Jump to content

Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road.


Guest Crowlogic

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

It's amazing how you can tell all that by looking at a photo that captures images in about 1/250th of a second.

 

Back to what has already been published ... The BCM crew reported that when they put the dog on the tracks the following day .... the dog didn't seem to be alerted to the scent like it had been the night before.

 

For me, it looks like the dogs head is lowered as if it has been tracking until looking towards Dahinden who is taking the photo at the same time.

 

The onlookers seem to still be looking towards one general area.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

From an unrelated thread...

 

 


That print definitely does not appear to have been made by that stomper so any cases closed based on that comparison were never really opened in the first place.  That comparison reminds me of other comparisons which indicate the same thing: Wallace attempted to make stompers to replicate real feet but (of course) he was unable do that.

 

 

So did Wallace rather than score a stomper, crack it clean through to replicate the BCM heel lines?

 

Bigwallace44.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

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. :)

No calling someone a denialist or scofftic on these forums are used as insults. Do you think the people being labeled "denialist" consider themselves " denialists" and their minds are deficient at accepting things. It's almost always used in a negative connotation and a way to label someone as " their opinion does not matter because they are one of them"

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

No calling someone a denialist or scofftic on these forums are used as insults. Do you think the people being labeled "denialist" consider themselves " denialists" and their minds are deficient at accepting things. 

 

 

 

I don't use terms like those as insults to anybody's intelligence, Faenor....but maybe others do. Denying something, or scoffing at evidence is a mental choice....and is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence.

 

If a person scoffs at every single bit of evidence relating to Bigfoot....(including thousands of personal testimonies)....then that person has earned being called a "scoffer". It's what they do....and it's all they do.

 

But it doesn't mean that that person is incapable of putting some weight on the evidence. All you would have to do, is give some credence/weight to some people's sighting testimonies. :)

 

 

 

 

It's almost always used in a negative connotation and a way to label someone as " their opinion does not matter because they are one of them"

 

 

Unfortunately, Faenor....the opinions of people who put 'zero weight' on the evidence do not carry much weight...with me, at least. I value those opinions at a maximum of '2 cents'.

 

It's been the 'going rate', for quite a while. ;)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Same here. The track depth issue for instance was an example of mostly one persons laziness to scoff at the science journals - act like he didn't understand what bi-pedal meant - and went as far as to say I must have hoaxed my field test. He even scoffed at the offer to conduct the same field test for himself to see with his own eyes what happened. In the end it was Kerry who looked like an uninformed screwball.

 

One would think anyone wanting to be taken serious here would not follow the route Kerry did, but seem to think they will be the acception to the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

"So did Wallace rather than score a stomper, crack it clean through to replicate the BCM heel lines?"

 

I don't think it necessary to consider more distant illogical alternatives when there is evidence of a better explanation just a little closer to home.

 

Was it not clear enough as to why what had originally looked like a line in a lesser quality image was merely cods of debris that had broken off of the rim of the crusty topsoil when viewed in a far superior view as shown below. 

debris_zpsjfz4cbdh.jpg

 

 

Is the wood carving crack-line even plausible?

 

The road wasn't moist dust, but rather a fine dry dust. So dry ... that Keith Chazzari was kicking up dust clouds with each step he took while walking that area as witnessed in Rene Dahinden's BCM footage. The same occurred to a greater extent in the toe area of that track as seen below.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

^^

 

"So did Wallace rather than score a stomper, crack it clean through to replicate the BCM heel lines?"

 

I don't think it necessary to consider more distant illogical alternatives when there is evidence of a better explanation just a little closer to home.

 

Was it not clear enough as to why what had originally looked like a line in a lesser quality image was merely cods of debris that had broken off of the rim of the crusty topsoil when viewed in a far superior view as shown below. 

debris_zpsjfz4cbdh.jpg

 

 

Is the wood carving crack-line even plausible?

 

The road wasn't moist dust, but rather a fine dry dust. So dry ... that Keith Chazzari was kicking up dust clouds with each step he took while walking that area as witnessed in Rene Dahinden's BCM footage. The same occurred to a greater extent in the toe area of that track as seen below.

 

I cannot see that straight, cracked heel line in this closeup picture; all I see are small dirt clods. With this closeup photo, If this track was really made with the Wallace stomper with the cracked heel line, I would think there should be a distinct, visible crack line extending all the way to the heel? When you look at the area by the edge of the heel, I can't see anything that even resembles a crack line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Does the Wallace cracked heel carving have long toe separation lines on it?  If so,how would you account for it.

 

 

By the way, is that image in the previous post of yours  supposed to be you trying to show your arse to everyone.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

If by pink elephant - you mean an alleged crack line on low-res images - then I won't ever see it any better than if some screwball was to ask me to look at another  blob squatch while saying how they can see a Bigfoot quite clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No calling someone a denialist or scofftic on these forums are used as insults. Do you think the people being labeled "denialist" consider themselves " denialists" and their minds are deficient at accepting things.

 

 

I don't use terms like those as insults to anybody's intelligence, Faenor....but maybe others do. Denying something, or scoffing at evidence is a mental choice....and is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence.

 

If a person scoffs at every single bit of evidence relating to Bigfoot....(including thousands of personal testimonies)....then that person has earned being called a "scoffer". It's what they do....and it's all they do.

 

But it doesn't mean that that person is incapable of putting some weight on the evidence. All you would have to do, is give some credence/weight to some people's sighting testimonies. :)

 

 

 

 

It's almost always used in a negative connotation and a way to label someone as " their opinion does not matter because they are one of them"

 

 

Unfortunately, Faenor....the opinions of people who put 'zero weight' on the evidence do not carry much weight...with me, at least. I value those opinions at a maximum of '2 cents'.

 

It's been the 'going rate', for quite a while. ;)

no it's used to label someone who believes something different than you do. If someone believes Bigfoot does not exist therefore all evidence is false. They don't than say to themselves "I'm a denialist and scofftic." That's the label you and others apply to them and use in a derogatory manner.

To some anyone who thinks Bigfoot exists or any of the evidence actually came from a man ape. They might label such a person gullible, naive, stupid, uneducated. like you they might not see these as insults since to them how could anyone with intelligence believe in such a ridiculous notion as Bigfoot.

Lots of people have used reason and logic to justify hate in the past your not the first.

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