Jump to content
Bill

Munns Research Status

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Twist said:

I'd agree it's just a theory,. I could see it being a viable one if they had some vision in the ways of the infrared spectrum.  I guess, at least it's a more viable theory than others such as portals or mind speak that is.  

 

That is why I don't lump all reports together and try to look at each one separately because this field is full of crackpots on both sides of the isle in my view.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Twist:    I was thinking about your post and thought of an experiment to test it.     Hang a military grade IR strobe in a tree on a ridgeline in view for miles and wait with thermal cameras to see who shows up to look at it    If BF shows up, then it is very likely they can see into the IR.    Simple experiment,  but would put this question to bed.   

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

If they avoid camera traps based on the IR why would they show up for the IR strobe? Wouldn't they just avoid that as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Curiosity.   Do anything strange in the woods and they are likely to show up and take a look.    For the same reason when I hear a strange noise in my yard at night, I get out of bed and go see what is going on.   

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

It would be an interesting experiment, if it brought in BF on multiple occasions it would lend credibility to the idea.  I still think though, if IR was a curiosity of theirs we would have more trail cam pics.  And before its said, I acknowledge there could be countless trailcam pics not shared or identified correctly.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

There is a military project using cell phone technology that can visualize every square inch of vast areas at hi res.

I forget where I saw this but it's just what the doctor ordered.It might be on the DARPA website.

Of course the problem is using it within the confines of the US for civilian research purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
19 hours ago, Twist said:

It would be an interesting experiment, if it brought in BF on multiple occasions it would lend credibility to the idea.  I still think though, if IR was a curiosity of theirs we would have more trail cam pics.  And before its said, I acknowledge there could be countless trailcam pics not shared or identified correctly.   

Unless they know what a trail cam is?  There are numerous reports of trail cams being messed with from the side or back.      That suggests that whatever is messing with them knows where the business end of the camera is.  We have forum members with that kind of trail cam experience.     It could be a simple as they know a lens looks like an eye and that eyes see.     They would not have to know that the thing saves the image only that it has an eye and can look at them.   

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On 8/12/2016 at 3:59 PM, Bigfoothunter said:

 

That is why I don't lump all reports together and try to look at each one separately because this field is full of crackpots on both sides of the isle in my view.

Please forgive me for being off topic.  I have a new found respect for you.  I  have read about you and saw  documentaries   you were involved in or credited to. 

 

Anyway,  I want to thank you for your contributions to the study of  Bigfoot.  I appreciate it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

For what it's worth, I emailed Bill, he's aware of the site issue, but he doesn't know how to rectify it. (Not a computer guy)

He said if you search www.themunnsreport.com , it should lead you to his site fine. Info./work is still there.

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On August 13, 2016 at 1:03 PM, SWWASAS said:

Unless they know what a trail cam is?  There are numerous reports of trail cams being messed with from the side or back.      That suggests that whatever is messing with them knows where the business end of the camera is.  We have forum members with that kind of trail cam experience.     It could be a simple as they know a lens looks like an eye and that eyes see.     They would not have to know that the thing saves the image only that it has an eye and can look at them.   

 

My personal feeling would be any bigfoot would not have a clue what a trail camera would be.  

 

I doubt any ape in the wilderness or similar animal would mess with a camera.  If they did we might get 25 pic of some interested ape trying to touch, eat, smell and so on such a camera before the animal accidentally deactivated it somehow.  Depending on the camera, the images could still be retrieved. 

 

I understand your thinking.  I just can't see a bigfoot having much of a clue about some camera let alone the intelligence to go out of his way to destroy or deactivate it.  

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Screenshot, just now:

 

 

Screenshot-MunnsReport.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Have to disagree on that.    Bears seem attracted to game cameras to the point where they frequently chew them up.  Something in the plastic or batteries.     Deer and other animals are often photographed looking directly at game cameras.   There are many many such pictures.      It could all boil down to the fact that even the less smart animals know what is natural and what is not and avoid it.   I am not aware of anyone that goes to any effort to minimize human scent on their deployed game cameras.     Deer hunters know full well that scent is a dead giveaway.    I do not know the why, but I am reasonably certain that BF avoids game cameras they are aware of.    And since it is most likely that BF is more intelligent than the average forest animal,  it would seem to make it likely that BF would be even more careful than known animals who seem to be wary of game cameras.     As I have stated very often, in my opinion,   deployment of game or other cameras should include the effort to hide, disguise, or mount them very high out of line of sight.     If seeing the camera is the problem,  that attempts to remove that from the equation.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I would be curious if somehow Bill or others provided WRMP to the skeptics, suit makers, and so on.  I don't expect many would publicly change their mind.  However, it would be interesting what they may say in private.  

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
8 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Have to disagree on that.    Bears seem attracted to game cameras to the point where they frequently chew them up.  Something in the plastic or batteries.     Deer and other animals are often photographed looking directly at game cameras.   There are many many such pictures.      It could all boil down to the fact that even the less smart animals know what is natural and what is not and avoid it.   I am not aware of anyone that goes to any effort to minimize human scent on their deployed game cameras.     Deer hunters know full well that scent is a dead giveaway.    I do not know the why, but I am reasonably certain that BF avoids game cameras they are aware of.    And since it is most likely that BF is more intelligent than the average forest animal,  it would seem to make it likely that BF would be even more careful than known animals who seem to be wary of game cameras.     As I have stated very often, in my opinion,   deployment of game or other cameras should include the effort to hide, disguise, or mount them very high out of line of sight.     If seeing the camera is the problem,  that attempts to remove that from the equation.    

 

 

I do not disagree that bear or deer may be attracted to game cams, and this is probably very verifiable by the interaction you speak of.  The big difference in regards to BF is not the recognition of game cams ( IE the smell, human scent or even "plastic" and or "battery" scent )  but what is hard to comprehend or believe is that they do it based on a knowledge of what a Cam does.  If they were acting as bear or deer, we would have pics of them on the outskirts of a cam or pics of them approaching it to destroy it.  Without research,  As you stated, animals that recognize a game cam are still photographed looking directly at it.  BF so far, as I know, have not been filmed looking directly at it.  Put simply, an animal that destroyed or interacted with a camera based on it being a camera only happens if you take the leap of logic/faith that the animal understand and comprehends the technology behind the camera and thus are opposed to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
On 2016-08-15 at 0:41 AM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Please forgive me for being off topic.  I have a new found respect for you.  I  have read about you and saw  documentaries   you were involved in or credited to. 

 

Anyway,  I want to thank you for your contributions to the study of  Bigfoot.  I appreciate it. 

 

Thank you. I take the subject seriously as I do other matters I have investigated. I try and give serious/thorough thought to the evidence and is why I don't care much about those who make up wild theories involving things as ridiculous as sand-ferries for a solution rather than accepting that there may very well have been an undiscovered primate involved in some cases.

 

I don't believe every bump in the night is a Bigfoot - nor do I think every sighting report is genuine. In many cases where a clear view wasn't obtained by a witness(s) ... I imagine there are more rational alternatives for what people experienced. However, I do not believe every witness that saw an upright hair covered creature in the PNW walking on two feet involved a bear. Like I have said before - no one has ever viewed the PGF and stated they are looking at a bear. The alternative is that those who were sincere about their sighting and was not connected in any way with the subject they saw in detail was either fooled by some unrelated party or they truly saw a Sasquatch/Bigfoot.

 

And when I have investigated someone's claim and found evidence of what I believed to be a clear hoax - I made it publicly known. There is no 'good-ol'-boys club' or an 'us against them' policy acceptance from where I sit. I let the evidence speak for itself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...