I’d like to thanks Bill Munns once again for coming on the show the other day. He was cordial and, at least for this show, thank God, I wasn’ t the yackiest mofo on there.
I’ve watched his presentation which he recently gave at the Texas Bigfoot Conference (online at 1080p and full screen) a couple of times all the way through and replayed various bits more than a few times and found it, overall, interesting. Persuasive enough to change my view that the film is probably a fake? No. But he’s moved me a bit…right around 8.37864 percent toward roughly 70% certainty of hoaxiness (In my next blog entry I’ll be spelling out, at least fairly specifically, why I still think the film is probably a hoax. I leave today for six days (PCT Kickoff!) then return home, and then have about two weeks before I leave for hopefully sunny Spain in mid-May. So I’m planning to post it before I leave). I truly do appreciate Bill’s time and effort he’s put into looking at the PGF. Though, it should go without saying, that it’s what is firmly established, or not, as a result of any analysis that counts, not merely the amount of time spent on it. (A notion I think Bill would agree with). I’ll go through each of his arguments one by one (except for his talking about the “notch” which I honestly couldn’t tell on my screen what the hell it was or whether it indented, etc. along with the “subduction” part which Bill admits is a wash…also, my thoughts on Chris Walas opinion will be at the end…I don’t recall specifically what section Bill mentions him in and I’m running late, dammit!). I’m curious why Bill didn’t address the “Diaper Butt” theory that many skeptics of the film (myself included) find perplexing…hopefully myself or one of the other boys will ask him about that the next time he’s on. Ohhh….one more thing…a thing that I think Bill does very well at times during his presentation is successfully counter claims made by those who essentially say that the PGF film subject HAS to be a suit. Kudos, Bill. Kudos. Of course, that’s a different thing from proving that it HAS to be a sasquatch.
(to spare myself and any readers of specifically detailing what Bill presented in each instance, I’m working on the assumption (good lord, an assumption!) that you, dear reader, have actually watched each presentation).
Bill chooses a frame that shows an approximate head profile of the film subject at a height so that a man around 6’2″ or 6’3″ would be the alleged man in the alleged suit. (We don’t know, btw, if this frame is perpendicular to the plane of the lens because, simply put, the Patterson film wasn’t shot in a controlled environment…i.e. it’s an approximation…also complicating matters is not a single frame of the PGF is crystal clear…not super fuzzy to be sure, but fuzzy to a degree, which, obviously, doesn’t help the notion of accuracy). Bill then draws an outline of the head, with the assumption that 3/4’s of an inch of hair is on the subject. The next frame he uses, where the film subject’s back appears to be parallel with the lens plane (again, necessarily an approximation for the same reasons given above), is quite a bit farther away, which means when he blows THAT frame up to get the approximate scale he’s looking for, that frame will be even blurrier than the first image. When it’s a matter of an inch or inches that are key here (we’re talking about a possible human head piece for God’s sake, people) how can he be absolutely sure (as he claims at 8:55) that the mask he made from these approximations would HAVE to fit the head of the person in the suit (if it was a suit) given his 6′ 2″ – 6′ 3″ scenario? Bill writes, pertaining to his methodology, “The frame chosen is the one closest to an average outline of 8 head shapes in profile. Diagram eight, overlay them with the interpolated eye socket as the anchor, and average their outlines, and the head I chose matches the averaged outline just about right. So it wasn’t just about picking one head shape and ignoring the others, but instead was averaging a large number of head shapes in various frames.” The trouble here is that “the average outline of 8 head shapes in profile” isn’t the same thing as any one particular individual’s head. If it’s a guy in a suit, we don’t know the actual size at all…because, as Bill admits, trying to deduce any specific measurements pertaining to the actual size of anything are up in the air in the PGF due to not knowing what type of lens was used. Quoting Bill from his site…”Lens distortion issues need further study and consideration since they impact on analysis of both the PGF and Green/McClarin footage. Render distortion in visualization software also needs to be studied further.”
Therefore, you’re left with approximations. I doubt anyone will disagree with the notion that humans, of varying heights, have different sized heads in length, width and height. If it’s a guy in a suit, again, we don’t know what that size and shape was. Also, when Brian tries on the mask, we obviously don’t know if his head size and shape is the same as someone who could have been in the possible suit. For me, way too many approximations and assumptions to make any claims of certainty or even probability.
Armpit Area Ruminations
Bill’s second mini-presentation which deals with a connecting piece of skin or fabric between the upper torso and upper arm (near the armpit)I found to be pretty interesting (along, naturally, with the boobies experiment).
He shows examples of humans and certain apes having a similar piece of connective tissue around the armpit area and how the PGF film subject shows something similar. Definitely interesting. But, in talking about how he says most suits are made a certain way (with a sleeve directly attached to the torso which, he claims, and I feel he fairly well demonstrates, would not show this type of connecting strip between torso and sleeve) he also readily admits that not all suits are made this way. I would like to know more about those type of suits (he didn’t mention any) and to hear from others in his field what they have to say about this. The fact that Bill admits a sleeveless suit is possible, coupled with Bill’s forthright admission on The Bigfoot Show that history has many examples of creative amateurs who have fooled the professionals (one reason being they don’t follow traditional guidelines) leaves me curious as to how, then, he can be so certain in his presentation that the film subject is a sasquatch? I think Bill would serve his case better in future presentations by not talking in such absolutes (which, btw, he didn’t do on the BFS) and, rathe,r put it in terms such as “Given my years of experience in this field, If it’s a suit, I don’t know how it was done.”
First off, congratulations to Bill for getting that many women to take their tops off for videoing purposes. Bill begins by showing a 2 frame back and forth toggle in the PGF that he claims conclusively shows the breasts jiggling. For me, maybe, maybe not. It’s 2 friggin’ frames! He then shows 3 types of manufactured breasts attached to breast plates which he seems to suggest are the only ones possible for a suit in 1967 and then claims they don’t really move at all (Recheck, though, the far right one…slight jiggle?). The trouble with this for me is that Bill admits on the show that a costume wouldn’t necessarily have to have a breast plate. I’d like to see experimentation from him and/or others with fake boobies attached and not on a breast plate. (In fact, anything more with boobies is welcome). Bill then, puts the bare naked ladies through a series of drop down tests because Bill says that the film subject makes a misstep and the subsequent jarring of the leg causes the breasts, real or fake, to thusly move. I admire his attempt in this experiment, but it left me unconvinced for a couple of reasons. First off. “Patty”‘s misstep is with one leg, his experiment with live humans has them standing with both legs on a platform that Bill feels falls the same approximate distance of the alleged misstep. Wouldn’t there be a different amount of force going up one leg (as is apparently the case with the film subject) as opposed to two (which is definitely happening with the topless female volunteers)? I mentioned this to Bill on the show and he seemed to be open to further experimentation concerning this. Secondly, I talked to a gentleman named Tom Sullivan, a special effects guy who worked on the early Evil Dead films, and he suggested that if the film subject is a guy in a suit that coffee beans or something similar within the breasts could have been used to give a pretty good firmness yet allowing some fluid motion. I mentioned this on the show and Bill suggested some experimentation might be good in regards to this. I concur.
Apparent Skin Shifting
Interesting presentation. Would love to hear other suit guys opinions on Bill’s claims. An issue I have with this part is the guy in the gorilla costume with the dots on his leg has a breast plate, which appears to be the source of the bunching witnessed. No such bunching apparently occurs in the PGF, therefore, not a suit. But Bill admits (as mentioned above) that if the PGF film subject is a guy in a suit, the suit didn’t necessarily have to have a breast plate.
I liked how Bill showed pictures of folks with back flab (since I enjoy going to WalMart) and how, if the PGF film subject is a sasquatch, that it, in fact, apparently could be flab. Good theory. Obviously, wasn’t crazy about his, once again, absolutism (“It’s flab”). In regards to this part, actually all parts of his presentation, as mentioned above, I would really like to hear the opinions of others in his field. And I say this again because I haven’t heard of a single other experienced make-up artist back him up, on anything. Not saying it’s not out there or that it wouldn’t happen…I just haven’t heard or read about it (specifically regarding at least his claims of what could or couldn’t buckle or stretch in this way or that).
Hip Wader line or thumb groove?
I think Bill gives a good argument that the hand and or thumb of the film subject is touching the leg (the light and dark alternating fur reasoning) but, dude, seriously, that appears to be a pretty deep and wide groove for just a thumb to make. It really, in all honesty, seems to me at least, to be consistent with a fabric crease. Look carefully at it. Get a general sense of the size of the thumb, then look how wide that indentation appears to be. Really? Experimentation from proponents on both sides of this issue, I think, would be good here. A
During one of his mini-presentations, Bill mentions that Chris Walas (yes, Academy-Award winning make-up dude Chris Walas!) who leaned toward believing the film was authentic until he watched the PGF footage on the Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science DVD and then shifted to the dark side when, for him, the several lines around the hip and upper leg area suggested to him that it was probably a two-piece suit with a crotch area connecting piece. Bill claims that bunching and buckling would necessarily occur if that was the case. Since my suit-making skills have been restricted to my 8mm classic “It – the Terror from Beyond Northridge”, I would very much like to hear Walas’ response to Bill’s claim (as well as any others with comparable experience).
In closing, let me say this…Bill is a nut job. But seriously kids, as mentioned above, there has been a wee bit of movement on my part on this issue away from the far end of the skeptical side. I’m also encouraged to see that Todd Disotell and Sarmiento are on the Relic Hominoid Inquiry review panel. My guess is that Bill’s analysis will ultimately be viewed as, essentially, interesting, yet inconclusive. (Current Vegas odds on Meldrum and Bindernagel buying the whole shebang…248 to 1 in favor with Jeff wearing slippers made from some of Paul Freeman’s casts while making the announcement at a press conference somewhere in Idaho. But, obviously, I could be wrong)
It almost physically hurts to even type this, but I agree with Scott Harriot about something. There. I said it. I agree with Scott Harriot…… I feel far more comfortable saying that I would believe SH’s account of glowing red eyes and “Schwarzennegerian biceps” on the side of a hill before I would say that the PGF was ‘real’. That said, Bill Munns has done the best work on it thus far, without a doubt. SH may have bust his balls on the show, but Munns is as skilled and qualified as any expert who has taken longer than 5 minutes with the footage. In fact, as a community we should be so lucky to have someone volunteer so much of their effort and time to it. One good thing though, at least now people have someone besides MK Davis to quote. But for me, it’s still a set of grainy images taken by a guy who died and we have to use his buddies estimated data. I’m still crossing my fingers, though.
I’m joking about it physically hurting to agree with SH, by the way. As a big fan of the show, he really is what makes the show more than just interesting.
I liked Bill’s insight into the film. Unfortunately, it does nothing to verify the film or credit the persons who took it. there have been so many stories told about the making of the film that no one truly knows how, when or where the footage was shot. (That can be verified) of course. Everyone knows that after stories are told by so many people accounts of the actul incident are corrupted. I believe Bill’s examination of the film was tainted by the fact that he did have a vested interest in it. During the interview he stated that he does believe in the Sasquatch legend. If you listen to when he says this, Scott giggles a little.
I am not against people looking into this film, but there is only so much you can do. Film is film, and in itself can not be VALIDATED. You dont know how it was shot, area it was shot, who actually shot it, what time of day it was shot, and from what angle it was shot. If you answered any of the above it would be guessing.
To look at this film anymore would be stupid. Investigators need to let it go for the betterment of the legend. A actual scientist or serious investigator would look at evidence that can be verified. THIS FILM CANT… as long as the persons involved are not truthful, and or remain silent on certain facts.
I love that the legend is still alive, but truth be known. As long as you have shows like Finding Bigfoot, which should be called Dummy’s in the Woods it will never be taken seriouly enough by the right people.
I found the show disjointed and hard to follow, but when is this show not that? “rimshot”
Perhaps stating a point fully by Munn’s and then countering each point from detractors would be better in the future.
All thanks to Bill Munn’s for devoting so much time and effort into this. I do have to agree with Scott that the “crease” in the right hip is really the one major thing that looks “off” to me.
Aside from that, it is one hell of a suit, or one fat, average, middle aged squatch.
Bill asked me to post this as a response to Scott’s rebuttal:
The following is a response to a review of my presentation at the TBRC convention last March, and the subsequent Bigfoot Show podcast, the blog posting titled “Munnsarebuttal”
1. The Head mask which Brian wore in the TBRC program video and we talked about in this interview.
The selection of scaling the Patty body to accommodate a person about 6‘ 2“ or so was specifically selected to test some claims by Bob Heironimous. One can actually select any arbitrary height for a person to test a head model, 5‘ tall, 5 1/2‘ tall, 6‘ tall, 6 1/2‘ tall, etc. What is essential is that whatever height is chosen, the head must scale to that designated height, and once the head is made, it should be worn by a person of approximate appropriate height.
There were questions in the interview about the method of determining the head shape and size, and they are valid questions. What I would like to point out is that making the head took a few weeks, but the video showing making the head was edited to 4 minutes, so it would be fair to say I had to just show highlights of the process, and time did not permit me to lay out all the steps, all the considerations, the details of the methodology, in those 4 minutes. At some point, I expect I will need to do some type of far more detailed presentation or publication of the head construction in far more exacting detail, so better illustrate why I am confident that the head shape is correct.
I do respectfully acknowledge that there are opposing opinions about the head, people who feel it is incorrect, and unlike the people who seem intent on “tearing apart” anything I publish or present, I would respectfully and responsibly welcome anyone else who would design and build a Patty head, and show us the methodology employed, and I would be pleased to give it a fair and considered evaluation and recognize any merits to the method or result that I observe.
Similarly, if anyone feels the PGF image data is insufficient to create any head shape accurately, I would be most respectfully interested in evaluating such an analysis fairly and thoroughly. So I would welcome opposing ideas and efforts if they are constructive in what they advocate, so the person demonstrates enough knowledge of the concept to know what is right. I will concede that I am suspicious of people who criticize me for doing something wrong but cannot demonstrate that they have the knowledge and skill to do it right, because if you can’t do it right, what authority (in skill and knowledge) gives merit to your criticisms someone else is wrong.
I do hope that my effort will inspire others to attempt to develop physical models of Patty’s head, and we all will benefit if there are several efforts which produce differing results and we all can compare the methodologies and results of each, one against another, instead of comparing one actual model against some vague theoretical ideal.
2. We talked about the breast studies and the more likely point of contention will be the question of how well it can be determined that Patty’s breasts do demonstrate fluid motion. The fact that real human female breasts demonstrate fluid dynamic motion (or in the vernacular, they “jiggle”) and all the common prosthesis materials of 1967 were tested and most emphatically and unambiguously demonstrated they cannot demonstrate and fluid dynamic motion, those issues are I feel beyond any further argument. But PGF Anaylsis to determine and quantify the breast motions of Patty does legitimately deserve further work, so I do expect some continued differences of appraisal about that.
In regard to the difference between a drop test, which was shown, and a walking step down, I actually tested both. The reason for the drop test was to test prosthetic breast prosthesis against real organic breasts, in terms of capacity to demonstrate fluid dynamic motion, and so the drop test was the purest form of test with the least variables so the fluidity (or lack of) in breast prosthesis could be compared to the fluidity of female human breasts.
Then walk tests of both human females and suited performers in costumes with all three breast prosthesis types did go through a walk course marked exactly for the steps, the turn, the lookback, and the hard step down. As there were more variables in this experiment, the analysis was more complicated and could not be condensed as easily into a brief presentation.
That is why the drop test was shown in the presentation, to simply emphasize that prosthetic breasts of conventional materials have essentially no fluidity comparable to the PGF or real organic breasts.
It was also brought up that maybe Roger used some kind of odd and amateurish method a veteran professional simply wouldn’t do, and that may explain his success and why such is not readily apparent to a professional. In those discussions, I agreed that it was a valid consideration, that Roger may be a gifted and inventive “unconventional amateur”, someone who would use an uncommon method a professional wouldn’t use. There is merit to this idea, because I myself have in fact been the “unconventional amateur” at times in my past, doing things I was assured by veteran professionals cannot be done, or finding work-around methods to accomplish a result that a veteran professional would never do. So I don’t oppose the idea Roger may have been very creative or inventive and simply improvised some things about a costume which a Hollywood professional would generally never do.
But a point which wasn’t stressed in the interview is the fact that many techniques used to make creature costumes are constrained by the laws of physics, and some perimeters of what can and cannot be done are in fact dictated by the laws of physics, and no unconventional amateur (however inventive he may be) can violate the laws of physics any more than a veteran professional can. One such physical constraint is that for any give human subject or performer, we can only add. We cannot subtract. And particularly in the matter of the head, we can only add to a human head to make a patty head, and those additions will result in a larger head in proportion to the gross body size. Yet Patty has an unusually small head, despite it’s odd shape unlike a modern human. So making a “Patty head” starting from a human head is a challenge that the veteran professional and the unconventional amateur both would find difficult, because neither can subtract from the mass of the subject human head. So in that regard, and some other body issues, an amateur like Roger, regardless of how inventive one attributes him to be, could not solve those challenges imposed by the laws of physics, if veteran professionals cannot solve them.
3. Paul Vella brought up a valid consideration that perhaps the person wearing a Patty head mask was indeed not looking out the eye sockets of the mask, and he offered as examples some theme park stroller costumes where the person wearing the costume looks out of a screen mesh around the nose or in the open mouth. This deserves consideration, and in consideration of this, I felt it should be pointed out that such masks (with mesh view screens below the mask eyes) are common in theme park stroller costumes, they tend not to be used for film or photography where any attempt at realism is intended, because the mask surface which is solid around the mesh will reflect light as a solid surface will, but the mesh allows most of the light falling on it to go through the mesh weave inside the mask, and thus the mesh area has a lot of shadow. Under photographic circumstances, the distinction between the mesh and the solid portions of a mask are very apparent, but we do not see any indications of such with Patty, so it would be reasonable to conclude such a mesh viewing screen was not employed.
It would be a fascinating topic to actually test, making facial masks and building into them some mesh areas for viewing, and subject them to various photographic situations to see if the mesh could in fact be disguised to appear as an integral part of the facial surface.
4. In the matter of the folds on the back, the armpit, the concavity contour below the shoulder socket, and the hair lay where a chest section and an arm section would connect, I have discussed these in detail in a PGF document found on my “Munns Report” website at the following link.
Scroll down to “Release 1H – Part Two” and view or download that PDF document, which is abundantly illustrated.
One note about that document is that at the time it was written, several years ago, I did not have PGF copies which were sufficient to study breast motion, so I described the breast topic as a “non-issue”. Only a year or so later did I obtain Copy 8 and scan it fully, and find that it had some 4x zoomed in copies of the lookback which were ideal for studying the breast motion, and so my analysis was revised on the basis of new data, as one responsibly should do. But I wanted to make note of it, in case somebody reads that and wonders why my breast motion studies are emphasized now, but were labeled a non-issue previously. My current position, based on more extensive data that I had available to me then, is that the breast motions are excellent for analysis and do support a conclusion the PGF Hominid is not a costume.
Finally, I would like to bring up an issue which unfortunately hinders the whole PGF debate and analysis. I am often accused by critics (not in this blog, but elsewhere) of unscientifically manipulating the experiments so the costume option will assuredly fail, because the critics claim I have an agenda of proving Patty real, not proving the truth (and in their mind, the truth is a hoax and a costume). So ideally, someone else should also do these experiments and that person should be someone who has a confidence the PGF is a fake, so he/she is motivated to make an attempt to succeed in showing how costume technology can replicate the PGF. Unfortunately, there apparently is no such person, who has the qualifications to actually do the experiments and who has the will or motivation to make the effort. And there’s no sponsor or funding source to pay a professional to conduct these tests, independent of mine.
So basically, at this point in time, I’m the only person actually doing real experiments, and no other person is willing or able to do parallel experiments so we can compare results and methods.
My assurance that I am truly impartial and conduct the experiments without any agenda and without any forgone conclusion I will manipulate the experiments to validate, that assurance sadly falls on deaf ears in the skeptical world, despite being truthful. So we, collectively, are faced with a dilemma, that my experiments ideally should be tested by replication by another researcher, but no one will make the effort. So I can only hope that my efforts will encourage more enthusiasm for real science applied to the PGF analysis, and that increased enthusiasm will somehow permit another person to be positioned and motivated to replicate my experiments for the benefit of all concerned.
Amazing content by both men! Wonderful discussion! I still think Patty is real but respect Scott and always listen to his opinions!
Oh yeah,sorry for my crappy grammar and punctuation! Made even more disturbing by the fact that my wife is a teacher lol. Seriously,great show guys! Bring on Part 2!