• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northern Lights said:
Have any of them had more than a cursory look at the film? Have any of them done the type of analysis performed and documented by Bill? If so, I would really enjoy reading about their work.
Click to expand...

Excellent, thanks. We need a name for this principle: the more incompetent you prove to be, the more of an expert you are. The "Reverse Competence Criteria" of Bigfoot Buffoonery.

If you've hunted one for fifty years in vain, you are the leading hunter.

Phillip Morris instantly recognizes it... so scoff at him. He's no expert. Because he actually made the suit (sans Roger's boobies and face mods). You want the guy who spent three thousand hours and claims he couldn't make it himself in a thousand years.

In what other field does "I can't do it" become the standard for expertise? :boggled:
 
I really wish Bigfoot believers could read the PGF/Munns Report thread from 2009 in which a lot of the fine people here at JREF spent a whole lot of time skewering Munns' report and answering Munns' challenges directly, but unfortunately that thread has been deleted due to legal threats from Bill Munns himself. All that's left of it are snippets in AAH that were off-topic in the first place.

Basically every single claim that Bill Munns made regarding analysis of the film itself was based upon flawed premises that came from Bill taking the position that the film was genuine and working his way backwards. He manipulated the evidence to fit his beliefs rather than the other way around. Bill was also extremely hostile and rude towards posters that were nothing but polite to him. He had no problem casting doubt on other people's qualifications to judge the film while vociferously defending his own qualifications, which are a little more lackluster than most Bigfoot supporters are led to believe. The closer to home a poster's criticisms would hit, the angrier Bill Munns got, culminating in the legal threats that got him permanently banned.

It is my humble opinion that Bill Munns is little more than a clown and a shill who's making every effort to parlay his dubious skills into a whole Bigfoot career.
 
Northern Lights said:
Have any of them had more than a cursory look at the film? Have any of them done the type of analysis performed and documented by Bill? ...
Click to expand...


Why would they need to? It's an obvious suit. What do you expect them to do? Take a closer look at the suit because there's a bigfoot in it?


William Parcher said:
Munns said something really bizarre lately. He said that he isn't necessarily saying that Patty is a Bigfoot but he is saying that Patty isn't a person inside a costume...
Click to expand...


Oh.... Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.
 
William Parcher said:
Munns said something really bizarre lately. He said that he isn't necessarily saying that Patty is a Bigfoot but he is saying that Patty isn't a person inside a costume.

Whaaaa? Is this some sort of word game he is playing to distance himself from Bigfoot as a real wild creature?
Click to expand...

It is a female human, with a top-knot, belly-boobs, and hypertrichosis.
 
Last edited:
Northern Lights,
Some skeptics claim that Patty's thigh shows the exact wrinkles and bulges that occur when someone walks in hip waders, but Munns says they are the muscles of a huge unclassified North American ape.

Which seems more reasonable?

Why would you accept Munns' answer over the more obvious answer? Is it because you haven't studied the other side? If not, why not? Do you not want to learn all you can about Patty and the PGF?
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
We need a name for this principle: the more incompetent you prove to be, the more of an expert you are. The "Reverse Competence Criteria" of Bigfoot Buffoonery.

. . .

In what other field does "I can't do it" become the standard for expertise? :boggled:
Click to expand...

This is rampant among bigfooters, and beautifully illustrated by Jeff Meldrum. Here's a guy who's invested a whole lotta time in studying bigfoot and has produced . . . ? That makes him the "expert" and other biologists who know just as much about the mythology and have concluded that there's nothing there are uneducated rubes, not fit to wipe the bigfoot poo off of St. Jeffrey's boots.

To be an expert in bigfootery, all you have to do is spend time playing around with bigfooters and making statements that support their playtime hobby. To join the rarefied ranks of the true bigfoot celebrities, you simply amp up your game to sell things to those bigfooters or otherwise fleece them for donations.
 
Some skeptics are hesitant to agree with this, but to my eye there are visible folds in the figure's legs that are consistent with the dynamics of fabric and inconsistent with primate (or any mammal's) fur.

Bill Munns has claimed (via PM, years ago) that these fold-shapes are foreground features such as branches and leaves, placed in such a way as to impart the illusion of folds. Yet the fold-shapes remain with the moving figure in the same places, falsifying Munns' counter-hypothesis. (IOW, if the fold-shapes were branches, they would remain fixed in the foreground while the figure moved behind them.)

Skeptics tend to reject my observations, presumably because the film is so shaky and blurry that if we allow one kind of specific shape to be seen on the figure (in this case fabric folds), that opens the door to seeing muscles, eyes, facial features and so forth. Pareidolia, as a universal human phenomenon, works on believers and skeptics alike.

Further, for skeptics my claims are especially suspect because I once believed I saw realistic musculature under the fur. Of course, I now think that "musculature" is just the figure underneath the fabric, whose human physique is catching the environmental light and shade, to impart an illusion of muscle mass directly beneath the "fur". IOW, it's a human being bulging in all the right ways under fabric.

I'm mildly interested to know if Munns addresses this in his latest video presentation... but I don't want to spend 50 minutes trying to find out.
 
GT/CS said:
Northern Lights,
Some skeptics claim that Patty's thigh shows the exact wrinkles and bulges that occur when someone walks in hip waders, but Munns says they are the muscles of a huge unclassified North American ape.

Which seems more reasonable?

Why would you accept Munns' answer over the more obvious answer? Is it because you haven't studied the other side? If not, why not? Do you not want to learn all you can about Patty and the PGF?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of perspective. From my perspective, since I know they exist, his explanation is reasonable.

From those who deny they exist, it isn't reasonable or even possible.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
People tend to see what they like in this footage, but one thing you can't miss is the thigh band and the diaper, they're there
Click to expand...
...and the wrist bands!!!
 
Northern Lights said:
It's a matter of perspective. From my perspective, since I know they exist, his explanation is reasonable.

From those who deny they exist, it isn't reasonable or even possible.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that they cannot be hip waders?
Just because you believe in bigfoot doesn't mean that you must always accept the bigfoot side of the coin. Are you so jaded towards bigfoot that you can't objectively compare the evidence?

Have you seen the comparison between the hip waders and Patty's wrinkles?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom