Jump to content
Crowlogic

Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road.

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

The green arrows point to the split heel line.  What made the line?

 

You have participated in threads that have shown the close-up view and text stating that its the debris that has rolled down the bowed

wall to the base of the track.

 

Some reasons given were that several clods were just too big to have come from the crack in the carving in question. They certainly couldn't have fallen from within the crack and expanded/inflated themselves once the carving would have come off the ground. So where did they come from?

 

If those clods came off the bottom of the carved foot, I then have to ask myself just how did their shape remain in tact after being pressed on by the weight of the subject when he or she weighs anywhere from 200 to 800lbs. Once a dry clod of dirt is obliterated - it doesn't magically go back to its original shape. So I looked elsewhere for the answer.

 

I found that I didn't have to go far to see that the clods at the base of the ground track have an amazing resemblance to the crusted top surface ... some of which appears to have broken loose from its edges.  Would this not explain why the ground is so smooth between the clods of debris that you call a crack line - seems to fall in the realm of reasonable and rational consideration to me.

 

 

 

How is it that Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica of not one but two stompers that match those prints.  So far nobody has come forward and agreed with Bigfoothunter's  presentations and positions.

 

"Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica" ??? 

 

I would not say that anyone perfectly aligned the two double-ball reference points or the toe alignment and sizes perfectly between the carving and the ground impression. In fact, you never appear to address that point in any detail despite the endless request for you to do so. Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all.

 

That approach doesn't appear ethical to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Drew:

My point is, that if Cliff and The Doctor think the London Trackway is a hoax, the Blue Mtn tracks have the same indicators of a hoax.  I want to see what they say, now that this is completely obvious, based on Cliff's findings on the London Trackway

 

What indicators do you speak of .... can you detail any of them (BCM and London prints) other than both have toes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

 

The green arrows point to the split heel line.  What made the line?

 

You have participated in threads that have shown the close-up view and text stating that its the debris that has rolled down the bowed

wall to the base of the track.

 

Some reasons given were that several clods were just too big to have come from the crack in the carving in question. They certainly couldn't have fallen from within the crack and expanded/inflated themselves once the carving would have come off the ground. So where did they come from?

 

If those clods came off the bottom of the carved foot, I then have to ask myself just how did their shape remain in tact after being pressed on by the weight of the subject when he or she weighs anywhere from 200 to 800lbs. Once a dry clod of dirt is obliterated - it doesn't magically go back to its original shape. So I looked elsewhere for the answer.

 

I found that I didn't have to go far to see that the clods at the base of the ground track have an amazing resemblance to the crusted top surface ... some of which appears to have broken loose from its edges.  Would this not explain why the ground is so smooth between the clods of debris that you call a crack line - seems to fall in the realm of reasonable and rational consideration to me.

 

 

 

How is it that Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica of not one but two stompers that match those prints.  So far nobody has come forward and agreed with Bigfoothunter's  presentations and positions.

 

"Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica" ??? 

 

I would not say that anyone perfectly aligned the two double-ball reference points or the toe alignment and sizes perfectly between the carving and the ground impression. In fact, you never appear to address that point in any detail despite the endless request for you to do so. Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all.

 

That approach doesn't appear ethical to me.

 

Ethical?  How about your photo manipulations, how ethical is that?  The fact remains is that all of your toe talk does not negate the truly telling detail of the heel split line and the stomper that made it.  Perhaps you need to do what Bill Munns did with the PGF and write a book about the Blue Mt tracks.  It is laughably obvious that they were a Wallace job.   Maybe you could contact the Wallace family and use the actual stompers to back up your position.  Maybe you could also explain how Ray managed to perfectly capture the size and shape of the Blue Mt tracks.  Maybe, maybe maybe.  As far as I'm concerned you are presenting a case drenched in woo and wishful thinking.  Please get your experts to agree with you first and even one or two run of the mill bigfooters to back your position up.  I'll print a full retraction of each and every argument I've ever made about Ray Wallace and Blue Mt.  BTW I've never said anything about the 13" or 9" tracks so kindly refrain from tossing them into this.  You have the habit of dragging superfluous subjects into specific ones.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Drew:

My point is, that if Cliff and The Doctor think the London Trackway is a hoax, the Blue Mtn tracks have the same indicators of a hoax.  I want to see what they say, now that this is completely obvious, based on Cliff's findings on the London Trackway

 

What indicators do you speak of .... can you detail any of them (BCM and London prints) other than both have toes?

Here educate yourself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

 

The green arrows point to the split heel line.  What made the line?

 

You have participated in threads that have shown the close-up view and text stating that its the debris that has rolled down the bowed

wall to the base of the track.

 

Some reasons given were that several clods were just too big to have come from the crack in the carving in question. They certainly couldn't have fallen from within the crack and expanded/inflated themselves once the carving would have come off the ground. So where did they come from?

 

If those clods came off the bottom of the carved foot, I then have to ask myself just how did their shape remain in tact after being pressed on by the weight of the subject when he or she weighs anywhere from 200 to 800lbs. Once a dry clod of dirt is obliterated - it doesn't magically go back to its original shape. So I looked elsewhere for the answer.

 

I found that I didn't have to go far to see that the clods at the base of the ground track have an amazing resemblance to the crusted top surface ... some of which appears to have broken loose from its edges.  Would this not explain why the ground is so smooth between the clods of debris that you call a crack line - seems to fall in the realm of reasonable and rational consideration to me.

 

 

 

How is it that Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica of not one but two stompers that match those prints.  So far nobody has come forward and agreed with Bigfoothunter's  presentations and positions.

 

"Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica" ??? 

 

I would not say that anyone perfectly aligned the two double-ball reference points or the toe alignment and sizes perfectly between the carving and the ground impression. In fact, you never appear to address that point in any detail despite the endless request for you to do so. Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all.

 

That approach doesn't appear ethical to me.

 

 

Ethical?  How about your photo manipulations, how ethical is that? 

 

Each time someone puts an arrow on a photo - it is a manipulation. No one cares about the manipulation unless it effects the point being made. It certainly demonstrated that with some people ... just how quick they'll jump to conspiracy just because they do not understand something.

 

 

The fact remains is that all of your toe talk does not negate the truly telling detail of the heel split line and the stomper that made it. 

 

.Thanks for helping demonstrate that it is true what I said previously, "Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all."

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Drew:

My point is, that if Cliff and The Doctor think the London Trackway is a hoax, the Blue Mtn tracks have the same indicators of a hoax.  I want to see what they say, now that this is completely obvious, based on Cliff's findings on the London Trackway

 

What indicators do you speak of .... can you detail any of them (BCM and London prints) other than both have toes?

 

Uhhm, are you saying this hasn't been posted at BFF until today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

 

 

 

The green arrows point to the split heel line.  What made the line?

 

You have participated in threads that have shown the close-up view and text stating that its the debris that has rolled down the bowed

wall to the base of the track.

 

Some reasons given were that several clods were just too big to have come from the crack in the carving in question. They certainly couldn't have fallen from within the crack and expanded/inflated themselves once the carving would have come off the ground. So where did they come from?

 

If those clods came off the bottom of the carved foot, I then have to ask myself just how did their shape remain in tact after being pressed on by the weight of the subject when he or she weighs anywhere from 200 to 800lbs. Once a dry clod of dirt is obliterated - it doesn't magically go back to its original shape. So I looked elsewhere for the answer.

 

I found that I didn't have to go far to see that the clods at the base of the ground track have an amazing resemblance to the crusted top surface ... some of which appears to have broken loose from its edges.  Would this not explain why the ground is so smooth between the clods of debris that you call a crack line - seems to fall in the realm of reasonable and rational consideration to me.

 

 

 

How is it that Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica of not one but two stompers that match those prints.  So far nobody has come forward and agreed with Bigfoothunter's  presentations and positions.

 

"Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica" ??? 

 

I would not say that anyone perfectly aligned the two double-ball reference points or the toe alignment and sizes perfectly between the carving and the ground impression. In fact, you never appear to address that point in any detail despite the endless request for you to do so. Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all.

 

That approach doesn't appear ethical to me.

 

 

Ethical?  How about your photo manipulations, how ethical is that? 

 

Each time someone puts an arrow on a photo - it is a manipulation. No one cares about the manipulation unless it effects the point being made. It certainly demonstrated that with some people ... just how quick they'll jump to conspiracy just because they do not understand something.

 

 

The fact remains is that all of your toe talk does not negate the truly telling detail of the heel split line and the stomper that made it. 

 

.Thanks for helping demonstrate that it is true what I said previously, "Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all."

 

An arrow or line on a photo is not changing the photo's basic character.  The details the lines and arrows  point to or are marking position of DO NOT CHANGE THE DETAIL BEING DISCUSSED!  Changing the proportions of a photo is manipulation.   

 

Drew:

My point is, that if Cliff and The Doctor think the London Trackway is a hoax, the Blue Mtn tracks have the same indicators of a hoax.  I want to see what they say, now that this is completely obvious, based on Cliff's findings on the London Trackway

 

What indicators do you speak of .... can you detail any of them (BCM and London prints) other than both have toes?

 

Uhhm, are you saying this hasn't been posted at BFF until today?

 

Drew it has been posted a few times but the hardcore have largely ignored it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
An arrow or line on a photo is not changing the photo's basic character.  The details the lines and arrows  point to or are marking position of DO NOT CHANGE THE DETAIL BEING DISCUSSED!  Changing the proportions of a photo is manipulation.

 

I agree and my previous remark had nothing to do with placing green arrows onto an illustration.

Bigfoothunter:  "Each time someone puts an arrow on a photo - it is a manipulation. No one cares about the manipulation unless it effects the point being made. ............."

 

It was the gross differences between the shape and size of the toes between the carving and the ground track and your ignoring it was what I was taking about. In other words - to try and make an argument for some scattered debris in any particular area of the sole of the track being from a crack in a heel of a wood carving is meaningless when the toe size and pattern is so different. One may as well be arguing the same for a carving that has only two toes for leaving a five toed track on the grounds you can see loose dirt clods in the area of the heel.  That's just whacked !

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

 

 

 

The green arrows point to the split heel line.  What made the line?

 

You have participated in threads that have shown the close-up view and text stating that its the debris that has rolled down the bowed

wall to the base of the track.

 

Some reasons given were that several clods were just too big to have come from the crack in the carving in question. They certainly couldn't have fallen from within the crack and expanded/inflated themselves once the carving would have come off the ground. So where did they come from?

 

If those clods came off the bottom of the carved foot, I then have to ask myself just how did their shape remain in tact after being pressed on by the weight of the subject when he or she weighs anywhere from 200 to 800lbs. Once a dry clod of dirt is obliterated - it doesn't magically go back to its original shape. So I looked elsewhere for the answer.

 

I found that I didn't have to go far to see that the clods at the base of the ground track have an amazing resemblance to the crusted top surface ... some of which appears to have broken loose from its edges.  Would this not explain why the ground is so smooth between the clods of debris that you call a crack line - seems to fall in the realm of reasonable and rational consideration to me.

 

 

 

How is it that Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica of not one but two stompers that match those prints.  So far nobody has come forward and agreed with Bigfoothunter's  presentations and positions.

 

"Ray Wallace just happened to perfectly craft a replica" ??? 

 

I would not say that anyone perfectly aligned the two double-ball reference points or the toe alignment and sizes perfectly between the carving and the ground impression. In fact, you never appear to address that point in any detail despite the endless request for you to do so. Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all.

 

That approach doesn't appear ethical to me.

 

 

Ethical?  How about your photo manipulations, how ethical is that? 

 

Each time someone puts an arrow on a photo - it is a manipulation. No one cares about the manipulation unless it effects the point being made. It certainly demonstrated that with some people ... just how quick they'll jump to conspiracy just because they do not understand something.

 

 

The fact remains is that all of your toe talk does not negate the truly telling detail of the heel split line and the stomper that made it. 

 

.Thanks for helping demonstrate that it is true what I said previously, "Your search for the truth on this matter has been to ignore the obvious differences and utilize distant low-res images that offer what could be a line over much superior views that do not support there being a crack line at all."

 

Ok so we'll let those little piggies belong to a real live bigfoot that Ol' Ray just happened to copy perfectly sure anything you say I'm done arguing with you.

Edited by chelefoot
Bring into compliance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Mercy, another Wallace Stomper thread? Haven't we beaten this horse to death? It's like the skeptics just discovered the "crack" in the Wallace stompers. The bottom line is, as it has always been, is that the only way to discredit or authenticate the BCM tracks is to compare their physical dimensions with those of the Wallace stompers. But for some reason the Wallace family won't allow that. Go figure. Until then, both sides are blowing it out of their blowholes. This case will remain in limbo until new information reopens it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I was going to comment on there being two threads about Ray, and his irrelevant stompers, Giganto....but you beat me to it. :)

 

 

Nonetheless, I have an idea on how a better determination could be made as to how closely the stompers match the BCM footprints.

 

If a physical model were to be made of a Wally Stomper, from a picture where they're being displayed, pretty 'squarely' to the camera....that model stomper could then be photographed from various angles....to see if it can match-up with the BCM footprints as seen in these photographs....(taken from various angles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^

If a physical model were to be made of a Wally Stomper, from a picture where they're being displayed, pretty 'squarely' to the camera....that model stomper could then be photographed from various angles....to see if it can match-up with the BCM footprints as seen in these photographs....(taken from various angles).

 

The on-hands inspection and a few measurements would settle the matter in less than 15 minutes. I thought Kitakaze said he had been in touch with the Wallace's, so I hoped he could set it up, but he hasn't seemed anymore interested in having them inspected than the Wallace's are. 

 

I know I am all for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Was this supposed cracked heel line present in all of the right side footprints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^

 

I was going to comment on there being two threads about Ray, and his irrelevant stompers, Giganto....but you beat me to it. :)

 

 

Nonetheless, I have an idea on how a better determination could be made as to how closely the stompers match the BCM footprints.

 

If a physical model were to be made of a Wally Stomper, from a picture where they're being displayed, pretty 'squarely' to the camera....that model stomper could then be photographed from various angles....to see if it can match-up with the BCM footprints as seen in these photographs....(taken from various angles).

Sweaty,  Ray Wallace is not irrelevant to the bigfoot mythology, not by a long shot.  In the late 50's through the 60's the only major thing he can't be directly connected  to is the PGF but I wouldn't stake my life on BMC not being a Wallace job and I suspect you wouldn't either.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I agree with what you said, Crow. But, I meant that he is irrelevant...or, to be more precise...of no significance to the analysis of the Patterson Film. 

 

He may well have some relevance to some of the evidence for Bigfoot...but there isn't anything of any significance which is going to affect the analysis of the PGF. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...