Jump to content
norseman

The Munns Report

Recommended Posts

Drew

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

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The newer PDF analysis releases do discuss why some material in the original May 2009 Release is outdated and no longer in effect.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

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""

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

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

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Parn,

Why do you name the broadcast shows as "Psuedoscience" and "misleading"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...