What do you think?
Rate this book
When Roger Met Patty
The Patterson-Gimlin Film, the Hominid seen in it, the remarkably intense debate it has provoked, and the solution to the mystery. This book offers a truly unique analysis of the famous Patterson-Gimlin Film (the “Bigfoot” film, as it is also known), addressing the question of hoax or fraud from the perspective of a professional makeup and creature effects designer, as well as the perspective of a vintage filmmaker. The film itself is truly the best evidence, far superior to any testimony, recollections and similar descriptive accounts, and this analysis relies upon that best evidence only, for the definitive analysis in the 47 year history of this mysterious piece of film footage. This book is primarily written for the people who have not made up their minds, people who are simply curious about this mysterious film and have not yet formed an opinion as to its authenticity. Hopefully as well, this book will be of value to scholarly people who are willing to evaluate this film with an academic and factual approach. The film is a remarkable mystery, and the controversy surrounding it is a fascinating commentary on human nature. The truth of the Patterson-Gimlin Film is quite an extraordinary story.
- GenresBigfoot
510 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 24, 2014
21 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 20, 2022
Amazing hoax or something real?
The Kindle version of this book had some typos and improper word use so I deducted a star. The author does and interesting and thought provoking analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film. His technical analysis of the film and the possibility (or lack thereof) of ‘Patty’ being a person in a suit is interesting. I am not a creature suit authority at all but the author is. I will say there are a couple of points he makes that got my attention. Having had to appear in some digital productions I know how much work goes into getting a 1 or 2 hour product done. It is literally months of planning and hours of filming. His points on that area made sense to me- also I have chased wildlife with a camera -deploying it from a backpack or from a pack off my mountain bike and I agree with the author that I would not chase across a river or creek for fear of getting my deployed camera damaged. Is Bigfoot real- I really don’t know ( I lean heavily to the ‘no’). Much of the evidence produced is bad, proven to be a hoax or proven to be misidentified. The point about this film is that it has not been proven to be a hoax- accused yes- but not proven. It is an interesting look at a cultural phenomenon that is this film. Is Roger Patterson the master hoaxer he is accused of being or did he film something unexpected and real that day? Read the book and draw your own conclusions.
The Kindle version of this book had some typos and improper word use so I deducted a star. The author does and interesting and thought provoking analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film. His technical analysis of the film and the possibility (or lack thereof) of ‘Patty’ being a person in a suit is interesting. I am not a creature suit authority at all but the author is. I will say there are a couple of points he makes that got my attention. Having had to appear in some digital productions I know how much work goes into getting a 1 or 2 hour product done. It is literally months of planning and hours of filming. His points on that area made sense to me- also I have chased wildlife with a camera -deploying it from a backpack or from a pack off my mountain bike and I agree with the author that I would not chase across a river or creek for fear of getting my deployed camera damaged. Is Bigfoot real- I really don’t know ( I lean heavily to the ‘no’). Much of the evidence produced is bad, proven to be a hoax or proven to be misidentified. The point about this film is that it has not been proven to be a hoax- accused yes- but not proven. It is an interesting look at a cultural phenomenon that is this film. Is Roger Patterson the master hoaxer he is accused of being or did he film something unexpected and real that day? Read the book and draw your own conclusions.
April 10, 2016
I heard Bill Munns on an episode of "The Bigfoot Show" podcast a year or two ago and decided I ought to read this book. Since then, it's been on my Amazon wish list, 'cause at 500+ pages, I simply haven't had the wherewithal to begin to tackle it. I mean, I couldn't imagine how anyone could possibly expend that many words discussing a few seconds' worth of film. But since you are reading this, you know that I finally went for it, and I'm glad I did.
Munns' story in itself is interesting. He has decades of experience in the filmmaking industry and is an accomplished sculptor and makeup artist. So this, he says, makes him uniquely suited to analyze the ever-controversial Patterson-Gimlin film. Was it a man in a suit? The greatest hoax of the twentieth century? Or something really real? Well, who better to tell us than someone who has worked on Hollywood creature costumes and special effects for thirty-odd years?
I've always said that Mr. Gimlin is the only person alive who truly knows what is on that film. But Munns brings up some very, very good points. Such as, if the film were a hoax it would likely require multiple "takes," yet the shadows -- which would move rapidly at that time in October -- do not move during the film; if the film were a hoax, why would the filmmaker spend the first three-quarters of the roll of film shooting random stuff, leaving only a few seconds to film his hoax segment; if the film were a hoax, how does the figure appear to move its head in such a natural way, as a person in a full-face mask made in 1967 would not be able to do so? ...etc. etc.
Munns acknowledges he can't prove the reality of the figure in the film. But he does raise enough reasonable doubt that, in my mind, makes the possibility of the film being a hoax more and more remote. I was not interested in the section where the author discussed his anonymous Internet detractors (why bother?), and the book in places was repetitive, but I guess that's just how the author emphasized his points. All in all, a good analysis, and a recommended read.
Munns' story in itself is interesting. He has decades of experience in the filmmaking industry and is an accomplished sculptor and makeup artist. So this, he says, makes him uniquely suited to analyze the ever-controversial Patterson-Gimlin film. Was it a man in a suit? The greatest hoax of the twentieth century? Or something really real? Well, who better to tell us than someone who has worked on Hollywood creature costumes and special effects for thirty-odd years?
I've always said that Mr. Gimlin is the only person alive who truly knows what is on that film. But Munns brings up some very, very good points. Such as, if the film were a hoax it would likely require multiple "takes," yet the shadows -- which would move rapidly at that time in October -- do not move during the film; if the film were a hoax, why would the filmmaker spend the first three-quarters of the roll of film shooting random stuff, leaving only a few seconds to film his hoax segment; if the film were a hoax, how does the figure appear to move its head in such a natural way, as a person in a full-face mask made in 1967 would not be able to do so? ...etc. etc.
Munns acknowledges he can't prove the reality of the figure in the film. But he does raise enough reasonable doubt that, in my mind, makes the possibility of the film being a hoax more and more remote. I was not interested in the section where the author discussed his anonymous Internet detractors (why bother?), and the book in places was repetitive, but I guess that's just how the author emphasized his points. All in all, a good analysis, and a recommended read.
October 31, 2025
This is a very detailed investigation into the October 1967 video of bigfoot. William Munns investigates if this was a hoax, a man in a fur suit. He goes through all the aspects of the filming of the event, detailed analysis of potential hoaxes, etc. I highly recommend it.
April 26, 2022
I really appreciate the information, research and experience that went into this book. However, I REALLY think it needs editing down. There is so much repetition, it almost felt a little condescending in some sections, as if you cant expect the reader to remember what you said three paragraphs ago. Its valuable information on the film for sure but the book is very hard to read, I feel like it could've easily been half the length it was.
March 22, 2025
If it doesn’t prove that Patty is a real relic hominin, this book at least proves that skeptics take the easy way out when trying to debunk the footage, and that there are many problems with the costume theory that they haven’t been able or willing to address. No way two poor cowboys in the 60s are gonna pull something off like that.
Before I read this book I was 50/50 on the PGF being real. Now I’m 95/5 in favor. Skeptics can make whatever arguments they want, but Bill Munns has an actual expertise that is very relevant to deciding if it’s a costume or not, his opinions deserve a lot more consideration than your typical armchair skeptic.
Before I read this book I was 50/50 on the PGF being real. Now I’m 95/5 in favor. Skeptics can make whatever arguments they want, but Bill Munns has an actual expertise that is very relevant to deciding if it’s a costume or not, his opinions deserve a lot more consideration than your typical armchair skeptic.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews