Jump to content

Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road.


Guest Crowlogic

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
 
Quote

 

2 hours ago, PBeaton said:

So we know John took notice of the difference in the ground an dust etc., as well as the difference in depth. In the image of the 13 inch track, do you notice the human boot track that only makes a slight impression ? (Look in your book by John, you should see this image mentioned.) We also see a humans track that is in the same road material that is no were near as deep.


 

 

The 15" track demonstrated pressure cracks - the boot did not.

 

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ On edit. 

 

Information in Green's article very obviously fails to support any variation in track depth claims. 

 

The photographic evidence fails to support variation of depth claims.

 

Photographs on record clearly show that when the human boot print and the "bigfoot" print are in the same material there is no noticeable difference in track depth.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
10 minutes ago, Martin said:

On edit. 

 

Information in Green's article very obviously fails to support any variation in track depth claims. 

 

Except where John says "There were a few good prints however, showing the extreme depth that is always obvious in damp sand while human prints hardly sink in at all."  As well as... "Even the smaller track sank an inch deep in the damp sand, where we did not sink at all."  Also showin' a photo to support his observations. 

 

10 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

The photographic evidence fails to support variation of depth claims.

 

In the photo below, does the human track look to be equal depth ?

 

10 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

Photographs on record clearly show that when the human boot print and the "bigfoot" print are in the same material there is no noticeable difference in track depth.

 

 

Here...mere inches apart, are you claimin' there is no noticeable difference in track depth ?

 

BLUE CREEK MOUNTAIN RD 13 in track.jpg

 

"Cognitive Dissonance as related to confirmation bias.." hahaha ! I think the above says it best... 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
11 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Pat,

 

And each one fails to see that what ever soil condition they choose to call it - it doesn't take away from the fact that the man's shoe print didn't sink into the ground and yet the Bigfoot print did.

 

That's simply not true. How is it a fact? The photo below clearly shows otherwise. 

 

Green who was there and had actual first hand knowledge says nothing of the sort - in fact he states quite the opposite.

 

As pointed out by Pat earlier, Green stated:  "Deep dust stirred up by the road equipment was the only material the tracks would show in, and it was so soft that human tracks would sink in it to almost equal depth." 

 

bcm3.jpg

 

 Stop perpetuating myths for a moment and explain the discrepancy between the visual evidence and your all-encompassing statement that: "it doesn't take away from the fact that the man's shoe print didn't sink into the ground and yet the Bigfoot print did."

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

Old Mort,

 

You simply do not know what you are talking about. At times Green referred to the dust on and near the road that various vehicles had kicked up - other times he referred to tracks that left the road and stepped up and over a two foot high ridge - other times he mentioned how both sets of tracks went off the road for a considerable distance.(Page 78 Sasquatch:The Apes Among us)

 

I was blessed to have had 20 years of continual conversations with John Green concerning the tracks in question. He often described the feeling he had when large tracks pressed deep into the ground that he only stood atop of. In "Bigfoot's Reflection" he said that it was a shock for him to have witnessed this. The photo I have often posted is one of the photos John and I discussed where he walked over dirt that that barely left their shoe imprint while the 13" track pressed deep into the ground. That is the photo John  took immediately after doing just that  where we see Abbott photographing the tracks.

 

The things John told me were things I confirmed with Dahinden and Chizzari independent of each other. A few here have stated that the other side of the bank is soft dirt and John described it as dirt mixed with rocks/stones that had settled from weather. John chose not to stand, but walk within several inches of the 13" track to see if he would also sink into the ground that a would be hoaxer might have done with a large rigid wooden foot and as the photo shows - the same soil held John's weight. That was one of the first photos I asked to scan and show others who were not there to see if for themselves.

 

So I will continue to share the things John has said and observed with others. I won't limit myself to the tracks in the dust in and along the road like that Chizzari stepped his foot on. By the way, why has no one mentioned the track showing where Chizzari's left foot was standing when his right boot track was made .... perhaps some have not put that much scrutiny into the study of those images.

 

sole depth.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sounds like you are making an appeal to your own authority which goes opposite from Green's written report and photographic evidence.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Martin,

 

You mean the report an photographic evidence I responded to (you) above...that completely contradicts what you claimed ? 

 

OldMort,

 

Green also said..."Even the smaller track sank an inch deep in the damp sand, where we did not sink at all." 

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I can only guess that you are referring to this photo in your post above.

 

This is one small, tight picture showing no real reference points.

 

There is no trackway. Even in this picture the boot print looks to be in a different material going by the only visible reference that is available which is soil color. 

 

Quote

BLUE CREEK MOUNTAIN RD 13 in track.jpg

 

 

 

3 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

bcm3.jpg

This picture clearly shows the trackway and consistent soil conditions. The boot print clearly sinks to a depth at least similar to the alleged bigfoot track.

 

I honestly do not understand how you cannot understand this clear and definitive example.

Edited by Martin
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
4 hours ago, PBeaton said:

 

Here...mere inches apart, are you claimin' there is no noticeable difference in track depth ?

 

BLUE CREEK MOUNTAIN RD 13 in track.jpg

 

 

 

Regardless if what Green or <fill in the bland> did or did not say, this pic shows an obvious diff of prints right next to each other.  One can debate why the differences but it seems crazy to debate the fact there are differences.  Statements made by the individual are not as important as the photos generally.  The pictures are pretty clear.  Outside of what we see in a pic we are left to consider what someone's impression apart from the pic was who was there.  Then we have to hope we have it right.  Are they referring to the soil in the pic or soil generally? 

 

Example:

 

-Pretend this is a pic taken post-PGF stomp test.  One might regardless of Roger or Bob's impression, the stomped foot did not go down as deep as the 'bigfoot' foot on the right.  The pic though is the determining factor.  In this example Bob claimed his stomped foot did not go down as deep as Patty's foot.  If this had been a Stomp Test pic from the PGF event Bobs statement would also support what we see in the pic.

 

Obviously I know this is NOT from the stomp test or from the PGF encounter but you get the idea.

 

We need to be careful when we try to pull what <this or that> person may have said. We might have it wrong. They could be referring to something else.

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
spelling
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

 

 

  bcm3.jpg 

 

"And each one fails to see that what ever soil condition they choose to call it - it doesn't take away from the fact that the man's shoe print didn't sink into the ground and yet the Bigfoot print did." - BFH

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, Martin said:

^ Sounds like you are making an appeal to your own authority which goes opposite from Green's written report and photographic evidence.

 

How things sound to you are of no interest to me.  What was of interest to me was going through Green's original photos and having him explain the significance of the photo that 'he' took. That is how I knew it was John that walked near the 13" track.  He first took a photo of the tracks and another of his tracks. It was John who took the photo below.

 

By the way - What is written in "On the track of the Sasquatch" is not a report, but a summary of things he observed when he got to BCM.

 

13_13''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

Green22.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, OldMort said:

 

 

  bcm3.jpg 

 

"And each one fails to see that what ever soil condition they choose to call it - it doesn't take away from the fact that the man's shoe print didn't sink into the ground and yet the Bigfoot print did." - BFH

 

 

It has been posted to death that the tracks were made in a shallow layer of dust to which a child could make prints all the way to the base of the road. The problem here is this is not where I am referring to, but instead in the build up of dirt and rock on the opposite side of the ridge at a different location where Green walked by the 13" track,.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
2 hours ago, Martin said:

^ I can only guess that you are referring to this photo in your post above.

 

This is one small, tight picture showing no real reference points.

 

There is no trackway. Even in this picture the boot print looks to be in a different material going by the only visible reference that is available which is soil color. 

 

Martin,

 

We know John has made notes an mentioned the ground conditions, an we know he also said..."Even the smaller track sank an inch deep in the damp sand, where we did not sink at all."  an we have a photo that shows exactly what he is referrin' to.

 

You said...

'Information in Green's article very obviously fails to support any variation in track depth claims. 

The photographic evidence fails to support variation of depth claims.

Photographs on record clearly show that when the human boot print and the "bigfoot" print are in the same material there is no noticeable difference in track depth.''

 

Your above claim was easily refuted with the actual evidence presented.

 

Here is another view of that same track Martin, this time more of the upper area is in view, as well as another human track mere inches away again that John mentions ! Not such a small an tight picture after all eh. An just what references points do you need Martin ? Are you goin' ta try an suggest it's in a different material/soil as well ?

 

IMG_2203.JPG

 

Pat...

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