Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Pat,

 

That was my only point. Kit said he would present his 'counter argument' before the ink was even dry. I simply asked him, without reading it, what makes him already know he will even have a counter argument.   

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze,

 

I could...or should simply repost what I just posted in #21.

He at least read the first chapter he was talkin' bout.  You kitakaze ? Did you read one chapter ? Or was it just the index that stumped ya ?

 

Pat...

 

It was Chapter 1 in which Bill stated that no FX person before him had looked at the film in depth, and Chris Walas' omission in the index that was the reason I was asking Bill about it. He said it was simply his mistake with the index. No big deal. I know Bill's strongest convictions for why he thinks the film is real, and he knows mine for why I think it is a hoax. These are from lengthy conversations, much of it personal and off the forum. Unless Bill discovered something of major significance that he forgot to tell me about, I can reasonably expect to have a counterargument to that which he sets out in his book. He was originally intending it, still does intend it, to be a documentary. Being that we both were working on documentary projects featuring the same subject, and that we spent much time in private discussing those projects, I'm very familiar with the things that are most compelling to him about the film.

 

Bill had not yet even begun to read Greg Long's investigation when he started his discussion on the book. I don't blame him. The forward is by a conman himself (and Bill knew that because it was something that I had uncovered about Korff) and the first chapter is fiction, and groan-inducingly bad fiction at that.

 

If it bothers you that I anticipate to have an opposing viewpoint and arguments to what is presented in Bill's book based on intimate knowledge of Bill's arguments, I could not care less. There are a number of things Bill has observed that I wholeheartedly agree with and should I find such in the book, I will make such clear. 

Kit:

 

Have ben buried with distractions, so haven't had time yet to read and comment, but will do so soon.

 

Bill

 

No worries. I went ahead with the Walas and arcing hip line material because it was the first material I was looking into. My basic issue is with the proponent notion of no way a broke cowboy could make such a perfect suit and then conversely to take flaws in the suit and argue that no way would a skilled suit creator allow such mistakes.

 

I'm currently reading the inventories on various copies and their varying quality, which in itself is very interesting. Would it be correct that Copy 8 would be the best copy with which to examine the arcing hip line and "notch"? I assume this based on your opinion regarding Copy 8 and studying the breasts.

I have read the entire book at posted my thoughts to Bill. It's a a fantastic scientic reasoned in biased analysis of the film. I echo the thoughts of JohnC and others here. This thread is pointless. All we will here is half truths, conjecture, what's ifs and all the same as we heard before; without one shred of fact or scientic proof to the contrary. It grows tiresome.

 

I think it's conjecture to assume that Roger Patterson would ensure long hair on a suit to cover any possible signs of separation, which is what I discuss in the OP, and not based on what Roger was himself doing with conceptualizing Bigfoot, but the point of the thread is for discussion of the arguments in the book, not just a skeptical look.  

 

If you don't want to share details of your opinions on various things presented in the book, that's fine, but you're more than welcome to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

As I have said (in another location) it makes little sense to comment if not attack Bill's book without reading it. 

 

Is the OP an attack on Bill's book? An opposing viewpoint is not an attack.

 

Was Bill's thread on Long's book an attack because he had not read it and started the thread on the same day he started the book?

 

Bill's arguments about the arcing hip line and Chris Walas' analysis are a discussion in and of themselves, and my first point of focus for the book since it was stated plainly in the first chapter that no FX people prior to Bill had analyzed the film in depth, which is not the case given Walas' own analysis.

 

I don't blame Bill for opening a critical thread on Long's book before he had even gotten into the actual investigation, given that the foreward was written by a charlatan and thief, and the first chapter is only imaginative writing by Long for dramatic effect. You're writing a chronicle of factual investigation, so why start it out with fiction?

 

I'm going to offer my thoughts on Bill's book as I read it, the same as Bill did with Long's book. Is that OK with you or is it OK for Bill, but not OK for me? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

"Bill had not yet even begun to read Greg Long's investigation when he started his discussion on the book." - kitakaze 

 

So you know Bill did not read what he found interestin' enough to discuss in a thread he started ?

 

Trust me kitakaze, doesn't bother me in the slightest...here's some intimate opinion...don't tell anyone...I could care less what ya think as well, but no worries.

 

You said it, why not ask Bill himself kitakaze, did he read before commentin' ? Ask him if you are correct.

 

The jist of it all is of little matter, just goes to your arguments credibility kitakaze. You've been sayin' enough as of late...with nothin' substantial to back up your claims, so...get use to me callin' ya on such things kitakaze. After all...most of your argument is based on verbal testimony, what they say(or have claimed to), you've spouted like gospel...yet I can poke holes in what you say on a regular bases. See where I'm goin' ?  

 

Pat...     

 

   

 

 

post-279-0-24944800-1406951440.jpg

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 I am searching the net and I cannot find this analyses by Chris Walas. Could you post a link to an actual analyses? I see some statements of opinion, apparently based on information he saw online, but I cannot find any reference to an actual study. I would hope this guy did more than look at a bunch of posts on the old BFF and then decide it was hoax. Did he submit any sort of paper? write a book? Accumulate supporting evidence?, I guess I am looking for the "work" he did to test his opinion.

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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. 

 

 

Sure, that 'void' of hair can occur on either a real animal, or on a suit. It doesn't really weigh heavily, in either direction.

 

One thing the picture of Snowflake shows, is how, in at least one respect, a human-like being....(a Gorilla...or perhaps a Sasquatch)....can resemble a man wearing a hairy suit.

 

In addition to the void of hair....note the curving line around the shoulder-joint area....(very suit-like)...

 

Snowflake-GE1_zps6a661fdd.jpg

 

 

I highlighted the sharply-defined shadow on the elbow, for a comparison with a similar shadow on the back of Patty's arm...

 

F307-GE2_zpsdcb0d90d.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

I would ask if that behaves in motion the way the arcing hip line does in the PGF.

 

 

I'll answer that question after you answer my question to you concerning the "Bombshell" you claim you received from Bob Heironimus. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

Those of us who read /write reports and consider other reports and impressions are trained to actually get the reports and read them. Then if we disagree with their content in whole or in part, we prepare a "counter argument". We tend not to have the counter argument started before we even look at the content.

That is usually how things are done. If you operate differently that I just your style. I'll bet it saves you a lot of time.

Now, I will wait until my book arrives and I fully review the content before commenting on those specifics. I am sure some of you understand.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We all know that Kitakaze has the preconcieved idea  that the film is a hoax. Most people have perconcieved ideas or theories about things they want to argue about. So far all he has said is that the hip line/arch seen on the subject of the film is pretty much a non issue because it can be seen on both costumes and real creatures. I agree with that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

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.....

As I noted in another thread, I just watched the 1957 classic (okay, maybe not) "The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas" with Forrest Tucker.  One observation I had is that the creature costumes were pretty bad, i.e., non-life like.  See also any of the 1970s Planet of the Apes moview (makeup/monkey suit only on the face and exposed limbs w/clothes conveniently hiding any seems) or the Star Trek episodes w/giant hairy savages (The Galileo Seven) or a white monkey/unicorn cross (it's in the second season, but I don't remember the name).  The point is that make-up artists and special effects specialists who were paid to make these things look realistic and didn't.  Hard to believe they were bested by an unskilled (in costume making) country bumpkin who had the money to shoot one or two rolls of film. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 I am searching the net and I cannot find this analyses by Chris Walas. Could you post a link to an actual analyses? I see some statements of opinion, apparently based on information he saw online, but I cannot find any reference to an actual study. I would hope this guy did more than look at a bunch of posts on the old BFF and then decide it was hoax. Did he submit any sort of paper? write a book? Accumulate supporting evidence?, I guess I am looking for the "work" he did to test his opinion.

 

That would be helpful.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Trog,

 

I agree. The White Unicorn thing from Star Trek was done by Jonas Prohaska:

 

 

The 1960's stuff was entertaining was not realistic.  Planet of the apes and 2001 were entertaining but obvious person in a costume.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

All I can find from Chris Walas is a comment that its a horrible suit.  I'm not finding any kind of actual explanation as to why.  It appears to be an off the cuff remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Same here Wheellug, all I can find is some references to some participation in the old BFF, a bunch the usual junk on Jref., and a second hand reference to a Facebook post. I was thinking there must be an actual analysis or paper out there. I have seen Kit refer to it as an analysis, leading me to believe Chris Walas  had actually done some research into it. I understand his opinion is more qualified because of his back ground, but I have seen two mechanics argue over whats wrong with my car before, then once they plugged in the computer to do the research, turns out one was wrong. Its not that on was a better mechanic, they both made educated guess's, but the actual research told us the truth.

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You're not seeing Chris Walas' analysis because his examination of the suit is in the forum archives available only to those with PMP access.


We all know that Kitakaze has the preconcieved idea  that the film is a hoax. Most people have perconcieved ideas or theories about things they want to argue about. So far all he has said is that the hip line/arch seen on the subject of the film is pretty much a non issue because it can be seen on both costumes and real creatures. I agree with that point.

 

Actually I started out thinking the film was real. I thought the film was of an actual sasquatch from childhood until about 6 or 7 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

 

Hey, you have to read the book first before you post about it. Yes, Bill, tell us more about your thoughts on this book you've just started reading.

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

 

 

Nice try at deflection (as usual) but no, that still doesn't work.  Welcome to a world where things that make sense and which are backed up with organized and competent research are considered good whereas endless foot-to-mouth conjecture coupled with hollow promises of hoax proof (that never amounts to diddly-squat) is considered irrelevant.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

Huh !

post-279-0-40168700-1407043839.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...