Bigfoot Researcher Sues YouTube User Over False Copyright Claim - The Aftermath
Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by Matt K., a Sasquatch enthusiast. Visit his blog, Bigfoot Crossroads.In my recent blog post, I talked about how arguments in the field of bigfoot research have reached the point of legal actions. A case I outlined in specific was Melissa Hovey vs. Phil Poling, a lawsuit in which Hovey sued Poling over copyright infringement. That post can be found here: Bigfoot in the Courtroom.
Here is the information via Justia.com
Click here to continue reading at bigfootcrossroads.blogspot.com
Looks like the pgf has been dealt the final death knell.
ReplyDeleteOr, not...
DeleteHenry May
Yep. Bill munns work has been debunked by jref. Its over folks.
DeleteBill Munns looooooooooooooooooooves making JREF's sweat.
DeletePeace.
Welcome back Joe. How is the matilda suit coming along?
DeleteThanks you kind sir, and here is your link with that;
Deletehttp://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bill-munns-matilda/
Peace.
Greg long exposed the pgf years ago by actually doing the research and travelling and talking to all the people involved. Footers just sit at home on a computer making ridiculous gifs in ms paint.
DeleteJoe can you link me to an actual video of the recreation complete with 6 breaths per minute Thanks.
DeleteAnon 5:18...
DeleteBS.
Anon 5:19...
Are you honestly trying to sell the idea that we, as humans, can't achieve six breaths a minute?? Do you realize that if I tried selling that, I'd be shot to pieces.
Peace.
No need. Your PGF/Matilda comparison is pointless.
DeleteNext...
MMG
Hello MMG. Nice to see you schooling these people all weekend.
DeletePeace.
MMG with classic footer double standards.
DeleteNo need to recreate the pgf also.
Have you cooled off after being pwned yesterday?
Says the idiot that thinks Matilda and Patty are comparable. If you think a wookie mask is the same level as Patty then you have the mind of a small child; simple as that. If any one of either me, MMG, or any of the other regular enthusiasts had claimed Matilda to be real; then you would have had a field day.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
Peace.
We've got trolls, we've got trolls... In different area codes, area codes...
DeleteSeems to have been a lot of trolls with no social life this weekend. What else is new.
DeleteI like the idea of Bigfoot Court, new sitcom idea?!?
But joe you said if we can't recreate the film then it must be real so I am waiting for the matilda recreation otherwise it must be real. Your logic.
DeleteHas there been a lot this weekend? I skim-read through a lot of the blog pages I missed and it seemed like the trolls had it hard?
DeletePeace.
No, I said if you can't recreate anything like the realism and complexity of Patty, 46 years after it was apparently 'manufactured' then our claim that it's real hold's up more than yours that it's fake. You required I do the same with Matilda and not only does it look like a wookie mask, but I have a costume and special effect expert of 30 years to back up my claim. See how this works?
DeletePeace.
Matilda was a poor effort at hoaxing Erickson, which unfortunately for him and his supporters, it was swallowed and later on meant that he has gone away from the field. Why would he do that? He was successful attaining DNA samples? It's because he knows how much of a bad effort got him hoaxed and as an honest person knew at that moment he would not be able to claw back credibility, especially after the way the DNA study was treated. I've gotta say, if something that bad had got me believing, it would have been very hard to stay in the spotlight. He should hold his head up though, he managed to get proper samples.
DeletePeace.
"Realism and complexity" ah you mean by your opinion of course. I think it is poor realism of a real animal and not very complex.
DeleteYou say matilda looks like a wookie mask I say the pgf looks like a suit. What ya gonna do about that? When your whole argument is essentially your opinion that you think it looks real you have failed miserably.
If you think the pgf is real show us the animal that it is supposed to be. All we have is blokes in suits that look like that. No reason to think its a real undiscovered animal.
They show Patty on the news, tv, docs still to this day as a possible REAL bigfoot.
DeleteHave you ever seen Matilda used the same way? No because it would never be taken seriously. It would be laughed away.
Wow, Americans sure are stupid ...
DeleteAnon 6:23...
DeleteI'll tell you what I'll do about that; I'll request that you try and show me anything that is as good as Patty, cauae I can with Matilda. You see, I don't express my feelings in blogs like this, without backed opinion and research. That's the way I roll and that's what gives me a little chip on my shoulder against people like you. I don't just have my opinion, but ironically for you, I have a costume expert of 30 years that has conducted thorough analysis on the footage and determined it can't be anything but organic... He can claim that because with all his expertise, he can't replicate it. So explain that then... Explain your complete lack of support in your theory, with a lack of replication after 46 years?
Peace.
@ 6:28, how do you know who is American and who isn't?
DeleteExactly. Some of the greatest most intelligent people I have ever met have been Americans. Just another stupid troll looking for a response.
DeletePeace.
I was honestly a bit curious where that comment was coming from Joe lol
DeleteSo back to the Bigfoot Court idea, I would like to see this come to be in an animated series. A friend of mine had a kickstarter for a show they have been working on for a few years. I filmed/edited parts of their promo video. These guys are funny. They reached their goal too
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/croonie/fox-and-bigfoot-animated-series?ref=live
Joe do you really think there are no professionals that support the pgf as a hoax? Wow. Another face palm statement from joe.
DeleteIf a professional costume designer who sets out to prove the pgf is real he will get the results you are looking for of course. That does not mean the pgf is real, not in the slightest.
Bills work had been refuted extensively on jref I suggest you go read and I would advise you not to make an account there as you will not last 5 minutes against their superior intellect.
Essentially munns tests are designed to fail from the outset. Take a look at his breasts arguments. He starts off with his flawed assumption that the breasts even move. This is debatable, pattys breasts are static and do not move independentaly like real breasts. They move (very slightly) as the chest moves, not separately. Now assuming they do move he then tests 3 materials that he knows don't move (why bother doing it then?) and then puts forward the argument that it couldn't be done. The test failed because it was designed to fail.
The funny thing is the humans breasts actually move.. a lot... showing how unrealistic the pgf suit breasts are. Pretty funny.
All his other tests follow suit. His presentation is designed from the outset to proof pgf is real not to actually look at the film objectively and scientificly.
Nobody is saying that PGF proved bigfoot is real.
DeleteIt doesnt prove that it is fake or real. it is a video from '67 that can be debated if the subject is the real thing or not but there is no way to accurately determine if the creature is real from watching the video. The only thing we can do is see what "experts" within the fields related to costume making and biologists have to say about what they see and think.
Munns wasnt testing materials he knew wouldnt work, he was testing what was available at the time for that sort of costume build because he is an expert.
Ha! Man, they are funny! So what's the deal with this, they still looking for donations?
DeletePeace.
And to the point of human breasts, "the funny thing is" Nursing breasts are very different from your everyday breasts. They are hard and move much less. More like a breast implant while nursing many times. May not always be the case but it happens and I have seen it first hand(literally!)
Delete... Joe, the breathing rug video is not directly connected to the stills that Munns said was some clown in a wookie mask..Bill Munns has not addressed the sleeping matilda video to my knowledge..You and anon are talking about 2 different clips that were probably shot years apart...
DeleteJoe, Not sure if they are. I know they reached their goal and I havent spoken to them in months because my friend moved up north with his brother for work and this project. But hopefully they get it off the ground and make it happen. They had some interested and well known comedy actor(I honestly forgot who) in talks to voice Fox.
DeleteAnon 7:14...
DeleteHa! Bronson just put you in your place... I've posted this time and time again and it keeps getting ignored, but to even remotely get near to the realism of Patty, you would have to send the materials of today back in a time machine. Oh, and if you can supply me with these opposing 'experts' that have conducted the same level of analysis that Munns has done on the footage, that would be wonderful (I won't hold my breath).
Superior intellect? Superior fail more like.
Peace.
what is jref? seriously haha
DeleteAnon 7:26...
DeleteEither way, the breathing shots look nothing like organic hair/fur. The footage of the wookie mask has been endorsed by people like Matt Moneymaker to be the face of Matilda. He even stated that in later parts of the footage, the wookie mask turns to the camera and snarls. This footage has not been released because of it's obvious laugh-ability factor.
Peace.
I would love to see someone do what Munns did or better. I welcome the thought of someone challenging his ideas on Patty and actually recreating Patty both in costume and on film. I would love to see it. Where can I find someone who is qualified to do so that has done so? Is there anyone who has come close to it? I dont care if its even with modern technology and materials, I would just like to see an accurate recreation of Patty.
DeleteI am not opposed to seeing this like some may think, but it hasnt happened yet. Nobody has done it even close to what we see in the PGF. Then we can see how different it is from Bills project.
Why would anyone bother?
DeleteFind one of these bigfoots you keep going on about or shut up.
Charles bronson states there is no way to determine if the pgf is real from the footage.
DeleteLooks like we have a winner folks!
