Thoughts about Munns' Book When Roger Met Patty

[William Parcher]

They were gleaned from the BFF 1.0.

Back in the days when you could see and download graphics without being a member.

ETA: they might look nice but they are crappy and overexposed copies compared to what would be the original.

 

[wolftrax]

Ok so we'll look at just the frame itself.

Here we can see that the entire image is a mess filled with motion blur. The left leg is really skinny, the arm blends into the body, the entire foot is dark instead of having a light sole (except for the heel), and Patty has an afro.

Let's make it a little more obvious. Compare the frame right before and after, playing slowly.

The frame is a mess. We can see the anatomy is all distorted and screwed up and it's unreliable. Look at the background too, and keep in mind Patterson is moving the camera while Patty is moving at the same time, so don't expect it to make too much sense. It's the kind of frame favored to base off of to make an inhuman shaped mask, or Trex size lower forearms, or a mouth moving and blabbering away or Groucho Marx wiggling eyebrows. And yeah that first frame with the foot outlined with a marker always bugged me, but you can compare the heel exposure on it to the "Split heel" frame.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm going to go back to not posting publicly now as I made a vow long ago and I only gave a brief resurface to respond to Tube and I've been biting my tongue on this heel split thing for awhile. I've spent enough time on this thing but I occasionally read this and the other forum. The other forum, it looks like in the Patterson threads that only the five or so of the most extreme and zealous ever post anymore and just repeat the same things over and over again. Like a crew on a sinking ship struggling to plug the holes and pretending everything is fine while the captain is drunk at the helm.

 

[Tontar]

They were gleaned from the BFF 1.0.

Back in the days when you could see and download graphics without being a member.

ETA: they might look nice but they are crappy and overexposed copies compared to what would be the original.

Who made the scans? How complete of a set do you have? I notice that whatever device the film was scanned on had junk all over it; the same artifacts show in frame after frame.

And ah yes, the original film. I wonder just how much better it really would have been. If maybe it wasn't as pristine as a lot of people seem to think. I figure that if it were a lot better quality, it could only do harm were it to be seen. The clearer the film, the better chance the flaws would be revealed.

 

[jerrywayne]

Do you think that his wife Patricia was proud of him for finally filming the mysterious creature and getting the money that they deserved for that accomplishment?

Was she in on it? Probably. I do not know enough about Mrs. Patterson to say whether or not she was proud of him for pulling it off to a limited degree.

 

[marlborough]

Ho ho! I just did a torrent search and saw it listed by someone called Nightmare. I guess that means it's getting to be a best seller, eh? Reminds me of when "The Jerk" got his name listed in the phone book.

I'm pretty sure all those who've elected to acquire Bill's book through non-retail avenues have already purchased it, but wanted to get a head start until their copy arrived in the mail.

Looks like the uploader "Nightmare" forgot to file Bill's book under fiction or fantasy.

 

[Cervelo]

"Paging Dr. Yeti...paging Dr. Sweaty Yeti..."

Ol' Sweaty could draw a bunch of lines on those pictures and prove it was Bigfoot.

I miss that guy...but, like marlborough, the PGF is what made me finally believe that my good buddy Bigfoot is just an imaginary friend. Just too much stuff that doesn't ring true.

Poor Dr. Sweaty just doesn't realize no matter how much he reads into it...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Who made the scans? How complete of a set do you have? I notice that whatever device the film was scanned on had junk all over it; the same artifacts show in frame after frame.

And ah yes, the original film. I wonder just how much better it really would have been. If maybe it wasn't as pristine as a lot of people seem to think. I figure that if it were a lot better quality, it could only do harm were it to be seen. The clearer the film, the better chance the flaws would be revealed.

The cibachromes are supposed to be as good as it gets..

 

[William Parcher]

Who made the scans? How complete of a set do you have? I notice that whatever device the film was scanned on had junk all over it; the same artifacts show in frame after frame.

And ah yes, the original film. I wonder just how much better it really would have been. If maybe it wasn't as pristine as a lot of people seem to think. I figure that if it were a lot better quality, it could only do harm were it to be seen. The clearer the film, the better chance the flaws would be revealed.

I don't know who made the scans. It's a gif that I posted and it's all here. Looks like 26 frames in the gif. I downloaded it from the BFF in 2008. I have no recollection of who posted it or if they were the one to scan it. It was probably Noll or Davis but I don't know.

I would think that the best stuff is held by Patricia Patterson and now Munns has scans of that. Maybe Green has good copies and also maybe the Dahinden estate.

 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I'm pretty sure all those who've elected to acquire Bill's book through non-retail avenues have already purchased it, but wanted to get a head start until their copy arrived in the mail.

Looks like the uploader "Nightmare" forgot to file Bill's book under fiction or fantasy.

As someone who bought WRMP I can't endorse the non-retail avenues of acquiring Bill's book;

But I would recommend it given today's technology

 

[haibut]

Ok so we'll look at just the frame itself.
[qimg]http://imageshack.com/a/img673/4569/j1H1TK.jpg[/qimg]

Here we can see that the entire image is a mess filled with motion blur. The left leg is really skinny, the arm blends into the body, the entire foot is dark instead of having a light sole (except for the heel), and Patty has an afro.
[qimg]http://imageshack.com/a/img538/4569/UxP8WX.jpg[/qimg]

Let's make it a little more obvious. Compare the frame right before and after, playing slowly.
[qimg]http://imageshack.com/a/img911/2535/j5bApN.gif[/qimg]

The frame is a mess. We can see the anatomy is all distorted and screwed up and it's unreliable. Look at the background too, and keep in mind Patterson is moving the camera while Patty is moving at the same time, so don't expect it to make too much sense. It's the kind of frame favored to base off of to make an inhuman shaped mask, or Trex size lower forearms, or a mouth moving and blabbering away or Groucho Marx wiggling eyebrows. And yeah that first frame with the foot outlined with a marker always bugged me, but you can compare the heel exposure on it to the "Split heel" frame.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm going to go back to not posting publicly now as I made a vow long ago and I only gave a brief resurface to respond to Tube and I've been biting my tongue on this heel split thing for awhile. I've spent enough time on this thing but I occasionally read this and the other forum. The other forum, it looks like in the Patterson threads that only the five or so of the most extreme and zealous ever post anymore and just repeat the same things over and over again. Like a crew on a sinking ship struggling to plug the holes and pretending everything is fine while the captain is drunk at the helm.

I've refrained from commenting on ANY of the bigfoot stuff for years because it's just so... silly. But looking at that - it's obviously not a real animal, just from the way it moves, apart from anything else. It just does not seem even remotely realistic. And yet some people want to believe it.WHY?

 

[EHocking]

As someone who bought WRMP I can't endorse the non-retail avenues of acquiring Bill's book;

But I would recommend it given today's technology

I downloaded a sampler for Kindle - after skimming the first few pages trying to find content rather than self promoting fluff - I deleted the sample without finishing.

If the first few pages are anything to go by even a free download of the book is a waste of money IMO

 

[marlborough]

Ho ho! I just did a torrent search and saw it listed by someone called Nightmare. I guess that means it's getting to be a best seller, eh?

According to torrent stats, it was uploaded on Sept 10th, last year. So far, it's been snatched 9 times.

 

[Northern Lights]

According to torrent stats, it was uploaded on Sept 10th, last year. So far, it's been snatched 9 times.

The concept that it's "okay" to do this is really unfortunate, not just in this instance but across the board. How is this any different than walking into a store and walking out with a hard copy without paying?

 

[William Parcher]

How is this any different than walking into a store and walking out with a hard copy without paying?

Think about the difference and get back to us.

 

[Correa Neto]

Hey, what are the similarities between promoting and selling a fake product and shoplifting?

 

[William Parcher]

Here is Green and McClarin looking at where Patty walked. You can see that the ground isn't flat and there is all kinds of stuff laying around.

This image is still overexposed but you can begin to see what is really there on the ground as you approach proper exposure.

I'm fully confident that the "heel flap" is caused by material debris on the ground between the lens and the foot.

 

[marlborough]

How is this any different than walking into a store and walking out with a hard copy without paying?

After reading the first few pages of a hard copy you just pinched from your local bookstore and realizing the book is literally 508 pages of "BASK IN THE GLORY THAT IS BILL MUNNS", you'd at least have some secondary uses for the book. Bird cage lining or shredding it for kitty litter come to mind.

But if you downloaded it illegally, that 20Mb of bandwidth is gone forever with nothing to show for the effort.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'm sure this has already been posted and laughed at accordingly, but I've only just read it:

"Mr Munns puts this whole 47 year old saga to rest in my opinion he asks a very straight forward question "is this a man in a monkey suit or a real creature".The book itself explains about the technology available in 1967 to make a monkey suit but is explained in very simple way so is the use of a 1967 cinecamera .Mr Munns deals in facts not in hearsay or second hand gossip and does concede the "back story" regarding this film can cause people to be sceptical about the
film I personally think the backstory actually strengthens this films authenticity .If you want the
honest opinion of a very honest man who has spent nearly 50 years in the special effects business then buy this book."

It's like one longwinded oxymoron, written by a moron, about a moron, for morons. I couldn't get through any of the other reviews, they were far too embarrassing. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill wrote all of those reviews himself whilst crying.

 

[stanfr]

I've refrained from commenting on ANY of the bigfoot stuff for years because it's just so... silly. But looking at that - it's obviously not a real animal, just from the way it moves, apart from anything else. It just does not seem even remotely realistic. And yet some people want to believe it.WHY?

I think mainly because it's the best hoax that has been done. Hoaxing is as much an art form as a science, so you don't really need technology to do it well. Show me a BF film that looks cooler than the PGF...i double dare you. You may perceive it as 'not even remotely realistic' but if it were as bad as many would claim, there wouldn't be so much ink wasted debating it's authenticity.

 

[Correa Neto]

Sorry, but I disagree.

The PGF is actually better described as a hoax fiercely defended by a small group of people; this group is composed by bigfoot enthusiasts, snake bigfoot oil sellers, hoaxers and nutcases.

Regions hold the title of best hoax ever.
Check Jesus’ tale, for example…