Bill Munns Calculates Probability of Patterson/Gimlin film Being faked at 0.00005

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Man, where are the people who believe in dragons? At least dragons are neat. Bigfoot just seems straight up boring.

I'm here

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Bill Munns is now doing video reports on YouTube. The first one shows a 3-D animation of the Patty filming.

The linked video is highly impressive IMO. Munns shows us how he built the 3D model by comparing features in the PGF and Green's still shots. Then, at about 10 minutes in, he shows us the rough animation of Patty's path and RP's path behind her with the camera.

Even if you disagree with Munns' opinion that the subject is a living non-human animal -- which I certainly do -- the video and animation are still informative and fun!

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Even if you disagree with Munns' opinion that the subject is a living non-human animal -- which I certainly do -- the video and animation are still informative and fun!

I agree that it is fun. Too bad his conclusions are so fail.

[Vortigern99]

This one is impressive as well, a Nat Geo interview/analysis/infotainment piece with Munns. The final few minutes constitute the most convincingly scientific explanation of a purely imaginary paranormal conclusion I may have ever seen.

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

For all his intelligence and expertise, Munns appears to ignore the possibility that shoulder pads, long gloves and big feet(s)^TM are distorting his otherwise thorough proportional analyses. His calculations tell him the joints don't match up with a normal-sized human being, not because the joint locations are impossible, but because the end points opposite those joints are distorted by padding, extensions, etc.

[William Parcher]

Munns Report Video #2

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by marlborough

You can now add self proclaimed "probability statistician" to his arsenal of alleged professional endeavors that already included engineer, forensic expert and anthropologist. In his expert opinion, he calculates that any chance of the PGF being a hoax as being low as 1 in 20000.

link

In fact, it looks like Bills gone totally ape with Bigfoot particularly at a well known squatch haunt . He has monopolized the entire forum with his expertise. 27 out 32 threads were started by BILL link. There is talk of Bill speculating on what Patty ate for breakfast that fateful day in 1967 just by the way it walks. And to think, I wasted 4 years of my life earning an engineering degree.

Just some of the ground breaking lecture threads Bill has initiated. I suggest we start off with "Patterson Gimlin Film Beginner's guide-A link to a Guide which can help people new to this discussion." for us newbies.

1/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab
Bill Munns study of soft tissue appearances in the PG Film

2/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy
A study of a human figure intended to relicate the PG film figure

3/ Patterson Gimlin Film Beginner's guide
A link to a Guide which can help people new to this discussion.

4/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 9 - A Study of Probability
Bill Munns notes on the probability the PG Film is hoaxed

5/ Creature Suits Analysis Part 2 - Under the Fur
Bill Munns notes on muscle suits and other anatomical parts

6/ Can rebuilding Patty prove anything? * 12
Bill Munns notes on what could be proved.

7/ Film Final Analysis by Bill Munns

8/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 11 - The next Step * 12
Bill Munns notes on a PG Film image research study

9/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 12 - Hip seams
Bill Munns notes on seams of a two piece fur suit

10/ Creature Suit Analysis Part Five Building Patty
Bill Munns notes on building a Patty Replica

11/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 8 Neck Hackles
Bill Munns study of neck shadows on the PG Film figure

12/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 7 - Neck seams
Bill Munns' study of fur suit neck seams and folds

13/ Creature Suit Analysis Part Four Extra Hands
a look at helping hands, literally anf figuratively

14/ Creature Suit Analysis Part Three The Mime inside
Bill Munns notes on the difficulties of wearing a suit

15/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 1 Fur

16/ PGF Hoax Analysis - Part Six - Makeup Artist Opinions
A series of individual topic discussions

17/ PGF Hoax Analysis - Part Two - Film Processing
A series of individual topic discussions

18/ PGF Hoax Analysis - Part Five - Roger's Hollywood Connections
A series of individual topic discussions

19/ PGF Hoax Analysis - Part One - Editing and Splicing
A series of individual topic discussions

20/ PGF Hoax Analysis - Part Four - Film Provenance and Copies
A series of individual topic discussions

21/ PGF Hoax Analysis - Part Three - Bob Heironimous
A series of individual topic discussions

22/ Amazing revelation about the PGF
we all figured it wrong

23/ PGF Hoax, One Coherent Story how it was done

24/ Patterson Documentary Footage Analysis
Summing up the overall analysis of this footage

25/ UEC (Unidentified edge coding)
Something curious in Patterson's film

26/ Unidentified Man in film
Anybody have thoughts on the identity of this man

27/ Film Grain Question
Trying to figure out why one image is so grainy

Does this investigation explain the dark line in he back where a zippper would be?

[William Parcher]

Munns has an error with the scale and/or the creek position in his 3D scene. He's got the creek running too close to the famous log.

[GT/CS]

That's OK.
It makes for good TV and the believers won't notice or care.

[Drewbot]

nice catch Parcher, but they will say the model is wrong not Munns.

[William Parcher]

Well, Bill already noticed and responded to my graphic...

Originally Posted by Bill Munns on BFF

WP: you are looking at a site photo taken 4 years after the event, and the creek has shifted. The compute model is not wrong.

You are speculating that the creek moved. I don't see an empty trench where the creek used to be.

Your 3D scene shows much more of the creek and its path than you can see in the film. You have a hypothetical creek, as about >90% of it is your artistic license. I don't know how your "computer model" can determine the path of the creek without input from you and you can't see more than a small bit of it.

[DennyT]

I think the videos are hilarious; this is like Seinfeld. I can hardly wait for the next episode.

[River]

I'm not so sure his scene is accurate either. In many respects. If it was, he should be able to attach a camera to roger and film the pgf and recapture those frames via his scene to replicate the full frame views (where roger evens off at least, maybe not in the shakey parts woud be harder to duplicate) Anyhow, I'm curious to see what hes got in mind for distances, and what lens he must have already in mind was used to do this.

Otherwise the scale would be off had he not already made up his mind. I know hes not calling this an exact path, and its not. It is a step in the right direction though. Mapping out the movements of both subject and camera accurately is quite a challenge. I already see a few things I want to comment on but for now I'll hold my tongue.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I looked at the second video. Looks like he may have found a splice. The camera is horizontal one frame and vertical the next in a sequence Roger is shaking the camera around a lot. He is going to investigate it further.

The main thing that impresses me with the moving illustration is how unnatural the movements of the animal are for how directly Roger is chasing it. The way Roger is coming at Patty would be taken as a threat. You have to explain what the animal is doing - what escape route is being chosen here and why? It doesn't look like it is attaining any kind of terrain advantage, it makes no sense from the topos I have seen in terms of where a trail would ascend - it is clearly chosen for staging purposes.

[Deacondark]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

nice catch Parcher, but they will say the model is wrong not Munns.

I remember reading about some really bad flooding right after PGF was filmed. But in that picture I don't see any evidence at all that the creek had changed course.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Parcher sure looks correct.

[DennyT]

Originally Posted by Deacondark

I remember reading about some really bad flooding right after PGF was filmed. But in that picture I don't see any evidence at all that the creek had changed course.

I think your recall is wrong. The big flood was in 64. The creek for sure did not flood in that winter/spring of 67-68. John green was there in June and commented on the fact that there was a layer of leaves on the sandbar from the previous fall.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

I looked at the second video. Looks like he may have found a splice. The camera is horizontal one frame and vertical the next in a sequence Roger is shaking the camera around a lot. He is going to investigate it further.

The main thing that impresses me with the moving illustration is how unnatural the movements of the animal are for how directly Roger is chasing it. The way Roger is coming at Patty would be taken as a threat. You have to explain what the animal is doing - what escape route is being chosen here and why? It doesn't look like it is attaining any kind of terrain advantage, it makes no sense from the topos I have seen in terms of where a trail would ascend - it is clearly chosen for staging purposes.

The story about Patty's behavior is either that she is sick, thus her lethargy and daylight stroll, or more popularly, she is deliberately leading Roger away from her family.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Munns has an error with the scale and/or the creek position in his 3D scene. He's got the creek running too close to the famous log.


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/9cbe9b5e.png

Of course he has.

He has never used phototelemetry software to map the area, only his animation art software and his own artistic license.

[Deacondark]

Originally Posted by parnassus

I think your recall is wrong. The big flood was in 64. The creek for sure did not flood in that winter/spring of 67-68. John green was there in June and commented on the fact that there was a layer of leaves on the sandbar from the previous fall.

You are right. I knew it flooded at some point, not sure why I thought it was later.

[GT/CS]

Patterson or Gimlin said it rained so hard the night they filmed Patty the roads washed out and other terrible things happened. Or something similar.

[Deacondark]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Patterson or Gimlin said it rained so hard the night they filmed Patty the roads washed out and other terrible things happened. Or something similar.

Yeah, but some small pieces of bark perfectly preserved the trackway. Sorry, my sarcasm meter is stuck on "11" again....

[GT/CS]

I agree, but that may be where the 'flood' misunderstanding is coming from.

[Deacondark]

My sarcasm was aimed squarely at the Footers, and not at you.

[Deacondark]

And you are probably right. I think that's where my misunderstanding originated.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by parnassus

I think your recall is wrong. The big flood was in 64. The creek for sure did not flood in that winter/spring of 67-68. John green was there in June and commented on the fact that there was a layer of leaves on the sandbar from the previous fall.

Oh thanks there for that.


LTC8K6 - Okay that's interesting they acknowledge the liesurely gait. I'd say cumbersome. Well, if sick then easy to follow. If babies then why did she then leave the babies and not return. These answers raise even bigger questions, seems to me.

GT/CS - I wonder if they exaggerated the rains to give a cover story to getting out in a hurry. If I was on top of a big game animal - the thing I am after - the first thing I do is leave? I don't think so. But Roger has a multifacited marketing program in place from Friday night on. The film has been in the can fully edited before they leave for Bluff Creek, so they know what to say.

Phase I is the phony announcement. Phase II is using the three stooges Dahinden, Green, and and McClarin to dupe into acting as marketing agents. Showing them the bigfoot highlight reel on Sunday the 22nd.

You have Boob Titmus trying to glom onto the gravy train with Oilman Tom Slick funding bigfoot hunts. Elegant thieves like Peter Byrne doing a better job of it - all this taking off like lightning after the announcement.

They have the Eureka Press editor in cahoots with the whole thing, as the widow explained - it got out of hand with a small industry of competing con-men putting their own spin on things for their individual purposes.

I don't think they want to sit around camping in the woods even in a light shower. It's showtime.

[William Parcher]

Here I've shown in red boxes the only parts of the creek that are visible in the film. Everything else that Munns has illustrated with the creek is speculation and creative artistry. He doesn't know what the creek really looked like. He's even got some shrubbery growing down the embankment near the famous log.

One could say that in order to show a full scene like this you have no choice other than to invent your own features and their proximity to each other. This is because Roger didn't swing his camera around to give panoramic views, and foreshortening gives illusions of spacial compression for what we do see. The 1971 Dahinden overview photo helps but only for a portion of the scene. It does not show the area of the initial sighting/filming with the logjam. Munns' scene differs considerably from that of Titmus who was actually there particularly with respect to the layout of the creek and its relation to Patty's pathway.

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, he does say " visualization " ...

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Well, he does say " visualization " ...

There's not really anything there that we didn't already know though.

How it occurred? We know how it occurred...

Not sure what the point is of "visualization" of something that was basically nailed down a very long time ago.

This is the second recent "visualization" of the PGF story...

Why?

Is something supposed to change?

[GT/CS]

It's pretty so he can sell it to the bigfoot 'documentary' makers.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

It's pretty so he can sell it to the bigfoot 'documentary' makers.

How would it compare to the effort with LMS though?

[Mudcat]

I'm confused here, wasn't the PGF admitted to have been a hoax? That would mean that Munns (whoever he is) has a seriously weak concept of reality, general math and statistical probabilities (putting aside the fact that the reality of a film is an either-or position).

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I'm confused here, wasn't the PGF admitted to have been a hoax? That would mean that Munns (whoever he is) has a seriously weak concept of reality, general math and statistical probabilities (putting aside the fact that the reality of a film is an either-or position).

No, there has been no admission of a hoax with the PGF.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

No, there has been no admission of a hoax with the PGF.

Perhaps Mudcat is thinking of Bob H's admission of hoaxing.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

No, there has been no admission of a hoax with the PGF.

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Perhaps Mudcat is thinking of Bob H's admission of hoaxing.

Ah, that was it. Sorry for the mistake. But really, the PGF can only be one thing: a hoax.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

How would it compare to the effort with LMS though?

Are you saying he did not create it to sell it?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Are you saying he did not create it to sell it?

I hope not, since it was just done, and with more flash, with LMS.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudcat
I'm confused here, wasn't the PGF admitted to have been a hoax? That would mean that Munns (whoever he is) has a seriously weak concept of reality, general math and statistical probabilities (putting aside the fact that the reality of a film is an either-or position).

No, there has been no admission of a hoax with the PGF.

But that doesn't mean that Mudcat's second sentence is incorrect...

[Drewbot]

Gagh.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

It's pretty so he can sell it to the bigfoot 'documentary' makers.

I wouldn't be surprised if he is already under commission..

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Ah, that was it. Sorry for the mistake. But really, the PGF can only be one thing: a hoax.

I wouldn't call it a mistake. One of the hoax participants confessed.

Skeptics disagree about whether it has been sufficiently proven Bob Heironimus was the one in the suit, but it seems to me he has a very strong claim - beyond reasonable doubt, found in this way:

First, you are right that it is a hoax. So who wore the suit? As Greg Long showed, Bob Heironimus is the one person from the circle of Patterson associates that makes sense. Roger got to use his horse for free. Bob wore the suit for free and transported himself there at his own expense. He was by his own admisison a "sucker". This is in perfect conformity with Roger's modus operandi. Bob was a big, beefy guy to fill out that suit well. He was the kind that would keep his mouth shut.

Nobody else in all these years has given a first-hand confession. Occasionally you see people alleging hearsay about someone else confessing. But the only one on record anywhere - in book and on camera - directly admitting the hoax first-hand is Bob Heironimus.

His story is also corroborated by the impossibility of the filming on October 20. Bob's account has it earlier, and it must be in order to develop the film in time for the 22nd showing.

I think people that doubt Bob Heironimus as the actor in the suit need to come up with a reasonable counter-proposal. Who amongst the Patterson circle is a candidate and why?

Nobody else bothered in all these years to go to Yakima and interview Patterson's circle of victims and associates. When Greg Long finally did it, people simply pointed to Bob Heironimus. Bob didn't come forward himself until after a show he saw finally got him fed up enough to overcome the indignity of Patterson making a sucker out of him.

People aren't real keen on announcing the stupid mistakes they made in life. When you see other people capitalizing on something you know to be a lie though, it can be enough to step forward. Having done so, look at the abuse he has taken by 'footers. Decades later in his elder years being contacted now by kooks. Your neighbors by word and deed calling you a liar. (Gimlin and Patty Patterson). It took some guts to step forward.

Bob Gimlin seems willing to go to his grave without confessing. DeAtley did a great job confessing as much as he could without admitting directly to theft by fraud.

The argument by best explanation puts a name in the suit. If you don't have that name you are a mile behind the story that does have a defensible name in the suit. If you went hunting amongst Patterson circles for who the ideal candidate is, you come up with Bob Heironimus. Well golly gee - he confessed!

In doing so he told for the first time the story of PGF film delivery to DeAtley. It was Bob Heironimus that mailed the film, whisked the suit out of the hoax site long before the 20th, and left Roger and Bob Gimlin at Bluff Creek to fake a spectacular set of tracks where nobody could miss them. They faked them out along the logging road where they wouldn't be missed.

They left as soon as they finished faking tracks because they were made so obvious to find. They did not fake the tracks at the hoax site. It was Labor day week. On August 27, John Green and Rene Dahinden flew down in a Cessna 185 to photograph the tracks and then tell Al Hodgson to call Roger. Because Roger had told them to do so. He pretended to be in Mt. St. Helens, but he had snuck in to bluff creek to meet Bob Heironimus and film the PGF.

Roger can't come back down right away because DeAtley hasn't developed the film yet. When the film is developed and edited, Roger returns to Bluff Creek to make the hoax announcement, and leave tracks that comport with the film they took. Bob Heironimus is in Yakima on 20 October 1967.

That's how they done it.