Wonders - Vol 8 No 2 - 2003

Magazine Overview

WONDERS, Vol. 8 No. 2, published in June 2003 by Mark A. Hall Publications, is a magazine dedicated to exploring mysteries. This issue, subtitled "SEEKING THE TRUTH IN A UNIVERSE OF MYSTERIES," prominently features "THE LATEST BIGFOOT FILES" on its cover, with specific mentions of 'Bigfoot Solved?', 'The Wallace Problem,' and 'Charles Edson's Quest.' The publication is based in Wilmington, North Carolina, USA.

Editorial Content

Here We Go Again

This editorial piece, likely written by the publisher Mark A. Hall, critiques the contemporary publishing industry, lamenting its desperation for commercially successful books regardless of their factual basis. The author argues that the question "Will it sell?" has become more important than "Is there a grain of truth in it?" The editorial draws parallels to past instances where the impact of truthful books was diluted by the simultaneous publication of propaganda or counter-arguments, citing the controversy surrounding explorers Robert Peary and Richard Byrd. It also touches upon the ongoing debate and potential re-emergence of claims that the Patterson-Gimlin film is a hoax, suggesting that such controversies are exploited for financial gain.

Charles Edson's Quest for Bigfoot

This is the main feature article, detailing the extensive research of Charles Edson into the phenomenon of Bigfoot, whom he refers to as 'Neo-Giants.' Edson, who began his pursuit in 1952, spent 25 years in the wilderness of Northern California and Oregon. The article highlights that Edson initially kept his findings private, only publishing them in his 1979 book, "My Travels with Bigfoot: A True Life Odyssey." His work is presented as a contribution to understanding these elusive creatures, who are described as secretive and distinct from the larger, more aggressive 'True Giants' found in some Native American legends. The article notes that Edson's presence in the region was natural, given his residency, and that he shunned the 'circus atmosphere' that developed around Bigfoot's popularity.

Edson's research is presented as credible, with the article mentioning his encounters and observations. He reportedly tried to establish communication with the creatures and noted their secretive nature, including deliberate track concealment to avoid detection. The article discusses the origin of the name 'Marukarara' in the Karuk Indian language, linking it to the 'Upriver People' and noting that while it was historically associated with 'True Giants,' it is now identified with Bigfoot. Edson, however, focused on the Neo-Giants, dismissing accounts of creatures over 15 feet tall as imagination.

The article details Edson's findings on Neo-Giant tracks, which were typically 15 to 18 inches long and appeared in different sizes, suggesting male and female individuals. It also describes their behavior, such as splitting up family groups for scouting and deliberately leading pursuers to rocky slopes to end trails. Edson's observations on their physical appearance include descriptions of a flat face, hog-like snout, flat ears, no neck, and long greyish-brown body hair, with an estimated weight of over 400 lbs. He also noted the creatures' use of moss and sap for camouflage, which could explain features seen in films like the Patterson-Gimlin footage.

The article contrasts Edson's focus on Neo-Giants with the broader, often imprecise use of the term "Bigfoot." It mentions that the name "Bigfoot" became widely recognized after its publication in newspapers in 1958. Edson's work is presented as a valuable, though perhaps underappreciated, record of his personal quest.

Supporting Information and Notes

The issue includes a map of the northwestern corner of California, highlighting counties like Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou, where Bigfoot reports have been pursued for decades. The map indicates locations such as Sanger Peak, Crescent City, Happy Camp, Klamath River, and Bluff Creek. The article references previous discussions of this primate type in Mark A. Hall's books and in earlier volumes of WONDERS.

Notes at the end of the article provide citations for Edson's book and a BBC documentary about the Patterson-Gimlin film, mentioning the initial dismissal of the film by the American Museum of Natural History and the subsequent efforts by scientists to analyze it.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a stance of seeking truth in mysteries, particularly concerning phenomena like Bigfoot. It exhibits a critical perspective on the publishing industry's commercial motivations and a willingness to explore evidence that challenges conventional scientific views. The emphasis on detailed research, like that of Charles Edson, and the distinction between different types of alleged creatures (Neo-Giants vs. True Giants) suggest a commitment to nuanced investigation within the field of cryptozoology.

Title: WONDERS
Issue: 43
Volume: 7
Date: June 2003
Cover Headline: The Bigfoot Community's Wallace Problem

This issue of WONDERS magazine, dated June 2003, features a prominent article by Mark A. Hall titled "The Bigfoot Community's Wallace Problem." The magazine's cover highlights this central theme, which addresses the long-standing issue of fabricated Bigfoot evidence.

The Wallace Problem by Mark A. Hall

The article by Mark A. Hall addresses the persistent "Wallace Problem" within the North American Bigfoot research community. Hall asserts that by the end of 2002, it was time to acknowledge the fake Bigfoot tracks created by Ray Wallace, a contractor who began planting them in 1958 and continued until his death in November 2002. Wallace, despite making extravagant claims about his own evidence, was instrumental in the early Bigfoot publicity of 1958. The distinctive fakes he introduced can now be identified and removed from the record.

Hall recounts his previous discussion of this issue in Volume 7 of Wonders, where he detailed the history of Bigfoot publicity starting in 1958. He notes that some faked impressions, made to mimic genuine large footprints, were discovered in 1958, 1960, and 1967.

Following the initial sensational interest sparked by genuine footprints, Ray Wallace hired two men to investigate. Soon after, he began depositing false footprints along creeks and roads in Northern California. Hall believes these carved tools for hoaxing were based on genuine footprints found by Wallace's employees. Bigfoot seekers, who were inexperienced in 1958, were reportedly fooled by these impressions. The presentation of Wallace's hoaxing tools in December 2002 highlighted the significant impact one particular set of fake feet had on the Bigfoot record.

The general response to the Wallace Problem has been denial, often employing a false dichotomy: either Wallace was responsible for all Bigfoot tracks, or he never faked any. Hall dismisses the first as absurd and the second as an attempt to excuse those embarrassed by being fooled.

Reasons for the Hoax's Success

There are two primary reasons for the success of the hoax, according to Hall:

1. Early Introduction: The fakes were introduced early in the modern history of Bigfoot investigation.
2. Imitation of Genuine Imprints: They were created to imitate genuine primate footprints.

Acknowledging these facts, Hall argues, will allow the Bigfoot community to properly contextualize these tracks and move forward with more credible investigations.

Ray Wallace and the Money Challenge

Ray Wallace is deceased and cannot confess. Hall criticizes the current "money challenge"—similar to those posed by James Randi, Phillip Klass, and Ted Serios—offered by John Green through the Willow Creek Museum in California. This challenge offers a reward for creating fake Bigfoot tracks that can fool experts. Hall, like Tom Stienstra of the San Francisco Chronicle, views this as a publicity stunt, predicting that no one will be paid.

He explains that such challenges are often designed so the issuer is not obliged to concede that the requirements have been met. This activity, Hall suggests, is a distraction from the core facts: Ray Wallace produced fake footprints using wooden feet modeled on genuine tracks from 1958, exaggerating their features.

John Green's Response and Criticism

Hall details a direct response from John Green to his examination of the Wallace hoaxes in Volume 7. Green posted to an internet discussion group, which Hall characterizes as an attempt to "fog the issues and attack the messenger because the message is unwelcome." Hall dismisses Green's accusations of having a "long standing" attitude or a "third alternative" as incoherent and groundless, stating he is citing the historical record, which Green has not corrected.

Hall also criticizes Green for sowing confusion by implying that "two writers in the Eastern U.S. took him [Wallace] seriously," potentially misattributing this to Hall. He calls for Green to name names or cease his criticism.

The Importance of 1975-1981 Events

Green, Hall argues, fails to recognize the significance of events between 1975 and 1981, which he previously detailed. These events offer a chance to compare tracks found in relative isolation and link them to specific animals observed in the same region. This comparative approach, combined with observations of associated sounds and behaviors, could help narrow down the type of primate seen.

Hall sees this narrow-minded approach as a harmful consequence of oversimplifying the subject of mystery primates, leading to a lack of progress.

Steve Matthes and the "Brave and Other Stories" Testimony

Hall addresses criticisms of Steve Matthes' account in the book "Brave and Other Stories." Matthes reported encountering giant footprints on a logging road in Northern California in 1960. Upon close examination, he realized they were fakes. His photograph of a cast of one of these fakes matches the wooden tools displayed by the Wallace family in 2001. Hall asserts that those who deny this connection are deceiving themselves.

Matthes' key observation, which some wish to ignore, was that the line of tracks appeared unnaturally straight, as if the person making them had to concentrate to maintain a consistent stride length to match the size of the fake track. This suggests the maker was using a non-expandable material like wood or leather, rather than a natural foot.

Fig. 1: Wooden Foot Forms

Figure 1 displays the wooden foot forms that were shown by Ray Wallace's relatives after his death in 2002. Made of alder wood, these were claimed to be used by Wallace to create "Bigfoot" prints. Imprints of the same size and matching their shapes were reportedly found in 1958, 1960, and 1967.

Analysis of Footprint Characteristics

Hall discusses the characteristics of genuine footprints versus fakes. He notes that when a soft-padded foot bears weight, it expands, and upon lifting, the toes contract, leaving a featheredge in dust. The fake tracks, however, showed no evidence of foot expansion or spreading, indicating they were made from non-expandable material.

Tracks from Blue Creek Mountain in 1967 are identified as bogus, sharing characteristics with Wallace's fakes. Hall criticizes John Green's description of these tracks as "probably the most often seen and most intensely studied," stating they are indeed imprints of flat-footed wooden feet, as evidenced by the Wallace carvings.

Green's own internet posting on December 5, 2002, is cited. Green acknowledged that a displayed item was not a mold for the 1958 Jerry Crew cast but might be a mold or copy of a 15" footprint found by Bob Titmus and Ed Patrick later that year. Hall suggests this warrants further investigation.

Regarding Ray Wallace starting the hoax, Hall mentions that he and Rene Dahinden saw a tracing in 1957 of a British Columbia footprint cast from 1941 that more closely matched the Jerry Crew cast.

Fig. 2: Male and Female Neo-Giant Tracks

Figure 2 illustrates the appearances of two different Neo-Giant tracks. The left image, based on the Jerry Crew cast from 1958, appears to be a male track. The right image, based on a Roger Patterson cast associated with Laird Meadow in Del Norte County, California, is identified as a female track. Tracks found in South Dakota reportedly support this distinction.

The Laird Meadow Cast and "Patty"

Hall discusses a footprint cast made by Roger Patterson in 1964 from tracks found by Pat Graves on Laird Meadow Road, Del Norte County, California. This cast, with its shape shown in Fig. 2, is believed to represent the same creature as "Patty" in the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film. The imprint suggests this female was around three years younger than in the film. If she was in the area six years earlier, her tracks could have been found by Kerr and Breazele, potentially serving as the prototype for Wallace's wooden foot-forms.

The presence of two track makers (a male and a female, "Patty" and her mate) in Northern California during the 1950s and 1960s is indicated by Charles Edson's observations and casts. While genuine prints of "Patty" from the early years are rare, Wallace's fakes are abundant. The 1964 Laird Meadow cast is the earliest clear record of "Patty."

The "Split-Ball" Feature

Hall explains the "split-ball" feature sometimes seen in female tracks, particularly in the "Patty" tracks of 1967 and the Grand River cast from 1977. He agrees with Loren Coleman that the "split-ball" configuration attributed to Neo-Giants seems to vanish once Wallace's fakes are understood and valid tracks are examined. The "split-ball" appearance is attributed to a misreading of the female track, possibly due to a combination of a long big toe and soil accumulation or large calluses behind the toes, rather than a distinct anatomical feature.

Fig. 3-6: Various Footprints and Depictions

• Fig. 3: A cast of a footprint made near Mt. Shasta, measuring 6 x 16 inches.
• Fig. 4: A drawing of a male Neo-Giant as described by observers in the Pacific Northwest.
• Fig. 5: The appearance of a 1967 track at the Patterson-Gimlin filmsite.
• Fig. 6: An outline of the Grand River cast found in South Dakota in 1977.

The "Split-Ball" Notion Perpetuated by Fakes

Hall reiterates that the notion of a "split-ball" in Bigfoot tracks originated from distortions in fakes, particularly those made by Ray Wallace. The alder-wood tools carved by Wallace incorporated this feature prominently. Genuine footprints and casts, however, show toes as individual appendages without a split in the ball of the foot. While some genuine casts like the Grand River and Bluff Creek casts show an indented appearance, others, like the Laird Meadow cast, do not.

The "split-ball" was incorporated into the Wallace fakes in 1958, likely based on a cast made by Kerr and Breazele. The first-hand knowledge of these events died with Ray Wallace, but subsequent fakes and misinterpretations of genuine tracks have perpetuated the idea of a "split-ball" as a characteristic of the Neo-Giant foot.

The "Hour-Glass" Shape and Other Misconceptions

Similarly, the "hour-glass" shape attributed to Bigfoot feet is believed to have been promoted by bogus items. Hall points to a photograph in John Green's "On the Track of the Sasquatch" as an example of a widely reproduced but suspect image. This photograph, along with the exaggerated roundness of the Wallace fakes, likely influenced the "hour-glass" characterization.

