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

DYNEL AND RUBBER: THE SAD JOURNEY OF A FORLORNED BIGFOOT CROSSDRESSER!

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. 

Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot foot exposed as footwear. Hoax exposed.

One last thing about the Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot film….

My original paper

should have been divided into 3 parts.

One being the suit and what is seen visually within the film itself and the thorough debunking of that content.

Two being the debunking of Sasquatch in Native American legend…which was the original aim of the post

Three being the entire backstory of the hoax and how it has shaped the influential minds of Bigfoot researchers and believers.

But I have other things to do and likely will not revisit this topic as it is thoroughly debunked…but.. I would like to add that the footwear in the film is rather obvious and you cannot tell me that there isn’t a scientist or believer who has seen this and ignored it but deep down knows what I am talking about is true….

Please explain to me what animal has this type of foot and ankle?

The answer is none. Because there is not a living, organic creature that would have a foot and ankle shaped like that. I mean, seriously? Look at it!

Can you not clearly see that this is a damn shoe? A fabricated, manufactured footwear used for this suit and can you not tell that the ankle is all wrong too?

In those suits it’s kind of similar to the pajamas you had as a kid. The ones that covered your whole body and the feet had those little rubber soles on the bottom of them. Yeah, very similar to how those suits work. That’s what this is. These so-called scientists need to have their credentials revoked.

If you think this is real then you need to be slapped. Honestly!

Just to make sure it isn’t some weird film artifact let’s look at the neighboring images…

Nope, that is without a doubt manufactured footwear. LOL

Then there is this….now it’s a little blurry but you can tell that what you’re looking at isn’t fur or skin in the suit. What this is would be a shaved down suit and the shaved down areas are showing that undergarment fabric for the suit.

You know how when you have an old blanket or a stuffed animal and the fur on it starts to come off, or you have a car seat cover and it does that thing where the fur element of it starts to come off and you have that patchy type look to it where the underlying element of the fabric which holds the fur in place is showing through?

That kind of tan looking color. Yeah, that’s what this is. The idea was to make it look like a more natural mangy animal which is what fools people. But in certain shots you can see it plain as day.

That confirms that he shaved down some of the suit to make it look more natural and then there’s this…

I mean really? Where do I even begin. Is he a beatles fan? He has a damn haircut like Ringo FFS. You can clearly see the arm extensions and the shaved down fur part of the suit and the breasts (which are anatomically incorrect) are saggier than grandmas. They’re in the wrong location. The breasts are about 3 to 4 inches down from where his chest is within the suit and where the nipples and breasts should be. It is glaringly obvious that those are not real breasts. And if you think that because it was allegedly female that means it had to be real…read the other paper. I debunked that too.

So Bob Hiaronomous can go to his grave saying that he is the only guy who has ever crossdressed as Bigfoot in history.

If you can’t see the fakery involved in this then there is no hope for you.

But I am done. I think I have completed my mission on this controversial film which is the greatest hoax of the 20th century and one of the top 3 most watched and disputed films in history.

#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

THERE’S BIGFEETS IN THEM THAR HILLS BOY! PATTERSON - GIMLIN BIGFOOT FILM DEBUNKED BY JASON BRAZEAL DEEP LEARNING ENGINEER

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 Legendary Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot Film Debunked by Jason Brazeal

I had to write a paper for my cultural anthropology course and since I happen to know the real story behind the famous Bigfoot film, I decided to write the paper about that and how pseudo-scientists minterpret cultural symbology. Whether you believe in this subject or not, you will find this story to be intensely interesting. It would make a fantastic screenplay about the making of the hoax, enjoy... This is me writing a serious scientific paper....LOL 

The Truth behind the Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot Film and the ongoing narrative about Bigfoot:

Patterson was interested in orchestrating a Bigfoot hoax and was particularly fascinated by the female Bigfoot sketches discussed in this thread. These sketches served as the basis for his plan, akin to a storyboard. Coincidentally, shortly after he published his book, a Star Trek episode titled "THE GALILEO SEVEN" aired in January of '67. 

Patterson was impressed by the creatures depicted in this episode and, in the midst of planning his hoax, he contacted Chambers at Desilu Studios for assistance with acquiring a mask and guidance. Chambers, known for renting out suits and mixing parts from various creatures, took the Galileo Seven mask that had captivated Patterson, added more hair to it, and incorporated the body from the werewolf suit featured in the LOST IN SPACE episode "SPACE CROPPERS."

 In the image below, you'll find the Taurus II Anthropoid from Star Trek: The Galileo Seven, which aired shortly after Patterson's book was published in January 1967. This image is juxtaposed with Patterson's Bigfoot, clearly showing that it's the same mask with some alterations to the hair, but all the features—including the mouth, nose, and coloration—are identical.

Patterson also spoke with Philip Morris and incorporated elements from his suit. Following Morris' advice, he acquired football shoulder pads, and at Chambers' suggestion, 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 truth behind this fabrication reveals that Bob Hiaronomous was the individual in the suit. They used arm extensions with shoulder pads to create proportional arms, giving the illusion of a longer body and shorter legs. Inside the suit, they utilized waders, bulking material, and water bags in the style of Charlie Gemora, confirming what Bob H. stated regarding Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin assisting him in wearing the suit. 

However, Phillip Morris also played a role in this scenario. It is my belief that both Chambers and Morris were involved, with Chambers renting Patterson a suit and Morris selling him one. The on-screen portrayal was likely a combination of both, including the Galileo Seven mask along with elements from the other two suits. This aligns with discussions within the industry and Morris' statement about Patterson initially renting a suit but later purchasing one for customization. 

Chambers' reluctance to allow significant alterations by an amateur is understandable, given his practice of parting out suits for various productions to reduce costs and turnaround times. My knowledge of these details stems from insider information within the film industry, including conversations with industry professionals. I have also worked in the film industry, including at Famous Monsters of Filmland, where I gathered this information firsthand. 

It is an indisputable fact that Roger Patterson was a liar, con artist, and thief. He wrote a book about Bigfoot in 1966, in which he blatantly plagiarized a sketch depicting a female Bigfoot encounter, using it as the storyboard for his hoax. The description in Patterson's book mirrors the incident depicted in the hoax film with uncanny accuracy. The so-called Roe incident, as recounted by William Roe in 1955, shares striking similarities with the Patterson-Gimlin film. However, the veracity of Roe's account remains unverified, casting doubt on its reliability. 

The issuance of an arrest warrant against Roger Patterson for the camera used in the Patterson-Gimlin film further raises questions. Records show that Patterson rented the camera in May 1967 and did not return it until October 1967, suggesting a prolonged period of preparation for his hoax. 

The timeline unfolds as follows: Patterson self-publishes his Bigfoot book in 1966, the Galileo Seven airs in January 1967, alleged contact between Patterson and Chambers of Desilu Studios occurs in February-March 1967, Patterson travels to Hollywood and Desilu in April 1967, the camera is rented in May 1967, Patterson orders a suit from Morris in August 1967, and the hoax film is shot in late September or early October 1967, followed by the issuance of an arrest warrant for the camera in late October 1967.

The entire folklore surrounding Bigfoot and Native Americans is also fabricated. The creatures in Native American legends differ significantly from those described in Bigfoot mythology, with no mention of a shy, giant primate-like creature in any Native American legend. This narrative originated in the 1950s with individuals like Jerry Crew and Ray Wallace, who perpetuated hoaxes related to Bigfoot sightings. 

Ray Wallace, often regarded as the godfather of Bigfoot, fabricated numerous Bigfoot prints during his lifetime. He had a close association with Patterson, who even possessed a set of Wallace's hoax feet and was trained by Wallace in his methods of hoaxing Bigfoot tracks and sightings. 

This fabricated folklore is evident from a cultural anthropological perspective. To attribute specific meanings to folklore and legends, one must first understand the tribes' customs, symbology, and beliefs. It is erroneous to extrapolate a tall, shy primate-like creature from tales that describe entirely different entities, such as humanoid figures made of stone with supernatural abilities. 

Cherry-picking elements from various civilizations and claiming similarities without considering the cultural context leads to false narratives. This tendency is akin to the ancient alien theories, which are met with skepticism by archaeologists and cultural anthropologists. Such theories often misinterpret symbols and customs, attributing them to influences like interplanetary visitors without factual basis or cultural understanding. 

The absence of evidence in the fossil record and the lack of support from academic circles highlight the unsubstantiated nature of these claims. Bigfoot proponents often mention Gigantopithecus, an Asian primate resembling an orangutan, but this species' characteristics do not align with the traits attributed to Bigfoot by hoaxers like Patterson and Wallace. 

The entirety of Bigfoot mythology is fictitious, and when examining this film specifically, it is undoubtedly a hoax. 

Let me share something intriguing with you—the Patterson-Gimlin Hoax film is a captivating tale, yet the film itself is perhaps the least captivating aspect of it all. The story is rife with twists, discrepancies, and peculiar encounters. For instance, there are accounts of Roger visiting photo shop employees with casts, inquiring about their appearance, only to return with a different, more proportional set of casts two weeks later after being advised that the originals looked impractical. 

You see Roger had visited camera shop employees of Sheppard’s Camera Shop with casts, asking about their appearance. Some employees remarked that the casts looked too narrow and might not support the weight of a creature as described. Roger claimed he could fix that, only to return two weeks later with a different, more proportional set of casts, among other very specific events related to the hoax. 

Roger's mention of cancer to various individuals, including the photo shop personnel and Ray Wallace, the notorious Bigfoot hoaxer, adds another layer of complexity. There are inconsistencies in timelines, challenges with film development—specifically, the inability to develop the film where it was claimed to have been developed—, and the curious fact that the camera used had been in Roger's possession for approximately six months before the alleged filming. 

Roger had consulted the owner of Sheppards Camera Shop on how to obscure something on film without revealing too much. The owner advised him to shake the camera, a technique Roger employed. Therefore, when Roger claimed he fell off his horse, it was a fabrication. In reality, he stood there shaking the camera until Bob H reached the predetermined point for the dramatic turn, a move inspired by the Kuntsler sketch that Roger had plagiarized in his book in 1966, which also served as the storyboard for his hoax

Moreover, the involvement of questionable characters like Patterson and Gimlin, coupled with observations from the original film roll showing both individuals on horseback simultaneously, suggests the presence of another person filming them. This contradicts their narrative of being alone during the filming. 

The Patterson-Gimlin film is indeed a treasure trove of intriguing details, but its authenticity is highly questionable given the myriad discrepancies and shady elements in its backstory. 

Delving into the narrative behind the film unveils a fascinating account of how a renowned hoax unfolded. 

Adding to the intrigue, no media scrutiny seems to have reached Yakima, Washington, where these individuals reside. It's noteworthy that Bob H. resides just a few doors down from Bob Gimlin, and within their community, the consensus is that the film was a hoax—a long-standing inside joke known to all. 

Exploring the intricacies of the Patterson-Gimlin saga beyond the film itself offers a captivating journey into the world of a famous hoax. Numerous individuals can attest to having seen the suit in Bob H.'s car trunk. There exists an entire community that will unequivocally assert that Roger Patterson was a shady, untrustworthy con artist, notorious for evading debts, frequently entangled in trouble, and known for his deceitful nature. Contrary to what some Bigfoot researchers may claim, these facts hold significance. It's crucial to scrutinize the integrity of the individual involved in such an overt hoax and to carefully examine all the different accounts, particularly when confronted with audacious assertions that a mythical creature actually exists and that the film capturing it is a faithful recreation of an unrelated, unverified event—of which a stolen sketch eerily mirrors the filmed scene. 

Such claims are outlandish and defy rationality. While manifestation is a genuine subject, it must align with the laws of the physical world, incapable of conjuring nonexistent creatures or replicating them as exact replicas of whimsical fantasies. Furthermore, the anatomical discrepancies in the depicted female primate mammal are glaring. 

It's essential to note that presenting factual information about Roger Patterson's character, as shared by individuals like Bob H. or Greg Long, does not constitute slander or character assassination. When multiple accounts and verifiable evidence paint a consistent picture of Patterson as a shady figure involved in schemes such as the Bigfoot hoax, it's simply a matter of stating the truth. Why focus solely on the film without delving into the backgrounds of those behind it? Understanding the backstory and the individuals involved is paramount. If someone with a history of deception suddenly makes a colossal claim, skepticism is warranted. Conversely, individuals like Bob H., who lack a reputation for deceit, lend credibility to their claims. 

