Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

This is an issue that had been addressed elsewhere, but in Chapter 5 - Bluff Creek, Where it Happened Bill writes, "If Roger drove over 400 miles to that remote wooded area, with Bob and the horses, camping gear, etc. for about 15 minutes of work, one minute of filming, why didn’t he do it somewhere closer to home? No filmmaker in his right mind , and intent on staging something, that I ever knew would do such deliberately."

 

This ignores the fact that Roger was in the area due to another hoax which employed Wallace stompers. That event being a hoax does not in any way prove the PGF a hoax or even come close to it, but it is important to understand the context of the area. Were Roger to film a Bigfoot in or near Yakima which he had claimed to have done according to Yakima camera store owner Duane Anderson, he would be expected to be able to produce further evidence more easily when the film was not accepted as reliable evidence of Bigfoot. The fact that Roger never once returned to the one place he is supposed to have found Bigfoot is puzzling, even to veteran Bigfoot researchers like John Green...

 

It always puzzled me that Roger did not return to where he got the film, and that he was so set on trying to repeat elsewhere something that he had already done. However Roger had so much success in so short a time that I could understand things looked different to him than to those of us who had put in far more years with far less luck. - John Green

 

No filmmaker in his right mind the Bill knew of would go so far to stage a hoax? Did Bill not know of Ivan Marx? Marx went from California to both Washington and as far as Alaska to stage his hoaxes...

 

 

Bill then asks, "So if Roger wanted to claim the encounter was filmed at Bluff Creek, but he wanted to make it easy on himself, why not just pick some woods near home and call it Bluff Creek? After all, one forest looks like another. If he’s going to cheat his creature, why not cheat the location too?"

 

Because Roger was staging an event that needed supporting characters. If he filmed somewhere around Yakima and claimed it was Bluff Creek, it would immediately be exposed when researchers went to the film site right away as they actually did with Bluff Creek. If Roger cheated the film site, there would be no coming out of the woods in a state and wowing Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy with a bent stirrup.

 

Asking why Roger did not fake a Bluff Creek film site is not a helpful argument in favour of the PGF.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

The fact that Roger never once returned to the one place he is supposed to have found Bigfoot is puzzling, 

 

 

It's not really a puzzle, if Roger actually did encounter a real Bigfoot...because he would then be certain that they do exist much closer to where he lives.

 

Where Roger goes to attempt to cross paths with one, after that point....is purely his own personal preference. The odds of encountering another one are just as low, at either general location. 

 

 

What is really puzzling...is how Bob Heironimus "handed you a Bombshell"....when he is lying about being the star of the Film. 

 

Try explaining that puzzle, for us... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Thanks for the spiffy link to the Tarzan movie!   

Comparing just the easily detected items on the ape costume, 

Gloves - noted by crease at the wrist

Molded feet with chimp/ape inward big toe

Long hair 

no musculature on the body, but the legs vary.. one has a much more defined and visible leg but has long hair sparsely dispersed. Others have thickly covered long hair.

Head is very large.

  Just a few items that were easily noticed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

It's not really a puzzle, if Roger actually did encounter a real Bigfoot...because he would then be certain that they do exist much closer to where he lives.

 

Where Roger goes to attempt to cross paths with one, after that point....is purely his own personal preference. The odds of encountering another one are just as low, at either general location. 

 

 

What is really puzzling...is how Bob Heironimus "handed you a Bombshell"....when he is lying about being the star of the Film. 

 

Try explaining that puzzle, for us...  :)

 

 

If it's not puzzling, why is even John Green puzzled by it? Roger had been looking in Washington for how many years without finding any Bigfoots? How does finding one in a valley in NorCal which is allegedly Bigfoot central equate he will find one with less effort close to home.

 

You find a once in a life time fishing spot and then afterwards fish every where but there?

 

Roger never returning to Bluff Creek fits very well with a hoax for profit by a person that actually believes in Bigfoot and wants to further his cause with that film. 

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

Creating conflicts where there are none and trying to pit one person against another is suppose to serve some purpose.  Don't know what exactly that is.  Cherry picking something I said a long time ago makes me feel very important in your post #55.  Who would go to the trouble?  How long would it take to find such an old  quote of mine?  I had no idea I was this important.  That is so nice I can forgive you for ignoring my points made in my post #49.  Thank you.  I will gladly address the out of context quote you found in your post #55:

 

1)Having cut into the human body on multiple occasions and having done functional studies more times than I can count, I see the muscle movements in the legs on the patty step down (money shot) that is as we would expect them to be.

