Jump to content

Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road.


Guest Crowlogic

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
6 hours ago, dmaker said:

^

 

How do we know your experiment was conducted in identical soil conditions to the pgf? That looks like mud, not sandy loam.  That experiment would be more helpful if you did at the pgf site.

 

You know so darn little about what you are talking about that you are now talking meaningless jibber-jabber. You really are!

 

My field test did not need to be conducted in the same soil as the PGF site. All that was required was that I walked in the same soil as the horse just as Bob's horse walked near Patty's tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Why? You go endlessly about sandy, loamy soil, yet your experiment was not done in sandy, loamy soil. 

 

Why does that not matter?

 

Please try to keep the ridicule and animosity out of your reply.

3 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

My field test did not need to be conducted in the same soil as the PGF site.

That does not seem very scientific of you, BH. Should not the conditions for recreation be identical? That seems to me to be a hallmark of scientific testing.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

If the question is which creature sinks deeper of the two (man or horse)?

 

So long as both are tested in the same soil? You should have your answer.

 

If the question is exactly how deep a horse or man sunk at Bluff creek? Then you would need to go back down there or find soil nearly identical to conduct the test.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, dmaker said:

Why? You go endlessly about sandy, loamy soil, yet your experiment was not done in sandy, loamy soil. 

 

Why does that not matter?

 

Actually it was done in a loamy soil. There was even gravel in various places. The fact that I was able to make a deeper track in bare feet than the horse or while wearing a shoe said it all!  You may notice that Dennett didn't say jack about needing loamy soil. His position was based on weight and the amount of surface area supporting it. When I first looked at this - I posted the science articles that talked about the foot mechanics that add to track depth. I read them over and over until I was clear as to what they were talking about. It was that information that made it obvious as to what it was that Dennett left out of his equation concerning Patty's tracks and Gimlin's horse. The next thing to do was to document a demonstration showing the process in action. One doesn't need to know the exact mixture of dirt and sand to demonstrate the physics involved ..... all one needs is some degree of compression to take place. My film captures demonstrated this. The more loamy the soil - the deeper a real working foot will track vs that of a rigid one. If one removes all the loamy properties from the soil - little to know variance there will be between the two such was the case on BCM concerning the various tracks in the dust.

 

In summary - it doesn't matter ... the laws of physics are solid. Some bloody fool doesn't need ask if the laws of gravity still apply if an object is dropped in hot air vs cold frigid air. So don't pretend to be confused about the dynamic differences between the rigid foot of a horse, or rigid shoe sole, vs the dynamics concerning track depth involving a real flexible working foot.

 

Everyone was invited to replicate what I demonstrated and even offered to Google a place where the nearest horses could be found. To date - no one but myself have bothered to look into it for themselves.

5977dd0196394_theskepticsguide.jpg.d2dd0d7bc9fa4e94bd08c98276635bb0.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
9 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Actually it was done in a loamy soil. There was even gravel in various places. The fact that I was able to make a deeper track in bare feet than the horse or while wearing a shoe said it all!  You may notice that Dennett didn't say jack about needing loamy soil. His position was based on weight and the amount of surface area supporting it. When I first looked at this - I posted the science articles that talked about the foot mechanics that add to track depth. I read them over and over until I was clear as to what they were talking about. It was that information that made it obvious as to what it was that Dennett left out of his equation concerning Patty's tracks and Gimlin's horse. The next thing to do was to document a demonstration showing the process in action. One doesn't need to know the exact mixture of dirt and sand to demonstrate the physics involved ..... all one needs is some degree of compression to take place. My film captures demonstrated this. The more loamy the soil - the deeper a real working foot will track vs that of a rigid one. If one removes all the loamy properties from the soil - little to know variance there will be between the two such was the case on BCM concerning the various tracks in the dust.

 

In summary - it doesn't matter ... the laws of physics are solid. Some bloody fool doesn't need ask if the laws of gravity still apply if an object is dropped in hot air vs cold frigid air. So don't pretend to be confused about the dynamic differences between the rigid foot of a horse, or rigid shoe sole, vs the dynamics concerning track depth involving a real flexible working foot.

 

Everyone was invited to replicate what I demonstrated and even offered to Google a place where the nearest horses could be found. To date - no one but myself have bothered to look into it for themselves.

5977dd0196394_theskepticsguide.jpg.d2dd0d7bc9fa4e94bd08c98276635bb0.jpg

 

To my thinking, if someone has to ignore the laws of physics to try and prove their argument, then their argument is lost from the start. It won't hold water. 

We don't get to pick and choose when the laws of physics apply; they don't take days off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Is it safe to summarize your position on track depth as being a result of unshod vs shod? As in an unshod foot will go deeper into the soil whereas a rigid stomper made of wood would not?

 

How ironic is it that you have a typo in your not-so-clever cartoon? Unsderstanding? Or is that you trying to be witty? 

 

 

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, dmaker said:

Is it safe to summarize your position on track depth as being a result of unshod vs shod? As in an unshod foot will go deeper into the soil whereas a rigid stomper made of wood would not?

 

My position was the data on track depth was correct and easily proven to those who take the time to test it for themselves. I not only addressed Dennett's concern, but also demonstrated how my rigid soled shoe prevented me from making as deep of an impression that I had achieved with my bare foot. Thus the dynamics involving track depth could be seen in the result even if the person observing the images was not able to understand what the science papers were explaining concerning the additional attributes to achieving track depth.

 

 

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

 

How ironic is it that you have a typo in your not-so-clever cartoon? Unsderstanding? Or is that you trying to be witty?

 

The cartoon was to make a point. It's been posted many times in the past and responded to by skeptics. You are the first one who carefully read what was written so to notice the error. Now if you would read the articles that carefully, then you too could teach the track depth process to fellow skeptics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

My position was the data on track depth was correct and easily proven to those who take the time to test it for themselves. I not only addressed Dennett's concern, but also demonstrated how my rigid soled shoe prevented me from making as deep of an impression that I had achieved with my bare foot. Thus the dynamics involving track depth could be seen in the result even if the person observing the images was not able to understand what the science papers were explaining concerning the additional attributes to achieving track depth.

 

 

 

The cartoon was to make a point. It's been posted many times in the past and responded to by skeptics. You are the first one who carefully read what was written so to notice the error. Now if you would read the articles that carefully, then you too could teach the track depth process to fellow skeptics.

 

The trackway by the road doesn't appear to be significantly deeper than the boot print. 

 

You have one photo of track and one boot print in one picture with no physical reference to depth or even if the soil is the same under each, Yet here you are citing Physics as proof.

 

What is obvious is that the trackway beside the rode should be far easier to study than picture you're stuck on. 

 

We have a Wallace Stomper that is very similar to the BCM prints. Wallace had multiple Stompers.

 

We have an extensive trackway that shows no difference in track depth compared to the boot. 

 

We have a road crew in the area at the time the tracks were found. Wallace ran a road crew.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, Martin said:

 

The trackway by the road doesn't appear to be significantly deeper than the boot print.

 

Of course not - neither had any resistance to weight. Stepping on a half inch of dust is like stepping on a half inch of powdery snow. You have cited nothing new here.

 

Quote

You have one photo of track and one boot print in one picture with no physical reference to depth or even if the soil is the same under each, Yet here you are citing Physics as proof.

 

The shoe print created no depth other than imprinting the top of the ground. The bare foot track only needs to show that its deeper ... whether it be 2x - 4x - 6x - 8x deeper than the shoe print is meaningless as a stiff rigid object spreading weight over a larger area will inhibit a man's track depth. However, a real mechanical foot adds depth causing attributes which were apparent when showing my tracks being both bare foot and also while wearing a shoe.

 

Quote

What is obvious is that the trackway beside the rode should be far easier to study than picture you're stuck on.

We have a Wallace Stomper that is very similar to the BCM prints. Wallace had multiple Stompers.

 

The tracks you speak of show no blow--out around the track. Instead pressure cracks are visible.

 

The stompers look similar to the prints in that they have five toes. The prints are anatomical to each other - the carvings are not as seen below in pic 1.

 

 

Quote

 

We have an extensive trackway that shows no difference in track depth compared to the boot. 

 

I am not wasting time being trolled into believing that you have no understanding that a layer of shallow dust over a hard surface will somehow support weight. These are things we all should know from experiences in every day life.

 

 

Quote

 

We have a road crew in the area at the time the tracks were found. Wallace ran a road crew.

 

Wallace moved his business to Washington years earlier and is irrelevant.

 

As seen below - Wallace had carvings that were obviously made to look similar to castings he had come in contact with. But they were not without noticeable imperfections and do not stand up to scrutiny. Below there are two ground prints showing a left and right footprint. They are anatomical to one another.

 

On the right in the image below are the carvings. Skeptics have argued that those particular carvings matched the ground prints along the road. They are so far off from each other that they don't even pass the sniff test.

Wallacecarvingsdebunked1_zps8981a626.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Of course not - neither had any resistance to weight. Stepping on a half inch of dust is like stepping on a half inch of powdery snow. You have cited nothing new here.

 

The grader tailings are loose, unpacked soil. They are one of the best place to hold tracks. Ask any hunter. They are also very useful in gauging weight because they are loose packed and deep. To claim that they are a thin layer of loose dust is silly.

 

 

The shoe print created no depth other than imprinting the top of the ground. The bare foot track only needs to show that its deeper ... whether it be 2x - 4x - 6x - 8x deeper than the shoe print is meaningless as a stiff rigid object spreading weight over a larger area will inhibit a man's track depth. However, a real mechanical foot adds depth causing attributes which were apparent when showing my tracks being both bare foot and also while wearing a shoe.

You have no idea what the substrate was in the tiny picture you use. I has absolutely no reference point. Your experiment is useless in this instance because you have no idea if the "bigfoot" and the person wearing the boot stepped in the same material. You experiment is a red herring and appeal to your own authority. 

45 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

 

The tracks you speak of show no blow--out around the track. Instead pressure cracks are visible.

More nonsense. 

45 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

The stompers look similar to the prints in that they have five toes. The prints are anatomical to each other - the carvings are not as seen below in pic 1.

They are close enough and not seem outside of Wallace territory. Wallace had other similar stompers.

 

 

I am not wasting time being trolled into believing that you have no understanding that a layer of shallow dust over a hard surface will somehow support weight. These are things we all should know from experiences in every day life.

 

Facts are facts. You have a weird way of cherry picking the smallest, insignificant, un-referenced solitary piece of sketchy evidence while skipping over the 2 or 3 pink elephants in the room.

 

Wallace moved his business to Washington years earlier and is irrelevant.

 

As seen below - Wallace had carvings that were obviously made to look similar to castings he had come in contact with. But they were not without noticeable imperfections and do not stand up to scrutiny. Below there are two ground prints showing a left and right footprint. They are anatomical to one another.

 

On the right in the image below are the carvings. Skeptics have argued that those particular carvings matched the ground prints along the road. They are so far off from each other that they don't even pass the sniff test.

Wallacecarvingsdebunked1_zps8981a626.jpg

And then you post proof of my claim.Thanks

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

 

Martin

 

The grader tailings are loose, unpacked soil. They are one of the best place to hold tracks. Ask any hunter. They are also very useful in gauging weight because they are loose packed and deep. To claim that they are a thin layer of loose dust is silly.

 

 

The tracks along the road bottomed out at the roads surface. It's not even disputable. 

 

The build up of dirt is full of large rocks, so to say that it too is dust is whacked!  Not a matter of inches from the 13" barefoot track is Green's shoe print where he walked over that dirt pile. The dirt held his weight while not holding the weight of the subject who made the larger bare footprint. It happened in several places just from the few photos I possess from Green.s collection. (see pics 1, 3 below)

 

 

 

Quote

You have no idea what the substrate was in the tiny picture you use. I has absolutely no reference point. Your experiment is useless in this instance because you have no idea if the "bigfoot" and the person wearing the boot stepped in the same material. You experiment is a red herring and appeal to your own authority. 

 

The reference point is the distance between the tracks in question. The soil was described to me by the author of the photographs as being consistent in depth. The soil was described as consistent concerning moisture and  texture. There are not one, but several photos showing this. One in particular (pic 3) could not have the tracks any closer to one another. You have provided zero evidence that ground conditions varied under the tracks or that the witnesses misrepresented them. Merely saying the ground conditions  were unknown under the tracks is verbal noise. I find you have no verifiable argument and the witnesses who were there and I have spoken to ... to be more reliable than someone merely tossing dung at a wall in hopes something sticks.

 


 

Quote

 

They are close enough and not seem outside of Wallace territory. Wallace had other similar stompers.


 

 

You are definitely tossing scat at the wall. To support a particular set of carvings as having made a set of tracks - be shown it wasn't possible - to then claiming its possible that Wallace may have had a match is not proof - nor evidence of anything other than your ability to just move a little further west when the old theory is shown to have been bogus.

 

Green22.jpg

track depth.jpg

13 inch track depth compared to shoe prints 2b.jpg

Quote

Wallacecarvingsdebunked1_zps8981a626.jpg

 

To say the illustration above supports anything you have said is just nonsense. The carving has been debunked to the point you have already resorted to proclaiming that Wallace had many other carvings that may be a match for the two ground prints despite having no evidence to support your statement.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bigfoothunter,

 

This is the rational you're dealin' with here...  ;);) 

 

Pat...(click to enlarge)

Martin's lack of understandin'.jpg

He then went on to add...

 

" 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. "

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

Bigfoothunter,

 

This is the rational you're dealin' with here...  ;);) 

 

Pat...(click to enlarge)

Martin's lack of understandin'.jpg

He then went on to add...

 

" 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. "

 

You have no idea if the track in the picture is in the same material as the boot print other than it's in the same picture frame.

 

There is no reference of depth.

 

It doesn't appear that picture wasn't even taken to illustrate a difference.

 

The trackway near the road tells a much clearer and different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
12 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

You have no idea if the track in the picture is in the same material as the boot print other than it's in the same picture frame.

 

I've shown you the same track, but different image showin' the area to the right, showin' another boot print that barely shows. I specifically asked you Martin, you're not goin ta suggest it's different material again, but you...never responded. ;)

 

12 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

There is no reference of depth.

 

If you cannot notice the difference in depth Martin, referenced by the deep track compared to the shallow track...you might want to rethink things !

 

12 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

It doesn't appear that picture wasn't even taken to illustrate a difference.

 

Then why do you think John makes a point to stress the difference in the difference in depth when he post a comment to go along with that photo in his books Martin?

 

12 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

The trackway near the road tells a much clearer and different story.

 

You're kiddin' right ! You're initial argument here was...an I'll quote..."You have no idea if the track in the picture is in the same material as the boot print other than it's in the same picture frame.", now all of a sudden...the same thin' offers a much clearer an different story !!!  You can't have it both ways Martin ! But nice try !

 

 

IMG_2203.JPG

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