I supppose that it can be put to rest pretty easily if the question really is easy, but things being what they are, I am not expecting them to be easy..

I see one way of proceding straight off. Here’s the crux:

“Those who will look at the photographic record from Blue Creek Mountain in 1967 will find the same characteristics [of Wallace fake feet] illustrated in that record.”

Let’s have Mr. Coleman and Hall present the evidence — a reproduction of the photographic evidence, and a reproduction of the fake feet showing the same characteristics.

Hey, this is the internet, we can do this!

For instance, damndirtyape, whose true identity is no doubt known around here, posted images of the 1967 Blue Creek tracks on a bulletin board a little more than a year ago here.

What Wallace fakes are we going to compare the tracks to? There are some in that thread, including some attempts to actually compare them to the tracks found at Blue Creek. Maybe some or all of this can be gathered together into one place, easier to navigate than a bulletin board, and we can procede from there. At least I think that’s the way to go.

Otherwise, we are stuck with:

Coleman and Hall: The Blue Creek Mountain tracks were faked!

Green and Noll: No they weren’t!

And, gentlemen, that is going to get boring..

Now that I’ve been back to look again, I think I was right, it isn’t going to be easy..

The facts are that Ray Wallace made and sold very fake-looking track casts, as illustrated, and that members of his family after his death produced some pairs of carved feet fitted with straps so that they could be worn and walked on.

That Ray Wallace might have used these carved feet to fake tracks is a reasonable speculation, but nothing more. He might only have used them as Grover Krantz and I used the ones we once made, not to try to fool anyone but to see could be done with them.

That none of the Wallace strapped carvings so far produced could have been used to make any tracks that have been accepted as genuine is obvious on close comparison.

That people who never saw any of the California tracks or even the locations where they were made persist in presuming to tell the people who did see them and investigate them that they know that they were faked, and by whom, is one of the strangest wonders of the Bigfoot world.

I guess the important points are that Wallace made fakes, and we know it. Maybe we can even tell what prints he faked. That’s good. The post just above mine makes the next important point: Wallace is dead and we’re still finding tracks.

BUT it’s not like, past those points, there isn’t an interesting question here for folks just like us to pursue. In other words, I don’t think it’s true you can’t “track AND yack” all you want.

This debate might not be of crucial importance, but it’s interesting, so let’s see part III!

The last two sentences in the above article are its most important words.

These creatures are out there leaving new footprints and other evidence behind, for careful investigators to find and learn from, on a daily basis!

Yet here we sit, arguing about 50-year-old trash tracks made by assorted mischievous buffoons!

Spring is almost upon us, with its promise of NEW sightings and NEW tracks and NEW information. We know where the animals are encountered most frequently, and we have the equipment to go there and properly gather scientifically valid evidence in a secure manner.

Let’s quit the yakkin’ and start the trackin’!

I see a lot of reading between the lines in Hall’s letter. I own and have read Steve Matthes, Brave and Other Stories. Didn’t think there was that much information in it concerning Kerr and Breazele.

Sorry, I think John Green’s work on the subject is the more believable. I’ll stay with it. I mean… he was there after all and has allowed me to look at everything he still has… never once did he put a spin on the story or embellish it to suit himself.

As far as John Green writing a hoax story… looked to me like it was for pure entertainment value, never once thought otherwise… and anyway, later owned up to. It’s not like he made up dozens of them about strange furry creatures living all over the place, he took a local legend and played “what if”. Seems like he knew “what if” a little more than he thought.

These were taken in Toledo, WA, in Wallace’s possession. I am not sure he called it a “roadside museum.” More like his shed.

If you will look through the Wallace fakes pictured in some books recently, including Chris Murphy’s, these are concrete fake artifacts, not wooden fake feet.

I agree completely that the ones pictured above are different than the wooden fake feet used to leave prints. But apparently, Wallace also used these concrete ones on now and then to make “plaster casts” for people of Bigfoot prints.

Fake trackways were easy for Wallace, as Matthes discusses.

While it is ridiculously easy to fabricate single casts, creating fake trackways is a much more involved process.

According to Rick Noll, Wallace exhibit numerous casts in his roadside museum during his lifetime. Are the artifacts pictured from his museum?

Hey, Wallace was dead in 2002. He showed his fakes back in the 1980s to some people, as per the photos. His family found more after he died. Photos of footprints – tracks that don’t match real Bigfoot feet, actually – show that his squared hallux creations turned up in a few places.

Those are the bad data. Nothing more, nothing less.