• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Thoughts about Munns' Book When Roger Met Patty

Howie Felterbush said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Sweaty Yeti always reminds me of ThinkerThunker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyQlTc-Rro
 
Last edited:
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Not only that, but the fact that there's images of Charles Gemora's ape-suits (featuring the very same type of "diaper" detail) that pre-date the PGF is a dead giveaway that Patty is a costume. Either Gemora was really perceptive in creating a feature than the #1 p4p Creature of Legend actually biologically has, or his own suits influenced whoever it was who made and/or modified the Patty suit.
Click to expand...

Lest we forget..


buttcomp_zpsc0657892.gif
 
C/P from Amazon customer review pages,

". . . As other reviewers have already noted, in this tome there is too much Munns and not enough intelligent discussion about the subject in the movie film."
Click to expand...
 
Just a quick question to all regarding this particular thread.

How many of you have actually read the book? Cover to cover and not the Amazon preview only.
 
Northern Lights said:
Just a quick question to all regarding this particular thread.

How many of you have actually read the book? Cover to cover and not the Amazon preview only.
Click to expand...

Well, you could've sent us all a copy to browse through, but apparently you only wanted to send copies to people who didn't have a Scooby-Doo about the whole subject. Go figure... Quick question for you, NL, are you really so daft as to think that us reading Bill's book is going to blow our minds? A book about a hoaxed film of a fictional creature written by a costume-maker who was notoriously bad at making costumes... Sounds thrilling!

What do you make of that picture that Greg posted, NL?
 
Last edited:
But it wouldn't be like a swim fin walk. The fins are much longer than fake Bigfoot feet and so you have a significantly different gait with those.

Also your gait will be different on sand as compared to any other surfaces. Attempted simulations of the Patty walk should never be done on anything other than sand and only with 14.5" flexible fake feet.
 
It's interesting that Munns is taking a lot of heat for featuring himself in his book, given that Bigfooters, and I believe Munns too, often criticized Greg Long for interjecting himself within his narrative of The Making of Bigfoot.
 
I wonder how Bill would feel when he finds out someone uploaded his book on P2P file sharing networks.
 
While this doesn't bear directly on Munns' book, and I've posted this elsewhere, it's worth another look. Loren Coleman sometimes stumbles and offers discrediting info and opinion on Bigfoot.

Here, the prognathism of Bigfoot, according to eyewitnesses, is contradicted by the Patterson film. When Patterson sketched for his book the sasquatch of the Ostman "encounter," he gave the animal a flat-face, contrary to Ostman's description and a drawing of it under Ostman's direction. In fact, Patterson's flat faced drawings contradicted Roe's description too, even though his film seems to be a reenactment of the Roe account.

Lo and behold, Patterson's Bigfoot as presented on film matches his flat faced Bigfoot as he drew it for his book and was different from "eyewitness accounts." Could this suggest that he already had his mask built even before his book was published and years before the Bluff Creek film?

http://www.cryptozoonews.com/bigfoot-face/
 
jerrywayne said:
Lo and behold, Patterson's Bigfoot as presented on film matches his flat faced Bigfoot as he drew it for his book and was different from "eyewitness accounts." Could this suggest that he already had his mask built even before his book was published and years before the Bluff Creek film?
Click to expand...
What is your opinion?
 
William Parcher said:
What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

There had to have been a reason Patterson broke with Bigfootery orthodoxy by portraying Bigfoot with a flat face.

He may have already conceived for practical reasons of a flat face for his film subject or created or attained a mask that lacked a pronounced face, and preempted his film with his drawings for his book.

It's also possible he thought of or conceived Bigfoot as human rather than ape, and therefore gave it a human like face. If you remember, Heironimus said Patterson told him to walk like a "caveman." This implies, to me anyway, that Patterson believed or conceived Bigfoot as a prehistoric human.

Also, I've always thought that Patterson's Bigfoot possessed the upturned bangs that Ostman claimed for his female Bigfoot. It looks almost like a severe protruding brow, but I'm thinking upturned bangs.

It is good to always remember this when addressing Patterson. The two most impressive, detailed "sightings" of Bigfoot known to Bigfoot enthusiasts at the time Patterson arrived on the scene were the Ostman and Roe stories. His film is a reenactment of the Roe story, and details of his creation suggest Ostman as well (if I'm right about the upturned bangs.)

Still, he gave his film subject and his sketches a flat face -- for the one or the two reasons I suggested above, imho.
 
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?
 
River said:
Good to see you posting wolftrax. That's an interesting theory about what could explain what we see. Without the original film, it is hard to be definitive about anything. I would disagree that this particular anomaly we're seeing in the film is an artifact though. I might have agreed if it was in just one frame, but this seems to "grow" from one frame to the next. (the size of the split/opening) However, I would submit that the bogus looking sideways knee joint, and diaper butt are probably more obvious signs of a suit. There are also other notable flaws IMHO but all of that stuff is subjective surely.
Click to expand...

Excellent film clips demonstrating the infamous "flap". I've stayed away from that point for a long time because I thought it might have been an anomaly caused by foreground obstructions, like WP has suggested. But the one set of frames that has the box and triangle markers pretty much buries any hope of the white flash being a foreground obstruction. Unless the prior frame has been doctored to add in the part of the foot that would have been similarly blocked by the foreground debris.

It's so clear that the foot sweeps right past where this obstruction is supposed to be, without any hint of interference. The side of the foot is clearly visible, but when the heel sweeps by that exact location, there is that big white flash. Not only is there that white flash, it is bordered on the left with black. What is the white, and what is the black? It sure doesn't look like a case of motion blur because nothing before or after seems to blur like that, in either foot. Not only that, it is sharp edged, not particularly blurry or smudged.

Plus, there's also that seemingly excessive amount of bare heel and achilles skin showing in the frame prior. As much as I have avoided thinking that this was a split in the costume, it sure does look exactly like a split in the costume fur. It could be a spit for any number of reasons, whether the costume foot was wrapped with fur during construction, like a spat, with the seam in the back. Were it glued on, as was extremely common then as now, that glue could have separated and allowed the seam to open up.

I don't think it would be a split in the leg of the suit. If anything, the pant leg of the suit would probably help keep the split in place and keep it from getting worse.

I'll have to check out other segments to see if there is any indication of it starting to happen earlier. But quite honesty, it really does look like yhe fabirc separating from the costume foot. I sure don't recall Patty having that much skin showing up the rear of her ankle anywhere else.
 
marlborough said:
I wonder how Bill would feel when he finds out someone uploaded his book on P2P file sharing networks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom