I have read several times that individuals ( Ray L Wallace for example ) in America claim they themselves invented Bigfoot in America. That is to say that their hoax began the whole phenomenon and its all just a big myth. Is there any evidence against such claims? Most go off the ' fact ' that Bigfoot in America was supposedly unheard of until the 1950's. Ray is dead now but the word got out from some of his sons that he haoxed a load of stuff.
No bigfoot in America?
- Thread starter mothman8
- Start date
ignatiusII
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 343
That Wallace was a serial hoaxer of bigfoot tracks and dodgy films is beyond dispute (and while a link has never been clearly demonstrated, I'd wager that a curious sort of semi-partnership existed between Wallace, and that other inveterate bigfoot hoaxer, Ivan Marx - the creature, er, guy in a ratty suit, that figures prominently in the photos and films produced by both men, looks strikingly similar), even putting aside the amerindian traditions concerning 'The Big Man Of The Woods", there exists a not-inconsiderable number of accounts stretching back for at least 80 - 100 years prior to the Wallace shennanigans in california that describe sightings of "gorillas" or "wildmen" seen in the wilderness.
So far as I know there is no evidence for their claims.
Even if bigfoot dosen't exist there is nothing to prove that they personally came up with the idea. Anyone living somewhere with a local monser legend that the media only started taking an interest in it could make a similar claim and theres a variaty of reasons for making such a claim too, same as there would be for hoaxing in the first place. The presence of a hoax or hoaxers dosen't meen that there is no bigfoot, just means theres a lot of attention seakers about.
Even if bigfoot didn't exist it's also, if it is a theory you subscribe to, within the relms of possibility that bigfoot may exist now as a thought-form creature/ tulpa/ zooform phenomina as the owl man of mawnan is thought by some to be an example of.
Even if bigfoot dosen't exist there is nothing to prove that they personally came up with the idea. Anyone living somewhere with a local monser legend that the media only started taking an interest in it could make a similar claim and theres a variaty of reasons for making such a claim too, same as there would be for hoaxing in the first place. The presence of a hoax or hoaxers dosen't meen that there is no bigfoot, just means theres a lot of attention seakers about.
Even if bigfoot didn't exist it's also, if it is a theory you subscribe to, within the relms of possibility that bigfoot may exist now as a thought-form creature/ tulpa/ zooform phenomina as the owl man of mawnan is thought by some to be an example of.
Reports of Bigfoot-like entities easily predate the 1950s in the US. The term and actual discussion of the 'creature' may have become more widespread in the '50s. And if we're talking about possible frauds, the Albert Ostman case (where Ostman claimed that he was abducted by a Bigfoot) predates the '50s too 
The Wendigo is a separate thing; some West Coast natives (can't remember which now--the Salish?) have traditions describing large, hairy manlike creatures as part of the local fauna, as real as salmon or ravens; they are part of their ecosystem, in other words, not their mythology.
ignatiusII
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 343
The claim that Wallace was responsible for the "creation" of bigfoot and the subsequent media reporting ("Aha! Knew it all along! The whole thing's a hoax!") is virtually identical to the events surrounding the deathbed confession regarding the infamous Wilson photograph of the Loch Ness Monster (which was supposedly a toy submarine topped by a 12-inch head/neck).
The overwhelming consensus by those reporting the allegation was that the "truth" had been revealed, the dragon slain, and we told you so. Unfortunately, while a hoax may very well have been perpetrated where the claims for the Nessie photo are concerned, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any toy submarines - the creature seen in the photo is nothing more monstrous than a waterbird (most likely a comerant), and while the media itself was taking great pains to describe Weatherall as an arch hoaxer, unreliable, etc., they swallowed his lie of having "hoaxed" the picture, whole. They were hoaxed by a hoaxter, who had one last laugh on everyone concerned.
Which brings us back to Mr. Wallace.
The overwhelming consensus by those reporting the allegation was that the "truth" had been revealed, the dragon slain, and we told you so. Unfortunately, while a hoax may very well have been perpetrated where the claims for the Nessie photo are concerned, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any toy submarines - the creature seen in the photo is nothing more monstrous than a waterbird (most likely a comerant), and while the media itself was taking great pains to describe Weatherall as an arch hoaxer, unreliable, etc., they swallowed his lie of having "hoaxed" the picture, whole. They were hoaxed by a hoaxter, who had one last laugh on everyone concerned.
Which brings us back to Mr. Wallace.
link to image
A few minor quibbles:
-- he was still alive two years after his "deathbed confession"
-- "Plastic wood" had yet to be invented at the time the photo was taken
-- the model as depicted would float on its side, if at all
A few minor quibbles:
-- he was still alive two years after his "deathbed confession"
-- "Plastic wood" had yet to be invented at the time the photo was taken
-- the model as depicted would float on its side, if at all
Another strange thing about the surgeon's photo hoax confession was noted by Jonathan Downes in issue 2 of the centre for fortean zoology's journal Animals & Men (july 1994):
Of course the fact that Weatherall and Spurling happen to be caractors in the same book dosen't actully prove anything but it is quite an interesting coincidence as both names are not exactly common.
Of course the fact that Weatherall and Spurling happen to be caractors in the same book dosen't actully prove anything but it is quite an interesting coincidence as both names are not exactly common.