Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

Guest

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.

 

 

 

 Oh ok, you made it sound like it was an actual scientific analysis, so its really just an opinion, and somewhat dated at that. I understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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.   

 

 

 Maybe at least read what you are trying to talk about before you try to talk about it? 

 

 

You had not read The Making of Bigfoot before you talked about it and Bill had not read it before he spoke about it. 
 

I finally got Greg Long's book, "The Making of Bigfoot"

I had a chance to start reading through it today. It'll take awhile to get through it all, but I thought I'd kick this discussion off with two initial observations:

Bill

 

 

 

I never got past the preview of that book at Amazon.com. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

Again, you're sayin' Bill spoke about somethin' he didn't read before he questioned it, do you know this to be the case, or is it like the rest...simply your speculation to make your argument sound intersetin' ?  

 

Pat...

 

post-279-0-52853100-1407045823.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

Why would Walas opinion be so hard to find? I mean, would it appear in real print in a real available area?   What TV show does he appear on about that specific topic of the PGF?   I don't know what his opinion of the scariest Halloween costume to come out last year was either.

 

Most of us have heard of Stan Winston.  Stan said the suit could be made for about $200.  Do you agree with Stan. Stan never undertook the effort to actually make such a suit and I take it Walas did not either.

 

"Academy Award winning film effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, summed it up simply as "it's a guy in a bad fur suit, sorry!" He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day". He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." This is from the T.V. series "Movie Magic" which aired from 1994 to 1997."

 

We can debate if Bruce Lee could beat up Chuck Norris.  We can agree Bruce Lee could be up a 5th grader.

The idea Stan and Walas and others cannot do what 2 cowboys did should tell us all we need to know.  Before some post a monkey suit Walas made for $200 when he was just a kid, keep in mind he could not do what 2 cowboys did and that is the point.   I don't have Bills book yet but weather he included Walas or not, there is no Walas suit attempt to include.  Wouldn't you agree Kit?

 

If I said Hollywood has never tried to make a movie about WW2 you could laugh me off the page and just present Saving Private Ryan among 100 other shows.  But if you think Hollywood has honestly attempted to take on the PGF you are Dreaming.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 Oh ok, you made it sound like it was an actual scientific analysis, so its really just an opinion, and somewhat dated at that. I understand.

 

He analyzed the footage based on his expertise as a special FX artist. He started with the hope and desire to believe it was real. He posted his observations as an FX person on the forum the same as Bill did when he came here. Of the two papers that Bill worked on for Meldrum's website, neither are proof Patty is real. One does not address the authenticity of the film subject and the other seeks to compare Patty to old, fat people. There are no old, fat people on Earth with breasts anything like Patty.

kitakaze,

 

Again, you're sayin' Bill spoke about somethin' he didn't read before he questioned it, do you know this to be the case, or is it like the rest...simply your speculation to make your argument sound intersetin' ?  

 

Pat...

 

 

I finally got Greg Long's book, "The Making of Bigfoot"

I had a chance to start reading through it today. It'll take awhile to get through it all, but I thought I'd kick this discussion off with two initial observations:

1. The forward talks about how "a costume that was worn for a film that was made to deliberately deceive people, while earning "millions" of dollars (the word "millions" was actually italicized in the book for emphasis)for its promoters during the past nearly forty years in what can only be called fraud "consumer fraud" (again, those words were italicize in the book)to be precise. The public was "sold" both a story and a product that were bogus, which is illegal, and the scam continues today!"

This was written by Kal Korff.

Isn't he the guy Kitakaze said ripped off Bob H and Morris in some filming of a documentary, taking the fees to be paid to Morris and Hieonimous? If so, I do have to wonder if a con man rip off artist is writing a book forward accusing another man of being a fraud. Not an auspicious beginning, I must say.

2. The first chapter, titled "October 20, 1967" is written like a Truman Capote novel, ...

 

 

Anyways, that's as far as I've gotten, ...

Bill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

He analyzed the footage based on his expertise as a special FX artist. He started with the hope and desire to believe it was real. He posted his observations as an FX person on the forum the same as Bill did when he came here. Of the two papers that Bill worked on for Meldrum's website, neither are proof Patty is real. One does not address the authenticity of the film subject and the other seeks to compare Patty to old, fat people. There are no old, fat people on Earth with breasts anything like Patty.

 

 

 I disagree. He stated an opinion based on his viewing of what is now limited, dated data available online. Bill Munn's actually did an analysis using hundreds of gig worth of information and through meticulous scientific method and comparison. Bill Munn's and Dr. Meldrum's work do indeed prove that the subject in the PGF is not a man in a suit. But it does not even end there, there is still the arm issues, which again are pretty definitive. 

 Maybe you and this Chris Walas should work on a paper together, then later a documentary and a book. Once you complete the paper, I am sure you can submit it to the same site as Bill did, and get an objective review. Then you will have an analysis. Then you will have done some science, some work. Until then, you might as well rename this thread "Kitakaze's thoughts about Munn's book based on beliefs with no real science to back it at all" , because that is whats really going on here. 

  Your knowledge of Bigfoot breasts is impressive, you continue to go from Bigfoot does not exist, to advanced knowledge of these creatures at will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

I'd read Bill's quote already. You did notice how Bill said the first chapter was written like a Truman Capote novel right. You highlighted "the first chapter" kitakaze, so you're aware of what I've already been sayin', Bill commented on what he had read...unlike yourself...right.

 

Pat...

Wait for it...  ;)

post-279-0-32053000-1407049506_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
 

kitakaze,

 

Did Bill write about what he had already read ? Did you ? If so...why were you askin' Bill if he wrote about it ?

 

 

I asked Bill about what I had read here from the first chapter...

 

Many veteran Hollywood Makeup Effects artists have pronounced the film a fake, yet these Hollywood critics have not made any effort to take their opinion beyond a sound bite catch phrase and into a formal analysis and proof of the fakery they claim.
 
Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Locations 186-188).  . Kindle Edition.
 
And no listing for Chris Walas in the index...
 
Prothero, Donald
RHI
Rugg, Mike
Smith, ****
Westmore, Mike
 
I disagreed with what Bill wrote in his first chapter, Bill disagreed with what he read in Korff's forward and Long's first chapter. Both cases involve what we had read thus far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

From Chapter 3 of Bill's book...

 

Once I began participating in internet forum discussions of the Patterson-Gimlin Film, I found the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF) was intensely discussing my activities on the Bigfoot Forum where I started talking with others about the PGF. So I joined the JREF to at least respond to their sometimes wild and erroneous assumptions and gossip about me (see Chapter Thirteen for more on this). And over on the JREF, I was discovering the fuller inventory of skeptical suspicions about the film. One of those was the fact that one documentary showing the PGF had flipped the first few frames of the footage, before running the rest of it in normal left-right orientation. And these JREF skeptics found this flipped frame incident incredibly suspicious. They ranted and gossiped about it at great length, and were sure this was one more solid piece of proof of a hoax. And I was astonished at their unbelievable ignorance of what a flipped film frame really means. It means nothing! I recalled the editing on that film, the polar bear segment, and how I flipped it for a better left-right visual look between the bear and the guy. I recalled many long days and nights in the editing room, trying to finish a film cut, and being so sleepy that I occasionally flipped a piece of film by accident and then had to go back and open the splices and flip it right, correcting my sleepy error. Yet here were people imagining that they were intelligent , knowledgeable, and critical thinkers, behaving like complete idiots and talking about flipped film frames as being suspicious when not a one of them had even a meager amount of real-world hands-on knowledge and experience with film editing. They were ranting away about some flipped frames being suspicious and that must be evidence of a hoax, when a few flipped frames on one copy of the PGF edited for a TV show means absolutely nothing in terms of the PGF being a hoax when filmed years before. Did they honestly think the TV show’s film editors were in on the hoax? Delusional skeptics continue to point out that one incident where the first few frames of one copy of the PGF, shown on one documentary program, are flipped left-right before restoring the rest of the footage to correct left-right format. They continue to think it’s suspicious. They continue to behave like paranoid fools, because they are so desperate for any oddity or irregularity to hang their hoax claim upon. Critical thinkers? Certainly not! Just fools who know nothing about the realities of film handling, editing and splicing, and form conclusions based on their own appalling ignorance of the procedure. And the JREF is sadly a magnet to such fools, who swarm there like flies around a trash can.
 
Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Locations 945-951).  . Kindle Edition. 
 
That passage has one of two problems that I think are not helpful for Bill when being read by people who are moderate in terms of thoughts on the PGF. One is that it is an example of something I've seen Bill do numerous times, which is to characterize skeptics discussing a specific issue as if they are saying it is proof of a hoax. The flipped frames discussed in  early 2008 on the JREF forum were never described by skeptics as proof of a hoax.
 
The issue was summarized best at the time by William Parcher as follows...
 

The claim is being made that Green's copy does not have flipped scenes, and that X Creatures BBC must have flipped them. That can only be properly resolved with a public examination of Green's copy. Not a copy of that, but the actual reel that Patterson handed to Green.

 

 The flipped scenes are one of at least two issues. The other is the apparent edits or camera stops during the actual Patty walk. More than one person has found three instances of this. Roger said he never stopped filming until that reel ran out. Maybe that is true, but something happened to that film (during her walk scene) and there are people who would like to work towards an understanding of that. Actually examining Green's copy would seem to help if it was done in a forensic sort of way.

 



 

 
There's no ranting there, no characterization of the flipped frames as proof of a hoax, only that there was a need to study Green's copy of the PGF to better understand the issue and its relevance to the question of whether or not the film had been edited.
 
Second to what I think is problematic is that while I understand criticism of Bill's appraisal of the film at the JREF is a sore spot for Bill, I think in terms of making an objective presentation that the seething tone will only serve to be off-putting to the moderate reader. The above passage comes off as barking mad and a bit of a "serenity now" moment. This has nothing to do with the quality of empirical evidence, but rather just an observation.
 
Bill does however early in the book state that "But this analysis effort has been personalized because there is a powerful skeptical community who believe Bigfoot does not and cannot exist..." going on to discuss criticism towards him. I can be empathetic based on my own experience with personal attacks. Yet there too in that statement is another of the mischaracterizations of skeptical arguments. I have rarely if ever seen any knowledgeable skeptic make the argument that it is biologically impossible for a creature to exist and I know I have personally made the argument why such a creature as Bigfoot is possible to exist.

I know that passage will make faithful PGF proponents happy, but I think it will only make a disconnect for the moderate reader expecting a more clinical tone.  
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Here is an instance of where I find myself in agreement with Bill in a manner which is probably a surprise for some.

 

Here is an often repeated PGF believer opinion...

 

 

I have surveyed many Skeptics by asking this question:

 

Do you see ANY muscle movements on the PGF?

 

You would think they might admit to something but the answer most willing to answer give is NO.

 

I am also impressed norseman.  I don't know how some are not blown away by the muscle movements that move in a functional way. That is, it is not just the muscles bulge in a place or two but the fact these muscles work the way they should work.

 

And here is Bill's opinion...

 

Similarly, a great deal of debate has raged on about apparent muscle motion in the body, and is has been argued that creature costumes of the time could not replicate such muscle motion effects. Now, on the one hand, I (as a long time professional Creature and Makeup Effects Designer) can agree that creature costumes of the time had no capacity for creating any form of believable muscle motion (they could be sculpted to look like muscles but still would not move like real muscles). But on the other hand, I never saw anything in the film which I found really convincing as evidence of real anatomy muscle motion, as some analysts claim. The reason I hesitated to endorse the claim of seeing real muscle motion is that I see indications of fatty tissue and a body that is “bulking up†for the coming winter, and so between the subcutaneous fat deposits and the fur covering (both of which are on top of real muscles), these structures have more impact on what we see of the body surface shifting highlights and shadows. 
 
Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Locations 331-338).  . Kindle Edition. 
 
Never seen anything convincing as evidence of muscle movement. I definitely agree.
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Bill, in Chapter 4 - The "Creature" Business, regarding the the 1931 Tarzan the Ape Man still...

 

776647e87002efcee.jpg

 

Fig. #4-03 is a studio publicity still from the 1931 Tarzan the Ape Man, and the ape apparently challenging Tarzan is quite impressive in appearance , but we can’t be certain this photo is a correct image of the ape costume. It’s a studio publicity still, and they were famously and intensively retouched by expert photo retouchers. The reason we know this is a studio publicity still and not a frame from the movie is because Tarzan is wearing tennis shoes, in this picture, and as I recall, he didn’t in the actual movie.
 
The suit can be seen in the film along with other suits and alongside actual chimpanzees at the 33, 34, 39 and most closely at the 40, 46, 47 minute marks...
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Bill does however early in the book state that "But this analysis effort has been personalized because there is a powerful skeptical community who believe Bigfoot does not and cannot exist..." going on to discuss criticism towards him. 

 

 

I disagree with that characterization of Bill's...I think he is giving too much credit to Jref's impact/significance, in the overall picture of what the general public thinks about the subject of Bigfoot. They are actually....quite irrelevant. :)

 

I've done some additional analysis since I've stopped posting there, quite a  while ago, but I haven't bothered to post any of it on Jref, in recent times. I very rarely even go onto the site, to read the discussions.

 

My interest is more in finding a way for the analysis to reach a broad audience....rather than trying to change the minds of a handful of people who are not only skeptical...but join Discussion Forums, to engage in 'gang mentality' attacks against "lowly Bigfooters"......(who have to point-out to them that 'Doll-Hand Illusions' are backwards/irrelevant... :popcorn:

 

 

So, I disagree with Bill even raising the issue of Jref's skeptics...in a book which is written for the sake of the entire general public....across the Planet. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

The same thing over and over again. You twist words throw out the same half truths the same he said she said with not one shred of factual evidence it's a hoax. You can talk about everything surrounding the film. The back story the whatever it comes down to could a suit have been made in 1967 material to make Patty...... No. If you can't show us how it was done with what materials then the only conclusion is it's real. Ever thing else you surmise is just empty words.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist

The only reason I dislike the amount of space Bill writes about JREF in his book is because he has such a body of expertise and knowledge that could have been adding more to the evidence in favor of a real cryptid existing in that PGF film.  Otherwise, it only rises to a mere distraction for those knowledgeable about his particular history at a particular forum.  Others may come off thinking it is a tirade not knowing what he has been through at JREF, but so be it.  The rest of his book (to date in my progress) more than makes up for the sidebar comments about JREF tormentors. 

Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The same thing over and over again. You twist words throw out the same half truths the same he said she said with not one shred of factual evidence it's a hoax. You can talk about everything surrounding the film. The back story the whatever it comes down to could a suit have been made in 1967 material to make Patty...... No. If you can't show us how it was done with what materials then the only conclusion is it's real. Ever thing else you surmise is just empty words.

 

Can you please tell me the post number of post in this thread which features a focus on the back story, twisting of any words by Bill, or a half truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...