IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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.
Tags bigfoot , bill munns , Patterson-Gimlin film

Reply
Old 16th August 2013, 11:37 AM   #601
STRONG LIKE BEAR
Thinker
 
STRONG LIKE BEAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
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".)
I'm not really seeing the difference though.. a large sturgeon was shot, and this is a possible explanation for Champ sightings. It is known that people put on Bigfoot costumes and hoax Bigfoot, this is one of the possible explanations for a Bigfoot sighting. At risk of furthering this off-topic side "discussion" .. what am I missing? In both cases we have evidence for alternative explanations rather than the conventional narrative from "cryptozoology"
STRONG LIKE BEAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2013, 12:02 PM   #602
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
Originally Posted by STRONG LIKE BEAR View Post
I'm not really seeing the difference though.. a large sturgeon was shot, and this is a possible explanation for Champ sightings. It is known that people put on Bigfoot costumes and hoax Bigfoot, this is one of the possible explanations for a Bigfoot sighting. At risk of furthering this off-topic side "discussion" .. what am I missing? In both cases we have evidence for alternative explanations rather than the conventional narrative from "cryptozoology"
The difference in this particular example is that one involves a real live animal. It's easy to see how a seven-foot-plus, 240-pound creature in the water could be embellished into a "lake monster". There's no such nugget of truth to embroider upon in Bigfootery (unless you count misidentified bears).
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2013, 09:04 PM   #603
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Source
Quote:
Drew:

Just forget about bigfoot for a moment (shouldn't be hard because you are so sure it doesn't exist).

1. Is the PGF a staged or hoaxed film event, yes or no. If yes, prove why, in a scientificly structured form, with actual film analysis and evidence.

2. Is the subject figure in that film a man in a fur costume, or some other falsified "creature", Yes or No? If YES, prove why that is so, using a scientific structure and actual evidence and analysis. Can you prove it is a man in a costume, or a robot, or a stop motion animation miniture, or a rotoscoped animation effect? You can't assume a man in a suit until you falsifiy the other three, by scientific analysis and proof.

That's the science I want to see, and neither you nor any other skeptic will provide it.

Bill

Photographic evidence the event was hoaxed.
__________________
"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
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2013, 10:18 PM   #604
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
He still doesn't get the burden of proof thing, while pretending to support a scientific approach to the analysis of this hoax?
__________________
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
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2013, 01:31 AM   #605
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
The film developing timeline proves the film and the story around it a hoax. No need to bother with what the subject is.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2013, 04:58 PM   #606
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
Bill "Chewy" Munns: "That's the science I want to see, and neither you nor any other skeptic will provide it. I'm so sick and tired of you pathetic skeptics always providing a rubber chicken and never a real one. Therefore Bigfoot LIVES until I see a real chicken. After all, I AM the king!"
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2013, 05:20 PM   #607
Kilaak Kommander
Critical Thinker
 
Kilaak Kommander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 343
Imagine if Bill were a defense attorney...

"In order to find my client guilty, you must prove, using a scientific structure and actual evidence and analysis, that every one of the other 7 billion residents of Earth did not murder the victim.

That's the science I want to see, and neither you nor any other prosecutor will provide it."
Kilaak Kommander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2013, 05:24 PM   #608
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Has any biologist in range calculated the probability of fecal matter freely flowing from B. Munn's oral cavity? I am guessing 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% or so.....
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2013, 09:45 AM   #609
Tontar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by marlborough View Post
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

4/ Creature Suit Analysis Part 9 - A Study of Probability
Bill Munns notes on the probability the PG Film is hoaxed
Any chance someone can copy/paste or copy/PM that list of probability factors. It's been a long time since I saw them, and I always thought they were nothing more than arbitrary ideas plucked from the air (for the most part) to whittle down the probability that Patty was a suit. I think I got in trouble over there by making up some equally silly examples and suggesting he add them in to make Patty even more real. "Most creature suits are sewn by women, Patterson was a man; BAM, down to one in a zillion!"
Tontar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 06:41 AM   #610
Northern Lights
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the analysis done by Mr. Munns on the PG film isn't highly regarded within these forums.

Hypothetical question for the group. If Mr. Munns were to have his analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, would that change the prevailing opinion of his work?
Northern Lights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 07:20 AM   #611
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the analysis done by Mr. Munns on the PG film isn't highly regarded within these forums.

Hypothetical question for the group. If Mr. Munns were to have his analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, would that change the prevailing opinion of his work?
"If pigs had wings, could they fly?"
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 07:43 AM   #612
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the analysis done by Mr. Munns on the PG film isn't highly regarded within these forums.

Hypothetical question for the group. If Mr. Munns were to have his analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, would that change the prevailing opinion of his work?
If me auntie had balls . . .
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 07:49 AM   #613
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Hypothetical question for the group. If Mr. Munns were to have his analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, would that change the prevailing opinion of his work?
I think that's exactly what most of us have been asking for. Real science, not the tomfoolery that bigfoot proponents engage in.

That's the reason footers like Munns, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Nelson, and a boatload of others aren't taken seriously. They don't engage in real science when it comes to bigfoot. They produce books, charts, reports, drawings, or hypothetical pronouncements, but they never produce them in actual peer-reviewed scientific journals.

You know why? Because the evidence they present sucks.

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 08:00 AM   #614
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Non-hypothetical response for the group. If anyone were to have his CT analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, it would change the prevailing opinion of his work.

Strangely, that's never happened.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 08:04 AM   #615
Northern Lights
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by RayG View Post
I think that's exactly what most of us have been asking for. Real science, not the tomfoolery that bigfoot proponents engage in.

That's the reason footers like Munns, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Nelson, and a boatload of others aren't taken seriously. They don't engage in real science when it comes to bigfoot. They produce books, charts, reports, drawings, or hypothetical pronouncements, but they never produce them in actual peer-reviewed scientific journals.

You know why? Because the evidence they present sucks.

RayG
Thank you for the response.
Northern Lights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 08:28 AM   #616
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Hypothetical question for the group. If Mr. Munns were to have his analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, would that change the prevailing opinion of his work?
That would mean that Bill Munns would have proven to the world that Bigfoot exists and the mainstream scientific community would be simultaneously on-board with that.

Regardless of what Munns might tell you his thesis with The Munns Report is that Bigfoot exists and the PGF visually proves the thesis to be accurate. Positive peer review would have to support that thesis.

So your hypothetical question really is...

If mainstream science accepted that Bigfoot exists - would you?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 08:36 AM   #617
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
[...]So your hypothetical question really is...





If mainstream science accepted that Bigfoot exists - would you?
I think this is overstating it. Passing peer review, even in a journal like Nature, does not mean that mainstream science is onboard with the findings. It only means that the particular results submitted are documented well enough to conclude they are methodologically sound, and they are interesting enough to publish.



At most, if Munns got past peer review, that would mean legitimate scientists ought to take a serious look at his work. It would make sense for footers to demand a response.



Until then, responses on blogs and internet forums are adequate to address the claims.
Stamuel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 08:43 AM   #618
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Of course besides that, it would be some kind of bizarre charade for science to simply accept and approve the thesis of Bigfoot existing with the PGF being the evidence without a very thorough examination of Bob Gimlin. After all he would be the only living witness to the photographed "type specimen". It makes no sense whatsoever to leave Gimlin out of the science. His testimony and ability to survive examination (for dishonesty) is absolutely critical for making scientific proclamations about the natural world.

IOW, Gimlin needs to be not a con man peddling a hoax film. Munns cannot speak for Gimlin and expect the world to go along for that ride.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Last edited by William Parcher; 15th September 2013 at 08:44 AM.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 12:31 PM   #619
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
 
Apology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,126
If Munns managed to get past a peer review and get published, it would definitely cause me to question my previously held belief that there isn't a chance in hell that Bigfoot exists. If another, reputable scientist were able to reproduce Munn's results and mainstream science were to accept Bigfoot's existence, then I'd change my mind on the subject and accept Bigfoot's existence as well.

There is a 0% chance that this will ever happen though, because Munn's work is a steaming load of gerry-mandered, cherry-picked crap. If any reputable scientist were ever tempted to reproduce Munns' results, they would find and report all the flaws in his work that lead him to his false conclusions. It's in Munns' best interest to make sure that no reputable scientist ever endeavors to do so. The fact that no one who doubts that the PGF is 100% genuine will ever get their hands on the original footage guarantees that no reputable scientist will ever be able to even attempt to reproduce Munns' work. Munns will never be peer-reviewed or published by design.
Apology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2013, 09:36 PM   #620
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Source:

Quote:
Right now, I'm thinking about two approaches. One is to go to a woman's clinic run by an MD and actually sign up the models as patients, so x-raying a patient would be within their bounds. The other idea is a Medical vocational school where they train x-ray technicians, and I assume they must x-ray somebody to teach these students how to do it properly. So I'd offer my subjects as teaching patients.

But I realize that there still may be some rules somehwere which will block my idea. But I will be exploring options and making my own inquiries soon around So. CAL. in the coming month as I work through my research procedures. The x-rays idea is ideal, but there are alternatives if it is unavailable because of rules or procedures.

Bill, I do find it a little odd that you would do this to begin with. (there aren't any female x-rays available for study anywhere now?) But if you must, why not try to find "models" that actually need x-rays for some reason or another so you can help someone instead of randomly exposing someone to radiation for your experiments. Just a suggestion.
__________________
"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

Last edited by River; 16th September 2013 at 09:39 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 05:23 AM   #621
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by River View Post
Source:




Bill, I do find it a little odd that you would do this to begin with. (there aren't any female x-rays available for study anywhere now?) But if you must, why not try to find "models" that actually need x-rays for some reason or another so you can help someone instead of randomly exposing someone to radiation for your experiments. Just a suggestion.
Seriously? You are OK with him irradiating women in the name of 'Bigfoot Science'.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:44 AM   #622
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
I don't know what his plans are but is Bill somehow able to position his report so that peers who review are likely to already be Bigfoot believers? The year 2013 seems a bit late to be having Bigfoot skeptics suddenly say that by golly the PGF does show a Bigfoot.

Will it be reviewed by mainstream anthropologists and primatologists?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:48 AM   #623
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Seriously? You are OK with him irradiating women in the name of 'Bigfoot Science'.
It seems clear that he isn't okay with that...
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:49 AM   #624
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
It seems clear that he isn't okay with that...
I think you need to reread his comment then.

"I find it A little odd" and "I find it revolting" would be two differing views on this.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 17th September 2013 at 06:53 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:51 AM   #625
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't know what his plans are but is Bill somehow able to position his report so that peers who review are likely to already be Bigfoot believers? The year 2013 seems a bit late to be having Bigfoot skeptics suddenly say that by golly the PGF does show a Bigfoot.

Will it be reviewed by mainstream anthropologists and primatologists?
It has been reviewed by a Plastic Surgeon.
I do not know if this person is on the editorial board at the Relict Hominoid Inquiry http://www.isu.edu/rhi/board.shtml
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:54 AM   #626
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by River View Post
Source:




Bill, I do find it a little odd that you would do this to begin with. (there aren't any female x-rays available for study anywhere now?) But if you must, why not try to find "models" that actually need x-rays for some reason or another so you can help someone instead of randomly exposing someone to radiation for your experiments. Just a suggestion.
Drew,
I think you're reading it wrong.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:59 AM   #627
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Bill claims that the film shows a new species of bipedal ape and then it's reviewed by a plastic surgeon? WTF is that? Surgeons aren't even scientists. Maybe next it will be reviewed by a golf course groundskeeper.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:59 AM   #628
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Drew,
I think you're reading it wrong.
He finds it a little odd, then he offers a suggestion "if you must", and comes up with a plan for him to execute his idea.

How am I reading it wrong?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:02 AM   #629
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Bill claims that the film shows a new species of bipedal ape and then it's reviewed by a plastic surgeon? WTF is that? Surgeons aren't even scientists. Maybe next it will be reviewed by a golf course groundskeeper.
Yes, a plastic surgeon. The title was at one point, something like Adipose tissue in the Patterson Hominoid or something like that.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:05 AM   #630
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
There is nothing "A little odd" about trying to irradiate women. They have plenty of health issues requiring regular XRAY screenings, and attempting to get them to be subject to additional XRAYS, is a revolting idea to me. As far as helping people who need Xrays, will Bill get to interview them first, what if they don't match the body type, He should just ignore those, and buy Xrays for the women who fit his requirements?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:07 AM   #631
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Adipose tissue? I thought that Patty was supposed to be a Bigfoot and instead his paper is about tissues? WTF is that?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:20 AM   #632
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
There is nothing "A little odd" about trying to irradiate women. They have plenty of health issues requiring regular XRAY screenings, and attempting to get them to be subject to additional XRAYS, is a revolting idea to me. As far as helping people who need Xrays, will Bill get to interview them first, what if they don't match the body type, He should just ignore those, and buy Xrays for the women who fit his requirements?
He said Munns should use already available xray pics, or select women who were already having an xray pic taken for medical reasons, and use those pics.
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:27 AM   #633
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
He finds it a little odd, then he offers a suggestion "if you must", and comes up with a plan for him to execute his idea.

How am I reading it wrong?
River was just being polite. Sometimes polite is better than in-your-face.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 08:23 AM   #634
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Apology View Post
....The fact that no one who doubts that the PGF is 100% genuine will ever get their hands on the original footage....
Neither will Bill Munns.

He is working on (scans of) first generation copies, as the original film has gone missing.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 09:12 AM   #635
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't know what his plans are but is Bill somehow able to position his report so that peers who review are likely to already be Bigfoot believers? The year 2013 seems a bit late to be having Bigfoot skeptics suddenly say that by golly the PGF does show a Bigfoot.

Will it be reviewed by mainstream anthropologists and primatologists?
Deleted. Redundant.

Last edited by dmaker; 17th September 2013 at 09:14 AM.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 10:01 AM   #636
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
River was just being polite. Sometimes polite is better than in-your-face.

^ This but sometimes I fail at it. Of course I disagree with his choice to do it, hence the post.
__________________
"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
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 10:43 AM   #637
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
Proving the PGF shows a real Bigfoot is like putting the cart before the horse. With the horse being an actual Bigfoot. I know Bill is putting a lot of effort into this, but I find it hard to believe that a paper published in a Bigfoot based journal will have much effect on the status of the PGF. It might make for an interesting read though. In the mean time I'll read more of Mulder's comedy about how Bigfoot has already been proven to exist
OntarioSquatch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 11:53 AM   #638
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,738
^^ Mulder is funny. Especially when he gets on his show me the evidence, of equal or greater weight, that there is NO Bigfoot kick. Equal or greater weight? What is this a barter system? You give me 8 eye witness reports, a few ambiguous tracks and some dog hair and I have to counter it with what exactly....?
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:05 PM   #639
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Proving the PGF shows a real Bigfoot is like putting the cart before the horse. With the horse being an actual Bigfoot. I know Bill is putting a lot of effort into this, but I find it hard to believe that a paper published in a Bigfoot based journal will have much effect on the status of the PGF. It might make for an interesting read though. In the mean time I'll read more of Mulder's comedy about how Bigfoot has already been proven to exist
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
^^ Mulder is funny. Especially when he gets on his show me the evidence, of equal or greater weight, that there is NO Bigfoot kick. Equal or greater weight? What is this a barter system? You give me 8 eye witness reports, a few ambiguous tracks and some dog hair and I have to counter it with what exactly....?
Well, if campfire stories are scientific evidence, then bigfoot has been proven to exist. And mermaids. And fairies. And chupawhatsits, and oh, Elvis is still alive.

But campfires stories are not scientific evidence, no matter how many times someone insists they are.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:14 PM   #640
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,738
^^ You're preaching to the choir on that one Resume. I am being lynch mobbed right now in a thread for pointing out that simple fact. It seems all one needs to do is wander around the wilderness long enough and you can spout just about anything you want as fact. As if sleeping under the stars confers on one the ability to pronounce Bigfoot real.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.