Jump to content
Crowlogic

Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road.

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

Crowlogic

Posted Today, 07:24 PM

 

 I wouldn't stake my life on BMC not being a Wallace job and I suspect you wouldn't either.

 

 

 

No one has been asked to stake their life on anything related to Wallace or BCM. All that has been asked is to explain how the things alleged to have be done by the Wallace carvings could have made the ground prints. In other words - don't say a 'Nike' shoe made a particular print that has the words 'Hush Puppy' embedded into the track.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

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

 

No.

 

The smallest of clods below can be seen through a fine dusting of the right foot track and there is no sign of a line that I can see. I have not looked at it from across the room to see if it will appear.   :)

2f748c54-14af-4754-98b4-94ef5bcf6d54_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrSkwatch

^ That print has no detail in the toes so how can you expect detail to show in the heal?  Again, how many photos of different prints are available? I see the same few posted over and over.

Edited by MrSkwatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

 

 

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.

 

I think the reason some people have such a hard time accepting that these prints are fake has little to do with the evidence and much to do with accepting that people like Green et al. weren't necessarily correct in evaluating evidence.

 

To accept that there are issues with most/all bigfoot evidence opens the door to doubt which can't happen because some individuals have so much invested in the narrative they help propagate. 

 

To some willful ignorance is better than changing beliefs because to change belief would be life altering and shake the very foundation of who they are and what they do everyday.

 

This reminds me of my son when he was young. One day I had an appointment to take him to the Dr. for his school shots. We got ready to go but he couldn't find his shoes which were sitting in the middle of the floor and he was nearly tripping over them. I watched as he valiantly searched for them all the while knowing that if we didn't leave soon for his appointment it would have to be rescheduled for another day. He had such a puzzled look on his face because he knew they were just right there in his closet. He sat and stared up at the ceiling immersed in concerted though "where could they be?".

 

Well the hoaxed BCM tracks are right in front of us and almost everyone understands this except the person valiantly searching for the original stompers to measure.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^ That print has no detail in the toes so how can you expect detail to show in the heal?  Again, how many photos of different prints are available? I see the same few posted over and over.

 

 

I was waiting for that response since before posting it. You see, I have sat and watched dried clod nonsense be called a crack line .... pretty discernible sized debris of all sizes below - correct?

no-line%201_zpsydwklwok.png

 

 

Then I posted the photo in #32 the dust is so fine that the very small scattered cods still cast shadows - so where is the crack line as it should be present to some degree of consistency. So yes if the other print was pushed to be the result of a heel crack, then the same level of proof should apply here, but doesn't. The reason it doesn't goes back to the fact the carving with the crack in its heel isn't the same foot that left the ground print.

c41a8b6f-9e1a-4ba8-9a9f-0d5156a5d6e5_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Martin

I think the reason some people have such a hard time accepting that these prints are fake has little to do with the evidence and much to do with accepting that people like Green et al. weren't necessarily correct in evaluating evidence

 

 

Then there are people who evaluate the evidence for themselves who like John Green and have not always agreed with John's personal conclusions. And there is also several other people who were there with him who describe the same things as John. John's experience as a newspaper-man has caused him to be meticulous in his research. He had a week at the BCM track-way and many other people to share his observations with. It's not hard to recognize toe movement when you have more than 550 ground tracks to study. From the pad absorption of stones to toe spacing changes when you are on-site and observing these things in 3D.

clip226-28_gif_zpsw4vr5u41.gif

 

Just the other day a skeptic threw out the notion once again that someone drove down the road pulling someone in 15" flat wooden foot carvings and at a speed that would account for the distance between steps without any consideration as to how then were the toe alignments able to be made between steps when being pulled by a truck. Liking or disliking someone like Green has no power over contradictory theories.

 

But for now there should be no argument for a skeptic's error - not Green's - that the alleged 9" ground track on BCM was made by the a 9" Wallace carving.

wallace%209inch%20carving_zpsw3lixe2g.jp

 

Green was there and was right about it being a 15" near a 13" track.

40_BCM_15_and_13_tracks_%20JG_RD%203_zps

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^ Well he sure botched up the entire BCM analysis.

 

He was a newspaper man and his job has always been to sell newspapers.

 

Your above post is so full of mis-direction I don't know where to start:

 

I have no dislike for Green. I think he is a pioneer and his heart was mostly in the right place. I'm sure he is a great person.

 

It doesn't matter if someone on a message board mis-identifies the size of a print.

 

It doesn't matter if someone speculates on how the tracks were laid down.

 

The only one arguing about the 9" track is you. I have seen the few admit that they were wrong and you are well aware this has happened. To keep on bringing this up is a lame attempt to invalidate the entire conversation. That's what I find so weak about your style of discussion.

Edited by Martin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

no-line%201_zpsydwklwok.png

 

 

 

 

In one post you complain that Crow posted a picture which you claimed was poor resolution then you follow up with this to prove a point?

 

What is this? The surface of Mars? I think I see another one of those face monuments to the left of center.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Below are photos pf BMC.  There are two different photo angles of the same track.  Arrows are pointing to the line left by the split in the heel of the right Wallace stomper.

 

Having presented the photos showing the crack and crack imprint I further offer these two points to consider.  If one is to consider the ultimate shape of the track vs the stomper it must be realized that the stomper has radius  edges on the toes, it's edge perimeter and the hollow between toes and ball.  Unless the stomper was pressed fully into the soil it's full size could not show and that goes for the toes and any other part with a radius edge will not appear in the soil print.  However the split line is well away from the edges and not affected by this except by the very rear near the heel edge if it were to be affected at all in this manner.  Be aware that a full dead on photo of the Wallace stomper will show it's true size but a full dead on photo of one of it's tracks won't unless it was sufficiently pressed deep enough.  As such I maintain that the split line is a far better indication of the object that made it than are the toes and the general outline.  Please not also that the little toe does not show as heavy of a wear/contact discoloration as the heel, ball and bigger toes.  This is indicative that the little toe was not making the same level of contact with the ground as the aforementioned  sections of the foot and may not always show as clearly as the other 4 toes..

 

Now here is the other issue to be considered.  Ray Wallace made a series of fake bigfoot stompers and we're all in agreement on this yes?  Ray's stompers began life as solid planks of wood most likely fir or spruce.  Given the labor involved in the task Wallace likely began with two good blanks.  I don't think we'll ever know how many prints were made with that set of stompers but we know BMC is one example.  If there are right foot prints not showing the split heel while in soil that should allow the split to show I offer the point that perhaps the stomper itself cracked while in use on BMC so that a percentage of the tracks were without a split line.  Do we have early and late photos of BMC?

 

af4_zpsj5ovq2bpf_zpsjqgc9cyc.jpg

af4_zpsyouw8ms7.jpg

wallace_lftfoot1_zps1ru2s48s.jpg

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^

 

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. :)

 

The 'What did Wallace Do' looses all relevance when no Skeptic on the BFF will come forward and say Wallace had anything to do with the tracks at Bluff Creek in the PGF.

 

Knock yourselves out fighting over this issue.  It has nothing to do with the PGF encounter.

 

I would also suggest until the Wallace Stompers are put to the test, any result is an assumed one.  For example  Bob H and his buddy Morris made great claims about their little monkey suit.  When it was put to a test, the results were so bad the show and attempt cannot even be found other than still pics.

 

Wallace had nothing to do with the PGF or the tracks there that day. 

 

I'm done.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Backdoc perhaps a separate section for the old classics should be incorporated as it would give them a place to be discussed.  I'm done arguing with footers but I'm not done raising questions for rational observers to consider.  I don't believe I've presented any irrational arguments .  My illustrations using the existing photo evidence support my position.

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?

 

No.

 

The smallest of clods below can be seen through a fine dusting of the right foot track and there is no sign of a line that I can see. I have not looked at it from across the room to see if it will appear.   :)

2f748c54-14af-4754-98b4-94ef5bcf6d54_zps

 

 

I had a suspicion that "No" was going to be the answer to my question. This brings up a number of questions in my mind. (I have to admit I'm not overly knowledgeable about Ray Wallace and and his wooden stompers in the pictures.) 

 

1. If the right side tracks were faked using a Wallace stomper with a crack line in the heel, why didn't all of the right side tracks show this crack line?  If someone was going to fake some tracks, why would they use some other fake foot for several tracks, then switch to a wooden stomper with a crack line in the heel for just one track and then switch back to the first fake foot? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

How many pairs of wooden feet did Ray Wallace actually have? I've only seen the pair being held up in the pictures.

 

2. Why would somebody that's going to go to the trouble of faking some Bigfoot tracks use a wooden foot with a crack line in the heel? That would be a dead giveaway that it's a fake track. That would be like somebody putting on a fur suit to pull a hoax and then wearing a wrist watch on the outside of the suit. :)

 

3. When these BCM tracks were first discovered and then subsequently examined more closely, did these people notice a print with a cracked line in the heel? Was there a mention in any notes back then of a track with a cracked heel line in it?

 

4. BH, in your post #4, the photo showing the two tracks, with the red arrow and tape measure by the nearest track, I'm curious about the stride length between the two tracks. I wasn't sure if it's been said what the distance was between the tracks. I couldn't really tell if it was a long stride or not and wondered if it was within human possibilities and could have been matched by Ray Wallace, or some other person, while wearing a pair of rigid, inflexible wooden feet larger than the person's foot.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

 

 

 

The 'What did Wallace Do' looses all relevance when no Skeptic on the BFF will come forward and say Wallace had anything to do with the tracks at Bluff Creek in the PGF.

 

Knock yourselves out fighting over this issue.  It has nothing to do with the PGF encounter.

 

I would also suggest until the Wallace Stompers are put to the test, any result is an assumed one.  For example  Bob H and his buddy Morris made great claims about their little monkey suit.  When it was put to a test, the results were so bad the show and attempt cannot even be found other than still pics.

 

Wallace had nothing to do with the PGF or the tracks there that day. 

 

I'm done.

 

BD

 

 

BD, in all of the cast display photos of Patterson with the plaster casts, you see zero Wallace Double Ball footprints in any of the assortment that Patterson displays?  Really?

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/9-inch-track.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Drew,

 

Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

 

 Wallace had nothing to do with the tracks found at PGF and the tracks found at Bluff Creek.

 

 

BD

 

 

(added: I need to get off this thread as I have stated the Wallace issue doesn't interested me. Yet here I am on the thread.   Wallace had nothing to do with Bluff Creek.  That is my position.  Moving on.)

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Backdoc perhaps a separate section for the old classics should be incorporated as it would give them a place to be discussed.  I'm done arguing with footers but I'm not done raising questions for rational observers to consider.  I don't believe I've presented any irrational arguments .  My illustrations using the existing photo evidence support my position.

 

Crow,

 

I followed the Wallace stuff only a little bit a while back. 

 

I think I speak for a lot of posters when I say the issue is not that interesting. There has been much too much back and fourth about it more than most threads I can think of.

 

So what if Wallace faked some tracks.  At the end of all that page after page of debate (and worse), Wallace either faked 1) a few tracks, 2) some tracks, or 3) every track in the entire world OTHER THAN the tracks at Bluff Creek that day. 

 

Since the PGF is the issue Wallace becomes a non- issue. 

 

Crow, go ahead and continue to offer your stuff and I will from time to time continue to read it.   Most of my focus will just be on other threads is all. I don't chose ignore the Wallace stuff because some fact or conclusion agrees or disagrees with any position or opinion I might have. I put it up there with the Roger Patterson's arrest warrant.  That is, something that occurred but to the extent that it even matters to the PGF, that is another issue (and really a non-issue).

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...