Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

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.

 

 

OK, let's be specific about it. From the rebuttal review...

 

 

5. "Roger could have tried a cinema verte technique called “ camera cuttingâ€, where you meticulously plan each shot and edit the action by carefully planning each segment and then only starting the camera when you are ready to film exactly what action you want."

Again Munns fails to actually think like a hoaxer and ends up thinking like a traditional film maker. By Munns' own description Patterson was completely unorthodox. Why doesn't Roger take his time setting up different action segments with careful planning between them? Simply, because very minute Roger is out there with a man in a suit is another minute for some other person to stumble across them and they're busted. One of Lyle Laverty's original doubts about the film was that he and his timber counting crew had been in there at Bluff Creek since the summer and for Patterson and Gimlin allegedly being around one or three weeks, pick your version, they never saw these two men riding and driving around looking for the Bigfoots nor any sign of prints (1). Patterson or any hoaxer is going to want to go in, do their hoax as quick as possible, and get out before they're seen. They don't want to get busted. Filming a live brief continuous encounter should be done in that fashion so you're not standing around the woods between shots for long periods with your man in a suit who is sweating buckets and not an actor and wants the suit off as quick as possible. For the cameraman he doesn't want to get seen and for the mime they don't want to get shot. Hurry up and shoot this thing lickety-split, send it out, see what you have, and if it is good, go back and stage the event later. That's why these guys are hiding the secret of the development because that shows it happened earlier than they said.

Shooting one take in California allows them to have the film developed there and in their hands for review all the sooner and shot in a fashion that lets them get in and out of the area with their man in the that much faster.

Think like a hoaxer, not like a traditional film maker.

 

 

In what world does it make any sense for a man shooting a hoax film in a national forest to meticulously set up and execute numerous takes standing around in the forest with his actor encased in his Bigfoot suit each minute ticking by another minute any person could stumble across them and the what does he do?

 

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.

 

 

You might have found better success with your book if you understood the relevance of social media sites with the ubiquity of Facebook where something as obscure as Monster Talk has over ten times the number of followers as your book. Nevertheless, as your book was written primarily for the undecided regarding the PGF, if you can point to a single instance of one such person becoming convinced by your book of the PGF in fact being Bigfoot, that would be a measure of success in which congratulations are in order, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The most important thing I have learned from reading WRMP and the Munns Report (on you tube and later the blend of the 2 in the Yakima video on youtube) is the Anatomy of the Shot. That is, prior to the Munns Report, I had always thought what I was looking at is Roger running up and seeing bigfoot. He turns his camera on and films it with minimal repositioning.  The shaking was not from running as much as it was shock and trying to locate the creature.   

 

Only after the detailed breakdown of the PGF in the Munns Report/WRMP did I understand what I was looking at. Only then would I discuss the film with believer and skeptic alike.

 

For example, I would hear people say how the guy "shook the camera so you cant see bigfoot well"     We all know now the most stable point is also the closest point (the look back).  Also the shaking is explained once we know what the man in the camera is actually doing and why he is doing it.

 

This is the Critical point of understanding the PGF.  Without that understanding, the PGF can more easily viewed as a hoax.  It can more easily fall victim of the 'shake' attacks and other attacks on the real vs fake discussion.

 

This is what I learned most from Munns and I have Bill to thank for it.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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.

 

You may want to become better versed in hoaxing if you ever hope to actually understand the PGF in that context.

 

Example - was the Gable Film made by a filmmaker or a hoaxer who thought like a hoaxer? The comparisons that can be made to the PGF are many...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xlBA-VoT2o

 

Bill, in that video, why would a professional photo analyst (from the 2:50 mark) want to know about the source and provenance of the film? Why doesn't he just want to stick to the film? is that flawed methodology on his part as a photo analyst?

 

 
Gable-Still-Aaron-face-300x168.jpg

“Aaron Gable†inside the famous Ford Truck, wearing the thick glasses that would later appear in GF2.

 

 

As many of you are aware, MonsterQuest aired the final episode of the series last night and it went out as strong as it first started.

MonsterQuest’s final episode was a continuation into the “American Werewolf†mystery. Focusing greatly on the infamous “Gable film†that we have extensively covered here on GhostTheory. So let’s get crackin’ and discuss the show and its findings.

First and foremost we talk about the “Gable filmâ€. In a surprising turn of events, the MonsterQuest team managed to put asilver bullet into the “Gable film†mystery and not end their show with open-ended questions like they mostly do. But how much of the mystery did the MonsterQuest team actually solve?. To my surprise someone actually came forward and admitted to hoaxing the whole film. Weeks before MonsterQuest even start filming their final episode!

Mike, the man who created the film and who went by the pseudonym “QuinlanOUR12″ on YouTube, went to extreme measures to create this film as a homage to Steve Cook’s “The legend†song/story. Everything in the film was faked. All for the purpose of creating a “Werewolf mystery filmâ€. Snowmobiles, a truck, Ghillie suit, fake guts and blood and even an old 8mm ghillie_suit_jacket_pants-150x300.jpgfilm camera was used to stage this. With Mike wearing the Ghillie suit and getting on all fours and faking this animal-like movement, he successfully manage to scare and convince many that there is a werewolf roaming around Michigan. I can honestly say that no matter if the film was a fake, it still creeps me out.

GableStill-StopFrame-300x56.jpg

The “teeth shot,†accomplished with a Halloween mask and stop-motion animation. Note the Ghillie suit webbing.

 

So where are we left at now?

I have to admit, I was perplexed at what I was seeing in the “Gable filmâ€. It looked so natural mimicking a quadruped’s movements. In my mind, I was almost sure that this film was a bear attack caught on film. Especially when part 2 of the film came out. It was hoax to such extreme where they had used an old Michigan Police cruiser to fake some of the footage.

Gable-Still-Cruiser-300x225.jpg

Image: michigan-dogman.com

 

So with all this, the film’s creators go on to say on the website michigan-dogman.com the following:

I assumed after revealing the true source of the film to Monster Quest, the producers would move on to some other creature. Wrong again. They were more excited than ever to produce the show. They felt the story was so compelling they made it their season finale. Do you get what that means? Monster Quest, and everyone involved knew the Gable film was fake weeks before  production began. The entire episode was scripted and staged to look like they exposed it. More stagecraft, designed for entertainment and profit.

This is a sad, sad revelation.

What are we to think of MonsterQuest and shows alike? Well we really can’t put any fault on MonsterQuest for doing what they did. Of course it’s a television show, therefore ratings and cliffhangers are a must. The fact that they knew about this weeks before production does not really matter. It is not up to the show to inform the public with up-to-the-minute reports. The problem lies with Mike, the person who create the film.

Although this was just a project to add to the lore of the “Michigan Dogman†I think this whole fiasco brings all of cryptozoology and the paranormal into a different perspective for skeptics and believers alike. What are we to think of convincing UFO footage from now on? What should we say about a convincing image of a ghost?

or dare I say: “What about the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film†? Is this film just another “Gable film†that has not yet run its course?

 

 

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2010/03/25/monsterquest-gable-film-mystery-solved

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

 

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...

 

 

Builds a gorllia suit at 23.

 

Wins many awards including the Oscar years later.

 

Takes interest in the old Bigfoot Forums and thus, and interest in the subject of the PGF.

 

Fine so far.

 

Yet, he NEVER builds a suit to show what 2 cowboys could easily do.  BFF posters need to know this.  I am sure Roger Patterson's family and Bob Gimlin likely thank you for pointing Walas failure out, Kit.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

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.

 

 

Bill Munns:

 

National Geographic - American Paranormal

MonsterQuest - Critical Evidence

MonsterQuest - Lizard Monster

 

Bob Heironimus

 

National Geographic - Is It Real?

Evening Magazine

TV Land - Myths and Legends

Lie Detector

 

Showed the enhanced analysis video of the PGF two days ago to a friend here in Sapporo. He'd never heard of it, never heard of Bigfoot in his life, no exposure to it whatsoever. No preamble except an explanation what Bigfoot is supposed to be, what it's called in Canada and America, that there is a film which is believed by some to be real.

 

He watches it for a few minutes zoomed in, zoomed out, slowed down, looped. I ask him what he thinks of it, if he thinks it looks like a real animal or a man in a suit. Man in a suit, zero hesitation. I ask him why he thinks so, he says it just looks like a fake suit. No cultural contamination whatsoever.

 

That's the subjectivity of the realism PGF believers try to enforce on others.

Builds a gorllia suit at 23.

 

Wins many awards including the Oscar years later.

 

Takes interest in the old Bigfoot Forums and thus, and interest in the subject of the PGF.

 

Fine so far.

 

Yet, he NEVER builds a suit to show what 2 cowboys could easily do.  BFF posters need to know this.  I am sure Roger Patterson's family and Bob Gimlin likely thank you for pointing Walas failure out, Kit.

 

Backdoc

 

And where is Bill's Patty recreation?

 

Regardless of the fallacy of constraining Patterson must have been the suit creator, Walas' suit made at 23 for less than $200 not only demonstrates how much is possible with raw talent and little resources, it also demonstrates features cited by Patty believers as not being possible with a man in a suit, like the head shape.

 

Knowing Chris Walas and the way he was treated at the original BFF when he brought his analysis, it did not take him long to realize that fundamentalists are a complete waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

Is point #5 of posted in post # 16 from 1) The rebuttal you posted before even reading Bill Munns book WRMP  or  2) From you Amazon review where you fail to tell the reader you have seen the actual PGF suit?

 

The idea these guys run up to Bluff Creek and quickly shoot this shot fails to take into consideration the film settings.  If they are in a hurry, they don't use a stop start trigger method.   If they did as you say, they would turn the camera into the on position and run the film out like a machine gun until all the film was spent.  The chances of them choosing the on and off setting based on the trigger finger makes no sense and it is a risk. 

 

Let's not forget what Bill Munns points out. The hoaxer is choosing the site to film the hoax.

 

Roger "I know what we should do"

 

Bob  "what is that"

 

Roger "lets go all the way down to Bluff creek and film a hoax down there.  I mean there is a work crew there where we are likely to be spotted. oh, and lets not forget a guy nearby names Wallace is faking a lot of tracks. Lets film in the same county as Wallace so that way we can have futher doubt casts on our film effort when it is found to have taken place near the location of a guy who is a hoaxer.  HIs hoax history can taint us when he is found out."

 

Bob, "Roger, this looks like the start of a beautiful friendship."

 

 

 

ADDED----------------


Kit,

 

RE:  Munns.

 

I didn't make myself clear.  I am talking about the findings in WRMP.  That is, mainly the Film Anatomy of the Event. I am not suggesting Munns has not been a few shows but that material has not been to any great extent. 

 

That is what I was getting at along with one other point.  If you want to get on TV  just say you are the guy in the suit or say you saw a bell shaped zipper on the Patty suit and you will be on CNN by dinner time.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit:

 

I have concluded that you are from Mercury and I am from Jupiter, and you thrive in a world with practically no gravity.

 

I don't know what else to say, because our dialogues do not appear to be going anywhere.

 

Good luck with your persuit of the opinion the PGF is a hoax.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

 

Is point #5 of posted in post # 16 from 1) The rebuttal you posted before even reading Bill Munns book WRMP  or  2) From you Amazon review where you fail to tell the reader you have seen the actual PGF suit?

 

1 - The rebuttal I posted would have been impossible to write without reading Bill's book. Do you understand? No, you do not.

 

2 - So close. You almost had a grasp on it, and nope, gone again...

 

 

Kit,

 

Now that your are back, I need to repeat a point I put out there that became buried in these threads during a time when you were gone.

 

Having read your take down of Bill Munns WRMP on the Amazon, I noticed you never mentioned in your many reasons why you disagree with Bill, the simple fact you found and saw THE suit.

 

It seems to me that would be an important point. Yet, you seem to omit this from the Amazon world.  That means all those readers on Amazon are not aware 1) A person claims they have found the suit  2)  A person claims to have seen the suit  3) They just read a review where you did not include this.

 

I was curious as to why you omitted this?

 

(Maybe I read it wrong and this was included and I missed it)

 

Any thoughts?

 

Backdoc

 

 

It's not an omission. I remember you asking before and I'm quite sure I answered. I'll just answer again rather than dig it up.

 

My review of Bill's book directly addresses the conclusions that he makes point by point based on the merits of each individually. Saying I have seen the suit within the context of that review is as much an unverified claim as anything I could possibly object to regarding Bigfoot. I have no direct access to the suit and at the time of the review no way to arrange it under current circumstances. The only viewing I had of the suit was years ago on a Docomo smartphone via Skype and were I to try, I had no knowledge at the time how one might record such a call. The purpose at the time was to try and establish further contact in hopes of getting access to the suit in person to document it.

 

That is a claim that should be categorically dismissed without reliable evidence. I do not think the rule somehow applies differently to skeptics. I had a very similar experience to this when I first sought out personal contact with Bob Heironimus, which took major effort on my part. I similarly can not prove I have actually had any personal interviews or even contact with Bob Heironimus. At the time I documented everything with a phone, a pen and a notepad. All the work I did in that phase of the documentary project, the interviews, establishing what and where BrentD saw what he saw was to lay down the ground work for the actual filming. All interviews that I had filmed at that point were done in Victoria, BC Canada.

 

So I would ask you, in a formal written review of Bill's book, how would it be of any help to include a claim that I could not verify, something which Bill and I had tried personally between us to make possible?

 

Bill's book, specifically his end conclusions for the veracity of the PGF is what I focused on in that review.

 

 

^^^

 

Kit,

 

That actually makes more sense than I expected it to.

 

I don't think that changes the concept WRMP though:   Why even argue points such as " how far Roger traveled to shoot a hoax" or whatever? These seem awful iffy attacks on the PGF.  But a suit, that is a smoking gun. If I saw the suit and felt I was confident in its existence that would be the strongest point in my way of thinking.  If I had the DNA and knew this man could not have raped this girl, I would not bother talking about what time he left the party.  I got the proof.

 

For me, I would never stop talking about it. It would at least be a tag line I added to the bottom of every post. I would replace something with a line saying "I have seen the suit"

 

It should be no surprise I have taken your advice and doubt the suit claim. 

 

Backdoc

 

 

 

The idea these guys run up to Bluff Creek and quickly shoot this shot fails to take into consideration the film settings.  If they are in a hurry, they don't use a stop start trigger method.   If they did as you say, they would turn the camera into the on position and run the film out like a machine gun until all the film was spent.  The chances of them choosing the on and off setting based on the trigger finger makes no sense and it is a risk.

 

 

It is absolutely fantastic you think that, given it is precisely the opposite of what Bill argues in WRMP.

 

Roger "I know what we should do"

 

Bob  "what is that"

 

Roger "lets go all the way down to Bluff creek and film a hoax down there.  I mean there is a work crew there where we are likely to be spotted. oh, and lets not forget a guy nearby names Wallace is faking a lot of tracks. Lets film in the same county as Wallace so that way we can have futher doubt casts on our film effort when it is found to have taken place buy a guy who is a hoaxer."

 

Bob, "Roger, this looks like the start of a beautiful friendship."

 

Backdoc

 

 

And yet they managed three weeks without being spotted by that work crew?

 

It took 35 years for Wallace hoaxing to be uncovered. Do you understand? No, you do not.

Kit:

 

I have concluded that you are from Mercury and I am from Jupiter, and you thrive in a world with practically no gravity.

 

I don't know what else to say, because our dialogues do not appear to be going anywhere.

 

Good luck with your persuit of the opinion the PGF is a hoax.

 

Bill

 

Just an explanation of how doing meticulous setups of multiple takes with an actor in a Bigfoot suit in a national forest is beneficial to a hoax scenario rather than doing it as quickly as possible would be a great help. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Kit:

 

 

I don't know what else to say, because our dialogues do not appear to be going anywhere.

 

 

Bill

 

 

Have you ever seen the 'rowing in circles' video I've posted several times, Bill?? :)

 

 

You have some good one-liners, in response to kit's posts....but all you're doing is playing his game......going 'round and 'round, in circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I'm going won't likely be clear until I get there.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, one and all. They do challenge me to re-examine my effort, and that is a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

 

 
 

 

 

 

You don't get around much.

 

I personally know TWO! Both were on the fence. Both now convinced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

A)  You are the one who said Roger was inspired by Wallace.  Thus, you are saying that somehow Roger knew about Wallace hoaxing before he films the PGF and somehow before the Public finds out about Wallaces hoaxing 35 years later (since Roger can't be inspired by Wallace 35 years later when Roger died 30 years before).   So by your logic, Roger chose to link himself to the know hoaxer by 1)  association and 2) location before the PGF is filmed.  You are the one who offered how Roger knew how the fake the tracks from his association with Wallace.  I have a hard time keeping up with your many theories but I do think I have this detail down pretty good.

 

Weather the public knew at the time Wallace was a hoaxer, I have learned from your thinking that Roger knew.  It doesn't matter if the Public at large knew or did not know. 

 

B -  We all know you started your rebuttal of Bills book WRMP before you even had a copy of it.  You had decided there would be a need for such a rebuttal before you read the book.  This is old territory, but I think it is important information for all the new posters joining us.  It seems the point you made in point #5 was one point were actual reading of the book was required.

 

C)  Getting back on point to the start and stop.  Can you offer other Bigfoot- is- a- hoax stuff out on the internet where a lot of starting and stopping take place in the filming?  I will credit you with knowing a lot of these various films so if anyone knows of an example of this it would be you.  I really have no idea.  It seems to me most/ if not all of these bigfoot films have the same thing in common.  That is, a guy who has a camera and is filming something (we are to believe) unrelated to bigfoot.  Maybe is it one guy filming his friend in the woods goofing off. Then they say to the friend, "Hey dude it looks like a bigfoot.  Do you see that thing over there?  Look over THERE!"  There is just no stopping and starting to these other films. The start and they keep rolling with no stop.  It sure seems when we see these films for us to consider there is never a stop once the film is rolling. You may know of examples.  It seems to me, when a hoax is on, 1)  They know where to look with the camera at all times 2)  They start filming and continue with no stops in between. They keep rolling.  For Roger to pretend this encounter is an accident, he would turn it one and roll with no stops until he was out of film. 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacon, Cheeseburger and Kimchi, > Arguing with PGF Proponents

 

You guys wouldn't need to argue with PGF proponents if you didn't purposely seek out bigfoot forums to look for said arguments. When was the last time a PGF proponent stopped you in the street or knocked on your front and tried to argue with you?

 

Gotta love the mindset of the DIBS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Where I'm going won't likely be clear until I get there.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, one and all. They do challenge me to re-examine my effort, and that is a good thing.

 

 

You certainly are getting somewhere, Bill. :)

 

It's kitakaze, and those who wish to debate/argue the evidence with him that are getting nowhere...fast....(in their discussions with him). 

 

 

As one example of 'getting nowhere'....about 4-5 years ago, kit declared that he found the "hammer dropping Proof"....(the "suit" and "confessions").....and has yet to produce one shred of supporting evidence, for any of it.

 

kit has not even been able to say whether any of the "principals" who have allegedly "confessed to him" have told him definitively that Bob H. was Patty.

 

kit has done nothing but talk....in vague, convoluted, contradictory, meaningless circles.....for years.

 

 

So, my best wishes to anyone who wants to jump into his boat, and go around in circles with him. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

You don't get around much.

 

I personally know TWO! Both were on the fence. Both now convinced.

Three.  

 

Prior to reading the book, and what few archived pieces of Mssr. Munns' research I could find online, I was very 50/50 on the film.  I appreciate the detailed, step-by-step analysis Bill did in that book and it has largely moved me to believe that the film is of a living, breathing Bigfoot.  I'll leave open a 2% chance that the film is the Blair Witch Project of its day and that Roger Patterson is the absolute luckiest hoaxer ever who bought an off-the-shelf custome, found a some guy (not necessarily Heironononomus) just fat enough to give the suit musculature and managed to trip at just the right time to make the rilm a little more believable and oh by the way, left a perfectly paperless trail so that his hoax could never be tracked back to him w/certitude.

 

There is a jury instruction that bears repeating (although time and a general lack of sobriety blurs my memory) regarding reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not means some fanciful flight of imagination or a convoluted theory.  Just because one can speculate on an incredible string of events to create an alternative explanation does not mean that there is reasonable doubt.

 

At least for me, Bill's book pushed the PG film beyond reasonable doubt based on the technical details of the film and costume. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...