Guest LAL Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Whoever could deny such stark realism? Those are prints from two different trackways. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Your side. The side in which honor has nothing to do with it. (Your words......need the exact quote?) I have it right here: That's ok, honor or dishonor really doesn't have anything to do with it, as much as some people would like to make it that way. "Attack the argument, not the arguer"- ok, so take out the personal element and look at the evidence. Forget about sides, accusations of accusations of lying, etc. and what do we have here? We have photos comparing the wooden feet to the tracks. They look the same. We have a statement by Green that he saw dynamic foot movement. I'm sure if we looked deep enough in Meldrum's book, we'd even see that Meldrum is convinced the tracks are real based on the numerous photos of the event and casts showing the dynamic foot movement. On the old forum, numerous photos were posted that were said to show dynamic foot movement, I disagreed but regardless those photos aren't up now. So take this conversation to the next level. Find these images that show the dynamic foot movement. Post them. Or this thread could just go the usual route with people squabbling among themselves over which side they are on, who believes who or what and who accuses the other, and just general pettiness and boredom. Honor or dishonor has nothing to do with this conversation. I don't recall anyone on this thread questioning Green's honor, besides Mulder making that the only other option to the tracks showing "Dynamic movement". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Closing this thread for a cooling off period. Way too many reported posts on this thread. Please stop the snide remarks to each other and be civil, I'd hate to make the closing permanent as there is good debate intermixed with the unnecessary behavior. Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Reopening this discussion on a trial basis. Please remember to keep the discussion civil. Again, thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Those are prints from two different trackways. Your point? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Honor or dishonor has nothing to do with this conversation. We are discussing a possible hoaxer, or somebody who falsely claims that their family member hoaxed. Honor and dishonor are a pivotal part of this discussion. Somebody is or has been dishonest. Either they hoaxed the prints, or they falsely claimed to have done so. It's all about honor and dishonor. How can you not see that? I don't recall anyone on this thread questioning Green's honor Green's honor isn't the only honor in question. Indeed, it's a Wallace honor in question. The fulcrum of kitakaze's scenario. And either Ray and/or his family members are the ones who are making claims, I say that none of them can be trusted, Green and others knew that even back then in the late 1950's, and all that is well documented. More, this is standard fare for denialists. Take Dfoot, for example. Whatever his premise, he completely blew it with his photoshopped montage stunt. His credibility was shot. Kaput. No good. Erased. He can't be believed. He was dishonest. Ditto Ray Wallace, and/or his family members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 kitakaze, on 20 February 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:Whoever could deny such stark realism? LAL, on 20 February 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:Those are prints from two different trackways. Your point? No. "No" is not a point, nor is it an appropriate answer to LAL's question. Nor does your latest photo offering (which we've seen numerous times) any clue to an answer to her question, either. Let's look again at the previous photo, which is also the pair of footprints in your most recent photo which the man is looking at: Notice the smaller of the two prints on the right. First, this print looks nothing like the "Wallace sandal" that you like to post. Nothing at all. Secondly, do you see the ball of the foot and how deep it sinks into the dust? Compare that to the depth of the toes sinking into the dust. This is exactly what one would expect from a living foot pushing off. Now how do you do that with a flat sandal?: Deep imprint from the ball, and not so deep with the toes? BTW, "no" won't answer that question, either................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Notice the larger of the two prints. Do you see the ball of the foot and how deep it sinks into the dust? Compare that to the depth of the toes sinking into the dust. How is it there's a deep imprint from the toes, and not so deep with the ball? And what's with the undisturbed line/ridge of dust/dirt that separate those deep toes from the ball of the foot? How does a real foot do that? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Notice the larger of the two prints. Do you see the ball of the foot and how deep it sinks into the dust? Compare that to the depth of the toes sinking into the dust. How is it there's a deep imprint from the toes, and not so deep with the ball? That looks like something that might be achieved from a wooden sandal. So we're left with an interesting dilemma, no? Wallace tromping about on a wooden sandal on the same evening that a live, 13" foot was tromping about? Sounds just like his stories common of the time. Maybe he was feeding the sasquatches while stomping about on the road with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Notice the larger of the two prints. Do you see the ball of the foot and how deep it sinks into the dust? Compare that to the depth of the toes sinking into the dust. How is it there's a deep imprint from the toes, and not so deep with the ball? And what's with the undisturbed line/ridge of dust/dirt that separate those deep toes from the ball of the foot? How does a real foot do that? RayG By bunching up and digging in the toes? Just a guess.................... Per Meldrum sasquatch toes are longer and more prehensile than human toes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Notice the smaller of the two prints on the right. First, this print looks nothing like the "Wallace sandal" that you like to post. Nothing at all.(snip) BTW, "no" won't answer that question, either................ No. http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace7.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 We are discussing a possible hoaxer, or somebody who falsely claims that their family member hoaxed. Honor and dishonor are a pivotal part of this discussion. Somebody is or has been dishonest. Either they hoaxed the prints, or they falsely claimed to have done so. It's all about honor and dishonor. How can you not see that? Green's honor isn't the only honor in question. Indeed, it's a Wallace honor in question. The fulcrum of kitakaze's scenario. And either Ray and/or his family members are the ones who are making claims, I say that none of them can be trusted, Green and others knew that even back then in the late 1950's, and all that is well documented. More, this is standard fare for denialists. Take Dfoot, for example. Whatever his premise, he completely blew it with his photoshopped montage stunt. His credibility was shot. Kaput. No good. Erased. He can't be believed. He was dishonest. Ditto Ray Wallace, and/or his family members. There are things about the BCM tracks that researchers on both sides of the fence do not know or failed top see when analyzing the evidence. As time allows, I am going to expose and explain those things that should put to rest this matter once and for all. It could be that the Wallace family truly believed that their Dad's feet caused the BCM tracks although I am suspicious that when they were asked to produce the wooden carvings for testing .... they failed to do so .... at least that was the last I recall hearing about it. However, I believe that once some things are pointed out from my investigation that there will be no more debate concerning whether Ray's wooden foot carvings created the BCM tracks. I only ask for everyone's patience as I have several projects going on at the moment and putting together the visuals needs to be done from the best images and illustrated in the best way so to eliminate any slight of hand tactics from being alleged by anyone. I also think that I will put this evidence in a thread of its own and all at the same time so comments and questions will come after it review. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 We are discussing a possible hoaxer, or somebody who falsely claims that their family member hoaxed. Honor and dishonor are a pivotal part of this discussion. Somebody is or has been dishonest. Either they hoaxed the prints, or they falsely claimed to have done so. It's all about honor and dishonor. How can you not see that? Wait, you were trying to make this out like I have no honor, and now twist it into Wallace and their family like you were talking about them the whole time? Green's honor isn't the only honor in question. Indeed, it's a Wallace honor in question. The fulcrum of kitakaze's scenario. Green's honor was NEVER in question. Maybe now that you realize that the questioning of my honor has now switched to questioning the Wallace's family's honor. And either Ray and/or his family members are the ones who are making claims, I say that none of them can be trusted, Green and others knew that even back then in the late 1950's, and all that is well documented. More, this is standard fare for denialists. Take Dfoot, for example. Whatever his premise, he completely blew it with his photoshopped montage stunt. His credibility was shot. Kaput. No good. Erased. He can't be believed. He was dishonest. Ditto Ray Wallace, and/or his family members. The feet look just like the tracks. The tracks look totally fake. The one thing put forward to support the tracks looked real is this dynamic foot movement, and people want to see that. That's really all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 4, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted March 4, 2011 I only ask for everyone's patience as I have several projects going on at the moment and putting together the visuals needs to be done from the best images and illustrated in the best way so to eliminate any slight of hand tactics from being alleged by anyone. I also think that I will put this evidence in a thread of its own and all at the same time so comments and questions will come after it review. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research Can't wait to see the product, do it right Bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Huntster, on 22 February 2011 - 12:04 AM, said:We are discussing a possible hoaxer, or somebody who falsely claims that their family member hoaxed. Honor and dishonor are a pivotal part of this discussion. Somebody is or has been dishonest. Either they hoaxed the prints, or they falsely claimed to have done so. It's all about honor and dishonor. How can you not see that? Wait, you were trying to make this out like I have no honor, and now twist it into Wallace and their family like you were talking about them the whole time? No. I’m openly claiming (and you are quite free to quote me to show otherwise, if you’d like) that “honor and dishonor are a pivotal part of this discussionâ€. You have openly claimed that: Honor or dishonor has nothing to do with this conversation I have asked you, “It's all about honor and dishonor. How can you not see that?†You have not answered that question. Perhaps your answer will determine for all of us readers whether you have honor or not. My words cannot determine your honor. Only yours can. So please answer my question. Green's honor isn't the only honor in question. Indeed, it's a Wallace honor in question. The fulcrum of kitakaze's scenario. Green's honor was NEVER in question. Maybe now that you realize that the questioning of my honor has now switched to questioning the Wallace's family's honor. 1) Green’s honor was NEVER in question for me. It appears it was never in question for you, either. 2) The Wallace family/clan/company WAS ALWAYS in question for me. I don’t know if it has been so for you. 3) Your honor IS in question FOR ME. Please answer my question, “It’s all about honor and dishonor. How can you not see that?†Perhaps your answer will take your honor for me out of question FOR ME and finally determine the extent of your honor. And either Ray and/or his family members are the ones who are making claims, I say that none of them can be trusted, Green and others knew that even back then in the late 1950's, and all that is well documented. More, this is standard fare for denialists. Take Dfoot, for example. Whatever his premise, he completely blew it with his photoshopped montage stunt. His credibility was shot. Kaput. No good. Erased. He can't be believed. He was dishonest. Ditto Ray Wallace, and/or his family members. The feet look just like the tracks. The tracks look totally fake. The feet that the dishonorable man/family/company produced years after the event look just like the tracks. A few photographed prints “look totally fakedâ€. John Green, who was at the site at that time and who’s honor is (supposedly) universally accepted, has repeatedly stated that there were other prints that defied the claimed method of fakery, has repeatedly stated that the track ways were not hoaxed, and has even issued a challenge for somebody to repeat the hoax for a reward. All those facts: 1) Tend to make me believe Green’s testimony and disbelieve the Wallace side of the story 2) May have part of Green’s “education†into better evidence gathering (this was the late 1950’s, and Mr. Green was just learning the reality that denial has no limits, which people like Meldrum are benefitting from, but which still demonstrate the limitless nature of denial, which you are demonstrating with your antics regarding the Meldrum prints/photos which I’m linking to) The one thing put forward to support the tracks looked real is this dynamic foot movement, and people want to see that. That's really all that matters. Again, Green likely didn’t realize this extent of denial in the 1950’s. He took photos of the “best looking†prints and ignored the ones more difficult to photograph. Today, Meldrum has learned from that and even photographs/casts prints like this..............: .........for people like you to ignore with dismissals like “It has no effect because it is dodgyâ€. Yet again, denial has no limits. You help prove that with each successive post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts