Thoughts about Munns' Book When Roger Met Patty

[William Parcher]

I'm certain we argued about this before and the anomaly was more obvious...

Well, I can't seem to find the exact stills or animation that I seem to be remembering (misremembering)...

I can assure you that this is the first time that this has been argued in this forum. I had never even heard of the claim that the costume is falling apart with a flap hanging off the heel until River said it a few days ago.

I think that maybe what you are recalling is what starts here at post #6160 and continues over a good number of pages following. But it is directly related to the topic now being discussed because it deals with the illusions that can be created by overexposed debris/stuff/etc. that comes between the lens and Patty. It was a claim of a visible mid-tarsal break, but it was actually an overexposed stick/branch between the lens and the underside of the foot giving the illusion of a strangely bent foot.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm having trouble following this one!
Is someone arguing that Patty is real?

LOL. In this thread, it's only Northern Lights who argues that Patty is real.

 

[River]

I can assure you that this is the first time that this has been argued in this forum. I had never even heard of the claim that the costume is falling apart with a flap hanging off the heel until River said it a few days ago.

I think that maybe what you are recalling is what starts here at post #6160 and continues over a good number of pages following. But it is directly related to the topic now being discussed because it deals with the illusions that can be created by overexposed debris/stuff/etc. that comes between the lens and Patty. It was a claim of a visible mid-tarsal break, but it was actually an overexposed stick/branch between the lens and the underside of the foot giving the illusion of a strangely bent foot.

It is the suit coming apart at the heel. Not "debris/stuff/etc".

How do you think Patterson dealt with the whole "stovepipe" legs? Of course there had to be some type of alteration on a suit to bring the bottom of the legs to a taper. This is where the suit fails, and starts to come apart. He may have done this by simply slicing the fur costume, and pulling it together over the hip waders underneath to make it fit more tight.

However, it is not any debris, or other objects in between the camera and subject as WP keeps trying to insist. (and fails) If it were, it would be also "blocking" the view of the left foot as it passes by the exact same spot as demonstrated in my post here. It is the suit coming apart.

 

[Nakani]

This suit was made by the man who fooled the greatest costume designer in the world. I don't think he would leave a dangley flap. Common River!!

 

[GT/CS]

Here is MK's take on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgd9kOkFj78

 

[LTC8K6]

I can assure you that this is the first time that this has been argued in this forum. I had never even heard of the claim that the costume is falling apart with a flap hanging off the heel until River said it a few days ago.

I think that maybe what you are recalling is what starts here at post #6160 and continues over a good number of pages following. But it is directly related to the topic now being discussed because it deals with the illusions that can be created by overexposed debris/stuff/etc. that comes between the lens and Patty. It was a claim of a visible mid-tarsal break, but it was actually an overexposed stick/branch between the lens and the underside of the foot giving the illusion of a strangely bent foot.

Good times...

Leroy, what sort of dumb cluck film editors did they have back then?

I don't know jack about making a film like the PGF, I can point the camera and hit the button, but I do know that I can't have Patty doing the cha-cha when I'm done editing...Roger certainly knew that as well...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Don't forget the pages of discussion about the calf muscle flexing and the fingers bending...

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Incomplete, yes. He said so himself. Why is this an issue? He is working through to the best of his ability, far from the site and limited with what is available.

Innacurate (sic), how? Please explain.

Misguided, how? Please explain.

Tactically it is better to put the opponent on the defensive, yes.

In this theater of the absurd, the least credible person in the room acts as prosecuting attorney for the two bit con artist Munns.

I don't peddle sophomoric, unedited, unreviewed slop as "scholarly". The fact you refuse to acknowledge this tells us what kind of deceit you are working from.

We don't have to play the Alternate Reality Game with you. Words do not mean the opposite of their definitions at this forum. It is not a scholarly piece - so laughably not scholarly that to fail acknowledging so is Bigfoot Live Action Alternate Reality Gaming. BLAARGing.

When you use the word "expedition", that means Alternate Reality Gaming. It is not an expedition. You know that it isn't, but you wish to pretend. Another poster tried to paint this as harmless fun by calling it Legend Tripping.

But Legend Tripping does not explain all of the underhanded manipulative behavior. Like abusing the English language so brazenly on a Skeptic site. It's the Big Lie tactic: a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

But the prize is duper's delight. Having us take you seriously is delightful. Obviously, you are not a moron. So you know this is not a scholarly work. You know it is so far from scholarly that you would not be asking the questions above if they were sincere.

So what are you doing? BLAARGing. The entire premise was absurd here: you pretended that a review of the Munns book by someone to your liking would be significant somehow. In regards to the existence of a 9 foot tall nonexistent fantasy figure, of very recent vintage in comparison to comparables like unicorns, bridge trolls & etc.

We don't have to leave our senses, no.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think you will have to admit that Munns is indeed working to the best of his ability, and carrying it off pretty well in some circles.

 

[Resume]

I think you will have to admit that Munns is indeed working to the best of his ability, and carrying it off pretty well in some circles.

Those are some circles all right.

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #399,076 in Books

For those keeping track.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I bet I've looked at those GIFs a thousand times, and unless a "booth review" shows a clear/convincing error, I'm with River on this. It's not in HD, and it's in only a few frames, but I'll be damned if there's not some kind of flap(s) there. And beyond that obvious visual, there's three other interesting aspects I'd call unique to that context: It's absolutely in a location where such a flap could be expected for a suit/costume/overwear. The shape of the (void created by the) flap mimics what you'd expect an unzipped 6" long ankle cuff flap to create. And it occurs at the precise moment in time such a flap should (theoretically) be capable of "flapping", having been pressed to the heel by the acceleration of the leg lift, as the foot starts to go forward the "wind" catches it and POOF, flight.

The funniest part of all this, even going back to 1968, is the PGF was often described as "surely a hoax, but they've not found the zipper yet." It's also been said that the irrefutable proof of its hoax would be found within the film itself (as opposed to confession etc.).

Found it!

 

[William Parcher]

Ridiculous. It is the suit coming apart at the heel. You can see it start to pull apart in the frame just before as well. (in a completely different ground location) Sorry WP. Fail!

Can you show this, please? I do like circles and arrows used to point out what you are talking about.

How do you think Patterson dealt with the whole "stovepipe" legs?

Which stovepipe legs are you talking about?

Of course there had to be some type of alteration on a suit

What suit did Patterson need to alter?

to bring the bottom of the legs to a taper.

The ankles appear to be small black tree trunks. A taper from what to what?

You seems to be full of facts which you might need to explain to me in order for me to understand what is on your mind.

I bet I've looked at those GIFs a thousand times, and unless a "booth review" shows a clear/convincing error, I'm with River on this.

So, are your chips out there for the taking too?

 

[River]

Can you show this, please? I do like circles and arrows used to point out what you are talking about.


Which stovepipe legs are you talking about?


What suit did Patterson need to alter?


The ankles appear to be small black tree trunks. A taper from what to what?

You seems to be full of facts which you might need to explain to me in order for me to understand what is on your mind.



So, are your chips out there for the taking too?

If you need arrows deluxe, you can refer to this post again. I used to enjoy your posts, but lately you seem enjoy the battle more than the outcome. I'm sorry your theory was wrong, but it still is. No amount of arguing this point will make something magically appear between the camera and subject.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think you can see and not see all sorts of stuff in the noise and blur and blending.

Let's remember how small Patty is in the frame, and the limits of resolution.

 

[The Shrike]

If you need arrows deluxe, you can refer to this post again.

Okay, I'm watching the middle gif. I agree that if the "flap" was something in the foreground obscuring the outline of the right leg then we should see some evidence of it obscuring the left leg. I don't see the left leg obscured at that point so I don't think the flap is as easily explained as something in the foreground.

That said, as the right leg swings forward, there is a sequence of three frames in which the flap appears, disappears, and reappears. It's that middle frame in which the flap disappears that doesn't jibe with a suit malfunction. The movement is way too quick, and there's no reason for the flap to flare out, reattach to the leg, and flare out again as the leg is continuing through its forward motion in those three frames.

In sum, I'm pretty well convinced that it's not foreground material creating the effect, but I'm not at all convinced that it's a literal flap of material on the suit itself.

 

[William Parcher]

Okay, I'm watching the middle gif. I agree that if the "flap" was something in the foreground obscuring the outline of the right leg then we should see some evidence of it obscuring the left leg. I don't see the left leg obscured at that point so I don't think the flap is as easily explained as something in the foreground.

.......

In sum, I'm pretty well convinced that it's not foreground material creating the effect, but I'm not at all convinced that it's a literal flap of material on the suit itself.

Shrike, the foreground material is not "the flap". This material creates the illusion of a flap by blocking your view of the sole and it has a shape that extends upwards so far that it extends into the ankle area. This material essentially causes an illusion of the ankle area being split with the back portion resembling a flap. That is not a costume flap - it is the back portion of the ankle.

The "flap" is black (because it is hair-covered). The foreground material is white (because it is greatly overexposed).

Here again is my card #2 where you will see that I have outlined the approximate shape of the foreground material in blue.

I hope that I explained that well enough to be understood.

 

[Cervelo]

So you guys are arguing over....the crappy details of a crappy film made by a dude making a bigfoot film?

 

[tsig]

So you guys are arguing over....the crappy details of a crappy film made by a dude making a bigfoot film?

I blame boredom.

 

[Cervelo]

I guess this is the fate of Banned BFF members (myself included) LOL!

 

[William Parcher]

The BFF doesn't ban anyone who isn't a BFF member (myself included).