Mr Green Clarifies His Challenge

[wolftrax]

Proof who was right, Green or Wallace?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 19 February 2011 - 09:58 PM, said:

Thanks for that acknowledgement. It pretty much settles any question on your "side".

and what side is that, Hunster?

Your side. The side in which honor has nothing to do with it. (Your words......need the exact quote?)

Sorta' like Wallace's.

And you do not have any reliable evidence that those wooden feet were created in the year the tracks were found, you have no reliable evidence that those wooden feet made the tracks, and you have Green discounting the possibility that wooden feet made all the tracks, if any.

You don't think the photos comparing the feet and the tracks match?

Some do. Again, I have a great distrust for anything from the Wallace side of the equation (for very good reason), and that includes his/their statements or items, and I have good confidence in Green's statements.

Agreed. I'd love to see some, if they exist. I've seen others from another trackway that clearly illustrated dynamic footprints, and you (among others) pooh poohed those, too.

What tracks would that be? What do you mean by "pooh poohed"?

These:

You "pooh poohed" them by pointing out how the trackway was initially found by Freeman, who couldn't be trusted, much like I pooh pooh this 50 year old speculation because members of the Wallace family claim that Ray hoaxed them, and I don't believe that they can be trusted.

Funny how that works out, huh?

It's the same, old pattern from "your side".

what pattern and what side?

Inconsistent "skepticism", and from your side.

I don't have them, don't know if they exist, and will not seek them. I don't need to. I accept Green's statements. I believe him. If you don't, perhaps you should find them.

Yup. And/or continued speculation, sniping, doubt, denial, etc.

Or both.

Oh, ok, well sounds like you enjoy that, have a good time with that.

Like I wrote, I have no problem with the continued speculation, sniping, doubt, and denial. I believe Green, and disbelieve Ray Wallace and his family.

However, I may continue to point out the fallacy of such speculation as I please, and thanks, I'm having a great time with that.

[Guest]

Running. While wearing wooden sandals which are poorly attached to ones foot. Not only on the road, but (as Green and others testified and documented) in a creekbed.

Stated by a person (or his family stated that he stated that) who was known for dishonesty.

Yeah. Right. You may believe that, but I don't.

I believe Green.

How do you know they are poorly attached? Who knows the extent to which someone might go to attach carved feet to boots or whatever someone might use? I was talking specifically about the tracks along the road. But regardless someone running will give a greater depth impression and will give a longer stride. It is very possible. And besides they look like they have no life in them.

And also as I stated earlier that little ridge of pushed up dirt directly behind those perfectly aligned toes are a tell-tale sign of a fake track. There was a rather detailed thread in the old BFF and IMO clearly demonstrated that.

[Huntster]

Think about all that would have had to be done to pull off this hoax:

[*]make many many foot forms (3 sizes, multiple toe positions and other anatomical details, etc)

[*]lay down not one but 3 distinct trackways along the road and off it

[*]do this in the middle of the night (it would take many hours, we are talking about literally 100s of tracks total)

All in a single night.

[Huntster]

A sasquatch walks down a road at night leaving 100s of footprints.

Three sasquatches, not one.

A hoaxer puts on wooden feet and walks down a road at night leaving 100s of footprints. How would this be different in time length?

Simple division: 3/1, divided further into the number of hours between the dusk and dawn = far-fetched speculation.

Different toe positions have not been shown.

Correct. It has been claimed, documented at the time, and recalled just the other day by the individual who originally claimed it, and referenced to another individual who was also there and still lives.

[Guest]

Proof is not required..just eyes to see what has been shown. I have seen it and accept it (fake), if others don't that is their perogative.

[Huntster]

So far what we have been shown, there's no reason to think this wasn't out of the realm of possibility for Wallace to accomplish.

Nor is it out of the realm of possibility that I, William Shatner, or the Shah of Iran accomplished it, either.

If I claimed I did it, would you believe it?

[kitakaze]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that I could lay a freshly killed Bigfoot on a table and some would still not believe it.

Whoever could deny such stark realism?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 20 February 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:

Running. While wearing wooden sandals which are poorly attached to ones foot. Not only on the road, but (as Green and others testified and documented) in a creekbed.

Stated by a person (or his family stated that he stated that) who was known for dishonesty.

Yeah. Right. You may believe that, but I don't.

I believe Green.

How do you know they are poorly attached?

I saw the photos of one set of supposed Wallace sandals with string to tie them onto the foot, and another with tape.

Or do you have some other evidence that they were solidly attached, and we can disregard the photos for convenience?

Who knows the extent to which someone might go to attach carved feet to boots or whatever someone might use?

Nobody. Indeed, I'm repeatedly impressed with the extent some will go to try to put Wallace into those tracks. Denial clearly has no limits.

I was talking specifically about the tracks along the road.

And I reference all the tracks at the site documented by Green.

But regardless someone running will give a greater depth impression and will give a longer stride.

When I run, my heel almost never shows a print. I run on the balls of my feet.

You? Or are you flat footed?

When I try to run in snowshoes while being pulled by a vehicle (like the Wallace family claims Ray accomplished this), I fall on my face and am dragged.

It is very possible.

I suppose it is, for someone desperate to put Wallace into those tracks.

And besides they look like they have no life in them.

Me, too. But, then, I wasn't there to see the rest of them. Neither was Wallace (that he or anybody else can prove).

Green was. That has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (well, for all but a pure denialist).

And also as I stated earlier that little ridge of pushed up dirt directly behind those perfectly aligned toes are a tell-tale sign of a fake track.

Good to know. The next time I see that in a bear track up here, I'll know a member of the Wallace family has been around.

[Huntster]

Proof is not required.

I like that attitude:

Sasquatches exist. "Proof is not required".

I have seen it and accept it (fake)

Then you believe they are fake, and that is perfectly acceptable.

I do not know, and I don't believe anything coming from the Wallace family, and I do accept Green at his word. I believe him.

if others don't that is their perogative.

Correct. We all have our beliefs. I believe Green.

[Guest gershake]

Proof who was right, Green or Wallace?

Green, you were faster than me to respond to Mulder.

[Guest]

I like that attitude:

Sasquatches exist. "Proof is not required".

Then you believe they are fake, and that is perfectly acceptable.

I do not know, and I don't believe anything coming from the Wallace family, and I do accept Green at his word. I believe him.

Correct. We all have our beliefs. I believe Green.

Belief is required for only one thing and it has nothing to do with Bigfoot. I can see with my own eyes the photos of these tracks as well as the carvings that supposedly belong to them and I can put two and two together. So I will say I know they are fake and you will question how I know perhaps and again I have seen the evidence and have come to a conclusion based on reason as I see it. You may not accept my reason but in the end it only matters what I think (to me).

I believe in the possibility of sasquatch. I think the PGF very well may be real, though I am still persuing that, but if something is not it, it is not it. I will look elsewhere.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 20 February 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

I like that attitude:

Sasquatches exist. "Proof is not required".

Then you believe they are fake, and that is perfectly acceptable.

I do not know, and I don't believe anything coming from the Wallace family, and I do accept Green at his word. I believe him.

Correct. We all have our beliefs. I believe Green.

Belief is required for only one thing and it has nothing to do with Bigfoot.

Actually, belief has to do with just about everything.

For example, have you ever seen an atom? Do you believe they exist? If so, why? If not, why?

I can see with my own eyes the photos of these tracks as well as the carvings that supposedly belong to them and I can put two and two together.

And what you don't see (like everybody else on this thread) are the other 300 prints, especially those in the creek bottom, and while "two and two" may be whatever you believe they are, there are 300 other factors that you appear to be conveniently ignoring. Green has described them like a journalist would, and there are still people living who also saw them who he claims will back him up. He has named them and referenced them.

Not a single person on this thread nor the person claimed to have hoaxed those prints are alive to bear witness. Not one.

So I will say I know they are fake and you will question how I know perhaps and again I have seen the evidence and have come to a conclusion based on reason as I see it.

Yes, you have come to a conclusion that you believe, and that is fine.

I believe otherwise.

You may not accept my reason but in the end it only matters what I think (to me).

Yup. And vice versa. Neat how that works, huh?

[Guest]

Actually, belief has to do with just about everything.

For example, have you ever seen an atom? Do you believe they exist? If so, why? If not, why?

And what you don't see (like everybody else on this thread) are the other 300 prints, especially those in the creek bottom, and while "two and two" may be whatever you believe they are, there are 300 other factors that you appear to be conveniently ignoring. Green has described them like a journalist would, and there are still people living who also saw them who he claims will back him up. He has named them and referenced them.

Not a single person on this thread nor the person claimed to have hoaxed those prints are alive to bear witness. Not one.

Yes, you have come to a conclusion that you believe, and that is fine.

I believe otherwise.

Yup. And vice versa. Neat how that works, huh?

I am not ignoring anything. And these 300 or so prints that you reference, where is exactly the proof or evidence they ever existed. I am not going to take the word of anyone that I have absolutely no clue about something I cannot see or verify, not John Green or anyone I do not know personally. John Green is not the be-all nor end-all with regards to sasquatch evidence. After all we are talking about something in which there is no indisputable evidence that they exist. We are not debating whether or not the earth is round vs flat.

Not a lot of point to going round and round, you think what you I do the same.

[Guest LAL]

The only claim Wallace himself made about faking prints was when he said he faked some to scare off bigfoot hunters because he was worried about the big guy. I would think that would have encouraged hunters if the prints were at all realistic, assuming the story is true.

He also told people the bigfoots were guarding gold mines.