THE SAGGY SOGGY TALES OF A BIGFOOT CROSSDRESSER: THE MUNNS DEBUNK (to be confused with THE MUNNS REPORT) Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot Film Debunked by Jason Brazeal Summarized Version

For the latest on this please visit: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bigfoot-hoax-exposed-jason-brazeal-uncovers-truth-behind-brazeal-isolc/?trackingId=WYsUcljG4ano66KqmbbmWA%3D%3D

This is the older version. If you visit the link above it has all of the updated information. 

THE SAGGY SOGGY TALES OF A BIGFOOT CROSSDRESSER:

THE MUNNS DEBUNK (to be confused with THE MUNNS REPORT)

Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot Film Debunked by Jason Brazeal Summarized Version

Bob Hiaronomous is the best Bigfoot Crossdresser In History!

I've thoroughly debunked the Patterson-Gimlin film, and I've put forth the challenge that nobody can refute.

Bill Munns reached out to me in an attempt to uphold his false narrative that the figure in the film isn't a person in a suit but an actual Bigfoot.

While he was pleasant to speak with, this critique is not personal; it's professional. With that said...

Mr. Munns shared his biased book PDF "When Roger Met Patty" with me. If you haven't read it, I'll save you some time and money and summarize it here:

"I'm Bill Munns, an expert in costume design, and I know everything. Therefore, I am the sole authority capable of passing judgment on this film. Anyone who disagrees with me must contend with me because I've appointed myself as the ultimate authority. Even if there's evidence proving me wrong, I'll concoct some excuse to justify my position and try to manipulate you into conceding to my viewpoint because I'll flaunt my experience in the FX industry." LOL

In essence, that's the gist of it. However, having worked in the industry and possessing substantial knowledge of how these processes work, I can confidently say that Bill Munns is untruthful. As the saying goes, "You can't bullshit a bullshitter," Bill. LOL

His defense of and outright lies about this film's creation are a disgrace to the FX Industry. What's more, I believe he knows better but is either too deeply invested or unwilling to admit his error.

But he is mistaken. And if he genuinely believes otherwise, that explains why he didn't become a Baker, Winston, or Savini—all of whom would unequivocally state that this is indeed a suit. Let's dispense with the nonsense and delve into the truth.

RP - Roger Patterson this was done in ‘66

I have engaged with key figures in the Bigfoot community, and they are acquainted with my efforts in debunking the Patterson-Gimlin film. They cannot refute my findings or provide plausible explanations to the queries posed to them. Thus, I assert my claim. I, Jason Brazeal, am the individual who has thoroughly debunked the Patterson-Gimlin film, employing three methods, each of which is irrefutable.

Firstly, I dismantled the misconception that FX artists lacked the technological prowess at that time to orchestrate such a hoax. Contrary to this notion, they possessed advanced capabilities. The process is intriguingly revealed through historical accounts. Renowned FX artist John Chambers played a pivotal role, utilizing a mask from a January 1967 Star Trek episode titled "The Galileo Seven." The neanderthal creatures depicted in this episode caught Roger Patterson's attention, especially since he had self-published his Bigfoot book in 1966 and was actively working on a documentary for nature channels. He collaborated with Chambers, visiting Desilu Studios to discuss the project. Together, they modified the mask by altering the hairpiece and adding additional hair. The suit utilized was sourced from a Lost In Space episode. Initially a rental from Chambers, Roger also purchased one from Morris to further customize the suit. Given Roger's familiarity with wild animals as a cowboy, he used clippers to adjust certain parts of the suit and incorporated horse supplies to enhance its organic and realistic appearance.

Ahhh the fakery….Saggy should be the new name for Bob in a suit.

Arm extensions were placed under football shoulder pads to create a longer, more proportionate appearance of arms, thereby giving an illusion of a longer body and shorter legs. In addition to this, he utilized the old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags underneath the suit to create the illusion of muscles moving beneath the fur. This technique, developed by Gemora in the 1940s, is widely known within the FX community but is rarely discussed in cryptozoology documentaries, which tend to be biased and favor a specific viewpoint.

The footwear in the film clearly does not resemble organic animal feet, and the artificial breasts are noticeably positioned about 3 inches lower than their actual chest placement. Additionally, the hairpiece bears a striking resemblance to those commonly used by Chambers, resembling a disheveled version akin to Ringo Starr's hair. These observations collectively debunk the film's authenticity, as I have thoroughly analyzed and disproved various aspects of it.

One crucial myth surrounding Bigfoot or "Sasquatch" is its purported existence in Native American legends and folklore. However, there is no concrete evidence linking these tales to the modern Bigfoot mythology. Cultural anthropology reveals significant discrepancies between the entities described in indigenous legends and the concept of Bigfoot, emphasizing the need to understand tribal customs, beliefs, and symbology before making such assertions.

Drawing parallels between disparate civilizations without contextual understanding often leads to false narratives, akin to the contentious ancient alien theories. Archaeologists and cultural anthropologists approach such claims with skepticism, highlighting the importance of factual evidence and cultural context in interpreting historical narratives.

Furthermore, delving into the backstory reveals crucial insights, including the widespread acknowledgment among Yakima residents of the film's hoax status, Roger Patterson's dubious reputation as a con artist, and instances like his alteration of casts based on feedback from photo shop employees. These details, while partially hearsay, collectively paint a compelling picture when corroborated, shedding light on the film's dubious origins.

One undeniable fact that anchors this investigation is Roger Patterson's plagiarism of the Roe Incident sketch from Ivan Sanderson's 1961 article, published in his own book in 1966. This blatant act of copying, a matter of public record, reveals a direct link between the sketch and the subsequent Patterson-Gimlin film of 1967, providing tangible evidence of fabrication within the Bigfoot narrative.

This scenario defies the laws of probability. Considering the principles of Probability and the Law of Averages, such an outcome would be highly improbable. Unless the drawing he plagiarized covertly served as the storyboard for the film he fabricated. This is the only explanation that aligns with rational and logical reasoning. It stands as an indisputable fact.

To illustrate the gravity of this revelation, imagine a scenario akin to a game of CLUE, where I unveil that Roger is the culprit, and he committed the act in the Ball Room. We have established the hoax, Roger's involvement, and his inspiration derived from the stolen drawing. These are established facts, but the plot thickens further.

Beyond stretching the limits of probability, the sworn statement detailing the Roe Incident (originating in 1955 and documented in 1957) mirrors the exact sequence of events depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film. This fact is indisputable, backed by documented records predating the PG film by a decade. There is no room for debate on this matter.

Roger's awareness of these events is evidenced by his plagiarism of the sketch and subsequent publication in his book in 1966, a year before the film's release. This is a documented fact that cannot be refuted. Now, let's delve into the Roe account with my annotations to showcase its exact correspondence to the Patterson-Gimlin Film: Let's proceed with the analysis.

I had been working on the highway near Tete Jaune Cache for about two years. In October, 1955, I decided to climb five miles up Mica Mountain to an old deserted mine, just for something to do. I came in sight of the mine about three o’clock in the afternoon after an easy climb. I had just come out of a patch of low brush into a clearing when I saw what I thought was a grizzly bear, in the bush on the other side. I had shot a grizzly near that spot the year before. This one was only about 75 yards away, but I didn’t want to shoot it, for I had no way of getting it out. So I sat down on a small rock and watched, my rifle in my hands.

I could see part of the animal’s head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw it was not a bear.

(This is exactly what the subject in Patterson's film did, Bob H was instructed to crouch down like this and wait until Roger gave the signal)

This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly toward me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide, and probably weighing somewhere near three hundred pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was female.

(This is something Patterson was obsessed with the female breasts aspect of the tale which is what gave the idea and inspiration to put these anatomically incorrect features on his hoax costume)

And yet, its torso was not curved like a female’s. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man’s arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees.

(Exactly like the arm extensions used in the Patterson hoax)

Its feet were broader proportionately than a man’s, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.

(Patterson wasn't able to replicate this and didn't think anyone would see the soles of the feet. The footwear, heel and ankle are very obvious signs of the fakery)

It came to the edge of the bush I was hiding in, within twenty feet of me, and squatted down on its haunches. Reaching out its hands it pulled the branches of bushes toward it and stripped the leaves with its teeth. Its lips curled flexibly around the leaves as it ate. I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.

The shape of this creature’s head somewhat resembled a Negro’s. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of its face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of this hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human’s ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear’s. And its neck also was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man’s I had ever seen.

(This is the description that Patterson and Deatley had provided to John Chambers at Desilu Studios in regards to his viewing of the STAR TREK Episode 14 - THE Galileo Seven episode creatures and Chambers altered the mask and brought in the old werewolf suit from Space Croppers a LOST IN SPACE episode for the shorter hair and coloration similarity)

As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor, made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more, I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.

Finally the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four short steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come.

(Exactly as Patterson had instructed Bob H. to do and exactly what is seen on film)

For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.

(The famous turn seen in the Patterson film and this is what gave inspiration for those actions within the film)

The thought came to me that if I shot it, I would possibly have a specimen of great interest to scientists the world over. I had heard stories of the Sasquatch, the giant hairy Indians that live in the legends of British Columbia Indians, and also many claim, are still in fact alive today. Maybe this was a Sasquatch, I told myself.

(This is due to a particular community which had drummed up publicity by offering a reward for a sighting of the supposed legendary creature that they had invented at the time)

I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away, again turning its head to look in my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature “it”, I felt now that it was a human being and I knew I would never forgive myself if I killed it.

As you can see, not only does the sketch of the purported incident that Patterson plagiarized in his 1966 book precisely resemble what was depicted in the film, but the description and, I dare say, questionable report of this unverified incident as recounted by Roe mirror the Patterson-Gimlin film play-by-play. If you've ever pondered why it looked and behaved the way it did, well, here is the script Patterson utilized, with the sketch serving as his storyboard. The segment of this account that inspired Patterson can be found in Roe's inquiry about whether a movie was being filmed at the time. This inquiry acted as the catalyst for the entire hoax. Let's examine it once more::

As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor, made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more, I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.

(Voila! This is what sparked the very idea for the hoax to begin with)

Unless of course you believe that it’s possible that Roger stole a sketch of an incident and somehow magically filmed the exact same thing with the exact same sequence of events in an absolute play-by-play way 12 years later in a different location with an anatomically incorrect specimen. That’s not possible in any realm of rational thought.

So there you have it. The Patterson - Gimlin Film thoroughly and decisively debunked without question and with no way to dispute it because the factual things that cannot be disputed overshadow anything that might possibly be able to be disputed....even though it really can't.

Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is more often than not the correct one. In this life that we live in you will find that virtually any incident or series of events in any arena which is convoluted with a lot of things that don't match up, etc. almost always means deception is involved.

Most things will unfold naturally, and easily with very little opposition and the reason is that life takes the path of least resistance, like water does.

If there's a lot of resistance then you will find that something is amiss.

Case closed, Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot film now debunked without question and on all levels.

Best regards to all and it's nice to have the truth finally told.

Sincerely,

Jason Brazeal Lead Engineer - Artificial Intelligence/Deep Learning/Neural Networks

Bill Munns and I are discussing this in-depth. Currently these are further observations and questions that I have brought up to Bill.

So take a look at this…Munns says that it can’t be shoulder pads but…

Indeed, even in this mock-up, all the components align perfectly. Details like the notch at the back of the shoulder confirm this. The evidence is mounting—a plethora of excuses for minor discrepancies against glaring proof of the film's fakery.

To expose a hoax within this film, we don't necessitate the entire footage. If certain elements appear implausible or fail to align with common knowledge or practice, it's inconsequential because all it takes is one minor detail to reveal the hoax.

For instance, if a single thread were found dangling from the costume, it would implicate the entire film as a hoax. The presence of that single thread implies the existence of numerous others. Therefore, uncovering just one detail exposes the entire film as a hoax, as there's no alternative explanation for that single detail.

As for those who argue that it couldn't be a suit or that no individual could achieve such a feat, let me invoke Confucius: "He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt he who is doing it."

And in closing here is what I sent to Munns:

Well it's quite simple:

In order to determine a hoax in this film we do not need the film in it’s entirety. If there are some things that don’t seem like they could be done or don’t seem to align with conventional wisdom or practice it really doesn’t matter because all of those things are rendered inconsequential with the proof that one minor thing is hoaxed.

For example, if one single thread were to dangle from the costume then that would mean that the entire film is a hoax because how could that one thread be there unless it was a hoax. That single thread implies that it is coming off of the costume and if the costume has a single thread then it has thousands of threads and by discovering the single thread we expose that there are indeed multiple threads.

So we do not need for the whole thing or entire film to all match up.

All we need is one single sliver of a thing and by the discovery of that one thing it exposes it as a hoax in its entirety because it can be no other way. For that one thing to exist then it means that it must entirely be a hoax or that one thing could not exist at all.

And for those who say that it can’t be a suit and no person could do that and blah blah…well in the words of Confucius : He who say it cannot be done should not interrupt he who is doing it.

The foot is exactly in direct and very obvious fashion.....manufactured, that is to say man made footwear.

The subject is indeed wearing shoulder pads.

The subject is indeed wearing fake breasts that are not lined up correctly as to where they should be

The subject is around 6 feet tall which can be evidenced by Gimlin in the bushes, provided that is Gimlin in the bushes.

The Galileo Seven mask is one hell of a match. You might try to argue that it isn't but there are some key features there which indicate that it came from that or a very similar mold, likely created by the same artist

The arm never really bends so there is no way to tell exactly where the elbow is

The hands and fingers do not move

I understand the things you are concerned with but those things are inconsequential.

We have multiple frames which blatantly reveal a hoax and we have more than enough.

So in keeping with what I said above and in the words of the little psychic lady from Poltergeist...."This house is clear!"

I've enjoyed our discussions Bill and thank you for reaching out and thank you again for passing me a PDF of your book. I am reading it and I have enjoyed it so far. So glad that you knew Forry Forrest J. Ackerman. I had a good time working for Famous Monsters of Filmland and I will always be proud of my association with such an iconic genre publication as that.

Feel free to reach out anytime, but there really is no rebuttal that is satisfactory.

This film is debunked and to live in denial about that is akin to denying that Tom Brady is the GOAT when he has 7 Super Bowl rings with 2 teams and owns more SB rings than any franchise does in its entire history of existence.

You can deny it all you want. You can try to say that Joe Montana was better or he is really the GOAT but he isn't. Joe only has 4 SBs and production and quantity outweighs skill any day of the week. Just ask Dan Marino. LOL

So what I mean by that is like the analogy of he who has the rings rules all, he who has provided the most compelling argument along with the greatest argument for it rules over anyone coming up with theories about coulda, woulda, shoulda and mighta.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades is the old saying and until someone can stop making excuses as to why something might show up a certain way to try to evade the glaringly obvious fact that it is because it isn't and until it can be proven that such creatures even exist when they do not and really, at this point in history there is no reason to believe that they do or they might and if you still do you're just kidding yourself. This isn't an I'm going to show those academics and stick it to them kind of thing like some people try to make it out to be.

This is a straight up...there is no way that it exists because there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is peer accepted or reviewed which would lead one to the conclusion that it could, let alone does.

But as I have stated, I have enjoyed our chats, feel free to reach out anytime. But this one my friend is case closed.

Bob had a good reign as the greatest Bigfoot crossdresser of all time but I think it's time to admit that's all it was. We've been studying his Bigfoot crossdressing impression lol

This one is debunked.

