[Merged] Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4 - Page 3

OntarioSquatch · 30th December 2012, 05:12 PM

Check out this latest news

Quote:

New Year's Resolution - to make an effort to speak at a skeptics public event (Specificaly, the TAM convention in Las Vegas this July, 2013)

I just sent out an email inquiry to the event organizers of the TAM Conference (TAM meaning "The Amazing Meeting", ) and thought I would share this message with all who have interest in my work. The email read as follows:

...

Edited by LashL:

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, quote a short passage and cite a link to the source.

ETA: Also, and probably more importantly, posting stuff written by someone who has been banned at this forum can easily be viewed as "posting by proxy" which is not permitted either.

Source: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/...70#entry676112

William Parcher · 30th December 2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns on BFF

So the question to you is,

No. The questions are never to be placed upon the Bigfoot doubters. Never ever ask a question of us.

Do nothing other than provide confirmatory evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Do nothing other than that.

The only question that you or the other people who think like you should ever ask is...

"There is the Bigfoot body right there and how do you like that?"

Do not say another word until you have a Bigfoot body.

GT/CS · 30th December 2012, 05:58 PM

Lying in his request letter is not a good idea.

I have a profound love of true science, and have a personal moral compass that puts truth above any agenda and puts true understanding above any convenient or fashionable fallacy. And I have no underlying belief that something called Bigfoot or sasquatch must exist, and no such belief compels me to conclude that the famous Patterson film must be authentic

Being banned from this site doesn't help either.

Resume · 30th December 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Check out this latest news

That wasn't news. That was misdirection. As is "We don't have squat (or squatch in this case) so lets talk about an old fuzzy artifact-ridden film of a guy in a monkey suit."

Shouldn't even give this guy the time of day.

GT/CS · 30th December 2012, 06:03 PM

My guess is that he's hoping his request will be rejected so he can spin it and tell the three footers that still listen to him the JREF is afraid of his evidence.

RedRatSnake · 30th December 2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

No. The questions are never to be placed upon the Bigfoot doubters. Never ever ask a question of us.

Do not say another word until you have a Bigfoot body.

I think enough time has passed for a body/specimen to have been located by now, I know they will never put up or shut up but, they (footers) have had plenty of time, it's just a bunch of old timers teaching new people with BF curiosity, in IMHO it's degrading and giving the wrong set of values.

I think a disclaimer should be tagged on every BF report, show, picture, etc. from here on.

AttorneyTom · 30th December 2012, 06:06 PM

I love the Syllabus but it should be renamed " The PGF at 45 ! UnHoaxing a Midlife Crisis !"

I wish we could shift the burden of proof on everything in life.. It would make SO MANY OTHER MYTHS both believable and fascinating !

Resume · 30th December 2012, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

My guess is that he's hoping his request will be rejected so he can spin it and tell the three footers that still listen to him the JREF is afraid of his evidence.

Well of course. After his offer is rejected he can blather on about how the meanie skeptics can't offer a coherent debunking of PGF, therefore . . . something.

To echo William Parcher, the only question left for the footers is "Got Monkey?"

RedRatSnake · 30th December 2012, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

My guess is that he's hoping his request will be rejected so he can spin it and tell the three footers that still listen to him the JREF is afraid of his evidence.

I think you are correct.

River · 30th December 2012, 06:08 PM

I would love to see Bill Munns get accepted to speak. Do I think it will happen? No. Bigfoot is a losing battle.

William Parcher · 30th December 2012, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I know Bill now in a way that is outside of keyboard wars. He thinks the PGF is actually real about as much as a 3 dollar bill. What he does with what I give him I no longer care.

Does Bill always tell the truth about himself and everything else?

Let me ask you - if Bill told somebody that his opinion is that "Patty is a real Bigfoot" would he be lying?

IOW, do you know his opinion like you say that you do?

OntarioSquatch · 30th December 2012, 09:43 PM

^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot".

Also, Kitakaze isn't being honest in that above statement.

Resume · 31st December 2012, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot".

Also, Kitakaze isn't being honest in that above statement.

So then what's his point? Honestly, what's the friggen point? Other than a touchstone that sparked a movement of monkey worshippers, what more is there to say about the PGF?

Got Monkey?

GT/CS · 31st December 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot".

That's because you haven't been around long and haven't done proper research.

The Shrike · 31st December 2012, 07:25 AM

I suspect that Munns' request would be denied solely on the basis that it appears his presentation would take 45 years to deliver. Get to the point, man!

RedRatSnake · 31st December 2012, 10:03 AM

^ Good point, his new year's resolution is more like a new years entire agenda.

Correa Neto · 31st December 2012, 01:11 PM

Smart move. Might as well be a very low-risk situation for him.
Taking in to account the previous TAM records, bigfoot is not a topic of interest. Focus is on scams involving paranormal stuff and stuff such as homeopathy. So, his offer may be declined due to this reason, not to mention IIRC he made some legal threats agains JREF. This will not be of any help, too.
So, "no" can be used to back claims such as "they refuse to discuss and dialog".

Also, the folks whom attend TAM probably are not as acquainted with bigfootery as the main contributors of the bigfoot threads are. May not be a hard debate.

Now, it would be very interesting if JREF accepted his generous offer and also brought some FX and primatology experts to the debate. Remember - there are FX experts who more than once said Patty is a guy in a costume.

I suspect Munns would decline his offer in this case.

jerrywayne · 31st December 2012, 06:20 PM

I, for one, would like to see Bill appear before a skeptical audience. Ideally, someone qualified should also present counter-arguments to Bill's presentation, or present their own reasons why the film does not, or cannot, carry the weight the pro-Bigfoot advocacy assigns to it.

The reason the Bigfoot saga has gotten so out of hand (imho) over the decades is due to the lacking of formal skeptical responses to the phenomena.
The advocate champions have either been ignored or dismissed without a hearing by the very professionals and opinion makers who should be responding. This has allowed the advocates to go virtually unchallenged and to present their evidence without fear of contradiction. And more and more folks are buying into the saga, based on the unrefuted arguments presented by the class of professional advocates.

Character assassination is too short-hand (and ill-reputed) to move the debate along. And it is too weak, and bias appearing, to kill the issue outright.

Gilbert Syndrome · 1st January 2013, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot".

Also, Kitakaze isn't being honest in that above statement.

You coulda fooled me... Seems like Bill is doing nothing but attempt to prove Patty is real, if he isn't, then what the bollocks has he been doing for the last however long?

Correa Neto · 1st January 2013, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

...snip...
The reason the Bigfoot saga has gotten so out of hand (imho) over the decades is due to the lacking of formal skeptical responses to the phenomena.
The advocate champions have either been ignored or dismissed without a hearing by the very professionals and opinion makers who should be responding. This has allowed the advocates to go virtually unchallenged and to present their evidence without fear of contradiction. And more and more folks are buying into the saga, based on the unrefuted arguments presented by the class of professional advocates.

Character assassination is too short-hand (and ill-reputed) to move the debate along. And it is too weak, and bias appearing, to kill the issue outright.

This is valid for most if not all woo wandering around.
Do you really think the History Channel would make money with shows showing how ridicule are the Maya doomsday prophecies, ancient aliens, Atlantis, Bermudas Triangle, cryptozoology, Bible babble, etc?

There are formal skeptic responses - but they are not easilly available to the general public because they do not make as much money as tendering the scams.

jerrywayne · 1st January 2013, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

This is valid for most if not all woo wandering around.
Do you really think the History Channel would make money with shows showing how ridicule are the Maya doomsday prophecies, ancient aliens, Atlantis, Bermudas Triangle, cryptozoology, Bible babble, etc?

There are formal skeptic responses - but they are not easilly available to the general public because they do not make as much money as tendering the scams.

I've given up on cable. The History Channel once was reputable. A few years back, our local newspaper actually ran a front page article that noted, and lamented, how informative cable networks were turning to more profitable "entertainment" programming of dubious merit. I was impressed with the article and waited to see if it made an impact (such as with the Letters section). The article caused no comment or followup what-so-ever. Yawn! seemed to be the impact.

I guess we are getting what we deserve.

RedRatSnake · 1st January 2013, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

You coulda fooled me... Seems like Bill is doing nothing but attempt to prove Patty is real,

I see it the same way, I think he has a need to be accepted by all or at least many in his work and it bothers him if he isn't, I also have a feeling he started out to find the truth, but got involved in a subject that took him by surprise, if he told the truth about his findings now he would lose his friendship with the footer side and he is way to cemented in with those folks now.

clayflingythingy · 5th January 2013, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Does Bill always tell the truth about himself and everything else?

Let me ask you - if Bill told somebody that his opinion is that "Patty is a real Bigfoot" would he be lying?

IOW, do you know his opinion like you say that you do?

KK has posted this on BFF:

"I have agreed to give what things I have found in my studies to Bill Munns, him being the person I deem most worthy to take over the investigations I have done."

WTF????

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/...page__st__2760

Post 2775.

mustbeso · 5th January 2013, 09:44 AM

Maybe Kitikaze is putting a couple layers of paint around the corner into which Bill Munns has painted himself. By giving Munns all his stuff is he not forcing the issue and Munns' investment in "it's a real biological entity"? Can Munns continue the charade if this evidence from KK has any validity at all. I wonder, though, if there is anything to KK's info will be as obvious to others as it apparently is to Kitikaze.

RedRatSnake · 5th January 2013, 09:45 AM

Wish poor ole RedRatSnake was here to read this news, I remember him saying it was all a bunch of bull years ago.
He once gave me some advice I won't forget, he said that he learned a long time ago to never trust a snake oil salesman.

A "snake oil salesman" is somebody that sells an item that claims to have some miraculous powers. This product is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of hype. In an attempt to help push their products, the "snake oil salesman" will usually utilize planted accomplices who will claim that the product actually works.

Skeptical Greg · 5th January 2013, 09:46 AM

Well, Munns is an opportunist .. If he feels he has milked the pro side as much as he can, he can always switch tracks..

I think that would be fun to watch ..

Kilaak Kommander · 5th January 2013, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Slocie's

Wish poor ole RedRatSnake was here to read this news, I remember him saying it was all a bunch of bull years ago.
He once gave me some advice I won't forget, he said that he learned a long time ago to never trust a snake oil salesman.

The question is what exactly Kk is/was selling, particularly with his quest for the Patty suit. It didn't seem like he was pursuing funding. What was he after? Maybe it was a dangling carrot to get wary Bigfooters to open up to him. Maybe it was a bluff to draw out any insiders who actually did have knowledge of a suit.

It seems odd that he chose to pass the information on to only one person, whether or not it was Munns.

GT/CS · 5th January 2013, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Slocie's

Wish poor ole RedRatSnake was here to read this news, I remember him saying it was all a bunch of bull years ago.
He once gave me some advice I won't forget, he said that he learned a long time ago to never trust a snake oil salesman.

A "snake oil salesman" is somebody that sells an item that claims to have some miraculous powers. This product is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of hype. In an attempt to help push their products, the "snake oil salesman" will usually utilize planted accomplices who will claim that the product actually works.

Years ago? Are we going to do this dance again?

RedRatSnake · 5th January 2013, 02:36 PM

Sure why not it's footing at its best, how about, we do

The Southside Shuffle

In honor of getting the southside shaft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbtLQ...HxRvft0vxwXAk0

RedRatSnake · 6th January 2013, 08:06 AM

Ok there seems to be some confusion about what I am talking about, I am looking at the entire picture here from start to what now looks like the Finnish, KK has been posting for years about his interviews and searches etc, to find the truth about the film and possibly find the people and suit involved, now just when it looks like we are going to get some info and possible closure on this, he bails and hands the info off to a footer.
I don't seen how this is much different from any other BF tale that has been told, it ends with absolutely no evidence, I am missing something here?

clayflingythingy · 6th January 2013, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Kilaak Kommander

The question is what exactly Kk is/was selling, particularly with his quest for the Patty suit. It didn't seem like he was pursuing funding. What was he after? Maybe it was a dangling carrot to get wary Bigfooters to open up to him. Maybe it was a bluff to draw out any insiders who actually did have knowledge of a suit.

