Jump to content
Guest

Ray Wallace Hoaxing And The Pgf

Recommended Posts

Guest

It was nice of Wallace for that Bigfoot Days hoax to make sure he used the stompers in that nice soft soil at the side of the road where they were sure not to be missed. The Boss of the Woods was less than stealthy on that stroll. Did you know that logging equipment had been chucked around, exactly as he did for the Jerry Crew hoax in '58?

You mean the big barrels of fuel, tree debris, etc...all of which were too heavy for a human to pick up and move without tools and/or aid?

Ray must've been eating his Wheaties that day... [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

kitakaze wrote:

Heironims' "confession" is a 'Gong Show' of mistakes and missing details...and we're led to believe that Bob showed up, and walked for the camera???

If BobbyH is an episode of the Gong Show then the Wallace family is an entire SEASON of the Gong Show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Ray Wallace did indeed make a heap of stompers and seems to have done a heap of stomping with them.

Yes, he did do a lot of hoaxing with them. For example, here we have an Al Hodgson cast of a Wallace hoax done at Bluff Creek in August 1963...

89614c841d50c24b6.jpg

August 1963 - same stomper, same time - Bigfoot Days festival in Willow Creek!

Bigfoot Days started in 1960...

The 49-year-old tradition comes from the logging community of Willow Creek solidifying in 1957 and the start of the Bigfoot Days celebration in 1960.

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_13281673

The single most telling photo of a Wallace track being scrutinized is the one where John Green is bending over one of the split in the heel Wallace tracks. In retrospect there are some outstanding reasons to consider that much of the research done on the tracks was flawed and or poorly understood. But the beauty of the Wallace stompers is that they leave fake looking prints and comprise some rather phony anatomical features.

He has not received the memo...

jeff.jpg

All of this conspires to elevate the Patterson Bluff Creek Patty tracks to an even higher level of believability. Wallace tracks look wooden (as in not having flesh like dynamics.) Patterson's Patty tracks look organic as if made by flesh and blood. Good Ol' Ray actually did us a favor by creating a kind of yardstick to measure track fakeness.

Faking around 12 to 18 Bigfoot tracks in wet sand is not rocket science...

ba0ab50c.png

But it would have been nice if they didn't have the big broad flat 14.5 inch tracks going deeper than the 4 inch diameter hooves of 1300 lbs of Chico.

Edited by ChrisBFRPKY
removed political term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You mean the big barrels of fuel, tree debris, etc...all of which were too heavy for a human to pick up and move without tools and/or aid?

Ray must've been eating his Wheaties that day... [/sarcasm]

A human doesn't need to pick something up to move it. You don't know what was moved where. It could have been empty fuel drums exaggerated or something else entirely. Who was reporting? Oh, that paper that had the editor whose own wife implicated him in being in on hoaxing with Wallace?

Oops.

Edited by ChrisBFRPKY
Removed reference to member

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

A good time for hoaxing Bigfoot prints...

BFD+BF+Spirit.jpg

Click to enlarge (clearer)...

post-13-094124400 1296274327_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Guys, let's be civil and try to refrain from using "kool aid" references. If one reads into "kool aid" remarks, it could most definitely be taken as a political reference.

Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

But it would have been nice if they didn't have the big broad flat 14.5 inch tracks going deeper than the 4 inch diameter hooves of 1300 lbs of Chico.

And once again you just won't admit when your argument has been debunked. For the last time: horses DON'T PUT ALL THEIR WEIGHT ON ONE HOOF. At WORST 2 (at a run).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A human doesn't need to pick something up to move it. You don't know what was moved where. It could have been empty fuel drums exaggerated or something else entirely. Who was reporting? Oh, that paper that had the editor whose own wife implicated him in being in on hoaxing with Wallace?

Oops.

Your proof that the wife is telling the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

You can decide for your self if these two are the same width. The photo was enlarged and changed to 100dpi so the grid would be the right size to see. Otherwise it was not changed.

It looks to be the same width to me at all the widest points.

post-9-080759500 1296283863_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Fishing Man

If the large print on the left is the rightmost stomper in the stomper photos in the middle, then the smaller print on the right in the photo can not "corresponds to the stomper second from the left..." as you stated. The rightmost stomper and the stomper second from the left are left and right of the same size. Do you mean the leftmost for the smaller print?

How did you identify all three sets of stompers? Did you overlay the stompers on the photos? Have you seen the stompers in person, measure them, and they match the prints?

How about you answer this question. You like to "oops" people but this seems like an "oops" on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

And once again you just won't admit when your argument has been debunked. For the last time: horses DON'T PUT ALL THEIR WEIGHT ON ONE HOOF. At WORST 2 (at a run).

Why would I say the BCM hoax is debunked as a hoax? Because the Meldrum says so? That was seriously all you brought. Meldrum says so, so there. At least if you're going to post a passage that says none of the stompers match any of the casts or tracks, look at the dead matches that are in front of you.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why would I say the BCM hoax is debunked as a hoax? Because the Meldrum says so? That was seriously all you brought. Meldrum says so, so there. At least if you're going to post a passage that says none of the stompers match any of the casts or tracks, look at the dead matches that are in front of you.

How does your response in any way shape or form respond to what I was saying about your particular post regarding the depth of the Bluff Creek tracks vs Gimlin's horse's tracks?

I'll even make it easy for you and repost the post I was querrying you about:

kitakaze, on 28 January 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

But it would have been nice if they didn't have the big broad flat 14.5 inch tracks going deeper than the 4 inch diameter hooves of 1300 lbs of Chico.

Edited by Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Because Dale's hand is not holding them both exactly perpendicular to the camera. The measurement I did is the stomper laid on a completely flat surface. 6.5 inches on the stomper at the second ball and 6.5 inches on the second ball track in the ground. There's being the devil's advocate and then there is denying cold hard proof.

Cold hard proof??? I didn't realize you were a ichnophotostompologist. :D I've told you umpteen times now, the ONLY way to prove that the stomper Dale is holding matches the track is to measure the stomper AND the track. If they match exactly then you have something. Until then no cigar. After all, the opposition's argument is that they don't match in width. So what were the track dimensions?

G, the BCM tracks are a hoax, yes?

Most likely, but not proven, yet. You can't "will" proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You can decide for your self if these two are the same width. The photo was enlarged and changed to 100dpi so the grid would be the right size to see. Otherwise it was not changed.

It looks to be the same width to me at all the widest points.

post-9-080759500 1296283863_thumb.jpg

But it doesn't look to be the same width compared to...itself.

wallacestomper.gif

In your photo comparison, the stomper is foreshortened. The track might be too, but that needs to be determined. They probably match, but your gridded comparison can't tell us that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HucksterFoot

And once again you just won't admit when your argument has been debunked. For the last time: horses DON'T PUT ALL THEIR WEIGHT ON ONE HOOF. At WORST 2 (at a run).

Yes they do...

Especially when running - Especially on the forehand - Then add the impact. There is many times that one hoof lands alone and takes the main brunt of the weight. A horse carries about 65 % of it's weight on the front legs. That in mind, it's not like the horse is some solid stationary nonliving object, like a big 800 pound cast iron table with four legs (and definitely not like a nonexistent Bigfoot) Even a horse standing square as possible, this weight gets shifted around and the bulk of this weight is still up front. When the horse lifts that one front leg, where do you think the weight is going?

Here is something cool interesting - The horse's hoof is the equivalent of our middle finger. :] Seriously it really is. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...