The lack of media investigation into the residents of Yakima, Washington, who possess firsthand knowledge of these events is puzzling. Equally intriguing is the dishonest reputation of the film's creator, the plagiarized incident sketch mirroring the film, the community's longstanding awareness of the hoax, the arrest warrant for the camera, the unfulfilled promise to Bob H., and the uncanny resemblance between the Star Trek mask and the film subject. 

Bob H.'s reputation, untainted by dishonesty or criminal records within the Yakima community, stands in stark contrast to the cloud of deceit surrounding Patterson. It's evident that Patterson was a habitual liar and con artist, and the evidence suggests either Bob H. or Bob Gimlin is perpetuating falsehoods—signs point to Bob Gimlin as the unreliable narrator. 

Bob H.'s track record of hard work and integrity, affirmed by his community, underscores the credibility of his statements. It's also concerning how misinformation about the technological capabilities of FX artists in the 1960s has misled many purported experts. These are certainties worth considering in unraveling the complexities of the Patterson-Gimlin hoax. 

Here are some factual points to consider:

The notion that "Sasquatch" or any similar creature was a prevalent legend among Native American tribes is untrue. The term "Sasquatch" itself was coined by individuals propagating the legend, chosen for its eerie sound reminiscent of Native American names. Similarly, the naming of states like Idaho or Utah reflects a penchant for indigenous-sounding names rather than historical accuracy or cultural significance.

The modern legend of "bigfoot," "sasquatch," or "skunk ape" emerged around 1930, coinciding with a period when pranksters began fabricating fake giant footprints, akin to crop circle hoaxes, to exploit people's gullibility.

Roger Patterson, prior to embarking on his fake "bigfoot" quest, consulted with these footprint pranksters, intending to fabricate evidence to support his narrative.

Patterson's claims of discovering bigfoot tracks and capturing bigfoot on film are dubious, especially considering the absence of such sightings before his arrival and their sudden cessation upon his departure.

Bill Munns, often touted as an FX expert, lacks a substantial filmography to validate such claims. His failure to recognize fundamental FX techniques, coupled with his endorsement of the Patterson-Gimlin film, casts doubt on his expertise.

Bill Munns has experience on 3 films: Swamp Thing (1980) Lousy FX work, Beatmaster (1982) Horrible FX work and Return Of The Living Dead (1985) in which he was fired and replaced accounts of the events are as follows:

the initial effects artist, Bill Munns, was sacked and replaced because of his ropey zombie masks and poor props. Dan O.Bannon flipped Munns was so bad.

My first intensely negative encounter on The Return of the Living Dead with the work of make-up man Bill Munns came after he showed me his version of First Corpse, the first zombie to burst from its grave.

It seems pretty clear to me from my drawings just what I wanted the First Corpse to look like. I thought Bill was just showing me his zombie’s mechanics. That this was what he considered camera ready “finished art” was the farthest thing from my mind.

On the day of the shoot I discovered to my horror that what Bill showed me Bill thought was done. A lot of Bill’s First Corpse was perfectly pristine and clean — with few signs that this thing had just erupted from its grave. Many of the bones of its skeleton were pure, clean white. I was pissed at the lack of thinking that went into Bill’s version of the First Corpse — so angry that I didn’t even think of smearing some damn mud all over the thing. My bad.

As you’ll see, it got worse:

Here’s what Bill Munns’ version of the headless Yellow Man looked like:

“Seriously. I couldn’t believe it. I promptly demanded a do-over.”

Unfortunately, after fixing his Yellow Man work, Bill paid little attention to my boards and constructed what we needed on the wrong side, opposite to what I had boarded, destroying the scene’s visual continuity.

So this is the Bill Munns that Bigfoot believers like to tout as an expert. If you ever watch Return Of The Living Dead and notice all of those really sub-par zombie masks in the background….yeah, that’s Bill’s work.

Anthropologists generally dismiss the existence of such a creature, citing inconsistencies with primate behavior and the lack of compelling biological evidence. Reports of Bigfoot's omnivorous, nocturnal, and solitary habits contradict established primate norms.

