Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Ray Wallace Hoaxing And The Pgf

Recommended Posts

Guest parnassus

...

Incidentally, examples of the larger l6-inch footprints were examined and cast by Dr. Maurice Tripp, a geologist and geophysicist from San Jose. Tripp’s engineering studies of the soil properties and depth of the footprint, which he cast, show the weight of the owner to be more than 800 lbs. In his estimation the tracks were very credible. “It would be difficult to fraudulently prepare hundreds of such tracks overnight—particularly in the type of country in which they were found,†he observed.

Meldrum, Jeff (2010). Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (Kindle Locations 983-989). Forge Books. Kindle Edition.

For some reason that he doesn't tell us, Meldrum has changed the size of the 17 inch prints examined by Dr. Tripp, as reported in the story at Bigfoot Encounters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

? According to Tim Cahill in A Wolverine Is Eating My Leg, the PGF is 18 seconds long and Stevenson, Washington, is across the river from The Dalles, Oregon. Mistakes happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Each of the pictures showing one, two or even three tracks and not the trackway are being taken out of context. The photographer stepping back to get more than one, two or three tracks in a picture reduces the details of that picture. It is unfair to judge these pictures that show tracks seemingly disproportionate or having come from a different source, size or side of an animal without the entire context included. The pictures showing the trackway in fact show only consistently spaced, sized and correct relationships. Might as well look at the pictures of the tracks the people who where there left and say they were faked as well. One left boot print has a lugged sole and is 12 inches long while another right beside it was left as well and of a smooth soled cowboy boot. It is a ridiculous argument.

As for the Mathes pictures, as I have said before, Ray Wallace had no problems with the researchers but Ivan Marx was just let go and told he was not suitable for the position. Ivan is also associated with a dubious hand print, the Bossburg tracks and several still images and films that he tried to sell to Peter Byrne. Roger Patterson didn't want anything to do with Ivan's products... Where as Peter was trying to buy the rights to Ivan's film of the injured Bigfoot.

My bet is that any hoaxing that MAY have occurred in the area and time associated with Bigfoot would require finesse to the point eclipsing Rant Mullens, Ray Pickens and Ray Wallace's attempts. That leads only to a nature film maker and taxidermist. Substantial motive only lies with the film maker, although some would argue with Titmus being fired, he too should be included.

Edited by damndirtyape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tallmonkey

Each of the pictures showing one, two or even three tracks and not the trackway are being taken out of context. The photographer stepping back to get more than one, two or three tracks in a picture reduces the details of that picture. It is unfair to judge these pictures that show tracks seemingly disproportionate or having come from a different source, size or side of an animal without the entire context included. The pictures showing the trackway in fact show only consistently spaced, sized and correct relationships. Might as well look at the pictures of the tracks the people who where there left and say they were faked as well. One left boot print has a lugged sole and is 12 inches long while another right beside it was left as well and of a smooth soled cowboy boot. It is a ridiculous argument.

As for the Mathes pictures, as I have said before, Ray Wallace had no problems with the researchers but Ivan Marx was just let go and told he was not suitable for the position. Ivan is also associated with a dubious hand print, the Bossburg tracks and several still images and films that he tried to sell to Peter Byrne. Roger Patterson didn't want anything to do with Ivan's products... Where as Peter was trying to buy the rights to Ivan's film of the injured Bigfoot.

My bet is that any hoaxing that MAY have occurred in the area and time associated with Bigfoot would require finesse to the point eclipsing Rant Mullens, Ray Pickens and Ray Wallace's attempts. That leads only to a nature film maker and taxidermist. Substantial motive only lies with the film maker, although some would argue with Titmus being fired, he too should be included.

I have to disagree here. It seems that whoever took these pictures, John, Rene, Don etc. were focusing on these particular junctures precisely because they did seem odd or out of place IMO. DDA, I understand that you originally posted these black and whites on the BFF several years ago. Do you have any additional pictures that you could post the would place these tracks IN context? That would really help...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
The pictures showing the trackway in fact show only consistently spaced, sized and correct relationships.

Bigwallace7.jpg

Bigbluecreek1.jpg

My bet is that any hoaxing that MAY have occurred in the area and time associated with Bigfoot would require finesse to the point eclipsing Rant Mullens, Ray Pickens and Ray Wallace's attempts.

Bigwallace12-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

And the beat goes on ...........

What is the point in repeating the same poorly thought out overlays. That's like someone going to a site that believes in fairies and elves ... what would be the point of repeating the same erred illustrations after posting them the first time? Is there a goal in mind whereas the person who repeats the same thing the most often is the winner??

The Wallace carving as we know it to be was obviously made to resemble the tracks if toe movement was present.

Trying to use the carving against the track-way is futile when the two are not seen at the exact same angle. Of course certain people must now be aware that an inconsistency between the two shapes is detrimental to the position that one shape was made by the other. It is even more obvious that presenting them while totally ignoring the points that have been presented to the evidence that was seen on that road is hardly a search for the truth. Finding a print on the ground that under the right circumstances it could be a match for the carving is not a great revelation if it is found that so many of the other prints did not match or had traveled places that one could not get to while wearing stiff fake feet.

In post 855, an interview with the pilot mentions how Keith (the pilot) was left to ponder how the tracks could have been artifically created. Keith, Green, Dahinden, the hunters and other on-lookers who showed up to see the track-way in the real world had to deal toe movements between tracks, and the distance of the strides even when the tracks went into the bush. The on-lookers had to consider how the same tracks, if made artifically, had managed to be made when walking through bush and up steep inclines. I recall someone once posting that the toe line was to straight, thus it could only be the result of a fake foot. Myself and Tom Steenburg went out to test that claim and found that once again someone had cited something as fact and hadn't bothered to test their position before embracing it. I found that when I stepped into softer soil while gripping with my foot, the toe line resembled that seen in the BCM photos. The point being that while some may find it more satisfying to not address the evidence in its totality, others find that its necessary to follow through as scientifically as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tallmonkey

I haven't seen any pictures that show toe movements between tracks. I'm not a hard-lined skeptic, but I need to see better proof of this "toe movement" when it comes to the BCM tracks.

Now, if by "toe movements" you mean the appearance of “flex†as seen in the picture below, may I suggest that the substrate shown here appears to be made up of springy vegetation covered by a fine layer of dust that was deposited by vehicular traffic. It’s quite possible that a flat prosthetic made the tracks shown here and that the springy vegetative plant matter underneath the topsoil caused the flat foot impression to “bounce back†giving the rigid foot a false appearance of being flexible. (Notice the crack in th layer of dust - that's proof that the substrate flexed not the foot) That’s one possible explanation for the appearance of flexibility here in my opinion.

post-1375-024901900 1327810587_thumb.jpe

Edited by tallmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I haven't seen any pictures that show toe movements between tracks. I'm not a hard-lined skeptic, but I need to see better proof of this "toe movement" when it comes to the BCM tracks.

Now, if by "toe movements" you mean the appearance of “flex†as seen in the picture below, may I suggest that the substrate shown here appears to be made up of springy vegetation covered by a fine layer of dust that was deposited by vehicular traffic. It’s quite possible that a flat prosthetic made the tracks shown here and that the springy vegetative plant matter underneath the topsoil caused the flat foot impression to “bounce back†giving the rigid foot a false appearance of being flexible. (Notice the crack in th layer of dust - that's proof that the substrate flexed not the foot) That’s one possible explanation for the appearance of flexibility here in my opinion.

Let us say for a minute that no pictures were ever taken .... there is still the descriptions given by the pilot who had no bias one way or the other. It would be nice one day to see what photos of this track way are in Dahinden's collection. Green wrote years ago that one of the kids managed to get their hands on one of his exposed rolls and pulled it open, thus ruining the entire roll.

I have seen really good pictures of those tracks and I do not believe that 'springy vegetation' was even involved. The crack looks like an impact crack to me. The toe movement is present if you compare the toe alignment to the same foot that printed out on the hard packed road surface. As I said before, it was the bending of the toes that caused this straightened alignment that some claimed a real foot could not do, your response didn't address this.

Then there are the other 569 estimated tracks that passed over several soil conditions, not to mention the vegetation they passed through. The pilot also said that another factor was that the prints sunk into the soil over an inch deep while his prints remained atop of the soil. Using stiff fake feet doesn't account for the depth issues these individuals had to consider. Once again, the on-site examination would be more impressive in my view than looking at 2D images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1327798611[/url]' post='137745']

I have to disagree here. It seems that whoever took these pictures, John, Rene, Don etc. were focusing on these particular junctures precisely because they did seem odd or out of place IMO. DDA, I understand that you originally posted these black and whites on the BFF several years ago. Do you have any additional pictures that you could post the would place these tracks IN context? That would really help...

So far all the pictures I posted were John Greens.---------If you mean by odd that they were large barefoot tracks then yes, that is why they were focused on. Other pictures taken then do show a couple of trackways. The close up pictures of the tracks are showing only where these have crossed one another.

Edited by damndirtyape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tirademan

Ray hoaxing? Not according to him!

tirademan

edit - forgot one

post-325-042019400 1327818800_thumb.jpg

post-325-009481800 1327818825_thumb.jpg

post-325-050661800 1327819062_thumb.jpg

Edited by tirademan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tallmonkey

Let us say for a minute that no pictures were ever taken .... there is still the descriptions given by the pilot who had no bias one way or the other. It would be nice one day to see what photos of this track way are in Dahinden's collection. Green wrote years ago that one of the kids managed to get their hands on one of his exposed rolls and pulled it open, thus ruining the entire roll.

I have seen really good pictures of those tracks and I do not believe that 'springy vegetation' was even involved. The crack looks like an impact crack to me. The toe movement is present if you compare the toe alignment to the same foot that printed out on the hard packed road surface. As I said before, it was the bending of the toes that caused this straightened alignment that some claimed a real foot could not do, your response didn't address this.

Then there are the other 569 estimated tracks that passed over several soil conditions, not to mention the vegetation they passed through. The pilot also said that another factor was that the prints sunk into the soil over an inch deep while his prints remained atop of the soil. Using stiff fake feet doesn't account for the depth issues these individuals had to consider. Once again, the on-site examination would be more impressive in my view than looking at 2D images.

First off, great job interviewing the pilot and helping to put another nail in the coffin of that massacre theory mess. Please keep up the good work on that front...

True, Keith (the pilot) and others have described seeing toe variation in the trackways but none of the (Publicly shown) photos from the OM, BCM and Bluff Creek trackways seem to show this. Unless John Green or the Dahinden family possesses previously unreleased photos that show toe variation in these trackways, all I have to go on is the presently available pictures. Like I have already stated, the BCM tracks look blocky and artificial to me and not a single track shows clear toe variation IMO. As for flexibility however, some of these tracks do have the appearance of being made by a flexible foot. But as I have already pointed out, this might be an illusion, as the top layer of fine dust could be resting on a vegetative layer that rebounded after it had been stepped upon.

As far as the presence of springy vegetation is concerned, the photo below seems to support this idea. Here there appears to be a branch that disappears into the fine dust. A few blades of grass poke through the topsoil here and there as well. I am not suggesting that these particular tracks exhibit any “bounceback.†I am simply suggesting that this picture shows some of the vegetative matter that MAY have existed just under the fine layer of dust where these tracks ran along the shoulder of the road. Vegetation MAY have run along portions of the shoulder creating “bounceback†conditions HERE AND THERE.

To be intellectually honest you have to admit that this is possible, IMO…

post-1375-000703000 1327825029_thumb.jpe

The picture below MAY show the vegetative bounceback that I'm suggesting...

post-1375-033021600 1327825040_thumb.jpe

Edited by tallmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tallmonkey

Here in the tractor tread (and throughout this picture) blades of grass and other vegetation can be seen poking through the top-layer of dust.

post-1375-063206700 1327828329_thumb.jpe

Bouncy root-matter could create the type of "spring-back" that I'm referring to as well. We can know that root-matter permeated some of these tracks simply by looking at the picture below.

post-1375-045926900 1327828351_thumb.jpe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

In the bottom picture where John is measuring the "line" is probably a broken twig (the end can be seen) rather than roots (wolftrax pointed this out and I actually agreed with him). Either way it has nothing to do with the "Wallace line" at all. (Crowlogic please note.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeG

..........and as an aside on the stride-measuring photo..............

Why is he measuring from toe to heel? Why is this such a coomon mistake (apparently Patterson & Gimlin made the same mistake)? Obviously, stride length is from toe to toe (or heel to heel).

Mike

Edited by MikeG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Um, because the yardstick is only 36" long? Just a guess.........;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...