Jump to content
Bill

Munns Research Status

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter
7 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

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

 

Carry on...

 

Go with it - place a bet!     :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

He hasn't been on the forum since June and it does look like the Munns site is down. If you are in contact with him, let him know that we can host his research pages, if he's interested.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

As I mentioned on pg 10, Bill is aware of this. If you type in the full link or click on the link here, you should get to your destination !

 http://www.themunnsreport.com/

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
17 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Go with it - place a bet!     :)

 

 

I concur, Bill.... ;) ....I think Squatchy should just "go with the flow".  His odds are probably better of getting some satisfaction on the Casino site, than they are on Bill Munns' website....(if he's hoping to be convinced of Bigfoot's existence.)

 

Spin the wheel, Squatchy....and......good luck... :lol: ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iZPRif2i4

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Bill Munns and the K100

 

Bill,

 

I noticed in When Roger Met Patty you state on page 292--the K100 camera is not proven to be the camera used to film Patty.   <--- not your exact words. Did I miss something or am I reading this wrong?

 

I am re-reading the book for about the 3rd time and each time I catch something diff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

the K-100 is the camera, to a certainty.

quoting from page 292: 

"A hoaxer would not have chosen to film with a K-100 camera under these circumstances. And Roger did use such a camera, to a 100% certainty."

 

That section discusses why a magazine type camera would have been the better choice for a hoaxer.

 

Page 408-410 also explains how the K-100 camera was certified as being the camera used by Roger to film the PGF, using the camera identification system developed by camera manufacturers.

Share this post


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

the K-100 is the camera, to a certainty.

quoting from page 292: 

"A hoaxer would not have chosen to film with a K-100 camera under these circumstances. And Roger did use such a camera, to a 100% certainty."

 

That section discusses why a magazine type camera would have been the better choice for a hoaxer.

 

Page 408-410 also explains how the K-100 camera was certified as being the camera used by Roger to film the PGF, using the camera identification system developed by camera manufacturers.

 

Thank you.

 

I miss-read it yesterday.  I just mixed it up and had it wrong somehow (probably since I underlined it with a pen from my first reading)

 

Sorry for the confusion.  I had it wrong. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celtic Raider
On 8/20/2016 at 2:25 PM, OkieFoot said:
On 8/19/2016 at 4:47 PM, 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.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate here but there are a couple potential issues that could be pointed out by a skeptic:

 

i)  If the photo is of a single track then there is no way to know that it is a set of tracks and the stride etc. other than to take a persons word

ii)  If there are pictures of a trackway, then we need something near the trackway to provide scale to legitimise the claims of the stride etc. otherwise it is just a persons word

iii)  If there is just a single witness who claims that he was hiking or hunting etc. 15 miles from the nearest road when he found the tracks then again we have to take a persons word 

 

A skeptic would probably say that the track looks interesting from the photo but how do we know it was a whole trackway not just a single print, how do we know the strides were 60 inches, how do we know the location was inaccessible and how do we know the track 'finder' went to that much trouble - could be a guy in his own backyard that makes up or exaggerates a story!

 

Of course, if there is a scale next to the trackway we would be able to estimate stride and if the location can be verified by someone else or by drone footage etc. and the tracks have been photographed well a long way from civilisation where it would take a great deal of effort and there would be very little footfall then we do have a genuine mystery..........

 

Again, I'm not pouring scorn on the above just pointing out some sensible questions that could be asked and would need answering if it's to be presented as evidence. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Just playing Devil's advocate here but there are a couple potential issues that could be pointed out by a skeptic:

 

i)  If the photo is of a single track then there is no way to know that it is a set of tracks and the stride etc. other than to take a persons word

 

We have to be very careful on taking people at their word.  I'll even add we are taking their word about the location if the photo or photos don't show landmarks to identify the area.  If I have a pic of me smiling by an oak tree, I could claim it could be anywhere.  No one would care if I am lying since it is not an issue anyone cares about.  Taking their word is a bad idea.  We could assume though we could draw some example of some bigfoot-like tracks found remotely:  Lets say you are a skeptic.  Lets say you go into remote woods where there is rarely another camper/ person.  After much difficulty in hiking you come across a series of tracks or a few tracks or even (due to the ground conditions) a single track.  You would have to admit it would be a lot of trouble for a hoaxer to hoax there as 1) the track like milk would go bad after some time  2) It would take an effortt for the hoaxer to even get there to make the track.  3)  The hoaxer by definition needs someone to find these soon- to- be- vanishing tracks.  Without that someone to be fooled there is no one to hoax. 

