Astrophotographer:
"Long ago, I asked Bill in this forum if he could present his reasons why he thought it was not a man in a suit. He scolded me that this is not what he was doing and that he could not eliminate a man in a suit. "
I may not have had a full analysis at that time, but I have always stated that my primary focus is precisely to try and determine if the figure in the film is a suit or not, based on my knowledge and experience making suits and thus understanding what they look like in action when worn. You apparently misunderstood. I am not trying to prove Bigfoot is real, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything about the "backstory". I may be able to eliminate a suit, as a conclusion, maybe not, depending on how future studies and research go. If I can't absolutely and categorically rule out a suit at this time (or at the prior time you referenced), it is precisely because i want to be as thorough as i can.
"Are you stating that in another venue he is professing it is not a man in a suit? "
I have not offered any final conclusion yet, but I find far more indications Patty is not a suit than indications she may be.
"Recently, I pointed out to Munns some Flaws, I felt he had made in his figure comparing it to Aunt Bunny. He stated it was a work in progress and did not discuss it further. "
The "work in progress" is the comparative anatomy study, trying to fix a reliable estimation of the body and skeleton inside patty (human or otherwise). That is still in progress, yes. You did point out a thing or two which I have acknowledged would be factored into the next phase of the study.
"Either Munns is saying one story here and another someplace else in order to cater to the bigfoot crowd or you are misinterpreting what he said. "
I'm not saying anything to cater to any crowd. I'm expressing my thoughts and describing my studies as best I can. A few people on each side of the issues seem to misunderstand what I say or write. Offhand, I'd say those on the skeptical side of the fence have a higher propensity for misunderstanding me, based on my reading of their remarks.
Bill
For the record, here's my position on the subject, as much as I have determined thus far:
My primary concerns, about the figure in the film, are summarized as follows:
1. The back of the neck, before, during, and after the "look back" is a critical issue for a suit, and I have not found any indication of any of the unusual suit flaws that occur at the neck when the heads turns as much as we see on the film.
2. The head shape itself, as much as I have been able to determine thus far (and I'm still exploring how to define it more reliably) may possess a flattened cranial top that makes a human head inside unlikely, and I hope to refine this analysis to be more conclusive.
3. The Neck Hackle Shadow, which I only began to appreciate well into the analysis, may very well be a determining factor.
4. The torso contours I described in notes titled "Flab" remain a very serious concern in terms of my appraisal of a suit (despite the intended humor of the title).
5. The various shadowed lines across the hip, pelvis and right leg upper thigh do remain the strongest arguments I see suggestive of a suit, because I cannot identify natural biological hair patterns that specifically remind me of these shadow areas. But as curious as they are, I do not endorse the common analysis descriptions of padding, hip waders, and seams because I see discrepancies from frame to frame that are not suggestive to me of the continuous flaw indications a suit should have.
And a summary of the issues or concerns that I am confident about are as follows:
1. If it is a suit, it's definitely not a "cheap suit", as often stated by people trying to just dismiss the whole matter and intimidate those who disagree. If it is a suit, it represents elements of sophistication far beyond the norm for the time.
2. The "Roger could make the suit because he's a. . . (fill in your favorite noun, artist, saddlemaker, con man, or whatever)" idea is delusional and nothing I've seen in six months of study is even remotely supportive of that wishful thinking by many skeptics.
3. If the film is a hoaxed event with a human in a suit, I assume that professionals must have been involved in making the suit and working with it during the filming event, and any explanation that a hoaxed film event was done by three guys (including the one wearing the supposed suit) when none had any documented professional level filmmaking experience, such an explanation I would regard as delusional fantasy.
John Green said so. It came from my Green. Read Greeeen. 
