Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

LTC8K6 said:
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.

foot2.jpg
Click to expand...

From this site?

http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/

Please identify the cast on the right and post the link. Clear to you may be not be clear to anyone else.

Noll has it from the producer how many fake feet and Wallace casts were on NG. There's confusion on whether it's 4 feet or 4 pairs. More on that later.
 
Diogenes said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yeah...believing in the PG film is one thing, but attempting to deny the obvious match in that carving and the print is mind boggling.

The passion of the Bigfoot community in its irrational attacks on Wallace and Hieronimous is disturbingly fanatic.
 
Yeah, it's amazing that when the match is exact, it's still not good enough.

It's unlikely that they have all of the feet Wallace and co might have used, anyway.

I'll find the wooden feet that match the tracks when they find the real feet that match the tracks..... :D

It's unlikely that Ray was the only person running around with fake feet.
 
For those who haven't seen it, this is the overlay that is supposed to show the footprint is not a Wallace special.

Clearly it is a wallace special, and the wrong foot is overlaid.

post-2-1107308666.gif


This is two different feet, not a pair imo.

post-2-1107477006.gif
 
cut4sign wrote on BFF

I finally viewed a copy of the NG special and saw the "Ray Wallace" portion. They showed a pickup load of fake feet that Wallace built. Does anyone have access to these? Someone needs to ship Jeff Meldrum the whole pickup load to compare with the cast that he has stored. If the Wallace's are so certain that the Bigfoot legacy started with Ray, then I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with this comparison project being done??
Click to expand...

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

A pickup load of fake feet? There are some interesting posts on that thread.


Edit: Reading further the pickup load turns in to four feet and a load of fake casts. There are still some interesting posts on that thread.
 
LAL said:
From this site?

http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/

Please identify the cast on the right and post the link. Clear to you may be not be clear to anyone else.

Noll has it from the producer how many fake feet and Wallace casts were on NG. There's confusion on whether it's 4 feet or 4 pairs. More on that later.
Click to expand...
What is this supposed to be? I hope it's not supposed to be an example of a Wallace foot and a print it made .. I's clearly not.

Why do we need to identify the cast on the right?
 
Read the complicated explanations for Ray's little carved split in the ball of his fake feet. Ray sure had 'em going!

Two-Ball Feature
Another erroneous impression is the two-ball theory that is supposed to be characteristic of their feet. I find no field evidence to support this concept as a general physical trait! What I do find occasionally in tracks associated with flexing of the toes (hourglass), are two bulges on the medial side of the foot. The first is normal, the second (posterior) is principally the result of flexor action of the big toe when combined with instep plantar padding and furrow directly behind the first metatarsal during the weight-bearing phase. Bear in mind the same powerful muscular skeleton action is taking place in the foot to form an hourglass imprint with one exception. Soil resistance in this area during weight bearing causes a downward pressure against the contracted flexors of the big toe, located on the medial side of the longitudinal arch, forcing the loose plantar padding behind the furrow to project laterally when it comes in contact with the soil. The result is a second bulge! I would like to point out that, in weight bearing (when the toes are flexed), all of these movements become much more powerful when the ankle is forcibly extended by the tendon of achilles. This is particularly true of the peroneus because of its pulley action with the cuboid bone.

Dr. Grover Krantz gives a different version. He suggests that the two-ball feature is the result of flat feet and changes in the length of the foot's segments. He states: Given a totally flattened foot, all structures that would have constituted the arch will be firmly pressed against the ground. Behind the ball of the foot is the next bone projection, the near or proximal end of the first metatarsal. The metatarsals are the longest bones in the fore foot. If this region is to be relatively shortened, the base of the first metatarsal must be moved forward. Given a sufficient shortening of the bone, its two ends will be in the proper positions to form the double ball as seen in many Sasquatch footprints (Krantz 1972a:96). Krantz also suggests changes in the length of the foot's power and load arm as well as weight bearing being more toward the center of the foot. I find no field evidence to support this.
Click to expand...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/buckley.htm

Ray ought to ge some kind of an award for his work.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Read the complicated explanations for Ray's little carved split in the ball of his fake feet. Ray sure had 'em going!



http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/buckley.htm

Ray ought to ge some kind of an award for his work.
Click to expand...

I really hope Wallace at some point in his life took a gander at Krantz's little report. That should've provided him with chuckles for years...

Holy Bigfeet! I've never learned so much useless information about the foot's contact with the dang ground! Plantar metatarsal whatsit?

I...uh...I still can't believe they're trying to prove the existence of a new form of giant American primate through a bunch of footprints.
 
From your link..

1960_ByrneCast.jpg



This looks a lot like the cast paired with the Wallace foot above. I wonder if it was part of the same trackway..

While these prints have the signature split ball of Alderfoot, they seem to be proportionaly shorter and wider..

A pregnant female perhaps ?

Edit:

I see now, it is a Bluff Creek print.. Obviously not Patty's ..
 
Well, Patty was hanging around Bluff Creek.

There's no telling how many sets of feet Ray had. He went to the trouble of making a suit and hands and making films of "bigfoot".

It seems trivial to make up several sets of feet.

There's no telling what a few days of rain and weathering would make an alderfoot look like, either.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, Patty was hanging around Bluff Creek.

There's no telling how many sets of feet Ray had. He went to the trouble of making a suit and hands and making films of "bigfoot".

It seems trivial to make up several sets of feet.

There's no telling what a few days of rain and weathering would make an alderfoot look like, either.
Click to expand...
Nothing to argue with here..


Note how Bigfootologists insist that we match a print precisely to a Wallace foot, to prove it is a Wallace print. However, no such level of preciseness is required of them.. They can make up whatever they want..

Same thing with PGF.. They don't have to provide the actual creature, but we are supposed to provide the suit... :rolleyes:
 
Here, John Green tries to cover up his errors by stating that the wooden feet are just copies of the Bluff Creek tracks. Note that he claims the tracks are too deep to have been faked with the wooden feet.

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

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.
Click to expand...

Now look at the tracks in question and ask yourself if you would say they are too deep to have been made by Ray Wallace.

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

They don't look "deeply impressed" to me at all. One has to wonder why Green claims they are...?

Even if they were "deeply impressed", which they aren't, a hammer would impress them nicely.
 
LTC8K6 said:

They don't look "deeply impressed" to me at all. One has to wonder why Green claims they are...?
Click to expand...

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).
 
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).
Click to expand...
And as you pointed out, they had to keep approaching more experts, until they found someone who would support their findings.. ie... The PGF in Russia.

The NASI report gets played down ( ignored ) because the 2,000lb weight doesn't play too well.
 
Right. Bigfoot doesn't live in American forests. It lives in minds, the pages of books and on your TV when viewing the LMS DVD. You don't go hunting for Bigfoot in the woods, you find it by turning the pages of books. Each book references another and so pulling numerous ones off of shelves is like roaming through the PGF and seeing whole populations of Bigfoot.

It's a great myth. Bigfoot is one cool hombre. But it sucks as a real animal because it sure as hell seems to not exist at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

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

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom