Bill Munns' Opinion On Bigfoot Photo Released By Melissa Hovey


Bill Munns has a background in Hollywood special effects and has been working with the Patterson/Gimlin film for years. He has worked on detailed analysis of the famed footage and compiled his findings in "The Munns Report." The report is one of the hottest topics in the Bigfoot Community.


Melissa Hovey sent the game cam photo she received from an anonymous reader four years ago to Bill and this is his opinion of the photo:

My immediate concern was that the photo, if a game cam type, is cropped, since such photos usually have some time/date material included. So I must assume this photo was cropped. I have been told that the cropping was because something in the wider landscape would identify the location, and there was concern to keep the location secret. I find this explanation lacking, because the full image could be shown with minimal Photoshop re-touching of any landscape element which might identify the location, while still allowing more of this subject's body. So that issue immediately raised suspicion in my mind.

The subject, as we see it, is just hair and the hint of skin through sparse sections of hair, in the shape of a head, shoulders, torso and one upper arm. This can be so easily fabricated that it would be impossible to falsify the alternative, which means it would be impossible to validate this as being real.

The hair is curious for its length and sparseness, with a pale flesh tone through the hair. This is not standard cheap fake fur. Such is occasionally seen with custom hair made by National Fibre Technology (NFT) for movie creatures, but it's not cheap. The mixture of greys and black hair colors is also something NFT can produce on order.

The disheveled lay of the hair reminds me of fake fur that's been mussed up rubbing against things and not brushed out. The fact that the hair tends to be consistent in density, length, and color tones, also is a characteristic common to use of artificial fur. Real mammals tend to have more variance of the hair (length, density, tone, or combinations of these traits) from the head into the torso and arm, but this does not.

So my conclusion is that the figure is suspicious, and while it cannot be called an outright fake, I know it could easily be faked, and as such, I would not put any confidence in its being real.

If it is fake, it does represent a fair amount of both skill and expense on the part of the fabricator.

Bill Munns Feb. 18, 2012

[via txsasquatch.blogspot.com]

Comments

  1. Sorry Hovey, not exactly PGF material.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Everyone seems surprise that Munns said not to trust this photo to be the real deal, She stated in her blog intial is was one photo now she has more photos when will some one put an end to this sharade, If she hasa series of photos why only send Munns one photo to analize

    ReplyDelete
  3. The last sentence could have served the whole write up. Next time ditch the BS and say if it's fake it's done well but in the end I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if he'd done that, others would complain that he didn't explain it in detail. You can't please everyone.

      Delete
    2. Well..when individuals in my opinion hold back additional information. such as Mellissa Hovey and Todd Standing..they seem to be hiding something..instead of sharing info with reseachers and to further knowledge.....there seems to be agenda's ..of greed and copyright infrigements..self promoting and other personal driven agendas that raise flags...and doubt about credibility...and motive...these individuals do more harm than good..to the Bigfoot community...they feed the imagination of the gullible..they don't feed science ..

      Delete
  4. So why would somebody go to great expense to fake a photo, then not try to monetize it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol, good point, this is not from a BFer, their name and face would be plastered on it. So, it is from a true witness, or such a hoax the person has dissacoiated from it.
      I take the latter. Perhaps a museum display with flash?

      Delete
    2. That is what I'm going with.

      Delete
    3. Don't ever over or under estimate the agendas of others..need to feel important and recognized..money isn't always the motive...it just doesn't make sense when cropped pictures and just face images are photographed for money shots, for TV shows that are border line fiction with over dramatizations..that try to come off as a documentary...Todd Standing..and his so obvious hoaxes.. now that's money driven.and the need for attention.. copyright royalties.the list goes on....certainly not for the true benefit of science..and any attempt to show that his expeditions are for research.just part of the script.a facade..a simple dog and pony show...

      Delete
  5. I'm a big Bill proponent and in this case I agree with his expert assessment. However, it is a good point that someone spent some coin on this with no payback.
    Fabrication or not this is how I envisioned these creatures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hoaxers are motivated by money. Most believers are motivated by validation. So just as some hoaxers will go to elaborate means to fabricate an 'encounter' or make others believe they are having an encounter, so will some believers fabricate a story to deliver vindication - I WAS right all these years!!! - that sorta thing. They won't let a silly thing like reality get in the way.

      Man is one screwed-up species. I hope Sasquatch eludes man forever - it will at least prove to me that there is one intelligent species on this rock. Well I'm pulling for the Orcas too, but I'm not likely to see one peeking behind a tree anytime soon.

      Holographically Yours,
      Dave from WA

      Delete
  6. Museum display like the one at the Texas museum in 2005 that the TRBC was involved and Melissa was present at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm surprised no one else picked up on this (based on one of the comments from the original story). I have no idea if it is true, but it does fit on the surface at least.

      Delete
    2. What? And gather all the facts 1st before jumping to a pro OR con conclusion? You sir/ma'am are most un-American! We pride ourselves on emotional outbursts, qualifications based on how purty someone is, and egocentric faith based logic ("I" believe therefore it's TRUE)!

      You must be a Canadian.

      Critical thought - as elusive as Sasquatch.

      Holographically Yours,
      Dave in WA

      Delete
  7. When you adjust the contrast you can see the arms are cut off. They arms are entirely missing and the vegitation shows through. You can see that this is the back of some kind of Bigfoot Bust - it's not a living creature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great catch! Your right the left ARM seems like its missing. I could be nuts but if you look at the top of the head and go to 2oclock it almost looks like a window with a light on or something crazy. My mind could be playing tricks.
      Bigfoot Broski

      Delete
  8. I wonder if Bill would be so good as to estimate the cost of this?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good for Munns. He broke it down quite well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...but you disagree with the conclusion of the Munns Report, right? I thought so.

      Delete
  10. Is that tim fasano after a long night of playing strip poker with rick dyer at disneyworld??

    ReplyDelete
  11. As a photographer with credentials, I can see no reason whatsoever for cropping a record shot like this unless it's to eliminate something someone doesn't want the viewer to know about. What could that be? Part of a museum display? Perhaps even a museum visitor? Looking at the lighting, it looks like an on-camera flash was used, but it also looks like there was separate overhead lighting on the top of the head and the shrubbery. How could that be? And why is Bigfoot about to walk headlong into that bush? Mightn't he have been posed that way as if peeking through the bush at visitors on the other side? I also see a few white spots along the top and right side that didn't quite get totally cropped out.

    All in all, I'm highly suspicious of this. I'm wondering if this isn't standing in a wax museum somewhere and somebody managed to get hold of a back view.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's those darn glamour and glitz make-up boys again, I tell you they're behind this one. They just wanted to see if they could fool people and the Bigfoot community especially. I guess they're still disappointed they can't produce anything even remotely resembling Patty, so here they just wanted to see if we fell for it. And we didn't. Better luck next time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, Darrell, (above) has a good point. Why is the subject walking (facing) directly at the wall of bushes?

    Also, the focal quality and fill flash indicate something more than a standard trail cam, although it could be possible, since the focal POINT is on the upper back and head of this subject, we MIGHT be able to assume that the camera was elevated as it might be if fixed on a tree. Suspicious, yes, and more photos would be nice. At least it's not a 'blobsquatch'!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not so. A trailcam can definitely produce this kind of quality. It's just that not many of them do. The "quality is too good" argument is not rational.

      Delete
    2. I would like to see trail cam photos as crisp and clear as the bigfoot photo if you could post some. Keep in mind the camera used would need to be at the very least 4 year old Morley.

      Delete
    3. Get on any trail cam web-site and look at their examples of field trail cam photos.

      Cuddeback, Reconyx, Moultree, (just to name a few of many) take pictures as good or better than this. Regardless of whether this picture is fake or not, the arguments of "trail cams don't do this or that" is not accurate. I have over 1000 acres of hunting lease in WV and I have taken hundreds of pictures of this quality using trail cameras. The camera flash is "tripped" via the use of an infra red beam in the camera. When something walks past the beam, the camera activates and snaps anywhere from one to five photos consecutively. Reconyx cameras have a "wake up" motion sensing device that activates at 180 degrees. Basically, if anything walking toward the front of that camera, it instantally starts photographing. Reconyx will take up to 3 pictures per second. Other cameras will take around 1 pic. per second. The "wake up" time on a Reconyx is instant, Cuddeback is basically 1/3 of a second. Moultrie will take color photos that are studio quality pics.

      If this picture is actually real, the lighting from the flash leads me to beleive the picture was taken at either dusk or dawn. The flash will activate at low light. After dark, most new trail cameras switch to Infra-red or the new "black-out" mode. The cameras are silent and very efficient. A Reconyx will cost you around $500-$700 depending on how many bells and whistles you want. Cuddeback-$200-$400.

      I don't know about the validity of this picture, but I assure you that a trail camera can definately produce this type of imagery. (And better.)

      I have been able to identify scars, and wounds on deer that I have been scouting via the use of these devices.

      Rather that ask me to download pictures, get online and look at the thousands of pictures available for viewing from the trail cam manufactures I mentioned.

      I realize that there are some lower end trail cameras that take grainy pictures, but those companies don't stay in business long because hunters who utilize this type of scouting technique will not invest in junk.

      Archer1

      Delete
    4. To finish my thought, I have a Moultree digital 5 megapixel infrared trail cam that I purchased over 5 years ago. The pictures that I take with this thing are better than the one with the alleged sasquatch. We have the earlier Reconyx trail cams that do the same.

      Archer1

      Delete
  14. I notice many are concerned about the bigfoot supposedly heading for a wall of bushes when there isnt enough info in the photograph to determine that exactly what it's doing. If its real, how can you determinethe thickness of the shrubs and or if there's say a window in the bushes to check something out... Just sayin people. Although this pic comes with red flags, this certainly isnt one of them, cmon people at least try to think a bit

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm no expert, but how does one account for the braided hair down the center of the back. Not to mention all of those mini braids in his/her hair? Looks to me like they style their hair like us lesser beings.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As to the brasids, many eyewitnesses say about them seen in their hair. And M.K.Davis maintains there are braids in Patty's hair seen in the PG film

    Igor Burtsev

    ReplyDelete
  17. Would identifying the bush help in determining the rough geographic location where this may have been taken?

    ReplyDelete
  18. BILL MUNN'S KNOWS SH*T ABOUT BIGFOOT SO WHY HAVE HIS OPINION ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was an intelligent post ! When it comes to costumes and models who could provide a better assessment??? This picture is either the real deal or a clever fabrication why would you not want an expert on costume design opinion ?

      Delete
  19. BFRO is going to claim this photo authentic. Although the exact location is not known, you will have a chance to get your own picture during one of their expeditions for today's low price of $600. Authentic and front-page of the website worthy, kind of like the camera man filming the rafters video and the wildlife camera man filming elk videos were those of a SQUATCH. Come one, come all.. to have one of our members throw rocks at you while you are sleeping in your tent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As a hunter and user of trail cams.My question is about the cameras placement.I always try to ger as large an area as possible in my lens,I do not shoot directly into a Mt. Laurel as the chances of seeing anything but that bush are nill.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ms. Hovey has sat on this photo for 4rs why release it now. Well because we have a conference coming up in ny where we are speaking and guess what she had nothing to offer. So we release this photo with no back ground claiming it is the best thing since the pg film so she can have a topic to discuss. Ms Hovey and the ABS are nothing but a bunch of wannabes. The only thing she has to offer is her big mouth running about stuff she knows nothing about. You don't make claims like this without strong investigation. When the person giving you this. disappears and refuses to answer simple question red flags go up all over the place .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Melissa's puppet will come back. The anticipation of peek-a-boo is part of the show.

      Delete
  22. Its real trust me I have seen the whole photo. There are three more that goes with it, dont know why they have not been released yet. The last picture shows it slightly turned to the right. You can see the right side of its face which is less hairy than the rest of the body. A.E

    ReplyDelete
  23. How can you have seen the whole photo when Melissa herself said it was cropped when she received it.And only had the one photo.Sounds to me like there is another TB hoax coming.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think it is possible a good quality trail cam could capture this photo. Also if the person who took the photo had a reoccurring visitor such as a bigfoot, and this animal was walking around his home/cabin ect. He might know where to place the cam and at what height to best capture a possible photo? I think its understandable if he or she wanted to omit some features that might give his location away. With that in mind there may have well been additional sources of lighting we don't know about. Also the flash could be inferred, and the animal may have not known it was being camera captured. Munns' analysis is good, but it still in inconclusive to me personally. I won't call it either way.

    ReplyDelete
  25. My biggest issue with this photograph is the cropping like some have mentioned.The before and after shot would be too much to ask for. If something flashes behind this alleged Bigfoot I'm pretty sure it would turn to see what it was shortly after. 4 year old trail cams were capable of repeated shot's.

    When a researcher publishes alleged evidence they make themselves responsible for it and need to answer the questions that are asked. Hovey knows this very well.

    In my opinion it's a fake unless the untouched trail cam photo can be produced and analyzed.

    "ts real trust me I have seen the whole photo. There are three more that goes with it, dont know why they have not been released yet. The last picture shows it slightly turned to the right. You can see the right side of its face which is less hairy than the rest of the body. A.E"

    Show us the money! LOL

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story