Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
I can't believe you don't know how absurd this is..
You can't prove any track is real, until you have a real foot ...
Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?
You can't prove any track is real, until you have a real foot ...
RayG
Master Poster
LAL said:
Can you give us the text beside each of the photos? That would help explain what we're looking at.
RayG
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
RayG said:
Can you give us the text beside each of the photos? That would help explain what we're looking at.
RayG
Upper left: Don Abbott of the British Columbia Provincial Museum is seen here attempting to lift a glue-treated footprint out of the ground. Unfortunately Don was unable to remove the print intact so it never made it back to British Columbia. (Blue Creek Mountain,1967)
Upper right:John Green is seen here measuring the creature's toe to heel pace. Green is using a yardstick, and we can see that the the prints are about one yard, or 3-feet/91.4 cm apart. A 6-feet man would have an equal toe heel pace of 20 to 22-inches(50.8-55.9cm) (Blue Creek Mountain, 1967)nches
Middle right:This print measures 15-inches/38.1 cm long, 7-inches/17,8 cm across the ball of the foot and almost 5-inches across the heel. An identical print was first observed and cast nine years earlier.(Blue Creek Mountain,1967)
Bottom right: Footprint with a boot print, about size 12 boot. (Blue Creek Mountain, 1967)
I could use a tutorial on how to post huge images.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Questions for John Green:
Did you ever interview Ray Wallace about the tracks found at Bluff Creek in 1958-1959? Are your notes still available? Transcripts?
ANSWER - No, In the half dozen times I was in the Willow Creek area in 1958-60 he was never around. By the time he started phoning me his penchant for nonsensical claims and tall tales was already well established.
Did you collect a list of all the men that worked for Ray? Do you
have that manifest? Did you explore the links between the contracting lumber companies (varied) and Wallace construction?
ANSWER - Of course not. I was investigating tracks, not corporate
connections. The question of who? might have hoaxed the tracks becomes relevant only if how? can be answered, and that has not happened in almost 50 years. Have you ever made large artificial feet and tested what can and cannot be done with them? Some effective method of faking convincing tracks
may yet turn up, but this whole wooden-foot scenario is utter idiocy to anyone who has seen any number of actual tracks.
Did you interview anyone besides Jerry Crew, on the road work detail? Whom? Have notes on those interviews?
ANSWER - I talked to Jess Beamis and others at the work site who showed me where the tracks had come down the hill, around the machines and then down the bank (the country is not by any means as steep as Sanderson makes out) but I wasn't taking notes or recordings or asking names.
Did you interview Wilbur Wallace in 1958-1959? Are your notes still available? Transcripts?
ANSWER - I recall one evening with Shorty and Jay Roland, not sure now of the occasion, during which Jay told me the story of Bigfoot killing his hounds and Shorty gave me a 16" cast he claimed to have made on a Bluff Creek sandbar. The cast was a copy of the version Titmus was selling at the time, although not one Titmus had made. I don't know if Jay's story was any
more reliable.
Did you interview the local sheriff during the same time period? Are you notes still available? Transcripts?
ANSWER - No, he had already been quoted with a variety of silly explanations for the tracks but there has never been any indication of an investigation by his department. There was, after all, no crime involved. .
Are there any photographs of the entire road, not just the trackways, from 1958, 1959, 1967, from Bluff Creek and/or Blue Creek Mountain?
ANSWER - I don't know of any photos of the tracks at Bluff Creek, other than a couple mine of the old tracks I saw there. Some of the Blue Creek Mountain photos show considerable portions of the road.
At the time, did you ever consider and investigate that one set of tracks could be valid and another set could be hoaxes? Or have you always just backed the theory that if any were hoaxes all the footprints had to be hoaxes? Or that all are genuine and must be supported as authentic?
ANSWER - I am not feeble-minded, even yet. All of us evaluated each set of tracks that we saw on its own merits, and the question always was whether they could have been hoaxed. Of course it was recognized that some could have been hoaxed and some genuine. In my case the few old 16" tracks I saw on the Bluff Creek road certainly could have been faked. The 15" tracks I
saw on the sand bar in 1958 could not, by any method any of us could think of then or that has been suggested since. Taken individually, I would not argue that at least some of the 15" and 13" tracks I saw at Blue Creek Mountain, Onion Mountain and on a Bluff Creek sand bar in 1967 could not have been hoaxed, but there were of hundreds of them, with many variations and obvious time restrictions. Other than being genuine, they still await explanation or imitation. There have been lots of other "trackways" that I have been shown that I did not accept as genuine, although I can only think of two that had plainly been hoaxed. It certainly appears that the tracks Mathys saw were hoaxed and that they imitated the 15" tracks, but his photos
belie your assumption that they therefor matched known wooden feet.
What you seem to have trouble grasping is that if you insist on some Bluff Creek area tracks being genuine and some Wallace fakes, then the evidence is overwhelming that the fakes would have to be the 16", not the 15". It is the 16" track that has all the Wallace connections you imagine. For the 15" there is only the fact that someone in the Wallace family, 45 years later,
has some crudely-carved imitations of them fitted with
completely-impractical instep straps. The family has had two years now to demonstrate that these can be used to fake convincing tracks, and have failed to do so.
Now that I have taken the trouble to answer your questions, please answer mine about the claimed Wallace supporters.
John Green
Harrison Hot Springs
Thank you,
Loren Coleman
Portland
Did you ever interview Ray Wallace about the tracks found at Bluff Creek in 1958-1959? Are your notes still available? Transcripts?
ANSWER - No, In the half dozen times I was in the Willow Creek area in 1958-60 he was never around. By the time he started phoning me his penchant for nonsensical claims and tall tales was already well established.
Did you collect a list of all the men that worked for Ray? Do you
have that manifest? Did you explore the links between the contracting lumber companies (varied) and Wallace construction?
ANSWER - Of course not. I was investigating tracks, not corporate
connections. The question of who? might have hoaxed the tracks becomes relevant only if how? can be answered, and that has not happened in almost 50 years. Have you ever made large artificial feet and tested what can and cannot be done with them? Some effective method of faking convincing tracks
may yet turn up, but this whole wooden-foot scenario is utter idiocy to anyone who has seen any number of actual tracks.
Did you interview anyone besides Jerry Crew, on the road work detail? Whom? Have notes on those interviews?
ANSWER - I talked to Jess Beamis and others at the work site who showed me where the tracks had come down the hill, around the machines and then down the bank (the country is not by any means as steep as Sanderson makes out) but I wasn't taking notes or recordings or asking names.
Did you interview Wilbur Wallace in 1958-1959? Are your notes still available? Transcripts?
ANSWER - I recall one evening with Shorty and Jay Roland, not sure now of the occasion, during which Jay told me the story of Bigfoot killing his hounds and Shorty gave me a 16" cast he claimed to have made on a Bluff Creek sandbar. The cast was a copy of the version Titmus was selling at the time, although not one Titmus had made. I don't know if Jay's story was any
more reliable.
Did you interview the local sheriff during the same time period? Are you notes still available? Transcripts?
ANSWER - No, he had already been quoted with a variety of silly explanations for the tracks but there has never been any indication of an investigation by his department. There was, after all, no crime involved. .
Are there any photographs of the entire road, not just the trackways, from 1958, 1959, 1967, from Bluff Creek and/or Blue Creek Mountain?
ANSWER - I don't know of any photos of the tracks at Bluff Creek, other than a couple mine of the old tracks I saw there. Some of the Blue Creek Mountain photos show considerable portions of the road.
At the time, did you ever consider and investigate that one set of tracks could be valid and another set could be hoaxes? Or have you always just backed the theory that if any were hoaxes all the footprints had to be hoaxes? Or that all are genuine and must be supported as authentic?
ANSWER - I am not feeble-minded, even yet. All of us evaluated each set of tracks that we saw on its own merits, and the question always was whether they could have been hoaxed. Of course it was recognized that some could have been hoaxed and some genuine. In my case the few old 16" tracks I saw on the Bluff Creek road certainly could have been faked. The 15" tracks I
saw on the sand bar in 1958 could not, by any method any of us could think of then or that has been suggested since. Taken individually, I would not argue that at least some of the 15" and 13" tracks I saw at Blue Creek Mountain, Onion Mountain and on a Bluff Creek sand bar in 1967 could not have been hoaxed, but there were of hundreds of them, with many variations and obvious time restrictions. Other than being genuine, they still await explanation or imitation. There have been lots of other "trackways" that I have been shown that I did not accept as genuine, although I can only think of two that had plainly been hoaxed. It certainly appears that the tracks Mathys saw were hoaxed and that they imitated the 15" tracks, but his photos
belie your assumption that they therefor matched known wooden feet.
What you seem to have trouble grasping is that if you insist on some Bluff Creek area tracks being genuine and some Wallace fakes, then the evidence is overwhelming that the fakes would have to be the 16", not the 15". It is the 16" track that has all the Wallace connections you imagine. For the 15" there is only the fact that someone in the Wallace family, 45 years later,
has some crudely-carved imitations of them fitted with
completely-impractical instep straps. The family has had two years now to demonstrate that these can be used to fake convincing tracks, and have failed to do so.
