Bigfoot PG Film The Munns report

[Bill Munns]

Bigfoot PG Film The Munns Report

MY Full evaluation of the PG Film will be completed later this year, but as there has been discussion about me and my analysis in the main PG Thread, I thought it might be wise to set up a specific thread on the analysis.

Work is currently in progress.

A visit to the Bluff Creek site is being arranged for part of the analysis.

A talk on my work is currently scheduled for May 16, 2009 in Yakima, Washington, an event focused around Bob Gimlin.

My application for a presentation at SIGGRAPH 2009 has been submitted. Decision of acceptance or not is due around April 20, 2009. If accepted, my presentation would be in the week of August 3, at SIGGRAPH, in New Orleans.

A computer graphics publication is tentatively agreed to a June issue report of my research, and specifics will be announced as this is finalized.

Another media project is being set up, but requires a NDA from me, so no details will be announced until the media people do their own program announcement.

My final report, with full documentation, is currently projected for a Mid-August release, pending the confirmation of the SIGGRAPH event, since feedback from each of the above events will be factored into the final report.

Confirmations of these events will be posted as I have the information.

Bill Munns

[clayflingythingy]

Bill,

When you visit Bluff Creek how will you determine you are at the exact site of the PGF?

What is your purpose in visiting Bluff Creek?

[Skeptical Greg]

What's the point ?

There is no doubt in this community that you will rule out a suit ( for all practical purposes ) .. If you don't rule it out, you will claim it was beyond the known capabilities and resources of RP et al ..


Anyone want to bet the conclusion of the evaluation = suit ?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

What's the point ?

There is no doubt in this community that you will rule out a suit ( for all practical purposes ) .. If you don't rule it out, you will claim it was beyond the known capabilities and resources of RP et al ..


Anyone want to bet the conclusion of the evaluation = suit ?

I dont disagree with your prognostication and I certainly wont take your bet but in fairness- lets wait and see.

That said, this will be a report. ( presumably in something similar to the accepted MRAD format complete with definitions,keywords, references,cites and such)

So if its not in IMRAD or variant, then it wouldnt be considered valid on any campus other that Woo U. so it wouldnt carry any legitimate weight.

If it is ( and knowing Bill, I'm confident he will do it properly) then there will be a report to "peer review" and otherwise refute in kind.

For example, if the PGF represents a marine animal, there can be expert commentry from Dr Fahrenbach.

There can be additional comments from MD's, Vets, other experts as well.

This "could" be catastropic for BFdom. I for one have the knives ready but going to read,examine and rebut in a professional manner.

[makaya325]

Dio, come on?

Long, Why is it ok for stanton friedman to study ufo's./... if hes a physicist?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Dio, come on?

Long, Why is it ok for stanton friedman to study ufo's./... if hes a physicist?

Simple, for the same reason it would be ok for me if I wanted to.

His PhD is in nuclear physics mine is in engineering/physics.

A "ufo" is a MACHINE which has power,engines,propulsion, material etc so our fields would be DIRECTLY applicable to the alleged vehicle. ( you know, laws of physics, energy, statics and stuff)

But even tho we are both 'doctors" neither of us or our fields would qualify us to set a broken leg or perform surgery as a MEDICAL "doctor".

[Crowlogic]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

What's the point ?

There is no doubt in this community that you will rule out a suit ( for all practical purposes ) .. If you don't rule it out, you will claim it was beyond the known capabilities and resources of RP et al ..


Anyone want to bet the conclusion of the evaluation = suit ?

One point is it'll fan the flames and you'll get to watch your latest PGF thread grow. Beyond that why should you care? Why bother getting out of bed you're going to die anyway no matter whether you stay in bed or not. And that is a foregone conclusion.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

His PhD is in nuclear physics mine is in engineering/physics.

Actually, SF has no PhD in nuclear physics though he never tries to deny it. He has a masters degree and has not been active in nuclear physics since the 1960s.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Actually, SF has no PhD in nuclear physics though he never tries to deny it. He has a masters degree and has not been active in nuclear physics since the 1960s.

Interesting, all i was going on was a Westinghouse project we did and they referred to him as Dr.

I guess i should have run a background check.

[tube]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

A visit to the Bluff Creek site is being arranged for part of the analysis.



Bill Munns

Can you tell us what it is you plan to do there, what kind of tools and measurements you plan to utilize?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by tube

Can you tell us what it is you plan to do there, what kind of tools and measurements you plan to utilize?

I'm curious about that one myself.

Is this project strictly limited to the visual analysis of the film subject or is it going to go into the PGF story and even attempt to further verify the film subject in relation to the alleged prints left behind?

[JcR]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

But even tho we are both 'doctors" neither of us or our fields would qualify us to set a broken leg or perform surgery as a MEDICAL "doctor".

Unless you held that degree also.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Interesting, all i was going on was a Westinghouse project we did and they referred to him as Dr.

I guess i should have run a background check.

That is interesting. In his book "Top Secret Majic" he claims that he only received a Masters from the univesity of Chicago.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

What's the point ?

There is no doubt in this community that you will rule out a suit ( for all practical purposes ) .. If you don't rule it out, you will claim it was beyond the known capabilities and resources of RP et al ..


Anyone want to bet the conclusion of the evaluation = suit ?

Actually this is not a certainty. Which is why i would advise to see what Munn publish before damning his report. On the form from what i saw posted from him, you are probably right, but you can't say this is the case until the publication is done.

Now the two point which ARE itnerresting are the following :

Quote:

A computer graphics publication is tentatively agreed to a June issue report of my research, and specifics will be announced as this is finalized.

Which means it might be a peer reviewed journal, which means one can analyze critic (positively or not) the methodology and results.

Quote:

Another media project is being set up, but requires a NDA from me, so no details will be announced until the media people do their own program announcement.

Emphasis mine. This looks to me somebody is poised to participate in a documentary. Now will this be a real science documentary, or will be this documentary-with-"for-entertainment"-disclaimer-crap" ? I have my opinion on this, but will eagerly wait for the result of B. Munn.

[Skeptical Greg]

I realize I could be wrong, but I just wanted to go on record with my prediction ..

I can handle the truth ...

[makaya325]

Tube, its a pleasure to read your posts. I find your investigations on the so called dermal interesting very thorough and factual. I agree, dermals arent exactly easy to fake, but that doesnt mean its impossible, like some bf enthusiasts suggest

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

A computer graphics publication is tentatively agreed to a June issue report of my research, and specifics will be announced as this is finalized.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Which means it might be a peer reviewed journal, which means one can analyze critic (positively or not) the methodology and results.

That only works as peer review for the software application.

Some additional suggested peers for review:

Costume designers and actors - with emphasis on work with: human costumes meant to add bulk; hairy hominoid; Bigfoot; great apes.

Anthropologists.

Primatologists.

Kinesiologists.

Photogrammetologists.

Preferably, none of the peer reviewers are known as prominent Bigfoot promoters or detractors.

Quote:

Munn

Munns.

[Bill Munns]

To all above:

Thank you for your interest and comments.

Suffice to say, the NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) does constrain me as far as explaining details or answering many of your questions at this time. But every question I read above will be answered fully in the course of the release of the report or in the various programs or situations noted in my statement.

As a courtesy for forum readers who may come to this thread wanting to read the discussions on the stated topic, may I simply ask that you discuss other people and their qualifications and activities in other threads, unless they have direct relevance to my work or report.

An update will likely be posted in about 3 weeks.

Bill Munns

[LONGTABBER PE]

Bill, could you provide an advance keyword list so the appropriate experts from other forums here can be assembled?

[Aepervius]

Suffice to say this NDA is mighty convenient to avoid discussion of results Or inconvenient to open it, depending on your viewpoint. Additionally I am just wondering why it would stop giving an advance keyword or rough explanation on your research, since your research came before the media project presumably, and by the sound of it, you are already advanced enough to give a before-taste.

[Bill Munns]

Longtabber:

"Bill, could you provide an advance keyword list so the appropriate experts from other forums here can be assembled?"

That would fall under the category of report preparations, which will occur between May and August. The work phase now is organization, research, field work and experiments. So what you are inquiring about will be done at the appropriate time, but not before.

Bill

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Suffice to say this NDA is mighty convenient to avoid discussion of results Or inconvenient to open it, depending on your viewpoint. Additionally I am just wondering why it would stop giving an advance keyword or rough explanation on your research, since your research came before the media project presumably, and by the sound of it, you are already advanced enough to give a before-taste.

It's called " The hook ..."


Probably more effective in some venues, other than the JREF forums ...

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I realize I could be wrong, but I just wanted to go on record with my prediction ..

I can handle the truth ...

I agree.

The usual plan:

1. claim scepticism

2. Be slowly converted

3. Profit.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Suffice to say this NDA is mighty convenient to avoid discussion of results Or inconvenient to open it, depending on your viewpoint. Additionally I am just wondering why it would stop giving an advance keyword or rough explanation on your research, since your research came before the media project presumably, and by the sound of it, you are already advanced enough to give a before-taste.

I tend to agree. This has been presented and advertised as a "scientific' report for months with several threads pinned @ the BFF on parts.

Woo-ville is going to regard it as such as well.

So I would expect an IMRAD based ANSI Z39 18-2005 type proper report.

This should have advance sheets,abstract, keywords and the whole works.

I would expect to see the detailed assumptions,methods,processes and conclusions in exacting detail with a full and comprehensive conclusion complete with references.

Then come the knives.

[makaya325]

Long, what about the acid?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Long, what about the acid?

Do you even need to ask?

[LTC8K6]

This is like expecting Meldrum to produce an objective bigfoot paper, imo.

[Astrophotographer]

Look, based on what I have seen of Munns discussion in other threads and on his webpage, I really do not expect to see an objective presentation either. That being my opinion, I am willing to allow Munns to make his presentation and see where it leads.

My prediction is that it will resolve absolutely nothing. It will be just like MK Davis's analyses if it states it could not be a suit or it will be rejected because it might suggest it could be a guy in a suit. Skeptics or proponents willl probably reject it because of flaws, which were not adequately addressed. End result, the PGF thread will continue to run its course discussing various items over and over.

I continue to stand by my opinion on this matter. Provide better evidence other than the PGF that bigfoot exists. Until that is done, no matter what fancy analysis Munns or others present, the most likely scenario is that this is a guy in a suit.

[GT/CS]

BM has shown a tendency to use a lot of words to say nothing so we may see more of the same. Half his findings may be for a bigfoot and the other half may be for a suit.

[UncaYimmy]

I'm really not sure what the point is of analyzing the film. It's such poor quality that you cannot definitively say it's a fake because it won't show anything that is absolutely man-made. It's only value is whether you believe it's likely enough to be real to justify trying to catch the beast, which is really the only way to prove that it's real. Obviously many people disagree on that conclusion. Personally, even as a kid I never thought it was worthy of further pursuit.

So the question today is really whether 40 years of searching for independent verification is enough. Even if it were motion picture quality, I would think that 40 years of not finding any such beast would lead you to conclude that it was a fake.

I don't normally engage BF beast people, so this is a sincere question. What could you possibly learn from another analysis? If the guy concludes there is no evidence of trickery, so what? Does it mean you keep searching for another 40 years?

[LTC8K6]

Does anyone, outside of the bigfoot belief community, really care if Bill Munns says Patty could not be a person in a suit? Or if he says Patty could be a person in a suit?

If it were possible to state the former from the data given, the PGF, I suppose it might matter, but it simply isn't possible.

I suppose Munns could possibly say the equivalent of "not enough info", while not making the believers too angry at him.

In fact, this possible tightrope walk from Munns is really all that interests me.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I suppose Munns could possibly say the equivalent of "not enough info", while not making the believers too angry at him.

In fact, this possible tightrope walk from Munns is really all that interests me.

Thats my secondary interest.

I cannot help but feel theres something along the lines of marketing here. ( for reasons yet to be determined) because its never been a secret the research is in progress yet the report proper wont be released until mid August.

Thats a lot of lead time to start a thread here and at the BFF

[Skeptical Greg]

UncaYimmy,
There is a lot of back-story here and I don't know where to begin, to bring you up to speed.

As far as Mr. Munns efforts, you might be able to get a handle on where he is coming from by skimming through some of his topics that have had the honor of being stickied over at BFF.

Creature suit analysis parts 1 - 12 ...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=35

You might appreciate this post, where he calculated the odds of the PGF being a hoax at 1:8192 ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=444615


Why would someone who is giving any weight at all to a suit, come to such a conclusion ?


However, I like the way Drew pointed out that the odds of it being a hoax could be much higher, and still be more likely that the odds of the subject being a non-human North American primate...

