Jump to content
Bill

Munns Research Status

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch

 

 

^

 

Logically, Mort...the lens on the camera wasn't a zoom lens. If it had been, Roger would have zoomed-in on Patty.

Unless... he didn't want to for some reason. Thanks for the info Bill!

 

 

 

But again, Mort...logically...if Roger didn't want to zoom-in on Patty...(i.e....the 'hoax' scenario)....he wouldn't have bothered changing-out the 25MM lens that was on the camera, for a Zoom lens. ;)

 

There is no need to invoke overly-complicated, nonsensical scenarios here....just because of some "technical possibility".  Instead, it's better to use some common sense logic. 

 

 

Also, another indicator that the lens on the camera was a prime/fixed lens...is the pre-Patty footage on the original reel. There is no zooming seen in that footage. If Roger had put a zoom lens on the camera...he most likely would have done some zooming-in, and out...of the scenery footage that he shot. 

 

 

Roger was an amateur running around unfettered in the late '60's with a bunch of interchangeable camera equipment.

 

Whatever he did fooled some at least one expert. although that 'expert' was admittedly a film student at the time. In 1967.

Edited by salubrious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bf2011HBMay

Best wishes to you and Mrs. Munns, Bill. Looking forward to your future endeavors re: The P/G Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Thank you Henry.

 

I did come across a curious thing today, not an earthshaking revelation, but might be useful for future analysis.

 

It seems Jim McClarin's first walk, which John Green filmed, Jim has a stride (two steps) during 18 frames, but on the second walk (filmed by someone unknown with a Bolex), Jim's stride takes 26 frames. It's consistant with John's Revere camera running at 16fps, and the bolex running at 24fps.

 

Might be useful in calculating the PGF camera speed, since Patty does one step in 11 frames and one stride in 21 or 22. Suggests (but is not conclusive) that the K-100 was running at 18fps. Needs more work, but I'd never looked at this before, so it was a nice little unexpected find.

 

New data always helps.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dlaw

Bill, appreciate your input here and also really liked your book.  Hope your legal issues are resolved in your favor.  Looking forward to  your next work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

dlaw:

 

Thank you. The Appeals court has scheduled their opinion to be released by June 1. I'll know then where I stand.

 

My next work will likely be a major step to assist other researchers in PGF analysis.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Do you know who was filming Roger during the cast pour sequence and /or the pack horse sequence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Gimlin's horse?      :crazy:

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Chico was an excellent camera horse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Actually it was Schrödinger's cat:

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Certainly silly questions deserve silly answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

To me the easiest Research which could be done is the suit.

 

A PGF SUIT CHALLENGE is the easiest way to get to the bottom of the PGF.  I applaud the other issues and they are essential. These include film/camera speed, walking speed, and height of the creature.  To a large extent I understand these set the parameters which define what a PGF suit must achieve.

 

I still think if you took some teams of suit guys and challenged them to achieve a suit, this would not only make great TV but it would do the best to advance the truth either way on the PGF.  If you could pick say 3-5 Hollywood- type guys or teams and challenge them to come up with a suit using 1967 materials, they either could achieve it or they could not.  Now we all know the conditions would have to be similar in that those suits would have to be at similar distances, lighting, and so on as the original PGF as best we could.  Each effort would be filmed by a experience cameraman using a K100 camera along with standard video.  We could compare the results.  Was the realistic look achieved?  You could even have a cheat segment where one team got to use any material or method- even if it was modern- to see if this could be achieved even today.

 

I understand this might not be as effective if we could not verify the height of Patty.  However if she was a man in a suit then obviously she has to be at some height where a person could achieve being the man in a suit. By definition, height is not as much of a consideration.  You might have everyone agree to have one tall trained mime walk like patty and wear all the suits to keep it consistent. You could put any parameters on it you might want.

 

This to me is the best "TV" related research. It may not be the kind of scientific research we all crave like DNA and other analysis, but it would be powerful anyway. 

 

That is the most 'sellable' direction of the PGF.  Ideal for the upcoming 50th with something like this:

 

"It's been 50 years, since this film was taken. Some say it is a real creature and some say it is a suit.  Tonight, we will once and for all determine if these 5 teams of Hollywood's best could make a suit which proves a hoax, or fail, and prove once and for all what you are seeing here....is something real!"

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Backdoc:

 

The idea has been pitched to numerous TV people, but nobody has shown any enthusiasm for it. It's hard to tell what TV executives want these days, but it seems that intelligent programs are not high on their list to back and produce.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

The sad part of media producers is that they are seldom deeply connected to the topic of the given effort.  However this is something that could perhaps be undertaken in an academic setting where effect students are assigned to make Patty costumes.  The biggest strike against the commercial media making Patty is the Morris Cow Camp monstrosity.  It is so bad that it is anything but professional in appearance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

unfortunately, the costs of doing it right are beyond any academic resource, and only a commercial venture which expects to market the project and generate media revenue to repay the costs, has any hope of properly funding such a project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celtic Raider

To me the easiest Research which could be done is the suit.

 

A PGF SUIT CHALLENGE is the easiest way to get to the bottom of the PGF.  I applaud the other issues and they are essential. These include film/camera speed, walking speed, and height of the creature.  To a large extent I understand these set the parameters which define what a PGF suit must achieve.

 

I still think if you took some teams of suit guys and challenged them to achieve a suit, this would not only make great TV but it would do the best to advance the truth either way on the PGF.  If you could pick say 3-5 Hollywood- type guys or teams and challenge them to come up with a suit using 1967 materials, they either could achieve it or they could not.  Now we all know the conditions would have to be similar in that those suits would have to be at similar distances, lighting, and so on as the original PGF as best we could.  Each effort would be filmed by a experience cameraman using a K100 camera along with standard video.  We could compare the results.  Was the realistic look achieved?  You could even have a cheat segment where one team got to use any material or method- even if it was modern- to see if this could be achieved even today.

 

I understand this might not be as effective if we could not verify the height of Patty.  However if she was a man in a suit then obviously she has to be at some height where a person could achieve being the man in a suit. By definition, height is not as much of a consideration.  You might have everyone agree to have one tall trained mime walk like patty and wear all the suits to keep it consistent. You could put any parameters on it you might want.

 

This to me is the best "TV" related research. It may not be the kind of scientific research we all crave like DNA and other analysis, but it would be powerful anyway. 

 

That is the most 'sellable' direction of the PGF.  Ideal for the upcoming 50th with something like this:

 

"It's been 50 years, since this film was taken. Some say it is a real creature and some say it is a suit.  Tonight, we will once and for all determine if these 5 teams of Hollywood's best could make a suit which proves a hoax, or fail, and prove once and for all what you are seeing here....is something real!"

 

BD

 

What a great idea! I think most of the posters here would love to see something like that whether they were a proponent or not

but as Bill has alluded to it may lack the sensationalism and 'over the top' theatrics that seem to be so de rigueur to the Discovery channel these days.

 

If such a programme was able to be created, would it actually change peoples perceptions though? I think it could have a genuine bearing on my position but I doubt many would be so swayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...