Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LAL]

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.

I thought you all might like to hear it straight from John Green, who made the Onion Mountain cast. (Note he always wondered if it had casting artifacts.) Hopefully Matt's girlfriend, Dana, knows about the error so it won't be repeated in the new edition of Murphy's book, which she's editing.

Now, which track was Chilcutt wrong about? Did I miss a page where it was shown he's been wrong about anything?

Ray Wallace's fake feet have a carved split on the inside of the ball of the feet.

I refer to it as an indentation. Whoever carved the track was apparently copying a Titmus cast or a photo of an actual track showing a "double ball".

I spotted it long ago and referred to it as "bunionettes" on the wrong side (inside) of the foot.

No, that was the Bossburg right foot you were referring to. Bossburg, Washington, 1969, the 1089 counted tracks of "Cripplefoot", remember? No "double ball" on that individual.

As far as I am concerned, any bigfoot track showing that characteristic carved split is a Wallace hoax.

Well, you'd be wrong again, but don't let that stop you. I've recently posted pictures of five casts from Hyampom, California, none of which have that "split". Wallace wasn't there, huh?

We already have photos of 2 entirely different sets of wooden feet with that same characteristic carved split on the inside of the ball.

We do? Where are the pictures of the second set?

This is Rant Mullens who claimed to have carved the feet for Wallace. He didn't even do a good job on these. No "carved split", either. Which of these liars would you rather believe? Did you read Wallace's letters?

It is unlikely that Wallace stopped at 2 sets of bigfeet. He likely had juvenile wooden feet as well.

I think I've read there was a family, but this doesn't seem to be substantiated. In any event, I don't know who he could have fooled.....other than you. Look at the gif I just posted and tell me with a straight face that's a match.

Of course, any footprint showing an obvious crack in the wood is also clearly fake.

 

[LAL]

I wasn't there, and haven't seen ALL the tracks published as photos, so I can't be nearly as certain.

RayG

John was:

"There is indeed one photographed track with a similar line, unexplained, in the heel, but it is in only that one among hundreds. The line is not there in any other photo or any cast of the 15" track, and on close examination it is not a match."

(from an earlier post of mine on this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60983&perpage=40&pagenumber=2 )

So, it's unexplained and it's not a match. That may be as close as we're going to get. I couldn't find any more on it. You posted on the BFF thread; do you remember anything else?

 

[tube]

"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

The wooden fake foot in this animation is a LEFT foot. The track has been made by a RIGHT foot. This is not a fair comparison. How do we know Ray Wallace's fake feet were bilaterally symmetrical? How do we even know how many pairs he had? He could have mixed and matched rights and lefts for all we know.

 

[LTC8K6]

No, that was the Bossburg right foot you were referring to. Bossburg, Washington, 1969, the 1089 counted tracks of "Cripplefoot", remember? No "double ball" on that individual.

You misunderstood me. Look back at the post. I was always referring to Wallace's fake foot with it's funny looking ball. Those are the only "bunionettes" that are on the wrong side, the inside of the foot.

I could not have been talking about cripplefoot, whose bunionettes are on the correct side of the foot.

You never understood that. You missed the point completely at the time and you still do not get it. It has been explained to you in detail twice now.

Intentional obtuseness, as I have said before.

 

[LTC8K6]

The wooden fake foot in this animation is a LEFT foot. The track has been made by a RIGHT foot. This is not a fair comparison.

This is the second time Lu has posted that, I think, and the second time she has been told it's a left foot on a right foot.

I wonder if she will figure it out this time around?

Well, bigfootforums won't come up at the moment, so I can't check.

Even if it's a diferent animation, then it's the second time they have tried to match the wrong foot.

 

[LAL]

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.

Actually, the photo of the cast on pg. 137 isn't the same one you two were talking about. There's no scale given on it. Took me awhile to look that up.

 

[LAL]

This is the second time Lu has posted that, I think, and the second time she has been told it's a left foot on a right foot.

I wonder if she will figure it out this time around?

Well, bigfootforums won't come up at the moment, so I can't check.

Even if it's a diferent animation, then it's the second time they have tried to match the wrong foot.

I posted a link to a different gif.

The only left-right discussion I recall was Ray mistaking which picture I was talking about.

Maybe it's time you got the beam out of your eye, kid.

 

[LAL]

You misunderstood me. Look back at the post. I was always referring to Wallace's fake foot with it's funny looking ball. Those are the only "bunionettes" that are on the wrong side, the inside of the foot.