It seems odd that he chose to pass the information on to only one person, whether or not it was Munns.

My opinion is now firmer than ever that he had jack squat.

His posts over on his BFF suit thread have become....strange, IMHO.

tsig · 6th January 2013, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Slocie's

Ok there seems to be some confusion about what I am talking about, I am looking at the entire picture here from start to what now looks like the Finnish, KK has been posting for years about his interviews and searches etc, to find the truth about the film and possibly find the people and suit involved, now just when it looks like we are going to get some info and possible closure on this, he bails and hands the info off to a footer.
I don't seen how this is much different from any other BF tale that has been told, it ends with absolutely no evidence, I am missing something here?

Nope, just another bigfoot snipe hunt.

RedRatSnake · 6th January 2013, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Nope, just another bigfoot snipe hunt.

Totally aware that could be so, I think that's why nothing has gone full scale yet, just testing the waters some I figure, with the news we just got I think it is worth looking at, I don't know anyone personally here so I am going with a ton of skepticism on this, it smells to me.

Guys: I am seriously not looking for a witch/warlock hunt here, just some solid verification it was on the level.

AttorneyTom · 6th January 2013, 08:49 PM

Yes, it it is odd and .. well it is odd. Unless you thought there was a BF.. well who cares. Very silly and stupid ?! Is there some rule around here that we have to disprove nut jobs ? They do it on their own.

tsig · 6th January 2013, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Slocie's

Totally aware that could be so, I think that's why nothing has gone full scale yet, just testing the waters some I figure, with the news we just got I think it is worth looking at, I don't know anyone personally here so I am going with a ton of skepticism on this, it smells to me.

Guys: I am seriously not looking for a witch/warlock hunt here, just some solid verification it was on the level.

The only evidence ever given was posts on forums.

Bill Munns gained some BF credibility by being attacked by kk.

mike3 · 16th January 2013, 12:17 AM

Hi.

I'm sure this has probably been remarked on before, but:

Don't you find it funny that P & G were able to capture a "Bigfoot" just like that, just by dropping in and letting film rip, while nobody has ever done so since?

With that in mind, something smells funny about the PG film.

They go out there wanting to capture a Bigfoot, and lo and behold! There it is! -- and yet we have shows like "Finding Bigfoot" and what not where they strain very vague signs really hard and try to claim they're Bigfoot.

So it seems very plausible it's a hoax, and not a piece of evidence to suggest Bigfoot exists. The only thing left would be to identify a hoaxer. Even if one cannot be conclusively identified, the hoax hypothesis still looks much more plausible than a creature which has avoided all attempts at proving its existence both before and since this one incident.

HarryHenderson · 16th January 2013, 01:16 AM

I would BEG of you to plead with the mods to MOVE THIS POST to the appropriate "Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4" thread. Key word MOVE, not MERGE (or at least leave the term 'Merged' out of the title).

Intending no disrespect, the notion has been discussed ad nauseum throughout the BF threads and breaking it out into its own thread would be absurd.

mike3 · 16th January 2013, 02:04 AM

Yeah, that'd probably be a good idea.

Skeptical Greg · 16th January 2013, 04:32 PM

While waiting for the mods to move ( and acknowledging Harry's observation ) what is stranger than their unlikely encounter, is their total failure to follow up on it, in any meaningful way ...

STRONG LIKE BEAR · 17th January 2013, 10:19 AM

Bob Gimlin is an honest christian man. I hope you're not implying that he was involved in a premeditated hoax for monetary gain. Why would he lie, mike?

</sarcasm>

On another note, type bob gimlin into google. The first 2 suggestions to finish your search are "Bob Gimlin lie detector" and "Bob Gimlin hoax" hehehe

American. Legend.

And it is legendary isn't it? I would be very pleased with myself if I was involved in such a successful hoax that has persisted so long. What I find particularly distasteful though, is his presentation/speeches at bigfoot conferences. All of the sudden, Bob Gimlin goes from being a good-ole-boy prankster, relatively harmless, to being thrust into the realm of straight up fraud.

We're talking about a guy who faked tracks with Roger Patterson lieing through his teeth to a room full of people hanging on his every word like he's some kind of larger than life figure.

Bob Gimlin won't be confessing to this hoax.

30th December 2012, 05:50 PM	#82
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,530	Originally Posted by Bill Munns on BFF So the question to you is, No. The questions are never to be placed upon the Bigfoot doubters. Never ever ask a question of us. Do nothing other than provide confirmatory evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Do nothing other than that. The only question that you or the other people who think like you should ever ask is... "There is the Bigfoot body right there and how do you like that?" Do not say another word until you have a Bigfoot body.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

30th December 2012, 05:58 PM	#83
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	Lying in his request letter is not a good idea. I have a profound love of true science, and have a personal moral compass that puts truth above any agenda and puts true understanding above any convenient or fashionable fallacy. And I have no underlying belief that something called Bigfoot or sasquatch must exist, and no such belief compels me to conclude that the famous Patterson film must be authentic Being banned from this site doesn't help either.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

30th December 2012, 05:58 PM	#84
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch Check out this latest news That wasn't news. That was misdirection. As is "We don't have squat (or squatch in this case) so lets talk about an old fuzzy artifact-ridden film of a guy in a monkey suit." Shouldn't even give this guy the time of day.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132

30th December 2012, 06:03 PM	#85
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	My guess is that he's hoping his request will be rejected so he can spin it and tell the three footers that still listen to him the JREF is afraid of his evidence.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

30th December 2012, 06:06 PM	#87
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	I love the Syllabus but it should be renamed " The PGF at 45 ! UnHoaxing a Midlife Crisis !" I wish we could shift the burden of proof on everything in life.. It would make SO MANY OTHER MYTHS both believable and fascinating !
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

30th December 2012, 06:05 PM	#86
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	Originally Posted by William Parcher No. The questions are never to be placed upon the Bigfoot doubters. Never ever ask a question of us. Do not say another word until you have a Bigfoot body. I think enough time has passed for a body/specimen to have been located by now, I know they will never put up or shut up but, they (footers) have had plenty of time, it's just a bunch of old timers teaching new people with BF curiosity, in IMHO it's degrading and giving the wrong set of values. I think a disclaimer should be tagged on every BF report, show, picture, etc. from here on.

30th December 2012, 06:06 PM	#88
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132	Originally Posted by GT/CS My guess is that he's hoping his request will be rejected so he can spin it and tell the three footers that still listen to him the JREF is afraid of his evidence. Well of course. After his offer is rejected he can blather on about how the meanie skeptics can't offer a coherent debunking of PGF, therefore . . . something. To echo William Parcher, the only question left for the footers is "Got Monkey?"
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132

30th December 2012, 06:07 PM	#89
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	Originally Posted by GT/CS My guess is that he's hoping his request will be rejected so he can spin it and tell the three footers that still listen to him the JREF is afraid of his evidence. I think you are correct.

30th December 2012, 06:08 PM	#90
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,744	I would love to see Bill Munns get accepted to speak. Do I think it will happen? No. Bigfoot is a losing battle.
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,744	__________________ “Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln

30th December 2012, 06:13 PM	#91
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,530	Originally Posted by kitakaze I know Bill now in a way that is outside of keyboard wars. He thinks the PGF is actually real about as much as a 3 dollar bill. What he does with what I give him I no longer care. Does Bill always tell the truth about himself and everything else? Let me ask you - if Bill told somebody that his opinion is that "Patty is a real Bigfoot" would he be lying? IOW, do you know his opinion like you say that you do?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

30th December 2012, 09:43 PM	#92
OntarioSquatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 499	^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot". Also, Kitakaze isn't being honest in that above statement.
	Last edited by OntarioSquatch; 30th December 2012 at 09:44 PM.

31st December 2012, 04:50 AM	#93
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch ^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot". Also, Kitakaze isn't being honest in that above statement. So then what's his point? Honestly, what's the friggen point? Other than a touchstone that sparked a movement of monkey worshippers, what more is there to say about the PGF? Got Monkey?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132

31st December 2012, 05:59 AM	#94
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch ^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot". That's because you haven't been around long and haven't done proper research.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

31st December 2012, 07:25 AM	#95
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,836	I suspect that Munns' request would be denied solely on the basis that it appears his presentation would take 45 years to deliver. Get to the point, man!

31st December 2012, 10:03 AM	#96
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	^ Good point, his new year's resolution is more like a new years entire agenda.

31st December 2012, 01:11 PM	#97
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,232	Smart move. Might as well be a very low-risk situation for him. Taking in to account the previous TAM records, bigfoot is not a topic of interest. Focus is on scams involving paranormal stuff and stuff such as homeopathy. So, his offer may be declined due to this reason, not to mention IIRC he made some legal threats agains JREF. This will not be of any help, too. So, "no" can be used to back claims such as "they refuse to discuss and dialog". Also, the folks whom attend TAM probably are not as acquainted with bigfootery as the main contributors of the bigfoot threads are. May not be a hard debate. Now, it would be very interesting if JREF accepted his generous offer and also brought some FX and primatology experts to the debate. Remember - there are FX experts who more than once said Patty is a guy in a costume. I suspect Munns would decline his offer in this case.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

31st December 2012, 06:20 PM	#98
jerrywayne Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 353	I, for one, would like to see Bill appear before a skeptical audience. Ideally, someone qualified should also present counter-arguments to Bill's presentation, or present their own reasons why the film does not, or cannot, carry the weight the pro-Bigfoot advocacy assigns to it. The reason the Bigfoot saga has gotten so out of hand (imho) over the decades is due to the lacking of formal skeptical responses to the phenomena. The advocate champions have either been ignored or dismissed without a hearing by the very professionals and opinion makers who should be responding. This has allowed the advocates to go virtually unchallenged and to present their evidence without fear of contradiction. And more and more folks are buying into the saga, based on the unrefuted arguments presented by the class of professional advocates. Character assassination is too short-hand (and ill-reputed) to move the debate along. And it is too weak, and bias appearing, to kill the issue outright.

1st January 2013, 12:50 PM	#99
Gilbert Syndrome Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK Posts: 351	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch ^I've never seen Bill call the Patterson film subject a Bigfoot. Or Sasquatch. I remember he's made it clear before, that he's not trying to prove that the Patterson film shows a real "Bigfoot". Also, Kitakaze isn't being honest in that above statement. You coulda fooled me... Seems like Bill is doing nothing but attempt to prove Patty is real, if he isn't, then what the bollocks has he been doing for the last however long?
	__________________ "I've got to take Jeremy's advice more often: I'm out on a date with a teenage goth, smoking pot in the Lazerbowl toilets... this is it. This is literally, it. This is the sort of thing people do when they're having a good time."

1st January 2013, 01:17 PM	#100
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,232	Originally Posted by jerrywayne ...snip... The reason the Bigfoot saga has gotten so out of hand (imho) over the decades is due to the lacking of formal skeptical responses to the phenomena. The advocate champions have either been ignored or dismissed without a hearing by the very professionals and opinion makers who should be responding. This has allowed the advocates to go virtually unchallenged and to present their evidence without fear of contradiction. And more and more folks are buying into the saga, based on the unrefuted arguments presented by the class of professional advocates. Character assassination is too short-hand (and ill-reputed) to move the debate along. And it is too weak, and bias appearing, to kill the issue outright. This is valid for most if not all woo wandering around. Do you really think the History Channel would make money with shows showing how ridicule are the Maya doomsday prophecies, ancient aliens, Atlantis, Bermudas Triangle, cryptozoology, Bible babble, etc? There are formal skeptic responses - but they are not easilly available to the general public because they do not make as much money as tendering the scams.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

