Jump to content
kitakaze

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Is this about your rebuttal to Bill Munns' When Roger Met Patty?  

 

You said you would be posting a rebuttal before you even read it!

 

 

Excellent Indeed.

 

BD

 

 

No, because being personally acquainted with Bill, through many personal conversations regarding our research, I knew what his most important lines of argument in support of the PGF were prior to the book coming out, as well as his knowing mine against.

 

That is the benefit of mutual cooperation between people of disparate view points.

 

A good swing on your part, but a strike nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^^BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

Is this about your rebuttal to Bill Munns' When Roger Met Patty?  

 

You said you would be posting a rebuttal before you even read it!

 

 

Excellent Indeed.

 

BD

 

 

No, because being personally acquainted with Bill, through many personal conversations regarding our research, I knew what his most important lines of argument in support of the PGF were prior to the book coming out, as well as his knowing mine against.

 

That is the benefit of mutual cooperation between people of disparate view points.

 

A good swing on your part, but a strike nonetheless.

 

 

That is funny as I gathered from conversations with Bill that he wasn't impressed with your claims - nor did it change his views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I did not say that either one of use was inclined to change our positions based on what we shared, only that we had shared and thus I had previous knowledge, as did he. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

No, because being personally acquainted with Bill, through many personal conversations regarding our research, I knew what his most important lines of argument in support of the PGF were prior to the book coming out, as well as his knowing mine against.

 

That is the benefit of mutual cooperation between people of disparate view points.

 

And:

I did not say that either one of use was inclined to change our positions based on what we shared, only that we had shared and thus I had previous knowledge, as did he. 

 

 

This is a strange situation for the Patterson Film....two people claim to have opposing Proofs of what the Film shows....and they have lengthy conversations between themselves....with neither one changing their position. :huh:

 

Then along comes the 48th Anniversary of the Film...and nobody on either side utters one word of victory. Instead, they continue arguing trivial, and even irrelevant points.

 

 

Heck, I always envisioned an upcoming Proof of what the PGF shows to be something which would become big news in the realm of the general public. Silly me. :) 

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

That is the benefit of mutual cooperation between people of disparate viewpoints.

 

 

There is no 'benefit' to mutual cooperation between people who have "disparate viewpoints"/"opposing proofs"...of what the PGF shows, Champ.

 

What there is, in such a situation....is BS. I intend to find out with whom the BS lies. 

 

 

kitakaze saith:

 

 

Excellent. Dismissing evidence without having examined it. You have the makings of an excellent denialist.

 

 

We should examine your evidence...shouldn't we, kit?? :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

There is no 'benefit' to mutual cooperation between people who have "disparate viewpoints"/"opposing proofs"...of what the PGF shows, Champ.

 

What there is, in such a situation....is BS. I intend to find out with whom the BS lies.

 

That shouldn't take you long.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^

 

 

What there is, in such a situation....is BS. I intend to find out with whom the BS lies.

 

That shouldn't take you long.   :)

 

 

I have a pretty good idea with whom the BS, in this picture, lies. ;)

 

But, what I  should say...beyond simply which person has the false 'Proof'....is that the false claim needs to be investigated, and fully exposed. 

 

Fortunately, it looks like kitakaze may be willing to cooperate...since he has just stated that 'evidence should not be dismissed without being examined'. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

Is this about your rebuttal to Bill Munns' When Roger Met Patty?  

 

You said you would be posting a rebuttal before you even read it!

 

 

Excellent Indeed.

 

BD

 

 

No, because being personally acquainted with Bill, through many personal conversations regarding our research, I knew what his most important lines of argument in support of the PGF were prior to the book coming out, as well as his knowing mine against.

 

That is the benefit of mutual cooperation between people of disparate view points.

 

A good swing on your part, but a strike nonetheless.

 

 

 

There are new members joining us so let's review for their benefit as well as the benefit of your selective memory here:

 

Bill Munns (Hollywood make-up artist) wrote a book after devoting years to the PGF called When Roger Met Patty.  Part of WRMP was released online to give lookers a small taste of what would be covered in the book.  This is common in the Amazon world.  This was all Kit had access to at the time.

 

The BFF started a thread about the discussion of WRMP.   Kit-and this is the key- BEFORE POSSESSING THE ENTIRE BOOK TO CONSIDER (only the partial online teaser) stated he would be posting his "rebuttal" on another thread to this material which he had not considered as a whole.

 

Now Kit puts the following on his post #162, "Excellent. Dismissing evidence without having examined it. You have the makings of an excellent denialist."

 

Yes, you really did read that right.  Kit actually is accusing another poster of dismissing evidence without examining it. Yet, here is a well- credentialed posted who has put together a book after a 7 year study of the PGF and offers his findings as a whole for consideration.   Kit immediately assumes he will in fact have a rebuttal as any good denialists (<---defined by his own parameters. That is, a person who does not take the entire evidence into consideration and dismisses it without having to examine it).

 

Now what does Kit use as an excuse this time:   He and Bill have a relationship and have talked at other times so he somehow magically just knows he does not need to read the other half of the book to know everything in it!

 

Kit, you can call my response a 'swing and a miss' but if you don't want stuff knocked out of the ball park, quit pitching these softballs.  It's just too easy.

 

I would put the odds of you not being a Denialist as no more than 1%.  Please consider you are asking one side of this to live by a standard you do not intend to uphold yourself.

 

Come on Kit.  Be fair.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

This isn't a matter of kit being "fair", and "considering Bill's evidence", Backdoc....because of kit's claims of "having found the Patty suit"...and "having three confessions".

 

If his claims were true...then he would be right, in not needing to consider Bill's work.  

 

Therefore, with regards to kitakaze...this is a matter of his claims....(as opposed to his open-mindedness). His claims need to be investigated....via questioning. 

 

Wouldn't you agree? :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

S Y,

Excellent point.

We also could take that even further and Kit's answer to everything needs to be:

"I have the confessions and I have seen the suit." That answer should actually be the answer to nearly every question that comes up. It should be the answer for any rebuttal of Bill Munns and WRMP work. Funny how his response on Amazon gives several mostly very weak reasons why Bill Munns is wrong. Nowhere does he say "I have the confessions, I have seen the suit I know where it is. ". Is this some secret he wants to keep from those who read Amazon reviews but wants us to know on the BFF?

I will say when we see kits material on this Wally suit it will be helpful to the discussion. To anyone who has the confessions and has seen the suit, there would be nothing left to discuss.

Bill strikes me as a pretty smart person as does Kit. Therefore it is hard to believe if these discussions between the two were so intimate somehow Bill has not heard the confessions and seen evidence of the suit. Kit is indicating that he had such detailed discussions with Bill he doesn't even need to finish the other half of the bills seven-year effort in his book to know what Bill was going to say. Yet, we are to think nowhere would Kit say Bill, "let me settle this once and for all, i'm going to send you a file with the audio of these confessions."

BD

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Much of WRMP's content was previously available through the Munns Report, the rhi papers and elsewhere.

 

Bill released images of his 'costume test' and the naked painted ladies right here on this forum long before WRMP was printed.

 

Hence Kit's readiness to write a rebuttal.

 

This link contains Kit's review, as well as former member Tontar's review

http://www.amazon.com/When-Roger-Patty-William-Munns/product-reviews/1500534021/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_rgt?reviewerType=all_reviews&formatType=all_formats&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

S Y,

Excellent point.

We also could take that even further and Kit's answer to everything needs to be:

"I have the confessions and I have seen the suit." That answer should actually be the answer to nearly every question that comes up. It should be the answer for any rebuttal of Bill Munns and WRMP work. Funny how his response on Amazon gives several mostly very weak reasons why Bill Munns is wrong. Nowhere does he say "I have the confessions, I have seen the suit I know where it is. ". Is this some secret he wants to keep from those who read Amazon reviews but wants us to know on the BFF?

BD

 

 

That was a good observation of yours, Backdoc...when you first mentioned it. :)

 

kitakaze's failure to mention that he had located/seen "the Patty suit", and that he had three confessions", was a huge oversight on his part. 

 

 

 

 

I will say when we see kits material on this Wally suit it will be helpful to the discussion. To anyone who has the confessions and has seen the suit, there would be nothing left to discuss.

 

 

There is no need for any of the arguing/debating that kit is doing, at this point.  And neither is there any reason for him to be refusing to reveal details of his Bombshell claims. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

There's a thread about the bombshell.

 

Let's talk about Chris Walas' suit in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

The 'Walas Suit'.

  While the attempt is good, it still falls short.   

As noted by others, limb dimensions just do not work. 

The head is fixed on top and not forward

Forehead is to high when compared to a sagittal crest.

Size of the head is to large.

Still photos are great, but if he really is attempting a 'recreation' or to 'fool' everyone, it would be great to see it in video format.

 

Something Bill Munns had said several years ago, Posted 15 October 2010 - 07:58 PM

     "Problem is, one of the two men must be wrong. A suit can't be both waist drawstring and snap-crotch."  

and also  "Can't have Chris Walas and Bob H. both being right."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

There's a thread about the bombshell.

 

Let's talk about Chris Walas' suit in the meantime.

 

Someone should start a thread on the countless times McSquatch has went off topic when it suited him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...