Speaker 1: Now one of your pudding. I got a string going
Speaker 1: on here, something just because my dog. Something killed your dog.
Speaker 1: My dog. We're flying through the air over the tree.
Speaker 1: I don't know how it did it, Okay, Damn, I'm
Speaker 1: really confused. All I saw was my dog coming over
Speaker 1: the fence and he was dead. And once you hit
Speaker 1: the ground like, I didn't see any cars. All I
Speaker 1: saw was my dog coming over the fence. Sat, what
Speaker 1: are you putting? We got some wonder or something crawling
Speaker 1: around out here? Did you see what it was? Or
Speaker 1: was it was? Standing up? I'm out here looking through
Speaker 1: the window now and I don't see anything. I don't
Speaker 1: want to go outside. Jesus Quice, you better hello, get
Speaker 1: somebody out here. Quin, I'm out there. I thought of
Speaker 1: a bit of about text nine. I don't know easy
Speaker 1: ann ount there, Yeah, I'm walking right.
Speaker 2: Hey, all right, Films have a welcome my guest to the
Speaker 2: show Bill. Muns. Welcome to the show Bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here, Brian.
Speaker 2: I have been looking forward to this conversation. Obviously, anybody
Speaker 2: who's been following anything to do with the Bigfoot community.
Speaker 2: My feed has been blowing up over the last couple
Speaker 2: of weeks talking about this new documentary film capturing Bigfoot
Speaker 2: and this alleged new stuff that's out there in relation
Speaker 2: to the PG film. We're going to get into some
Speaker 2: of that, but before we do, let's set the stage
Speaker 2: for people who may not be familiar with you and
Speaker 2: your work on the PG film. Can you talk a
Speaker 2: little bit about how you got involved with this film
Speaker 2: and what that history has been like for you over
Speaker 2: the last few decades.
Speaker 3: My background is actually originally a makeup artist, starting with
Speaker 3: regular makeup and gravitating towards the special effects, the creatures,
Speaker 3: the monsters, all that stuff. But also back in the
Speaker 3: nineteen sixties, sixty seven, sixty eight, when Roger actually filmed
Speaker 3: is footage, I was a student filmmaker at Valley College,
Speaker 3: so I was actually shooting sixteen millimeter films same time
Speaker 3: Roger was. And what I found out I finally got
Speaker 3: involved heavily with the whole topic around two thousand and eight.
Speaker 3: What I found is that no prior researchers had those
Speaker 3: two areas of specialized knowledge. They were not filmmakers. They
Speaker 3: really didn't understand cameras, lenses, film stock, lab processing, all
Speaker 3: of that. They didn't understand it from the point of
Speaker 3: somebody who had done it and done it. And then
Speaker 3: when it gets to the question is what we see
Speaker 3: in the film? Is it something real or is it
Speaker 3: a guy running around in some kind of furk costume.
Speaker 3: In order to analyze that, you've got to be somebody
Speaker 3: who's actually designed and built for costumes. If you haven't
Speaker 3: done it, you really don't know enough to properly analyze it.
Speaker 3: So I came into this with those two backgrounds, which
Speaker 3: made me a sort of a unique analyst in the
Speaker 3: whole topic from beginning right up until the current day.
Speaker 3: It very quickly put me very high up in the hierarchy,
Speaker 3: if you will, of researchers. One of the things that
Speaker 3: I understood that nobody else did was most people, if
Speaker 3: they could get one copy of the film, they thought, Okay,
Speaker 3: I've got the film. What they didn't realize is that
Speaker 3: because everything we have is copies, we don't have the
Speaker 3: original to work with. Every copy is different in some way.
Speaker 3: Every copy has some information and maybe another copy doesn't
Speaker 3: have And these other people, not being filmmakers, didn't understand that,
Speaker 3: but I did. So I started scanning copies and I
Speaker 3: built up an archive of more scanned copies than any
Speaker 3: researcher had ever possessed, and that allowed me to do
Speaker 3: research on a level that nobody else could. Anything that
Speaker 3: comes up where someone sees something in a frame and says, oh,
Speaker 3: this is that. This is a hernie on the leg,
Speaker 3: this is a gunshot from the woods, anything like that,
Speaker 3: they just look at the one copy and they seem
Speaker 3: to think, Okay, that's it. As soon as that one
Speaker 3: of that topic comes up, I go to all my
Speaker 3: other copy and if it's not in all the other copies,
Speaker 3: then it's not original data. It's a copy artifact. Quite
Speaker 3: a few researchers have actually made mistakes because they were
Speaker 3: looking at one copy. Somebody looks at it and says, oh,
Speaker 3: there's a splice in my copy. Ha ha, it's been splice.
Speaker 3: It means somebody's doing something sneaky. I just go to
Speaker 3: another copy and see on this other copy, isn't splice
Speaker 3: in the same spot.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: I go to the next copy. Is it splice there? No, Okay,
Speaker 3: the splice isn't in the original. It's in one of
Speaker 3: the copies, So it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Having that
Speaker 3: archive of all these copies allowed me to do research
Speaker 3: and nobody else could. All of that, combined my filmmaker background,
Speaker 3: my makeup effects background, plus the archive of copies that
Speaker 3: I built up and everything simply put me in a
Speaker 3: position where I can analyze the film in ways that
Speaker 3: nobody else can.
Speaker 2: I think that's a great place to start. Because you've
Speaker 2: spent so many years studying the film. I guess the
Speaker 2: question for me is when you first got involved in this,
Speaker 2: what was the first thing about the film that convinced
Speaker 2: you that it deserved to you taken so seriously and
Speaker 2: for you to do the work that you've been picked
Speaker 2: up and went into all those years.
