get if you measured Patty off of the zoomed copy, and her feet aren't visible in this particular still.

I would like to know more about the history of this zoomed copy, though.

 

[RayG]

There is nothing to indicate he faked tracks at Bluff Creek or anywhere else.

Why, because nobody has a picture of him stomping around with his modified footwear?

He is known to have carved fake feet, has fabricated stories, and faked films, but somehow it's beyond his ability to walk about in feet he created? He's even the one that told Patterson where to look for bigfoot.

Did you read this link?
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66977

No embelishment required.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Lu, it would be wonderful if bigfoot were proven to exist, but it's not going to happen by grasping at straws.

Just about every claim or piece of 'evidence' you've presented so far, has been unconvincing.

• Bossburg tracks
• Skookum cast
• Patterson film
• IM indexing
• Dermal ridges
• Hair analysis
• Wallace didn't fake tracks

etc. etc.

Where's the beef?

RayG

 

[LAL]

Why, because nobody has a picture of him stomping around with his modified footwear?

He is known to have carved fake feet, has fabricated stories, and faked films, but somehow it's beyond his ability to walk about in feet he created? He's even the one that told Patterson where to look for bigfoot.

Did you read this link?
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66977

No embelishment required.

RayG

The man who tried to sell a baby Bigfoot supposedly told Patterson where to look? Was this another of his family's "always knew" stories or did he himself claim this after the fact? You have checked out some of his other tall tales haven't you?

Notice how the reporter asks Mrs. Wallace about the feet and she replies, "Yeah, I had 'em on. I nearly suffocated." They seem to be talking about different things. In the story on my local news she was clearly talking about posing for snapshots (which see in the story) in a Gorilla suit. She didn't say anything about wearing the feet, as I recall. No bias in the reporting, I suppose. Meldrum got about a minute and a roadside exhibit owner about two.

The Skookum Cast story never got out of Denver.

There were new tracks in the area and Patterson was told about this by his wife who received a phone call about it. Patterson had over fifty tapes of interviews with people at the time of the incident who had reported findings and three or four with people who'd had sightings (according to the Times-Standard story. This was the same general area where the Crew tracks were found. The PNE was formed in Willow Creek in 1959 and was in the area for three years.

Why would Patterson need Wallace to tell him anything?

 

[RayG]

The man who tried to sell a baby Bigfoot supposedly told Patterson where to look? Was this another of his family's "always knew" stories or did he himself claim this after the fact?

No, I found it in about 30 seconds via Google.

http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html
"Wallace also says that he told Roger Patterson where to film his Bigfoot. "Roger Patterson came [over] dozens of times pumping me on this Bigfoot," Ray Wallace explained to researcher Dennis Pilichis in 1982. " I felt sorry for Roger Patterson. He told me that he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try get something where he could have a little income. Well, he went down there just exactly where I told him. I told him, 'You go down there and hang around on that bank. Stay up there and watch that spot.' I told him where the trail was that went down to where that big rock was.I told him where he could get those pictures down there. Bluff Creek."

All of Wallace's claims are suspect, but there is no doubt that Patterson met with Wallace to get information, as Wallace says. We know that Patterson visited Wallace--Patterson writes about it in his own book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (Yakima, Washington: Franklin Press, Inc., 1966, pp. 63-64.) And we know that Patterson took his films at one of Wallace's favorite Bigfoot spots: Bluff Creek, the site of previous alleged Wallace hoaxes. In short, the Patterson film was taken on the location of a known serial hoaxer."

The Skookum Cast story never got out of Denver.

Probably because it was so unconvincing.

RayG

 

[Thurkon]

The man who tried to sell a baby Bigfoot supposedly told Patterson where to look? Was this another of his family's "always knew" stories or did he himself claim this after the fact? You have checked out some of his other tall tales haven't you?

Lu's point is that Wallace was dishonest when speaking of Bigfoot. You see, hoaxers can't be liars. They're honest folk, them. He lied when he pranked some people into thinking he could sell them a Bigfoot baby, so there's no way he's telling the truth about making tracks at construction sites.

Huh?

Does that mean he's lying about the Bigfoot baby, too?

No, because Lu has to make her case by claiming not only that he's dishonest (of course he is, aren't all hoaxers by default somewhat dishonest?)...but she gets to selectively pick the lies from the truth only to bolster the Bigfoot myth.

 

[LAL]

No, I found it in about 30 seconds via Google.

http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html

I found it a month ago. The late Mark Chovinsky also wrote an article that was nothing more than repeats of Chambers rumors started by Landis. He evidently believed Wallace, but Long believed Heironimus and anyone who had anything bad to say about Patterson. None of this proves hoaxes.

So years later, this teller of tall tales (who'd written some to Green in 1965) claims some credit. Patterson evidently talked to quite a few people in the area. Wallace would be a logical one because it was his operation that had the multiple track events in 1958. Al Hodgson found tracks also.

The Wallace carved feet do not match any trackway, and my understanding is he did his fakery for his souvenier business in Washington. Carved wooden feet don't have midtarsal breaks and articulating toes. Titmus was an expert tracker; I don't think he'd have been fooled for two seconds by anything Wallace may have done at Bluff Creek.

Bryne found four sets of tracks while on the PNE. The area was a "hot spot".

>snip<

Probably because it was so unconvincing.

RayG

A newstory about the opinions of several scientists who actually examined the cast was unconvincing? Media bias. They made a big deal about unsubstantiated stories by Heironimus and the Wallace family, but AP didn't consider Dr. Swindler news.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The Skookum cast has been available to scientists for years now.. They don't seem to be interested..


Chirp, chirp...

 

[LAL]

I believe he meant the original film. This is what he says in Big Footprints (page 93):

"...at its closest, the figure stands only 1.66mm on the actual film, inside an area measuring 10mm wide by 7.5mm tall."

If by 'zoomed copy', you mean the LMS footage, I'm guessing it wasn't available in 1992.

RayG

Right. I believer the film was still tied up in copyright issues in 1992.

 

[LAL]

Lu's point is that Wallace was dishonest when speaking of Bigfoot. You see, hoaxers can't be liars. They're honest folk, them. He lied when he pranked some people into thinking he could sell them a Bigfoot baby, so there's no way he's telling the truth about making tracks at construction sites.

Huh?

Does that mean he's lying about the Bigfoot baby, too?

He claimed it got a cold and he had to release it when they wanted to see it before forking over the money. He'd never heard of veterinarians? The guy has been described as a "loveable prankster". I don't see anything loveable about his attempts to swindle investigators out of thousands of dollars.

No, because Lu has to make her case by claiming not only that he's dishonest (of course he is, aren't all hoaxers by default somewhat dishonest?)...but she gets to selectively pick the lies from the truth only to bolster the Bigfoot myth.

He never said he hoaxed the Crew tracks. He was losing workers and complained it was costing him money. His family "always knew" he'd done it, but they've presented no proof beyond carved feet and fake casts that aren't a match.

I'm not buying your lies, either.

 

[LAL]

Lu, it would be wonderful if bigfoot were proven to exist, but it's not going to happen by grasping at straws.

Just about every claim or piece of 'evidence' you've presented so far, has been unconvincing.

• Bossburg tracks
• Skookum cast
• Patterson film
• IM indexing
• Dermal ridges
• Hair analysis
• Wallace didn't fake tracks

etc. etc.

Where's the beef?

RayG

None of the above convinced me. You're not convinced but others are. The beef was in the bun last time I looked.

 

[Thurkon]

A newstory about the opinions of several scientists who actually examined the cast was unconvincing? Media bias. They made a big deal about unsubstantiated stories by Heironimus and the Wallace family, but AP didn't consider Dr. Swindler news.

Scientists can be knuckleheads, too...especially if they steer drastically away from science.

There's no proof that Bigfoot even exists, and a bunch of lunkheads find some lumps in the mud and conclude it's Bigfoot?

How, Lu, how do you explain there are no tracks leading up to the lumps? Why are there no Bigfoot tracks?

When there are elk tracks that abound in the area, does it seem scientifically sound to definitely conclude Bigfoot? Or does that seem like something a crackpot scientist determined to find Bigfoot at all costs would do?

Why in the world would you think anyone would take this seriously? This is some of the best evidence you have???