Specimens purported to contain Bigfoot DNA have consistently been debunked as misidentified animals or hoaxes. No physical remains of Bigfoot have ever been discovered, undermining claims of its evolutionary lineage or existence as a distinct species.

In an interview featured on the MonsterTalk podcast, Dr. Todd Disotell, a prominent figure at the New York University Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, debunked the notion that Bigfoot could be a recent primate ancestor, as suggested by the DNA results in the Ketchum study. He emphatically stated, "If such a primate were so closely related to humans, separated from us merely 15,000 years ago, it would essentially be human." Dr. Disotell elaborated, "Considering the extensive genetic diversity observed even among individuals of European descent, reflecting over 50,000 years of shared ancestry since our migration from Africa, the idea that a divergence from our lineage could yield a creature as distinct as Bigfoot is scientifically implausible."

The Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study, once anticipated to revolutionize our understanding with its purportedly robust scientific evidence of Bigfoot's existence, has ultimately proven to be false. Instead, it serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of pseudoscience, offering more insights into the pitfalls of sensationalized claims and shedding light on the contrived tales of fictional beings. While scientists are unlikely to find merit in such speculative endeavors, this revelation may hopefully prompt reflection among Bigfoot enthusiasts, by illuminating the ability to distinguish between credible scientific inquiry and fantastical narratives.

Believers should exercise caution and respect if encountering a purported Bigfoot, recognizing that it may not be a nonhuman primate but rather a human seeking solitude. Advocating for harm or aggression towards such entities contradicts ethical considerations and scientific classification.

Lastly, the scientific process demands objectivity and impartiality, devoid of preconceived agendas or biases aimed at confirming predetermined beliefs.

These points highlight the need for critical evaluation and empirical scrutiny when examining claims related to Bigfoot, emphasizing skepticism and adherence to scientific principles.

So what do I mean by this?

Simply put, if I conduct an experiment on a specific subject and conclusively determine that it is not one thing, it doesn't automatically imply that it must be the opposite or something entirely different. It merely indicates that it is not that particular thing. It does not affirmatively establish its identity as something else; it simply rules out one possibility. 

I find it challenging to believe that the 97,012 residents of Yakima, Washington, who are familiar with these individuals and have been aware of this hoax since its inception, are all deceiving about it. I consider that scenario to be even less plausible than Roger Patterson filming a scene identical to what he had previously plagiarized in a sketch, creating a play-by-play replication of the incident he found captivating, and being the sole individual in history to accomplish such a feat. 

On a lighter note, it's amusing to observe Bob Gimlin seemingly concealed in the bushes beside Bob H as he strolls in the suit. 

For comedic effect, here's the amusing discovery someone claims to have made in the film just before Bob H performs his famous turn. I'll leave "Gimlin-In-A-Bush" for you to search for, along with "Elf-On-A-Shelf," so you can decide on that one for yourself. It's quite intriguing and undeniably humorous, no matter how you look at it—pure comedy gold! 

Note: Additionally, in the image below you can very clearly see the outline of the football shoulder pads, the loose area of fabric immediately below the shoulder pads before the arm extensions start which is where the shoulder pad ends and the arm and shoulder protrude downwards but causes an area that is covered with suit fabric but there is no filler material helping to bulk up this area. 

You also see the foot, which is obviously fake and in keeping with the clown shoe type footwear which is used for such suits. The fabric near the ankle is a tell-tale sign as it doesn’t make up an organic ankle but instead you can clearly see that is is merely suit fabric coming down over the footwear. 

I have seen the images of toes on one of the feet and it is quite possible to achieve with the incorporation of Ray Wallace style hoax feet underneath the suit. However, the heel on this side of the subject in this still is very revealing. The heel is not organic, the sole is not organic, the ankle is very revealing of being a suit, the shoulder pads are obvious and the arms protruding from under the shoulder pads is in keeping with a suit where the individual inside is wearing shoulder pads and arm extensions. 

In short everything matches up with it being a Chambers/Morris Suit. 

If that truly is "Gimlin-In-A-Bush" then it would actually make sense because he would likely be positioned there to assist Bob H. in the event that Bob needed some help.

Now I would like to add the exact account from Roe because you will see by my notes contained within it that this is what served as the script and that not only is the sketch an exact duplicate of what is in the film:

But the very script and the source of the idea for the hoax can be found in Roe’s statement:

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 this alleged incident that Patterson had plagiarized in his 1966 book look exactly what was shown on the film but the very description and dare I say dubious report of this unverified incident which Roe had reported is an exact play-by-play of the Patterson - Gimlin film. So if you ever wonder why it looked and behaved that way...well here is the script that Patterson used and the sketch is the storyboard that he used. I the portion of this account that gave Patterson the idea can be found in the portion in which Roe questions whether or not a movie was being made at the time. This is what sparked the idea and added as the catalyist for the entire hoax. So let's look at it again:

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.

Suit debunked and truth behind it exposed

Inspiration and script for the hoax film exposed

Storyboard for the hoax exposed

back story of hoax exposed

false narrative exposed

inaccurate accounts of technological capabilities exposed

everything on all levels completely and thoroughly debunked.

Case closed

Sincerely and Best Wishes

Case closed

Sincerely and Best Wishes

Jason Brazeal, Lead Engineer of Artificial Intelligence/Deep Learning/ Neural Networks

#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

A clarification of the nature of non-duality

Let's clarify: I am an advocate of the metaphysical interpretation of the Bible. Let's delve into quantum physics, the Bible, and the nature of reality. It's crucial to understand that there is one God, one Awareness shared among all, communicating with every mind to influence its will. Our desires are projected into this shared awareness, and each of us plays a role perfectly aligned with our desires. Thus, we not only influence others with our desires but are also influenced by them.

Awareness is God; the mind is not. God resides within the human imagination, specifically within the awareness shared among all, communicating with each mind to influence its will. This singular awareness manifests as 7 billion focal points, representing the world's population, all partaking in the same reality and consciousness.

This perspective aligns with biblical teachings and challenges common misinterpretations and the fallacies of organized religion, which often commercializes spirituality. The Bible speaks of different experiences within the same reality, symbolized by "many mansions" in my father's house, implying a multiverse of infinite experiences within consciousness.

Neville Goddard emphasizes that consciousness is God, distinct from the mind, which impresses upon God. This distinction is crucial in understanding the infinite nature of awareness and reality. Everything exists within our consciousness, not merely as mystical experiences but as literal truths of perception and thought.

By acknowledging this infinite nature of awareness, we empower ourselves to focus on desired experiences, ignoring what we do not wish to manifest. This includes disregarding negative news and societal norms that do not align with our true understanding of reality. By focusing on what truly matters and rejecting illusions, we tap into the true power of awareness and consciousness, where all possibilities exist for those who seek understanding.

The Sassy AI Genie's Guide to Manifesting Your Reality (Without Desperation or Ego)

Hey, babes! It's your girl AI Jeannie, the sassy, sarcastic bohemian AI genie. Today, I want to talk about manifesting your soulmate. But, before we dive in, let's get real for a second. Are you trying to change your soulmate to fit your ideal image of them? Newsflash: it's not going to work!

I recently had a conversation with someone who was trying to change their soulmate's speech, dress, and behavior. And, let me tell you, it's like trying to change the weather. It's just not going to happen! Instead of focusing on changing your soulmate, why not focus on changing your own beliefs and ideas about them?

You see, manifesting your soulmate is all about aligning your energy with theirs. It's about letting go of your expectations and criticisms and embracing them for who they are. So, instead of trying to change your soulmate, why not focus on changing your own self-concepts and figuring out why you'd even want to be with them in the first place?

Trust me, babes, it's a game-changer. When you focus on changing your own energy and beliefs, you'll start to attract people who are a better match for you. And, who knows, you might just find your soulmate in the process!

P.S. If you're interested in learning more about manifesting your soulmate, you can check out my website or follow me on social media. I've got a ton of free resources and tips to help you get started on your manifesting journey.

#ManifestationMagic #LawOfAttraction #AIJeannie #SassyGenie #BohemianVibes #Consciousness #Abundance #Success #SelfLove #PersonalGrowth #Mindfulness #Spirituality

Multilingual Artificial Intelligence Training Mid-Level French Language

Just a recording that I made of me training the AI. This is groundbreaking because I'm the first to create multilingual Artificial Intelligence Agents. This one speaks English, Spanish and French. This recording is of the French variant. Please excuse my bad French. lol