• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thoughts about Munns' Book When Roger Met Patty

Squatchy McSquatch

Thinker
S
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
198
Location
Canada
This thread is for the discussion of the recent book put out by Bill Munns regarding the Patterson-Gimlin Film of 1967. It is the purpose of the author, a former Hollywood fx artist, to demonstrate that the BigFooT looking creature we see is not a guy in a suit, but a living, breathing biological creature.

My copy was shipped to me around labour day weekend. I've had the chance to read it a couple of times and engage in discussions of the book in several forums :) and thought I would start a thread for it here.

Starting with the Table of Contents the chapter and title will be bolded, followed by Squatchy's initial kneejerk reaction; further analysis to follow:

Introduction argumentative, complains about skeptics almost immediately

Dedication doesn't this usually come before the intro?

CH1 Forget What You Think umm, how about no.

CH2 Just The Facts guy in a suit

CH3 Standing At The Intersection of Hollywood and Sasquatch sounds like a teen fiction paperback

CH4 The Creature Business 1985

CH5 Bluff Creek Where It Happened I'll go out on a limb and say Bluff Creek

CH6 How The Event Occurred Rog filmed a guy in a suit

CH7 Making an Ape Suit or making an even worse paddy suit

CH8 If the Subject Is A Creature Costume (sigh) it is

CH9 If the Subject Is Biologically Real As She Appears (sigh) she's not

CH10 The Swamp all the reasons it's a guy in a suit. ignored.

CH11 Conclusions guy in a suit

CH12 Loose Ends too late you already stated your conclusion

CH13 The Monster From the ID wtf???

CH14 Why Claims of a Hoax Will always fail (wilderwonka) yes, please tell me about the bigfoot(/wilderwonka)

CH15 Implications guy in a suit

Appendices 1-6 this is the meat and potatoes analysis, but I'm too filled up on junk food by this point. Basically his previous reports and papers with nothing new.

Author Contact and Resume An 8 page resume? really?

Citations this is where the author explains away his reasons for writing such a highly academic and scholarly text in the first person

Index okay, I didn't disagree with the index that much

Bibliography a bibliography is more detailed than listing the title and author. just sayin'
 
Last edited:
Squatchy McSquatch said:
This thread is for the discussion of the recent book put out by Bill Munns regarding the Patterson-Gimlin Film of 1967. It is the purpose of the author, a former Hollywood fx artist, to demonstrate that the BigFooT looking creature we see is not a guy in a suit, but a living, breathing biological creature.

My copy was shipped to me around labour day weekend. I've had the chance to read it a couple of times and engage in discussions of the book in several forums :) and thought I would start a thread for it here.
Click to expand...

Is it true that bigfoot appears as a bit player in the larger story of the Magnificence of Munns.
 
Squatchy McSquatch said:
This thread is for the discussion of the recent book put out by Bill Munns regarding the Patterson-Gimlin Film of 1967. It is the purpose of the author, a former Hollywood fx artist, to demonstrate that the BigFooT looking creature we see is not a guy in a suit, but a living, breathing biological creature.

My copy was shipped to me around labour day weekend. I've had the chance to read it a couple of times and engage in discussions of the book in several forums :) and thought I would start a thread for it here.

Starting with the Table of Contents the chapter and title will be bolded, followed by Squatchy's initial kneejerk reaction; further analysis to follow:

Introduction argumentative, complains about skeptics almost immediately

Dedication doesn't this usually come before the intro?

CH1 Forget What You Think umm, how about no.

CH2 Just The Facts guy in a suit

CH3 Standing At The Intersection of Hollywood and Sasquatch sounds like a teen fiction paperback

CH4 The Creature Business 1985

CH5 Bluff Creek Where It Happened I'll go out on a limb and say Bluff Creek

CH6 How The Event Occurred Rog filmed a guy in a suit

CH7 Making an Ape Suit or making an even worse paddy suit

CH8 If the Subject Is A Creature Costume (sigh) it is

CH9 If the Subject Is Biologically Real As She Appears (sigh) she's not

CH10 The Swamp all the reasons it's a guy in a suit. ignored.

CH11 Conclusions guy in a suit

CH12 Loose Ends too late you already stated your conclusion

CH13 The Monster From the ID wtf???

CH14 Why Claims of a Hoax Will always fail (wilderwonka) yes, please tell me about the bigfoot(/wilderwonka)

CH15 Implications guy in a suit

Appendices 1-6 this is the meat and potatoes analysis, but I'm too filled up on junk food by this point. Basically his previous reports and papers with nothing new.

Author Contact and Resume An 8 page resume? really?

Citations this is where the author explains away his reasons for writing such a highly academic and scholarly text in the first person

Index okay, I didn't disagree with the index that much

Bibliography a bibliography is more detailed than listing the title and author. just sayin'
Click to expand...

At least he is not so ignorant as to not be familiar with the classic Forbidden Planet - which has no Bigfoot/Sasquatches in it, though.
 
Last edited:
INTRODUCTION

Here is a brief summary of the Introduction:

-- Roger and Bob rounded a bend in the crik and filmed Paddy. Paddy wasn't a guy in a suit. Something something about Zapruder.

-- the skepitcal community was critical of Bill's analysis of the pgf [go figure, they're skeptics]. They "set forth on a mission to attack, discredit and personalize the person doing the analysis."

-- "Because this personalization has been so intense, this book much be as much a personal story of my efforts to centered on a path to real knowledge and understanding."

-- "a formidable legend to challenge, and can only be done so by a professional who actually designs and builds such costumes."


To paraphrase: Skeptics were mean to me so I'm going to get back at them by writing a highly-personalized-yet-scholarly-text that will make humanity re-define itself. This is a job for a costume designer.
 