Now that I have taken the trouble to answer your questions, please answer mine about the claimed Wallace supporters.
John Green
Harrison Hot Springs
Thank you,
Loren Coleman
Portland
RayG
Master Poster
LAL said:
I wasn't there, and haven't seen ALL the tracks published as photos, so I can't be nearly as certain.
I suppose, if the person measuring the track were completely clueless. Somewhat remarkable that the indentation shows up in the same place as on the fake Wallace foot.
We have something even better than a print made by the Wallace foot, we have a photo of the actual fake foot!!
Are these three consecutive right footprints? How many photos are there of the actual trackway that Green is examining in that picture? How can we be certain that a photo of an individual footprint hasn't been mistakenly reversed, and we're actually looking at a left print instead of a right? Have you seen any photos showing multiple consecutive tracks from the same area, taken at the same time as the Green photo?
I have no idea if the print is from the same trackway, but I'd rather see two or more consecutive prints.
Because the one below shows a photo of a left foot, not right. You may have a valid argument if the photo showed BOTH left AND right footprints.
There IS no split on the faked left Wallace foot. His nephew is holding the left foot in his left hand, and I see no split near the heel.
RayG
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Diogenes said:
Napier wrote that if we are to form a conclusion based on scant extant "'hard’ evidence", science must declare "Bigfoot does not exist." (ibid, 197) Yet this conclusion is qualified, as Napier seemed willing to leave the question unresolved. He found it difficult to entirely reject thousands of alleged tracks "scattered over 125,000 square miles†or to dismiss all "the many hundreds" of eyewitnesses. He also adds that "if one track is genuine and one report is true-bill, then myth must be chucked out the window and reality admitted through the front door." (ibid, 203) In the end, Napier writes "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be something in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
RayG said:
I should have said in the photos in Murphy's book. The point is if the right footprints were made with the cracked foot, that should show on all the right prints, shouldn't it?
It is, but the toes are not a match. Are we sure the Wallace foot is cracked? No one would see the photo and carve in a line, would they?
But without a print made from it in similar substrate it's not really a fair comparison, is it?
No. There are left prints in between
By the numbers on the yardstick in the photo I posted from page 111. See below.
There are more pictures in the book, including a long shot of a trackway, Blue Creek Mountain, California, 1967, pg. 121. How do I get it big enough to see? I keep running into image size problems trying to scan and upload.
They're all from Blue Creek Mountain, 1967. There were two sizes of tracks and the trackways crossed.
The one below on page 111 is a right footprint. Didn't I make it clear enough that was the one I was talking about?? The numbers on the yardstick are not reversed. There's a tiny caption on the photo that says it's a photo of a 15" track taken on Blue Creek Mountain, September, 1967, by René Dahinden. It's not reversed either. Of course, it was August. Or was there a second event the next month?
There IS no split on the faked left Wallace foot. His nephew is holding the left foot in his left hand, and I see no split near the heel.
RayG
The right doesn't appear to be cracked either. Do we have a picture of both in full view anywhere? It doesn't look like a crack at all in Noll's photo of the right Wallace foot on pg. 109. It looks like a shallow, straight carved line. And without a test print we can't be sure it would even show up in a print, unless the print were in mud of the right consistancy. The Blue Creek Mountain tracks were in dirt.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Thurkon said:
The fact that crude wooden tracks don't leave tracks with articulating toes and other characteristics of a living foot doesn't bother you a bit, does it?
This is the first I've heard of any thieves. Al Hodgson stated specifically Wallace wasn't in that part of California when the tracks were found.
I'm planning on selling them. Want one?
They do not match at all. How anyone can think those square-toed, amateur carvings could have made those tracks is beyond me.
Yep. He's an expert in primate locomotion.
I don't think I'm the one looking ridulous here. Maybe it's your eyesite.
The Columbia Tribune is in Missouri.
And what does that have to do with anything? Wallace lived in Northern California when he did his fakery.
Let's see the stories.
Who's an attorney.
The BFRO is not my only source and MM is not the whole BFRO. He has his supporters.
I take it you read the story about what the press did with this? I saw it on my local news in North Carolina, but the Skookum Cast got nary a mention. Some top people in the field endorsed it and AP wouldn't pick up the story. How fair is that?
Where's his byline here? There's a member's prespective. It doesn't say who it is.
http://www.bfro.net/news/Wallace.asp
I posted Green on this some time ago. Guess you missed it.
"Ray Wallace's Hoax Claim
John Green
So Ray Wallace supposedly told his family that he created "Bigfoot" by walking around in California with a pair of huge carved wooden feet, and his family supposedly believed him. And Ray Wallace definitely did tell Mark Chorvinsky that he told Roger Patterson where to go to get his movie of someone in a fur suit and he knew who that someone was, and Chorvinsky believed him. And the media has now told the whole world that "Bigfoot" was just Ray Wallace.
Okay, but shouldn't the world also know what Ray Wallace has said of some of his other achievements?
Ray Wallace letter to the Klam-ity Kourier, Oct. 1, 1969:
Big Foot used to be very tame, as I have seen him almost every morning on the way to work... I would sit in my pickup and toss apples out of the window to him. He never did catch an apple but he sure tried. Then as he ate the apples I would have my movie camera clipping off more footage of him... I have talked to several movie companies about selling my movies which would last for three hours. The best offer I've had so far is $250,000.
Ray Wallace letter to John Green, Feb. 6, 1967:
The first day we went out in search of the Mt. St. Helens apes we saw five different-sized tracks... the first day out from our camp we saw where five of the giant-sized apes had crossed a small creek, the water was still muddy in their tracks... We found the ape cave. I sent my pack crew out after a hundred pounds of plaster of Paris and I made some of the nicest casts of those Mt. St. Helens apes tracks that I have ever saw... I don't think I could ever find the ape cave that my guide showed me where the Mt. St. Helens Apes have stayed for possibly several thousand years.
Ray Wallace letter to John Green, Dec. 2, 1984. (I sent the address but haven't seen any pictures.)
Please send me your correct address... I want to send you a picture of one of the male Mt. St. Helens apes that the loggers took this spring as they were feeding apples to an old pair of BFs and the female was carrying a baby, but she never came close enough for them to get a good picture, they got some close up pictures of this 9 foot tall male, I just borrowed the negatives... I want to send all of the BF researchers a picture...
Ray Wallace letter to John Green, Jan. 5, 1989:
Please send me your address so I can send you a picture of the Big Foot that everyone is trying to catch.
Ray Wallace letter to John Green, Oct. 20, 1989:
I sent you a tape of the songs about Big Foot plus some of his high-pitched screams, I would like for you to set up a meeting with scientists from all over the world to listen to those screams... Our government thinks these Big Foots are being let out of flying saucers... in 1975 I was interviewed by some government officials for 4 hours... This government official said to me 'Mr. Wallace we think these big foots are being let out of flying saucers'... This Bob, I don't dare mention his name I don't think, anyway he got up out of his chair and came over to me and shook his fore finger in my face... I say why don't you tell the public that instead of lying to them and saying there are no such things as flying saucers. Bob called me several times after that meeting and he has retired now but he still sends me reports of flying saucers that are being seen all over the world... The last thing Bob said our government are really worried about what those flying saucers are here for. I said its nothing to worry about and its just the full filment of the Bible as it says there will be all types of objects in the skies in the last days.
Ray Wallace letter to Dennis Gates, May 24, 1978:
I just want to inform you Big Foot hunters that Big Footed creatures are people, they speak a language. I could tell you more about the Sasquatch or Bigfoot than anyone else, I told Roger Patterson where to go in California to see Big Foots. I made ten thousand feet of movies of the Big Foots before I told Roger Patterson where to go... I logged the Bluff Creek area for ten years and the whole crew has seen as many as 13 of the Big Foot people at one time... I could take you to a cave in Northern California where the Big Foots live in a very rich gold mine cave... Did you know that Tom Slick bought Big Foot skeletons for many years and turned them over to the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.? legs bones four inches diameter, two and a half feet long between the ankle and knee... I have talked to the Big Foots many times... they didn't understand me and I didn't understand them, but their brown eyes told the story that they are very sad because the bear hunters are killing all their people.
Ray Wallace letter to the Klam-ity Kourier, March 25, 1970:
Some of you Big Foot readers probably wonder how I got the Big Foot scream on tape... in 1958 before the bear hunters got to chasing Big Foot with their hounds and made him so wild, I used to see one of the Big Foots almost every morning, eating elderberries along the road... I have seen Big Foot several hundred times... I didn't ever tell anyone about seeing those large, hairy type creatures as I was having a hard enough time keeping men on the job... Most of the men would quit the first time they saw those huge shaped human bare foot tracks. Then I would; have to start looking for a new crew... I lost $40,000 on that road job... After having two of the Big Foots captured and getting loose, I have always said not to underestimate the great strength of old Big Foot.
Ray Wallace letter to University of British Columbia, Jan. 26, 1981:
Back in 1947 when I had my logging crew on a free moose hunting trip to Canada near Vanderhoof, B.C. we saw a family of six Sasquatches and they were as interested in us as we were in them... I have seen the Big Foots in Northern California and around Mt. Hood in Oregon and around Mt. St. Helens and they all look alike so I know that Big Foot and Sasquatches are all brothers or sisters... the largest BF I have ever seen at least four feet acrossed the chest and very large arms and carrying a large round rock in each hand. I have a movie of one throwing a rock and killing a deer.
Ray Wallace letter to John Green, April 15, 1979:
... everyone says who has heard Big Foots screams in northern California, before all the Big Foots were killed and hauled down the Klamath River in a tug boat and out into the ocean 12 miles to where was a small ship anchored in international waters and frozen into a block of ice and then transported to Hong Kong and sold, so now there aren't any more left in northern California, or is there if they are being let out of flying saucers.
Reproduced by kind permission of John Green, Dec. 9, 2002."
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/wallace.html
Green's a journalist too.
(My dad was also until he quit Time-Life because they kept rewriting his stories with a "New York slant". One of his articles on tracking down a rumor was published in a textbook on journalism. I think I know what a "real" journalist is.)
Also:
"A few weeks later I got a letter from Bob Titmus saying that he and another man had found and cast distinctly different tracks, roughly 15 inches long, on a sandbar in the creek below where the road crew was working. I immediately returned to Bluff Creek and saw for myself that these new tracks were impressed about an inch deep in damp sand packed so hard that my own prints hardly marked it and that they were in a situation where the use of any sort of machinery to make them appeared to be impossible.
It is carvings of those tracks, not the 16-inch "Bigfoot" tracks that a nephew of Ray Wallace has displayed in photographs. They are fitted with straps so they can be walked on like snowshoes, but like snowshoes there is no way that human weight could impress them deeply into hard material.
In the next year and a half I was back at Bluff Creek several more times, spending about six weeks in all, and saw the 15" tracks in three more locations and also a third type of tracks, about 14" long, in another location east of Bluff Creek.
I never saw the 16" track again at Bluff Creek but did see tracks that resembled it farther south at Hyampom in 1963. It was also reported seen frequently in 1963 and 1964 when logging was going on in the Bluff Creek valley, and Roger Patterson made a good cast of it there in 1964. The 15" tracks were also repeatedly seen, and were photographed and cast by a number of people in that period. Sometimes they were was accompanied by tracks roughly 13", and René Dahinden and I saw those tracks together in three different places at Bluff Creek in 1967, in one instance being able to study hundreds of both tracks.
Later in 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went to Bluff Creek, because of the tracks René and I had seen, and not only got a movie of the creature but watched it making tracks which they later cast. These tracks were also approximately 14". If it is the same as the 14" from years before then there are at least four distinct tracks that have been observed at Bluff Creek, if it is different then there are five. There is also a 12" track usually discounted because it is within human range. For all of these, while they remain recognizable as individuals, there is a considerable range of shapes, toe positions, length of stride, etc., conforming to slopes, obstacles and other influences.
Those are the Bluff Creek tracks that I know about. Over the years there were, of course, far more that I didn't see; many other people who investigated them; hundreds who went just to see for themselves after being told about them, and some who reported coming on them far from any road when they were timber cruising or road locating.
Ray Wallace is connected to all this in only two ways that have been established. The men who first reported the 16" tracks were his employees, and it was the Bluff Creek events that started him on his long career, mainly after he moved to Washington, of producing and trying to sell crudely-faked track casts and photographs and telling outrageous whoppers about his adventures with "Bigfoots."
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/bctracks.html
Because I haven't checked it out. There are certain assumptions that can be made regarding the possible mating habits, gestation, et al, based on behavior of similar animals, but that's kind of a slippery slope. More evidence is needed.
I believe the information is from Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, formerly of the Oregon Primate research Center in Beaverton who researched reports and has come up with bell curves that tend to indicate a living population rather than a random series of hoaxes.
It's interesting. Krantz found there were correlations between sightings of females and young and really remote areas. He thought most sightings were of "rogue" males, who are unable to depose a group leader and take over a group.
There are some indicators they travel in pairs, possibly with one young one, but there was a sighting of two females together. The testical size would tend to indicate momogamy, rare as that is among higher primates.
Okay, you didn't read it. One of the articles specifically mentioned Meldrum being misquoted (by Egan, as I recall).
Evidently you haven't read enough to know that wasn't Ray Wallace with the feet. I have yet to see you own your error.
I'm going to own one now that no one seems to have caught me on (unless I missed the post). Rant Mullens claimed he made Wallace's feet. (I thought it was Ray Pickens.) Of course he claimed credit for Ape Canyon, too (never mind the cabin was destroyed), and the source is Michael Dennett (he mispelled the name). For some reason, I keep getting Ray Pickens and Rant Mullens mixed up.
I suppose you think this site is credible?
http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/bluff_creek_bigfoot.html
Good to see you guys found something other than CSICOP, anyway. Did you know Chorvinsky died?
http://www.lorencoleman.com/Chorvinsky_obituary.html
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Here's the whole thread on Blue Creek Mountain/ Onion Mountain photos, complete with clickable enlargements. Have fun.
"I recently paid a visit to John Green, up in Harrison Hotsprings, BC, and he asked me to post some pictures that may never have been seen before of all the tracks found on or between Onion Mt. and Blue Creek Mt. back in 1967. Both Rene Dahinden and John were photographers here, but you can also see the rest of the group has cameras also. These are of course some of the tracks that people have claimed Ray Wallace made. I will point out some interesting features as I go in some of them but first a map showing both mountains and their proximity to Bluff Creek and Notice Creek."
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&hl=onion+mt\.blue+creek+mtn\.
Both fake feet are here:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&hl=onion mt\.blue creek mtn\.&st=80
I guess that is a crack. Nothing about the line on the photo so far. The defect that doesn't line up with missing wood was discussed.........
"I recently paid a visit to John Green, up in Harrison Hotsprings, BC, and he asked me to post some pictures that may never have been seen before of all the tracks found on or between Onion Mt. and Blue Creek Mt. back in 1967. Both Rene Dahinden and John were photographers here, but you can also see the rest of the group has cameras also. These are of course some of the tracks that people have claimed Ray Wallace made. I will point out some interesting features as I go in some of them but first a map showing both mountains and their proximity to Bluff Creek and Notice Creek."
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&hl=onion+mt\.blue+creek+mtn\.
Both fake feet are here:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&hl=onion mt\.blue creek mtn\.&st=80
I guess that is a crack. Nothing about the line on the photo so far. The defect that doesn't line up with missing wood was discussed.........
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
It's clear that we have caught the bigfoot believers accepting Ray Wallace's tracks as the real thing.
Any one denying that is out of touch with reality.
We can see at least 2 different sets of Alderfeet being accepted as real.
It's obvious that Ray was able to fool "experts".
Any one denying that is out of touch with reality.
We can see at least 2 different sets of Alderfeet being accepted as real.
It's obvious that Ray was able to fool "experts".
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
No, the Wallace prints have a carved split on the inside of the ball. That is common to all of them. That is what Green is referring to. He is talking about hoaxed prints made by Wallace.
The heel crack on the one set of fake feet is just a split in the wood. It appears that even that was not enough to dissuade Green from his belief, even though we can still see it in the photos all of these years later.
RayG
Master Poster
LAL said:
Yes, if the cracked footprint shows in one right print of a specific trackway, it should show in all the right prints. How many right prints can clearly be examined in that photo with Green? I only see one additional right print, and the distance and angle from the photographer make it difficult to see any details.
There's too much debris in the toe prints to clearly tell that it doesn't match. The heel, complete with crack mark, seems to match quite well. I don't buy the yardstick theory, and it seems a bit of a stretch to believe that Wallace would carve in an indentation based upon a single footprint photo.
We can only comment on what appears to be in the heel of the right footprint in the photo with John Green. As I pointed out earlier, it certainly seems to be a match.
Is there anyway you can resize the dimensions of the photo? That will help reduce the overall size of the file.
Two sizes and two trackways only add to the confusion. Unless the photos are carefully catalogued and numbered, a photo of one trackway may be mistakenly identified as the other when it comes time to publish. (If they're so clueless that they mess up a print with a yardstick, what I'm suggesting is not such a stretch.)
I thought you were talking about this one:
If nothing in the photo is reversed, we're obviously not talking about the same photo. If we ARE talking about the same photo, I cannot explain why you think it's a print of a right foot.
But isn't it obvious we're looking at the top of the right faked foot, complete with strap? He's holding the left foot up so we can see the bottom (the part that strikes the ground), and the right foot so that we see the strap (the part that attaches to the foot). Wallace may have even had more than one set of faked feet. If it's possible to carve one set, it's not impossible to carve another.
No idea, I'm just going by the one photo which clearly shows a crack in the bottom of the Wallace foot.
How does it compare to the photo already posted to this board clearly showing a crack in the foot?
RayG
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
LTC8K6 said:
Is that your expert opinion? You were not there, you have done no experiments (others have) and don't seem to be reading the posts or checking the links. I thought you were showing signs of improvement when you started doing your own searches, but instead you seem to have sunk right back into denial.