Combine that with there being no bigfoot, ever, it is crazy to think the pgf is real.
..Thanks Joe...Charles, it would be difficult to recreate the texture, or whatever they call it, of the film itself..You need the same lighting conditions, film stock and camera..
DeleteEven then the "grain" may come out different since grain is a random artifact. The graininess,btw, is what gives those low budget films of the early 70's(Texas Chainsaw, Last House etc) their gritty realism. I think that applies to the PGF as well...
True dat^
DeleteJoe asks for a recreation that he knows is impossible, not because its a real creature but because there are infinite factors that go into 1 piece of film.
What joe fails to understand is it should be far easier to go out and film another one of these creatures as there would have to be thousands of them as opposed to trying to recreate a one off film in which to start with we do not have the details of the one off suit roger made. Combine that with the infinite outcomes of the combined location, lighting, camera, lense, film stock, subject distance, operator movement, handheld shakes, grain, shadows, scenery layout, movement of subject etc it would simply be impossible to recreate to a footers standards. That of course does not mean bigfoot is real :)
Anon 7:48...
DeleteThe ratio of eye witness accounts that you keep declaring lies or miss-identification would indicate a steady level of evidence if they were not scoffed at, I know hunters of 30 years that have not seen one bear skeleton, does that mean bears don't exist?
Anon 7:53...
Got monkey suit?
Anon 7:58...
In one of Munns' recreations he used the same type camera. Schooled by Monsterquest. Got monkey suit?
Anon 8:09...
"Joe asks for a recreation that he knows is impossible, not because its a real creature but because there are infinite factors that go into 1 piece of film."
... Ha! No, I ask for a recreation because in my opinion, that creature is real and understand that by you faffing around the place looking for every which other angle to come at the subject, from WILL not explain it because you can't.
"What joe fails to understand is it should be far easier to go out and film another one of these creatures as there would have to be thousands of them as opposed to trying to recreate a one off film in which to start with we do not have the details of the one off suit roger made"
... And what would happen if someone was to film another 'Patty'? You would just condemn it as a hoax like you have with one of the most amazing pieces of film in history. It's the dumbest... DUMBEST thing in the world requesting evidence that when is presented to you, you just claim it's rubbish or not even there. It's stupid, agenda twisted and un-scientific. Who's to say that out of the countless other blobsquatches that have been filmed, that a small percentage are actual Bigfoot. Enthusiasts don't even recognize this means of documentation as legitimate anymore, because it can always be a man in a suit, so why do you keep requesting it? You cannot explain leaping Russian Yeti; there! There's your matching specimen.
And back to the PGF. It's the greatest contradiction and poor logic to demand we provide evidence and prove our case when you cannot supply us with an explanation of how Patty was 'created'. If you can't then it means one thing; Patty is real and Bigfoot is real.
Got monkey suit?
Peace.
How patty was created? A bloke put on a monkey suit and walked accross a flat sand bar while his mate filmed it as shaky as possible. Nothing amazing there. They were probably drunk and laughing their asses off while doing it.
DeleteOk then, if it's that easy, it would have been recreated by now. The BBC would have recreated it, surely.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
Peace.
Read comments about a recreation above because you clearly missed the point.
DeleteNo, I read a load of pointless comments about lighting and cameras and crap, when YOU didn't read my comment properly about the fact that Munns had already experimented with the same camera equivalent. I see more and more of this; skeptics coming at new angles all the time... anything other than explaining the 'suit', if it's a suit then show me something as good. You can bang on about film grain till your blue in the face, I can see clear images of muscle tone, skin folds, extended toes, the proportions, finger bending, it's all there and you will acrobatically dance round in writing to avoid explaining any of it... that's why you resort to such crap.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
It would not be difficult to recreate the grainyness of the film, soley because that is not an added effect. That is from using an old 8mm camera. Nobody is asking for an exact replication, but something close? anyone??
DeleteWhen that is done people can say "its a bloke in a suit" until then you have no real evidence to support that claim just like nobody has real hard evidence to support its authenticity.
Believing in something unconfirmed by science is bold, but not wrong.
Where's your patty specimen?
DeleteIn the wilderness ready to eat your face off. Sykes is coming.
DeletePeace.
This was posted the other day:
DeleteHere are two BIG problems with Patty's leg anatomy:1) The popliteal fossa (aka "knee pit") is angled outward (toward the camera) while the subject is closer to perpendicular to the camera. The angle is significant; I'd estimate something like 25 or 30 degrees. Either Patty was extremely pigeon-toed (which does not show up on the alleged footprints), or we're seeing suit artifacts.2) Look at the thigh. Look at it. It's a mess of concave shapes. There is nothing like this showing up on Usain Bolt's leg or anyone else's. A well-muscled leg should appear convex in a photo like this. 'Footers are so obsessed with the apparent convex gastrocnemius looking "anatomically correct" that they are blind to the ridiculous conCAVE appearance to the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis. That's not how it should look.Roger made a pretty good monster suit but it was hardly "masterful". We should give no quarter to those who argue for the film's authenticity because it displays any great knowledge of hominid anatomy. It doesn't.
Regarding the anatomy lesson and claims given by above:
DeleteThe popliteal fossa: A 25 to 30 degree outward angle is wishful thinking. Keep in mind the tightrope-walk pattern of many Sasquatch tracks. If the Bluff Creek tracks are anything similar to that method of stride, that will affect the angle of the knee pit. I see no suit artifacts here.
The thigh being a mess of concave shapes: This appears to be invented; I see no concave shape on either thigh. This claim is misinformation; the right thigh which we get a clear view of during the turn and stumble is massive, muscular, and convex, despite these erroneous assertions.
The rectus femoris appears concave: The rectus femoris area is visible only on the left leg. It appears relatively flat from the semi-rear views we get, but not concave.
The vastus lateralis is concave: With this assertion, the claimant has veered from wishful thinking and fantasy into complete delusion. This is the outer thigh clear and visible during the turn and stumble, which exhibits not only a full and convex muscular appearance, but which has a shockwave issue through it during the stumble. Also in this view, at this moment in the PGF, the biceps tendon at the knee is clear and presumably correct, and moving.
ALSO, we watched Usain Bolt race this weekend, and he is quite slender compared to Patty. Furthermore, Patty’s right thigh as seen in the stumble is huge, while Bolt’s thighs by contrast are slender. This is another faulty comparison or invention by the commenter.
Other interesting PGF points and not in the mind of a hoaxer:
Long hair visible down upper back.
Frames 61 and 72 show right fingers curl toward palm. This grossly damages if not destroys the claims of arm extensions.
Patty strolling away is consistent with almost all later sightings; the almost casual stroll into the forest is typical of later accounts.
In any case the breasts and huge buttocks and enormous mass through shoulders, traps, neck and arms give lie to suit claims. There is simply too much mass here; she is frankly gargantuan in the neck/trap/shoulder/chest region.
Bear in mind that in your judging of Patty's anatomy, the only things you really have to compare it with are the anatomies of a human, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon, and that's about it. You don't really know what it would look like, or not look like.
Also note that Patty is mostly inconsistent with the drawings Patterson did to illustrate Ostman's story. In the drawings are no conical skulls or gigantic buttocks or high, non-sagging breasts.
The giant buttocks make sense if the creature weighs 400 or 500 pounds or more--massive glutes would be necessary for locomotion of that kind of bodyweight. They also aren't static, as some assert. There are some excellent clips showing movement and which dispense with that claim.
Considering all of the above, we shall give no quarter to the suit proponents.
Since the creatures are supposedly nocturnal and extremely stealthy, they are highly uncooperative when it comes to getting video of them. We might never get clear extended footage of such a creature again. With the proliferation of cameras we probably will, eventually.
Anon 7:14 et al and True That nut both are actually crazy.
Delete7:14 actually still at this point is referring to what appears in the PGF as "the suit."
Judas Priest, we all have to become professional face-palmers just to deal with these jokers.
7:14 and True That, advice:
Extract skull from dark wet orifice into which you have inserted it.
Get adjusted to the light and look around you.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Wonderful.
DeletePeace.
..Joe, I think Munns used the same kind of camera but he does not know what kind of lens..That is one of the things he is trying to figure out...
DeleteYou are right.
DeletePeace.
Beautiful post - Above is Still Wrong More Wrong Then Ever.
Delete^Agreed..Really good comments about the muscles from both sides...
DeleteOMG, finally some intelligent posts on this old blog! 7:14 above, as well as many others following afterwards, well played my friends, well played!
DeleteYou have that exactly right, all of Munns' tests were designed to prove Patty real, not to explore scientific concepts. As you say, the initial premises are always flawed in favor of the end solution. He has to start with the flawed premise to arrive at his flawed conclusion. The breasts do NOT bounce nor move like any real tissue. They are rigid. The only "independent" movement they show is an illusion due to Patty swaggering like a football player in big boots, side to side swagger makes it look like the breasts bob up and down opposite one another. That is not breast movement, it is the actor tilting his body left and right as he walks.
Same flawed beginning with his head helmet, he uses the most distorted profile frame he can find, and uses that as his flawed initial start point. That way he can arrive at his flawed conclusion. It's the same in each and every test he does. You cannot trust research which is so blatantly and so intentionally skewed in its methodology.
Patty is a fake, anyone who looks at it objectively realizes that. Only those who have a vested interest, either emotionally, financially, or socially, sees it as real. Once Patty is seen as a fake, the club falls apart, nothing left to hang around for.
And good to see that Joe is still on the path towards total whackiness. His frustration and anger is building every day, as his posts become increasingly hostile, with name calling, insane laughing, and rat backed into a corner posturing. There's no other options for Joe, and friends, as there is essentially no tangible evidence to support the existence of bigfoot. There is the film, clearly a hoax, there are reports, the most unreliable of all evidence, and there are footprints, no two ever alike, no two ever looking like the same species, and all subject to being made by pranksters or outright liars to support their cause.
If you can have a film 46 years ago of some old, fat, slow lumbering hairy clod in broad daylight, which by the way the film makers never followed up on, never trailed, never attempted to reconnect with, then how do we end up 46 years later with no physical specimens at all, no scat, no hair, no nothing? And how do they evolve in 46 years to become night monsters with glowing red eyes, cloaking ability, infrasound, wood knocking, samurai language, and forest ninja abilities? What a joke.
Skateboarding dog is the most credible voice in the bigfoot community
ReplyDeletewhat happened to bloody orangutan baby? i thought he was it now
DeleteSecond...
ReplyDeleteBlasphemy!!! The only credible voice in the bigfoot community is me.... ANONYMOUS!
ReplyDeletethe majority of this blog are the same few shitheads who post as multiple people anonymously. nobody cares what a troll thinks, ever.
Delete..Everyone that posts here is a delusional closet homosexual that has little formal education and is prone to lying and bitter denunciations of the other retards that hang around here...except me, obviously..lol..
Delete^ ahaha
DeleteAs to the topic, that lying hag Hovey claims to be a paralegal. Front receptionist must be more like it -- ANY trained legal would have told her in 2 seconds to remove her false copyright. She wasn't even smart enough to get advice in her own workplace. Complete idiot.
ReplyDeleteYou dont need a degree to be a paralegal. It helps, but you can basically be an office clerk that eventually calls themselves a paralegal. My sister is a partner at a successful law firm here in FL and has these people apply claiming to be paralegals all the time. From my experience with her and friends in the past, paralegals dont have to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Just need to know how to do simple paper work.
DeleteWhat happened to Snow Walker Merchant?
ReplyDeleteso far just hearing rumors that he was arrested but that is just interweb speculation i think.
Deletehe could just be broke for all we know
Bill Munns
ReplyDeleteBanned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 601
"Objection your Honor!" Ms Hovey sit down, I have asked you repeatedly not to yell out during these proceedings. And STOP eating Flamin Hot Cheetos in my courtroom.
ReplyDeleteI see hear you have several unreturned subpoenas for Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, and Skunk Ape. Ms Hovey, if Bigfoot could appear and testify what makes you think he could speak English ? "Your Honor I call his interpreter Sasquatch Ontario to the stand. OBJECTION. Overruled.
ReplyDeleteWeren't you disbarred?
Delete..I think the fingers on the right hand curl in unison but not to a degree where definitive conclusions can be drawn..It would have been better if we can see them wiggling or making a fist...
ReplyDeleteWOW! what a big huge dicertation. I can sum it up with 4 words. BIG STATIC DIAPER BUTT.
ReplyDelete"The giant buttocks make sense if the creature weighs 400 or 500 pounds or more--massive glutes would be necessary for locomotion of that kind of bodyweight. They also aren't static, as some assert. There are some excellent clips showing movement and which dispense with that claim."
ReplyDeletePosted above
Hey Sweaty, the skeptics are not claiming arm extensions, particularly at the hand end. If you had a brain in your head, you'd be able to understand that the "extensions" any skeptic might discuss would be the heavily padded shoulders, which makes the upper arm look longer than it actually is, not the lower arm. Freaking idiot never listens, never learns, is totally stuck in his own distorted reality. So your big "gotcha" argument falls flat, because you, like all other footers, always start an argument or a teaching point with a completely flawed first step. End of story.
ReplyDelete