Jump to content
norseman

The Munns Report

Recommended Posts

Bill

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

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Driftmark:

"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......"

I'm pretty sure I know the claim you referenced, a second creature, championed on another forum, and I did an image stabilized render of that segment, and it's just a shadow, not a creature. No merit to the claim.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Oh my gosh, now Bill is scaring little children who watch television, *GASP* ... as if 9/10 of what is on television doesn't scare them already.

Some of the scientific, peer reviewed stuff should scare them, but even some of that has been shown to be false. Fact or fiction there is plenty of child scaring stuff on TV much worse than having the opinion that the creature is a real biological entity and that it might be 7 feet tall or taller.

Why just a little while ago I remember all of the televised predictions of how devastating the H1N1 flu virus was going to be, now there is something to be scared about. The only problem is, it didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

xspider1:

"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."

Well, there is that Waylans Jenning concert meeting between DeAtley and Bob H (I think) which may wipe out my three years of work with one fell swoop, when it cracks the hoax wide open beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm really living in dread about the details of that coming out and revealing that I actually don't know a cheap Morris suit remodeled by a cowboy from a real creature.

:)

Be safe, everybody. See you all next year.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

For the love Bill, think of the children. :o

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Patty doesnt look 7 foot tall in that fulm, i'd say 6 foot 2... Human sized... Hast the size of patty been established yet? Forgive my ignorance but wasnt there some side by side walking pics taken in the late 60s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Clearly, we must be reading different material. I've been around for an awfully long time yet I've never witnessed Bill, or anyone else, efforting to portray him as a *victim* in any of his findings.

I have witnessed numerous members, of a more sketically inclined position, efforting to *pin* the 4'-6" height of the subject we witness in the PGF based on his analysis. This is in total disregard to his other height calculations as well as his admission that he never believed the 4'-6" height to be accurate and the process of analysis is still under review.

FWIW, Bill has stated from the onset that he did not believe the 4'-6" height estimate to be accurate.

Yet, he still openly discloses it in his findings even though it represents something he disavows.

I don't know about you, but his doing so certainly elevates his attempts at veracity in my mind.

I've never gotten the need/rationale for some who seem to be of such a mindset that dictates discrediting Bill when he has openly promised to go wherever the evidence leads.

For one, many of those who try and *pin* the 4'-6" height based on his findings which included specific lense/distance parameters, are also proponents of the PGF depicting Bob Hermonious in an altered Morris suit.

We know BH is taller than 4'-6".

Seems more likely that those who effort to pin the 4'-6" height concluded in VERY specific portion of his analysis, based on a certain lense/distance calculation, would be better served to proclaim that it was Matt Roloff in the suit as opposed to Hermonious.

He is much closer to 4'-6" than Bob H. is.

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.

Well, I certainly think Bill, based on his previous experience would be considered an *expert* under any scenario as related to whether the PGF is nothing more than BH in an altered Morris suit, or depicting a *real* creature*.

I think/hope you would agree with me on that. Seems rather elementary given his background.

So far as I'm aware, Bill has always maintained that it is his opinion that the subject depicted in the PGF is 7' or taller. Yet, he has arrived at height estimates, present in The Munn's Report, that are in conflict with his opinion pending lense/distance variables.

I'm not too sure *misled* is a fair description when he includes in his analysis factors that are in contrast to his opinion. I'm sure he expressed his opinion in the television shows you reference. And, he is just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else is.

In fact, for me, his doing so shows quite the opposite intent on his behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

My opinion of Patty's height has always been that she doesn't appear to be incredibly tall due to the fact that she is proportionate.

To me, someone built like Shaquille O'Neal doesn't give the appearance of being incredibly tall, until he stands next to a 'normal' sized person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

To All:

Starting off the New Year, the Report website has been updated this morning, with a new PDF document on the revised Verified Frame Count (VFC -2 )and a copy inventory of various copies I have examined or studied.

Probably the most curious thing I disclose is that my frame inventory now shows 954 frames, even though 953 frames has been a sort of absolute specification for 43 years. It doesn't impact on the whole "real vs fake" debate, but I think it does show that even with facts we've heard over and over (like 953 frames), we still must continue to examine those facts and be willing to acknowledge them as incorrect if the data leads to that conclusion.

The link to the PDF can be found at the bottom of this website page:

http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_050.htm

Wishing all a Happy New Year (and wishing this year is the year we finally settle the PGF debate)

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Bill, this is the Perfectfoot Cibachrome.

c397f523.jpg

You have said you are researching whether or not there was any touching up of the Cibachromes.

I think it would be easy to tell, if you could post your scanned image of the same frame.

Can you do this? Perhaps perfect-foot isn't so perfect in the real frame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

The Cibachromes have more detail than any film scan I've done or seen. But I don't know how far removed the scans of the cibachromes we have are from the source transparancies or prints. So I can just say the "61" cibachrome has a sharper detailed foot than any frame film scan I've ever seen.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...