Ivan T. Sanderson's illustration of a Sasquatch track in "Abominable Snowmen" is identified as a Wallace fake. Sanderson's description of the Neo-Giant foot, mentioning a "double first subdigital pad" and conjoined toes, is also attributed to notions promoted by Wallace's fakes.

Sanderson's book includes outlines of American and Asian Neo-Giant feet, with the latter lacking the "split-ball" feature.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination and debunking of fabricated evidence within the Bigfoot research community, specifically focusing on the extensive hoaxes perpetrated by Ray Wallace. The editorial stance is one of rigorous skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a call for the community to adhere to verifiable facts and evidence. The magazine advocates for a scientific approach, emphasizing the need to distinguish genuine phenomena from hoaxes to advance the field of cryptozoology.

This issue of WONDERS magazine, dated June 2003, features a prominent article titled "WHY NOTHING GETS SOLVED IN ONE LIFETIME" by Mark A. Hall. The issue number is 53, and it is part of Volume 7.

"Why Nothing Gets Solved in One Lifetime" by Mark A. Hall

Mark A. Hall's article delves into the slow and often contentious process by which new scientific ideas, particularly those considered controversial, gain acceptance. He begins by expressing a personal frustration with the difficulty of achieving universal recognition for his own findings, even when supported by theoretical proof. Hall cites the observation of physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) that new scientific truths triumph not by convincing opponents, but by the eventual death of those opponents and the subsequent familiarity of a new generation with the idea.

Hall applies this concept to controversial topics such as the Kensington Runestone and the mystery creature known as Bigfoot (referred to as Neo-Giants). He notes that these issues, like many controversial topics in the twentieth century, involve a social process alongside demonstrable facts. The development and acceptance of such ideas appear to take approximately one hundred years to mature.

The Role of Social Processes and Establishments

The article critiques how established authorities, including communications media, publishers, and grant-dispensing organizations, can perpetuate general ignorance by promoting sensationalism and misinformed speculations for financial gain. This social process often hinders meaningful examination of new ideas. Hall uses historical examples to illustrate this, focusing on the Kensington Stone (inscribed with a date of 1362, possibly from a 1354 expedition) and the Neo-Giant of the Pacific Northwest, popularly known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot, which has been discussed since the 1920s.

Origins of Neo-Giants and the Kensington Runestone

The origins of the Neo-Giants are traced back millions of years to the Miocene epoch, with fossil predecessors potentially being *Paranthropus* and *Paranthropus palaeojavanicus*. Historical accounts mention encounters with large, hairy creatures, such as the report by Hudson Bay inspector Alexander C. Anderson in 1846 and encounters by 'Forty-niners' in the 19th century. The Kensington Runestone, discovered in 1898, also faced skepticism and attempts to discredit it.

Advocacy and Support

Initially, the advocacy for these topics was often the work of a single individual. For the Kensington Runestone, it was Hjalmar Rued Holand, and for Bigfoot, it was John W. Burns. Burns, an Indian Agent and teacher, gathered accounts of hairy giants from Indigenous peoples in British Columbia. Holand, a scholar, pursued research on immigrants and came across the runestone story. Over time, both causes gained additional supporters, including journalists and researchers, who helped publicize the subjects and provide more detailed support.

Maturity and Social Acceptance

The article defines the "maturity" of a topic as the point where it fits into current scientific knowledge. Both the Neo-Giants and the Kensington Runestone are argued to have reached this stage. The Neo-Giants are seen as fitting within the framework of primate evolution, while the Kensington Runestone's inscription is now understood within the context of 14th-century runes. However, both subjects have struggled to achieve social acceptance, with three groups of people identified: those unaware, those who refuse to admit the subject fits scientific understanding, and those who see the context but lack access to persuade the public.

Obstacles: Hoaxes and Confusion

Both the Neo-Giants and the Kensington Runestone have been plagued by hoaxes and confusion. The article mentions claims that Ray Wallace invented Bigfoot in 1958 and the Gran family's attempts to discredit the runestone by promoting a family tradition of it being a hoax. The establishment, such as the American Museum of Natural History and Canada's National Museum, has also been dismissive, with the Patterson-Gimlin film being labeled a hoax.

Broader Controversial Topics

Hall extends his framework to other controversial topics, including True Polar Wander (a hypothesis about Earth's crust shifting) and *Homo gardarensis* (a potential "living fossil" primate). He also discusses Atlantis, suggesting that even seemingly unmanageable mysteries can be approached by cleaving off parts and making progress.

The Process of Discovery and Acceptance

The article concludes by summarizing the typical lifecycle of a controversial subject: an initial period of definition and advocacy by one person, followed by a half-century or more of slow growth in supporters. This is often accompanied by vulnerability to hoaxes and confusion. Eventually, the subject may be organized and presented to a broader academic audience, benefiting from the general advance of knowledge. Hall urges readers to apply this framework to other topics that catch their interest and to exercise their best judgment when evaluating novel ideas, considering how they fit into the larger picture of human events.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the slow, often frustrating, process of scientific discovery and acceptance, particularly for subjects that challenge conventional thinking. The article highlights the role of social dynamics, established authorities, and the persistence of individuals in advancing knowledge. It also addresses the impact of hoaxes and skepticism on the validation of unconventional ideas. The editorial stance appears to be one of encouraging critical thinking, thorough investigation, and a willingness to consider evidence that may lie outside mainstream scientific consensus, while also acknowledging the need to distinguish genuine phenomena from fabricated ones.

Title: WONDERS
Issue: 63
Date: June 2003
Publisher: Mark A. Hall Publications

Editorial Reflection on Knowledge and Mystery

The issue opens with a reflective editorial by Mark A. Hall, who contemplates the nature of historical and scientific understanding. He posits that mysteries tend to be solved over approximately one hundred years, as they become congruent with contemporary scientific and historical data. Hall observes that opposition to new understandings often stems from authorities invested in past errors, driven by a systemic reluctance to admit mistakes. He connects this to the glacial pace of collective knowledge advancement, attributing it to the human condition. Despite this, Hall encourages personal curiosity and independent judgment, suggesting that individuals can form their own conclusions without waiting for established authorities or encyclopedias to catch up.

Notes and References

Following the editorial is a detailed list of 'NOTES,' primarily comprising references to articles published in WONDERS and other works by Mark A. Hall. These references span a variety of topics:

• Ancient Civilizations and Migrations: "The Vikings in the New World" (Hall), "The Conquest of the North Atlantic" (Marcus), and "Beyond the Pillars of Heracles" (Carpenter) are cited, suggesting discussions on historical explorations and discoveries.
• Human Origins and Paleontology: "Living Fossils: The Survival of Homo gardarensis, Neandertal Man, and Homo erectus" (Hall) is referenced multiple times, indicating a focus on early human species and their potential survival. The "Minnesota Iceman" and "Kennewick Man" are also mentioned in relation to Hall's "Living Fossils" book.
• Cryptozoology: References to "The Yeti, Bigfoot & True Giants" (Hall) and specific articles like "The Real Bigfoot and Genuine Bigfoot Tracks" and "The Bigfoot Community's Wallace Problem" highlight extensive coverage of cryptids.
• Other Unexplained Phenomena: Articles such as "The Many Planets Earth" (Hall) and "The Atlantis of Solon and Plato" (Hall) point to explorations of astronomical and mythological subjects. A reference to "When Earth Tipped, Life Went Wild" (Monastersky) from Science News suggests coverage of geological or catastrophic events.

Mark A. Hall Publications and WONDERS Journal

The second page is dedicated to promoting Mark A. Hall Publications. It invites readers to explore the "UNEXPLAINED" world via a website (http://home.att.net/~mark.hall.wonders/) which links to various pages including "Mystery Profiles," "Thunderbird and Bighoot," and "Spotlight on Homo gardarensis." The page provides descriptions of two key books:

• Living Fossils: Published in 1999, this book delves into the history of Bigfoot in North America, discusses Homo gardarensis, Neandertals, the Minnesota Iceman, and Kennewick Man.
• The Yeti, Bigfoot & True Giants: A second revised edition from 1997, this book examines the Yeti, Bigfoot (Sasquatch), and "True Giants," exploring their origins, history, behavior, and tracks.

Additionally, the page highlights the journal "WONDERS," which has been publishing since 1992 on a wide array of fortean topics. These include cryptozoology (Thunderbirds, Giant Owls, Bigfoot, lake monsters, giant snakes, black panthers), archaeological controversies (Kensington Runestone, L'Anse Aux Meadows, Vinland, Greater Ireland), and mysteries such as "Spook Lights."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around unexplained phenomena, cryptozoology, ancient mysteries, and human origins, viewed through the lens of Mark A. Hall's research and publications. The editorial stance, as expressed by Hall, is one of encouraging critical thinking and personal investigation into these subjects, while acknowledging the slow, often contentious, progression of human knowledge. The emphasis is on providing resources and information for readers to form their own informed opinions.