Jump to content
Admin

The Munns Report (3)

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Bill,

Do you ever get the opportunity to sit down and discuss the multiple film segments of the PGF ( your bluff creek animation) with any TV skeptics? I saw a video of you and bob gimlin sitting at a computer and you were doing a play by play of the bluff creek event with your munns report animation.

Have you ever had the opportunity to do this with some of these TV show skeptics?

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

What tv show skeptics are you speaking of? Penn and teller or the mythbuster guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

Any of them or even Dr. Daeling and others. Often in other aspects of life a person deep into one side of an issue gets to know those on the other. Sometimes they meet, in court or whatever. Such meetings can lead to increased understanding and even friendships. Those two sides may still disagree but they are able to have coffee shop dialog with each other not available to others or the public. In fact in some cases, on the players on the opposing sides even understand each other as their wife might me tired of hearing about it. This can happen.

With Bills post on the BFF being so thoughtful and polite in the face of outright rudeness and foolishness, I would think he would have the type of tolerance needed to develop such relationships that develop into mutually respectful. Thus, if the opportunity came up, a discussion could take place.

Just curious if such discussions have. Now you mention penn and teller. I like those guys but I would bet they know nothing about the actual film segments--the multiple starts and stops, the moving forward, and so on. They are looking at it on the magician mindset standpoint. Since most magicians think magic is in fact a trick, they are just trying to see it as a trick. Penn and teller come from a discipline of "what on man can do, another man can do". Therefore, they are very likely to reject such a film on its face and not get into it.

That is what I was getting at Faenor. Not saying bill has a smoking gun, just a deeper understanding. I hope this explains what I was getting at.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I have frequently invited people who are strongly skpetical of the PGF to discuss the film in a responsible way, but so far, no takers.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pinkmoon67

I have frequently invited people who are strongly skpetical of the PGF to discuss the film in a responsible way, but so far, no takers.

 

Bill

the problem is people don't want to discuss the film they just want to discuss the back story.That's why your book when roger met patty is so refreshing it deals with what's in front of the lens and not what was behind the lens.take care and keep up the good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

I don't know if skeptics wish to avoid talking the film and focus on the backstory.

 

It could be in some cases they work in some discipline where speaking or talking about Bigfoot as a topic is taboo.  Even something as reasonable to discuss as the PGF could be looked at as some dismissive subject below the dignity of some 'professor' or whatever.  "you are giving that topic some consideration. Why not just study if Santa is real?"

 

In on Netflix bifoot show they had some professor talking about Dr. Meldrums work. He called Dr. Meldrums efforts respectable and referred to what he is trying to do as "brave" That is, it would take courage in that circle to study the film. Now I would not be surprised if that same professor would wish to talk the issue with Dr. Meldrum privately but would deny in public they ever did.  Why should it take courage to take on this topic?

 

The Backstory does dominate the PGF. I would say there is not as much backstory there as the Backstory Bakers imagine. Much of it is selective thinking and eye of the beholder stuff.  For example, Roger's arrest warrant is explained if one looks at it in context.  The make Roger sound like Al Copone.  I would suggest the backstory is the focus by many because they have a harder time arguing against the PGF based on the film itself.

 

Now in defense of the skeptic. If I was a skeptic and knew a lot about film, suit making, or whatever, I would have a great time talking to Bill Munns. The reason is both have a level of education where they can have a dialog.  I am sure there are those who would not want to discuss things with just any BFF poster who might not have the basic understanding.  That expert might take a lot of shots by someone who might be too foolish to even know they are being foolish.

 

It can go both ways. Why should Dr. Meldrum take some of the static he might on the BFF by some of these skeptic posters who have a high opinion of themselves but in reality are weak in even the most basic understanding.

 

My hope is Bill could have that type of dialog with some of these guys.  It would be interesting to see what the response would be to the Munns report, Bills animation of the film event, and WRMP.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pinkmoon67

I think the evidence about the size and shape of pattys head could quite possibly result in this film been proven genuine If that ever happened then of course the doubters will then attack Mr Munns integrity and his ability to draw these conclusions. again the real argument about what is that thing in the film will be skirted round of course by then they might have decided to read when roger met patty but I doubt it what ever evidence is presented about this film some people will never ever accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

If munns can figure out the exact shape and size of the head and prove a human head could not fit inside and his methods are infallible it shouldn't matter. If the work gets to that point it should stand on its own despite personal attacks.

On a completely separate note one wild explanation for patty, that I do not endorse or believe, some freak with both microcephaly and hypertrichosis. It would explain the fur covered body and odd shaped head. Why they would be running around in the woods naked and such a bizarre case going undocumented would also be strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pinkmoon67

If munns can figure out the exact shape and size of the head and prove a human head could not fit inside and his methods are infallible it shouldn't matter. If the work gets to that point it should stand on its own despite personal attacks.

On a completely separate note one wild explanation for patty, that I do not endorse or believe, some freak with both microcephaly and hypertrichosis. It would explain the fur covered body and odd shaped head. Why they would be running around in the woods naked and such a bizarre case going undocumented would also be strange.

like I said before some people will never except patty been real all that would happen is these people will start attacking Mr Munns integrity and I wouldn't be too surprised if they try to say he was in on it with Mr Patterson and Mr Gimlin in 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

PROVING PATTY TO THE SKEPTIC

There have been a few sad cases in this country where a prosecutor brought a rape charge against a man. During the investigation, they eventually found evidence (a witness, video tape, or some other testing) proving the innocent man could not have done it. So what happened? The crazed prosecutor when ahead anyway ignoring and hiding the evidence. The man went to prison for years. Later DNA comes along proving he did not commit the crime.

Now in a matter of life and death if a prosecutor sworn to uphold the law could ignore the facts, what makes us think skeptics would always admit new facts. If Munns could prove a mans head could not fit into patty a percentage of these skeptics would ignore it no matter how obvious. If it could happen in a trial when real life is on the line, it could easily happen in the issue if bigfoot.

You just cannot underestimate the ability of people to ignore evidence when they are h@&$ bent in their own hatred of roger patterson, bigfoot believers, or whatever. Add a society who awards such skeptic hard liners as "reasonable" or "an actual scientist" label and this further magnifies the mindset.

So no, if Munns or others Proved a man could not fit into the patty head, many skeptics would not care. In some cases many of these skeptics would be highly intelligent but even intelligence would not save them from their own passion against this film.

"Don't confuse me with your facts, I am busy trying not to think here ". That us the way it is sadly.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That's what I said to you a long time ago, Backdoc.....and why I don't bother trying to discuss the evidence with them.

 

It is a waste of time. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

It certainly seems like it's a waste of time if the person you are wanting to discuss the evidence with cannot or does not wish to understand it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

PROVING PATTY TO THE SKEPTIC

There have been a few sad cases in this country where a prosecutor brought a rape charge against a man. During the investigation, they eventually found evidence (a witness, video tape, or some other testing) proving the innocent man could not have done it. So what happened? The crazed prosecutor when ahead anyway ignoring and hiding the evidence. The man went to prison for years. Later DNA comes along proving he did not commit the crime.

Now in a matter of life and death if a prosecutor sworn to uphold the law could ignore the facts, what makes us think skeptics would always admit new facts. If Munns could prove a mans head could not fit into patty a percentage of these skeptics would ignore it no matter how obvious. If it could happen in a trial when real life is on the line, it could easily happen in the issue if bigfoot.

You just cannot underestimate the ability of people to ignore evidence when they are h@&$ bent in their own hatred of roger patterson, bigfoot believers, or whatever. Add a society who awards such skeptic hard liners as "reasonable" or "an actual scientist" label and this further magnifies the mindset.

So no, if Munns or others Proved a man could not fit into the patty head, many skeptics would not care. In some cases many of these skeptics would be highly intelligent but even intelligence would not save them from their own passion against this film.

"Don't confuse me with your facts, I am busy trying not to think here ". That us the way it is sadly.

Backdoc

 

The best part was when Bill wore the mask that a man could not fit into.

 

Creature by design? Or creature by default??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

You left out the part where if a human wears the head mask, he can't see properly, has a hard time breathing, and the mask keeps slipping up so the person can;t see at all, and if the person can see (sort of) the head angle is tilted too far downward for a match with Patty.

 

Other than that, it works just fine.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

The ones I saw (from close up) had large heads, but positioned forward and lower relative to the shoulders as opposed to a human where the head sits easily atop an obvious neck straight above the shoulders. As Bill points out, a human head will fit in the same space, but not in the same location relative to the shoulders.

 

Patty does all her movement so fluidly that things like this get ignored even though they are pretty obvious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...