Bigfootpagebanner

       I have decided to tackle one hot topic here— the Ray Wallace hoax— because it is the hottest thing that has happened in Bigfootery of late, and it sadly reveals the lack of analytical ability that should be essential to such a pursuit. I was dismayed that both John Green and Jeffrey Meldrum are the main protagonists of what is at worst lying and collusion to deceive (which I do not believe) and at best a clear indication of analytical and scientific incompetence.

   I have great respect for John Green’s ability to chronicle Bigfoot, and his work is indispensable to the pursuit. But in his rebuttals to the Wallace hoax he has shown himself terribly duped. I was going to let the immense duplicity go unmentioned until my book’s release, but the error has taken leaps and bounds beyond Green thanks to Jeffrey Meldrum. I was dismayed that John Green’s 2004 The Best of Bigfoot/Sasquatch contained the introduction “Big Foot Did Not Die” where he treated the Wallace family claim with outright error. But then when receiving Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum’s 2006 book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science in which Meldrum repeats the same errors, I had to put up this response. News2

To recap:

   Ray Wallace had been the lumber contractor who was Jerry Crew’s boss at Bluff Creek. On October 6, 1958, newspapers carried the stories of something that the locals called “Bigfoot.” There was a picture of Jerry Crew holding a plaster cast of an enlarged flat human foot. Bigfoot was born.  In 2002 when Ray Wallace died his family admitted that he had made the fake feet that suckered his lumber men at Bluff Creek and began all the nationwide interest in “Bigfoot.”

   Ray’s nephew, Dale Lee Wallace, finally showed the feet to the world. The media was thrilled. Bigfooters, however, were not. The Media blew it up into the complete destruction of the entire Sasquatch legend. Bigfootery responded by condemning Wallace as having been “unstable” and openly laughed at how the wooden feet did not match the Crew Print. Websites placed the 2 together to accentuate the difference.a1bigfoot05_120420290204

   For the newbie, this selective response was no doubt enough to win the day. But when Bigfooter arguments finally found solid print in John Green’s 2004 book and then in Meldrum’s 2006 book, their entire method of investigation was laid bare, revealing what kind of approach they used for the bigger Bigfoot/Sasquatch question all these years.

   Let’s us engage in some rather harmful comparative analysis. Apparently, since the death of the late Dr. Boris Fedorovich Porshnev I am the first historian to tackle the question of hominids. As any historian, I must seek out and find a primary source. From there, well, let us continue the article:0_Mullins_Wallace_wood

   For any keen old enthusiast in Bigfoot, Wallace’s wooden feet were a revelation that was easy to accept. Prints unquestionably made by these feet can be found throughout John Green’s old books on the topic, especially his seminal work On the Track of the Sasquatch, 1968, and its 1980 reprint, and now, of course, in his 2004 reprint of these The Best of Bigfoot/Sasquatch.

   The developing history of Bigfoot at Bluff Creek is easy to follow thanks to John Green’s admirable ability at ferreting stories. Because he was unique in his view that Sasquatch was real rather than an Indian legend of tall hairy Indians, he was one of the first to take the Humboldt Times seriously, the paper from which all newswires picked up the story. He drove from Canada to California and searched out taxidermist Bob Titmus, who was friends with Jerry Crew, and also mentioned in the article. After touching base, in November Green returned to Bluff Creek. Titmus had written him he found more tracks on the Bluff Creek sandbar. Together they examined them, Green being taken by the stride and the depth of the prints in the hard sand.

   Over the years these identical prints would be found, causing Green to pen in On the Track of the Sasquatch. “An unusual feature discernable in most tracks, in varying degrees, is a division right in the middle of what appears to be the ball of the foot.”

   These same tracks appeared in August 1962 and were cast by Midshipman Clark. They also appeared again in August 1967 on Blue Creek Mountain road, an occurrence which brought the old Bigfooters back out of semiretirement and caused them to descend on Bluff Creek again.

   Concerning the Blue Creek Mountain road tracks, Green writes: “They were familiar to me— the same 15-inch print with a split in the ball of the foot that I had first seen 9 years before. . .” And, again, “This is the type of track first found by Bob Titmus [November 1958] and the type cast by Midshipman Clark.”  BCMpic

     There at Blue Creek Mountain road Green and Rene Dahinden, another of the famous original Bigfooters, took many clear photos. There is no question that the Wallace wooden feet shown to the world match these prints and all the tracks John Green ever chronicled at Bluff Creek. Pictures can be found of Green measuring them, describing them and the unusual and pointless groove in the ball of the foot, and clearly declaring, as in the picture below, that these are typical prints.

   It is true that the Wallace wooden feet and the Crew Print do not match. ButWallacetracks Green’s books also prove that the Crew Print never turned up again after October 1958. Every  print he mentions and describes at Bluff Creek is Wallace’s fake foot.

   This is serious, for it proves that Wallace’s fake tracks alone are what maintained the interest in the idea of a Bigfoot resident at Bluff Creek, even as late as August 1967, two months before Patterson would “film” one there. Green never shows or describes the Crew Print. It exists merely in a picture of Crew taken by the Humboldt Times.

   Wallace14inchBlow-ups of this Crew Print do exist, and it is with the blow-up compared to the Wallace prints with which  Bigfooters at first defended their belief that Wallace could not have faked the Bigfoot tracks.

          

    

   Taken from page 14 of The Best of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, the Crew Print is compared to a Wallace13inchcomplete fake. Many crude imitations were made of the famous “Bigfoot” tracks at Bluff Creek. Green was correct when he said it was made in imitation. And Green should have recognized this as one of them. Did he not see the actual wooden feet Dale Wallace showed the world (center color picture)? The “Titmus 1958 Cast” is merely a casting of the forgery, blown up in Green’s book from a low dpi picture so that the large square pixels hide definition.

   One must merely read Green’s old books, notably the 1973 The Sasquatch File to see a picture of Titmus with his prize casts. It is obvious from the picture on page 32 of that 1973 edition that the real 1958 cast is made from an original Wallace wooden foot, not the cheap copy of the forgery on pages 14-15 of The Best of Bigfoot/Sasquatch.

   Considering that Green’s claims in “Big Foot Did Not Die” are easily exposed by the rest of his 2004 book’s pictures and text from his 1968 and 1980 books, I cannot believe that Green is engaging in intentional deception or collusion to deceive the Bigfoot audience in an attempt to salvage face from the embarrassment of having originally accepted “Bigfoot” at Bluff Creek as being a Sasquatch. He really does not notice he compares fakes. Nor, we must assume, did he ever see the real Wallace wooden feet. Green was apparently shown one of the many souvenir fakes that were carved— this one above with a noticeable split in the heel that Wallace’s wooden feet do not have. (Wallace also had more than one pair of wooden feet with grooves.)

   Someone has done a terrible disservice to the man revered as the “First Man of Bigfoot Letters.” But Green, too, has repeatedly shown himself easily duped. In fact, this is why it is not particularly earthshaking that we see the original wooden feet that made the Crew Print. The original comparison between it and the Sasquatch foot was also a dupe. The purpose was to make a completely erroneous association between Bluff Creek’s Bigfoot and the ancient “Sasquatch men” of British Columbia, and unfortunately John Green bought into it.

   John Green had made an accurate tracing copy of the Ruby Creek Print, British Columbia, 1941, that he obtained from the investigating officer’s son, the late Deputy Joe Dunn. There was only one reason why Green thought that the Bluff Creek interlude was even remotely related to Sasquatch (a connection he alone first made). He had never seen the Crew Print by the time Bob Titmus did a tracing of it and gave Green a copy. But Titmus had seen the Ruby Creek Print tracing. Green was swayed by the similarities between the tracings. In 1968 he published the illustration, comparing his accurate tracing of the Ruby Creek Print with Titmus’ imaginative botch of the Bluff Creek Crew Print. Green wrote in On the Track of the Sasquatch: “What particularly impressed me was the similarity between the outline of these tracks and the tracing I had of one of the Ruby Creek footprints. They did not diverge by more than half an inch at any point, and could easily have been made by the same individual.” 

The cast above actually appears to be the 1967 “Dahinden Print” (below). See link

Green-Titmuscast2
0_Mullins_Wallace_wood
Green-Crew-Wallace2

“Forged Titmus Cast”

Actual Wallace wooden foot.

True Crew Print and forged Wallace foot.

TitmussketchBluffcreek
RubyCreekprint03

The Ruby Creek tracing, 1941. Titmus’ tracing of the Crew Print cast, 1958. In all Green’s books.

There was a reason why Rene Dahinden openly condemned Bob Titmus as a “storyteller.” Above is the proof.

   For some extraordinary reason Titmus stretched  the toes forward to make them near even across— a famous trait of the Sasquatch foot.

   The Sasquatch type of foot can be found mentioned throughout American history when referring to a strange “wild man of the woods” or “human monster.”  In 1818 the Exeter Watchman ran an article on an animal seen walking on its hind legs that resembled the “wild man of the woods.” The article noted its heel was narrow and the ball of the foot wide.

   And in Natural History (the magazine of the Museum of Natural History) for May 1939 Dr. Roland T. Bird wrote about how he found the first bona fide brontosaurus track at the Paluxy River sandstone bed near Glen Rose. He then went on to mention something very intriguing. The locals told him that “giant man tracks” were also seen in the creek bottom. Searching for these himself, he eventually found one “about 15 inches long with a curious elongated heel”—a rather apt description of the Ruby Creek Print and also of the foot a hunter, William Roe, described on the hairy hominid he saw on Mica Mountain in 1955.

   Every description of unexplained giant tracks remains the same until Bluff Creek and the funny enlarged human feet. Crew’s cast does not match the Sasquatch foot. It is merely an enlarged, flat human foot. There never was a connection, except courtesy of the Bigfooters.

   What is decimating to Bigfootery is that now any reader of John Green’s 2004 The Best of Bigfoot Sasquatch can see the botched illustration comparison on page 39 and then turn to page 14 “Big Foot Did Not Die” to see the actual Crew Print. It is obvious there is no comparison whatsoever between any foot ever found at Bluff Creek and the Sasquatch foot.

   What is even worse for public confidence in those who search “scientifically” for Bigfoot is that Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum  in his recent “scientific inquiry” follows Green and Modern Bigfootery, showing the completely bogus fake as Wallace’s foot. His comparisons take in the casts in Grover Krantz’s collection, showing how  Wallace could not have faked the prints over the whole of the Pacific Northwest. What’s really revealing about Meldrum’s book (as it was for Krantz’s books) is that if you know what the real Sasquatch footprint looks like you can easily see that neither Krantz nor his protégé Meldrum ever had a cast of a real footprint. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science became a boring recital of Grover Krantz’s data and casts of enlarged human feet. To this day, the core of Modern Bigfootery does not know what the real Sasquatch foot looks like, largely because they merely walk in the footsteps of Old Bigfootery and its fakes.

   The worse thing about Legend Meets Science is that, like Grover Krantz, Meldrum’s language takes on the air of the professional as opposed to the amateur Bigfooter. Yet his degrees, so essential in S&M, are completely irrelevant to the data at hand. He specializes in human bipedalism, but has he seen an actual Bigfoot walk? He has seen only fake feet and examined the fake Patterson Film. For the caption of a picture of John Green, he declares him to be considered “the patriarch of proletarian sasquatch investigators.” Is that a compliment? Meldrum has proven himself to be only a justifier of much of the legend “proletarian Bigfooters” assembled.

   In any event, Green is posed before a collage of Bigfoot pictures, one of them a Wallace print from the Blue Creek Mountain road.

   The lack of comparative analysis is staggering.

   The worst revelation provided by the Wallace fake foot is the relationship of the Patterson Bigfoot foot to it. There can be nothing more undermining to the sanctity of the Patterson Film in public eyes than to rip out the very foundation that attracted all the Bigfooters to Bluff Creek in the first place. Exposure of the foundation as a hoax exposes the man who built thereupon a walking “Bigfoot” that used feet unquestionably inspired by the fakes. When Patterson’s Bigfoot was conveniently filmed in October, it left a tell-tale track more incriminating than fingerprints at the scene of a crime.

Wallaceoutline2
Pattersonoutline
Pattersonoutline2

The toe-line is influenced by the “hourglass” and so is some of the structure.

It is time to move on to Sasquatch . . .and forget Bigfoot. Science is not a pursuit to justify folklore.

The actual toe alignment of the Crew Print.

Crewoutline
Pattersonleft2

Dale Lee Wallace showing the right and left foot of the thick wooden fakes, 2003.

header3

 As Researched, Investigated
                       &
                 Written by
           GIAN J QUASAR

 

             &

   The Science of Folklore

       BOGUS
         BIGFOOT

backdrop3-4
Crew2
0_Mullins_Wallace_wood

The comparison above, proves that the wooden feet shown to the world did not make the one print with which Jerry Crew was photographed. But it does not stop there. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a series of articles in December 1965, confirming that “Bill Chambers, at that time a reporter for the Humboldt Times, inspected the prints found by Crew  and another set of giant prints found in the Bluff Creek area by contractor Ray Wallace.”

   The other print, the hourglass print shown by Dale Wallace, therefore turned up at the same time as the print that Crew cast— coincidentally also in August. Bigfooters completely ignored in 2002 that the Wallace family admitted that Ray’s bothers helped him with another set of feet. Regrettably, they did not show the world the other pair of wooden feet.

   Even if one wishes to accept the remote possibility that the Crew Print stands separate from the Brothers Wallace’s shenanigans, it remains damning for Bluff Creek to admit that Wallace’s feet appeared at the same time and continued for 9 years in the area without any Crew Print competition after that first August.

   So damning, in fact, it seems to have necessitated a strange counterattack to the whole Wallace connection by Modern and very transparent Bigfootery. In John Green’s  The Best of Bigfoot/Sasquatch he devotes only the first couple of chapters to “Recent Developments,” which includes “Big Foot Did Not Die.” Even though the rest of his 2004 book is nothing more than a reprint of his earlier works— and therefore still containing the incriminating texts and pictures describing and showing the tracks that match Wallace’s fake feet— all Green will admit is that Wallace’s wooden foot matches the cast Titmus took from the sandbar in November 1958.

   Green now presents pictures of the Crew Print, what he says is the Wallace foot, and what he says is the Titmus 1958 sandbar cast. Describing the Wallace Foot: “They are somewhat crudely carved, and presumably they were made in imitation of those casts. For them to be accepted as the originals with which the tracks were made someone would have to demonstrate how they could make imprints an inch deep in the hard-packed sand and make deep, rounded toe impressions with their shallow, square carved toes.”

   In what must either be the most shocking example of utter denial or flagrant deception, the pictures Green presents of both the Wallace foot and the Titmus cast are forgeries!

Branch1

                   RECASTING                         BIGFOOT

Treetop3
Treetopbramble
header
footer1

 

 

 

 

 

 

header
footer1
RBicon
treeroots
barsideright2
barside2
treetop2
Branch-2
Treetopbramblecenter
Branch2
Treetopbramblecenterfade