Speaker 3: Oddly enough, the back of the neck. It's not exactly
Speaker 3: what you think of when you think about Patty. But
Speaker 3: because I've actually built ape suits and I've worked with
Speaker 3: them on set, know all the problems dealing with it.
Speaker 3: One of the biggest problems with an ape suit is
Speaker 3: until more recent stretch fur was available, but it wasn't
Speaker 3: back in the sixties. The problem is trying to keep
Speaker 3: where the head mask stops and where the tors goes
Speaker 3: start the back of the neck, trying and keep that smooth. Now,
Speaker 3: if you connect them, you're going to restrict the actor's
Speaker 3: ability to move that head left or right. In the
Speaker 3: old days, when they did it, they'd have a bunch
Speaker 3: of extra loose fur. They'd have a big fold back there,
Speaker 3: and in order to hide it, they made the shoulders
Speaker 3: much bigger, so you had these huge shoulders and this
Speaker 3: fold that allow for the head movement was buried between
Speaker 3: the shoulders. But when they started doing more normal shoulders,
Speaker 3: they couldn't do that. So what they would do is
Speaker 3: they would not attach the head to the body. They're
Speaker 3: actually separate, so the head could move around freely. Then
Speaker 3: the fur the head going down to the body gets
Speaker 3: all ruffled up as you turn the head from side
Speaker 3: to side, tilt the head up, tilted down, all that.
Speaker 3: Trying to keep that move after a radical turn of
Speaker 3: the head is damn near impossible. You just hope that
Speaker 3: the cameras looking from the front knock the back and
Speaker 3: doesn't see the back of the neck. In patterson film,
Speaker 3: we see the back of the neck almost the entire time,
Speaker 3: except for when she looks back real quick and then
Speaker 3: snaps her head back to look forward, moves on and
Speaker 3: we see the back of the neck again and it's
Speaker 3: as perfect after she turns as before she turned. We
Speaker 3: couldn't do that in nineteen sixty seven with any suit technology.
Speaker 3: It couldn't be done until nineteen eighty four, when they
Speaker 3: started using hair that had been tied into a spandex
Speaker 3: base stretched for Then they could go from the torso
Speaker 3: to that neck or torso to the head in a
Speaker 3: smooth spandex webbing, and it could handle all the movement
Speaker 3: and it would stay smooth. So it can be done now,
Speaker 3: but could not be done before nineteen eighty four. Patterson
Speaker 3: Films nineteen sixty seven, But the technology of that smooth
Speaker 3: back of the neck did not exist then. So actually
Speaker 3: that the one thing I was thinking of that actually
Speaker 3: in my mind said this is serious enough. I should
Speaker 3: really take a good look at it.
Speaker 2: Let's pass forward to the very moment we're sitting in now.
Speaker 2: Twenty twenty six, mid March. I mentioned it at the
Speaker 2: top of this. My feed has been blowing up over
Speaker 2: the last couple of weeks. I've been inundated with messages
Speaker 2: and emails and people sending text messages and asking me
Speaker 2: to weigh in on this new capturing Bigfoot documentary that's
Speaker 2: out there. I think all of this really started with
Speaker 2: somebody left a review for this film and it mentioned
Speaker 2: something about this alleged new footage that they've apparently showed
Speaker 2: in this documentary, and people are losing their minds over it.
Speaker 2: People are coming out of the woodwork and immediately it's
Speaker 2: a Patterson Gimlin Film's a fake, it's a hoax. Everybody's
Speaker 2: talking about it. They've got the smoking gun. You were
Speaker 2: actually in the film, along with people like Bob Heronymus,
Speaker 2: the late doctor, Jeff Meldrum, apparently Patricia Patterson's in it,
Speaker 2: Clint Patterson's in it. They've got all these folks, right.
Speaker 2: I think they even tried to do an interview with
Speaker 2: Iva Diatley, who was Roger Patterson's sister. Let's get to
Speaker 2: this point where you were actually in the film as well.
Speaker 2: When a'pturing Bigfoot first approach to you, What did they
Speaker 2: tell you that made you want to participate? Number one?
Speaker 2: And was there a point where you realized that the
Speaker 2: documentary seemed to be leaning in pretty hard on the
Speaker 2: idea that there was this Patterson Gimlin dress rehearsal film
Speaker 2: that they were going to drop in everybody's laps at
Speaker 2: some point in time during the documentary.
Speaker 3: I had heard through the rumor mill that somebody was
Speaker 3: working on a new documentary and it had some new
Speaker 3: footage nobody had ever seen before. So through the rumor
Speaker 3: mill I was hearing about this and found out what
Speaker 3: the name of the company was. Oddly enough, I sent
Speaker 3: them an email and said, I hear you have something
Speaker 3: you're putting together on this. I would certainly be very
Speaker 3: curious to see whatever new footage you have and perhaps
Speaker 3: even give you a professional appraisal on it if you
Speaker 3: are interested. They got right back to me the same
Speaker 3: day that said, thank you for reaching out, Bill. We
Speaker 3: were planning to content you. We definitely would like to
Speaker 3: interview for the film. So that's actually how it got started.
