Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

 The rofl's are all yours Kit, from keys in pockets, to glass eyes, to bent stirrups, to scratched cars, to monkey suits in trunks, to scaffolding to make tracks,to face melting suits, to impending documentaries.......you have to understand Kit, the specifics of who said what really does not matter, its all just grasping for straws, to pure make belief,....the entire "skeptical" argument coming out of that camp is the very definition of the "woo" you all are out to save the world from.

 Don't write a paper, don't do any real research, ride on the coffers of the proponents research, attack it, even if you have to use stuff you already know is wrong.....repeat.....repeat....repeat.....

 

Excellent. So because I don't believe in Bigfoot, if Morris or Korff claims keys which you stick in Bob's mouth, or Kerry or someone suggests scaffolding, or any other thing which you find extreme, you can place on me, the rofl's are all mine.

 

OK, so you can have throwing pigs, infrablasts, pancake yoinkers, garlic eaters, talking foots, the rofl's are all yours.

 

A fair exchange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

In Chapter 6 - How the Event Occurred Bill uses a technique he calls tonal inversion on frames 002 and 006 to demonstrate that when the camera started, it was in forward motion. Bill makes the argument that if a hoax, Roger would have had to give a visual signal to the actor, who would then start walking, Roger would then start filming, and then start moving forward. Bill states... 

 

So Roger turned on the camera while he was walking or running forward. This is irrefutable fact, based on empirical image data.

 

Note that it says walking or running. Bill goes on to tell us how he thinks the action started... 

 

Except, that’s not how it happened. Roger was not standing still and started his camera and then ran. He started his camera while running. Would a hoaxer have given any thought to the difference? Why should he? If he starts his camera and starts running, who will notice it, with the analysis technology of the time? If he deliberately did run first and then start the camera, and nobody in his time noticed it, and he did it to make the hoax more convincing, sooner or later he’d have to find a way to bring it to the attention of researchers in hopes they’d find his story more compelling, more believable. But nobody noticed this when he was alive, and he never brought it to anybody’s attention . Indeed , no researcher ever fully understood this until I began my image analysis 7 years ago. So it certainly doesn’t seem like a false positive created by an ingenious hoaxer.
 
A hoaxer would have stood there, checking his camera, stood there giving his mime the action cue, and stood there to turn on the camera, and then start running when he was sure the camera was on and running smoothly. But a real person encountering something very strange, something he had hoped one day he might find, frantic to get off his horse, get his camera out and start filming as the thing walked away, would start chasing the thing as soon as he was off the horse and had his camera. And he would likely start his camera while running, as Roger actually did, because he was likely never standing still.
 
Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Locations 1799-1803).  . Kindle Edition.
 
- Note first that there is the subtle change from acknowledging either walking or running to the dynamic action of him telling us Roger was in fact running. Bill does not know this based on the image data. Only that there was forward motion at the start of the film.
 
- Bill tells us that the hoaxer must give a visual signal, wait for the actor to move, start the camera, and then start chasing the subject. This again is a failure to actually think like a hoaxer. Whether the film started walking or running, Roger is presenting us with the story that he filmed an actual encounter in which he was bucked from his horse which  pinned him, injuring his foot, where he then pulled himself free, grabbed the camera, went after the creature and started filming it. 
 
Roger's own words...
 
"That's when I seen this... this creature, about 120 feet away, and she was, at that point, had just turned around and was just going up the bank, this small bank over there and I started running and trying to get a shot of her and I yelled at Bob to cover me." - Roger Patterson interview with Jack Webster, November 1967
 
Whether or hoax or real, Roger has told us that when he started filming, he was already in pursuit of the subject. Were he to have started the film in a stationary position, it would not appear on film as the dynamic event that he has described. If one is actually going to think like a hoaxer, they should do with their film camera and encounter what they said actually happened. Roger can cue the suit wear to move, wait for them to start doing so, start moving after them and then trigger the camera to start.   To insist that a hoaxer would have cued action, waited for the subject to move, turn on the camera, make sure it's running smoothly, and then start pursuit is Bill thinking like a filmmaker staging a fictional action sequence, rather than a hoaxer presenting unedited film of an alleged true encounter. He has thought of the hoaxing scenario only as far as allowing that to avoid editing, the hoaxer would signal action and then start filming vs starting film and then signaling action. A hoaxer who tells the story that his camera started when going after the subject, if he is actually careful, will do that with his camera...
 
Actor go > cameraman go > camera go. This is not a complex concept for a hoaxer to grasp and to state if a hoax it must have been actor go > camera go > cameraman go is needless sophistry meant to make a hoax seem that less likely in the circumstances.
 
So, on this first fact, that the camera was started while the operator was in motion forward, I find implausible for a hoaxer doing, because the hoaxer would be acting with deliberation in all his actions, and standing still while he got everything ready. He would start the camera with deliberation while standing still, and then start his chase. He would not deliberately start the camera while running as a false positive to make the hoax more believable, because analysis technology of the time couldn’t find the proof of that action. I find this fact supportive of a real spontaneous event.
 
Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Locations 1804-1808).  . Kindle Edition.
 
No, the hoaxer can start the film in motion the way he says the event occurred because if he starts it stationary and then goes after it, it will be in contradiction to his version of events. The Kodak K-100 Roger used is said to have had a pistol grip, something likely he held in two hands while running during the filming sequence to support the weight, the action of which would make it possible to accidentally trigger such as is argued to happen in segment three of the Patty footage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

Kit,

 

If I understand this post correctly, you are in agreement with me Bob Heironimus must be lying when he said Roger shot the PGF from the back of a horse ("Is it Real?  Netflix)?

 

You realize you might loose your 'Heironimus Fan Club' membership for that post.

 

To be fair, am I missing something?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

It was worth enough noting to bring it up here and put the words in Heironimus' mouth. You'd think you'd be better informed about it if you're going to want to use it for rofl's. 

 

Ah-ha...

 

Bigbluffcreek5.jpg

kitakaze,

 

I still don't get your "Ah-ha..."  Care to explain ?

 

Look at the similar rocks, widths of creek, angles of banks....you can find scenery like this everywhere out here on Vancouver Island, you know that. Where is the wide open area in the creek image you provided ?

 

Pat...

post-279-0-41450100-1407252467_thumb.jpg

post-279-0-10939700-1407252484_thumb.jpg

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

How very interesting...

 

 

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/page-42

 

Richard Henry expressed "mixed emotions" about the event recorded by the tracks, since he stated that, "I could not find (tracks) where they started" and the sequence of footprints looked "symmetrical and mechanical."

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=G3z5VVbGfbgC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=richard+henry+bigfoot&source=bl&ots=jF17X3N2Pr&sig=MLkVwWmrw-l_OioJnyfZynICA1o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dHDgU9uJIsa68gWQwoKwCw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=richard%20henry%20bigfoot&f=false

 

What is your source for the one step up the bank and how was that noted?

 

 

Yes, size of creek, angle of bank, height of bank, size of rocks in the bank, type of vegetation in the banks. Don't know what you think darkening does, since they are all different film types anyway.

kitakaze,

 

Jeff's book, pg. 157,

 

Talkin bout Richard Henry,

"He described the high bank on the far side of the creek, marking the edge of the elevated sandbar traversed by the film subject. The bank was 28-30 inches high, the filmed subject took the bank in one step, cresting the bank with only the ball of the foot and the toes, which slid down digging into the edge of the sandbar. Both were impressed with the natural appearance of the trackway."

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit;

 

The creek or stream image from Roger's documentary work, the roll has a date code of 1966, not 1967, and was filmed with a camera that is NOT a K-100 type.

 

So Roger filmed this before he rented the K-100 in May 1967.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Excellent. So because I don't believe in Bigfoot, if Morris or Korff claims keys which you stick in Bob's mouth, or Kerry or someone suggests scaffolding, or any other thing which you find extreme, you can place on me, the rofl's are all mine.

