A Thread to discuss old Bigfoot Threads

[Drewbot]

They should probably bring back the Munns report thread. Grok agrees his threats to sue are frivolous, and he would probably have to pay for any defense fees.

Would Bill Munns be able to effectively sue someone calling him a fraud?
No. He would be very unlikely to win damages.

Under ordinary U.S. defamation law, calling Bill Munns a “fraud” (or dishonest, charlatan, etc.) for concluding that the Patterson-Gimlin film shows a real unknown primate is protected speech in nearly all circumstances.

Reasons:

• Truth / fair characterization. The core factual basis for the criticism is solid: Munns is a makeup and creature-effects artist (not a photogrammetrist, biologist, or forensic scientist); the film is a short, grainy 16 mm clip; and the claim of a living North American bipedal primate remains an extraordinary assertion that has never been corroborated by physical evidence. Characterizing an overstated conclusion drawn from that material as fraudulent or unsupported is a reasonable opinion based on the public record.
• Opinion and fair comment. Courts treat labels such as “fraud,” “hoax,” or “nonsense” as non-actionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole when applied to contested extraordinary claims, especially on a long-running public controversy. Pure opinion is not defamation.
• Public-interest context and malice standard. The Patterson-Gimlin film debate is a matter of public discussion. Even if Munns were treated as a limited-purpose public figure in this niche, he would have to prove the statement was false and made with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard). Pointing out the evidentiary gap and his limited relevant credentials does not meet that bar.
• Practical barriers. Many states have anti-SLAPP statutes that allow early dismissal of suits aimed at protected speech, often with fee-shifting against the plaintiff. Munns has previously threatened legal action over critical forum posts; the known record shows the thread was removed after the threat, not that he obtained a judgment or damages.

He could file a lawsuit. Filing is easy. Prevailing—obtaining a judgment that the statement was false and defamatory and collecting damages—is another matter. On the facts as they stand, the suit would almost certainly fail.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Like so many other Footers, Munns was just cashing in.

He is a smart guy. I can't believe he ever believed he was looking at anything but a suit, and not a particularly good one.

He just liked to play the expert card, and the " I'm smarter than you are. " one.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I was trying to remember the guy who made the wooden stompers..

Any help?

 

[William Parcher]

I was trying to remember the guy who made the wooden stompers..

Any help?

Ray Wallace.

 

[EHocking]

Does anyone have or can they write down a synopsis of the Munns Report thread, that Bill Munns started, then got schooled by JREF experts, then asked to close the thread, then after that failed, threatened to sue the Forum in order to get it shut down?

That is about as much as I can remember, and would like to remember how they proved him wrong, I think there were photogrammetrists that did actual Photogrammetry that proved him wrong in the thread.

The issue with attempts at photogrammetric analysis of Munns's conclusions were that he did not share the high definition film frames that he used in his report. At the start of his thread here he promised to do just that - share his data.
Instead he kept it to himself and no one was able to reproduce any of his "results"

The other issue was that he used an artists' 3D modelling software to "reproduce" the Sandy Ck environment.

Firstly Munns' digitising of the key elements in frames (trees, creek, logjam etc) were purely subjective. In a proper photogrammetry tool, this subjective selection of key points are treated with an algorithm that gives an error bar on the accuracy of the selection. Then, during the photogrammetric analyses, these errors are mathematically summed and, most importantly, shown in the analysis report.

Secondly, by using a 3D visualisation tool, the perspective, distances, object dimensions are all influenced by the camera lens focal length used to visualise the model of your data.
Munns just adjusted that focal length until he got a Patty that was over 7ft tall. He then spent the rest of his time justifying his focal length setting in the model was indeed what was attached to the camera at the time of filming.

In photogrammetry modelling, you can actually determine the focal length of the view based on the digitised data.

Anyway, when Munns got informed pushback from JREF members on his report he just skulked away and pretended it never happened and just continued to gull the bleevers on other forums, never to return here for debate or to show his data and workings.
What workings shown in his laughable "report" are transparently biased and mathematically naive (and that's being very generous).

 

[BOGART]

I was trying to remember the guy who made the wooden stompers..

Any help?

A worthy book that goes into detail about the true origin of Bigfoot via Ray Wallace and his stompers.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I found it funny and ironic that Meldrum had a web page at one time, where part of the background was a cast of Woodfoot.
Wish I had saved a screen shot of that.

 

[stanfr]

MSN ran this as a headline story today (about the new PGF film):
PGF debunked
I, too, am nostalgic for the good ol' days when people bent over backwards trying to prove the veracity of the film. RIP, Patty...