Speaker 3: It's funny, but all they told me was we have
Speaker 3: some new footage that has never been seen before. It
Speaker 3: came from a rather unusual place and could potentially change
Speaker 3: the way people see this Patterson Gimblin film. But they
Speaker 3: wouldn't give me any clues at all. Now, there were
Speaker 3: a couple of mystery footages that I've been searching for,
Speaker 3: and I was hoping that maybe it's this one, maybe
Speaker 3: it's that one. I even hinted to them telling him
Speaker 3: what I was hoping to see, and they assured me, no,
Speaker 3: it's not that, No, it's not Bailer. So going in
Speaker 3: I didn't have a clue what I was going to see. Now,
Speaker 3: they arranged to come up to near where I was living,
Speaker 3: in the mountain community outside Los Angeles and Lake Harrowhead.
Speaker 3: They got a house there for the day and they
Speaker 3: came up to me, brought the crew and everything, and
Speaker 3: we worked out a time I went over there before
Speaker 3: they would show me anything or tell me anything. They
Speaker 3: interviewed me for about four hours on the film and
Speaker 3: we went through everything. We really covered it comprehensively. I
Speaker 3: was very impressed by the amount of research they had
Speaker 3: done on it. Their questions were very intriguing. Clearly there
Speaker 3: was an element of skepticism in the form of their questions,
Speaker 3: but I had no problem with that at all, because
Speaker 3: I approach everything totally factually. If you can show me
Speaker 3: real evidence it shows it's a fake, I'll take it.
Speaker 3: I have no problem calling something a fake. There was
Speaker 3: something out there one called Matilda, and a guy brought
Speaker 3: me footage and wanted me to authenticate it. And I
Speaker 3: looked at it, and I had to tell them, sorry, guy,
Speaker 3: if you bock a mask with the hair replaced, and
Speaker 3: he begged me to reconsider that, say it was real,
Speaker 3: and I couldn't because I went where the facts went
Speaker 3: and I had to dismiss it. With a Patterson film,
Speaker 3: I go where the facts go, and if it actually
Speaker 3: goes to a hoax, I have no fear of going
Speaker 3: there at all. I admire the process more than the result.
Speaker 3: The result is simply if you do the process right.
Speaker 3: But I admire the process. Okay, if the process takes
Speaker 3: us to hoax, I'll go there. If it takes me
Speaker 3: to reel, I will go there, but I will go
Speaker 3: there the right way. I won't go there the wrong one.
Speaker 3: I was getting a feeling from them that they were
Speaker 3: skeptical and that they might be showing me something I
Speaker 3: would challenge the conventional thinking. We interviewed for about four hours. Finally,
Speaker 3: afterwards they actually showed me a video scan of the
Speaker 3: film clip and what it was. Starts out with someone
Speaker 3: pretending to be Bob Gimlin, guy on horseback with a
Speaker 3: Winchester rifle, and then he goes out of frame and
Speaker 3: someone that sort of looks like Patty in a modestly
Speaker 3: halfway decent suit and nothing spectacular, walks along through the wood,
Speaker 3: virtually duplicating to the end degree the Patterson film, including
Speaker 3: one pose where one foot is raised up so the
Speaker 3: sole of the foot straight up and down and you
Speaker 3: see the whole bottom of the foot and it's pure white,
Speaker 3: exactly like cebachrume seventy two of the Patterson Gimblin film.
Speaker 3: And it's virtually identical the post, which is really quite fascinating. Anyways,
Speaker 3: they showed me the video of the whole thing and said,
Speaker 3: what do you think. I said, Hey, it's obviously a
Speaker 3: man in suit. The suit isn't anything spectacular. It's not
Speaker 3: like an off the rack Halloween costume that Philip Morris
Speaker 3: would sell. It was custom made for this filming, but
Speaker 3: it's not Rick Baker, Stan Winston, John Chambers Hollywood quality.
Speaker 3: It's not anywhere near that.
Speaker 2: And stay tuned for Morse sasquat Chotasy will be right
Speaker 2: back after these messages.
Speaker 3: So I'd say, just some medium grade level of proficiency
Speaker 3: making the suit. They showed me the whole footage, so
Speaker 3: it starts out with his Bob Gimlin impersonator doing supposedly
Speaker 3: what Bob did in Bluff Creek, and then it has
Speaker 3: this guy in the suit doing the paddy walk and
Speaker 3: walking through there, and that's basically the clip. Then they
Speaker 3: actually gave me the physical film, actually held it in
Speaker 3: my hands. They gave me an eye loop ten X
Speaker 3: magnifier eye loop. I was able to actually look at
Speaker 3: the film because in the video you don't see any
Speaker 3: of the edge code or marking on the sides, and
Speaker 3: that's valuable information about the film. You can only see
Speaker 3: that if you're actually looking at the actual film, or
Speaker 3: if you have a scan that literally has the full
Speaker 3: width side to side, including all those rocket holes. So
Speaker 3: I'm looking at the film and they're filming me while
Speaker 3: I'm doing that. I hope it's in the documentary, but
Speaker 3: I haven't seen it, so I don't know. But anyways,
Speaker 3: they're filming me while I'm examining it, and I'm speaking
Speaker 3: out loud at what I'm saying, and I tell them, Okay.
Speaker 3: This is filmed on codochrome two film stock. It has
Speaker 3: a manufacturer's date code of nineteen sixty six. It was
Speaker 3: manufactured at the Rochester, New York plant. It is a
Speaker 3: camera original. It is not a print or copy. It
Speaker 3: was photographed with a Kodak K one hundred camera, most
Speaker 3: likely the single lens model, not the three lens turret model.
Speaker 3: And I was looking at it. I was able to
Speaker 3: tell them all of those things about the film by
Speaker 3: the physical exam. So everything I've just told you, now
Speaker 3: those are the facts of its actual film. Okay, So
Speaker 3: anybody who's talking about what is it and everything else,
Speaker 3: it is codo chrome. It has a camera date code,
Speaker 3: which means when it was manufactured nineteen sixty six. Okay.
Speaker 3: It was manufactured at the Rochester, New York plant. It
Speaker 3: is a camera original, It is not a copy. It
Speaker 3: was shot with a Kodak K one hundred camera, probably
Speaker 3: the single lens version. So all of those are the
Speaker 3: facts of this film. So I was able to determine
Speaker 3: that in my physical exam. Now it comes down to
Speaker 3: the big question what is this? There are two possible explanations.
Speaker 3: Is it a rehearsal for a later hoax, which many
Speaker 3: people claim, or is it an after the fact replica
Speaker 3: where you have the PGF and someone tries to duplicate it.
Speaker 3: And I discussed again on camera for then I discussed
Speaker 3: the considerations that would go into either one of those explanations.
Speaker 3: My conclusion personally is that it is a replica after
Speaker 3: the fact, and the reason I conclude that is because
Speaker 3: you can't say it's a rehearsal for the final PGF
Speaker 3: hoax unless you can first prove the PGF is a hoax,
Speaker 3: but not with it film. You have to prove it
Speaker 3: to hoax some other way. So far, nobody's ever done that.
Speaker 3: So if you can't start by saying, we prove the
Speaker 3: PGF as a hoax, so we can say this is
Speaker 3: a rehearsal of it, you can't do that until you
Speaker 3: prove the PGF as a hoax, and nobody's done it,
Speaker 3: so they're trying to do it with everything in the documentary,
Speaker 3: but until somebody actually offers a conclusive proof that it's
Speaker 3: a hope, you can't really go with the rehearsal scenario.
Speaker 3: It doesn't work because you couldn't do the rehearsal and
Speaker 3: then Roger goes out and films the real thing, and
Speaker 3: the real thing, spontaneous and totally uncontrolled by Roger, is
Speaker 3: a perfect match for rehearsal. That's impossible if it's real.
Speaker 3: Roger had no control what happened. But he had no
Speaker 3: control over it. So if he had a rehearsal in mind,
Speaker 3: he's not telling Patty what to do. So if it's real,
Speaker 3: the rehearsal thing falls apart. It simply makes no sense.
Speaker 3: A replica, on the other hand, makes perfect sense because
Speaker 3: you literally have Prince framed Prince of the PGF to
Speaker 3: look at. Okay, at this point, what's my poe. I'm
Speaker 3: standing here, My right foot's raised up so high that
Speaker 3: we can see the bottom of my foot. And whoever
Speaker 3: made the costume made the feet white. Now nobody in
Speaker 3: the right mind make it a bigfoot or an ape
Speaker 3: suit or gorilla suit would make the feet white. That
Speaker 3: makes no sense. You'd make them a medium brown, or
Speaker 3: if it's a gorilla suit, a black skin tone. You
Speaker 3: might make the soul in the palm a little lighter
Speaker 3: than it'd be a light kind of pinkish baige, but
Speaker 3: it wouldn't make it white. But this one, the feet
Speaker 3: are white in the PGF. If you have a copy
Speaker 3: of some of the frames and they expose to try
Speaker 3: to bring up detail in Patty's body, which is dark,
Speaker 3: you overexpose the feet and they look white. So if
Speaker 3: somebody making the costume was shown the PGF and they're
Speaker 3: shown these stills and wow, the feet are white, I'll
Speaker 3: have to make the feet white to match it. That's
Speaker 3: exactly what it looks like. But if it was a
Speaker 3: rehearsal and you had no idea what was coming next,
Speaker 3: nobody making that costume would have made the feet white.
Speaker 3: There is no reason for that. It defies all logic
Speaker 3: for building a costume if you want it to look correct.
Speaker 3: It only makes sense if you understand that it's a replica.
Speaker 3: I shorted through all of these pros and cons of
Speaker 3: both a rehearsal or a replica. Now what they have
Speaker 3: in the final cut of the film, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I haven't actually seen that, so I don't know how
Speaker 3: much of it they used. They couldn't have used at all.
Speaker 3: I talked too much, you know, I'm.
Speaker 2: Going to interject the question here. This is where I'll
Speaker 2: play a little bit of Devil's advocate, I think, because
Speaker 2: I guess the confusion from me and maybe some of
Speaker 2: the audience that are going to be listening to this
Speaker 2: is if what you said is true and it looks
Speaker 2: like this was filmed in nineteen sixty six, which is
Speaker 2: pre sixty seven.
Speaker 3: The film stock was manufactured in sixty six. There's nothing
Speaker 3: on it that indicates when it was filmed. Now, some
Speaker 3: people say that, but there's no actual proof. Like the
Speaker 3: director himself is quoted as saying, we had some experts,
Speaker 3: so they looked at it and they determined it was
Speaker 3: shot late sixty six, early sixty seven. With no disrespect
Speaker 3: to the director. That's not a fact. That's just a claim.
Speaker 3: But it's not a fact because if it's a fact,
Speaker 3: you have to say who the experts are, give us
Speaker 3: a name, what's their resume? Then what evans did they
Speaker 3: look at? You can't just say, yeah, they looked at
Speaker 3: the film. What specifically in the film did they look at?
Speaker 3: Did they find the date code that the lab put
Speaker 3: on it? If so, the date code the lab put
Speaker 3: on wouldn't say maybe late sixty six are early sixty seven,
Speaker 3: would have a date December tenth in sixty six or
Speaker 3: something like that, if it was a code of any kind,
Speaker 3: would have a specific day. So they don't have a day.
Speaker 3: The only thing that seems to make sense is they
Speaker 3: had somebody look at the foliage in the picture and say,
Speaker 3: what kind of looks like winter. That means late sixty six,
Speaker 3: early sixty seven. But winter in sixty six sixty seven
Speaker 3: looks the same as winter in sixty seven sixty eight.
Speaker 3: Last I checked, when winter comes, there's no year in
Speaker 3: written in the trees. So if they're looking at the foliage, yeah,
Speaker 3: they could identify time of year, but they couldn't identify year. Now,
Speaker 3: all of this comes up with this quote about we
Speaker 3: think it was shot late sixty six early sixty seven.
Speaker 3: They have offered nothing to explain how that conclusion was reached.
Speaker 3: And if they can't explain how the conclusion was reached,
Speaker 3: they're not offering a fact. They're offering a claim, an idea,
Speaker 3: an opinion, a maybe, but they're not offering a fact
Speaker 3: until they tell you who the experts are, what they
Speaker 3: actually examined, what their method was of studying the evidence
Speaker 3: to get to that conclusion. They haven't offered yet.
Speaker 2: So just to be clear here, it sounds like to me,
Speaker 2: you're saying that it's possible that this was shot on
Speaker 2: a Kodak K one hundred film, possibly the single lens.
Speaker 2: It was Coda chrome filmed dated from nineteen sixty six.
Speaker 2: But you're saying it's possible that the people who made
Speaker 2: this film, or somebody independent of them, may have went
Speaker 2: out yesterday or last week or ten months ago and
Speaker 2: use that film to film something that looks very similar
Speaker 2: that might be a replica of sorts of the actual
Speaker 2: PG film. Is that what I'm hearing you. I don't
Speaker 2: want to put words in your mouth, just.
Speaker 3: Let me know. When film is manufactured, it's good for years,
Speaker 3: it's good for decades if it started right. So at
Speaker 3: any time after nineteen sixty six, somebody could have taken
Speaker 3: a roll of film and gone out and shot this. Yes, now,
Speaker 3: it wouldn't have happened after twenty ten because Dwayne's camera
Speaker 3: I think during Nebraska or Kansas somewhere. That's the last
Speaker 3: lab in the country that developed codochrome, and they shut
Speaker 3: down the lab in December twenty ten, So it was
Speaker 3: not shot after twoy ten. But in terms of when
Speaker 3: it could have been shot, it could have been shot
Speaker 3: in sixty seven, sixty eight, sixty nine, seventy, seventy one,
Speaker 3: seventy It could have been shot any of those times.
Speaker 3: The date code doesn't tell you when it was shot.
Speaker 3: And the film is good and codek codo chrome processing
Speaker 3: was available during all those years, so yeah, it could
Speaker 3: have been shocked any of that time after the fact.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing that happened when I kind of stayed
Speaker 2: quiet on this, but just a couple of days ago,
Speaker 2: somebody that I know and respect on the Bigfoot community.
Speaker 2: I don't know him personally, we're not friends, but I've
Speaker 2: had Eric Pelasios on from Harryman Road. He's done a
Speaker 2: lot of four year requests freedom of information request across
Speaker 2: the country in different states, and he's gotten tons of
Speaker 2: things back from the government. They frankly nobody else has
Speaker 2: been able to get because they don't know the process
Speaker 2: or take the time to do this. But Eric has
Speaker 2: produced his own documentary films in the past, and I
Speaker 2: don't know if that's how this happened, but he actually
Speaker 2: went to a screening and got to see Capturing Bigfoot,
Speaker 2: and he came back right after it looked like just
Speaker 2: a couple hours maybe after he had seen this film,
Speaker 2: and he sets down and does this thirty three minute
Speaker 2: or so reaction video, and he's talking about this film
Speaker 2: in this reaction video, and he's pretty convinced that this
Speaker 2: forty second or so clip that we're talking about now
Speaker 2: from nineteen sixty six. He says, it's spot on Patty.
Speaker 2: In his opinion, he's pretty convinced that what he saw
Speaker 2: was what he believes to be the dress rehearsal for
Speaker 2: this right. So once that came out, I went on
Speaker 2: and did a couple of lives over on my social media,
Speaker 2: and I don't think it was fifteen minutes after I
Speaker 2: posted the first one, my phone rings and it's Doug Hicheck,
Speaker 2: and Doug's calling me saying, hey, man, I saw your post.
Speaker 2: I want to talk a little bit about this and
Speaker 2: give you a little inside information. So Doug and I
Speaker 2: have a thirty minute or so conversation, and Doug is
Speaker 2: telling me that he's pretty convinced that this is something
Speaker 2: that's been known in the Bigfoot community for decades, that
Speaker 2: Roger and Bob were filming a documentary when they filmed Patty.
Speaker 2: That's why they were in the woods with a freaking
Speaker 2: camera when this happened in nineteen sixty seven. And Doug
Speaker 2: is simply saying he believes, although he hasn't seen the footage,
Speaker 2: that this is probably a part of or a piece
Speaker 2: of that b roll footage that was being filmed at
Speaker 2: one point in time or the other, when Roger and
Speaker 2: Bob were filming for this Dock coumentary that was ultimately produced,
Speaker 2: I had seen several people say that that is the
Speaker 2: narrative that I'm seeing in the Bigfoot community from people
Speaker 2: that are obviously on the side. They're siding with Bob
Speaker 2: and Roger. They believe Patty's real, they believe in the footage.