 

If a TREE falls in the Forrest and no one is around to hear it....

 

For that reason, the hoaxer would generally use an area not so remote the hoax disappears before it can be seen.

 

 

Quote

ii)  If there are pictures of a trackway, then we need something near the trackway to provide scale to legitimise the claims of the stride etc. otherwise it is just a persons word

 

I couldn't agree more. 

 

Quote

iii)  If there is just a single witness who claims that he was hiking or hunting etc. 15 miles from the nearest road when he found the tracks then again we have to take a persons word 

 

Yep.

 

Now if they told the exact location and I could go there it could still be a hoax.  However, by telling me exactly where (assuming it could be known) at least the person is not fearing I will see it as well and discover the hoax if it is one.

 

Quote

A skeptic would probably say that the track looks interesting from the photo but how do we know it was a whole trackway not just a single print, how do we know the strides were 60 inches, how do we know the location was inaccessible and how do we know the track 'finder' went to that much trouble - could be a guy in his own backyard that makes up or exaggerates a story!

 

All great point I would agree with.  Again, just say it is your personal experience.  You don't even take pics since your phone is dead.  You just notice it.  You would get back to the world and say, "Well, who put that track there"

 

This is why it makes since when Bill Munns says in WRMP to mainly just look at the film and see what it tells us vs taking people's word for it.  Helps eliminate that factor.

 

Quote

Of course, if there is a scale next to the trackway we would be able to estimate stride and if the location can be verified by someone else or by drone footage etc. and the tracks have been photographed well a long way from civilisation where it would take a great deal of effort and there would be very little footfall then we do have a genuine mystery..........

 

Again, I'm not pouring scorn on the above just pointing out some sensible questions that could be asked and would need answering if it's to be presented as evidence. 

 

 

The ideal situation would be something along the lines of a film crew, logging crew, bird watching group, or whomever being there with some other intent.  While there, they stumble across something like some remote tracks.  They could photograph the tracks and or film the tracks.  Right might help.  

 

I doubt such situations exists too often.  I can only hope.

 

I think of the days before Charles Lindberg's flight across the ocean.  Some French guys took a plane from France to America never to be seen again.  Years later some people who were hunting in the USA/Canada area claimed they came across the engine block/ wreckage of that plane and other minor debris.  Who really knows.  IF it is true then they way the came across it is the same way I am talking about those Bigfoot tracks.  A random encounter in an area hard to get to.  Could be real, could be a hoax, could be a real misidentified track maker (Bear or whatever).

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

This is why it makes sense when Bill Munns says in WRMP to mainly just look at the film and see what it tells us vs taking people's word for it.  Helps eliminate that factor.

 

 

CLARIFICATON: 

 

1-  This is regarding the PGF.  Take what the film tells us about the subject as well as the film action telling us about the person who would be the camera operator.  Take what we can learn about the film itself.  Make that the focus and not the non- film mud slinging.  That is part of the thinking as I read it featured in WRMP.

 

2--  Regarding tracks found.  I am not sayin to just take the pic only and not talk about what was claimed on some still pic of some tracks.  That was in regards to the PGF and its' study featured in When Roger Met Patty (WRMP).  

 

I am talking about the PGF specifically there and not a film still pic of some tracks.  We need to know a lot more about a still pic of some tracks.

 

Thanks.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
10 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Just playing Devil's advocate here but there are a couple potential issues that could be pointed out by a skeptic:

 

i)  If the photo is of a single track then there is no way to know that it is a set of tracks and the stride etc. other than to take a persons word

ii)  If there are pictures of a trackway, then we need something near the trackway to provide scale to legitimise the claims of the stride etc. otherwise it is just a persons word

iii)  If there is just a single witness who claims that he was hiking or hunting etc. 15 miles from the nearest road when he found the tracks then again we have to take a persons word 

 

A skeptic would probably say that the track looks interesting from the photo but how do we know it was a whole trackway not just a single print, how do we know the strides were 60 inches, how do we know the location was inaccessible and how do we know the track 'finder' went to that much trouble - could be a guy in his own backyard that makes up or exaggerates a story!

