Jump to content

Thoughts About Munns' Book - " When Roger Met Patty " (2)


Recommended Posts

Update specifically on the book:

 

I'm very pleased with the overall reader reviews that have been posted thus far, (26 as of this date, on Amazon.Com). Sales continue modestly, apparently driven by word of mouth suggestion, since there is no formal promotion of the book. So the book is doing well in that respect, all circumstances considered.

 

I continue to look to see if there is a structured and disciplined challenge or rebuttal to the material in the book, but none has yet been offered. There are, of course, many people who think they are rebutting the book's material, but what they offer is neither disciplined or structured in a compelling way.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Despite our differences, thanks for taking the time to print your book on paper. 

 

The art of pressing ink to paper will soon be lost. 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I continue to look to see if there is a structured and disciplined challenge or rebuttal to the material in the book, but none has yet been offered. There are, of course, many people who think they are rebutting the book's material, but what they offer is neither disciplined or structured in a compelling way.

 

Bill

 

 

With the limited time I have at present to read and respond to PGF discussions, I really want to read a pro-active presentation of what a person feels is the truthful explanation, if it differs from mine. I don’t plan to spend time doing rebuttals to attempts to deconstruct my book, because my book really is my best shot at presenting my conclusions, so I will simply say, in advance, I feel my book presents my conclusions and any person who wants to evaluate my book content, and compare it to anything you post herein, and make up their own mind, is most welcome to form their own judgment as to what they feel is the correct truthful answer to the PGF.

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48501-thoughts-about-munns-book-when-roger-met-patty/page-36#entry862342

 

I don't think many people think they are rebutting the book's material. Many is a highly subjective word in this case, considering the book could not even achieve 200 likes on Facebook. Why is that the case? Is it a reflection of the actual subjectivity of the realism Bigfoot fundamentalists try to enforce upon others? Is it a reflection of belief in the film being extremely fringe?

 

I do not know of a single person who was not already fully convinced by the PGF being compelled or persuaded by that book to thinking the PGF depicts an actual Bigfoot, yet ironically the book is said to be written primarily for the benefit of people who have not made up their minds. How can a book said to contain proof of Bigfoot have such limp support from the Bigfoot community?

 

 

Continuing the thoughts on Long's book, I am intrigued by how much of his own story he put into it, and how he keeps the literary style of writing so prominant. Just as a matter of personal taste or preference, I think his effort would have been the better if he'd spent less time talking about himself.

 

 

IronyMeter1.gif

BigWRMPreview.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

I do not know of a single person who was not already fully convinced by the PGF being compelled or persuaded by that book to thinking the PGF depicts an actual Bigfoot, yet ironically the book is said to be written primarily for the benefit of people who have not made up their minds. How can a book said to contain proof of Bigfoot have such limp support from the Bigfoot community?

 

 

From what I have read in Bill's book so far...I haven't seen any specific point of analysis which is strong enough to sway the highly skeptical people out there.

 

But that doesn't mean that very strong, definitive proof isn't possible. I think there are 3 or 4 lines of analysis which might yet prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Patty was a real creature. :)

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 "How can a book said to contain proof of Bigfoot have such limp support from the Bigfoot community?"

 

How can someone who claims to have proof from the principals of the Film...(in "confessions")....show such limp support for Bob Heironimus?? :popcorn:

 

Have any of these "three principals" told you definitively that Bob Heironimus was the subject of the Film?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as rebuttals I thought kitikazes was compelling in that it provided logical counters to the conclusions within the book. Similar smatterings of less depth over at the international skeptics forums.

I don't think a specific rebuttal from a published book or journal will be forthcoming unless the book gains a larger foothold in the mainstream or scientific community.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit:

 

I have always found that you are a master at arguing to win, especially in the digital world, but that is not the same as arguing to understand, and that is where you and I differ.

 

Your posts are always entertaining, but rarely enlightening.

 

As to the impact of the book, it is still too early to make any substative determination.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

How can someone who claims to have proof from the principals of the Film...(in "confessions")....show such limp support for Bob Heironimus?? :popcorn:

 

Have any of these "three principals" told you definitively that Bob Heironimus was the subject of the Film?

 

From the last time you were asking...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2126-thoughts-about-longs-book-making-of-bigfoot/?p=887235

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/43765-pgf-royalities/?p=892526

 

And, you know what is easier than "finding monkey"?....kitakaze finding out "who wore the monkey suit" from one of the "three principals who have confessed to him"...  :popcorn:

 

But since I've pressed kit for an answer...he's become rather hard to find.  ;)

 

 

Bob Heironimus wore the suit. Every person I have interviewed including those closest to the film has indicated him and no other.

 

Your seeing yourself as intimidating is quite adorable. My having a life outside the forum and whatever manner of gotcha questions your mind can work up are most certainly unrelated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My having a life outside the forum and whatever manner of gotcha questions your mind can work up are most certainly unrelated. 

 

Bacon, Cheeseburger and Kimchi, > Arguing with PGF Proponents

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit:

 

I have always found that you are a master at arguing to win, especially in the digital world, but that is not the same as arguing to understand, and that is where you and I differ.

 

Your posts are always entertaining, but rarely enlightening.

 

Fair enough. Let's try for understanding.

 

Among your 16 conclusions as to why the PGF shows something "biologically real", IOW Bigfoot, is the argument that Roger could have taken his time with multiple edits and made use of a film crew.

 

This is just one example of the myriad times you decidely do not really try to have an understanding of thinking like a hoaxer. Roger being meticulous making multiple takes or making use of a film crew exponentially increases his odds of being busted doing said hoaxing.

 

Similarly with the perplexity at Roger using Bluff Creek as a film site, failing to recognize that both the setup with the Wallace stomper hoax in August and the noise of the creek provide the perfect excuse for how Roger was so lucky where all others had failed. 

 

As to the impact of the book, it is still too early to make any substative determination.

 

Bill

 

 

This is just a personal opinion, but I would say it's been more than enough time. I've seen not only no fence-sitters embrace the film because of it, I've actually seen a number of strong PGF proponents take issue with the book. Regardless, either the PGF is nowhere near as compelling as you think it is, or Bigfootery is in a very sorry state that it can not manage even 200 likes for WRMP on Facebook.

 

I would say the strong focus on the same but exponentially greater self-ruminating you took issue with in Greg Long's book and the lack of definitive evidence showing Patty could not be human is why the book stopped treading water in 2014.

 

The head shape was a worthy effort, yet Chris Walas did far better when he was only 23 with his very first attempt at an ape suit using less than $200...

 

 

Patty's head...

 

PattyTurningAG2.gif

 

Patty and Munns head top, Patty and Jeff Pruitt head bottom...

 

Bighead2.jpg

 

Chris Walas suit made for $150 at 23 years of age...

 

10854206_719189628179151_518066799876599

 
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

 

I don't think many people think they are rebutting the book's material. Many is a highly subjective word in this case, considering the book could not even achieve 200 likes on Facebook. Why is that the case? 

 

 

 

Kit,

 

When JFK was killed the government came out with the Warren Report.  Prior to that, most only knew what he news had reported by Cronkite.     Still pics may have appeared in LIFE  magazine later.  Yet, it was not until Geraldo had a smuggled copy shown in his TV show where there public got the first view of the film-- a film in motion.  This was thanks to Robert Groden.  The public was shocked to see the head shot and the 'back and to the left' thing.  

 

Millions made/ had an impression that night about the film.  Under those crude conditions, they assumed JFK was shot from his right.  They see the blurry film on the TV set at home (not HDTV) and they said, "I saw his head snap to the left and back.  Now way he was shot from behind by one guy".

 

Now modern tech can be applied to the film.  Regardless of where one comes down on the JFK issue, many people went into the study of the subject poisoned by the previous hype.  "Didn't they already show this was impossible. Didn't they already prove this shot could not have come from behind" and other phrases.  

 

Regardless of what the truth ends up being, the public was SOLD the idea there were 2 or more gunman thanks to the brief 1970's TV set  viewing on Geraldo.

 

THE PGF:

 

The same can be said of the PGF.   The public had its first exposure to Patty on blurry old 1070's TVs.  AT the movie theaters to see Peter Graves Bigfoot, they might have watched 2-3 runs of the PGF and that was it.  Add a couple of confessions of "I was the guy in the suit" and  throw in the limits on what scientist had to consider in the 1967 era and you get a 'I thought they already proved that was a hoax'

 

If a book comes out saying 'I have proved it is real", the bulk of the public reject that since they 'heard somewhere' they already proved it is a fake.

 

If Bill Munns was allowed the publicity Bob Heironimus and others have been allowed I would suspect the issue would be better received by the public.

 

If the Big Dog scientists and suit guys had the stuff of today back in 1967 to make their FIRST impression of the PGF, more would at least not declare it a fake. The Jim Henson creature show guy Peter B. said, "if it is a fake..."

 

So what doesn't Bill's book have more of a following?  1,000,000 authors might say the same thing. This is not unique to Bill Munns WRMP. 

 

Through both  the era the film came out, along with many other things the PGF has had a prejudice leveled against to that must be overcame even if Albert Einstien has supported it as real.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit:

 

Your "think like a hoaxer" concern fails to address one vital factor. The PGF is a film, and if hoaxed, the person making that film must first think like a filmmaker, in order to succeed in making a film. That is how I approached the analysis, from a background of actual 16mm filmmaking in the late 1960's.

 

Regards my references to myself, yes, you can point to similarities between myself and Long, but there are many differences as well, and I take time in the book text to explain the relevence of my personal experience to the analysis. Suffice to say, you are not convinced, but others are.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world is larger than Facebook, and "likes" on Facebook is not exactly the pinnacle of validation in my world. Maybe it is in yours.

 

You don't have access to the emails I receive from people who have read the book, and they help me understand what impact my book is having, far better  than any publicly posted discussions. You can measure the impact of the book as you like, and I will do so as well, as I like. The difference between us is that you seem to think that the impact is already conclusive, and I have confidence that the impact cannot be determined fully for some time to come.

 

I have confidence I am correct. If I have to wait years for a validation of that confidence, I will. The PGF is authentic. That truth will prevail.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...