Wallace carving could not have made the BCM tracks

[bigfoothunter]

I have often wondered why certain skeptics will troll forums about a subject that they claim does not exist. These particular individuals do not post their opinion and leave it at that, but will monitor and post as often as possible their generalized opinion as if its repeated enough times it will become the truth. These individuals when asked to give details as to how they reached their conclusions will simply ignore the request.

On the BFF web-site, I found one such skeptic who would flat out refuse to get into the specifics as to why the Patterson Creature is a man in a suit .... other than to say that it is a 'gut feeling' he had when he first saw the film. Another skeptic will only post countless repetitive photos of clouds for his responses. In the thread about an article that Michael Dennett, a skeptic claimed that the Patterson creature could not have left deeper prints in the sandbar than the horse Bob Gimlin walked next to them. All it took was a simple field test conducted by Thomas Steenburg and myself to prove the skeptic wrong. In fairness to Dennett, he only proposed an observation and never claimed it to be definitive. In a recent thread on the Blue Creek Mountain tracks, probably one of the biggest trolls of all the skeptics has made the claim over the years that the Wallace carving made the the 15" double ball prints on BCM in 1967. Below is the two images that the skeptic claimed were a match, thus proving the Wallace carving created the prints filmed and photographed on BCM road by John Green and Rene Dahinden. A simple side by side scaling of the two images (Wallace wood carving and the prints on the ground) demonstrated just the opposite of what the skeptic had been claiming. (see below)


While everyone should treat evidence with a skeptical eye, they should also do a thorough study of that evidence before drawing any conclusions. This has not been a strong point with the skeptics I have come across. In the print used above, the skeptic claimed that the crack in the wood carving could be seen in the track. This individual relied on some loose pebble clusters laying on the ground surface. Below is a magnified view of those pebbles.


The skeptic would not address why there was no gouge pattern seen in the fine dust in the base of the print. His response to why the pebbles were remnants of the crack in the Wallace carving was that a sprinkle of rain had caused raindrops to break up the line. The absence of raindrops in the dust throughout the print was something he decided to ignore. The absence of a pattern of the countless gouges seen on the base of the Wallace carving was also ignored. And while one might easily just think that all skeptics must be lazy or even be lacking in the mental ability to actually scrutinize evidence in a thorough and unbiased fashion, I think it goes back to the question as to why they continue on a daily basis to troll websites that deal with a subject they do not believe in. Once such skeptic continually would say to posters that they are wasting their time even being on such a forum, and yet the skeptics seem to live for trolling these very same forums.

Thomas Steenburg often reminds me that skeptics are not interested in the evidence. He says that when they are proven to be wrong about a piece of evidence, they will simply go quiet for a while only to surface again to repeat the same erred propaganda as before. There is certainly plenty of evidence of that behavior to support Tom's observations. I guess we will see how long before one particular skeptics goes before coming back and saying that the two images shown above are a match, thus proving the Wallace carving made the print shown beside it in my illustration.

Bigfoothunter

[Gerry]

I will say one of the reasons that I respect you so much, Bill..is that anything you might state... you are more than willing to back it up with evidence and facts. Not just on your 'say so'!
Good work!

[bigfoothunter]

Thanks for noticing that, Gerry. I like to hear well thought out rebuttals based on evidence, but have found them to be non-existent in many cases. In this case it was over skeptics claiming that the Wallace carving with the split in the heel (left) had made the Blue Creek Mountain print (right) in the side by side illustration I posted in my previous post. I will give another example.

I recently addressed the skeptic theory that Ray Wallace or someone working on his behalf had been pulled behind a moving vehicle with a rope to achieve the spacing between the prints in the BCM prints. There are several obvious problems with that theory.

One is that a moving vehicle in the road would be causing someone to the rear side of the vehicle and off the road to continually be pulled towards the road which would be extremely an unlikely scenario in accounting for tracks that were seen going in a straight line.

Another reason that this theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny is that it would not account for when the prints left the area near the road and traveled into the bush before coming back out again where no signs of a vehicle had driven.

Then there is the absence of fresh tire tracks in areas where there were clear defined prints photographed next to the road. Having eaten my share of road dust when riding in an open aired vehicle in very dry conditions, I can say with certainty that dust does not discriminate about where it settles. In photos from BCM that did show tire tracks near the trackway - those tire prints were filled in with dust while the footprints were not. This is a clear sign that the two did not occur at the same time. It told me that a vehicle had traveled the road and dust had settled over the tire tracks, thus making them poorly defined. Then after the dust had settled, the track maker walked through the same area. (BCM photo shown below)

[bigfoothunter]

The changing toe positions between tracks were something that was witnessed by those who actually studied the 550+ BCM prints. Those changing toe positions are one of the things that does not support someone walking around leaving tracks with stiff rigid fake feet. Allow me to offer an example as to what I found in the BCM photos that support what the on-site witnesses were talking about. I start with this photo taken of John Green squatted down by an imprint of the left foot of the track maker. I draw everyone's attention to the angle of the toes as some of them are angled off in a 10:30 to and 11:00 o'clock position. The print is seen at the base of the yard-stick that is laying on the ground.


Now let us compare the previous toe line to that of another nearby imprint of the same left foot. That additional foot has toes sitting at a 12:00 o'clock position. I know of no fake rigid feet that can change toe directions between steps, but I do know that real feet with real toes can.


So what other alternative is there for the toe angle changes? One can speculate that the track maker was accomplishing those enormous strides while changing footwear between the steps while not leaving a single sign of having had to put a foot down for balance or to having dropped a single fake foot in the dust. I have to ask myself at what point does one need to cross the line of rational reasoning so to entertain the unlikely probability based on the evidence of the theory that someone carried extra footwear and changed them out between steps.

Bigfoothunter

[bigfoothunter]

There is no evidence that I ever recall finding that Ray Wallace was ever back in California after leaving there and moving his operation to the state of Washington. At the time of his death, his immediate family certainly had his 15" wood carving in their possession.

I would like to take this time to recap some undeniable issues that rule out that the Wallace carving made the BCM trackway.

1) Skeptics had rightfully questioned early how someone wearing 15" carvings strapped to their feet could take the long steps that were witnessed on the ground along the BCM trackway. There were two theories that investigators came up with at the time.

a: the first was that the Wallace/track maker hung onto the side of a truck and had merely placed his feet down onto the ground in a stepping manner as the truck moved along. Of course, this would place the vehicles tire tracks near the foot prints as surely Wallace would literally have his body pressed against the side of the truck for support. Wallace would then have to be able to somehow manipulate his legs in a way that allowed for the steps to touch the ground with one foot in front of the other, thus giving the appearance of the trackway forming a perfect (or near perfect) straight line. A careful review of the available photos taken of the trackway revealed that there was a complete absence of tire marks in the dust in much of the trackway which in turn eliminates the use of a truck being used in those cases.

What photographs and film that did show a tire track, the flying debris had all but coated the tire track as the dust settled back to the ground, thus making the tire track very difficult to see. The footprints on the other hand were void of such eradication. It seems inconceivable to believe that the dust only fell upon the tire tracks and not into the footprints for dust has no bias and spreads out to both sides of a vehicle when traveled over. The faster the vehicle moves along, the more dust is expected to be kicked up into the air.

b: The other theory had Ray Wallace being pulled by a rope so to help him reach a speed that would assist him in achieving the long strides found in the BCM trackway. Not only would the degree of dust being kicked up by the additional speed be a factor in eradicating the tire tracks, but the track maker would be in a state of continually being pulled back towards the road, thus making the ability to keep placing one foot directly in front of the other extremely difficult, if not totally impossible altogether. Let us remember that a varying degree of toe pattern changes had often occurred between strides and the faster the stride, the less likely someone could change footwear between steps.

c: Evidence of a vehicle assisting a track maker with the accomplishing of long strides was not present where the tracks left the side of the road and had entered into the bush, which also included the track maker being able to transverse up and down inclines. Such evidence of a vehicle being used off the road simply does not exist in neither the photographic record or the witnesses interviews.

d: Tracks found on the road and in fine dry dust did not show the design pattern found in the 15" Wallace carving.

While skeptics have offered a theory that the dust had compacted the countless gouges in the 15" carvings, they have not provided a single example of a test demonstrating the likelihood of this. The dry dust certainly didn't keep the boot and tennis shoe prints from consistently being recognizable on the ground. And if for instance the tracks were made when the ground surface was damp so to cake-up into the gouge pattern of the Wallace carvings, then the same degree of soil dampness would severely limit dust from being kicked into the air which in turn does not explain why there was an absence of well defined tire marks along the edge of the road.

e: An alleged line was thought to be seen on the heel of a print along the BCM road in a couple of less than sharp pictures that were taken, but it has since been shown under the magnification of a clean crisper photograph that the alleged line was nothing more than debris clusters scattered across the base of the prints.

A new theory was then offered to account for the now obvious staggered debris clusters seen in the heel area of the footprint by implying that rain drops had zeroed in on the alleged line and had broken it apart, but at best it takes a lot of imagination and the overlooking of the evidence to the contrary so to embrace this unsupported theory.

f: Then there was the BCM witness statements that reported that stones were found protruding above the ground surface of the track and had apparently been absorbed by the pad of the foot, which then pressed the soil all around the stone.

When I later came across a particularly clear print in John Green's collection of photos that supported what the witnesses had described seeing up close and personal, it was met with a simple and generalized skeptic response stating that 'it doesn't mean anything.' I suggest that it should mean something to anyone who is actively looking for the truth. A problem that I was faced with was that a stiff rigid surface would only teeter on the stone, thus leaving a space immediately next to the rock where the soil was not compressed. That area would also be increased to either one or both sides of the stone that criss-crosses the direction of travel. To simply say that the flattening of the soil around any protruding stones that are above the surface of the print doesn't mean anything demonstrates to me a gross lacking in understanding the difference between what a stiff rigid surface can do Vs. one that is heavily padded. Those witnesses who actually saw the tracks for themselves had certainly understood the importance of this observation so to make it known.


2) These tracks were said to have been made at night under the cover of darkness, thus making any methods of hoaxing even more encumber-some.

It is my hope that as others learn of these additional issues that possibly some better insight can be obtained as to why those who investigated the 550+ tracks in the fall of 1967 were so impressed with them.

Bigfoothunter

[sawone]

A very insightful analysis of the evidence, Bill. Thank you.
Brad.

[bigfoothunter]

Further proof that the Wallace carvings did not make the BCM trackway

Nature has a way of making things balance out. I thought it would be interesting to compare a left and right track to one another to see how particular reference points lined up and then do the same with the Wallace carvings.

The tracks

Note the alike toe lengths between the left and right foot track - the alignment of the double ball - the location where the heel meets the forefoot. These things match just as nature has planned for them to do.



The carvings

Now compare a side by side view of the Wallace carvings. Note the differences in toe lengths - the misalignment of the double ball - and the misalignment where the heel meets the forefoot.


In summary there are numerous problems with the two Wallace carvings. The defects - the difference in toe lengths - the misalignment of the double ball - the misalignment of where the heel meets the forefoot just to name a few. None of these variances to one another are found in the actual footprints, thus proving even further that the Wallace carvings could not have possibly made the BCM trackway.

Bigfoothunter

[bigfoothunter]