Jump to content


Photo

The Munns Report


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3414 replies to this topic

#1 norseman

norseman

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,974 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 12:05 PM

http://www.themunnsr...s_report_r1.pdf

(Mods-maybe we could sticky this?)
  • 0
www.projectgrendel.com

#2 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,554 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 12:23 PM

Which part? The part where he says Patty is 7'4" tall? and follows up with this?

Finally, the height determination effectively negates most, if not all Hollywood rumors of who
made the claimed suit, or who put hair on it, or such, because you cannot make a suit without
knowing all too well its size or bulk, and apparently none of these people making these
recollections were aware of the fact the figure was by far larger than any ape suit of the time.
Such an oversight of that very significant material fact means these stories, however fanciful they
sound to hear, have dubious basis in fact, and are likely just Hollywood fantasy. The people
describing the alleged "suit" are not remotely describing the truth of what's in the film, if they
neglected to mention its unique immense size.


I say post that up there for everyone to see, since the Old BFF files are not accessible at this time.
  • 0

#3 norseman

norseman

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,974 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 05:20 PM

Which part? The part where he says Patty is 7'4" tall? and follows up with this?


Which part?

I highly suggest everyone reading the whole report.
  • 0
www.projectgrendel.com

#4 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,747 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 06:26 PM

Drew is one of those people who pretend they don'y know I've stated repeatedly and publicly that the lens issue, and the height estimate based on the lens calculation, are both under reivew and so that earlier conclusion (which Drew quoted)is not currently endorsed. Same for a guy here who repeatedly said I thought Patty was 4' 6" when I corrected him directly a half a dozen times or more, and he kept saying it.

The Report is a work that evolves as I continue to work on it. Some of the earliest material has been revised or is being reviewed, and that is simply good science, that as new data or new analysis capabilities are acquired, we must review our own efforts and if necessary, revise them with open and transparent disclosure that the matters are being revised, and why.

The newer PDF analysis releases do discuss why some material in the original May 2009 Release is outdated and no longer in effect.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#5 norseman

norseman

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,974 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 06:44 PM

Drew is one of those people who pretend they don'y know I've stated repeatedly and publicly that the lens issue, and the height estimate based on the lens calculation, are both under reivew and so that earlier conclusion (which Drew quoted)is not currently endorsed. Same for a guy here who repeatedly said I thought Patty was 4' 6" when I corrected him directly a half a dozen times or more, and he kept saying it.

The Report is a work that evolves as I continue to work on it. Some of the earliest material has been revised or is being reviewed, and that is simply good science, that as new data or new analysis capabilities are acquired, we must review our own efforts and if necessary, revise them with open and transparent disclosure that the matters are being revised, and why.

The newer PDF analysis releases do discuss why some material in the original May 2009 Release is outdated and no longer in effect.

Bill


Bill,

Keep up the great work! I'd be interested in reading anything you would like to share that is current.
  • 0
www.projectgrendel.com

#6 Colossus

Colossus

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 07:23 PM

We must all be thorough in our research.
  • 0
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -Hamlet

If it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence.

Sasquatch, moving at over 2910 feet per second since 2010.

#7 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,747 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 07:59 PM

norseman:

"Keep up the great work! I'd be interested in reading anything you would like to share that is current."

At the moment, I'm revising the frame inventory, to cross reference more of the scan and copy versions. Really tedious work, but important in the long run.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#8 HRPuffnstuff

HRPuffnstuff

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,297 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 05:44 AM

http://www.themunnsreport.com/

I'm going to honor the request of norseman and sticky this. In the link included within the original post by norseman I found myself in a virtual *loop* and unable to open the PDF document.

My link to The Munn's Report should work just fine.

Which part? The part where he says Patty is 7'4" tall.


How about the whole darn thing?

I'm not sure how many times Bill has to iterate that his analysis is an ongoing procedure and he will go wherever the evidence leads him.

Differing postulated lenses in conjunction with varying distances will dictate a variance in the height of the subject we see on the PGF.

Let's put it all out there and let everyone decide for themselves in view of the totality of his findings without efforting to pigeon-hole him with snippets that may suit our belief.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the differing findings based on differing parameters somewhat refreshing.

It speaks well of Bill that he puts it all on the table and his doing so proves to me that he is sincerely devoted to determining the truth of the PGF, as well as his being totally sincere when he says "I'll go wherever the evidence leads me."

He certainly doesn't just publish specific findings that play to one side. He lays it all out there. Yet, some members try and hold him only to his findings that support their belief. And, they continually do so without any deference to his findings that are contrary to their view.

In fact, the discrepancies are often used against him by some with no consideration that there were differing variables used to obtain each conclusion.

Differing variables dictate differing results. And his open and frank disclosure of them add to Bill's credibility IMHO.
  • 0
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself,
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

D.H. Lawrence

#9 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,554 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 07:31 AM

Drew is one of those people who pretend they don'y know I've stated repeatedly and publicly that the lens issue, and the height estimate based on the lens calculation, are both under reivew and so that earlier conclusion (which Drew quoted)is not currently endorsed. Same for a guy here who repeatedly said I thought Patty was 4' 6" when I corrected him directly a half a dozen times or more, and he kept saying it.

The Report is a work that evolves as I continue to work on it. Some of the earliest material has been revised or is being reviewed, and that is simply good science, that as new data or new analysis capabilities are acquired, we must review our own efforts and if necessary, revise them with open and transparent disclosure that the matters are being revised, and why.

The newer PDF analysis releases do discuss why some material in the original May 2009 Release is outdated and no longer in effect.

Bill


Bill, I didn't cite the 4'6" height above.

The point I was making, albeit, tounge-in-cheek, was that you were re-doing the height analysis. And I would think that the report you want pinned at the forum would be the completed report. Not the one that you have scrapped.
  • 0

#10 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,747 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:02 AM

Drew:

"Bill, I didn't cite the 4'6" height above."

You didn't see the line you quoted, and I wrote, "same for the guy. . ." implying another person, and not you?

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#11 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,554 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 12:55 PM

Drew:

"Bill, I didn't cite the 4'6" height above."

You didn't see the line you quoted, and I wrote, "same for the guy. . ." implying another person, and not you?

Bill

Oops, I assumed you were referring to me, and I was just about to ask you to cite 6 times when I said "Bill Munns says Patty is 4'6""
  • 0

#12 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,747 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 02:13 PM

No, Drew. definitely another guy, in that matter.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#13 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,274 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 08:50 AM

Oops, I assumed you were referring to me, and I was just about to ask you to cite 6 times when I said "Bill Munns says Patty is 4'6""


How could anybody even dream Patty being 4'6". IMO no researcher on either side of the issue could ascribe Patty being that height. Clearly if such a height is arrived at its wrong. The momentum of movement alone indicates substantial size.
  • 0

#14 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 11:49 AM

http://www.themunnsreport.com/

I'm going to honor the request of norseman and sticky this. In the link included within the original post by norseman I found myself in a virtual *loop* and unable to open the PDF document.

My link to The Munn's Report should work just fine.



How about the whole darn thing?

I'm not sure how many times Bill has to iterate that his analysis is an ongoing procedure and he will go wherever the evidence leads him.

Differing postulated lenses in conjunction with varying distances will dictate a variance in the height of the subject we see on the PGF.

Let's put it all out there and let everyone decide for themselves in view of the totality of his findings without efforting to pigeon-hole him with snippets that may suit our belief.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the differing findings based on differing parameters somewhat refreshing.

It speaks well of Bill that he puts it all on the table and his doing so proves to me that he is sincerely devoted to determining the truth of the PGF, as well as his being totally sincere when he says "I'll go wherever the evidence leads me."

He certainly doesn't just publish specific findings that play to one side. He lays it all out there. Yet, some members try and hold him only to his findings that support their belief. And, they continually do so without any deference to his findings that are contrary to their view.

In fact, the discrepancies are often used against him by some with no consideration that there were differing variables used to obtain each conclusion.

Differing variables dictate differing results. And his open and frank disclosure of them add to Bill's credibility IMHO.

Well, here we go, I didn't open the door here.
I agree, HR, with some of what you have said, regarding putting it all out there, not so much with some of the rest of your assessment.
But Bill is not a victim here, as he and others try to portray. Bill is not being persecuted by a few probing remarks, and an assessment of his biases.
The public is the victim, as they have been misled by two cable television shows in which Bill appeared as an expert. In both of these, the conclusion was that the subject of the PGF was over 7 feet tall. In one of those programs, he made the statement himself. In the other, it was made by the narrator. Good science does not go on a pseudoscience program with ideas that have not been subjected to peer review (or even basic background research in this case) and make pronouncements that scare people. Those television programs were seen by probably hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, including little kids. The impressions made on those thousands and thousands of people can't be called back by a notation in an obscure web site. But I, for one, think perhaps a more complete explanation at the BFF might serve the purpose.
So in the interest of putting it all out there, as I think Bill has an obligation to do after appearing on those two misleading programs, I would challenge Bill to put out the dates and transcripts of the relevant parts of those shows, so he won't be misquoted, and give us an explanation of how he came to appear on not one but two misleading programs which presented data which had not been adequately peer reviewed. Perhaps that could be a separate thread.
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#15 Wheellug

Wheellug

    Chiye-tanka

  • Sésquac
  • 808 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 12:02 PM

Parn,
Why do you name the broadcast shows as "Psuedoscience" and "misleading"?
  • 0

If it wasn't documented, it didn't happen.

 


#16 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,747 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 12:44 PM

*
POPULAR

parnassus:

Sorry if life isn't as perfect as you expect it or think it should be.

The world is filled with mis-information, the internet is rife with it, TV documentary type programs are certainly known to be flawed in parts, and no person can correct all the mis-information which their name may be connected to.

If you have complaints with specific TV programs, take it up with the show producers or the broadcast channel. If you think the public is the victim, take it up with the FCC. The only material I have control over is my Report publications and website, and what I personally post in forums like this one.

Nobody misrepresents my work more than you, so before you criticize others for mis-represnting anything based on my work, look in the mirror and address problem #1, you.

Bill
  • 7
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#17 driftinmark

driftinmark

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 691 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 02:22 PM

ok, back to the topic........

Bill , since you have the clearest version of this film as we speak, I just saw somewhere that there might be other movement in the tree line
as patty was walking past..........can you see this also? could there have been another creature present keeping well behind the treeline?
maybe thats why patty was just walking, she had her back covered......

thanks......
  • 0

#18 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,515 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 03:54 PM

Well, here we go, I didn't open the door here.
I agree, HR, with some of what you have said, regarding putting it all out there, not so much with some of the rest of your assessment.
But Bill is not a victim here, as he and others try to portray. Bill is not being persecuted by a few probing remarks, and an assessment of his biases.
The public is the victim, as they have been misled by two cable television shows in which Bill appeared as an expert. In both of these, the conclusion was that the subject of the PGF was over 7 feet tall. In one of those programs, he made the statement himself. In the other, it was made by the narrator. Good science does not go on a pseudoscience program with ideas that have not been subjected to peer review (or even basic background research in this case) and make pronouncements that scare people. Those television programs were seen by probably hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, including little kids. The impressions made on those thousands and thousands of people can't be called back by a notation in an obscure web site. But I, for one, think perhaps a more complete explanation at the BFF might serve the purpose.
So in the interest of putting it all out there, as I think Bill has an obligation to do after appearing on those two misleading programs, I would challenge Bill to put out the dates and transcripts of the relevant parts of those shows, so he won't be misquoted, and give us an explanation of how he came to appear on not one but two misleading programs which presented data which had not been adequately peer reviewed. Perhaps that could be a separate thread.

parnassus,

You think Bill has an obligation...Hah ! That's laughable ! I don't think I've seen anyone toss out observations or opinions as freely as yourself, an of course you have the right to. However when questioned...you're not one to respond as Bill does. If you think Bill has scared hundreds of thousands of people, kids included...I can't even believe that ya tried playin' that card, call those responsible for the shows an see where that gets ya. If you feel that the public has been mislead, that's your opinion, just as Bill has the right to his opinion based on his findin's.
If the impressions on people can't be called back by a notation in an obscure web site, why here on the BFF ? Please.

"So he won't be misquoted"...GOOD ONE !

Pat...
  • 0

#19 Spazmo

Spazmo

    Chiye-tanka

  • Inactive
  • 807 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 04:49 PM

Well, here we go, I didn't open the door here.
I agree, HR, with some of what you have said, regarding putting it all out there, not so much with some of the rest of your assessment.
But Bill is not a victim here, as he and others try to portray. Bill is not being persecuted by a few probing remarks, and an assessment of his biases.
The public is the victim, as they have been misled by two cable television shows in which Bill appeared as an expert. In both of these, the conclusion was that the subject of the PGF was over 7 feet tall. In one of those programs, he made the statement himself. In the other, it was made by the narrator. Good science does not go on a pseudoscience program with ideas that have not been subjected to peer review (or even basic background research in this case) and make pronouncements that scare people. Those television programs were seen by probably hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, including little kids. The impressions made on those thousands and thousands of people can't be called back by a notation in an obscure web site. But I, for one, think perhaps a more complete explanation at the BFF might serve the purpose.
So in the interest of putting it all out there, as I think Bill has an obligation to do after appearing on those two misleading programs, I would challenge Bill to put out the dates and transcripts of the relevant parts of those shows, so he won't be misquoted, and give us an explanation of how he came to appear on not one but two misleading programs which presented data which had not been adequately peer reviewed. Perhaps that could be a separate thread.


Or, you could simply start a thread of your own describing your opinion of the shows and data in question. Nobody seems to be hiding anything, and the explanations are all published in various forms and in various places. I don't think you would encounter any arguments, Bill has mentioned several times that the size estimate needs to be reworked.
But how would doing this help the "victimized public"? How would this bring the public to this forum? Is "helping the victims" your goal?
  • 1


#20 infoman

infoman

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 190 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 05:21 PM

I am curious at what height does an uncataloged hairy primate with large feet cease to be scary? Is there a height at which point other becomes 'super' scary? Does the victimized public have an actionable cause here?

Maybe a class action lawsuit for misrepresenting the height of an unknown subject in a 43 yr old film.

And please cite a peer reviewed source for determining that the opinions shared on those shows are factually incorrect.

Sheesh, Bill has the patience of Job.

But honestly, if this and getting the Bob's to square off like Thunderdome is the best the skeptics have to offer we must be making progress.
  • 1
Either some evidence is real or it is ALL the result of hoax and misidentification, there is no in-between. The law of large numbers, Occam'S Razor and logic all favor the former being true - that there is a real flesh and blood animal that has yet to cataloged.

That the Scientific Body Politic has not accepted it does not mean it does not exist, only that they don't know it does.




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users