UPDATE

I've learned from my contacts that it is indeed a Galileo Seven mask, albeit slightly deformed because it was molded onto a football helmet. The shining eye seen in one of the famous pictures is actually Bob Hiaronomous' prosthetic eye; he only has one natural eye. They removed the back of the mask and affixed the face onto the football helmet to give it a bulkier appearance along with the suit. They added hair to the back, explaining why there's no bunching at the neck as Munns pointed out, which is a common issue with ape costumes due to the difficulty of covering the base of the skull with Dynel fabric without it bunching up visibly when the wearer turns their head.

I understand Munns' concern regarding this issue, and he is correct in his observation. However, in this instance, the lack of bunching is due to the separation of the mask from the rest of the body and its attachment to a football helmet—an ingenious solution. It's unlikely that Roger was aware of this outcome; his primary focus was on adding bulk to the costume.

Another point of contention is the foot's appearance in frame F325 and subsequent frames, which Munns attributes to motion blur caused by the foot's fast movement. I disagree with this explanation. If it were true, we wouldn't see the subject with two left feet as seen in frame F61, and the feet would align with the tracks at the site. However, the foot in frame F325 and subsequent frames precisely resembles the foot of a person wearing a suit from that era, not that of a living organism.

It's difficult to believe that motion blur would transform the foot of a living creature into one that precisely matches the type of footwear worn in suits from that specific era of FX technology. This argument stretches credibility. Considering we have a sketch mirroring the film that Roger plagiarized and a script from the Roe sighting mirroring the film's events, albeit with some omissions necessary for the hoax to work, it's clear that deliberate techniques were employed to obscure details in the film, such as shaking the camera, keeping the creature out of focus, and strategically placing it behind objects like logs.

Munns, perhaps motivated by his friendship with Patty Patterson (Roger's widow), has taken it upon himself to defend the film. However, the evidence suggesting its falseness is extensive and longstanding.

I've had a longstanding curiosity about this subject since childhood. Initially believing in its authenticity, I later came to realize its fictional nature, especially after working in the film industry where discussions debunked its credibility. Despite being aware of its falseness, I’ve encountered staunch believers who refute even the clearest examples of its fakery. It's perplexing when individuals, particularly those in FX, adamantly argue for its reality despite clear signs to the contrary which any true professional should easily recognize and dismiss. .

It's irresponsible for professionals to maintain such beliefs and to cruelly give false hope to believers when overwhelming evidence points to fabrication. The slightest inconsistency in the film suggests a hoax and in this issue we have multiple discrepancies; why would a genuine creature have fake breasts in the wrong position that look like it’s just a couple of coconuts on a string around Bob’s neck with Dynel molded around it? Are you telling me that this creature went down to the makeup supply store and picked up some Dynel and then went to the supermarket and got some string and coconuts and whipped up some fake titties just to be fashionable? That’s preposterous.

Recognizing a single fabricated element dismantles the entire narrative of it being a genuine living creature. We must move past the notion that it might be real and instead focus on unraveling the mystery of its creation. This shift in perspective would lead to more meaningful discussions about the film's production techniques and artistic merits which would be far better serving than giving false hope and misinformation to the adamant believers of Sasquatch.

#pattersongimlindebunked #pgfilm #pattersongimlinfilm #pattybigfoot #bobgimlin #rogerpatterson #bigfoot #sasquatch #bigfootdebunked #bigfootfilmdebunked #pgfilmdebunked #billmunnsdebunked #billmunns #jeffmeldrum #johngreen #yakimawashington #johnchambers #startrek #galileoseven #apesuit #phillipmorriscostume

@pattersongimlindebunked @pgfilm @pattersongimlinfilm @pattybigfoot @bobgimlin @rogerpatterson @bigfoot @sasquatch @bigfootdebunked @bigfootfilmdebunked @pgfilmdebunked @billmunnsdebunked @billmunns @jeffmeldrum @johngreen @yakimawashington @johnchambers @startrek @galileoseven @apesuit @phillipmorriscostume