|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
14th August 2013, 02:20 PM | #561 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
|
|
__________________
"If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro |
|
14th August 2013, 04:29 PM | #562 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
|
Apparantly, he couldn't be reached for a comment but Matt Moneymaker spoke on his behalf, & "he feels Squatchy! Buy SquatchIt!"
|
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.' |
|
14th August 2013, 08:29 PM | #563 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
I don't mean to be facetious, I'm genuinely interested. What is it exactly that you think Munns is best? IMO it certainly is not honest assessment of the PGF, e.g., something that I harp on about from the very first exchange I had with him on JREF is that he refuses to use photogrammetry software to analyse the scenes depicted.
|
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
14th August 2013, 09:29 PM | #564 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I should have worded that better. I'm speaking in terms of sticking to the film (IOW examining only what Roger Patterson and Al DeAtley have allowed the world to examine - the film) vs investigating the source of the film. Investigating the source is standard procedure and throughout the history of Bigfootery has time and again been used to uncover hoaxes.
This is not Bill's forte and not an area he devotes any real attention to. He's most comfortable in dealing with the film and doing various projects and experiments related to it. Tinkering with the film keeps his support base firm and not openly questioning the source or showing any doubts publicly allows him to maintain access to materials and support from the remaining principles Patricia Patterson and Bob Gimlin. The problem with sticking to the film and "Bigfoot science" is that they have a really appalling record. Bill is not scientist and even the scientists in Bigfootery have done remarkably bad when sticking to the film. Case in point... Meldrum supported that video with that "Bigfoot science" for over a year and it was not until dropping sticking to the film and going to the source that he was able to determine a hoax. Now mind you, that's a bonafied scientists and university professor. The man is an anthroplogist and specializes in the evolution and anatomy of bipedal locomotion in humans. He has argued for the classification of Bigfoot as a species based on their alleged footprints. This is Bigfoot science in action. If Meldrum had his way, this would be considered the footprint of an actual living animal... That being said, if even the scientists of Bigfoot science do that bad, what can we expect from the non-scientists taking a crack at it? I don't think Bill is doing anything other than what he should be doing. He's not the person who could or would go after the source. On the other hand, his unfailing support for the film allows him access to material that might otherwise never see the light of day. I can not say he is wholly opposed to critical examination of the film as he has shared such material with me not knowing what the outcome would be. I don't expect Bill to ever be anything but a supporter of the film and that's fine with me. If he creates experiments that are designed to satisfy his support base, I'm not bothered by that either. No offense to Bill, but who else is taking him seriously but Bigfoot believers? If he appears on the odd Bigfoot themed show doing whatever presentation in support of the film, it isn't of any consequence to me. When I say sticking to the film is what Bill is best at, it's a relative statement. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
14th August 2013, 09:56 PM | #565 | |||
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
|
I believe this was posted a while ago in thread.. or in one of the other threads..
Now I know some members have issue with this model (William Parcher in regards to the creek position, if I recall correctly, for one) , but if anyone can look at that model of Roger's movements and still say that "Patty" is not a guy in a suit is out of their mind. So.. Roger and Bob see Bigfoot, horses spook, Roger does a backflip off of his horse with a matrix reach-back to grab his camera, or gets his foot caught in the stirrup as his horse comes down, no matter, he starts running towards the Bigfoot stumbling around raising all sorts of hell, making good distance though, crashes through the creek, runs up the bank, gets the money shot, then continues pursuit a short distance while the Bigfoot has it's back to him until he gets to the money-shot log area and runs out of film. And Munns, who created that model which so clearly demonstrates just how ridiculous this "Bigfoot encounter" is, honestly believes that this is not a guy in a suit? Come on.. really? As you know, Munns does not shy from investigating possible signs of Bigfoot.. I wonder if he's encountered more evidence which has strengthened his faith. |
|||
14th August 2013, 10:08 PM | #566 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
thanks for that, and fair enough too.
One day, when I have the time, no life and the inclination again, I'll get hold of some of these hi-res scans (some have been offered to me, but not by Munns) and analyse them with a photogrammetry application just to revisit the subject height and lens focal length argument. |
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
14th August 2013, 11:07 PM | #567 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
15th August 2013, 12:00 AM | #568 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
|
I'd like for a Bigfoot believer (or knower) to explain Patty the Bigfoot's unnatural behavior with what we know of Roger's movements from Munns' model. Remember, your explanation can't use the terms "MUH HERNIA" or " MUH BIGFOOT BABBYS ". OntarioSquatch is pretty good at slippery answers, maybe he can offer an explanation for Patty's behavior..
It's been said before, but if a real Bigfoot is pictured in the Patterson film -- we would have had a body the instant someone crossed paths with one with any kind of weapon ever. A guy with a fricken spear could run that thing down. Two stone-age hunters and you'd have an MK Davis slaughter on your hands |
15th August 2013, 04:27 AM | #569 |
Quixoticist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
|
|
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde |
|
15th August 2013, 06:38 AM | #570 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
15th August 2013, 07:00 AM | #571 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
15th August 2013, 07:09 AM | #572 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
Once again, Munns is being degraded here beyond reason. Is it really the methodology that's disliked here or the conclusion? To me it seems like it's mostly the latter.
|
15th August 2013, 07:15 AM | #573 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,738
|
Which points are beyond reason please?
|
15th August 2013, 07:54 AM | #574 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
|
OS, clearly it's a mixture of the former and the latter. The man is a bloody fraud, but apparantly you're too into him to care.
|
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.' |
|
15th August 2013, 08:16 AM | #575 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
1. Approach. It's like this Ontario, and I love to use this example because we're dealing with trickery here and not simply an undescribed biological entity.
I once watched Kriss Angel "fly" through the air between two buildings in Las Vegas. If I restricted my interpretation of events to just what was recorded in the visual medium, then I could only conclude that Mr. Angel had, indeed, flown between those two buildings. I would be unable to come to any other conclusion based solely on "the film". This is what Bill is doing with the PGF. If I consider events associated with, but not directly apparent in the visual medium, I can readily discern that Mr. Angel is an illusionist and conclude that he did not actually fly between the buildings, despite his many statements that that is what he, indeed, had done. The ancillary information of knowing that Mr. Angel has made a career out of creating illusions to make it appear that he has done supernatural things informs my conclusion that he does not actually possess supernatural powers. With the PGF, our ancillary information about Roger Patterson should also inform our conclusion. He was a career con-man, he had plagiarized bigfoot stories and artwork, he had faked bigfoot prints, he had purchased a gorilla costume, he claimed to be filming a bigfoot documentary, his story of the events does not match what we can discern about those events, etc. All of these things are known and independently verifiable. These things must inform our perception of the film as much as any illusion should not be taken for reality without considering that it was the product of an illusionist. In Bill's case, however, he has also failed in #2 - methodology. From my perspective, one should be able to consider just what's on the film and reach the conclusion that is both obvious and accurate: it's a human in a suit. Bill's failure to even figure out the correct focal length on the camera is well documented here at the JREF. At multiple other steps along the way, however, his bias to conclude that the film is a legitimate photographic record of a bigfoot despite things apparent on the film has been clear to all except his fanboys in bigfootery. He is, at best, cherry picking items in the film that he thinks demonstrate a real apeman while blithely ignoring others that demonstrate the opposite. It's sloppy, biased work. It's not scientific, and it is irrelevant. His work matters not one iota to the rest of the world living outside this weird little bubble of bigfootery. If I was writing a skeptical book about bigfoot, it would not occur to me to acknowledge Bill or his work on the film. |
15th August 2013, 08:23 AM | #576 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
|
Shrike, I imagine that OS will totally ignore your comment, as per usual. The Farce is strong in this one. Kudos, OS, how daft.
|
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.' |
|
15th August 2013, 12:52 PM | #577 |
Quixoticist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
|
|
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde |
|
15th August 2013, 01:49 PM | #578 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
I find most of what The Shrike wrote understandable, but I think Bill deserves more a little more credit than that. I guess it really comes down to perspective.
Assuming we somehow learned that Patty was real, would that change the views here on Bill's efforts? My concern is that Bill's take on the PGF is being dismissed based on the premise that Bigfoot can't exist. |
15th August 2013, 01:58 PM | #579 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
I can see how that might seem circular, but consider the alternative:
1) Bigfoot is really real after all. 2) The only person to ever get any kind of decent photographic evidence of the entire species was a cowboy huckster who claims to have been in the process of making a bigfoot movie when a real bigfoot showed up. Oh, and this happened almost 46 years ago. |
15th August 2013, 02:02 PM | #580 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
"My concern is that Bill's take on the PGF is being dismissed based on the premise that Bigfoot doesn't exist." Fixed. However, Bills efforts to catalog and preserve the film and its copies are quite extensive and he's been able to gather a collection of scans to preserve it digitally better than anyone previously had to date. He also gathered other scans done previously. The only problems I have with Bills theories about the film are they its a guy in a suit, and not some undocumented new species of ape. The other problems I have are concerning the lens size estimation that hes currently revising apparently. He also dismisses the "missing footprint" even though its quite clear the footprints were hoaxed. http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/ |
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY "I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY |
|
15th August 2013, 02:11 PM | #581 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,344
|
|
__________________
"The lie is different at every level." Richard C. Hoagland |
|
15th August 2013, 02:11 PM | #582 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
You weren't here during the Munns days so it makes sense that you can't understand how we have no use for him after he buried himself in his condescending hyperbole.
He has one mission, which is to prove the PGF to be of a real bigfoot, and he won't admit to accepting any facts that prove otherwise. (I think he knows Patty is a bloke-in-a-suit. He just won't admit to it in public) OS, we love nothing more than to debate bigfoot facts so doesn't it seem odd to you that no-one will offer opinions on Bill's recent Patty presentation video? It's because we all know that after the years we put up with him he is disingenuous, and maybe downright dishonest, in his approach towards his goal. Well that, and the fact that the presentation was totally biased crap that doesn't rise to a level that deserves a debate. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
15th August 2013, 02:28 PM | #583 |
Alta Viro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,307
|
|
15th August 2013, 03:26 PM | #584 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
You'd have to check through Munns' "reports" from his site to determine the claims. I haven't read them since they were first posted. The only "hi-res" scans he seems to have made available to check his methodology are in PDF documents. He seems to have a different opinion than I do on what a hi-res scan is...
|
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
15th August 2013, 03:29 PM | #585 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
YVMV, but I was talking about when we were engaged in dialogue with Munns on this forum. Quite a number of problems were pointed out to Munns regarding his methodology, his approach to analysis and indeed his calculations.
I have a number of PMs discussing such with him and him thanking me for pointing out errors in his reports which he declared that he would fix in a revision of his site and reports. I don't know if that revision was actually done. |
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
15th August 2013, 03:37 PM | #586 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
For me? No. His methodology is just wrong. The title of this thread is laughable since Munns himself has admitted that his knowledge and ability to determine (scientific) calculation errors is seriously lacking.
Also, my pet gripe, if he was serious about analysing the film, he'd be using photogrammetry software not CGI modelling software. So it is method all the way. Proving "Patty" to be real and the film not to be a hoax does not validate Munns' method. |
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
15th August 2013, 04:02 PM | #587 |
Quixoticist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
|
Thanks. I looked on his site, and he's referring to digitally copying the film at a high resolution. This is not worthless, because it prevents further artifacts like pixellation from being introduced, but from what I can tell, he has the same blurry junk to deal with as everyone else.
|
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde |
|
15th August 2013, 06:10 PM | #588 |
Quixoticist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
|
|
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde |
|
15th August 2013, 11:23 PM | #589 |
This title intentionally left blank
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,126
|
The sad thing about Munns is that when he first appeared here, he was taken seriously and given many suggestions on how to properly use the scientific method to improve his paper. His claims were carefully vetted in a thoughtful and respectful manner, but he responded to any criticism with great animosity, turning the tide of public opinion against him. Unfortunately his original thread was deleted due to his legal threats against the site, and this ploy worked in his favor. Newer believers just can't understand why JREF posters seem to have taken against Bill Munns in such a personal way because they can't read the original thread and see how disingenuous and hostile Munns was with us.
|
16th August 2013, 07:40 AM | #590 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
No. Other posters already explained that its about methodology. We've been through this countless times before.
If Munns wants a scientific approach he needs to use the scientific method and not his version of it. A key item of the scientific method is that your dataset must be accurate (for your work purposes) and reliable. Its actually something that you commonly will find outside science too, its something called QA/QC and there are lots and lots of info about it at the www. The parameters defining the accuracy of you measures, the methodology you used to acquire them, to process the measures and to build your conclusions ober it all are completely meaningless if you can demonstrate each and every single step can be trusted. I can present, say, a huge Excel spreadsheet with the raw data, experimental errors and the equations used. That's not enough. I must demonstrate the raw material is good, reliable, has not been tampered, contaminated, etc. An academic example of issues with the original data would be Hwang Woo-suk's stem cell research; for an industry example, check the scandal involving Bre-X Minerals Ltd. In both cases, the original datasets were found to be frauds or to have been tampered. Now, consider Munns' PGF work. Since he refuses to look in to his raw material -the PGF- background, he can not demonstrate its legitimate. Its even worse: The PGF reeks of fraud, there's no other simple way to put it. As a consequence, Munns' works automatically crumbles when this issue is considered. The other aspect is methodology. Other posters have already shown the many issues with it, from introduced bias to errors related to the types of software used. At last, but not least, there are also issues related to his behavior. Again, if you are using the scientific method, you must stick to it. Scientific method requires those who use it to always consider the "I may be wrong" possibility. Quite often we are. Munns has problems to take this in to account. Instead addressing the problems within his works, he resorts to drivel, threats of lawsuits and appeals to (his own) authority. I bet it sounds familiar within bigfootery (Ketchum, GA Boyz, MIRP, Area X, bigfoot steak, Bulletmaker and MABRC, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Feel free to ignore it all. Reality can be harsh. Oh, even if bigfoots were shown to be real, his work would still be deeply flawed for the reasons above stated. |
__________________
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… |
|
16th August 2013, 08:40 AM | #591 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
No. Methodology is important. You can arrive to the right conclusion by accident with an utterly wrong methodology, it does not matter.
Look I can try to determine where my lost socks are by using a pendulum, and I might even find one hidden away by my cats , by that does not mean my methodology was sound despite arriving at seemingly good result. But heck, even in that case it is blindingly obvious it is a man in a suit, the hips wader, the prosthetic hard breast, and so forth. Looking at the various extract I saw from the film, it definitively look like a suit, and not in a way shape and form like a real animal or gorilla or apes. ETA: and the person doing the film has a history of a huckster. A revised his story. And and and... So yeah. Methodology wrong and result wrong. He might as well start analyzing Nessies photo. |
16th August 2013, 09:24 AM | #592 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
|
Don't give OntarioSquatch any ideas.. lake monsters are even more likely to exist than Bigfoot is.
|
16th August 2013, 09:48 AM | #593 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
16th August 2013, 10:25 AM | #594 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
16th August 2013, 10:26 AM | #595 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
^This is why I never understand people who purchase more than one lottery ticket at a time.
|
16th August 2013, 10:33 AM | #596 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
|
|
16th August 2013, 10:45 AM | #597 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
16th August 2013, 10:56 AM | #598 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
|
|
16th August 2013, 11:06 AM | #599 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
While it's true that sturgeon don't explain every lake monster everywhere, they're a plausible explanation for this particular lake monster. If people want to believe in Champ, they can, but they're doing so in the face of pretty compelling evidence that it is/was just a big sturgeon.
I'm not really trying to draw an analogy; I was just commenting that OS's belief that lake monsters actually exist has a far, far better evidentiary foundation than Bigfoot, at least insofar as Champ is concerned (defining "lake monster" as "big sturgeon".) |
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
16th August 2013, 11:23 AM | #600 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|