The "Patty" Recreation by Bill Munns


Editor’s Note: Nadia Moore has a degree in Zoology from U.C. Davis and currently works in Biotechnology. She has been a lifelong Bigfoot enthusiast, with her first personal experiences taking place in the Trinity Mountains of Northern California where she lived on a remote ranch during high school. She also a contributor to the After Hours show with Team Tazer.

We hope to have the presentation made by Bill Munns at Discovery Day V available for viewing in one form or another soon, ideally as part of a DVD including the whole conference. For those of you who don't know Bill's work, he studied Film and Theater Arts (16mm and some 35mm, with cameras, editing, sound, and equipment) at Los Angeles Valley College, studied Makeup Artistry with Mike Westmore, and began a career as a makeup artist at Universal Studios in 1969. He has an extensive Hollywood Resume including freelance Prosthetic Makeup work for the Blackenstein monster in the movie “Blackenstein” 1970.

Bill's in depth research analyzing the Patterson Gimlin Film can be reviewed here at The Munns Report, as well as a list of his P&G Film accomplishments.

These pictures are from Bill's Discovery Day V presentation, as he discussed in great detail his recent work, made possible by a Grant arranged by Dr. Meldrum, in recreating the anatomy of "Patty" using live models for in depth comparisons between her movement and various natural versions of the human form, both male and female, clothed and sans clothing. He also made several chest panels using various synthetic materials available in 1967, in order to try and recreate a costume which would duplicate the appearance of Patty and her movement. The third branch of this project was the recreation of the "costume" described by Bob Heironimus in his claim that he was hired by Roger Patterson to be the object of Roger's film. Not only has Bob been unable to describe the actual location that the film was made, let alone how to get there, but Bill's work has now proven once and for all that the "costume" as described by Heironimus is structurally, anatomically, and logistically incapable of portraying what is in the famous 1967 Film.

Continue reading "The "Patty" Recreation by Bill Munns" at bigfootdiscoveryproject.blogspot.com.

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. ^1st time we saw your camel toe in those jeans

      Delete
  2. What a interesting article. What the hell is it doing here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its #looneytoons approved that's for sure.

      Delete
  3. Did Munns receive a government or private grant? Anybody know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think his funding came from one of Jeff Meldrum's grants.

      Delete
    2. ^ In this case, Meldrum is the one who has to account for how the money is spent. Munn's does not have to account for a dime.

      Delete
    3. Meldrum was awarded in the area of 60 thousand dollars through the Cestone Foundation.

      Somehow Munns got his meathooks into it and started painting naked ladies and building floppy costumes.

      The most fraudulent part of this is Munns' claim to have built the Patty suit according to BobH's specifications.

      Of course Munns never actually spoke with BobH. Making a phone call and getting BobH's direct input would be money out of Munns own pocket. He prefers to let others pay his way.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the details. I guess its up to the foundation how much info they want on each item listed by Meldrum in his accounting reports.

      Delete
    5. That lying scumbag Bob H. is so full of horse manure it's coming out both ears of his fat head.

      Delete
    6. Munns has a bigger noggin than BobH, and he managed to slip it all into that shoddy mask of his.

      The fact he claims a head can't fit in the mask, and he's clearly seen wearing it, means he's a fraud.

      Delete
    7. Patty's tall stature and whole nonhuman too broad apelike build proves her real and bob H a very bad liar.

      Delete
  4. that suit looks identical to the sasquatch in the pg film. I just don't see them doing all that to "create" a monster in the 60's

    ReplyDelete
  5. A grant arranged by Dr. Meldrum? Using male and female models, bothed clothed and unclothed.

    Is that where the money for the Falcon Project is going?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somewhere in that general direction. Yes.

      Delete
    2. 1:16 said Meldrum was awarded the grant. Apparently he gave some of it to Munn's to do some PGF work. He notes it on his accounting report in the same way he would list the purchase of software or the hiring of a grad student to help with field research. The money could be use for almost anything relevant. 4:44 indicates that includes putting money into the Falcon Project.

      When the period is over( for example 2 year grant at 30k per), he gives a full accounting and summarizes his results-which are supposed to be published in peer reviewed journals. Bottom line is he is supposed to get a paper or two out of the deal.

      Anybody know what the grant proposal was?

      Delete
  6. "Blackenstein" was released in 1973 and was meant to cash in on the success of "Blacula"- itself part of the blaxploitation craze started by "Shaft"(1971).
    "Blackenstein" was awful, and not in a good way. The effects were piss poor but that is not Munn's fault. The budget of the movie was not enough to pay for a lunch box. He had to start somewhere.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blackules was the best movie.

      Delete
    2. He has no excuses for his terrible work on Return of the Living Dead which pretty much ended his make up career tho and no the fact that Dan O Bannon was a jerk is no excuse!

      Delete
    3. Munns doesn't make excuses. He hurls insults, tells lies and unsuccessfully paints himself as a misunderstood genius.

      I dream of the day when we get a bigfoot researcher who's not a complete tree licker.

      Delete
    4. Half of the effects guys in Hollywood act like a Bel Air gay club for stunt bikers and actually jealous of Munns now, the smarter ones there know today Patty's no suit job and they wish they'd been as brave as he was to jump ship in time.

      Delete
    5. You mean they're jealous that Munns hasn't worked a Hollywood film in 28 years while they've been earning paychecks?

      Who are these effects guys? How many of them worked on more than ten films?

      Munns didn't jump ship. He lost his sail.

      Delete
    6. No they're secretly jealous that they stubbornly stayed so arrogant like were they gods assuming they could create anything, bigfoot turned out to the one socalled creature they could not fake when all we get is uncharacteristic bloodthirsty maneating beast clearly played by stuntmen in longhaired jumpers revealing human motorism.

      Delete
    7. It's a fake. Munns has no credibility in the field of makeup FX. He was considered a scrub guy for producers who were too cheap to hire the best...

      Delete
  7. MIKE RUGG FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. What the hell happened to the knower's suit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was full of shit. Anyone could have read the Kitakaze thread on the BFF and spun more lies off of that......

      Delete
    2. Absolutely. I suspect the pgf will actually along with much other real bf video be part of dr. Ketchum's presentation for the case of bf eventually.

      Delete
    3. What makes you suspect that?

      How exactly is the Melba connected to or involved with the PGF?

      How long is eventually?

      Delete
    4. As long as it takes, sience is that way. I think it'd be a good idea when a real species is existing out there now as fact to hammer it home to people that yes we did in fact film them before all those years ago, to deny that's possible when the species is proven equals lunacy.

      Delete
  9. The Knower here,

    I told you all there would be a suit revealed, it is true, there is a suit, a man in the suit is a good idea, and this is proof that a man can get in a suit one leg at a time.

    This Bill Munns guy did a pretty good job, but not as good as God did on the eighth day, he said let there be "man & woman" in large meat suits covered in hair to live in the Forrest's and eat the deers and hide from the smaller and less hairy man and woman, let this other man and woman be known as Sasquatch, they will throw rocks and investigate the Forrests at night, and so it was so and it was good.

    The Knower

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting. If ever there was a prime candidate for a hoaxer, Roger Patterson was it. He was making a film anyway, he went looking for Bigfoot that day, and he really needed the money.
    However, his resources at the time we're almost non existent... yet here he comes down from the hills with that iconic film which to this day can't be credibly debunked! What a contradiction.
    So... congratulations again to Roger Patterson. Either he captured the best Bigfoot footage ever, or he perpetrated the most enduring Bigfoot hoax of all time. We may never know for sure... but hoax or not, the Patterson/Gimlin film still stands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually the fact that Bigfoot doesn’t exist makes Patterson a hoaxer.

      Delete
    2. "can't be credibly debunked" lol what a toon statement that is.

      Got monkey? Thought not.

      The film "still stands" only in the minds of delusional footers.

      Delete
    3. Everything outside of the film itself indicates a hoax. The problems are legion, and it is hard to decide even where to begin. Gimlin said another role of 100 feet was on hand. If they really saw a bigfoot that day it would have been put to good use. There is no doubt they would have filmed the entire path-from where she originally crouched by the stream to the last piece of ground beneath the brush she disappeared into. But no. 45 years later people are trying to reconstruct trackway footage from barnstorming clips. Joke.

      Delete
    4. Its always amusing to see people grasp at straws to debunk the PG film. Seems kinda desperate. Some people seem to have nothing else going for them but their hate of that film.
      There's a million possible theories about why its a hoax, each one just as likely as the the next, but they're all just speculation. The Patterson/Gimlin film stands because the strongest evidence against it is no evidence at all. Just idle speculation by monochrome people with no imagination.

      Delete
    5. They have nothing better to do these trolls because they're ordered to do it whoever they work for trolling in defense of coverups is now mandatory with the coming of the internet. Whatever Patty was she's important enough that some would be trolling in ridicule like a sport, even if only the most gullible fuckjocks still think it's somehow a suit when state of the art standard then (68 planet of the apes) doesn't even reach this halfway. Get a good grip snoozers and come to terms with a species of hidden humans right under your noses.

      Delete
    6. And the evidence for their existance is where exactly? Just because they're is a difference of opinion and people like to argue why is it there has to be a cover up or conspiracy all the time?

      Delete
    7. 3:40 I don't hate the film, I wish it were genuine and want to know the truth-one way or the other. If the film is real, Roger and Bob sure did a lousy job of bringing back supportive evidence.

      Delete
    8. Exactly. The PGF does not constitute "proof" of the existence of "Bigfoot", any more than speculation constitutes "proof" that its a fake. If pressed to make a call I'd say fake because of the Patterson backstory, but that'd still be just a guess... not any better or worse than anybody else's because that's all there is. No proof. No evidence of a hoax. Just speculation.
      Anyone who claims that some arcane detail about the P/G film is proof of a hoax is just blowing hot air. Anyone who says their analysis of the film is proof of Bigfoot is doing the same. Its just not there either way.

      Delete
    9. 8:32 Well put, and I agree. I said "indicate" not "prove" above. The film itself looks pretty good(I commented below Looney Toons guy at 2;29). But it is a series of discrete projections onto 2 dimensional space of a continuous 3D event. Moreover the projections are onto grainy 16 mm film, through a convex lens. None of the many relevant parameters are known. Thus the projections are not invertible, and nothing much can be proven from the film itself.

      Delete
    10. Skeptics of the film tend to forget what it is we're possibly seeing here, if real as I'm convinced it is it's obviously an intelligent being more likely human than ape so why should it be so strange good footage is rare. It's not strange at all.
      The forest is their home and we tend to notice when we have invaders loudly coming into our homes that's why this is such a rare film and also why we have sightings at all, sometimes they're taken off guard as here by wind and weather basically.
      Most encounters there is no camera there so an intelligent being and rare event with the even rarer camera makes logical good reason.

      Delete
    11. 7:22 they did the humanly possible like you or anybody else would've, in fact they got more than most witnesses do.

      Delete
  11. Patterson is still trolling you footers from the grave. Legend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I bet you feel like a real asshole for being obsessed with it.

      Delete
    2. 1:17 So is Ray Wallace. No evidence of bigfoots have been found in that locale after Oct 1967-or before. Prints from Blue Creek Mountain(near Bluff creek) found in June '67 were supposed to mean the region was a good place to try and find a bigfoot.
      We now know Wallace had stompers identical to those prints. Either he purchased replicas of the prints and modeled stompers off them or simply hoaxed the prints, as was his wont. If the latter is true then what actually happened is:
      Roger set out to film a bigfoot 2 states away in a region no one can say one ever stepped foot on and got the goods the first day. yeahhhh, right....

      Delete
    3. Listen shitbrain, these beings aren't just in one locale they're encountered all over except Hawaii and jolly Roger most likely filmed more than one squatch where we went. For some reason the foot community doesn't like thr two squatch version even though the footage speaks for itself, as demonstrated by MK Davis.

      Delete
    4. Idiot-the skeptics are right that it makes no sense for there to be all these sighting in all these locations and not come up with a body, part or photo(after all this time). Fool. The only possibilities are rare and isolated or non-existent. Ignorant and delusional clowns like you are a big part of the reason educated people turn their backs on cryptozoology. Jackass.

      Delete
    5. Educated people? You would obviously not be one of those.

      Delete
    6. Way off! Guess again....

      Delete
    7. For an "educated person" turning your back on cryptozoology, you sure post to the cryptozoology boards a lot... obsessively so. What would happen if you took a break for a few minutes? Would your dick fall off?
      Has it already?

      Delete
    8. When did I say that I personally did? Your reading comprehension is not very good. Yes I am on this board tonight, posting comments on this thread. I was on yesterday morning and earlier in the week. Forgot when. So what?

      Delete
    9. Shows your contraditory nature and unwillingness to admit your obsession it's safer for you to attack this socalled cryptozoology field and hang on to mainstream science. Two possible reasons for that, you're either in denial of an overwhelming probability thousands of witnesses over centuries are indeed correct or you're part of the cover-up. Either way you're obviously scientifically unequipped to seriously discuss this subject and you could of course just be plain old gullibly dumb and ignorant.

      Delete
    10. coverup?

      where is your evidence? you have no evidence! cryptozoology is not even a real science. It's all wannabe's in silly clothes discovering nothing.

      Delete
  12. I can only hope that Meldrum or the Cestone Foundation hold Munns accountable for such a blatant misuse of funding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To call his 'result' counterproductive would be a compilement. As usual, he took the ball and ran the other way.

      Not only did he not build a realistic recreation of the pgf, he build a recreation so poor that, had I had a hand in the funding, I would raise some red flags.

      What he put forth doesn't look close to being a professional effort. Yes, yes, I know, he did it according to BobH's specs.

      But Munns was never in contact with the man.

      For Munns to attach BobH's name to his work is fraud.

      Delete
    2. Nope it's saying they used the stuff liar bH said was used, of course most of us here even the trolls know bH is talking out his butt and doesn't know shit now the whole world sees how a suit fashioned on Patty just can't work. Patty as we see her and Patty as a suit will not function together that's basic primate anatomical reality, skeptic time to realize this earth's not flat.

      Delete
  13. LMFAO!!!

    A diaper butt that doesn't even flinch on a bipedal animal which is impossible. However the ass section does "shift" under the suit ( as you'd expect padding to do) near the infamous frame where Jerry Romney turns to look back.

    Then there's the horizontal lines at both hips which indicates suit scrunching. Anyone else ever seen horizontal lines on any hominid? Or even animals?

    Next we have those big hairy ass titties which apes or humans neither one have. I'm not talking about just a few thin strands where or even medium amounts of hair on them like a couple of apes have....I'm talking about full bore thick fur that makes seeing any skin impossible.


    Then there's Roger drawing his perfect rendition of Patty a full year earlier.


    LMFAO, big hairy ass titties.



    LOONEY TOONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist for your obsession with this film ?

      Delete
    2. Yes, those are valid anatomical objections but I have to admit my initial gut reaction to the subject is "mass" , "dense", "solid" and to the coat "groomed but natural".

      Delete
    3. LMFAO, no, sure haven't and that's because I'm intelligent enough to dissect it and see it for the hoax it is. The same cannot be said for you and the other perfectly inept cult following douche-bags.


      Just do some research on Patterson and Gimlin then examine the film from a objective point of view instead of viewing it with the preconceived notion that its real.


      Gimlin has also been to jail and lied about it. If Gimlin will lie about something like that then it's obvious he will lie about this hoaxed film.

      Delete
    4. Look no further than the giraffe or camel for thoselines

      Delete
    5. Speculation. Not proof.

      Delete
    6. This looney toons idiot's either the same nutcase spamming youtube about this or he's one of the BEs, if anyone really thinks Ro or any of these Tazers care one bit about this subject they're sadly mistaken.
      This looney freak's only hearing his own nonsens even when it's common knowledge now if you want to know it that MK Davis proved the butt moves. Find his clips and see, it's there for all to know therefore keeping the butt lie going still means an agenda.
      The lemonhead doesn't even know anything about the his own human species how our own bodies are in fact hairy all over even women only so small and thin almost invisible. Squatches not being apes but apparently people naturally have this visible thick hair, their females as well, hence Patty including her breasts.

      Delete
    7. You know when you repeatedly watch something over and over and over and adjust and tweak it and digitally clean it up and obsess over it you'll still see what you want to see. A non-believer will see a guy in a suit and a footer will see Patty, for every bit of proof there is either way there's a counter argument waiting. At the end of the day no one knows for sure but Gimlin cos Patterson's dead so unless he comes clean and says it's a hoax then we'll just keep going in circles arguing about it.

      Delete
    8. Yes. Because there's no proof either way.

      Delete
    9. The looney toons author not only would benefit greatly her/himself from psychiatric assistence so would the rest of us here as we'd be spared the ongoing deceit from that mental case.

      Delete
    10. Wasn't Patterson's drawing plagiarizer from Morton Kunstler.

      Delete
  14. Sorry Bill. You may be able to recreate the 'suit' in 2013. You couldn't in 1967. In the 70's your make up and SFX work was sub standard. In the mid 60's it wouldn't have been any better.

    Is 'Patty' a guy dressed up? Could be. If it was, you didn't have a hand in it.

    MMG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you JREF buttplugs so obsessed with this film ?

      Delete
    2. Munns can't recreate the suit.

      His specialty is creating static, non moving, display creatures.

      His suit making abilities peaked and ended with the Boogens.

      Delete
    3. You're the one obsessed with it, butt boy. You're a feeble-minded pervert, Skippy, and lame.

      Delete
    4. Fact is no one can recreate it that's why mainly all these former special effects guys today all out of work most of them, have taken to this subject trying to win back a little bit of lost pride otherwise gone forever in an industry focused on computer graphics now. Only Munns or a few others seem to be honest enough about it knowing full well how poorly things looked in the 60s, how Chambers' work never would've fooled anyone due to human shapes.

      Delete
    5. Anon asshole at 4:19

      Not obsessed. Commenting on it. Same as you.

      You got fucking monkey?

      Delete
    6. Human shapes can be manipulated even back then, if they could pad out Lon Chaney in the Wolfman I'm sure they could pad out an ape suit 20 years later? I know SFX in the 60s was very primitive and basic but who's to say that extra bulk wasn't football pads under the suit or something else to add to Bob's bulk? Maybe those dangly breasts are caused by an ill fitting costume with a chest piece that didn't fit right? Maybe people just keep seeing what they want? Maybe it is real ?

      Delete
    7. Human shapes can be manipulated even back then, if they could pad out Lon Chaney in the Wolfman I'm sure they could pad out an ape suit 20 years later? I know SFX in the 60s was very primitive and basic but who's to say that extra bulk wasn't football pads under the suit or something else to add to Bob's bulk? Maybe those dangly breasts are caused by an ill fitting costume with a chest piece that didn't fit right? Maybe people just keep seeing what they want? Maybe it is real ?

      Delete
    8. There were bleevable non static costumes in Hollywood even when Munns was in diapers.

      The BC suit, the Gemora diaper butt (which matches sweaty's toddler in shape, not scale) and Dfoot's Chang mask.

      Three visual examples why not to consider the pgf a hoax. Unless you're blind or delusional.

      Delete
    9. ^ Has sleepless nights over Patty's butt that MK proved moves thus ignores it blindly during daytime along with Patty's overall anatomy that suits then or now couldn't fix or they would so they don't.

      Delete
  15. Yeah, the pictures of his suit recreation on the bigfoot forums are ridiculous. I could of made that shit with fur and a sewing machine. I'm not saying patty is fake but it definitely shows he's not going out of his way to show a close reproduction is possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more troll traffic the more you can believe the pgf's no fake.

      Delete
    2. Can't hear ya, take Mulder's cock outta yer mouth.

      Delete
  16. What kind of beer does Shawn drink?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Innocence of Muslims will go down as the greatest troll of all time.


    ReplyDelete
  18. Heronimus was a liar and a hoaxer!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proof to the contrary?

      Delete
    2. Everything he's ever said doesn't hold water, he messes up on dates and area direction, the supposed fabrics, just lots of major details he's got no knowledge of.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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