Jump to content

Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road.


Guest Crowlogic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

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

It is plainly obvious in the pictures of the trackway beside the rode that the prints don't sink all the way thru the grader tailings. There are multiple frames at multiple angles showing a ridge that is at least several inches deep and the tracks don't sink nearly that far. 

 

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)

I never claim it was dust, It is loose dirt and clumps of dirt from the road. It is as clear as day. 

 

 

 

 

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 author of the photographs was a newspaper man and a raw bigfoot novice at that point in his career. He also was no tracker. 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. Explain how a photo can show that soil conditions are "consistant concerning moisture and texture". You have provided zero evidence that ground conditions varied under the tracks or that the witnesses misrepresented them. I am claiming that the trackway we can see the best and with the most references doesn't support your claims period. 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. Green gave a general description. It is obvious that you are trying to selectively apply that to a unknown area with obviously varying conditions. 

 

Quote

 

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) Hum.... I never said anything about dust other than the tracks by the road are NOT in dust but grader tailings. 

 

 

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.

You think the stompers don't match and I don't want to argue that point with you right now. So.......... Try to keep up.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

 

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. ;) I have no idea and no way of knowing. Just like you. The print in the picture here appears to be in relatively soft dirt. Is it on a small mound?

 

 

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 ! I would like to see the toe of the boot print it looks deeper than the rest. Maybe the person who left it was squatting like a catcher in baseball to examine the track. Who knows. It's meaningless as is.

 

 

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? You tell me. He was a newbie at this time.

 

 

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 ! See above Pat. 

 

 

IMG_2203.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
1 hour 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?

 

48 minutes ago, Martin said:

You tell me. He was a newbie at this time.

Martin,

 

No offenses, but I've not had enough beer to attain your whimsical logic. Clearly, even the simplest aspects of this conversation has you graspin at straws an tossin' anythin' an everythin' at the wall you possibly can. You can even accept John's own comment on the photo...the scary thin' is you claim the human tracks both above an below the deeper track...must be in different material, the deeper track must be in relatively soft material.

 

Anyone readin' your posts on the matter Martin, can see them for what they are...or hope to be...I'm not wastin' time on them tonight.

 

Pat...

 

Martin's lack of understandin'.jpg

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

 

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?

 

Martin,

 

No offenses, but I've not had enough beer to attain your whimsical logic. Clearly, even the simplest aspects of this conversation has you graspin at straws an tossin' anythin' an everythin' at the wall you possibly can. You can even accept John's own comment on the photo...the scary thin' is you claim the human tracks both above an below the deeper track...must be in different material, the deeper track must be in relatively soft material.

 

Anyone readin' your posts on the matter Martin, can see them for what they are...or hope to be...I'm not wastin' time on them tonight.

 

Pat...

 

Martin's lack of understandin'.jpg

 

Pat,

 

You have shown the difference between someone who is ignorant of the evidence and someone who is not only educated on the evidence, but can apply it without sounding like a fool.

 

 

3 hours ago, PBeaton said:

 

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. ;)

 

 

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 !

 

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 Martin wants you to believe that he believes that any ground outside of the outline of the track is suspect of being a totally different type of soil.  He said the same wacky statement when referencing the tracks below. I can only assume that because he won't address the obvious point you make - he is willing to make up a scenario he has no evidence to support it, nor a rational basis for suggesting it. He merely runs a distraction of the skeptics version of Pete and Repeat.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Something that seems to get ignored about the trackway along the road is the heel to toe pace. I think I've mentioned it before but it doesn't get talked about, and I have a fair idea why. I'm going by the video someone had posted a link to about these tracks but I think I'm remembering correctly. The video was still images with text talking about the tracks.

One of the key parts was the heel to toe pace: the video said the tracks had a heel to toe pace that measured 36 inches (someone correct me if I'm wrong). It said the human average is 20-22 inches. Using a human avg. of 21 inches, this translates into a heel to toe pace that's 71% longer than the human average.

 

How tall would a human need to be to achieve a 71% longer heel to toe pace than avg. humans? And without purposely trying to take longer than normal steps.

 

I'm betting Ray Wallace, or any other hoaxer that some think might have made these tracks was of average height, so what are the odds Ray Wallace, or someone, put on a pair of his mismatched wooden stompers that were larger than their own feet and were able to achieve a 71% longer heel to toe pace than other humans? And at a normal walking pace. And kept it up for a long distance. I put them at zero.

 

The video also mentioned the estimated number of visible tracks were about 600, with a few hundred more destroyed by workers.

 

(If someone has a link to this video, would you please post it. I've been unable to find it.)

  

Edited by OkieFoot
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2017 at 1:19 AM, OldMort said:

 

An......  just one picture contradicts a thousand words of actual "Jibber-Jabber"....

 

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

 

 

 

This picture say it all.

 

It is interesting to watch bigfooters experience cognitive dissonance. This thread is text book.

 

At least footers aren't claiming 5x deeper anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

Martin, are you suggesting that the man in the photo above is taking a normal step? He looks to be posing in a very long stretch, to show the abnormally long step length being measured by the tape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^BC Witness

 

No. I am saying that the boot print in line with the trackway at the bottom center of the picture is virtually the same depth as the tracks in the alleged bigfoot tracks.

 

The substrate is made of grader tailings which appear to be at least 3 or 4 inches higher than the hard packed road. This is excellent material for capturing data.

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

 

 

This picture say it all.

 

It is interesting to watch bigfooters experience cognitive dissonance. This thread is text book.

 

At least footers aren't claiming 5x deeper anymore.

 

No one ever claimed that a man stepping in less than an inch of fine dust would not make a track 5x less as deep of a much heavier creature, or even a motor vehicle for that matter. That concept is a twisted tale that a skeptic introduced. The man that took the photos made the reference to how he was shocked to find that he could walk next to tracks that were deep in the ground that he was walking atop of. To date there has not been a single witness to the BCM tracks that have disputed what Green said.

 

And to be clear - the "5x" depth originated from the PGF site where McClarin said he could only make an impression 1/4" next to Patty's tracks. In the BCM pics - the barefoot tracks were far deeper than the shoe imprints photographed near them. It took someone to erroneously take a photo of Keith Chizarri's print ahead of a 15" track (both in fine dust) to create a phony comparison that was never made by John Green or myself. Keith's left and right footprints where he stood when the track was made are shown with fine red lines.

14_15''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

6_.jpg

18_15''_BCM_track_.jpg

32_BCM_pilot_trackway_ copy.jpg

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

 

No one ever claimed that a man stepping in less than an inch of fine dust would not make a track 5x less as deep of a much heavier creature, or even a motor vehicle for that matter.

 

The fatal flaw in your claim is that the grader tailings are made up of "an inch of fine dust".

 

But is suspect you already know that..........

 

26 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

14_15''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

 

^ Look at the difference in elevation between the mans feet and the print he is photographing. That will give you a idea of how deep the grader tailings are along the side of the road.

 

26 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

32_BCM_pilot_trackway_ copy.jpg

 

You can see the ridge in this photo as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^^^ I would say the ridge where the prints are is about 4 or 5 inches higher than the level of the packed down road surface. 

 

Its certainly not "less than an inch of dust" as BFH claims. He is either "in error" or just making up more nonsense once again.

 

Bigfoot Hunter seems to consistently determine the depth or height of anything based strictly on using the method of "whatever suits his argument."

 

Look at the shadow of the pilots left leg as it is distorted and bent by the height difference in the surfaces.

 

Note the crest of the ridge is right were the tape measure intersects the shadow 

 

That same crest line can be traced all the way back to the upper right corner of the photo 

 

bcm3.jpg

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

It took someone to erroneously take a photo of Keith Chizarri's print ahead of a 15" track (both in fine dust) to create a phony comparison that was never made by John Green or myself.

 

Erroneously taken? By who?

 

The picture speaks for itself. The photo was taken and shown to illustrate and provide a comparison of the relative depths of the the tracks.

 

Why do you think the picture was taken and why did Green choose to cast (or preserve with glue) the print 2 steps behind it, if it was a "phony" or invalid comparison?

 

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

 

The fatal flaw in your claim is that the grader tailings are made up of "an inch of fine dust".