2) I have said in multiple places on the BFF (taken the whole opinion into account) we need to resolve what we can and cannot see on the PGF so we avoid a mach effect on the grey scale. I have suggested on many different threads ( we both have been on those threads) to use Jim McClarin as a reference point.  Let's see what we can and cannot see on Jim McClarin.  That will tell us what we can see on Patty using Jim as a reference.  If we can see a wristwatch and tell the time on the hand of this wristwatch then obviously that tells us resolution since Jim is a known quantity. (and no we cannot see such wristwatch detail)

3) Each person may be impressed with some aspect of the PGF based on their discipline.   

 

I don't pretend to know the extent of the context of Bill Munns quote you put out there.   I will read his entire book when it arrives and I will imagine it will become clear.  Bill and I may agree or we may disagree on that one point of muscle movement of the right leg. It may be Bill's quote is describing some early impression he had at one time and has since evolved.  I don't really know or pretend to know.  I will read his book due to arrive on monday.  I think we can agree regardless of Bill's feelings over the years, his most recent work product is most likely to reflect his present thinking.  I will read this taken a part of the whole story. In the end, we may or may not agree.  

 

 I will continue to be impressed with the step down money shot of the right thigh, hip area and the loading observed. I am not saying there is breakdown of detail of each muscle group the same way we would observe contestants in the Mr. Universe contest. I am speaking of a general gross impression.  My impression does not guarantee 100% the PGF is real or fake.  It does suggest a higher chance of a creature of nature vs man.   You will not in my Quote you bolded I was talking about a Functional standpoint. 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

If it's not puzzling, why is even John Green puzzled by it? 

 

 

 

Because John found it puzzling. I don't. As I said, the odds are just as low of crossing paths with a Sasquatch....whether you are in No. Calif., or in Washington State.

 

Mountainous areas are quite VAST. Just because he encountered one at Bluff Creek...it doesn't mean that Patty would just be hanging around on the sandbar, waiting for Roger to return.  If anything...it would only be less likely to see her there again....she would, most likely, have enough 'smarts' to avoid that particular spot.

 

It is simply Roger's personal preference, where he chooses to go searching again.

 

 

How about explaining the puzzle of how you "received a Bombshell" from the hoaxer/liar Heironimus??? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

 

Creating conflicts where there are none and trying to pit one person against another is suppose to serve some purpose.  Don't know what exactly that is.  Cherry picking something I said a long time ago makes me feel very important in your post #55.  Who would go to the trouble?  How long would it take to find such an old  quote of mine?  I had no idea I was this important.  That is so nice I can forgive you for ignoring my points made in my post #49.  Thank you.  I will gladly address the out of context quote you found in your post #55:

 

Your quote was among the the first page of search result which came up after entering "muscle movement" in the advanced search feature. neither your quote or Bill's is out of context. The context of your post is a thread on Patty's calf and tricep. You ask if skeptics see any muscle movement whatsoever. You state you don't know how people are not blown away by these muscle movements.

 

Bill's quote is in the context of the first chapter of his book in which he is discussing what he thinks are misguided attempts by analysts preceding him to try and prove the film genuine. He firsts discusses what he thinks is a misguided attempt of analysts to claim the compliant gait of Patty can not be replicated by humans, that does not understand concern for the issue, and that it seems to have fallen by the wayside as a form of "proof". He then goes on to say that similarly with claims of muscle movement, he has never seen anything convincing as evidence of real anatomy muscle motion.

 

This is not taken out of context or imagined contradictory positions. You claim muscle movement that you think people should be blown away by. Munns sees no such thing and thinks Patty is old and flabby. Your claim is just one that is typical of what is made by PGF believers. Bill has had access to far more PGF visual data than you and states clearly that he can not endorse the muscle motion claims made by believers.

 

On this point what you believe and what Bill believes do not agree. This is not trying to pit one person against another. This is pointing out the fact that Bill doe not endorse a commonly made proponent claim and states he sees no evidence of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Because John found it puzzling. I don't. As I said, the odds are just as low of crossing paths with a Sasquatch....whether you are in No. Calif., or in Washington State.

 

Mountainous areas are quite VAST. Just because he encountered one at Bluff Creek...it doesn't mean that Patty would just be hanging around on the sandbar, waiting for Roger to return.  If anything...it would only be less likely to see her there again....she would, most likely, have enough 'smarts' to avoid that particular spot.

 

It is simply Roger's personal preference, where he chooses to go searching again.

 

 

How about explaining the puzzle of how you "received a Bombshell" from the hoaxer/liar Heironimus??? :)

 

Right. I found Bigfoot here. I'll look all over the place, everywhere but the place where I found it.

 

What do you think is the biggest flaw in Bill's argument that based on testimony from Harry Kemball of Canawest Films, Bob Heironimus could have been telling the truth about wearing a suit for Patterson? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

The gloves in the Tarzan movie can be seen surrounding the entire wrist and is fairly visible in most clips. 

Where as the one frame you point out, shows a partial 'something' not even reaching 1/3 around. 

Viewing other scenes in the movie, the arms for yet another example. The humerus, upper arm, is regular in length - Patty's is rather long. 

 

Then you've done another thing you continue to do.  You lead away from the film and make comments tying to Roger and motives.  Motives such as why he never came back to the site cannot be seen in the film. 

Edited by Wheellug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Given this thread seems to be all over the place, I'm just going to interject a few comments related to the arguments that stuck in my mind:

 

On the matter of whether any other makeup artists did an "in depth" analysis, when seems to be lacking is some definition of "in depth". Now on the one hand, Chris Walas did try harder than any other skeptical makeup artist, in the old BFF.  So relative to other makeup artists, his consideration of the PGf is more "in depth" than most I've read. But in terms of demonstrating a strong anf thorough understanding of the PGF, no he hasn't yet done so, and I personally would think that was a necessary prerequisite for an in depth analysis.

 

On the matter of muscle movement, my particular methods of image analysis haven't verified such, but other researchers can apply different analysis methods and may get different results. We simply need to consider what image material is being used and what analysis meethodology is being employed on the data. My earlier appraisal of the breast motion was that I couldn't find evidence of it, but after that appraisal, I got Copy 8 and it's 4x zoom in version was good enough for me to finally isolate the breast motions in a conclusive way and thus verify the anatomical motion.

 

On the JREF thing, I knew going in that there were good arguments for acknowledging the fact of it, and good arguments for not going there and not referencing the debates that transpired. It was a judgment call on my part, to mention or to ignore. Obviously I made the call which I felt was appropriate after considerable deliberation, and I respect that some readers will definitely disagree with that judgment.  This is a subset of the whole judgment of how clinical or personalized i should make this book. I wish I could have done it without personalizing it so much, but I felt that to ignore that I am part of the controversy now would be unrealistic and disingenuous. I am part of the controversy now, and my experiences with the JREF members has been a powerful factor in shaping my understanding of the controversy I have become a part of.

 

Clearly some elements of the book are stringently factual, and some are judgmental or subjective. I have simply strived to make it clear which are which, so if readers want to separate the former from the latter, they can do so easily.

 

Anyways, I appreciate all the interest in the book, and appreciate all opinions sincerely offered, even if they may be critical or questioning my work.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Right. I found Bigfoot here. I'll look all over the place, everywhere but the place where I found it.

 

 

 

Roger would have been looking in a vast wilderness area, in either case.  It comes down to a personal choice. 

 

 

How about clearing-up the mystery about Hoaxer Heironimus...kitakaze...and "The BOMBSHELL"?? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Followup to the above:

 

Sometimes after i post a comment, I tend to reflect on that comment and the discussion it was included within, and occasionally, that reflection inspires additional thoughts, which i feel I should add.

 

One I do wish to add is that in the Book, I do not mention this forum very much, but I do want to say that this forum has profoundly influenced my work over the last 7 years and in a very positive way. But that influence, as powerful as it is, comes in a form that is more diffuse and expansive, rather than isolated incidents that stick in the mind. I started in this forum and will likely end in this one as well, and will always consider it to be a fine place for discussions of the subject. I've had the pleasure to get acqiuainted with many fine people whose opinions I value and whose friendships i cherish. And I think he adminsitration of the forum is handled in an exemplary way, now and in the past years.

 

So the fact that the BFF is not mentioned extensively in the book does not reflect any lack of appreciation for this fine collective body of ideas and opinions, but rather that my experiences with the BFF simply did not take the form of isolated moments where a singular idea was brought into specific focus in a manner that could be cited in the book as an example.

 

Just wanted to put these ideas on record, for all to consider.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

Anyways, I appreciate all the interest in the book, and appreciate all opinions sincerely offered, even if they may be critical or questioning my work.

 

Bill

 

Plussed. Thanks for sharing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Post 74...plussed !

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...