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