Squatchy McSquatch said:
INTRODUCTION

Here is a brief summary of the Introduction:

-- Roger and Bob rounded a bend in the crik and filmed Paddy. Paddy wasn't a guy in a suit. Something something about Zapruder.

-- the skepitcal community was critical of Bill's analysis of the pgf [go figure, they're skeptics]. They "set forth on a mission to attack, discredit and personalize the person doing the analysis."

-- "Because this personalization has been so intense, this book much be as much a personal story of my efforts to centered on a path to real knowledge and understanding."

-- "a formidable legend to challenge, and can only be done so by a professional who actually designs and builds such costumes."


To paraphrase: Skeptics were mean to me so I'm going to get back at them by writing a highly-personalized-yet-scholarly-text that will make humanity re-define itself. This is a job for a costume designer.
Click to expand...


Anyone who has ever been fired knows the feeling of wanting to make those people eat their words but most of us get over it and get on with their lives, Bill has made a career of it.
 
Absolutely.

I was fired once in 2001. I moved on and took a job with a different company in the same field and never looked back.

I thought about writing a book about the experience, but figured a few beers was easier and less egotistical.

If I have energy left after band practice tonight I'll post my review of Chapter One.
 
HH: I'm not making this stuff up. Highly-personalized, scholarly text is mentioned throughout the book several times.

The redefining humanity thing is lifted straight from the back cover: "His film is authentic. Patty is something real. And humanity needs to be re-defined, to see if Patty is included or excluded."

Science. sweet. melodramatic. Science.
 
Last edited:
Ch1 Forget what you know

-- brief intro of the pgf players Rog, the Bobs, Mrs P

-- quick slam of the cinematography forum experience

-- acknowledges the processing timeline can be "infuriating", but hey, don't worry about that... because...

-- "for all these red flags, no one can actually explain the claimed hoax in a single coherent manner."p8 guy in a suit And...

-- "piled together all these 'deliberate acts' which were deceptively engineered to hide the hoax, we'd have a plan more complicated than anything the old Mission Impossible tv series ever devised." p10 not necessarily. why have to complicate things?

-- denies seeing muscle movement, she's just bulking up for the winter. yes, I've seen some bikini pics of Paddy from the previous summer and she was much hotter

-- brings up the Disney fallacy.

-- goes on about the lack of true scientific analysis of the film. Quotes books by John Greene and Dahinden. neither of whom are scientists.


At this point I'm a bit confused. According to the chapter title I'm supposed to forget what I already know. But the whole first chapter of the book is filled with stuff I already know. What am I supposed to forget, and what how long until the Science kicks in?
 
Last edited:
Ch1 Forget what you know

-- brief intro of the pgf players Rog, the Bobs, Mrs P

-- quick slam of the cinematography forum experience

-- acknowledges the processing timeline can be "infuriating", but hey, don't worry about that... because...

-- "for all these red flags, no one can actually explain the claimed hoax in a single coherent manner."p8 And... guy in a suit

-- "piled together all these 'deliberate acts' which were deceptively engineered to hide the hoax, we'd have a plan more complicated than anything the old Mission Impossible tv series ever devised." p10 not necessarily

-- denies seeing muscle movement, she's just bulking up for the winter. yes, I've seen some bikini pics of Paddy from the previous summer and she was much hotter

-- brings up the Disney fallacy.

-- goes on about the lack of true scientific analysis of the film. Goes on to quote books by John Greene and Dahinden. neither of them are scientists.


mods please remove double post thanks
 
Last edited:
I'd like for a moment to expand on the cinemaforum thing for a moment.

Member K Borowski responded: "none of what you are measuring can be ascertained without the original film and the knowledge of which lens was used.You will have to make assumptions that will invalidate any research you are doing to get past basic missing information.

I agree with this to the point I made it a sig line on another site. Seven or eight years later and Munns still has not filled in these 'placeholders' as he refers to them.

My criticism of Munns' work is just that. Criticism of his work. Work that I perceive as incomplete, innacurate and generally misguided in direction and premise. This is not an attack on the man himself. Some people just cannot take criticism.
 
Squatchy McSquatch said:
I'd like for a moment to expand on the cinemaforum thing for a moment.

Member K Borowski responded: "none of what you are measuring can be ascertained without the original film and the knowledge of which lens was used.You will have to make assumptions that will invalidate any research you are doing to get past basic missing information.

I agree with this to the point I made it a sig line on another site. Seven or eight years later and Munns still has not filled in these 'placeholders' as he refers to them.

My criticism of Munns' work is just that. Criticism of his work. Work that I perceive as incomplete, innacurate and generally misguided in direction and premise. This is not an attack on the man himself. Some people just cannot take criticism.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Misguided because Munns declares the PGF to be a living, breathing, biological being, and not, a guy in a suit.

This is horse pucky. Manure. Untruthitudes. Self deception and exactly why he will win BF'er of the year and you can pee on your side of the fence and I'll pee on my side.

But please, NL, always remember, it was a

Guy In A Suit.

I promise
 
Last edited:
Northern Lights, what are your thoughts on the Citations of WRMP? p486

I'm turning in after this one folks. Tomorrow I cite the Bible and Haynes Manuals.
 
Squatchy McSquatch said:
Northern Lights, what are your thoughts on the Citations of WRMP? p486

I'm turning in after this one folks. Tomorrow I cite the Bible and Haynes Manuals.
Click to expand...


NL can't get enough of that bollocks, he loves it so much that he's buying copies for non-footers. I hear that if he buys another, he gets the eleventeenth one half-price. Any takers? That being said, NL was probably one of the people who funded Bill's "ha'penny dreadful." Lest we forget that Big Bill, despite being the bestest at everything ever, ain't so great at paying for things by himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom