I sure am curious.

....let me tell ya...it's very cold here outside the barn in the bushes typing this on my IPhone...all I can hear is chanting going on and, through a crack in the barn door, it appears that Gimlin is wearing some type of ritualistic garb...hold on...I'll send a shot along taken with a makeshift telephoto lens I picked up in Yakima...

Great (or possibly just demented) minds think alike. Soon as I saw your name, the post that you made is exactly what popped into my mind.

hey everyone seriously now how is the yakima bigfoot round up going turn out indeed. i looked in online wa newspapers about it maybe looking in wrong online newspapers. ok keep me updated please. thanks bill

Yetifan...

Seriously, NorCal, i'm looking forward to exactly the same thing as you are Brother & can't wait to hear about it...

I'm really not that interested in hearing from a conference that only has one point of view put forward and noone is allowed to ask questions - it is too cultish for my likeing.

Its funny how this event was advertised as 'an examination of the Patterson Gimlin Film', but having sold tickets to the public is being described as a Bob Gimlin testimonial Party. I think John Green did the right thing by not attending this 'tribute'.

I completely agree Paul but i'm honestly more interested in the supposed Presentation of some MMF Stuff ( hopefully ) than the PGF stuff..

http://www.themunnsreport.com/the_munns_report_r1.pdf

Here's Munn's report

And the conclusion

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words

Question Number 1 for Bill:

On page ..5...., that compares subject heights of humans and Patty with 25mm and 15mm lenses, the red baseline is seen but Patty's feet can't be seen
grounded in the middle frame. How did you approximate the position of her feet to compare apples to apples here?

If I'm reading longtabber's post correctly...lots of words on 52 pages to conclude it's likely not a human.

First off Yetifan Secondly, assuming his comparison of the 6'2" man and 7'4" Patty is correct,
isn't it striking the mass difference between the man & her? It seems even a human giant like Shaq O'Neil
would still be small in comparison.

Nice reporting Yetifan, I admire those that get close to the action and can feel the heat in the kitchen and remain at their posts. I'm hoping
you used the black spraypaint on the gamecams on your way in though.

And as promised, the standards of review that will be used as applicable and accepted for a scientific/technical review.

>>>The Peer Review Process- Primer

The following narrative is for the benefit of the casual reader and will outline the general standards of peer review of a scientific/technical paper and a short layman’s tutorial of how the process works and the expected goals of a review.

Step 1- What a scientific/technical paper is supposed to accomplish

A scientific/technical paper is expected to provide a sufficient contribution to the knowledge base of its field. A scientific/technical paper is not: a forum or venue to self promote personal bias, unsound or unvalidated information as impiracle fact, an avenue to sell or promote eclectic or improperly applied sciences as something they are not.

The generally accepted format of any scientific/technical paper is the IMRAD(Introduction, Methods, Research [and] Discussion) format. This format ensures the information,methods,conclusions and discussions are laid out in a logical,factual and reviewable form as well a method to include any/all relevant data.

A scientific/technical paper MUST:
• Contain a new result that is impiracle theoretical or experimental and each result MUST be verified to exacting detail in accordance with accepted relevant standards
• Contain a useful survey of data, tutorial, novel but testable synthesis of idead/theory
• Be concise and precise
A scientific/technical paper MUST NEVER:
• Be badly written in language, content,personality
• Rely on erroneous or unfounded data for a conclusion
• Rely on reputation,word or belief to establish a salient point or promote a conclusion
• Conclude with non sensical results promoted as fact by the use of anecdotal, opinion,popularity or any other unverifiable, irrelevant, misapplied technique/methodology
Step 2- The review process

a. The review process is generally based on the guidelines and accepted Best Practices established by the following accepted authorities: ( this list is not all inclusive or exhaustive)

 National Academy of Sciences
 National Academy of Engineering
 EMC Society-IEEE
Those standards will be adhered to in the review of the paper identified as ”The Munn’s Report”.

b. The review methodology will be conducted in accordance with the accepted standards of an anonamous review consisting of evaluation of the referenced work with the following sufficiency of quality incorporated into the work from the following perspectives:

 novelty, significance, correctness, readability
 ensuring the integrity of science
 structure, logic of method
 technical accuracy
 experimental detail
 adherence to protocols

c. The Review criteria is the scoring categories, degree of examination, depth of analysis and evaluation of conclusions relative to the points/conclusions presented weighed against relevant standards or methods proven to be true or reliable. The general categories for scoring/review are:

 Relevance
 Originality
 Background knowledge of the subject and references
 Technical content
 Presentation
 Purpose
 Appropriate for the intended forum
 Goal significance
 Method of approach clear and valid
 Actual execution of the research correctness
 Conclusions correctness
 Presentation satisfaction
 Reviewer development
The scoring scale is:

[ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ ] good [ ] excellent

d. MPI assignment. The MPI (Minimum Punishable Index) is the lowest level of information dissection. For this review, the MPI is assigned to the base data level used to establish, fortify, validate and promote the stated Datapoint, enabling conclusion of terminal conclusion.

e. The grading scale and classification of terminal review is established from Smith 1990 and can include multiple degrees of award as relevant.

1. Very significant; includes major results (<1% of all papers)
2. Interesting work, a good contribution (<10%)
3. Minor positive contribution (10-30%)
4. Elegant and technically correct, but useless
5. Neither elegant nor useful, but not wrong
6. Wrong and misleading
7. Unreadable, impossible to evaluate

f. The review phases will be in accordance with accepted inquiry review.
Phase I- The salient disputed points will be published with appropriate commentary/reference/standard allowing the author reasonable time to reconsider,reevaluate, alter or respond with additional information clarifying the disputed point. The author also has the option to rewrite or withdraw disputed sections.

Phase II- The terminal review will follow with all remaining points of dispute fully evaluated with corrections applied complete with applicable references,experiments, flaw exposure, contradiction analysis et al.


I felt it necessary in the interests of professionalism to outline the standard review criteria as will be applied to the aforementioned paper. A good and proper review is essential for scientific integrity and is information focused. A review must always be technically accurate, dispassionate, impersonal and remain focused on the data- not the author.

It is good and proper for a review to be challenged and the same rules apply.

It is proper to place this information out as the ”rulebook” to the process and methodology before the review begins and to proactively alleviate any question of unprofessional conduct or agenda bias.

Obviously, if the paper is not yet accepted by SIGGRAPH or whatever, his work is either not done or not in the acceptable format. It has the beginning of being empirical and
a contribution to the field. It needs development into the proper format and it could be accepted in the proper venue for publication imho. Reviews notwithstanding. Obviously a lot of work is going into this. If the NDA portion of the arrangements will preclude full disclosure of all his work it delays the proper review of it in my mind. Since that production is in press and the paper and study is still in development, I guess all we can do is wait and evaluate and ask questions piecemeal for now. Nice effort though Bill!

Long, some of us didn't need all that background in science and peer-review to recognize something that's ultimately worthless. (before, during, or after its release)

RayG

hey tugboatwa admins everyone so any new honest news from researchers that are the yakima bigfoot round up today or tommarrow etc. please keep me informed ok. thanks bill

I am writing this from the parking lot of the Round-up.

First night highlights...

Bill Munns believes that the camera used in filming "the subject" (as he called it) was not a 25mm lens as has been thought over the years, but rather a 15mm lens. The significance of the size of the lens is that by (WARNING: any mistakes in the following formula is mine and not Munns) the size of the image on film divided by the focal length of the lens equals the size of the actual subject divided by the distance from the camera to the subject.

Munns said if you have three of the numbers, you can solve for the missing number. Using the size of the subject on the film, the the lens size and a length of 102 feet from the camera to the subject, and using the 25 mm lens that had been assumed to have used on the camera, Munns calculated an actual size of the subject at 4'-6". As that didn't make sense, he slowly came around to the idea that the lens was actually a 15mm lens.

Expect a more detailed report of his presentation when I get home Sunday night.

Munns has posted his report online at - http://www.themunnsreport.com/ and it is also available as a PDF.

The second speaker wlas R. Scott Nelson, a "crypto-linguist" who discussed his findings after examing the "Sierra Sounds" tapes. Most of his report went over my head. I will try and unscramble my notes when I get home.

The final presenter was introduced by Matt Moneymaker himself. Derek Randles discussed the Olympic Project, a Wally Hersom-funded game camera setup on ridgelines in the Olympic Peninsula. Randles said that it is felt the ridgelines are the easiest way to travel through Olympic Park. "They are like highways," he said. It would be possible to walk across the peninsula by using only ridgelines, he said.

The cameras the BFRO has been using in this project are ReConyx RC 60 cameras, the same cameras used by the TBRC for the last three years in their Camera Trap Project.

Time to go take more notes... expect a more detailed report when I return home Sunday night..

Thanks for the update Tug. Olympic Peninsula Project sounds like a weiner! Hope the cryptolingo guy has something important to say when it is translated for the rest of us. I listened to his internet radio session, halfway and I'm still not done with that.

Ray can you give me a short review on the new James Cameron film Avatar
It's not out for a while but you seem able to have 'special' power to be able to tell what something is like before having any knowledge of it's contents.

Yeah, and some of us have that special power just seeing a poster's avatar or sign off at the end of a post! And, don't have to read further sometimes. Ha!

Based on a very quick review of the the Munns Report R1, one of the most interesting things to me is the differences in the perspective (I don't know the technical terms) of the frame from the PG film and the one from Green. I thought that photo was probably the best possible source for height comparison, but I never considered the other possible forms of optical distortion, which would be affected by the things including lens size, focal length, zoom effects, and the height of the cameral. Having distinct markers on the stills shows exactly how complicated comparing subjects on the same background can be. I especially like the photo that shows both markers and how they skew.

Here's a thought - would it be possible to use a computer to correct for the optical differences in the Green film to match the PG film? I know that software can be used to correct a picture that was taken out of focus on a known camera to produce an in focus picture for example. You can also correct for lens distortion if you know the properties of the lens. NASA did that with the Hubble telescope - they figured out how to correct for the distortions due to the improper design of the mirrors and correct the images with software. It would be nice to see a "corrected" version of the Green film of McLarin compared with the PG film, for better "apples to apples" comparison.

It is Saturday morning in Yakima. Friday evening was quite interesting with several new and challengeing theories being put forth by presenters. It was great meeting old friends from the bff for the first time and reconnecting with others that socaljake and I have met before or have spent time in the field with. It's a virtual "Who's Who"(myself not included LOL) of bigfoot folk from all over the country and other countries(Canada and Australia). Lot's of good vibes and the usual amount of old axes to grind from those that hold long term grudges against each other. This is by far the best organized bigfoot gathering I have ever gone to. Beautiful ranch and excellent facilities. My hat is off to the organizers. I will start taking pics today and hopeful post some soon. Beautiful weather today with a luchtime bbq to kick off this days festivities.

A good attitude to go through life with, I haven't seen it or read it, but it must be crap!!

Yep, "Start every day off with a smile and get it over with." W. C. Fields (It's a joke boy, get it!)

hey tugboatwa TY for the new above reply about yakima bigfoot round up indeedy. take alot photos & keep us posted ok. tell henry may billy willard & researchers etc there i said HELLO...... good afternoon. bill

Yes, but after catching up on a few threads, it seems to be a joke which some people use as their mantra.

Hey everyone... just thought id let you all know its a great time up here and everyones smiling and having a ball! sorry to all you that couldnt make it. you wouldve enjoyed it! part two coming up...

hey jake thats awesome. i hope you take plenty of photos this event keep us posted etc ty for above reply ok. bill

yes, but it's being presented and formulated in such a way as to (hopefully) satisfy the critics of every OTHER similar conclusion that the "science wasn't rigorous enough".

And you have just confirmed what many suspected long before this event: you never had ANY intention of giving this report "the time of day".




Socaldave, what if anything, can you tell us about this Scott H. that was not allowed in that's raised not a few eyebrows? We even have people LEAVING BFF over this issue apparently.

Nobody should be leaving BFF on personality issues. The research is far above what everyone thinks of everyone else, personally. In order to win the war, sometimes you have to work with people you don't like. Everyone has something to put into the mix, and need to back down on the personal issues, for the greater work.

Sure, I can sum it up in one word -- fiction. I seem to have a knack for recognizing fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Bill's report, as much as some want it to be the Holy Grail of bigfootdom, wasn't going to produce anything viable, hasn't produced anything viable, and ten years from now it still won't have. Bill has basically penned his speculations, inserting some numbers to make it look and sound authoritative, but in the end his report is still meaningless. Cheer leading, optimism, and wishful-thinking isn't going to change that.



Funny you should mention crap. I don't need to smell, taste, and feel crap before I recognize it as crap.

Let me clarify... lest you think I'm trying to vilify Mr. Munns... I've got nothing against him, but as I said on that 'other' forum, the only way I'd be impressed by his report is if it's stapled to the @$$ of a sasquatch tied to the roof of his car. Numbers produced NOW based on imprecise measurements made THEN will not put us one step closer to solving this mystery. Like it or not, that boat has sailed, over 40 years ago, and nothing Glickman, Krantz, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Davis, Munns, or anyone else whips up using speculation and guesstimates is going to change that.



If by that you mean that I haven't let wishful-thinking override my ability to reason, thanks. Have I read the entire report? No. I don't need to read every page in a textbook to recognize it's a textbook, nor do I need to sort through an entire bag of garbage to realize it's a bag of garbage. Have I read the relevant parts? Yes indeedy. The results are meaningless. Leaving aside his guesstimates and speculations, please quote the parts of his report that you believe are scientifically rigorous, scientifically meaningful, or have scientific impact.

Grazzhopprr, I really try to leave my emotions at the door when I visit, but I'm not always successful.

RayG

i hope researchers here at the yakima bigfoot round up post photos here keep us updated

Subject: Phase I, part 1 review of the paper titled “The Munns Report” et al as identified and published at: www.themunnsreport.com

Format: The referenced work is in no known standard format making a standard review impractical due to the body, content and arrangement of the information.

Purpose: Due to the language, grammar, construction, contradictions, lack of indexing and other errors contained in the report, it makes the Phase I review a request for additional relevant information and clarification in order to accurately analyze and assess the quality, reliability and accuracy of the data and conclusions.

Interrogatories: The referenced quotes from the author will be presented in italics and referee inquiries with relevance will follow. The general format will be:
1) Question, statement or point of clarification
2) Author’s comments validating the ambiguity
3) Referee’s interrogatory and reason/rationale

Baseline: The common practice is to initiate an interrogatory from the final conclusion and work backward. In this incidence, the final conclusion appears to be in question from the author itself. In any review, the conclusions MUST be fully understood and spelled out in clear, concise and unmistakable terms before the body can be examined.

1) The conclusion itself: There is a question as to whether the author’s stated conclusions are fact, opinion, hearsay or speculation.

> So it is my contention that this model is an accurate representation of the site, and can be applied to further research on the film.
? A contention is a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument. Why is this “contention” more scientifically valid than any other? If this model is truly an accurate representation of the site and can be applied to further research on the film as the author states then it MUST be shored up by evidence, scientifically valid, reliable and independently verifiable to be accepted as a baseline for any further anything.
Is this information available for review?
Does it even exist?
Was it included in this determination?
How was this information obtained, reviewed for accuracy and tested?

If none of the above information is available- the author’s comment should be re evaluated or removed as it is clearly a personal opinion without factual support.

> Further, it is my conclusion that the lens Roger Patterson had on his camera that day was a 15mm lens, not the generally presumed 25mm lens. I conclude this because seven different views of the site model seen through the 15mm lens specification, plus two comparisons with other Bluff Creek site photos subsequently taken, match the site objects and proportions exceptionally well.
? The site model (currently invalidated- Re: above) cannot be used as a benchmark for a legitimate conclusion unless and until it is validated. This is tantamount to supporting a guess with another guess. This is unacceptable by any legitimate science. The 7 different views are artificially created with unsubstantiated information in a software package not recognized by any authority anywhere as true certifiable photogrammetery software.

Is the math (geometry and trigonometry) and field calculations available for review? Scientific review mandates either the algorithm or equations used to substantiate Datapoints be made available for independent review as the Datapoint is invalid unless and until the math is verified.

Is there any proof, evidence or valid historical support establishing that the purported lens was in FACT on the camera?

If none of the above information is available- the author’s comment should be re evaluated or removed as it is clearly a personal opinion without factual support.


> I conclude that the identified camera positions in the site model are sufficiently accurate in terms of replicating Roger's camera positions during the filming as to allow researchers to use those camera positions as part of the subject height calculation formula (which requires the camera position as one component of the formula).There are no known “camera positions” on the ground and any software cameras MUST be defined by real world coordinates and correlated to the software for any rendition to be considered valid. “Sufficiently accurate” is vague, meaningless and scientifically invalid.
Are the math and field calculations available for independent review?
If none of the above information is available- the author’s comment should be re evaluated or removed as it is clearly a personal opinion without factual support.

> The preliminary height estimate I have is about 7' 4"

Has or how has this been independently correlated?

> The Release One material greatly diminishes the prospect the film was hoaxed with a human in a fur costume, because the height issue greatly diminishes the number of humans of sufficient height to be capable of wearing said costume.
Where is the study that establishes this conclusion? There are hundreds of parameters that need to be assessed before such a grandiose claim can be considered with any degree of legitimacy.

Do these studies exist?

The above information is necessary to fully scrub the conclusions to a point that they are clear, concise, absolute and unquestionable so that they may serve as a baseline for legitimate review. All ambiguity must be removed and the first step is defining the end conclusions with total precision.

Translation: "YOU'R NoT Doin it MY WAY, so it'z BoGUs!" and "I want my' slab monkey', dangnabbit!"

So, anyone have a synopsis of who/what was presented Friday night?
And, are we going to add today's activities to this thread, or start another one?

I found Bill's report to be very thorough, and probably the best analysis to date based on what there is to work with. By the way, I'm looking at content alone, not format. It's quite obvious that a lot of work went into it, and I for one am very grateful that someone did it. Once I get the time to re-read it a few times I'll be able to form my own personal opinion as to its validity. And before anyone jumps in on me, I'm talking about its validity to me, not anyone else. I'm quite happily selfish that way!

And I'm eager to hear the new info from the MMF as well. I've been hearing some good stuff about the folks involved.

It sounds as if it has been a great gathering so far! I really need to get to one of these things. I truly believe in the power of a handshake, and this gathering has plenty of palms I'd like to press. It's my way of quickly making a personal assessment. It's completely unscientific, by the way, but it has served me well throughout my life.
I can't wait to hear more about this gathering, especially about the guy they caught out by the barn...
...I hope he's ok...

While reading this, in the same vein, I thought of this.

Obviously and understandably, you have a bit of a biased and empassioned view at this point. From the point of view of an impersonal, uninvolved and dispassionate observer, I want to hear all about it. Various reviews and impressions and reports and points of view. The questions are coming, we can be sure of that. I look forward to their probative and entertainment values. In the meantime, gather all the information we can.

Excellent. Fair enough. I expect you to do some damn thorough reviewing..

That's unnecessarily harsh. The contribution of a diligent opinion made after a lengthy and serious investigation and its investment of time, money and effort is certainly of some value, which is likely to be arbitrated soon, even if it falls short of ultimate worth.

That sounds cool, both the project and MM being there.

And still no mention of what was supposed to be Friday's nights Super Footage Revelation!

Spazmo - Ditto.

Good post too Jack.

By far the most in-depth analysis that I've seen. I like it, and I agree with what I've read so far. A lotta reading. Makes sense to me.

It's impact though? Not sure. But I'm not expecting to see it on the nightly news anytime soon...(altough that would be very cool).

At the end of the day, RayG, you are correct in one thing - still need a dead one...... Unfortunately.

My interpretation of your translation: I can't provide any material that is scientifically rigorous, scientifically meaningful, or have scientific impact, so I will resort to a childish response instead.

Why am I not surprised...

RayG

So, how about that gathering?
It's still going on, right? Any "on site news" from the attendees?
Oh wait, it's only 1:30pm local time...hangovers last until 3, in my experience...

Thank you, thats what we ( there are several people involved in this as every review should have) will do. It will be upfront, transparent, accompanied by supporting factual data that can be individualy verified, supporting standards and nothing else.

A blind anonymous review is the appropriate method in this case because it removes all personalities,allegiances and focuses on the information, its accuracy and testability alone- which is the only thing on the chopping block. ( removes the human equation)

Not to mention that I'm pretty tired of being accused of being "anti" Bill or prejudiced etc when in reality I'm one of the few people at the "other" place who went out of their way to impose civility and impartiality. I'm also pretty tired of those claiming this is about "me" and where are all these "standards[ whatever,whatever] " I often refer to so I'm stating them up front for anyone to research so there will be no question in anyones mind as to the legitimacy of the review and how the process of science works.

Those standards ( especially in the technical fields as this one is) are exacting, absolutes, unforgiving not subject to popular opinion, cognitive dissonance or individual right to accept or reject. 2+2=4 whether one believes it, understands it, accepts or rejects it.

The author was offered information on the IMRAD process, assistance and other help but for reasons irrelevant opted for a personal ecclectic format that is what it is.

The first step in the process is to fully establish the conclusions in absolute detail and accuracy in language and understanding. Thats what is happening now while awaiting for the author to clarify some of the ambiguities presented. This can take a while.

Paul1968UK,

Just ta let ya know, John's not attendin' the ''tribute'' for health reasons, an one other reason of more importance !

Pat...

Don't worry about a thing longtabber. You've got people busting your chops and you've got people voting you bigfooter of the year or biggest name or whatever. At ease, Soldier. You've established yourself fairly, I think, for better and for worse, with everyone who's paying attention, in a good way- and that being that the standards you are standing by are those that are most-strict, most-skeptical, most-stringent, most-thorough, most-scientific, most-extreme, most all-or-nothing, most definitive and, in all this, most ultimate, to the best of your ability. I think Ray would agree. It is the standard of ultimately acceptable proof, and nothing short of that. Speak freely, but try to reserve yourself and step back briefly.. a bit.. sometimes... I have... Your opinion is a valued part of why I say this is the place of peer review. The range of opinion is all here. The BFF is the people here, from those of little education to those of very much education, those of no personal experience or involvement to those of much personal experince and involvement, we all have dis crazy sasquatch on de mind.

but.. pssst... i know you know the relative value of these things along the way to your door also... but i'll keep it down


Anybody know if Wally is there?

One of the points I'm trying to make is that you can't take a collection of numbers and hold them up as valid science. Or take oranges and make lemonade, if you will. I guess I'm just really getting tired of guesstimates, opinions, and wishful-thinking being presented as though it's good science.

When I check my bank account, the bank doesn't say, "Well, Mr. Gavel we think you have $XXXX in that account". Or, "we're guessing that your bank account contains an estimated $xxxx".

When bigfoot papers are produced however, we're supposed to applaud the effort at coming up with opinions, guesses, or estimates. Never mind that the actual numbers don't do anything to support the assertion, it's the effort that counts.

Some people get very shrill when you dare to question any of the so-called scientific reports, but I've yet to see one that would stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's an area I'm not willing to compromise on.

RayG

what Paul said, cult........nothing against Gimlin but the affair is a one sided affair, whats the point?

C'mon now. You are free not to look, but are looking, and you will keep looking, so there must be some points.

So tonight's line-up then; Kathy, Meldrum, what will Bindernagel say? Gimlin? and maybe some Super Footage held back for the Grand Finale?