I could not have been talking about cripplefoot, whose bunionettes are on the correct side of the foot.

You never understood that. You missed the point completely at the time and you still do not get it. It has been explained to you in detail twice now.

Intentional obtuseness, as I have said before.

About as many times as I've said "Read Krantz", if not more. Are you so limited you can't think of a better insult than that? You wore it out weeks ago.

You claimed it was a "perfectly good joke" that went right over my head. Frankly, I thought it was a perfectly lousy joke. The bunion-bunionette thing had been mixed up before, but I'm not about to plow through any more of your posts tonight to see who said what. I may have gotten you mixed up with Diogenes; I've mentioned you two sound alike at times, especially when it comes to attempted humor.

I replied:

"The bunionettes were on the Bossburg tracks. Even Ray Wallace's family didn't claim he had anything to do with those. They claimed he faked the Crew tracks, but, as you can see, the fake feet don't match. They seem to have been copied from a photo or cast taken by Bob Titmus of the Blue Creek Mountain tracks. He has a "double ball", but not all tracks show that. How do carved feet leave prints with articulating toes? How does wood grain resemble whorls or a pattern that flows unlike humans or other known primates?

Meldrum explains the "double ball" in Meet the Sasquatch along with the supposed "short toes" of the Bluff Creek female. They're not short at all. I'll post this when I have more time."

I still haven't had time. And you still haven't seen.

 

[LAL]

The wooden fake foot in this animation is a LEFT foot. The track has been made by a RIGHT foot. This is not a fair comparison. How do we know Ray Wallace's fake feet were bilaterally symmetrical? How do we even know how many pairs he had? He could have mixed and matched rights and lefts for all we know.

They weren't symetrical. That's already been noted by Green. Site's down, but I'll post photos of both feet. The right track has no line. The fake foot with the crack is meant to be worn on the right foot. When worn it would make a right track.

Does Dana know about the error on pg. 137 Green noted? Will it be corrected in the new edition? How about the spelling of "Dermetoglyphics?"

 

[LAL]

This is from the other Noll photo:

 

[tube]

The photograph that appears on page 109 of Meet the Sasquatch shows Wallace's "crack heel" fake as a RIGHT foot. My guess is that Tirademan reversed the image in Photoshop.

Indeed, the word is "dermatoglyphics"; I caught that one myself.

 

[LAL]

The photograph that appears on page 109 of Meet the Sasquatch shows Wallace's "crack heel" fake as a RIGHT foot. My guess is that Tirademan reversed the image in Photoshop.

That's it above.

Tirademan said he distorted it intentionally to make it fit and still couldn't.

Okay, I see what he's trying to do. The track made by the fake foot would be a right print. A print would be a fair comparison, but we don't seem to have one of those. It still wouldn't be a match.

The toes are enough for me.

Indeed, the word is "dermatoglyphics"; I caught that one myself.

There are some other little errors like that. My brother's a PhD and he can't spell either. He's a genius in his field, though.

 

[LAL]

Both feet:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=80

 

[LTC8K6]

The only left-right discussion I recall was Ray mistaking which picture I was talking about.

Incorrect.

You posted a link to a DamnDirtyApe post where he uses the wrong foot in an overlay.

You are so far off you are not even wrong, Lu.

I am satisfied that there are no "sasquatch" dermal ridges.

I am satisfied that a lot of folks swallowed Ray Wallace's feet hook, line, and sinker. Folks who should have known better.

I remain ambivalent about the P/G film, but I am leaning way over towards hoax now.

I have rarely come across such a deliberately obtuse poster as you, Lu. It seems to be a symptom of bigfoot believers.

You have put me right off the whole frigging topic.

 

[Thurkon]

First LAL posts this:

They do not match at all. How anyone can think those square-toed, amateur carvings could have made those tracks is beyond me.

So no tracks match the Wallace fake feet? It's not a match?

Then there's this:

I refer to it as an indentation. Whoever carved the track was apparently copying a Titmus cast or a photo of an actual track showing a "double ball".

Wallace's faked feet were modeled after a real track? So, any resemblence is because the maker used a real track for reference? Even though there is absolutely no match?

This is total insanity.

It's obvious to me that several tracks are a perfect match with the split ball Wallace fakes. But I guess unless my name's Green, Krantz, Dahinden or Meldrum my eyes aren't expert enough to really see the match is a non-match.

Yeah.

 

[LAL]

Incorrect.

You posted a link to a DamnDirtyApe post where he uses the wrong foot in an overlay.

Why is that the "wrong" foot? It's the right foot "turned over" . It's the foot that would have made the print if these prints had been faked. Why would one use a left foot on a right footprint?

I don't see discussion on the right-left issue on this. Ray and I had a misunderstanding on photos from the trackway; I was referring to one from the book, which I scanned and posted. Maybe I missed something.....or you did.

You seem to fit Green's description pretty well and he doesn't even know you.

You are so far off you are not even wrong, Lu.

I'm off? I do my homework and point others to my sources so they can do their own reading on this. What do you do, exactly?

I am satisfied that there are no "sasquatch" dermal ridges.

You haven't demonstrated Chilcutt was wrong about anything. He has noted the difference between real ridges and casting artifact ridges. His case doesn't rest on the Onion Mountain Cast anyway. He found 6 casts from Meldrum's collection compelling because of the dermal ridges after examining over a hundred. His credentials are impeccable and yours seem to be........missing.

I am satisfied that a lot of folks swallowed Ray Wallace's feet hook, line, and sinker. Folks who should have known better.

There's no evidence of Wallace faking trackways anywhere except possibly near his souvenier shop. He may have used the feet to make prints for casting so he could sell the casts. I'll have to check that out. There's a lengthy discussion on the news stories on Coleman's board; one of the posters mentioned this. One story had it he was using cement feet. Odd.

You seem to be so blinded by your own paradigm you can't see what's before you. That's unfortunate. It's only your own conjecture that any of the researchers could have been fooled by those feet and you have failed to back that up. I don't see how you can see any similarity, with or without the gifs. This frankly baffles me. I'd use the word "obtuse" if you hadn't overused it so much already. Maybe "vision impaired" would be more accurate.

I remain ambivalent about the P/G film, but I am leaning way over towards hoax now.

Gemorra's costume butt convince you, did it? I'll have to get back to that thread when "the rude children", as a late cyber friend would have called them, have settled down.

I have rarely come across such a deliberately obtuse poster as you, Lu. It seems to be a symptom of bigfoot believers.

Since you have no arguments you can only try to paint us as a bunch of obtuse ignoramuses. That doesn't really work, does it?

You have put me right off the whole frigging topic.

Then I suggest you find a a thread with a topic to discuss that you might know something about. Football, maybe? The Simpsons?

 

[LAL]

First LAL posts this:



So no tracks match the Wallace fake feet? It's not a match?

Then there's this:



Wallace's faked feet were modeled after a real track? So, any resemblence is because the maker used a real track for reference? Even though there is absolutely no match?

This is total insanity.

It's obvious to me that several tracks are a perfect match with the split ball Wallace fakes. But I guess unless my name's Green, Krantz, Dahinden or Meldrum my eyes aren't expert enough to really see the match is a non-match.

Yeah.

Yeah. It's not a match. Even the "carved split" doesn't match up. Neither does the crack with the line in the one photo out of hundreds that has this unexplained line.

At least three of the above named researchers carved feet (Krantz spent three months on his in his spare time) to see what fake prints would look like. Krantz details the results in his book (which I assume you won't read). Dahinden was so wary of hoaxes he dismissed some good evidence.

Wallace's feet aren't even good artwork. And there's nothing to link him to the site. I don't know his height, but haven't you wondered about that stride? Did you read anything I posted from a living witness?

 

[LTC8K6]

Here is another attempted comparison by a bigfoot believer. Clearly the wooden foot does not match the track cast.

It is pretty clear to me though, that the cast is from a Ray Wallace fake foot. Just not the one they compared it to.

 

[LAL]

Noll on the "wrong" foot:

Posted: Feb 3 2005, 06:30 PM

I just recieved an email telling me that I applied the wrong foot to the track in that animated gif I made. Sorry but it IS the right foot... I reversed the picture below so as to overlay onto that track... thus they are same foot. I know it can get confusing.


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=80

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:

Meldrum also has some Ray Wallace prints on his website. They perfectly match a few of the sandals Ray Wallace carved.



They do not match at all. How anyone can think those square-toed, amateur carvings could have made those tracks is beyond me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



We have showed a clear match between prints in the Meldrum presentation and Wallace's fake feet..


Your continued denial is really sad.