Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

 

 
 

 

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. 

 

kitakaze,

 

You hadn't even downloaded the book yet.

 

"With the statement that no Hollywood FX people had looked at the film in depth and seeing in the index entries for David Daegling, Donald Prothero, various other skeptical analysts, but no entry for Walas, it appeared Walas's analysis was not covered. Were the statement about FX people and the film and the index more accurate, I would not have concluded that. Nevertheless, I'm glad Bill did include it."- kitakaze

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Roger was said to have done this for money.  So why not find Patty again at some point later for even more money?   

 

Why would Roger go where he knew other hoaxing was done-- The wallace stompers?   If you wanted to do a hoax and make it convincing you don't go to where others are also hoaxing least you get caught or tainted by their activity.

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Backdoc the whole money ideal wash's out with the passage of time. It would now be more profitable to live up to the hoax. If Gimlin wanted one more big shot at fame, and to maximize his profits off the whole thing, it would now be more profitable to announce the hoax, and ride a fresh new wave of fame in his twilight years.  Your also right, why would they have stopped there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Bob heoronimus said roger shot the thing from the back of a horse in "is it real?" TV show. He said he sat on the horse and "shook the camera". Is there a skeptic out there who think the PGf was shot from the back of a horse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

Just ordered my hard copy and looking forward to receiving it!!  I have vowed never to read a book on a computer. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze,

 

You hadn't even downloaded the book yet.

 

I disagreed with what I read in the first chapter, Bill disagreed with what he read in Long's first chapter. Both cases involved what we had read thus far. Having read it online or after downloading would not have changed the passage I disagreed with. I sought clarity from Bill regarding the statement and index omission, which he provided.

Roger was said to have done this for money.  So why not find Patty again at some point later for even more money?   

 

Why would Roger go where he knew other hoaxing was done-- The wallace stompers?   If you wanted to do a hoax and make it convincing you don't go to where others are also hoaxing least you get caught or tainted by their activity.

 

 

Backdoc

 

Because the nature of that hoaxing did not become clear until decades later with the death of Wallace and his stompers being shown. Whether Roger was connected with the hoaxing done by Wallace and supported by Times-Standard managing editor Laurence "Scoop" Beal, the public was not aware and Bluff Creek was considered the most prolific spot for Bigfoot evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

Still doesn't tell us why no second bigfoot PGf type sighting. He did a hoax to make some big time money. Why no second bigfoot to cash in again? Isn't that the million dollar question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
 

I disagreed with what I read in the first chapter...

 

^ Nope.  You said that Walas was not mentioned anywhere in Bill's book before you even read 5% of the book.  That is not the same as commenting on part of a book that one has in fact read.  Totally different.

 

kitakaze, on 29 Jul 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:snapback.png

I congratulate Bill on his effort with his book., though I was surprised to see no mention of Walas' analysis in the book or index.

 

As I've said, I've already read a good chunk of the book on Amazon. 

 

Once again, your off-hand (and, incorrect) comments may pass some casual observations but, where we come from, most of what you say is just mis-information, plain and simple.

 

Edit to add:  those pictures of Cats staring at inanimate objects are cracking me up, Pat!  Thanks, I needed the laughs.   :rofl: 

 

memes23.jpg

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

xspider1,

 

Plussed.

That's what I've been sayin', had kitakaze read what he was questionin' Bill on, he would have no need to asked Bill if it was mentioned.

 

Let's face it, we all knew kitakaze would open a thread to argue against, it's his nature, he said it himself before even orderin' the book. 

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

Still doesn't tell us why no second bigfoot PGf type sighting. He did a hoax to make some big time money. Why no second bigfoot to cash in again? Isn't that the million dollar question?

 

Why did Roger not make another hoax film? The PGF was for profit and controlled in its marketing by someone far smarter than Roger - Al DeAtley. Al's goal was singular and he knew better than to push his luck - to generate enough capital to take over his father's paving company. Further film would have exponentially increased the odds of exposure.

 

How many times do you think you can make excuses and claim secret development when people try and look into the source of your film and how it was made?

 

Film 1 - where was it made? It's a secret. Film 2 - where was it made? It's a secret again...

 

Roger could have been foolish enough to try it, but DeAtley would never have allowed it, and he's the one in charge of making the money come in.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

How smart would it be to push your luck an screw over two of the four involved in the so called hoax ???

 

What did Roger end up spendin' his money on after ?

 

Pat... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

^ Nope.  You said that Walas was not mentioned anywhere in Bill's book before you even read 5% of the book.  That is not the same as commenting on part of a book that one has in fact read.  Totally different.

 

 

How so? The book from the outset states that no FX person before Bill had done anything more than a sound bite catch phrase dismissal of the film. Walas is then also nowhere in the index. Then in the entirety of the book his name appears only once in a mere blurb. The context is the film shows an arcing hip line consistent with the design flaw Walas suggested. Why would a competent suit builder allow a flaw like that?

 

OK, so Roger the cowboy can't have made a believable suit suit. No, wait, he would not have made a suit with a visible flaw. Well, which is it? He's not capable of making something flawless or he would not have made something flawed?

 

The issue is not so simple. Nothing constrains that Roger must have made the suit himself, but neither does anything constrain that Roger may have altered a suit made to be more in line with the manner in which he envisions Bigfoot to look, including the alteration Heironimus spoke of in shortening the hair to appear as wear, which in turn results in the arcing hip line being visible where it may originally have been more concealed.

 

 Why do these not apply to Bill?

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

kitakaze,

 

How smart would it be to push your luck an screw over two of the four involved in the so called hoax ???

 

Patience is a virtue. Promises and friendship go a long way, both of which apply to friends Gimlin and Heironimus. Heironimus kept waiting, approaching DeAtley in 1970. Gimlin went after his before Roger was even in the ground at his funeral. Gimlin sued and won. Outting his friend as a hoaxer beforehand would be a sure way to screw his share. 

 

What did Roger end up spendin' his money on after ?

 

 

Mostly his family, according to his brother-in-law. DeAtley's goal was to take over his father's company. Patterson's was financial gain for himself, his family and to further his search. I don't think what Patterson did was evil or criminal. I can be sympathetic to the things he had to face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Roger himself said that the reason the film developing was kept a secret is because it might cost somebody their job. This reason of course is not good enough for the conspiracy theorists- there always has to be something more.

 

Hoaxers in the past have shown that they always try multiple attempts at hoaxing- so why is the PGF different? It's been said here on the forum that hoaxers are not very smart and always screw up. Yet in this case it's claimed that we have a hoaxer (DeAtley) that was too smart for multiple attempts and too smart to screw up..

 

It's always a matter of convenience even if it flies in the face of previous claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Technology has caught up with the physical film itself, I am sure Bill was well aware that there would be some strong denial from certain small pockets of people who are entrenched in their beliefs. This is just another opportunity for Kit to attempt to, yet again, pitch his on going rehash of others ridiculous conspiracy theories.  Since Kits announcement that he was going to put to rest once and for all the PGF hoax, there has been tremendous advancement in the analysis of the film. Bill has co authored a paper with Dr. Meldrum that clearly demonstrates the subject in the film is a living breathing creature, in fact not a suit. Sweaty has continued to bring out more and more detail and measurement anomalies that indicate proportionately it is not a man in a suit. Gigantifootecus's expertise is in support of Sweaty's work, and is ground breaking in itself. M.K. Davis continues to come up with more and more analysis of the video, and although his personal interpretations of his own work are sometimes not always something I would agree with, there is no denying he is helping give us a clearer picture of a living creature, not a suit. 

 On the skeptical side we have the same old stuff, regurgitated conspiracy theories, continued character attacks on the people involved( except for the very reliable Bob H.). These are very lop sided attacks I might add, people with no credentials attacking PHD's, and people who have lived in worked in costume design and gone through hundreds of gigs of data,etc. The "skeptics" have not done any formal research, written any scientific papers, as a matter of fact all they have done is produced such shoddy suits and the like as to do nothing but further the professionals cause. We have not seen the promised documentary, we have not seen the promised second reel, we have not seen the face melting suit. Seriously "skeptics", you need to get your house in order. 

 

 Kit really loves his little "such is the state of Bigfootry",  but really, look at the state of internet "skepticism" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

Patience is a virtue. Promises and friendship go a long way, both of which apply to friends Gimlin and Heironimus. Heironimus kept waiting, approaching DeAtley in 1970. Gimlin went after his before Roger was even in the ground at his funeral. Gimlin sued and won. Outting his friend as a hoaxer beforehand would be a sure way to screw his share. 

 

 

So then he goes and sells his share right afterwards for 10 dollars. This doesn't jive for a hoaxer or a guy that was worried about screwing his share.

 

It does however jive for a guy who was pushed by somebody else who wanted those rights (aka Dahinden).

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...