Thoughts about Munns' Book When Roger Met Patty

Howie, when It comes to trucks I own both Dodge and Ford. Worst of both worlds.

The Haynes Manuals help me solve some of the great mysteries of these vehicles.
 
Northern Lights said:
Let me guess, the lack of citations in his book was the final straw. You were on the fence, couldn't decide whether to accept his conclusions or not and waited until the last page of the book to finally decide?
Click to expand...

Not the final straw, more like the cherry on top.
 
Northern Lights said:
Let me guess, the lack of citations in his book was the final straw. You were on the fence, couldn't decide whether to accept his conclusions or not and waited until the last page of the book to finally decide?
Click to expand...

No, nothing like that I assure you.

I've never been on the fence. Never believed in bigfoot.

Seems like I've misplaced my book at the moment, but I will explain later.
 
Squatchy McSquatch said:
No, nothing like that I assure you.

I've never been on the fence. Never believed in bigfoot.

Seems like I've misplaced my book at the moment, but I will explain later.
Click to expand...

So, basically you went in with your mind already made up. Am I correct is saying there is literally nothing Bill could have written that would have changed your mind?
 
NL, is there any new finding that would convince you that Bigfoot doesn't exist and that you never saw nor heard any Bigfoots? If so, what would that finding need to be?
 
The Shrike said:
Unless he wrote "I have a bigfoot and here it is" there is literally nothing anyone could write to change my mind.
Click to expand...
Hey, I have images of bigfoots that can change your mind! Send money and I'll show you them.

I need the money for my research! Cameras, drones, guns, beer...
 
William Parcher said:
NL, is there any new finding that would convince you that Bigfoot doesn't exist and that you never saw nor heard any Bigfoots? If so, what would that finding need to be?
Click to expand...

I can see answering this would completely derail this thread, so I'm going to copy your question and answer it in the follies thread.
 
Northern Lights said:
Okay, I stand corrected. What is Bill missing that would bring you over to the dark side?
Click to expand...


All of the proof of the hoax is what he's "missing". For instance, the impossible film developing timeline. The footprint evidence showing its a hoax. Bob Heironimus. The fact no bigfoot has ever been present to make a footprint, or movie might be relevant also. Things like; the foot as a ruler shows the creature to be under 6' tall.

A good investigator would be pursuing questions like, why has Heironimus been given a free pass to go on television and state he was the man in the suit without legal repercussions? Why was Patterson never able to show the original film to investigators or tell where it was developed? How come when Bob Gimlin states he filmed Roger patterson making the cast footage at bluff creek, Munns ignores this and calls it a "practice casting" and tosses it away? (hint, because the footage shows the whole thing to be a hoax) How about the suit imperfections like the bottom of the leg coming apart during the early walk sequence, or the shoulder pads visible under the suit, or "diaper butt". Munns is great at ignoring all of the things that show this to be a hoax, and great at promoting this as a real entity. I give him credit for cataloging and gathering some high quality scans of the film. However, his "analyzation" of the film is less than stellar. In fact it's flawed on many accounts.
 
NL Some in figbootery would say I've already embraced the dark side :)

I had a half day off the other day and took advantage of this site's archives. If you read the first PGF film thread Mar 2008 you will find Bill's debut to this site.

What was of interest to me was the interactions with DFoot, also (and currently) a Hollywood insider, and the lengths DF and others went through to explain the flaws in Munns' approach. Not to mention the flaws in the suit.

He didn't want to hear it and the rest is forum history.

It appears to me that Bill's conclusions were drawn long before his research was finished.

WRT the Citations: Book is still MIA in my studio, but I was referring to the part where Bill acknowledged that some people may take objection to the highly personalized style the book was written in. Don't mind if I do.

It's in the upper left of the passage. The paragraph where 'scholarly text' appears again.

What could Munns write that would convince me?

That would be like asking the Broncos to play by CFL rules.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom