Jump to content

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


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wheellug:

 

Hard to pick a favorite, but I really do like the 13 part about the internet becomming the Krell machine unleashing the monster from the id. The comparison to me seems truly appropriate.  I'll be curious if that analogy gains any interest and following, as a general concept.

 

But in so far as the Actual PGF work goes, I see each chapter as a brick to build the total structure, and its hard to have a favorite brick. They are all essential to the structure.

 

But one of my hopes is that the 12 part about the missing films we still are searching for, might inspire other film archivist people to have a look around, and maybe some of those will turn up. That would be fabulous.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us are waiting to read the book before we chime in :)

 

There ya go, using common sense.  What the heck is wrong with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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:

 

...

Anyways, that's as far as I've gotten, but I welcome any thoughts other might have on this book, and if I'm mis-interpreting the value of a rip-off guy writing the forward for a book, or the merit of an investigator starting off by showing us what a great fiction writer he is, please show me the error of my ways.

Bill

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squatchy:

 

You should have your book by this Thursday or Friday. It went out last Saturday, US First Class mail.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you started up with the Krell machine it just brought me back to the movie. Totally understood where you were coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Chapter 5 - Bluff Creek, Where it Happened Bill discusses the notion of why, if a hoax, Roger did not choose Mt. St. Helens rather than Bluff Creek...

 

He would have also had the advantage of getting familiar with the location before coming back to stage the encounter, and anyone who has done location filming readily appreciates the advantages of familiarity with the location before you finally pack up to go there and film. The Mount St. Helen area could be evaluated for a hoax filming while he was there, while his last described Bluff Creek trip was 3 years before. It is not likely that on that trip, Roger was choosing sites for a film hoax to be done 3 years later.
 
Munns, William (2014-07-24). When Roger Met Patty (Kindle Location 1641).  . Kindle Edition. 
 
First is the suggestion that Roger had not been to Bluff Creek since the trip in 1964 which resulted in him coming back with the Laird Meadow Rd tracks. Yet Al Hodgson made the call to the Patterson residence about the BCM tracks because Patterson had told him to do so should any tracks show up and in May 1967 Patterson was filming in Northern California during a trip with Jerry Merritt.
 
This is his footage taken at Caruthers Cove, Klamath CA...
 
beach.jpg
 
Without a doubt Caruthers Cove...

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2204533
 
Footage from the same trip with Roger in the giant redwoods forest...
 
 
And in terms of the idea of whether or not Roger was choosing sites in early 1967 for a hoax film, that very same footage also shows Roger filming open logging areas and what very well may be Bluff Creek itself...
 
Bigexpedition5.jpg
 
The following thread is from 2010 in which Bill was seeking assistance to identify the above and other of Roger's pre-PGF 1967 footage in which Caruthers Cove was then positively ID'ed...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/333-identifying-things-from-rps-footage/
 
The fact is that we know Patterson was in NorCal in 1967 prior to October and that he was filming a creek and open logging areas, the same as the PGF location.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit;

 

We don't know where for certain Roger was on that trip, other than Caruthers Cove. So we cannot say factually he was at or near Bluff Creek scouting locations for a hoax filming. You are over extending the data beyond what it can actually prove. We don't know where those logging areas are.

 

And when we talk of location scouting as a preliminary to a filming, we go to the exact spot, not nearby, not in the area, not in the same state. That's what I'm referring to when I talk of location scouting, the exact spot the intended filming will be done.

 

We can't even tie any of the documentary footage to the Reel one horse and rider locations, much less to the Bluff Creek site.

 

Bill

 

correction of location.

Edited by Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't all of this been resolved by Ivan Marx's documentary on Bigfoot?

 

(I note again the need for a dedicated sarcasm font on this forum.)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit;

 

We don't know where for certain Roger was on that trip, other than Caruthers Cove. So we cannot say factually he was at or near Bluff Creek scouting locations for a hoax filming. You are over extending the data beyond what it can actually prove. We don't know where those logging areas are.

 

And when we talk of location scouting as a preliminary to a filming, we go to the exact spot, not nearby, not in the area, not in the same state. That's what I'm referring to when I talk of location scouting, the exact spot the intended filming will be done.