 

Of course, if there is a scale next to the trackway we would be able to estimate stride and if the location can be verified by someone else or by drone footage etc. and the tracks have been photographed well a long way from civilisation where it would take a great deal of effort and there would be very little footfall then we do have a genuine mystery..........

 

Again, I'm not pouring scorn on the above just pointing out some sensible questions that could be asked and would need answering if it's to be presented as evidence. 

 

 

CR, below is a link to the BFRO report about the Mt. Baldy, MT trackway the elk hunter came across. There was just one photo and the witness did tell the investigator he wished he had taken more pictures. If he did make the whole thing up, it means he lied to the BFRO reporter.

One interesting statement was the elk hunter was not a believer in Bigfoot before discovering the trackway.

 

https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974

I hope the link works.

 

sidenote: How is the summer weather in the Emerald Isle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celtic Raider
11 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

CR, below is a link to the BFRO report about the Mt. Baldy, MT trackway the elk hunter came across. There was just one photo and the witness did tell the investigator he wished he had taken more pictures. If he did make the whole thing up, it means he lied to the BFRO reporter.

One interesting statement was the elk hunter was not a believer in Bigfoot before discovering the trackway.

 

https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974

I hope the link works.

 

sidenote: How is the summer weather in the Emerald Isle?

 

Thanks for that OkieFoot, it sounds pretty interesting and well worth a read.

 

If the find is genuine and the trackway is way out in the middle of nowhere then I'm reasonably confident it wouldn't be a hoaxer, but as you say, that relies on a single individual telling the truth. Then we are in the realm of trying to explain what animal made the track and ruling out the obvious ones until we have a prime suspect and as Sherlock Holmes says "when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

I'm actually from Wales, the tiny country next to England with all the mountains and castles!!!! It's been pretty nice here considering we normally get a lot of rain, had a few really hot days but it feels like autumn is on it's way here very soon. Climate is quite similar to Ireland actually but usually a bit colder in winter!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Thanks for that OkieFoot, it sounds pretty interesting and well worth a read.

 

If the find is genuine and the trackway is way out in the middle of nowhere then I'm reasonably confident it wouldn't be a hoaxer, but as you say, that relies on a single individual telling the truth. Then we are in the realm of trying to explain what animal made the track and ruling out the obvious ones until we have a prime suspect and as Sherlock Holmes says "when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

I'm actually from Wales, the tiny country next to England with all the mountains and castles!!!! It's been pretty nice here considering we normally get a lot of rain, had a few really hot days but it feels like autumn is on it's way here very soon. Climate is quite similar to Ireland actually but usually a bit colder in winter!

 

The report would have really gotten a big boost from even one more picture showing at least a portion of the trackway which would show the long stride length between tracks. Since it was the last day of elk hunting season, I  can well believe his mindset was on elk and not on more pictures of the tracks. It's too bad he didn't take more pictures though.  

  

My mother and sister visited Wales years ago while on a trip to the British Isles. They liked Wales. They brought me a wool tie made in Wales which I still have and still wear on occasion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celtic Raider
On 8/22/2019 at 4:27 PM, OkieFoot said:

 

The report would have really gotten a big boost from even one more picture showing at least a portion of the trackway which would show the long stride length between tracks. Since it was the last day of elk hunting season, I  can well believe his mindset was on elk and not on more pictures of the tracks. It's too bad he didn't take more pictures though.  

  

My mother and sister visited Wales years ago while on a trip to the British Isles. They liked Wales. They brought me a wool tie made in Wales which I still have and still wear on occasion. 

 

 

Haha, wear it with pride OkieFoot!  If you like your history and scenery it's a great country to visit and only 3 hours drive from North to South, just remember to pack your wet weather gear no matter the time of year 😉

 

The above report was an interesting read no doubt but I guess that's why the PGF is such a standard bearer for evidence, we have multiple witnesses, the trackway which was photographed and physically evidenced, a few follow up accounts and photos for scale and of course the film. If we'd had some or any of those for the above report I'd have felt a lot more persuaded but as it is it's a nice tale but totally unverifiable.

 

Considering the number of reports logged I'm a little surprised by how many fail to have follow up details, good scale photos etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...