Novice Bigfooters upstaged?
I knew both Ray and Wilbur "Shorty" Wallace and viewed 16mm movie footage of "Bigfoot" that Ray claimed to have taken. This film was an unquestionable fraud. The "creature" had a stiff broomstick tail covered with fur and had the same stiff, jerking movements as Ray's younger brother, Shorty.
By contrast, the famed 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson on the bed of Bluff Creek in Del Norte County, Calif., showed a subject of a size and fluidity of movement that neither Shorty nor Ray Wallace could have produced.
Patterson's partner, Bob Gimlin, carried a high-powered rifle, making any hoaxster in a fur suit foolhardy.
The footprints at the site were several times deeper than a human's, indicating great weight, and triangulations revealed the height to be at least 6'7". A series of plaster casts made of the footprints at this site by Bob Titmus showed foot articulations impossible to achieve with strap-on carved planks of wood.
Unlike the Wallace film, the Patterson film subject is in anatomical agreement with the great majority of alleged eyewitness reports, which date back long before Wallace began pulling capers. I studied the Patterson film site with John Green, who had transparencies with him taken from Patterson's film.
While Ray Wallace might possibly have told Patterson to search along Bluff Creek, I don't think he had any other connection to the 1967 film. Wallace's pranks were not the origin of Bigfoot; they were superimpositions on the extant phenomenon of sighting reports and Native American lore throughout the American Northwest.
This doesn't mean we should believe in Bigfoot - only that claims by any of the Wallace clan must be more critically examined.
In-depth investigation urged
Don't you think it's about time you people of the press start showing a little more integrity regarding your reportage? The whole Ray Wallace thing is an absolute sham. What in the world makes you people think that this liar was the font and foundation of Bigfoot in America?
Any reasonably intelligent person, one that is willing to examine factual data and do some legitimate research knows that to "fake" a Bigfoot print - or any animal print, for that matter - takes a great deal more than just a pathetic wooden cut out of a big foot. Kinematics, footprint depth and gait mechanics all come into play.
The article also makes vague reference to "filmed the famous 'sighting' of Bigfoot." This type of allusion, without further definition, has caused many to mistake the inept, ridiculous and amateurish attempt by Wallace to fake a film clip of a Bigfoot with the Patterson/Gimlin film, a piece of film that stands up to very close scrutiny. Not that you people ever report it that way. It appears that you are satisfied with misinformation, innuendo and shoddy ethics.
I keep expecting the people in the news media to shake loose of old canards and start reporting news of the Bigfoot as it should be reported. With rigorous research and sound logic. But I keep seeing articles like this, indicating that you people have yet to secure a backbone.
If Ray Wallace and cohorts were responsible for the Bigfoot in America, at least the Northwest, how does this explain the multiple sightings, occurrences and events that have happened sine he died? There have been quite a few. But since you are not interested in sound reportage, I guess the information would just be wasted on you.
Good luck finding honest work!