 

We can't even tie any of the documentary footage to the Reel one horse and rider locations, much less to the Bluff Creek site.

 

Bill

 

correction of location.

 

Yet we know he was in Northern California and filming locations there. He was filming open logging areas and a creek that looks extremely like Bluff Creek. Why is he filming those things? We can not say for certain, but if one is to argue why not film at Mt. St. Helens, and Roger's last described trip was 1964, then we are ignoring that Roger was in NorCal in May of 1967 filming things that look very much like the location of the PGF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, not ignoring anything.

 

The Caruthers cove reel has only some dark trees and a wood flowerbed on it as well, no forests or logging areas. The Bigfoot vanreel has fred Beck and Roger at a store going into it, and he's wearing a headgear for cold weather, as some other spointed out to me (growing up in Southern california, I only understand winter and cold weather clothing ona theoretical basis). The forests and logging are separate reels so there's no connection as to when those were taken.

 

You don't seem to understand that location scouting involves going to the EXACT (my emphasis) place, to see where you're going to park the cars or trucks, see where the equipment goes, see where the actor performs, see how the sunlight is on your intended setting. Close by just doesn't count as location scouting. I realize Kit that you don't have a filmmaking background, but you can;t win on this point. The documentary footage Roger shot just doesn't support what you are wishing it would.

 

Sorry.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, worries, Bill. However, there is more than one reel that we know has NorCal footage on it, correct? And what is the length of time each reel represents? Where to park cars and trucks, where equipment goes, I think in this regard you're failing to think like a hoaxer, no offence intended.

 

You spend much of chapter five talking about how the PGF does not have location cheats and why are there not any, and why go there? It's a fundamental failure to think like a hoaxer. A hoaxer knows that people are going to be on his filming location like white on rice. He knows that they will be poking around every tree, looking high and low. The hoaxer who would cheat a location for a film of Bigfoot is not a very smart hoaxer at all. Part of what led to Ivan Marx, who went very far afield for his hoaxes, getting busted was him lying about one of his locations. There will be no film crew, no numerous cars to park, loads of equipment to unload. An adept hoaxer is going to film his subject exactly as he would a real encounter. Roger would not be thinking in film maker mode with the logistics of a movie shoot because despite his pretentions, he's not a film maker. He's thinking as a hoaxer who needs to present an authentic encounter. A sure way to bust himself is to cheat a location that would be exposed immediately. Can't tell one creek from another? Why not film in Washington and say it was Bluff Creek?

 

Because you're going to have people doing this...

 

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Yet we know he was in Northern California and filming locations there. 

 

 

We also know, thanks to Bill, that Roger stopped the camera a few times during the filming of Patty....while he re-located, or possibly moved closer to the subject.

 

Under the 'hoax' scenario...there is no reason to try to preserve film in the camera while you move closer, or re-locate. Once you've started the camera running, you'd simply want the film to run out...sooner rather than later. For evidence of this....just watch any of the hundreds of hoax "Bigfoot videos" on Youtube....which are, almost without exception, very short videos....(or, more importantly...the footage of the "creature" is very short, in length.)

 

Stopping the camera....multiple times....while you relocate only makes sense under the 'real' scenario. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not proof of a same location, both the creek shown in post #119 and Bluff Creek have the same steep, rocky banks that appear to be a similar height...

creekwaterreference.jpg

 

 

 


kitakaze wrote:

 

 

We also know, thanks to Bill, that Roger stopped the camera a few times during the filming of Patty....while he re-located, or possibly moved closer to the subject.

 

Under the 'hoax' scenario...there is no reason to try to preserve film in the camera while you move closer, or re-locate. Once you've started the camera running, you'd simply want the film to run out...sooner rather than later. For evidence of this....just watch any of the hundreds of hoax "Bigfoot videos" on Youtube....which are, almost without exception, very short videos.

 

Stopping the camera....multiple times....while you relocate only makes sense under the 'real'

scenario. 

 

Unless you know that your film has a finite amount of footage to be filmed on and that you want it to run out in a specific fashion - Bigfoot walking off into the distance. Where is the rest of the Bluff Creek footage? Why do we have only film from the day he filmed Bigfoot? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...