Bigfoot PG Film The Munns report

[Tyinhell]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Bottom line is that based on the shot we see and a crude comparision with Green who has a known lens- the lens used to fit the PGF was the 25mm class. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

And people couldn't clearly see Munns was trying to make the question of what lens Green used a dead end?

In my opinion it was obvious Bill lied his ass off about having previous knowledge that Green had no idea what camera he used to film McClarin with.

Then he claims to have e-mailed Green the same day LAL did ? What, to cover himself ?

The whole crux of his analysis is lens size, he used the McClarin frame in his report to compare with Patterson's film and he never thought till then to ask Green directly what camera he used? ********.

[Skeptical Greg]

Particularly when Munns had an inside line to Green..

Are we supposed to believe he spent all that time with him, and didn't nail down
the camera Green used ?

It really doesn't make sense, why he thought anyone would ever buy the 15mm lens..
It seems more and more like a Kamikaze mission ..

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tyinhell

And people couldn't clearly see Munns was trying to make the question of what lens Green used a dead end?

In my opinion it was obvious Bill lied his ass off about having previous knowledge that Green had no idea what camera he used to film McClarin with.

Then he claims to have e-mailed Green the same day LAL did ? What, to cover himself ?

The whole crux of his analysis is lens size, he used the McClarin frame in his report to compare with Patterson's film and he never thought till then to ask Green directly what camera he used? ********.

Nobody questioned the lens but Munns.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Tyinhell

And people couldn't clearly see Munns was trying to make the question of what lens Green used a dead end?

In my opinion it was obvious Bill lied his ass off about having previous knowledge that Green had no idea what camera he used to film McClarin with.

Then he claims to have e-mailed Green the same day LAL did ? What, to cover himself ?

The whole crux of his analysis is lens size, he used the McClarin frame in his report to compare with Patterson's film and he never thought till then to ask Green directly what camera he used? ********.

It goes much deeper than that actually. Just my deductions based on observations here- its easy to see what Bill wanted and intended to do.

I find it funny that just now they are beginning to realize everything I have said from the beginning on why the PGF cannot be measured accurately.

The distances are not known

Lens and camera internals not known

and so forth

Its come full circle

Its also clear Bill just "custom created" some methodology to come up and defend an agenda based measurement of Patty. It seems like that even the masses are starting to see thru it and not buying it

[Tyinhell]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

It goes much deeper than that actually. Just my deductions based on observations here- its easy to see what Bill wanted and intended to do.

Well I guess he at least accomplished one thing. Monster Quest declared his analysis a slam dunk.

At the end of the show they summed up Munns' lens anaysis as this;

Word for word.

"The team uncovered a likely mistake in earlier analysis of the famed Patterson film shot in 1967.

A new analysis taking the correct lens parameters into account proves the creature to be of larger size than that of a human.

This makes it unlikely that it could have been hoaxed with someone wearing a suit."

I wonder if he's embarrassed or proud ?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Tyinhell

Well I guess he at least accomplished one thing. Monster Quest declared his analysis a slam dunk.

At the end of the show they summed up Munns' lens anaysis as this;

Word for word.

"The team uncovered a likely mistake in earlier analysis of the famed Patterson film shot in 1967.

A new analysis taking the correct lens parameters into account proves the creature to be of larger size than that of a human.

This makes it unlikely that it could have been hoaxed with someone wearing a suit."

I wonder if he's embarrassed or proud ?

That raises another question

I know the BF community is like every other and is varied from clear thinking types down to radicals- they are made up of humans like every other group. I know they want to see bigfoot proven and acknowledged. ( hell, so would I)

After seeing how several of the ignorant have been defending the Munns "whatever"- do they realize the damage they are inflicting on themselves with this poor excuse for science and then heralding it as "proof"?

Dr Atlantis and his show pretty much drove a stake in the true DNA evidence

Bill pretty much drove a stake in his own report ( and they are promoting it)- a first year engineering student could have shot it down.

