Guest thermalman Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Reminds me of a show I watched as a young child...." Lost in Space".
Guest Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 But the PGF and the Matilda footage are different videos, why would the same thing have to apply to both? It's way easier to prove a fake video is fake than a real video is real. The hypocrisy is that everyone is calling out the Matilda video without any background information on it, near zero critical examination and analysis. Everyone has lauded Munns analysis of the PGF because he has gone to the site, performed focal, distance analysis, attempted to recreate it with actors and shown mutilple comparisions with how the size of a regular person would fit within Patty's frame. Has Munns been to the location where the Matilda footage was filmed? Has he shown the size and focal relationships compared to the footage and actual people? Used actors to attempt a recreation? I am not claiming Matilda is real, frankly because I don't know. I haven't done the necessary analysis nor am I qualified to do so. I find it extremely hypocritcal that a community who has constantly used Munns work to defend the PGF refuses to apply the same standards of critcal examination and analysis to another piece of evidence.
Bill Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 There is no hypocracy. Each incident must be evaluated individually based on the extent of it's image data (quality and quantity), and each incident must be evaluated accordingly. But Matilda fell apart as a confirmed fake as soon as it was properly analyzed, while the PGF holds up as real after 46 years of scrutiny. So hoaxes do tend to crash and burn fairly soon after rigorous examination, but authentic material holds up to rigorous scrutiny. Big difference. 2
Incorrigible1 Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) Wow. Where to start? Mr. Munns is rightfully lauded for his extensive work regarding PGF. He's an acknowledged expert witness in the field, and the PGF is the signature piece of evidence in pushing 50 years of bigfoot research. That he's been critical of the Ketchum "evidence" has nothing to do with his PGF research and findings. He did provide a nearly fatal criticism to the sketchy "Matilda" piece, but then, most any Star Wars fan might have suggested the same. BipCur, your criticism of Mr. Munns seems misplaced. You might, instead, cast a wary eye toward the source of "Matilda." Edit:: It seems a Mr. Munns posted whilst I composed my own reply to BipCur. Thank you, Bill. Edited October 7, 2013 by Incorrigible1
Guest vilnoori Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 And the first thing an eye-witness I know, whose encounter has brought them face-to-face with these, said basically, "Wow. Great pic. Too bad it's fake." When I asked about the face, mouth and teeth, his response was that the long "eye-teeth" were all wrong because their teeth were roughly just like ours. (*rounded* was the word he used) He's been close enough to one to know that.. and I trust that knowledge far more than I do a pic like that at a press conference. Well, yes, that is exactly it. That would be hominid teeth. The teeth we saw were not hominid. Maybe not even hominin, or monkey-like. Even great apes have great big incisors like you describe. The teeth on Matilda are just wrong.
roguefooter Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 That he's been critical of the Ketchum "evidence" has nothing to do with his PGF research and findings. He did provide a nearly fatal criticism to the sketchy "Matilda" piece, but then, most any Star Wars fan might have suggested the same. One thing that I learned from this place is that there are people that just can't see what's blatantly obvious to others. I recognized Chewbacca the second I saw the footage, others took a lot longer, some don't seem to see it at all. Maybe it's just because I've seen the movies a bazillion times? I don't know.
Guest Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Well, yes, that is exactly it. That would be hominid teeth. The teeth we saw were not hominid. Maybe not even hominin, or monkey-like. Even great apes have great big incisors like you describe. The teeth on Matilda are just wrong. Where apes have longer canines they seem broader, more of a triangle than a stiletto if you get what I mean.
Guest Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) MM has explained in detail what his involvement was. It's already out there. He didn't sell anything. Gee whiz. Hi BipedalCurious, see you're back with questions, but I am still waiting on an answer to mine if you can? Wondering where I might find Moneymaker's recent statement about his involvement with EP prior to their installation at the site, as well as any recant of his statements about Matilda...b/c he offered that footage as evidence BFs have black noses that are wet... (that discussion I think was Crytpomundo. The other BF video sales references, and goings on pre 2007, may be tougher to get at as cached, many of the older blogs are gone...) Edited October 7, 2013 by apehuman
Drew Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 So hoaxes do tend to crash and burn fairly soon after rigorous examination, but authentic material holds up to rigorous scrutiny Does the quality of the hoax have any bearing on this?
Sunflower Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I don't think "the community" will bite at your telling them how to do things. But that's just me. Phhhhtttt............I agree.
Bill Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Drew: Obviously some hoaxes are better than others. A hoax using a commercial mask basically is doomed as soon as clear head photos become available because we can search for the mask, as was done for the Bigfoot body in the freezer, the tongomi video, and Matilda. All were exposed within a day or two of a researcher seeing the face clearly. But every analysis is fundamentally unique because every incident's evidence is unique. We use the same principles of analysis, but use specific analysis techniques or methods based on the individual evidence we has to analyze. In Matilda's case, all we had is the head shot, looking sideways and turning to face camera. No body, no walking, etc. For the sleeping figure, all we have is the curled up body shape, some vague movement, and no head. So while methodology in general follows the same path, it is customized to the specific evidence of the incidentat hand. But one general rule is that the more evidence we have, the more resources we have to expose any hoax. That's one of the reasons the PGF isn't a hoax. The amount of excellent image data evidence exceeds all other incidents together, in terms of both volume and quality, and yet the PGF withstands every method of rigorous inspection that would challenge it's integrity. Every possible test or line of analysis comes up 100% positive for authenticity. And that's why most attacks on it's authenticity go to the crappy tabloid gossip about Roger's life and the "backstory". That's all they have to build claims of hoax, and there's nothing scientific about any claim based on that material. 2
Rockape Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The hypocrisy is that everyone is calling out the Matilda video without any background information on it, near zero critical examination and analysis. Everyone has lauded Munns analysis of the PGF because he has gone to the site, performed focal, distance analysis, attempted to recreate it with actors and shown mutilple comparisions with how the size of a regular person would fit within Patty's frame. Has Munns been to the location where the Matilda footage was filmed? Has he shown the size and focal relationships compared to the footage and actual people? Used actors to attempt a recreation? I am not claiming Matilda is real, frankly because I don't know. I haven't done the necessary analysis nor am I qualified to do so. I find it extremely hypocritcal that a community who has constantly used Munns work to defend the PGF refuses to apply the same standards of critcal examination and analysis to another piece of evidence. You seem to be very bitter about this Erikson thing. I just wonder, do you have a dog in this fight?
Guest Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) The Circus is in town tonight, MK is gonna be on Greta's show on Fox News Channel @7 tonight. Edited October 7, 2013 by GEARMAN
GuyInIndiana Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Awwwwww crap. I had more faith in Greta than that.
Guest thermalman Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 You seem to be very bitter about this Erikson thing. I just wonder, do you have a dog in this fight? Maybe a new hair cut would cheer her up?
Recommended Posts