Jump to content

Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road.


Guest Crowlogic

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
You have yet another opportunity to answer correctly what John Green is perching on.  Last time you gave some babble about the freshness in the road markings.  I've pretty much idiot proofed the mark in question.   I'm asking you to identify what you see it in yellow next to the red arrow you ignored first time out.

 

001%2029_BCM_Green_trackway__zps5dq2auci

 

 

It had looked to me like a computer generated color line like those seen in NFL games to show the first down lines across the field. I saw no relevance in you merely painting in a line.

 

If it was your intent to demonstrate what a tire mark would look like, then it failed on two levels. The first being there are no tread pattern lines inside the colored line. So if there ever was a tire that rolled where the yellow line has been placed, then it could not have been made at the time the tracks were created or its tread definition would be like that of the crispness of the ground impressions. (track impression reading 101)

Tire%20mark%20inserts%20BCM_zpsvjpxnky2.

 

The other thing is I know from looking at photos taken looking down the road that the road surface is not at the same elevatation as the trackway. This should be obvious when a portion of a heavy equipment tire track is missing or not as visible as the rest of the track. My reading of the combined images tell me that the smoother road line is the result of the rough surfaced soil sloping down to it.

Tire%20mark%20inserts%20BCM%202_zpsrjtri

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

^^^^ In other words don't talk to non believers.  What primrose path am I leading the believers down?

I have seen no indication that any evidence anyone has ever presented has had any impact on your belief system, and belief system is what it is.   So in my opinion engaging you is a waste of time for me.    Certainly others seem to enjoy it and good for them.    You must enjoy it too because you hang around and argue your case.      Witness reports are dismissed like the physical evidence.     The only thing I can think of that might change your belief system is to arrange an encounter of your own.    Difficult thing to do, even though as you recall I have offered to take you into the field.     Quite frankly at this point I think a BF encounter might drive you straight into counseling because of how strongly you reject the concept of BF.     That is not meant to be an insult but something I would worry about.    I am very careful who I take into the field because I have no idea how some people might react to an encounter.    Another person very well could make things more dangerous for me and like it or not because of the unknowns,   BF field work is potentially dangerous.   Other than being zapped,  to date my encounters have been reasonably benign.      But are several orders of magnitude of bad things that could be thrown at me by any BF that so chooses.    Instead of pine cones they could be large rocks aimed at my head. 

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

You have yet another opportunity to answer correctly what John Green is perching on.  Last time you gave some babble about the freshness in the road markings.  I've pretty much idiot proofed the mark in question.   I'm asking you to identify what you see it in yellow next to the red arrow you ignored first time out.

 

001%2029_BCM_Green_trackway__zps5dq2auci

 

 

It had looked to me like a computer generated color line like those seen in NFL games to show the first down lines across the field. I saw no relevance in you merely painting in a line.

 

If it was your intent to demonstrate what a tire mark would look like, then it failed on two levels. The first being there are no tread pattern lines inside the colored line. So if there ever was a tire that rolled where the yellow line has been placed, then it could not have been made at the time the tracks were created or its tread definition would be like that of the crispness of the ground impressions. (track impression reading 101)

Tire%20mark%20inserts%20BCM_zpsvjpxnky2.

 

The other thing is I know from looking at photos taken looking down the road that the road surface is not at the same elevatation as the trackway. This should be obvious when a portion of a heavy equipment tire track is missing or not as visible as the rest of the track. My reading of the combined images tell me that the smoother road line is the result of the rough surfaced soil sloping down to it.

Tire%20mark%20inserts%20BCM%202_zpsrjtri

 

^^More pathetic posturing on your part.  Why don't you just answer the question as posed  Why don't you refer to your own copy of the photo if the yellow line bothers you.  Now you're dragging the NFL into it.  If you weren't ducking the question there wouldn't have been a need for the yellow line in the first place.  Tripe you counter with, pathetic tripe.

 

^^^^ In other words don't talk to non believers.  What primrose path am I leading the believers down?

I have seen no indication that any evidence anyone has ever presented has had any impact on your belief system, and belief system is what it is.   So in my opinion engaging you is a waste of time for me.    Certainly others seem to enjoy it and good for them.    You must enjoy it too because you hang around and argue your case.      Witness reports are dismissed like the physical evidence.     The only thing I can think of that might change your belief system is to arrange an encounter of your own.    Difficult thing to do, even though as you recall I have offered to take you into the field.     Quite frankly at this point I think a BF encounter might drive you straight into counseling because of how strongly you reject the concept of BF.     That is not meant to be an insult but something I would worry about.    I am very careful who I take into the field because I have no idea how some people might react to an encounter.    Another person very well could make things more dangerous for me and like it or not because of the unknowns,   BF field work is potentially dangerous.   Other than being zapped,  to date my encounters have been reasonably benign.      But are several orders of magnitude of bad things that could be thrown at me by any BF that so chooses.    Instead of pine cones they could be large rocks aimed at my head. 

 

The evidence presented to me from all corners over 4 decades is what had solidified my position that bigfoot is not a real animal.  I've said it 100 times what is required in the way of proof.  You do not have proof you have evidence and as with all bigfooters you wave evidence as proof.  I bet you have some nice casts and interesting sounds, perhaps some hair too.  I won't discount a video or photo either.  Furthermore there's likely a dozen other "researchers" with the same level of evidence.  If any researcher actually had proof as in the kind science embraces you'd be presenting it.  It never gets presented because when push comes to shove the bigfoot community knows it has nothing to supply to serious science as proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Someone else will have to clarify for me what you are going on about as I am not understanding you. What is that you say is visible inside the yellow line you created?

 

There are no tire tread marks in the dust on the road where your color line is placed. All I see are partial tire rib marks at the roads edge (spaced dashes in the dirt) that seem to coincide with the same marks in the deeper dirt.

BCM20tire20rib20marks_zpsbwwrmoik.jpg


Crowlogic:

 

More pathetic posturing on your part.  Why don't you just answer the question as posed  Why don't you refer to your own copy of the photo if the yellow line bothers you.  Now you're dragging the NFL into it.

 

You asked me to explain it and I gave you my impression as to what I thought it meant. If there is a relevance to your yellow line in relation to when the footprints were made, then please explain what it is.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

Crow:  As the pro-kill and others know full well that proof of existence requires a body.   Or at least a good portion of a skeleton.    Don't happen to have either one so you are right that all I have is evidence.     I have never claimed to have any proof of existence.    Hair is a literal needle in a forest haystack and I don't waste my time with it.     The forest is full of hair and fur,   and the likelihood of any hair being anything but a known animal is very remote.    But I am content to wait until that body comes in delivered by someone else, but do look for skeletons either of which will establish existence.    But my chances of that are similar to winning a lottery.    What you and others do not know, that have not had the experience,   is BF contact is a real rush and to have that kind of thrill at my age is a very great privilege.        Mind you this is coming from someone that has been to 50,000 feet where when you look up in the daytime the sky is black, and gone supersonic on a frequent basis way back when.      That flying stuff just does not compare to BF contact.   That I live where I do and can be in BF habitat in minutes sure enables me.    That is why I do it.  I just cannot understand why you are here. 

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^^

 

Someone else will have to clarify for me what you are going on about as I am not understanding you. What is that you say is visible inside the yellow line you created?

 

There are no tire tread marks in the dust on the road where your color line is placed. All I see are partial tire rib marks at the roads edge (spaced dashes in the dirt) that seem to coincide with the same marks in the deeper dirt.

BCM20tire20rib20marks_zpsbwwrmoik.jpg

Crowlogic:

 

More pathetic posturing on your part.  Why don't you just answer the question as posed  Why don't you refer to your own copy of the photo if the yellow line bothers you.  Now you're dragging the NFL into it.

 

You asked me to explain it and I gave you my impression as to what I thought it meant. If there is a relevance to your yellow line in relation to when the footprints were made, then please explain what it is.

Yikes you are Mr Selective memory are you not?  Remember the video where the Wallace people came clean and explained that they towed the stomper wearing person along in back of a pickup truck to help enable the long strides.  They even demonstrated it a bit on that same video.  That yellow line is a fresh tire track that is the closest fresh tire mark in proximity to the stomper tracks.  So evidence for not only the uncanny resemblance to the tracks to the stompers but evidence of the tow vehicle that helped propel the stomper.  You know all of this already so why continue to waste the electrons posting the nonsense meant to deflect the real question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

Yikes you are Mr Selective memory are you not?  Remember the video where the Wallace people came clean and explained that they towed the stomper wearing person along in back of a pickup truck to help enable the long strides.  They even demonstrated it a bit on that same video.  That yellow line is a fresh tire track that is the closest fresh tire mark in proximity to the stomper tracks.  So evidence for not only the uncanny resemblance to the tracks to the stompers but evidence of the tow vehicle that helped propel the stomper.  You know all of this already so why continue to waste the electrons posting the nonsense meant to deflect the real question?

 

That claim was killed IMO a long time ago.

 

First of all, the 'someone was pulled behind a truck so to make the long strides' dies on the table because the Wallace family obviously didn't know that the tracks had varying toe patterns between steps. Do you want to be the one to say someone pulled a 'stomper wearing individual' behind a vehicle at an increased speed so to make a longer stride and the stomper wearer was still able to switch off carvings in mid-step so to account for the varying toe lines and spacing between steps?  (Of course you don't!)

 

Did the Wallace's demostrate how a truck pulled someone off the road and into the bush and up and down inclines where there are no tire marks at all?  (Of course they didn't!)

Photo taken when the dog was taken back to where the tracks were found the night before.

BCM%20tracks%20off%20the%20road_zpswszi4

 

And did the Wallace's explain how such tracks were made while achieving the same strides when no tire marks were present anywhere?  (Of course not!)

 

The claim that someone was pulled behind a truck cannot stand under its own weight because the evidence does not support it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

The over the hills and far away tracks up and over are part of the legend.

 

They were never properly documented.

 

As far as the many tracks without tire marks; Had I been 'ole Ray I would have offered up overtime, bbq and beer in exchange for my entire [jerry] Crew to tip elbows, stomp tracks and stump the locals.

 

In lieu of any actual Bigfoot having been hunted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

The over the hills and far away tracks up and over are part of the legend.

 

They were never properly documented.

 

Why do you make statements as fact when you have no evidence to support what you say. Don Abbott's kid exposed one roll of film of Green's BCM photos upon their return to BC and Dahinden aslo took photos and film of his own. Unless you have seen the entire collection - how in the world could you possibly know if something was properly documented?

 

You can't!

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

Proponents are hopeless at scrutizing evidence.

You may find that insulting........ like I find being call a denialist.

 

 

No, there is a major difference between those two things, Martin.

 

Saying that someone is "hopeless" is an insult to their mental capabilities...(it is a personal attack.) 

 

But referring to someone as a denialist...(or scoffer)...is only a statement against their past/current thinking....not their mental capacity.  

 

A person can scoff at any and all Bigfoot evidence today...and still have the capacity to see things differently tomorrow. Calling someone "hopeless" is denying their ability to think differently in the future. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Yikes you are Mr Selective memory are you not? Remember the video where the Wallace people came clean and explained that they towed the stomper wearing person along in back of a pickup truck to help enable the long strides. They even demonstrated it a bit on that same video. That yellow line is a fresh tire track that is the closest fresh tire mark in proximity to the stomper tracks. So evidence for not only the uncanny resemblance to the tracks to the stompers but evidence of the tow vehicle that helped propel the stomper. You know all of this already so why continue to waste the electrons posting the nonsense meant to deflect the real question?

That claim was killed IMO a long time ago.

First of all, the 'someone was pulled behind a truck so to make the long strides' dies on the table because the Wallace family obviously didn't know that the tracks had varying toe patterns between steps. Do you want to be the one to say someone pulled a 'stomper wearing individual' behind a vehicle at an increased speed so to make a longer stride and the stomper wearer was still able to switch off carvings in mid-step so to account for the varying toe lines and spacing between steps? (Of course you don't!)

Did the Wallace's demostrate how a truck pulled someone off the road and into the bush and up and down inclines where there are no tire marks at all? (Of course they didn't!)

Photo taken when the dog was taken back to where the tracks were found the night before.

BCM%20tracks%20off%20the%20road_zpswszi4

And did the Wallace's explain how such tracks were made while achieving the same strides when no tire marks were present anywhere? (Of course not!)

The claim that someone was pulled behind a truck cannot stand under its own weight because the evidence does not support it.

Show us some bigfoot prints where those guys are standing. Show us some specific measurements of different strides in the same stompers. Show us why some bigfoot have a double ball foot and some don't, show us how the uncanny resemblance (read virtually identical) BMC is to the known Wallace stompers and maybe you have a case that will hold a micro gram of water. You've been pumping woo and diversion concerning the road imprint in the yellow line I asked you about. Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

If I come across any photos that I can validate - I will be happy to do it. As you know or propbably don't know - a lot of the images that exist are not in the public domain at this time. There is film footage and photo collection that Rene had that are not available to researchers..

 

By the way - are you suggesting that these men were doing something other than watching the dog sniff around the bushes where the tracks had passed nearby. That is what Rene Dahinden had once said to me and then independently substantiated by John Green when I asked him. What would be the alternative - the guys all gathered around to watch the dog do her business.   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...