 

 

The tracks that Green walked by are deeper than those where Chizarri stepped. The texture is not even the same as the dust the tracks along the road are in. And I have spoke to three witnesses who were there and independent of one another concerning this and one had not been in contact with the other two since that trip and they say different than you. They were there in real life and witnessed this in 3D. You are looking at a 2D image that isn't even at the same location.  Personally, I don't really think you could find Waldo in a picture full of Waldo's, so I must give the witnesses who were actually there more credibility in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
3 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Personally, I don't really think you could find Waldo in a picture full of Waldo's

 

So, ummm, how's that hunt for Bigfoot been treating you?

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

 

The tracks that Green walked by are deeper than those where Chizarri stepped. The texture is not even the same as the dust the tracks along the road are in. And I have spoke to three witnesses who were there and independent of one another concerning this and one had not been in contact with the other two since that trip and they say different than you. They were there in real life and witnessed this in 3D. You are looking at a 2D image that isn't even at the same location.  Personally, I don't really think you could find Waldo in a picture full of Waldo's, so I must give the witnesses who were actually there more credibility in this case.

The dirt along the road was at different depths at various locations, not to mention very powdery in and right along the roads edge,I do not see the same location in these pics where John walked within inches of 

the 13" track.

0014_### copy.jpg

44_BCM_Rene_trackway_.jpg

0011_###.jpg

14_15''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

0010_###.jpg

13_13''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

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

The dirt along the road was at different depths at various locations, not to mention very powdery in and right along the roads edge,I do not see the same location in these pics where John walked within inches of 

the 13" track.

^ That is because there is no reference in the picture as to where, on the entire location, the the single, tight, un-referenced picture came from.

Quote

0014_### copy.jpg

^ This picture illustrates that the ridge made from grader tailings is some what higher than the hard packed road. 

44_BCM_Rene_trackway_.jpg

^ In this picture the tailings seem to be some 5 or 6 inches higher that the hard packed road. Look at the knee.

0011_###.jpg

Same for this picture. The ridge is considerably higher than the road.

14_15''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

This is an excellent picture. It has several points of reference indicating that the tailings are very deep on the side of the hard packed road. The chunks of dirt indicate that the tailings are more that your claimed 1/2 inch of dust.

0010_###.jpg

No reference points in this picture but it appears to be a track in the grader tailings.

13_13''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

Again, awesome picture illustrating my point . Once you get your head around this we can continue.

 

On edit:

I feel like we are finally making progress here. Keep coming with the pictures.

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

^ That is because there is no reference in the picture as to where, on the entire location, the the single, tight, un-referenced picture came from.

 

On edit:

I feel like we are finally making progress here. Keep coming with the pictures.

 

You are calling views that show more of the side of the road - as having no reference ...... and tight images an un-referenced more like it.   (LoL!)

 

Quote

 

0010_###.jpg

No reference points in this picture but it appears to be a track in the grader tailings.

13_13''_BCM_Abbott.jpg

Again, awesome picture illustrating my point . Once you get your head around this we can continue.

 

 

Both images in the above quote are of the same tracks at the same location. I have posted several views of those two tracks.

 

 

  • 348 posts
6 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

?page=82#comment-993028

The dirt along the road was at different depths at various locations, not to mention very powdery in and right along the roads edge,I do not see the same location in these pics where John walked within inches of 

the 13" track.

^ That is because there is no reference in the picture as to where, on the entire location, the the single, tight, un-referenced picture came from.

 

 

 

Quote

0014_### copy.jpg

^ This picture illustrates that the ridge made from grader tailings is some what higher than the hard packed road. 

44_BCM_Rene_trackway_.jpg

 

The road was originally graded which scraped up a large amount of rocks of various sizes. Those are the areas where the ridges slope down to the road.  The fine line that is seen above Rene's arm is where a light grading has been done. Those appear to be done so to remove any larger stones from the road that seem to get onto the hard surface. The area between the fine line separating the road and the slope is a shallow layer of dust. It is basically free of stones and holds no weight. The dirt Green walked over within inches of the 13" track is deeper - has settled with time and rain - and has stones scattered throughout it. That is how it was explained by those who was there and saw it first hand.

 

It's a shame that some skeptics never cared enough to speak to these witnesses over the next thirty years before they they started dying off. Possibly then so much guessing on their part would not be needed. Then again I think that is exactly why some skeptics didn't bother to speak to those who were there.

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