Sasquatch Coffee

Bill Munns at Falcon Project Symposium

Posted by: Guy Edwards on June 22nd, 2013

Bigfoot Lunch Club

Bill Munns has analyzed the famous Patterson/Gimlin Film (PGF) footage of a Bigfoot walking near a creek bed in California.

20130622-113753.jpg

As the designer of the Creature of the Black Lagoon, he is an expert in costume design. He has also been a consultant for 3D software design, which requires knowledge of how cameras work in order to duplicate authentic looking rendered results produced by multiple types of cameras and camera settings.

Mr. Munns has investigated the PGF footage from multiple angles; lens size, film speed, evidence of splicing and editing, camera distance, and has created the definitive analysis of the film.

During today’s presentation he explains how he can conclude with confidence, the PGF cottage has not been edited, because splicing, even in second generation copies always leaves evidence of the splicing.

Another topic discussed is how small the Sasquatch’s head is. When creating costumes, it is an additional process. The Sasquatch in the film would have been a subtractive process. Comparing more modern king kong costumes, Munns illustrates how even more current costume technology can still be problematic regarding seams and hair.

It gets really interesting when he talks about breast fluidity.

Guy Edwards About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic. Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event HopsSquatch.com.


8 Responses to “Bill Munns at Falcon Project Symposium”

  1. DWA responds:

    No one who fails to address this man’s arguments has an opinion worth considering on the Patterson-Gimlin film.

  2. Goodfoot responds:

    I couldn’t agree more. Munns is PHONY BALONEY.

  3. sasquatch responds:

    Not positive but, I think you should have said; “ANYONE who fails to address this mans arguments….”
    “NO ONE” just made me stumble around mentally…what?
    Anyway, I get your meaning and agree that his work on this film is very important. However, not everyone (or “NO ONE”) has seen his presentation(s). I believe there are valid conclusions that can be made without seeing Munns’ contributions. I’ve got my own logic, eyes and intuitions and concluded this was probably real 20 years ago.

  4. Alamo responds:

    I’ve always thought that the only way PG could be fake was if Munns monkeyed with the film, not that I think that’s a likely scenario. It would take his level of movie magic to create something like that. I’ve also always thought that the movement of the boobies is one of the most… ahem… attention worthy pieces of evidence. Hard to fake that, even plastic surgeons of today don’t quite get it right.

  5. DWA responds:

    sasquatch: Not sure what you’re gettin’ at; my syntax is spot-on.

    Your construction actually means that Munns is irrelevant. Any old Joe with a take on this can skeptically address this film without considering Munns at all.

    Maybe, really, what I should have said is “no skeptic.”

    The proponents who have analyzed the film and associated trackways really don’t have a dog in the suit-hoax hunt. That’s a skeptical thesis. Skeptics need to prove it. Proponents who can see it as a bald non-starter don’t.

  6. sasquatch responds:

    I shoulda added “Anyone who fails to address this mans arguements DOES NOT have an opinion worth considering”…your original Syntax just hit me as odd and I had to read a few times…But I got it finally-Anyway, as stated above; I actually think that you CAN have an opinion without ever seeing or hearing Munns’ presentations….his stuff is quite recent compared to many earlier, well reasoned arguments in favor of the reality of the figure in the PG film. Again, I do think he has great arguments and advantages of more modern technology to analyze the film with….many of his observations have been addressed before and are ones I also came up with on my own. For instance; I also have always thought that her thumb or hand swinging and rubbing was the reason for that line on the upper thigh).
    Once I even took tracing paper, taped it to the T.V. screen, paused the film (On VHS tape) and drew over the image and made my own list of things that didn’t look human about it. This was probably in the early ’90’s.

  7. chewbaccalacca responds:

    Is there a video link to his talk, by any chance?

    p.s. the P-G film is the real thing. Any skeptic who can’t reproduce its appearance and movement convincingly, using 1960’s costume and camera technology, is just blowing smoke out of their you-know-what.

  8. doctoratlantis responds:

    Just a small correction. Bill Munns had nothing to do with Creature From the Black Lagoon. That film came out in 1954. The creature was designed by Milicent Patrick. Munns mentions on his website that he made a re-creation of the Gill-Man suit, but that’s not the same thing as being involved in the film. I don’t know Bill’s exact age – but I would guess he wouldn’t have been even a teenager yet in 1954?



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.