Jump to content
Bill

Munns Research Status

Recommended Posts

Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks for replying. I may not agree with you on the authenticity of the creature. I certainly do respect your dedication and tenacity. 

 

I am actually pulling for you to be vindicated. I am 7 foot 1 and love to eat. I actually will welcome some crow  dinner. As long as there is a lot of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
6 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for replying. I may not agree with you on the authenticity of the creature.

 

When someone says they don't agree on the authenticity of the creature, then they are saying that every encounter or sighting report is either a lie, a mistaken identity, or a hoax that was being played out by someone. I accept that position as I held it as well until I actually looked at evidence that I could not explain by way of the previously mentioned alternatives. That is when I realized it wasn't about what I chose to believe, but rather what the evidence forced me to believe. Then I saw the creature. That was the confirmation (for me) that the evidence that I could not explain away without calling upon the sand ferries was the correct method for separating fact from fiction.  I can think of no better example of this than a September of 2000 film I took of a some tracks where I stomped the substrate next to them with my shoes on only to find that I could not begin to achieve the depth of the tracks. At the time I considered that proof that who or what ever made the tracks were very heavy despite the track makers foot was not any longer than my own. Years later when looking into the Michael Dennett claim about Patty's track depth Vs the track depth of Gimlin's horse, and having read about the additional causes relating to achieving track depth  when walking barefoot, did I realize that my 2000 demonstration was inadequate to say the least. To this day I hear people defending Dennett's claim - not with evidence by way of their own attempts - but through rhetoric based on their beliefs. That is a whole other matter that I have no time or patience for. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

 I stomped the substrate next to them with my shoes on only to find that I could not begin to achieve the depth of the tracks.

 

Let me paraphrase a point I heard you make once:

 

You go out where no one really hikes  in the middle of nowhere and find some tracks in some remote area which is hard to get to. The Q comes into why such tracks would be in such as hard area?. It assumes some hoaxer went all the way into the remote part of the some further remote part of some area just to makes some fake tracks. Then it assumes they would go to all that trouble knowing the hoaxing effort would quickly disappear in time due to weather conditions.  That is a lot of effort to fake some tracks when there is a very remote chance a person will even see them. The point of hoaxing is some someone actually sees the hoax.

 

This point is not easily explained by the skeptic. I will admit a hoaxer may go to great lengths to hoax. They may apply their intelligence to the effort to go to some extreme to deceive.  I can see this being possible. We would have to assume most hoaxers are not likely to go to those efforts as most hoaxing seems pretty obvious on face value.

 

BD

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

^^ I found a trackway once that had exactly that property- why would someone try a hoax like that, when we didn't even know we were going to go there until 15 minutes before we left?

 

The trackway was in Minnesota and I posted a photo of one of the tracks on this forum.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Let me paraphrase a point I heard you make once:

 

You go out where no one really hikes  in the middle of nowhere and find some tracks in some remote area which is hard to get to. The Q comes into why such tracks would be in such as hard area?. It assumes some hoaxer went all the way into the remote part of the some further remote part of some area just to makes some fake tracks. Then it assumes they would go to all that trouble knowing the hoaxing effort would quickly disappear in time due to weather conditions.  That is a lot of effort to fake some tracks when there is a very remote chance a person will even see them. The point of hoaxing is some someone actually sees the hoax.

 

This point is not easily explained by the skeptic. I will admit a hoaxer may go to great lengths to hoax. They may apply their intelligence to the effort to go to some extreme to deceive.  I can see this being possible. We would have to assume most hoaxers are not likely to go to those efforts as most hoaxing seems pretty obvious on face value.

 

BD

 

 

 

In 'Bigfoot's Reflection' I believe that I mentioned a time I was crossing over a cut-block that had lots of timber debris on it and I was walking atop most everything that I could so to keep from stepping in between the snags. When I came down this narrow tree trunk that was laying on the ground, I pushed a bush back so to see the ground and to my surprise was a Sasquatch track that had previously been made and the bush apparently sprung back over the track as if to protect it. The track was old, but preserved well enough that the toe impressions were still visible in the track. The location was up on the side of a mountain where I felt no one would have planted a track out of view from the old logging road and in a cut-block full of downed timber loaded with snags in hopes someone would move that particular bush one day soon and see that track. And furthermore I also didn't know I would be walking over that timber when I got there as it was a spur of the moment thought to work my way over it and under the trees so to sit in the shade where I would be hard to see. Had my path been a few feet in either direction I would not have had to push the bush back so to see the ground, thus I would never have known the track was there.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
36 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

In 'Bigfoot's Reflection' I believe that I mentioned a time I was crossing over a cut-block that had lots of timber debris on it and I was walking atop most everything that I could so to keep from stepping in between the snags. When I came down this narrow tree trunk that was laying on the ground, I pushed a bush back so to see the ground and to my surprise was a Sasquatch track that had previously been made and the bush apparently sprung back over the track as if to protect it. The track was old, but preserved well enough that the toe impressions were still visible in the track.

 

That is a great point.  The skeptics answer to this is the track you saw is either 1) a made up story  or 2) a track that is the track of something and you just assume it is a Bigfoot.  That is the only way they can explain it.  I hope a Skeptic chimes in so we can see what they might say. 

 

Now assuming the track looked like something most would consider identifiable as a Bigfoot track, then how does the skeptic explain the track.  If the track was just some smear then it could be anything.  You and I would correctly say if the track looked more distinctive then it begs the Q as to why a skeptic would put such a track in such a remote area probably never to be seen.

 

Curious if you photographed the track or took a print of it in some fashion.

 

I watched again the Bigfoot's Reflection seg which feature you on that part.  That is where I saw the quote initially but could not remember if it had been the BFF or something else.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

 

20 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

... 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....

 

John Bindernagel, B.S.A., MS, Ph.D., makes it clear why  mistaken identification of a primate as a bear is pretty unlikely. See http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page10.html

 

Edited by MikeZimmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
21 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Let me paraphrase a point I heard you make once:

 

You go out where no one really hikes  in the middle of nowhere and find some tracks in some remote area which is hard to get to. The Q comes into why such tracks would be in such as hard area?. It assumes some hoaxer went all the way into the remote part of the some further remote part of some area just to makes some fake tracks. Then it assumes they would go to all that trouble knowing the hoaxing effort would quickly disappear in time due to weather conditions.  That is a lot of effort to fake some tracks when there is a very remote chance a person will even see them. The point of hoaxing is some someone actually sees the hoax.

 

This point is not easily explained by the skeptic. I will admit a hoaxer may go to great lengths to hoax. They may apply their intelligence to the effort to go to some extreme to deceive.  I can see this being possible. We would have to assume most hoaxers are not likely to go to those efforts as most hoaxing seems pretty obvious on face value.

 

BD

 

 

 

Those are great points. A good example are the Mt. Baldy, MT tracks posted by DWA on here in the past (5 Most Compelling Pieces of Evidence thread). Anyone that believes all tracks are hoaxed should read it.

A little info; The tracks were on the side of a mountain in 4-6 in. of snow, est. 17-19 in. long, 8 in. wide, est. 60 in. stride, clean tracks with no drag marks, (6'1 witness had to leap to match the stride), they curved somewhat uphill.

Key part; tracks were in a rugged, remote area, 15 miles from the nearest road, where the witness (an elk hunter) said he had never seen another human.

To leave fake tracks, someone would have to hike or ride horseback 15 miles just to make some fake tracks no one would likely ever come across. 

 

Would a hoaxer go to that much trouble and go that far off the road in a remote area where no other people ever went, just to leave fake tracks? (What hoaxer could achieve a 60 in. stride in snow and not exhaust themselves?)

As far as if the story was fabricated, there was a picture in the report of the hunter's boot next to one of the tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

This reminds me of Doug Hajicek's findin' a trackway out in the middle of no where. The only way to get to this lake was to be flown in by plane. It was the early '90's an Doug new nothin' of sasquatch, yet here he had found in the middle of no where...a fresh track way of 17 inch prints with a 40 inch stride, they(he an his camera man) followed for over a mile before realizin' maybe they didn't actually want to catch up with the track maker.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Yep.  Doug applied himself to the evidence in a way a scientist would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
35 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

This reminds me of Doug Hajicek's findin' a trackway out in the middle of no where. The only way to get to this lake was to be flown in by plane. It was the early '90's an Doug new nothin' of sasquatch, yet here he had found in the middle of no where...a fresh track way of 17 inch prints with a 40 inch stride, they(he an his camera man) followed for over a mile before realizin' maybe they didn't actually want to catch up with the track maker.  

 

These type of track reports are compelling. When you find a trackway with a lot of tracks of a large size, and with a stride length much longer than the average human stride, the odds of a hoaxer going to very remote, hard to get to areas and making fake tracks, and a long trackway at that, become extremely slim, at least in my opinion.

A quick estimate (not exact but likely in the ball park) of stride length by height shows a 40 in. stride length would be achieved by a human 8ft. tall.  And there have been tracks with stride lengths even longer than 40 inches.

 

Pat, where was the trackway located that you mentioned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

OkieFoot,

Bottom left, just above Black Lake. You can read about it in Jeff's book, pg 17.

 

Pat...

dubawnt.GIF

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Thanks, Pat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Munns Report website is still redirecting me to the top online casinos.

 

Carry on...

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...