A mark that seems to appear on one track only that could have been made by a twig stuck to the foot happens to appear in a position similar to a crack on a Wallace foot and you take that as evidence the tracks were faked and nobody's smart enough to check this out. There's no match with the toes on any of the right prints, or a match with the left at all.
You seem to be conveniently ignoring that.
You have got to be kidding.
All you've done is parrot nonsense you got from a sceptical site.
Read his letters. Other than Mark Chovinsky, who did he manage to fool?
Green and Dahinden were both experienced with tracks of this kind. Abbott was a cultural antropologist. As Green has stated, they were alert to the possibility of hoaxes. I've posted a link to photos (35) showing those tracks couldn't possibly have been made by a simple pair of wooden feet, carved by Rant Mullens or not (his were even worse).
Green notes a misunderstanding on one of the casts:
The information on page 137 of "Meet the Sasquatch" is part of a paper by Jeff Meldrum, who was misled by the fact that the 13" cast with the dermals that he examined was incorrectly labeled as being from Blue Creek Mountain. Carefully read, the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 45 of the original version of "On the Track of the Sasquatch" does state clearly that the print on which I saw tiny lines was a 15" one, but since the reference
to the lines is on the following page that is easily overlooked. I have no idea how the wrong labeling came about, and was not aware that the dermal cast was actually from Onion Mountain until Jeff sent me a photo of it not long ago. I no longer have the original, and don't remember why that is, but I do have an old picture that shows clear identifying marks. It was not, in other ways, a good cast, and until the dermals were noted was not considered important.
John Green
Harrison Hot Springs, B.C., Canada"
And:
Loren Coleman writes:
"The initial 16" tracks are different than the 15" tracks that generally are
fakes."
This is a statement of opinion, not fact, and it is an opinion put forward only by armchair experts who never saw any of the tracks involved.
In the case of the 15" tracks on the Blue Creek Mountain road, they were indeed made in conditions such that some individual prints could arguably have been made by a human walking on a fake foot, and a fake foot that comes close to matching some of them does exist. There, were, however, hundreds of tracks, and to have matched their many distinct variations would have
required many different fake feet.
Photos of enough of those tracks to establish the above fact have been posted on Bigfootforums.com by "damn dirty ape", under "Sightings and Encounters " headed "Onion Mt./Blue Creek Mt."
John Green
Harrison Hot Springs
Green tells it like it is.
Theres information on the double ball and what that indent means in Murphy's book. I can't find it right now, but I'll keep looking. Most tracks don't show that feature, but Bob Titmus sold a few casts that do. What makes you think whoever carved those klutzy feet (in one experiment, the straps broke) didn't copy from a cast or photo of an actual track?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
RayG said:
Check the BFF thread.
The photo from pg. 111 of the right print shows the toes clearly.
I don't buy it either. I was looking at the straightness. Possibly the yardstick dipped, but I think it's more likely the mark was left by a twig or something. I don't think the crack would be deep and wide enough to leave a mark like that in that substrate.
I'm not even sure Wallace carved the feet. Do we know when they were carved? When the crack occured, if it is a crack? It looks shallow and the edges smooth. A crack's edges should be sharp. Maybe they were sanded down?
I'm wondering if some of this is answered in the BFF thread. I gave up trying to read it all at about 4:30 AM. If not, maybe we could revive it. I haven't posted on Loren's board yet. Maybe there's an answer there.
It's close, but without a to-scale side by side comparision from the same angle, it's impossible to be sure. Personally, I don't think the crack would leave that defined a mark in loose dirt. It just doesn't look deep enough. The mark doesn't show at all in the right print with the gouge that some think is in the same place as wood missing on the Wallace foot. That is addressed on the BFF thread.
I've cropped, but I get a blurry image if I blow it up too much. Could you get Murphy's book? I tried copying from one of Bill's posts last night to get big pics using and got little red squares. What am I doing wrong? And where can I find the directions?
[B][QUOTE]
Two sizes and two trackways only add to the confusion. Unless the photos are carefully catalogued and numbered, a photo of one trackway may be mistakenly identified as the other when it comes time to publish. (If they're so clueless that they mess up a print with a yardstick, what I'm suggesting is not such a stretch.)[/B][/QUOTE]
I doubt they were. Abbott, Green and Dahinden clueless? Well, Dahinden sometimes, but he was clueless on the side of scepticism.
The tracks are different enough in shape that it would be difficult to confuse the 15" ones with the 13" ones.
The mark doesn't really match a yardstick mark either. The mark would have to be deeper on one end and maybe wider. There's a dot that could indicate that, but I think the debris, if that's what it is, that's in the ball could be the explanation. I was just looking at how staight it is. Looks like the mark. It may be another mark, but the shadow's on the wrong side for that. I'm wonder if the foot picked up a twig that then fell off when the foot was lifted.
[B][QUOTE]
I thought you were talking about this one:
[IMG]http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/Wallace14inch.gif
If nothing in the photo is reversed, we're obviously not talking about the same photo. If we ARE talking about the same photo, I cannot explain why you think it's a print of a right foot.[/B][/QUOTE]
We obviously aren't talking about the same photo. I mentioned pg. 111 several times to try to avoid that confusion.
That's addressed on the thread along with the boxfull on the NG show. Seems the stories change.
I posted the link where both can be seen without Dale. There are at least two photos. If someone will tell me how to grab the image and post it huge on the board I'll do that. If there are intructions on the site I haven't found them yet.
If it isn't a crack, someone, not necessarily Wallace, might have seen the photo and added the line to make it a better match. I'm just idly speculating here, but some of the claims of the Wallace family seem less than honest. Maybe Kal Korff put them up to it.
I'll see if I can post it later. Seems a little lighter, but I'll have to go back on this thread and compare it to the other photo. (If I do that now, I'll lose my post. I'm learning.) Could be the lighting or just a difference in the way things look in a book and on a screen.
Am I going to have to buy Photoshop? Will it let me post animated gifs?
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
I'm sure I'm reading this wrong. Is the claim that you would need a lot of different fake feet to make the prints left by a Sasquatch -- which unless I'm very much mistaken generally only have two? Or is the claim that there's variation in the prints because there are mobs of Bigfoots wandering around in this area? Either way my mind is fairly boggled.LAL said:
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Hitch said:
Two or three different animals is a mob?
Since the tracks vary as living feet do, fake feet would need to have different toe positions and show bends. This is what was meant. Check the pictures on the thread and see below for how even one fake foot doesn't fit even one track, and the fake was delberately distorted for a better fit.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
"I, for one, don't see how anyone with wooden feet could accomplish much of what I'm seeing. Has anyone tried it? I did at the Symposium and it's not all that easy to walk with big flat wooden feet and leave "quality" prints behind. One or two maybe, but consistancy? But, yeah, just my opinion.
It seems to me that you can debate the validity of any ONE piece of evidence into skeptical oblivion...as long as you conveniently forget about the rest of the "forest."
Anyway, I don't think these match very well at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the "double ball 15 inch track" that some think match the Wallace wooden foot?
I basically DISTORTED the fake wooden foot in Photoshop to fit the track as best as it could. I think you can see the results. Unless you feel wooden toes can spontaneously become life-like, I don't see how these are even close.
AND this image doesn't take into account areas of the wooden foot that lie outside the "real track" which would have marked the soil, or areas of the wood which would have depressed the soil where it isn't in the photo.
tirademan"
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=80
It seems to me that you can debate the validity of any ONE piece of evidence into skeptical oblivion...as long as you conveniently forget about the rest of the "forest."
Anyway, I don't think these match very well at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the "double ball 15 inch track" that some think match the Wallace wooden foot?
I basically DISTORTED the fake wooden foot in Photoshop to fit the track as best as it could. I think you can see the results. Unless you feel wooden toes can spontaneously become life-like, I don't see how these are even close.
AND this image doesn't take into account areas of the wooden foot that lie outside the "real track" which would have marked the soil, or areas of the wood which would have depressed the soil where it isn't in the photo.
tirademan"
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=80
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Lu, Matt and I already straightened out the misidentification of that track. We both figured out it was from Onion Mountain long ago. That changes nothing except which foot Chilcutt was wrong about.
Ray Wallace's fake feet have a carved split on the inside of the ball of the feet.
I spotted it long ago and referred to it as "bunionettes" on the wrong side (inside) of the foot.
As far as I am concerned, any bigfoot track showing that characteristic carved split is a Wallace hoax.
We already have photos of 2 entirely different sets of wooden feet with that same characteristic carved split on the inside of the ball.
It is unlikely that Wallace stopped at 2 sets of bigfeet. He likely had juvenile wooden feet as well.
Of course, any footprint showing an obvious crack in the wood is also clearly fake.
Ray Wallace's fake feet have a carved split on the inside of the ball of the feet.
I spotted it long ago and referred to it as "bunionettes" on the wrong side (inside) of the foot.
As far as I am concerned, any bigfoot track showing that characteristic carved split is a Wallace hoax.
We already have photos of 2 entirely different sets of wooden feet with that same characteristic carved split on the inside of the ball.
It is unlikely that Wallace stopped at 2 sets of bigfeet. He likely had juvenile wooden feet as well.
Of course, any footprint showing an obvious crack in the wood is also clearly fake.