They dont see or grasp that trying to pass this kind of crap off as legitimate science ( much less proof) is what makes them the laughing stock of the world?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

That raises another question

I know the BF community is like every other and is varied from clear thinking types down to radicals- they are made up of humans like every other group. I know they want to see bigfoot proven and acknowledged. ( hell, so would I)

After seeing how several of the ignorant have been defending the Munns "whatever"- do they realize the damage they are inflicting on themselves with this poor excuse for science and then heralding it as "proof"?

Dr Atlantis and his show pretty much drove a stake in the true DNA evidence

Bill pretty much drove a stake in his own report ( and they are promoting it)- a first year engineering student could have shot it down.

They dont see or grasp that trying to pass this kind of crap off as legitimate science ( much less proof) is what makes them the laughing stock of the world?

This is jsut my opinion, but I have remarked through the years that for a believer (as in Faith in bigfoot existence, faith in OU,/free energy , faith in UFO=Alien , faith in homeopathy you get my drift) it does not matter if a subsequent report is shot down. On the moment their joy of getting what they see as a proof submerge all possible rationality from them, sometimes often enhance or confirm them in their faith. If later the report/proof is shot down, they get a slight bit disappointed , but will rationalize out as a non event, and the faith confirmation/nehancement wills till stays.

It is not so much as really getting bigfoot recognized, it is primary MUCH more about to have their personal faith comforted/confirmed/enhanced. Bgifoot being recognized is really secondary to the strengthening of their faith.

Rince and repeat ad nauseam about all the belief I cited above. Same mechanism.

[Skeptical Greg]

Munns needed Patty to be 7'4"

15mm lens = 7' 4"

Bigfoot Science a' la Munns ...

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Tyinhell

Well I guess he at least accomplished one thing. Monster Quest declared his analysis a slam dunk.

And many on BFF declared the MQ episode to be a success...


MQ-Critical Evidence thumbs-up reviews on BFF:

Quote:

Bill - Nice work on the MQ episode!

Quote:

Yep, one of the better episodes.

Quote:

Good show. It tried to be balanced but Munns and Meldrum broke the scale, IMO. I pass on most MQ shows, but I'll buy the whole season just for this one.

Quote:

Ain't is great to have a cool show like that, And may i add some of the guests right here on our forum. Ya i might be hamming it up but it is cool ain't it

Quote:

wonderful new sasquatch segment ill be watching it again at 1am tonight.

Quote:

Just watched this episode and IMO it's the best one to date. It had a lot of good information for a newbie like myself.

Quote:

Bill, a fine, credible showing of all you've tried to disseminate amongst us, here. Thanks, and congratulations on an excellent appearance on MQ. One of the best MQ episodes to date.

Quote:

I thought Bill's presentation was great and it was nice to see it in an animated form as opposed to static photos.

Quote:

I thought the show was great especially Bill's work on the PGF. From what I had seen and read previously I knew it must be tedious, but the MQ episode showed that what Bill was involved in was downright painstaking. Thank you Bill for all your hard work!

Quote:

Great MQ episode last night.

Quote:

thought it was one of the better MQ's last night as a lot of others thought.

Quote:

Thank you for all your hard work and attention to detail with your analysis of the PG film.

Quote:

One of the better MQ episodes. Good eyewitness accounts with MULTIPLE witnesses. Good scientific data on the castings and "cripple foot". Enhanced visual clarity on the PGF, good stuff!

Quote:

Last night's MonsterQuest was interesting. It appears that Bill Munns successfully rejected the skeptics' null hypothesis that Patty is a guy in a suit. With what alternative hypothesis will the skeptics replace their now-defunct null?

Quote:

It was a good one... however... I sort of question something that was said at the beginning about chest beating being a common thing.

Quote:

I'm thinking this week's episode of MonsterQuest will almost certainly be nominated for an Emmy.

Quote:

As a ratings based program it was as good as it gets. The witnesses were compelling and believable.

[Drewbot]

What is this? A sidestep? Which lens did Bill Munns assume Roger used when he did his mockup mask filming? You'd think that he'd assume 15mm since that is what his study is all about. But, on Monsterquest he is showing how human heads can't fit inside Patty's head, so does he use the assumption that Roger Patterson used a 25mm, so it would make Patty's head smaller?

Originally Posted by Drew @ BFF

Bill- Why did you film the 5 masks at 60' instead of 102 feet. And did you use the 25mm lens for this filming or the 15mm lens?

Originally Posted by Bill Munns @ BFF

The goal was to get the heads I made on film to be the same image size when photographed as Patty's head appears (in actual image size on film for the look back) so the image size to grain structure was proximate, and so the potential for grain structure influencing apparent head shape was similar.

So based on my heads measured size, a lens and distance were computed to produce an image size proximating the PGF head image size.

Bill

So, now I'm wondering which Patty he is comparing his masks to. Did he assume Roger was using the 15mm lens, or did he use the 25mm lens? Since his point was to make it seem a human head couldn't fit, I assumed he used the 25mm assumption, because Patty's head would be smaller, and more dramatic on Monsterquest.

Originally Posted by Drew @ BFF

OK, thanks Bill,
Was that based on the head image size using the 15mm or the 25mm theorized lens size?

Originally Posted by Bill Munns @ BFF

No offense, but you do not understand photography. To film something you balance variables, based on your goal.

In the head test case, my goal was to film my test head to be the same size, in the frame image, as the head appears in the PGF look back, so image size to film grain size is proximated.

With that specific goal, lens focal length and distance are simply two inverse variables. If you use a shorter distance, you need a wider lens. If you use a longer distance, you need a narrower lens. You balance one variable against the other to achieve the goal, getting the test head to appear in frame the same size as the PGF head. Either a 15mm or 25mm could have been used, with an appropriate distance set for that lens. I chose one lens, and adjusted the distance accordingly, to achieve the stated goal.

I don't think he answered me on this, but he tried to make me look stupid!

So of course I try to clarify the question for him.

Originally Posted by Drew @ BFF

Bill- I don't understand photography as much as you do. But I do know that Patty's head is different size in relation to the frame size depending on whether ROGER used a 25mm lens or a 15mm lens.

This is what I am referring to. Did you set up your experiment assuming ROGER used a 25mm lens or a 15mm lens?

And... an addendum to try and clear up what I am trying to get from Bill Munns:

Originally Posted by Drew @ BFF

Assuming for the sake of Argument that Bill is correct about the 15mm lens.

Then PATTY is 7'4" tall, and a freaking huge monster beheomoth with a head that is proportional to this huge size. Correct?

If this is the case, then why did Bill have to show the gorilla mask not fitting on his head?

If Patty's head was so freakin' BIG, then fitting a person's head in the mask wouldn't be a problem.


BILL- Did you scale the mask up in corellation with your belief that PATTY was really 7'4" tall?

This is why I asked you earlier if you compared your 5 mock up heads with the 15mm theorized Roger Patterson footage, or with the generally accepted 25mm Roger Patterson footage.

If it was shot on 15mm then there wouldn't be a question if a human head could fit in it right? The head would be huge.

So I ask once more...

Originally Posted by Drew @ BFF

Hi Bill- any answer on this?

Some cover fire is laid down...

Originally Posted by Gigantophithicus Cadensis @ BFF

Drew,

Given what you know of Bill's work on the PGF, which lens do you think he assumed Patterson used for setting up his experiment?

G. canadensis

So I try to make it even clearer

Quote:

I would assume that he would assume that Roger Patterson used a 15mm lens.

BUT!!

If that was the case, Patty's head would be HUGE, and there wouldn't be a problem fitting a human head into the mask.

Since he had a problem fitting the head into the mask, I would therefore conclude that he used 25mm as the lens assumption. Which tells me that he goofed, or he intentionally did it to offer the head-not-fitting argument on Monsterquest. Either way, I'm just asking for full disclosure on that. Of course, an answer from Bill would put it to rest!

I'd better ask G.C. for his opinion:

Originally Posted by Drew @ BFF

GC
I gave you my reasoning above, now what lens do you think he assumed Patterson used?

Anyway, still waiting for an answer... Anyone have any theories?

Thread is found here http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...3&st=0&start=0

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Anyone have any theories?

Bill Munns and MonsterQuest are Hollywood.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I don't think he answered me on this, but he tried to make me look stupid!

He answered you but with a strawman answer that deliberately ignored your question but answered his

Its one of those 2+2= green answers we used to call them

Paraphrased, your question was: The size the MQ heads you built were built to the scale of the head in the 25mm version or 15mm version of your project.

Obviously for Bill to make the claim a head would fit but be hard to see implies a dimension that would make it so- no brainer so where did that "dimension" come from?

Bill completely sidestepped that entire question and gave a blurb regarding equalization where the head would be the same size in both depending on the distance from the camera ( which is true)

Thats what he said here

>>>In the head test case, my goal was to film my test head to be the same size, in the frame image, as the head appears in the PGF look back, so image size to film grain size is proximated.

With that specific goal, lens focal length and distance are simply two inverse variables. If you use a shorter distance, you need a wider lens. If you use a longer distance, you need a narrower lens. You balance one variable against the other to achieve the goal, getting the test head to appear in frame the same size as the PGF head. Either a 15mm or 25mm could have been used, with an appropriate distance set for that lens. I chose one lens, and adjusted the distance accordingly, to achieve the stated goal.

Bill doesnt want to answer direct specific questions. He likes to invoke the 5th a lot.

He knows he is pulling a Dfoot and he knows ( now anyway) that there are many of us here who can expose it.

I've noticed a pattern in his answers being evasive, refusing to answer or giving a non answer than I look at the questions he is asking on the cine board.

[jnelso99]

Possibly a stupid idea, but I think I saw a K-100 camera for sale on eBay. Would there be any use buying it (not necessarily me, but it was $50 or so when I last looked a few days ago) and dissecting it to get any measurements needed to do a proper simulation/render/whatever?

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

Judging from the fact that you used a color picture of Varan, I'd say this was a publicity picture for "Destroy All Monsters." This is important because page 148 of Steve Ryfle's book, Japan's favorite mon-star notes:



To complicate matters further, there's an old issue of "G-Fan" with pictures of a promotional "Destroy All Monsters" display at a Japanese department store using costumes/props from the film, including Varan. I don't know if the Varan pictured there is the "small-scale prop" mentioned above, a different prop, or a costume made especially for the display. It's possible that the original Varan costume had a similar feature, but it's been a long time since I've seen that movie and can't say for sure. Similarly, I don't have easy access to the box with my old magazines in it, so I'm not able to look for that issue of "G-Fan" at this time.

Just to be on the safe, I'm going to assume that's a prop. However, I think your idea of checking kaiju suits to possibly use against the "short lower leg" argument could prove useful. I was going to comment on how many of the people inside such costumes are presumably in the 5 foot range could weaken the argument since Mr. Munns was focusing on such a feature on a larger person, then I remembered that several of these costumes were larger than the performers in them.

DUH! I just assumed they did just like at some Ultraman episodes- hanged the costume with wires... Seems Bill is not the only one who assumes things wrongly!

Kaiju costumes are a great source for costume research. In many cases, given the way those movies were shot, we can clearly see how they were built and the tricks they used. Not to mention that anything (materials and tech) used to build a Kaiju costume would be readilly available for anyone building a Patty costume.

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

...snip...I suspect (but am not sure) that the short legs effect was accomplished by "dropping the crotch" of the costume. Shots or footage of Rodan walking and bending its knees would be helpful in supporting or debunking this.

Oh yep, the crotch was dropped. Now, when it comes to Patty, we already know the problems regarding locating it's joints.

Much of what is claimed by PGF proponents regarding Patty's alleged realism (proportions, bluging muscles, hair density, moving mouth, etc.) and required high-end tech to create it boils down to:
1. The alleged feature can not actually be seen clearly, its mostly a matter of perception;
2. There are examples of the alleged feature being shown at older creature costumes and quite often they are not high-end.

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

Excellent comparison. Sadly, I bet that the fact that 70's Kong doesn't look exactly like a real gorilla will distract people from seeing how much better he looks than Patty.

Ah yeah, for sure. Crow, for example, commented that the white in Kong's eyes were a dead giweaway. [insert f-word here], can you see Patty's eyes? Does anyone knows how Patty's eyes looked like? Like BH's, maybe?

As always, footer myopia avoids them to see that 1976 Kong was not created by the film makers as a realistic gorilla. They wanted something more dramatic (in their views). Its a [insert f-word here]ing bipedal! Ages ago I posted youtube links with Kong walking on two legs. Very different from a gorilla and not unlike Patty, I would say.

[Vortigern99]

My abiding adulation of the '76 Kong has caused me to de-lurk.

Baker and Rambaldi's suit looks very little like a real gorilla, morphologically speaking -- except for the color of the fur and skin, and some of the facial features.


Real Gorilla Face


Rick Baker IS... Kong!


Peter Jackson's Kong, clearly more "gorillid"


For fun, as a young anthro student, I once assigned a speculative binomial name to '76 Kong: Homo giganticus. Bipedalism, as Correa Neto noted, plus general proportions and facial features including eye whites and even dentition, indicate the genus is clearly hominin. If one compares specific details of anatomy and morphology, this otherwise implausible fifty foot behemoth is clearly closer to human than it is to even our fellow hominini "tribe" member, the chimpanzee.

So, to sum up, anyone basing an argument on the idea that '76 Kong was supposed to look like a real gorilla is grossly mistaken.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Drew @ BFF

Assuming for the sake of Argument that Bill is correct about the 15mm lens.

Then PATTY is 7'4" tall, and a freaking huge monster behemoth with a head that is proportional to this huge size. Correct?

If this is the case, then why did Bill have to show the gorilla mask not fitting on his head?

If Patty's head was so freakin' BIG, then fitting a person's head in the mask wouldn't be a problem.

This is a very clear-minded question that points up an alarming contradiction in Mr. Munns' conclusions. At 7'4" tall, that head would be enormous! The head is visibly proportionate to the body under the same ratio as a human being; about 1:7 or 1:8. Logically, if the thing is over 7 feet tall its head would be well over the size of a normal person.

It's absurd and contradictory to claim, on the one hand, that the subject is so gargantuan as to effectively rule out the possibility of a suit (which itself is arguably incorrect), then on the other assert that no human head could fit into the mask, which has just been advanced as enormous.

This to me represents a major failing of reason, and another severe flaw in Bill's conclusions.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

This is a very clear-minded question that points up an alarming contradiction in Mr. Munns' conclusions. At 7'4" tall, that head would be enormous! The head is visibly proportionate to the body under the same ratio as a human being; about 1:7 or 1:8. Logically, if the thing is over 7 feet tall its head would be well over the size of a normal person.

It's absurd and contradictory to claim, on the one hand, that the subject is so gargantuan as to effectively rule out the possibility of a suit (which itself is arguably incorrect), then on the other assert that no human head could fit into the mask, which has just been advanced as enormous.

This to me represents a major failing of reason, and another severe flaw in Bill's conclusions.

I did a calculation the other day and came up with a size between 28 cm and 32 cm (11 to 13 inches?) for 2m25 (7'4''). Quite clearly from what I saw reported here the mask were far smaller than that, if they did not pass to his own head.

[JohnWS]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

If one compares specific details of anatomy and morphology, this otherwise implausible fifty foot behemoth is clearly closer to human than it is to even our fellow hominini "tribe" member, the chimpanzee.

So, to sum up, anyone basing an argument on the idea that '76 Kong was supposed to look like a real gorilla is grossly mistaken.

Excellent point and something I had totally forgotten about this production.

The '76 King Kong was supposed to have been a 'hairy ape-man'. During suit testing, Baker forced his design closer to real gorilla than was specified and it won out over another one that was true to the original concept.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by jnelso99

Possibly a stupid idea, but I think I saw a K-100 camera for sale on eBay. Would there be any use buying it (not necessarily me, but it was $50 or so when I last looked a few days ago) and dissecting it to get any measurements needed to do a proper simulation/render/whatever?

Probably not. All you would end up with would be the specs for that particular camera gate. Also, (look back on the thread to the link to the cinematography forum where Bill gets told this) the magazine apertures differ and can effectively "crop" the image captured on the in-camera film. As these are recycled after processing the film, you're really never going to get a definitive answer on the true aperture of the PGF film.

A proper scientific approach, as has been mentioned previously, would be to present a film analysis based on a "standard" aperture and give the variance errors expected based on known specs for the camera, film and magazine types probably used in the film.

[Correa Neto]

1976 Kong's pic posted by Vort has two interesting features. The fist and most obvious is that it seems the actor's skin around the eyes was painted to match the mask. The second and most interesting relates to the interpupilar distance. If the mask shows an actor's eyes, then it will be within human range (64 mm average). There's no escape to this. Here are examples from Lord of the Rings (Uruk-Hai), Babylon 5 (G'kar), Harry and the Hendersons (bigfoot), Babylon 5 or Crusade -not sure- (Drakh), Star Wars (Chewie) and Star trek Voyager (Voth):

Peter Jackson's Kong, of course had no such limitation being CGI...

However, even this can be masked in costumes. Here are two simple ways, wich would also allow for tall costumes and/or "the head won't fit" masks: the actor will look through the neck or the mouth of the creature. There are other alternatives, such as transparent or semi-transparent lenses masquerading (pun intended) as huge bug-like eyes (Rodian Star Wars masks probably are an example).

But as always, the bottomline is that, despite footer claims PGF, detail level is not enough to allow a propper definition of this type of detail.

Now, 10 nerd points for whoever gets the correct ID of this individual first:

[Tyinhell]

The head analysis started with Munns comparing his own melon to a replica of a silver-back gorilla. By lining up the eyes he then superimposed the gorilla head over his own head. Then stated, 'I could not wear this mask.'

The argument that a human head could not fit into a Patty head was more about shape than size.

[Tyinhell]

It was then noted by Munns that the subject's head shape changes from frame to frame due to motion blur.

Here are some of the examples that were shown.

[Vortigern99]

I find neither of those arguments convincing, based on the following line of reasoning:

1. That gorilla sculpt is natural gorilla-sized. Mr. Munns maintains that Patty is huge -- 7'4" -- whereas a full-grown male gorilla (standing upright) is under 6'. Scale up the mask accordingly, and the available space inside of the mask increases accordingly.

IOW, whatever the shape, at the size Munns has put forward as Patty's, a normal human head would easily fit inside its head.

2. Patty, whatever it is, is not a gorilla. Its head shape is morphologically between a gorilla and a human; specifically it is not as prognathic (= "face forward") as a real gorilla, and has a different-shaped nose.

3. The subject's head shape changes not only from motion blur, but also from an expected shift in outline due to a change in position of the face from frame to frame. The outline of the face -- any face -- changes as one moves from a profile to a three-quarters view to a frontal. That's just the way anatomy and perspective work.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Tyinhell

the subject's head shape changes from frame to frame due to motion blur.

So, is one of these the actual head shape, none of them , or what?

[Tyinhell]

He then chose the one he is pointing to as an example of a shape that a human head (if it were a mask) could not fit in to.

Coincidently, he seemed to have chosen the one that most resembles his silver-back gorilla replica.




In finality this shape was chosen (by Munns as to what Patty's true head shape is) with a poser head put in it to illustrate a wearer's head would be set back too far for it to be a wearable mask. (eyes don't line up)

[Vortigern99]

Hogwash. Even at that size, all the human head has to do is come forward a bit and tilt up to match the eyeline AND fit inside the Patty outline, with room to spare. Mr. Munns had chosen a static, arbitrary profile and tried to combine it with a different profile in a different position; of course the two don't line up.

Moreover, if the thing is 7'4" as Mr. Munns contends, the Patty shape has to enlarge to represent this massive size. A normal human head could easily fit inside such a gargantuan head-mask.

