Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

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

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Sweaty thinks a costume never existed...

 

 

 

1) How do you make a replica of a suit which never existed, in the first place???

 

Sweaty thinks it is a likely scenario that Heironimus was filmed or going to be filmed in a Morris costume for Roger's documentary...

 

 

I think it is a likely scenario that Bob H. was filmed, or was going to be filmed, wearing a Morris gorilla suit for Roger's Documentary....but then along came the call from John Green, about the fresh trackway discovered in the Bluff Creek area, and the Patty footage....and the Documentary was shelved. 

 

 

So in your likely scenario of Heironimus wearing a Morris costume for Patterson, are you thinking Patterson would have just left the costume as is straight off the rack?

 

Sweaty vs Sweaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Can someone explain this:

 

 

BH: "No. It's just like I told you. He pushed the film up and down sitting on the horse with his hands to make it bouncy, then he bailed off the horse and (inaudible) on foot."

 

 

 

So if Bob is to be believed, Roger starts shooting while on the back of a horse. The film view is that of a man up on top of a horse plus a few feet higher than the horse.  The film is being bounced or shaken by Roger while on the horse?

 

So Munns wrong when he states the film shows Roger was running forward and THEN starts the filming while on ground running forward.

 

So where is Bill Munns wrong and Bob H correct?  In WRMP it seems to me this is well proven Bob H cannot be right about this.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ill admit my fault about the road. It does sound unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Roger did not film while on a horse. His camera points to where he is physically moving, which means if he were on a horse, his camera would see the horse head in front of him.

 

Kit, please don't show us the photo of the guy with a bow and arrow on horseback, because he's aiming the bow to the side, and Roger is aiming the camera almost directly ahead of himself. Bottom line, if Roger were on horseback, based on the film analysis of Roger's path and the direction his camera is pointing, we would see the horse head on the film. This is not argument, this is a fact.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

One thing that none of the "OK, Standard Bigfoot Shake now" joke video shot since has captured is what it looks like when a man is running and shooting film.  One can feel it in one's bootsoles looking at this clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty thinks a costume never existed...

 

 

Sweaty thinks it is a likely scenario that Heironimus was filmed or going to be filmed in a Morris costume for Roger's documentary...

 

 

So in your likely scenario of Heironimus wearing a Morris costume for Patterson, are you thinking Patterson would have just left the costume as is straight off the rack?

 

Sweaty vs Sweaty.

 

 

He may have asked Phillip Morris how to make the shoulders look bulkier. :)

 

 

One additional reason why the 'replica suit' scenario is implausible....kit claims there were "complications" involving possible litigation by the "owner of the Patty suit".

 

Here kit claims that he ran into trouble "getting access" to "the Patty suit"...

 

 

My backing off was as much as reaching an impasse for access and sinking years of my life into a documentary while sacrificing far more important things in life, and rather than coming to think what I found was not real, the opposite - wanting to do as much as I could to make sure the real thing did not go up in smoke.

 

 

 

kit has also claimed that the reason the person sending him the video did not take pictures of "the suit" was because the phone made a loud 'clicking' sound...and the guy didn't want to be caught snapping a photo of it.

 

 

Are these actions consistent with a raggedy Morris suit which was only used...(or planned to be used)...by Roger in filming his planned documentary?? Of course not. They would only be consistent with an actual "Patty suit".

 

Hence...the "replica suit" scenario is non-sensical....and implausible.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Roger did not film while on a horse. His camera points to where he is physically moving, which means if he were on a horse, his camera would see the horse head in front of him.

 

Kit, please don't show us the photo of the guy with a bow and arrow on horseback, because he's aiming the bow to the side, and Roger is aiming the camera almost directly ahead of himself. Bottom line, if Roger were on horseback, based on the film analysis of Roger's path and the direction his camera is pointing, we would see the horse head on the film. This is not argument, this is a fact.

 

Bill

 

 

Thanks Bill. That is what  I was getting at.  This is the value of the WRMP approach. That is, let's see what the film tells us.  Clearly a claim the PGF was filmed at first from the back of a horse is not square with what we can observe on the film.

 

A similar discussion has recently taken place on the issue of the PGF being messed with in the dark room.  Once again, my understanding from the work in WRMP seems to prove the PGF was not messed with or spliced and so on.

 

What I like about the WRMP approach used, it takes the 'He said, she said' out of the PGF. Also, it centers around some film specific things when can somewhat measure or test.  We cant prove things such as what day of the week was the film shot on. We can prove things such as 'Was the film spliced and edited (and it was not)"

 

So it is safe to say the Film tells us anyone claiming the PGF was filmed from the back of a horse at first while shaking the camera is wrong.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The simple reality is when the film image data supports a specific conclusion, all the gossip, anecdotes, and fuzzy recollections are unnecessary, and if they contridict the film image data, those stories are wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks Bill. That is what  I was getting at.  This is the value of the WRMP approach. That is, let's see what the film tells us.  Clearly a claim the PGF was filmed at first from the back of a horse is not square with what we can observe on the film.

 

A similar discussion has recently taken place on the issue of the PGF being messed with in the dark room.  Once again, my understanding from the work in WRMP seems to prove the PGF was not messed with or spliced and so on.

 

What I like about the WRMP approach used, it takes the 'He said, she said' out of the PGF. Also, it centers around some film specific things when can somewhat measure or test.  We cant prove things such as what day of the week was the film shot on. We can prove things such as 'Was the film spliced and edited (and it was not)"

 

So it is safe to say the Film tells us anyone claiming the PGF was filmed from the back of a horse at first while shaking the camera is wrong.

 

Backdoc

 

 

Just to let you know, Backdoc....this is old news.

 

It was clear to many that the Film was shot from foot-back...rather than from horseback....long before Bill's book came out.

 

 

I don't mean any disrespect to Bill's work. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

Old news, perhaps. It was just brought up on this thread a few posts back. Some new to the PGF know little about this issue in any form. They only read the recent posts. Also, I wanted to ask to see if something new had been offered I had not heard before.

I did not expect there was. Also, Kit more or less stands up for Bob H. He offered Bob telling this filming from the back of the horse.

Since the film does not support Bob h on this, who is left to still support him?

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Since the film does not support Bob h on this, who is left to still support him?

Backdoc

 

 

According to kit..."The Three Principals" behind the PGF...

 

Stooges10_zps75f496pl.jpg

 

 

The only people smart enough to still support Bob "Ooops" Heironimus... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

The simple reality is when the film image data supports a specific conclusion, all the gossip, anecdotes, and fuzzy recollections are unnecessary, and if they contridict the film image data, those stories are wrong.

Were this any other topic, this truth would be held by all to be self-evident.  This being the topic it is, only those paying attention see the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

The problem is that you're speaking as if you know what the this "road" was that partially paralleled Bluff Creek. This "road" is an old dirt and gravel track which comes to an abrupt dead end, the likes of which P,G&H having a vehicle come on them unawares is essentially zero...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the best information I could get on the old track that led to the Bluff Creek film site, I asked a friend who is an expert on the film site and surrounding areas, Bigfoot Books of Willow Creek owner Steven Streufert. The following is from an exchange on the subject...

 

kitakaze: What can you tell me about the "old road paralleling creek" leading up to the PG film site?

 

Steven Streufert: We know that was a dirt-gravel road track maintained along the creek.

KK: OK, McClarin spoke of jeeping in.

SS: We saw faint possible sign of one, but it's obliterated by the rock slide right at the film site.

 

Yes. McClarin took the creekbed road.

 

From the current bridge area 3 miles downstream.

 

SS: Just a dirt-gravel track needing annual maintenance. Not really a "road"

 

Green could not use it in 1968 June, it had been washed out in sections. They had to walk the rest of the way in there.

 

KK: Let's say Patterson's suiting up Heironimus within view of that track along the creekbed. What would you call the odds of someone driving up along and oops, they're busted? It has been argued having Heironimus suit up within sight of the road would easily expose them to people using the road.

 

SS: Very low. The workers were all downstream at Louse Camp and then up Onion Mountain Road. It would be more likely a random recreational hunter or hiker might find them. Where they were was rather remote at the time, without the upper road access down to the site. Easy hiding in the dense woods just off the creek bed, too.

 

KK: Do you think Roger chose a bad film site for concealing a hoax or for doing multiple takes and scenes?

 

SS: Would depend upon hunting season. It was late in the year for recreation and camping. There is no fishing to be had up that far. Why would anyone go up there then? Workers were busy elsewhere.

Plus, they'd hear a vehicle coming from about a half mile away. Remember... the road was a dead end dirt track that led nowhere.

 

 

Bob Heironimus claims they all travelled on horse back to the film spot along the 'road' and that they put the suit on him there once they had arrived at the film spot via this road.

 

The problem that you have is that Heirinonimus was never actually there and hence had zero idea what sort of activity did or did not occur on that road. Your speaking with Steven Streufert actually confirms this and shows that Bob Heironimus doesn't know a thing about the road beyond what he had read in bigfoot lore, which is well documented. Bob Heironimus assumed this was a logging road and well used and thus made up a story about listening out for any cars coming up that road.

Ill admit my fault about the road. It does sound unlikely.

 

You are not at fault regarding the road. Heironimus himself claims they went via horseback along 'the road' right by the film spot where they put the suit on him. The road is right at the film spot. This is written about and shown on maps in various bigfoot books.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I just meant people coming down the road sounded unlikely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Of course. That's because Heironimus has never been there and didn't know anything about the road and its traffic other than what he read in bigfoot books and such books didn't go into too much detail about this old road so Heironimus's tale about being worried in case a car came along this road is nonsense.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...