[Bill Munns]

To All:

Your intriguing and amusing suspicions of me and your wonderfully imaginative speculations about my efforts and my motives all derive from the simple reality that you refuse to take me at face value, and refuse to believe I have but one intention, and that is to try and understand what I am seeing when I look at that film. The intention of my report is to simply share with anyone who may be interested in what I personally have come to understand through this research endeavor.

As long as you continue to let your cynicism and suspicion rule your minds, you will continue to be confounded by me and my effort. Not much I can do about that. I wish that we could reach an understanding, but if you cannot take me at face value, then the connection of understanding between us will sadly never be reached.

Bill Munns

[LTC8K6]

What kind of movie guy can't spell rehearsal?

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

While some have since claimed that the film is a hoax, longtime Hollywood special-effects creator Bill Munns said it would have been impossible in 1967 to fake a creature suit like the one depicted in the film. "With today's technology, yes, you could fake a fur suit like that, But in the 1960s, short, dense stretch fur was nonexistent."

What are the odds that Munns has reversed this long held opinion?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

To all above:

Thank you for your interest and comments.

Suffice to say, the NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) does constrain me as far as explaining details or answering many of your questions at this time. But every question I read above will be answered fully in the course of the release of the report or in the various programs or situations noted in my statement.

So why start the thread?

Quote:

As a courtesy for forum readers who may come to this thread wanting to read the discussions on the stated topic, may I simply ask that you discuss other people and their qualifications and activities in other threads, unless they have direct relevance to my work or report.

An update will likely be posted in about 3 weeks.

Bill Munns

Translation:

Please talk about me. Not people that are not me. I started this thread to allow people to discuss me. I would like to see people discuss me. Have you been discussing me? I'm very interesting, you know. I can't really answer your questions, the PGF thread is the appropriate place for discussing what I think about it, and there are more than enough Bigfoot threads but what about me?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

To All:

Your intriguing and amusing suspicions of me and your wonderfully imaginative speculations about my efforts and my motives all derive from the simple reality that you refuse to take me at face value, and refuse to believe I have but one intention, and that is to try and understand what I am seeing when I look at that film.

Translation:

I am delighted that you are discussing me.

Quote:

As long as you continue to let your cynicism and suspicion rule your minds, you will continue to be confounded by me and my effort. Not much I can do about that. I wish that we could reach an understanding, but if you cannot take me at face value, then the connection of understanding between us will sadly never be reached.

Bill Munns

Translation:

I am not a Decepticon, I am an Autobot. There is more to me than meets the eye. Would you like to know about me? I'm fascinating, you know. I have a website. Have you seen it? It's about me. I like it.

[tube]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

It's called " The hook ..."


Probably more effective in some venues, other than the JREF forums ...

When I was a sideshow performer, we called it a "teaser"...

Bill, whether you like it or not, SAYING you have something amazing in the bag is not the same thing as SHOWING US what's in the bag. I've been very patient and withheld any kind of commentary on your claims for the simple reason that so far you have simply not provided us with much in the way of tangible evidence.

Bill, I've been there myself. I was working for a number of months on the desiccation ridge business. I sent test casts to Jimmy Chilcutt. Chilcutt decided he could not attend the Bellingham conference of 2005. When Jason Valenti, the promoter of the conference, asked Chilcutt who he thought could substitute for him, Chilcutt recommended me. Valenti invites me to speak at his conference.

Only after that public presentation did I start posting the specifics of what I was doing on the Internet. Eventually I got my own website so I could do it in my own way, without external moderation or interference. It's very tempting to publicly yell "I've found something" the moment you find something, but SAYING you have something is not the same as SHOWING you have something.

When I was a sideshow performer, we would do morning-drive-time radio interviews in which we would hype the heck out of the upcoming show. We would do real stunts inside the radio studio. Given that a sideshow is TOTALLY VISUAL, the medium of radio acted as a superb TEASER.

I don't know what's in your bag. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and tentatively accept that you have more in your bag than the Boys From Georgia had in their freezer.

Please don't tut-tut JREF members for calling a spade a spade. You have created an entire thread on an openly skeptical website with a promise of forthcoming evidence instead of PROVIDING real evidence.

Bill, I've been around the block too, and what we have here is HYPE; an Internet-style TEASER.

Where's the beef, Bill? Because without it you are beginning to look like an attention-ho.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Long, what about the acid?

This is acid. I'm gonna give you acid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt3tc...eature=related