Jump to content
kitakaze

Thoughts About Munns' Book - " When Roger Met Patty "

Recommended Posts

kitakaze
 

 

I have purchased Bill's book from Amazon and downloaded it with Kindle for PC. I will be using this thread for discussion of arguments made in the book and thoughts and observations made while reading it.

 

I'll kick off the discussion with a look at Bill's arguments regarding FX artist Chris Walas' examination of the PGF...

 

Walas being mentioned in the book is in reference to the arcing hip line seen on Patty. It is also mentioned in the 2012 post...

 

 

 

 

http://bigfootforums...131#entry618232

 

If I understand correctly, the human images referenced can be seen on page 15 of your report with Meldrum...

 

http://www.isu.edu/r...Final draft.pdf

 

Here is the arcing hip line in motion...

 

http://i784.photobuc...owmotionleg.gif

 

It's important to understand and not confuse the arcing hip line with what is commonly referred to as the "subducting thigh line".

 

The following argument is made in Bill's book...

 
The Hip Lines Patty has an arching line across the hip, back to front, and Makeup Artist Chris Walas in the Bigfoot Forums (in 2004), presented a theory that the arching hip line represents the overlap line between a fur costume leggings section and the torso section which apparently had a wetsuit-like snap crotch closure. In terms of design concept, the technique has some history of use, so there is merit to the proposal from that standpoint. However, a contradiction to this concept is the hair length. Simply put , for such a technique, longer hair would blend the two costume sections better , and if we want to argue for a costume, designed with considerable deliberation and knowledge, we must wonder why the designer didn’t choose longer hair to better blend the arching line? Short dense hair is a poor choice for the type of hair that will blend this costume design for a realistic look. Are we going to shift the argument to say Patty is designed to be easily spotted as a fake? If so, why was so much effort expended on executing a hoax so meticulous that it defies every form of analysis that would reveal cheats and staged activities. The short hair and the claimed suit design are at odds with principles of successful design. Then we consider that this hip line has a curious notch in it, and such cannot occur by accident. On a costume, it must be deliberate, designed and intentionally put there. And that begs the question of why? It has virtually no function from a costume standpoint, and would draw attention to the arching hip line, which the designer should be trying to hide as much as possible. So to argue for a costume, one must explain this notch as a deliberately shaped and tailored feature for what purpose?
 

Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Locations 3030-3032).  . Kindle Edition. 

 

The core argument is that the line is present, why is it present, longer hair would hide the line which a knowledgeable suit maker would do, and why didn't the suit maker use longer hair?

 

This then builds upon that concept of incredulity and asks if the suit was designed to be easily spotted as a fake. Bill states that short hair and the suit design suggested by Chris Walas go against the principles of successful suit design. Furthermore there is the observation of what looks like a notch in the arcing hip line and if it is a costume, why is it there?

 

The arcing line and notch are present in both the book and Meldrum/Munns paper as follows (black added to comply with forums rules)...

 

http://i1137.photobu...aze/Bigbum1.jpg

 

The arcing line and "notch" that Bill is discussing can be more clearly seen here...

 

i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/holygenes.gif

 

So from my position of the film being a hoax and Patty a man-made suit, what possibly is that feature, why is it there, why would a suit maker use short hair when long hair would cover that feature, and short hair and Walas' idea go against successful suit building?

 

First of all, it's important to understand that within the world of suit building, short-haired suits were being used at the time such as this one from One Million Years BC (1966)...

 

http://i1137.photobu...Bigmillion5.jpg

 

Also critical in trying to understand why the PGF suit maker would use a short-haired suit is that from the very beginning, Roger had the image of sleek, short-haired, well muscled Bigfoots. This is what I argue to be the blueprint of Patty, the Mort Kunstler illustration from the 1960 True Magazine Ivan Sanderson article that got Roger into Bigfooting...

 

http://i1137.photobu...gmortsigned.jpg

 

One of the true mysteries that remain with the PGF is that in the hoax scenario, we do not have an identified suit maker. People will ask how could a simple, broke cowboy make that suit? We don't know whether Roger built the suit or had it made for him, which is very possible given the funds available to him through his brother-in-law Al DeAtley. What is certainly possible is that the suit may have originally had longer hair in places and have been modified by Roger. Bob Heironimus reported that Roger had in various places on the suit shortened the hair to make it appear as though the animal had wear on its body. The arcing hip line may have originally been more concealed. The PGF was shot at considerable difference and a number of things we see now as flaws in the suit may have never been anticipated by Roger to be visible. What matters most is that to Roger Bigfoots had short hair and that is how he conceived and described them, so it follows that based on the William Roe blueprint, that is what he either created himself or had created for him.

 

The arcing hip line may well also be a product of the padding used with in the suit. The same feature is seen in this Charlie Gemora suit...

 

http://i1130.photobu...zps5920c25e.gif

 

i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/buttcomp_zpsc0657892.gif

 

Regarding this "notch" feature, Bill makes the following claim in the book...

 

However, if we examine the film frames and make comparisons of the arching line with two images several frames apart, we can find evidence that the notch changes shape as the leg extends. But if this is indeed the junction of two costume pieces, the torso and the leggings, that junction needs some type of closure seam to hold the torso part securely to the leggings, and such closures tend to be quite stiff. Yet what we see in the film is a shifting form, clearly not stiff. So developing a costume overlap which securely joins the two sections so they can stretch and shift shape across the closure seam , as we see in the film, is an accomplishment the materials of 1967 could not do.
 
Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Locations 3037-3040).  . Kindle Edition.
 
Despite claims to the contrary, that this "notch" changes shape and must therefore be indicative of stretch material is nowhere clearly demonstrated. As Chris Walas' analysis of the PGF is in the forum archives and not available for presentation in the regular forum, I can not categorically endorse or dismiss the manner in which Walas thinks the suit was separated. What I can support is that the arcing hip line is at the very least equally likely to be the feature of a suit, I think most likely to be the combination of short hair and inner padding, as it is a feature of subcutaneous adipose tissue.
 
A similar feature can be seen here in Jeff Pruiit's Patty suit recreation... 
 
 
The simple fact is that the arching line is present. Why didn't the designer choose longer hair to better blend that line? Whether they originally did or did not, Roger envisioned Bigfoots as having short hair, he himself was not a suit maker by trade, and he made a film shot at considerable distance without advanced knowledge of the techniques that would be used to enhance and look at it more closely in the future. I personally thinj the arcing hip line is as a result of the padding used and Patterson making the hair shorter on the suit, regardless of how it was originally constructed. Whether Walas is correct in his appraisal of the suit design, I can not say, but the feature is at least as consistent with suits as it is with living bipeds.

 

Edited by See-Te-Cah NC
To provide links for previously-posted images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

SnowflakeGorilla-HairGap3_zps009d4ea9.jp

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It's a useful image for the discussion, Sweaty. Thank you. It shows that such features cited happen in both suits and living creatures, and thus can not be used as reliable evidence for one argument over another. I would ask if that behaves in motion the way the arcing hip line does in the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So we have demonstrated that the line can be present in both costumes and living creatures. That makes it a non argument or a moot point for either side of the argument right?

Edited by barncat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

So we have demonstrated that the line can be present in both costumes and living creatures. That makes it a non argument or a moot point for either side of the argument right?

 

No. We have not shown that it is present in Unclassified Giant Upright Bipedal Hairy Men/Apes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ sure 'We' have:

 

pgf010101_zps0c8a3c4b.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

We should just have a thread stating "I have found the suit so it has to be fake" and save all the trouble?

 

Why even bother?

 

Most the images are in the eye of the beholder.  Those suit experts have done a pretty bad job showing the PGF to be a fake.

People like Kit who claim to have seen the suit can describe the suit to a make-up/special effects guy. They can take the $200 Stan Winston said it would cost and make it.  That should put it to rest.

 

If I thought the skeptic was really seeking the truth they might read Bill Munns whole book and THEN give an opinion of it. THey might watch the Blevins suit attempt and then laugh with the rest of us. Instead they try to defend it by saying "Well, it has a good personality"

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Backdoc

 

 It is largely our own fault. We are not experts, just people who like to discuss Bigfoot, and the mystery behind it. The people we label as skeptics, are not really skeptics. Kit and Drew are no more skeptics than I am an expert. I have said it before, and I will say it again,they do not care about Bigfoot, they care about attention, arguing, and there own ego needs by trying to come across as some sort of critical thinker, when they are not. The only empowerment is our own inability to ignore them. They have no expertise or knowledge of their own, they have never done any work on it, and frankly they are not capable of it. They are not skeptics with any sort of relevant opinion, instead they are attention seekers with skeptical views or opinions of the subject. To me, there is a big difference. I personally do not think Bill should engage in this discussion at all, its all been said over and over. If Kit and his kind feel so strongly, let them write a proper scientific rebuttal on it, and present it as such, then write their own book, then maybe, they would at least be more qualified to actually discuss this. This is all just more circular nonsense, and they view as nothing more than an opportunity to attack Bill's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

JohnC wrote:

 

I have said it before, and I will say it again,they do not care about Bigfoot, they care about attention, arguing, and there own ego needs by trying to come across as some sort of critical thinker, when they are not.

 

 

A great example of the lack of 'critical thinking', by many skeptics, John....is something that happened over on Jref.....(the HOME of "critical thinkers"...LOL).

 

One fine day, in a PGF thread, a "critical thinker/skeptic" posted a two-frame animation called the 'Doll Hand Illusion'....which produces an illusion of fingers moving. As it turned out, after a couple of years, or so....I realized that the illusion it provided was the exact opposite of what would have been needed, to account for the appearance of Patty's fingers bending.

 

The short explanation is....the two frames create an illusion of curled fingers appearing to straighten-out...(as the 'doll hand' rotates, and is seen from a different angle).....when what is needed would be an illusion in which straight fingers falsely appear to curl. (With Patty...there are multiple frames in which the fingers appear straight, and only one in which  they appear significantly curled...Frame 61. We know her fingers are straight...the only thing possibly in question, is whether they were actually curled in that one Frame.)

 

The 'Doll Hand Illusion' they presented was the opposite of what was needed to explain away the curled fingers of Frame 61.....and therefore, completely irrelevant to the PGF.

 

Yet, a Forum full of Randi's Heroes...a.k.a...."Critical Thinkers"....couldn't figure that out on their own... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

By your logic, JohnC,  most people on this board without relevant credentials should just shut up since they don't know what they are talking about?

 

 

Would be a pretty quiet place.  Or is it alright to make comments and claims without relevant expertise as long as they are from bigfoot proponents?

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

It is nice to show a few 'still pics' from the PGF.  It is also nice to see some pics from old movies showing a gorilla suit or a monkey suit.  

 

There have been suit attempts.  Why not talk about those suit attempts. The pruitt attempt is always presented in little crumbs but we don't get to see the whole loaf or even a slice.  We get barely any views of it in motion.  

 

More or less my assumption will be reading Bills Book (in the mail to me now) will be this:  When you use 1967 material to try to make a PGF suit it is a fail.

 

So far, these attempts have been a fail. Selective film clips and editing will not change that fact.  Let's be clear.  It should be E-A-S-Y to do what Roger is said to have done. Should be as easy as a card trick.  

 

If there is a Munns Book and a Munns Report there should be a 'Munns is so wrong report"   The opportunity to show he is wrong by the Walas- types is there.  Make the suit.  Consider how easy this should be.

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

If I thought the skeptic was really seeking the truth they might read Bill Munns whole book and THEN give an opinion of it. 

 

Is it bad form to start a thread about thoughts on a book before one has read the whole book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

perhaps it  may be  bad form to write a book all in  one OP if the book in question hasn't been read...

 

if only a real patty suit could be found to compare with those buttocks  pics this case would surely be cracked by now  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Is it bad form to start a thread about thoughts on a book before one has read the whole book?

kitakaze,

 

 "..so I'll download it from Kindle and do an in-depth review and counter argument in its own thread so as not to distract from this one."-kitakaze

 

You hadn't even downloaded it an you were plannin' to counter argue...but at least now you're callin' them "thoughts".   ;)

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog

I think it's bad form to even acknowledge the OP.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...