Jump to content
norseman

The Munns Report

Recommended Posts

Guest parnassus

Bill, "....inventing a fantasy..." ? there you go again.....

If it weren't for Toto, Dorothy might still be wandering around Oz...

1582hpz.png

p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

What "fantasy" am I supposed to be inventing?

revised

Checking through the thread, I assume you are referencing the prior post of mine, which I stated:

"You do bring up a valid point which is all too often not given it's due consideration by people examing the events around the PGF's history. The people then could not have possibly even imagined what the film, their lives, their words and their decisions (or indecisions) would be subjected to, in terms of analysis and microscopic inspection, as well as second guesing their motives based on descriptions of their words or actions.

It's this very second guessing or "Monday Morning Quarterback" analysis that actually drags us further from the truth of the film, by creating rumors, accusations, and false and simplistic conclusions where people today think they really know what was going through the minds of the real people back then.

In this philosophy of examination, there is simply no allowance for people just plain making mistakes, misunderstanding something, or making a poor judgment, or using a poor choice of words. As such, that kind of analysis is inventing a fantasy more than finding a truthful account of the events."

I stand by my remarks, and feel they are a respectful and truthful appraisal of the situation.

Bill

Edited by Bill
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweati:

I'll be glad to do scans of frames for image quality studies, if you can let me borrow the film for a few days.

Bill

Sure, Bill....I was going to ask you if you'd be interested in doing that. :) Since it'll probably be a while before I get around to buying a Projector...I can send the film to you, right away....and you can work with it!

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

This is a followup to the note I made about the recent mention of Bigfoot in the new Vanity Fair magazine issue. They used a PGF image for their article, and in looking at it, I realized it had been retouched, curiously.

Here's the comparison with a normal version of the same frame:

VanityFairRetouchedimage1.jpg

If you look on the left, the normal image, under the magenta arch of dots, that landscape object that the subject walks behind, has been extensively modified in the Vanity Fair image (on the right).

Now who did it, when, why, I don't know. I have an inquiry out to the photo editors at the magazine, and I hope they can help me source this specific image, to track down the modification.

But it does raise a question that we must be attentive to, in all our evidence, and that is checking to verify that our evidence is reliable and authentic, and invariably some is not. Now, in this case, the subject "Patty" doesn't appear to be modified, so I doubt that the image was changed for some PGF real vs fake issue. But still, the image was photoshopped for some purpose and intent.

If anyone has ever seen this modified version in any other situation, I'd welcome knowing about it. I've searched all my resources and found nothing like it.

So for now, as I explore this curious issue, I welcome any thoughts, ideas, or info on other image uses that may contain the same alteration.

Thanks,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bill,

As for any thoughts, I'd guess it was to help create depth for some reason. It appears that some of the other logs an branches below the sasquatch have also been touched up to look a little sharper or show more detail. Although strangely some of the background behind an above her right hand appears to have been touched up as well, only the reverse, the little branch stickin' up an its shadow seem to have been washed out or erased, as well as a little more above an to the right of that.

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Dear Mr. Munns, I just wanted to let you know that I've seen the "modified version" of the famous frame in several publications--books, newspaper articles, etc.--going back to the 1970s. Unfortunately, I didn't save them so I can't be specific about the publications other than the fact that I remember very clearly the debris in front of Patty being retouched--and wondering why it was retouched. J. Paine in Rochester, NY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Pat and Karajan:

Thanks for the info. I am still waiting to see if I get a response from the magazine's photo editorial team. Hopefully they may be willing to help me trace their source for the image.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I am still waiting to see if I get a response from the magazine's photo editorial team. Hopefully they may be willing to help me trace their source for the image.

Bill

Congrats. You've found the burial mound hiding all those other dead bigfoots that were massacred! Take a bow :queen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I thought it kinda looked like a tombstone, what they added.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape

Bill what are your thoughts on the movement of the thigh joint on the filmed subject? I am particularly interested in the frames showing skin that seems to sub duct underneath the buttocks. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I am working on a study about the skin folds and body masses in the pelvic region, and hope to have it out soon. It addresses that often described "subduction" by tracking the shift of fur from thigh to hip across the line of the buttocks and leg. So can't address the issue here and now, but I expect to shortly.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape

Thanks Bill. Would you be able to look at it from a neutral point of view rather than just setting out to show its a real creature? Points in favour of both views would be great. After all the subduction could well be a sign of a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

My work does factor both considerations. Can the observed effect or action be accomplished by a suit or costume, and can the observed effect be accomplished by real anatomy?

But the core question is actually, does any "subduction" occur? It is often claimed that it does, but it may not actually be occurring at all. So that issue must also be evaluated.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

I don't believe it's a subduction that actually is seen, but rather an overlay of fur/hair.

As an example, there is a picture of a human showing how the skin creases. Place longer hair or fur on it and it will bunch up and you wouldn't see the skin.

When the creature twists, you see a waist line, but its the actual mid section that is moving and the hip is remaining, so you see the fur stay in place on the hip - and a line at the mid section as the skin that was stretched now draws back.

For the bottom of the glute, cheek, it's going to bunch up the fur. If this were a suit, it shouldn't bunch up but fold or crease as inside the suit the material would not be adhering to the wearer.

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

An interesting development to report:

I have just acquired a complete 16mm film version of the ANE program, "Bigfoot: Man or Beast", the same program that my "Copy 8" material on the PGF was taken from. However, this film appears to be a higher quality version, an earlier generation, and superior color stability (Copy 8 had a strong yellw shift from color fade). It will also be far superior to the DVD version avavilable for the same program.

While I can't make any defintive appraisals yet, my expectations are that the 4x zoom in segment (which is excellent on the Copy 8 version) may be even sharper and more detailed, which would be a wonderful blessing. Also, since the current Copy 8 footage of Roger casting a track footprint is the highest resolution version of that footage, this film could conceivably be even higher quality, and may clarify some of the debate about the casting footage and trackway cast being the same cast.

I won't know more until I have the film in hand and begin scanning, which is likely to be about a week from now.

But the fact that this film still exists and is described as in excellent condition, is a strong plus for the PGF research effort.

I'll be updating this once I have the film in hand and begin the formal analysis with an inventory scan.

Bill

Edited by Bill
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...