[LTC8K6]

I mentioned earlier that Munns chose a head shape for Patty that was very flat on top. How he decided on that head shape is anyone's guess. He did not even try other head shapes.

[Correa Neto]

Munn's reasoning has some basic flaws. I think that given his qualifications (something he every now and then uses as an argument), he should have been able to notice these issues. The reasons why he didn't remain a mistery to me.

Lets suppose someone wants to build a mask with that gorilla shape and with that size. If one raises a bit the position it will be used, the actor's chin would be closer to the mask's chin. Openings in the nostrils and/or mouth could then provide visibility.

The next step would be to chose carefully the path along which the actor will walk, do some test runs, remove eventual obstacles and then shoot the "natural" walk. Better film a number of takes, choosing later the best sequence for release, dumping the rest of the film. And yes, film it from a certain distance, for a short period of time and shaking the camera to help hide the costume's flaws. Doesn't seem to be something so hard to accomplish.

Once again, assuming that IS the shape of Patty's head, something which I think is very far from being demonstrated.

A second flaw is that montion blur is not the single only reason for changes in the subject's head shape. Blending -or blurring- with background due to issues related to film resolution (tied to distance to the subject and exposure/aperture settings) are, I think, more important sources for the changes. Montion blur is a bigger issue, once again in my opinion, regarding Patty's hands and feet- parts of her body which move faster.

[LTC8K6]

I concur that with Patty's head it is far less motion blur and far more resolution, angle, and blending that is altering the apparent shape.

[Tyinhell]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

So, now I'm wondering which Patty he is comparing his masks to. Did he assume Roger was using the 15mm lens, or did he use the 25mm lens?

This is how Monster Quest worded it Drew.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Munns will build five different head shapes. He will film each one * using the same model of camera and lens used for the original Patterson footage.

He hopes the comparisons will allow him to determine the actual head shape of the creature."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Clear as mud as a specific lens size was not actually stated.

But I don't think it would be a stretch to assume they went with Munns' 15mm theory and Munns would have filmed the comparisons using a 15mm lens.

It also appears he was only concerned with shape not size.

[William Parcher]

I would be curious about a timeline of events such as...

When the "let's do this" deal was sealed with MQ.

When the episode (parts) was taped.

When Bill first publicly announced the 15mm theory.

When (if) MQ saw The Munns Report.

When The Munns Report was publicly released.

When Bill learned that Green used a 1" lens.


Was the MQ episode taped before Bill learned that his 15mm theory is highly questionable?

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I would be curious about a timeline of events such as...
When Bill first publicly announced the 15mm theory.

Bill's first Public announcement of the 15mm theory was Friday May 15th 2009 at the Yakima Bigfoot Round-up.

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, bill said in Dec 2008

Quote:

I predict that in 2009, this coming year, facts about the filming will be revealed which are so unexpected but significant and scientifically reliable that the vast majority of what you are debating here will cease to be in dispute and will simply be retired to the archives of the forum.

I think he had the 15mm lens work done at that time; either that, or he had a 7'4" Patty look-alike in his basement ...

[WGBH]

Sorry, I was thinking William meant in front of a real audience. Not an internet forum.

[Skeptical Greg]

Rereading William's post, I believe you are correct.....

I was only observing that he had drawn his conclusions by December, at the latest ..

[WGBH]

Bill also mentioned during his presentation in May that they had already done filming for the Monster quest episode. I think Bobo mentioned it also. They talked about the weather making it impossible to get to the film site at that time.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I would be curious about a timeline of events such as...

When the "let's do this" deal was sealed with MQ.

When the episode (parts) was taped.

When Bill first publicly announced the 15mm theory.

When (if) MQ saw The Munns Report.

When The Munns Report was publicly released.

When Bill learned that Green used a 1" lens.


Was the MQ episode taped before Bill learned that his 15mm theory is highly questionable?

Just from what I was told thru several people who would be in a position to know ( but I have no way to confirm they were not speculating or repeating gossip)

>>>When the "let's do this" deal was sealed with MQ.

I first heard about it in Sept/Oct of 08- I remember because that was right before my team demobed from the Carribean

>>>When the episode (parts) was taped.

I was told sporatically between early Dec -March but that was told to me more about communications between them- actual filming dates were never mentioned

>>>When Bill first publicly announced the 15mm theory.

There were talks then about the camera/lens ( but no specifics) other than there was a new "discovery"- I was thinking that some originals were discovered

>>>When (if) MQ saw The Munns Report.

I was told this by 1 who swears he "was involved" with the initial communications but the idea was for Munns to show his "new" information and that the "report" was an afterthought to hype the episode. It was originally going to be more pinned threads.

>>>When The Munns Report was publicly released.

I know advance copies were released- I was told elements about it ( which were in the report) from about a month out

[tsig]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

That raises another question

I know the BF community is like every other and is varied from clear thinking types down to radicals- they are made up of humans like every other group. I know they want to see bigfoot proven and acknowledged. ( hell, so would I)

After seeing how several of the ignorant have been defending the Munns "whatever"- do they realize the damage they are inflicting on themselves with this poor excuse for science and then heralding it as "proof"?

Dr Atlantis and his show pretty much drove a stake in the true DNA evidence

Bill pretty much drove a stake in his own report ( and they are promoting it)- a first year engineering student could have shot it down.

They dont see or grasp that trying to pass this kind of crap off as legitimate science ( much less proof) is what makes them the laughing stock of the world?

It's (you guessed it) BIGFOOT science.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

DUH! I just assumed they did just like at some Ultraman episodes- hanged the costume with wires... Seems Bill is not the only one who assumes things wrongly!

Kaiju costumes are a great source for costume research. In many cases, given the way those movies were shot, we can clearly see how they were built and the tricks they used. Not to mention that anything (materials and tech) used to build a Kaiju costume would be readilly available for anyone building a Patty costume.


Oh yep, the crotch was dropped. Now, when it comes to Patty, we already know the problems regarding locating it's joints.

Much of what is claimed by PGF proponents regarding Patty's alleged realism (proportions, bluging muscles, hair density, moving mouth, etc.) and required high-end tech to create it boils down to:
1. The alleged feature can not actually be seen clearly, its mostly a matter of perception;
2. There are examples of the alleged feature being shown at older creature costumes and quite often they are not high-end.



Ah yeah, for sure. Crow, for example, commented that the white in Kong's eyes were a dead giweaway. [insert f-word here], can you see Patty's eyes? Does anyone knows how Patty's eyes looked like? Like BH's, maybe?

As always, footer myopia avoids them to see that 1976 Kong was not created by the film makers as a realistic gorilla. They wanted something more dramatic (in their views). Its a [insert f-word here]ing bipedal! Ages ago I posted youtube links with Kong walking on two legs. Very different from a gorilla and not unlike Patty, I would say.

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

http://www.paulsimon.info/paul-simon-quotes.php

[tsig]

[quote=Correa Neto;4914609]Munn's reasoning has some basic flaws. I think that given his qualifications (something he every now and then uses as an argument), he should have been able to notice these issues. The reasons why he didn't remain a mistery to me.

Lets suppose someone wants to build a mask with that gorilla shape and with that size. If one raises a bit the position it will be used, the actor's chin would be closer to the mask's chin. Openings in the nostrils and/or mouth could then provide visibility.

The next step would be to chose carefully the path along which the actor will walk, do some test runs, remove eventual obstacles and then shoot the "natural" walk. Better film a number of takes, choosing later the best sequence for release, dumping the rest of the film. And yes, film it from a certain distance, for a short period of time and shaking the camera to help hide the costume's flaws. Doesn't seem to be something so hard to accomplish.

Once again, assuming that IS the shape of Patty's head, something which I think is very far from being demonstrated.

A second flaw is that montion blur is not the single only reason for changes in the subject's head shape. Blending -or blurring- with background due to issues related to film resolution (tied to distance to the subject and exposure/aperture settings) are, I think, more important sources for the changes. Montion blur is a bigger issue, once again in my opinion, regarding Patty's hands and feet- parts of her body which move faster.[/QUOTE