1st January 2013, 04:55 PM	#101
jerrywayne Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 353	Originally Posted by Correa Neto This is valid for most if not all woo wandering around. Do you really think the History Channel would make money with shows showing how ridicule are the Maya doomsday prophecies, ancient aliens, Atlantis, Bermudas Triangle, cryptozoology, Bible babble, etc? There are formal skeptic responses - but they are not easilly available to the general public because they do not make as much money as tendering the scams. I've given up on cable. The History Channel once was reputable. A few years back, our local newspaper actually ran a front page article that noted, and lamented, how informative cable networks were turning to more profitable "entertainment" programming of dubious merit. I was impressed with the article and waited to see if it made an impact (such as with the Letters section). The article caused no comment or followup what-so-ever. Yawn! seemed to be the impact. I guess we are getting what we deserve.

1st January 2013, 06:02 PM	#102
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome You coulda fooled me... Seems like Bill is doing nothing but attempt to prove Patty is real, I see it the same way, I think he has a need to be accepted by all or at least many in his work and it bothers him if he isn't, I also have a feeling he started out to find the truth, but got involved in a subject that took him by surprise, if he told the truth about his findings now he would lose his friendship with the footer side and he is way to cemented in with those folks now.

5th January 2013, 09:20 AM	#103
clayflingythingy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 337	Originally Posted by William Parcher Does Bill always tell the truth about himself and everything else? Let me ask you - if Bill told somebody that his opinion is that "Patty is a real Bigfoot" would he be lying? IOW, do you know his opinion like you say that you do? KK has posted this on BFF: "I have agreed to give what things I have found in my studies to Bill Munns, him being the person I deem most worthy to take over the investigations I have done." WTF???? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/...page__st__2760 Post 2775.

5th January 2013, 09:44 AM	#104
mustbeso Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 128	Maybe Kitikaze is putting a couple layers of paint around the corner into which Bill Munns has painted himself. By giving Munns all his stuff is he not forcing the issue and Munns' investment in "it's a real biological entity"? Can Munns continue the charade if this evidence from KK has any validity at all. I wonder, though, if there is anything to KK's info will be as obvious to others as it apparently is to Kitikaze.
mustbeso Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 128

5th January 2013, 09:45 AM	#105
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	Wish poor ole RedRatSnake was here to read this news, I remember him saying it was all a bunch of bull years ago. He once gave me some advice I won't forget, he said that he learned a long time ago to never trust a snake oil salesman. A "snake oil salesman" is somebody that sells an item that claims to have some miraculous powers. This product is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of hype. In an attempt to help push their products, the "snake oil salesman" will usually utilize planted accomplices who will claim that the product actually works.

5th January 2013, 09:46 AM	#106
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,890	Well, Munns is an opportunist .. If he feels he has milked the pro side as much as he can, he can always switch tracks.. I think that would be fun to watch ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

5th January 2013, 11:15 AM	#107
Kilaak Kommander Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Happy Valley Posts: 316	Originally Posted by Slocie's Wish poor ole RedRatSnake was here to read this news, I remember him saying it was all a bunch of bull years ago. He once gave me some advice I won't forget, he said that he learned a long time ago to never trust a snake oil salesman. The question is what exactly Kk is/was selling, particularly with his quest for the Patty suit. It didn't seem like he was pursuing funding. What was he after? Maybe it was a dangling carrot to get wary Bigfooters to open up to him. Maybe it was a bluff to draw out any insiders who actually did have knowledge of a suit. It seems odd that he chose to pass the information on to only one person, whether or not it was Munns.

5th January 2013, 11:56 AM	#108
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	Originally Posted by Slocie's Wish poor ole RedRatSnake was here to read this news, I remember him saying it was all a bunch of bull years ago. He once gave me some advice I won't forget, he said that he learned a long time ago to never trust a snake oil salesman. A "snake oil salesman" is somebody that sells an item that claims to have some miraculous powers. This product is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of hype. In an attempt to help push their products, the "snake oil salesman" will usually utilize planted accomplices who will claim that the product actually works. Years ago? Are we going to do this dance again?
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,626	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

5th January 2013, 02:36 PM	#109
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	Sure why not it's footing at its best, how about, we do The Southside Shuffle In honor of getting the southside shaft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbtLQ...HxRvft0vxwXAk0

6th January 2013, 08:06 AM	#110
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	Ok there seems to be some confusion about what I am talking about, I am looking at the entire picture here from start to what now looks like the Finnish, KK has been posting for years about his interviews and searches etc, to find the truth about the film and possibly find the people and suit involved, now just when it looks like we are going to get some info and possible closure on this, he bails and hands the info off to a footer. I don't seen how this is much different from any other BF tale that has been told, it ends with absolutely no evidence, I am missing something here?

6th January 2013, 08:19 AM	#111
clayflingythingy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 337	Originally Posted by Kilaak Kommander The question is what exactly Kk is/was selling, particularly with his quest for the Patty suit. It didn't seem like he was pursuing funding. What was he after? Maybe it was a dangling carrot to get wary Bigfooters to open up to him. Maybe it was a bluff to draw out any insiders who actually did have knowledge of a suit. It seems odd that he chose to pass the information on to only one person, whether or not it was Munns. My opinion is now firmer than ever that he had jack squat. His posts over on his BFF suit thread have become....strange, IMHO.

6th January 2013, 08:08 PM	#112
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,232	Originally Posted by Slocie's Ok there seems to be some confusion about what I am talking about, I am looking at the entire picture here from start to what now looks like the Finnish, KK has been posting for years about his interviews and searches etc, to find the truth about the film and possibly find the people and suit involved, now just when it looks like we are going to get some info and possible closure on this, he bails and hands the info off to a footer. I don't seen how this is much different from any other BF tale that has been told, it ends with absolutely no evidence, I am missing something here? Nope, just another bigfoot snipe hunt.

6th January 2013, 08:44 PM	#113
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	Originally Posted by tsig Nope, just another bigfoot snipe hunt. Totally aware that could be so, I think that's why nothing has gone full scale yet, just testing the waters some I figure, with the news we just got I think it is worth looking at, I don't know anyone personally here so I am going with a ton of skepticism on this, it smells to me. Guys: I am seriously not looking for a witch/warlock hunt here, just some solid verification it was on the level.
	Last edited by RedRatSnake; 6th January 2013 at 08:48 PM. Reason: Add witchey stuff.

6th January 2013, 08:49 PM	#114
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	Yes, it it is odd and .. well it is odd. Unless you thought there was a BF.. well who cares. Very silly and stupid ?! Is there some rule around here that we have to disprove nut jobs ? They do it on their own.
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

6th January 2013, 09:07 PM	#115
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,232	Originally Posted by Slocie's Totally aware that could be so, I think that's why nothing has gone full scale yet, just testing the waters some I figure, with the news we just got I think it is worth looking at, I don't know anyone personally here so I am going with a ton of skepticism on this, it smells to me. Guys: I am seriously not looking for a witch/warlock hunt here, just some solid verification it was on the level. The only evidence ever given was posts on forums. Bill Munns gained some BF credibility by being attacked by kk.

16th January 2013, 12:17 AM	#116
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,968	Simple argument to question the PG film? Hi. I'm sure this has probably been remarked on before, but: Don't you find it funny that P & G were able to capture a "Bigfoot" just like that, just by dropping in and letting film rip, while nobody has ever done so since? With that in mind, something smells funny about the PG film. They go out there wanting to capture a Bigfoot, and lo and behold! There it is! -- and yet we have shows like "Finding Bigfoot" and what not where they strain very vague signs really hard and try to claim they're Bigfoot. So it seems very plausible it's a hoax, and not a piece of evidence to suggest Bigfoot exists. The only thing left would be to identify a hoaxer. Even if one cannot be conclusively identified, the hoax hypothesis still looks much more plausible than a creature which has avoided all attempts at proving its existence both before and since this one incident.
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,968	__________________ “Ego is subversive and devolutionary, truly destructive and terrible; ego is the generator of privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Ego is the fire that burns within the pit of hell, devouring and cosuming everything that enters and leaving utterly nothing behind. Ego is horrible, cruel, and restraining, the darkness of the world, and the doom and bane of man.” – a reaction to that famous Bertrand Russell quote.