 

OK, so you can have throwing pigs, infrablasts, pancake yoinkers, garlic eaters, talking foots, the rofl's are all yours.

 

A fair exchange.

 You forgot teleporters and telepathy and you get a rotating wheel with feet on a pick up truck. Its interesting how mythical comes out on both sides like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

 

Another thing I observed reviewing the documentary footage, plus having several years of experience studying camera ID marks and apertures since I first reviewed that documentary footage, the K-100 Roger uses for that stuff is not the same K-100 camera he rented in May 1967 and kept to film at Bluff Creek in October. It was a different camera, rented at a different time. The aperture shape doesn't have the "bow-tie" pinching the Bluff Creek camera has, and the ID notch is different, suggesting that maybe Kodak re-tooled their manufacturing of the aperture plate and aperture opening and punched or milled the opening by a different mathod or different template.

 

Anyways, it's not the same K-100 so the time for all that footage was before May 1967.

 

I'd been thinking of doing a review of those scans for some time now, and this discussion inspires me to want to do it all the more.

 

Ah, the never-ending quest to understand the whole PGF saga. . . .

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

Ah-ha...

 

 

 

 

Kit;

 

The creek or stream image from Roger's documentary work, the roll has a date code of 1966, not 1967, and was filmed with a camera that is NOT a K-100 type.

 

So Roger filmed this before he rented the K-100 in May 1967.

 

Bill

 

The was a hell of an 'Ah Ha' moment Kit.

 

I guess you'll have to go back and change your hoax story again to fit the facts. No more Roger scoping out Bluff Creek on a trip to California in 1967 with Jerry Merritt. Oops.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

You know what they say, "The camera never lies."

 

:)

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

Indeed it never does!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator


 I do not claim to own reel 2 footage, only to have located the person who does. 

 

Uh, Kit, I don't think so. You made the mistake of announcing this prior to the revelation of the reel 2 footage. Under BF world rules, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no person you know with the reel 2 footage, which apparently does not exist.

 

Here are the BF world rules, once again:

 

1) make amazing (face melting) announcement, revelation itself to be revealed at a later date

2) Upon date, nothing -or- the date never comes

3) wash, rinse, repeat

 

It seems you already got hoaxed once on the suit thing, best not get involved in another one already??

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

But it's not fair to argue with facts.....

Edited by clubbedfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit;

 

The creek or stream image from Roger's documentary work, the roll has a date code of 1966, not 1967, and was filmed with a camera that is NOT a K-100 type.

 

So Roger filmed this before he rented the K-100 in May 1967.

 

Bill

 

Yes, you stated before that except for the reel 1 of the documentary footage which was Kodachrome original that the other five reels were all Ektachrome with a date code for 1966...

 

 

Kit:

Well,

A. You've quoted from MoB so many times that it was like I'd read it long before I got my copy, (I believe you quoted the Anderson camera store stuff many times as I recall)

and

B. On Roger's six reels of documentary footage,

Reel 1 was Kodachrome original (so the copy print has the copy stock date code only, and it's 1967 (so we don't know when it was filmed)

but the other 5 rolls are Ektachrome and they are all date coded 1966.

Also, if Roger chose Kodachrome specifically for it's supposed potential for sneaky editing to hide a hoax, how does filming a totem pole on Kodachrome figure into the sneaky editing part? That part eludes me.

Bill

 

 

Yet if I understand correctly, this does not make sense given that the creek footage is from the same roll as the following, the bottom right frame in particular... 

 

Bigexpedition2.jpg

 

And that is footage taken with Jerry Merritt that show clearly on the side of Roger's VW bus, "Bigfoot" 67 EXPEDITION and is without a doubt in Northern California. So why would footage of something in 1967 have a 1966 date code?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^1. What exactly links this film to Jerry Merritt aside from your assumption?

 

2. Without a doubt in California? How so? The giant Sequoias that grow along the PNW?

 

3. Roger rented the K100 on May 13, he secured the $700 on May 25. Merritt stated Roger had $700 on their trip to California which would put the trip date after the 25th of May. So why is this film shot with a different camera?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...