Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Education:

 

There seems to be some buzz here about the concept of education.

 

I am no legal expert but have been an expert in legal circles before.  To oversimplify this (and BFF posters who are lawyers can elaborate) there are really two kinds of witnesses. A laymen and an expert.  A laymen will say "I saw a white Bronco speeding away from Nichole Simpsons house when I was walking the dog about 9:45pm"  They just basically report what they observed. 

An expert is someone allowed to tell or give an opinion based on their background, education, experience, and so on.  It must apply to the area in question.

 

Therefore, if blood is found at a murder scene, an BLOOD expert may testify the "blood matches Mr. Jones"  They may give testimony in what testing methods arrived at that conclusion. Those testing methods must be accepted a standard in the field of science. They would not use an expert in snake poisons for blood evidence as it would not apply but would use one in a snake bite case.

 

Now lets look at the PGF.  It must be a man in a suit or the real thing. There is no in between. On that we all agree. So ask yourself what kind of expert would be needed to say if it a man in a suit?  Various educated minds could contribute.  Certainly, a Hollywood suit maker would be an expert in the specific case of the PGF. However, they may not be an expert in they type of Kodak film used and what might be needed in its' processing ( in the case of Bill Munns, he also has film background as well).

 

For the PGF you really need an expert who:

 

1-Understands Film

2-Understands and has dealt with real animals or real animal fur or hair

3-Know the methods employed at he time in movie monster and suit making

and so on.

 

People like Bill Munns fit perfectly here here.  But keep in mind, Mr. Munns may state an opinion for or against the film. What matters is if he has really looked into and spent time examining the film and concepts involved. If not his opinion would be only slightly more valuable than the guy watching in his chair at home but not much more. We know Stan Winston do a look at the PGF and said it was a man in a bad fur suit.  But we do not know the extent of how deeply Stan examined the film.  It may have been only a quick 2-3 minute look at the film.

 

If Stan offered some formal opinion as an expert then his work product as an expert would be examined by other experts to see if they agree with his conclusions.  The best doctor in the world cannot tell too much about a patient they have not examined and have no history over.

 

So, if someone did or did not take woodshop or biology in high school has no matter or weight to the value of the person as an expert in present time. The reason is we are taking the entire life of their background and experience and judging that.

 

When a person reads WRMP, they are seeing the experts work product. They are able to see the 1) Background 2) analysis 3) conclusions.   

For the skeptic, there should be a "Bill Munns doesn't know what he is talking about report"  The report should-if proper- meet the same level of the Munns work product.

 

This is why I find if shocking a guy like Chris Walas could be on the BFF and say Patty is a man in a suit. Yet, since Stan Winston said the suit could be made today for $200 Walas still does not make the Patty suit and show us.  He instead just posted on the BFF. That is suspect. I have said before if James Randi went on  the Psychic Surgery Forums, he would not post just there only.  He would take his expertise and show how it was done proving the psychic surgery hoax.  Randi would not waste his time talking, he would be doing.   These experts in the suit making world apparently cannot find an extra $200 laying around.  All talk- no action.

 

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Backdoc wrote:

 

For the PGF you really need an expert who:

 

1-Understands Film

2-Understands and has dealt with real animals or real animal fur or hair

3-Know the methods employed at he time in movie monster and suit making

and so on.

 

 

That's not true, Backdoc. :)

 

Plenty of people, over the years, have noticed Patty's contracting/bulging right calf muscle...the rippling flesh on her right thigh...and the lift of the toes on her right foot.

 

Speaking for myself, I have found a few new details on Patty...without any special education....including, but not limited to...a funky 'arm proportion'.

 

 

The proposal that Bill Munns is the only person qualified to distinguish Patty from a 'guy-in-a-suit' is 100% pure hogwash. And, I say that with no disrespect for Bill's work/findings.

One example, to support that...I started a thread just for Bill's finding of the camera stops and re-starts....(and I stopped posting in it after kit joined-in with his 'Bob Gimlin diversions'....just to prevent the analysis from becoming muddied, with kit's crap). :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I know you talked about high school, but never mentioned that you graduated.  I should have assumed that since you graduated from Film College, you did have a High School Diploma, I just wasn't sure if it was from Hollywood High.

 

Did you estimate the size of the skull using a specific measuring technique?  Could you measure the mask that you built and be confident that that measurement is equivalent to your estimate of the Patty skull?

 

 

1) First overlay height (body length) vectors over Patty's image to match an avg human ~6' tall (such as Bob H)

 

P_BH_elbow.gif

 

2) Now take a photo of Patty's image and create a transparency (slide) then project it onto a wall without distorting her image.

 

3) Move the projector close to the wall so that the physical length of the height vectors adds to 6'.

 

4) Now that the scale of the image is correct, take your ruler and measure Patty's head on the wall.

 

5) Do this for several frames where the head is in different orientations and build a head model.

 

6) BobH's your uncle.

 

I believe this was how Bill cleverly measured the head, however, the height vectors are the key to scaling Patty correctly.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Backdoc wrote:

 

 

That's not true, Backdoc. :)

 

Plenty of people, over the years, have noticed Patty's contracting/bulging right calf muscle...the rippling flesh on her right thigh...and the lift of the toes on her right foot.

 

Speaking for myself, I have found a few new details on Patty...without any special education....including, but not limited to...a funky 'arm proportion'.

 

 

The proposal that Bill Munns is the only person qualified to distinguish Patty from a 'guy-in-a-suit' is 100% pure hogwash. And, I say that with no disrespect for Bill's work/findings.

One example, to support that...I started a thread just for Bill's finding of the camera stops and re-starts....(and I stopped posting in it after kit joined-in with his 'Bob Gimlin diversions'....just to prevent the analysis from becoming muddied, with kit's crap). :)

 

 

I never said Bill was the only one qualified.   I only said Bill was one person who happen to be well qualified.  Yet we have some here asking him silly to ask him what high school classes he attended.  

 

Many people can and do come up with things that prove to be great thoughts and observations equal or better than many experts.  I have never said otherwise.

 

Here is an example:   BFH is probably not a footprint expert credentialed by the FBI. Yet, he was able to just take a horse and show through testing a man can in fact leave tracks deeper than the horse.  He does not have to be an FBI expert in order to do this.  His testing was a great contribution to the PGF.

 

I don't  know if that clarifies anything but this all came from the fact some have posted on this thread asking what classes Bill took in high school.  That is petty and means nothing.  So why ask it is not for the purpose of diminishing someone?

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Backdoc...an accurate summary of expert vs. lay witnesses, yes.

 

In most jurisdictions, and true for the one where I practice, the greatest distinction between a lay and an expert witness is that an expert is qualified to supply an answer to a hypothetical question. A lay witness is not permitted to  testify to anything not based on a perception taken in through one of the five senses, and may not speculate to facts not in evidence...subject to a few exceptions to that rule.  An expert is permitted to do this based on his/her education, training and expertise in the filed, after supplying a foundation for those opinions, which includes a review of the relevant evidence in the matter. 

 

So, this expertise need not be the result of formal education, although that may be helpful. In certain cases I've elected to call, say, an electrical contractor with a H.S. diploma over a certified electrical engineer. A man who is doing the work, rather than those who just read about it, have a higher degree of cred, I believe. I've had a number of juries agree with me on that too.

 

I have no doubt Bill could be easily qualified as an expert in the field of special effects, costuming, film and camera optics.  Now, there may be somebody MORE qualified than he is, but so far he is standing alone in this field, on this subject.  It awaits to be known if such a person will take up the challenged, and if so, what they will say about it.

 

Given those qualifications, if I had Bill on the stand, I would ask him this question, and he would be entitled to give this response:

 

Q. "Mr. Munns, based on your education, training, expertise and experience, and also on the totality of the evidence you've reviewed, and which you've summarized for us today, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty if the image shown in the Patterson Gimlin film is, in fact, a man wearing a costume?"

 

A. "I do."

 

Q. "And what is that opinion, please?"

 

A. "It is not."

 

Thank you sir. No more questions. We pass the witness Your Honor...

Edited by WSA
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) First overlay height (body length) vectors over Patty's image to match an avg human ~6' tall (such as Bob H)

 

P_BH_elbow.gif

 

2) Now take a photo of Patty's image and create a transparency (slide) then project it onto a wall without distorting her image.

 

3) Move the projector close to the wall so that the physical length of the height vectors adds to 6'.

 

4) Now that the scale of the image is correct, take your ruler and measure Patty's head on the wall.

 

5) Do this for several frames where the head is in different orientations and build a head model.

 

6) BobH's your uncle.

 

I believe this was how Bill cleverly measured the head, however, the height vectors are the key to scaling Patty correctly.

 

Thanks for that.

Is the measurement found anywhere in the book?

I can't find it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WSA:

 

Thank you for clarifying what constitutes an "expert witness" And, yes, you are correct, in that if I were under oath in a court and asked the question you posed, I would answer as you suggested.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that.

Is the measurement found anywhere in the book?

I can't find it.

 

Bill's book wasn't written as a dissertation to be defended. It was his opinion based on his extended research and expertise in many areas related to the PGF. Since he didn't publish all his methodology in the book you need to ask him personally how he measured the head. And keep in mind that measurements from the film will include distortion from various sources. You must take any head model with a grain of salt unless you can rationalize all the parameters used to construct the model. Bill knows the difference between his opinion and proof. Disagree with his findings but not just because you're a skeptic.

 

And what do you make of Bob H's elbow extensions Drew? When Patty and Bob are scaled to the exact same height their limb proportions don't match up. Whattup widdat? :popcorn:

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I never said Bill was the only one qualified.   I only said Bill was one person who happen to be well qualified.  Yet we have some here asking him silly to ask him what high school classes he attended.  

 

Many people can and do come up with things that prove to be great thoughts and observations equal or better than many experts.  I have never said otherwise.

 

 

 

You did say that we need an expert qualified in these areas, Backdoc...

 

 

For the PGF you really need an expert who:

 

1-Understands Film

2-Understands and has dealt with real animals or real animal fur or hair

3-Know the methods employed at he time in movie monster and suit making

and so on.

 

 

My point was that an expert is not needed to distinguish Patty from a 'man-in-a-suit'. One reason why I say that, is simply because of the fact that suits don't even come close to looking fully realistic.

 

It is actually rather easy to tell that Patty is not a man-in-a-suit...as men-in-suits will invariably have many tell-tale signs of a suit, especially when seen under the conditions Patty is seen under.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until someone can legitimately explain away those pesky proportions I have little to no interest in the backstory of this video. Mr. Munn's work and analysis of the other aspects of the film do however offer a logical and known fact based explanation for what I see as an non knowledgeable once disinterested layman. The fact that his analysis and what I personally see in those limb proportions happen to come down on the wrong side of "accepted" science is unfortunate for 'accepted' science, I guess, as that science should accept the data that does exist instead of denying it or attacking those who analyze it without a preconceived bias. Einstein could not force himself to believe many things that his own theories predicted, instead allowing himself to be swayed by those around him, learned great men of their time, into their camp. Like black holes, and simultaneous action at a distance which have been proven to be correct. Until the data says otherwise I think open minded researchers have to go with what the data says. In hindsight, Einstein allowed tiny little minds to sway the thinking of a real mental Giant. Him. But darn it, the reality of what he proposed was so unthinkable at the time that it was dismissed. yet it was still reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

Gigantofootecus, couldn't that same method of projecting the PGF subject on a wall work to verify the exact height and dimensions of Patty?  Using various heights, then tracing and cutting out on cardboard, then placing that cutout at 100' or 120', taking a picture with the same camera setup Patterson was suspected of having and see which matches?  Further, once that was determined for a single frame, then couldn't that same cutout be used to determine distance from camera in various frames.  And ultimately produce enough information to get a three dimensional replica?

 

Or is my thinking too simplistic?  or wishful...

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the instruments, knowledge or materials to do what I'm talking about

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I saw a show on the American giant bird (Thunderbird.) Someone had a video from a lake of 2 huge birds flying away. The man who took the video claimed the birds were huge. Due to scale, it was hard to tell.

They took the video to 3 experts in birds each reaching somewhat of a different conclusion. What I liked about the show was the experts did not just dismiss the idea outright of what he man sad he filmed. The bird experts took the time to look at the video and then gave reasons why they thought it was or was not a real giant bird.

I have not seen this happen with the PGF. This is what we need to see with the PGF.

backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gigantofootecus, couldn't that same method of projecting the PGF subject on a wall work to verify the exact height and dimensions of Patty?  Using various heights, then tracing and cutting out on cardboard, then placing that cutout at 100' or 120', taking a picture with the same camera setup Patterson was suspected of having and see which matches?  Further, once that was determined for a single frame, then couldn't that same cutout be used to determine distance from camera in various frames.  And ultimately produce enough information to get a three dimensional replica?

 

Or is my thinking too simplistic?  or wishful...

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the instruments, knowledge or materials to do what I'm talking about

 

There are only 2 ways to determine the exact dimensions of Patty. We can measure Patty photogrammetrically if we knew exactly how far from the camera she was for a given frame and the camera specs. Or we can use a known physical quantity such as the foot ruler. In this case we are using height vectors to scale Patty to fit a 6' human inside then we can measure the dimensions of the head and create a mask, then try it on for size. Which is what Bill did. The skeptics just don't like the results.

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