Speaker 2: They're going to that saying, hey, this is just b roll.
Speaker 2: We've known about it for years. Nothing to see here
Speaker 2: kind of thing. But I've also talked to people like Eric.
Speaker 2: I haven't talked to Eric personally, but what Eric described seeing,
Speaker 2: he was very adamant that's not what he was looking at. Again,
Speaker 2: it's a very subjective thing for a lot of people.
Speaker 2: If you haven't seen that, it's possible to get confused,
Speaker 2: I think. So I reached out to Todd Prescott over
Speaker 2: at the Sasquatch Archives. He's the only person that I
Speaker 2: know that actually has a copy of not only Roger
Speaker 2: Patterson's documentary that he eventually produced and released, but he
Speaker 2: also has the BBC documentary that was done on the
Speaker 2: film as well. So Todd is a pretty knowledgeable person
Speaker 2: when it comes to bigfoot stuff. So I reached out
Speaker 2: to Todd yesterday and I said, Hey, this is circling
Speaker 2: the drain here about this potential nineteen sixty six smoking
Speaker 2: gun footage that people are talking about in this new
Speaker 2: documentary could possibly be a piece of this b row footage. Man,
Speaker 2: you got a copy of it? Can you tell me
Speaker 2: is it in the dock? Because that would solve everything.
Speaker 2: Right if we can pull up the documentary that Roger
Speaker 2: Patterson filmed and produced and this forty second clip is
Speaker 2: in there, and you compare the two and it's the
Speaker 2: same thing, this is pretty much case closed in my opinion.
Speaker 2: But Todd told me it wasn't in either one of
Speaker 2: those documentaries. Now was it something that got left on
Speaker 2: the cutting room floor? Again, if you take it another
Speaker 2: step forward, that is always a possibility. But that sort
Speaker 2: of gave me pause a little bit to say, I
Speaker 2: don't think it's the be roll footage. I think we're
Speaker 2: talking about something different here, which is what it sounds
Speaker 2: like we're talking about during this conversation, that it could
Speaker 2: have been filmed at some point in time after the
Speaker 2: PG film was filmed and released. So there's something else
Speaker 2: that could be potentially going on there. For me, I
Speaker 2: think it becomes more of the total the circumstances. I
Speaker 2: know you and I just met, so you don't know
Speaker 2: a ton about me, and you probably don't listen to
Speaker 2: the show. But I am one of these people that
Speaker 2: always looks at the totality of the circumstances.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: If someone says something wants and there's nothing to back
Speaker 2: it up, then okay. But then if you go into
Speaker 2: these other layers, and there certainly appears to be layers
Speaker 2: in this documentary. Again, I'm relying very heavily on what
Speaker 2: Eric said in his reaction video, but you do have
Speaker 2: Clint Patterson, you do have Patricia Patterson in the documentary,
Speaker 2: and it seems, at least from what he's claiming that
Speaker 2: he watched, they seem to be validating the fact that
Speaker 2: this was a hoax and that they're not surprised by
Speaker 2: this footage, because that was the other thing. In addition
Speaker 2: to showing it to you, they showed it to the
Speaker 2: late doctor Jeff Meldrum, they showed it to Bob Eronymous,
Speaker 2: they showed it to Clint, they showed it to Patricia,
Speaker 2: and there was obviously reaction videos. That's TV one oh one.
Speaker 2: You sit somebody down and show them something they're not expecting,
Speaker 2: and then you get their reaction. That was one of
Speaker 2: the things that Doug and I had a conversation about it,
Speaker 2: and I don't think Doug would have an issue with
Speaker 2: me talking about this publicly. He said that Jeff was
Speaker 2: also ambushed at some event he was doing, and these
Speaker 2: folks just showed up and showed him this, and he
Speaker 2: wasn't expecting the footage, and his reaction that seen on
Speaker 2: camera is more of I got ambushed here, and it
Speaker 2: was more about the way that it was shown to him,
Speaker 2: and it wasn't necessarily being framed that he was so
Speaker 2: surprised by this alleged footage. The way it was presented.
Speaker 2: At least that Eric got from the documentary was that
Speaker 2: Jeff was almost teary eyed because it seems like he
Speaker 2: was watching his dreams dissolve in front of him about
Speaker 2: the Patterson Gimlin film. And I just don't know that's
Speaker 2: necessarily accurate. And I didn't know that until Doug called
Speaker 2: me and he said Jeff actually called him right after
Speaker 2: that and said, look, these guys just ambushed me. I
Speaker 2: just thought it was really icky the way that they
Speaker 2: did it, and that knowing Jeff the way that I
Speaker 2: knew him seems more accurate to me of what may
Speaker 2: or may not have happened. Again, it's hard to say
Speaker 2: because you were in the film and you haven't seen
Speaker 2: the final result. So I guess that leads me to
Speaker 2: a couple of questions here. Number one, before anybody's calling
Speaker 2: this a smoking gun, which there are plenty of people
Speaker 2: out there doing right now as we speak, what do
Speaker 2: you think of the first questions that need to be
Speaker 2: answered about that particular clip? And I guess the second
Speaker 2: part of that would be, how important to you is
Speaker 2: the chain of custody with something like that compared to
Speaker 2: what people think they see on screen? And stay tuned
Speaker 2: for more sasquatch out to see. We'll be right back
Speaker 2: after these messages.
Speaker 3: As far as what people should think going in, we
Speaker 3: clearly know there are two possible explanations, a rehearsal before
Speaker 3: the fact or a replica after the fact. If people
Speaker 3: actually want to go into this logically scientifically, with true
Speaker 3: critical thinking, they have to variously consider both alternative literally
Speaker 3: list all of the pros and cons really try to
Speaker 3: understand the logic of Okay, if you have this fact,
Speaker 3: does it go to the next fact? Does it go
Speaker 3: to the next fact? You need a logical structure of ideas.
Speaker 3: You have to think about pretty much everything that you're
Speaker 3: seeing in the film, but you have to really weigh
Speaker 3: these two alternatives realistically. If you automatically dismiss one because
Speaker 3: you want to go the other way, you're not a
Speaker 3: critical thinker. And unfortunately, that's a lot of what's happening.
Speaker 3: So many people who want to believe the film's a hoax.
Speaker 3: They are so excited about this that they just utterly
Speaker 3: and completely dismiss the alternative without thinking it through. That's
Speaker 3: not critical thinking, but that's what a lot of people
Speaker 3: or doing. So what I think people should do is
Speaker 3: really realistically start putting both ideas on the table and
Speaker 3: then working through the logic of each idea and what
Speaker 3: does it need in order to fit together, and work
Speaker 3: through the whole logic of each one of them. I
Speaker 3: saw this film for the first time almost a year ago,
Speaker 3: so I've had a year to work through these two
Speaker 3: alternative and the whole logic structure of if it's a
Speaker 3: rehearsal or if it's replica. Okay, most people, now, I've
Speaker 3: only known about this for a couple of days maybe,
Speaker 3: and they're trying to process it, but they don't have
Speaker 3: anywhere near as much time to think through these two
Speaker 3: alternatives and really seriously analyze all the ramifications. To any
Speaker 3: assumption you make, you have to follow that to its
Speaker 3: logical conclusion. Does it fit the puzzle? If it comes
Speaker 3: up in a piece that doesn't fit, is not a
Speaker 3: good fit. It's literally like a jigsaw puzzle, all of
Speaker 3: the logical components of each explanation, and you have to
Speaker 3: think of it. Do all the pieces fit together? In
Speaker 3: my appraisal, they only fit together with a replica. But
Speaker 3: for people who if they really want to do it's
Speaker 3: right and they really want to call themselves a critical thinker,
Speaker 3: they have to be courageous enough to explore both possibilities
Speaker 3: in detail without making a snap decision. So that's what
Speaker 3: I would suggest for people going into it with that.
Speaker 3: In terms of chain and custody, that's not really that important.
Speaker 3: I know a lot of people think it is, but
Speaker 3: in this case, no, it's actually not. It is so
Speaker 3: close to the Patterson Gimlin the true Fellow, So close
Speaker 3: to it. It's obviously related somehow. All of its value
Speaker 3: is in understanding how it's related. But the chain of
Speaker 3: custody actually isn't that significant. From what I was told,
Speaker 3: it came to them from the daughter of a man
Speaker 3: who worked at Boeing Aircraft. The man had it in
Speaker 3: his safe for many years. He could have been the
Speaker 3: man who helped make this film and then when after
Speaker 3: it was seen, he kept it. I can't imagine him
Speaker 3: having it if he wasn't part of making the film.
Speaker 3: He might have been the person who helped Al Diatley
Speaker 3: get the PGF processed when Al miraculously had it done
Speaker 3: over a weekend when they say the Seattle lab was
Speaker 3: closed on Saturday night, Al somehow worked a miracle and
Speaker 3: got it processed. Nobody knows how, and Al conveniently forgot,
Speaker 3: which of course he didn't. I just didn't want to
Speaker 3: say it, but it raises the question, and maybe he
Speaker 3: went through this man at the Boweling Aircraft facility in
Speaker 3: their photographic unit who helped him get it processed somehow.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of speculation about that. But anyways, from
Speaker 3: what I was told of the custody is that it
Speaker 3: came from the daughter or this man who worked at Boweling,
Speaker 3: and he had it and is safe since way back when,
Speaker 3: the late sixties, early seventies whenever, and he kept it
Speaker 3: in the safe, and when he passed away, the daughter
Speaker 3: opened the safe, she found it. She suspected it might
Speaker 3: be valuable. She contacted the film company. That's the story
Speaker 3: I've been told. But I don't really consider the chain
Speaker 3: of custody issue. I don't see that as really making
Speaker 3: a difference in terms of how we analyzed it. So
Speaker 3: I never actually gave it a great deal of thought.
Speaker 3: I just more or less accepted the that they told
Speaker 3: me of how they came about it.
Speaker 2: This is another question that came up after Eric did
Speaker 2: his reaction video after seeing Capturing Bigfoot the documentary. He
Speaker 2: was pretty convinced, at least from his naked eye. He
Speaker 2: says that the film that they show this forty plus
Speaker 2: second clip is pretty stable according to him, versus what
Speaker 2: we see in the PG film, and Patty seems to
Speaker 2: be a little bit closer or the person in this
Speaker 2: suit in this particular clip we're talking about, And he says,
Speaker 2: I'm paraphrasing here, but it's pretty much in his opinion,
Speaker 2: spot on. So I want to go back to that
Speaker 2: for you. You've seen the clip as well, So in
Speaker 2: that footage from nineteen sixty six, does that suit I
Speaker 2: guess we could say, quote unquote Patty in that clip.
Speaker 2: Does it represent Patty in any meaningful technical way for you?
Speaker 2: Or is that being overstated by Eric and some of
Speaker 2: the other people that have automatically thrown the towel in
Speaker 2: and said that is definitely the same suit that is
Speaker 2: Patty one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: Most people, like yourself think when you look at the film,
Speaker 3: all you're looking at is what does the suit look like?
Speaker 3: But you're not. When you're looking at the film, you're
Speaker 3: looking at what is she doing? How is she walking?
Speaker 3: And the walk is a near perfect replica, and your brain,
Speaker 3: because you're not actually looking at the suit, you're looking
Speaker 3: at the walk and the walk is amazingly similar. It's
Speaker 3: easy for a person's brain to transpose that and say, yeah,
Speaker 3: it was a dead on ringer, And they think they
Speaker 3: were looking at the suit, so they think it's a
Speaker 3: match when it's not. But because the walk was a
Speaker 3: match in their brain, they're trying to reconstruct it in
Speaker 3: their mind. In their brains, they're thinking, yeah, it looked
Speaker 3: at on. It wasn't the suit, it was the walk
Speaker 3: that was so similar. It made you think, wow, this
Speaker 3: is a perfect match. When I saw it, I don't
Speaker 3: have any stilts, they didn't give me any keep, so
Speaker 3: I haven't looked at it since eleven months ago, So
Speaker 3: my recollection of the actual appearance of the suit is
Speaker 3: more vague. But my reaction was it was not terribly
Speaker 3: close to her in any way, and most particularly, the
Speaker 3: head mask was a typical head mask of human wears,
Speaker 3: and it does not even come close to matching the
Speaker 3: head shape of Patty, which is so completely unique because
Speaker 3: right above her browridge, her head goes straight backwards and
Speaker 3: the human head goes up, and any mask of human
Speaker 3: is wearing the forehead goes up. So if I'm looking
Speaker 3: at something and somebody says it is real or fake,
Speaker 3: that's the first thing I'll look at. The moment I
Speaker 3: see the forehead going straight up, I really start thinking faye.
Speaker 3: But I don't recall seeing a head shape. That's one
Speaker 3: of my strongest arguments Pjeff being real. I don't recall
Speaker 3: seeing anything in there that was anything other than an
Speaker 3: ordinary mask of human wears. The body proportions were not
Speaker 3: as well done as some people might say. I was
Speaker 3: not of that impression, so I did not see the
Speaker 3: body itself as being a match or a particularly good match.
Speaker 3: The walk impressed me, though. They really did work at
Speaker 3: getting the walk dead on. And I think that confuses
Speaker 3: a lot of people. Like I say, they're thinking about
Speaker 3: it after the fact. They're trying to think about what
Speaker 3: suit looked like, but they're actually thinking how perfect the
Speaker 3: walk was, and that transposes in their brain and their
Speaker 3: brain just says, yeah, it looked like her. Think that's
Speaker 3: where that's coming from with a lot of people.
Speaker 2: And you certainly may be right. This is the other thing,
Speaker 2: And I don't know if you have any clue or not.
Speaker 2: I know how it is to be a part of
Speaker 2: a certain section of a documentary, and it's compartmentalized information.
Speaker 2: You don't necessarily know what else is there until you
Speaker 2: see the final product. But to your knowledge, this is
Speaker 2: the other thing that blew me away about people jumping
Speaker 2: on this bandwagon, and it's all about this new potential
Speaker 2: footage that is the smoking gun. But do you know
Speaker 2: or have any information on whether or not the actually
Speaker 2: addressed the trackway that was found there because that was
Speaker 2: the single handed thing. Frankly, that was the thing that
Speaker 2: convinced Jeff Meldrum that the PG film was real. He
Speaker 2: said it the first time I ever interviewed him on
Speaker 2: the show years ago. He said, Brian, I am as
Speaker 2: convinced as I could be if I were standing there
Speaker 2: next to them on that sandbar. That's a real breathing creature,
Speaker 2: a sasquatch, because of the footprints alone and the foot morphology,
Speaker 2: and that is a big thing. There are plenty of
Speaker 2: prints there, examples everywhere, People own replicas of them. It's
Speaker 2: not hard to find this stuff. So do you know
Speaker 2: if they address that at all in the documentary or
Speaker 2: does that not fit the narrative that they're trying to
Speaker 2: portray here, So they steered themselves away from that. But
Speaker 2: do you know if they addressed the tracks at all
Speaker 2: and the validity of those in addition to what's on
Speaker 2: the film.
Speaker 3: As I say, I was enterviet to over four hours.
Speaker 3: They asked me everything except whether she likes boxers or briefs,
Speaker 3: So we probably touched on the trackway. I don't have
Speaker 3: any recollection that they gave it a lot of emphasis.
Speaker 3: If they did, and so I'm not expecting anything in
Speaker 3: the documentary dealing with that. No, but Jeff is right,
Speaker 3: it's conclusively done by a real biological specimen. It's not stompers,
Speaker 3: it's not somebody scooping out dirt to make each trackway
Speaker 3: or anything. It's real. Yeah. I agree with that wholeheartedly,
Speaker 3: but I don't recall anything that's going to be this
Speaker 3: documentary that goes in that direction.
Speaker 2: I definitely want to be respectful your time. So I
Speaker 2: guess the last question Slash giving you the floor here
Speaker 2: would be, in your opinion, what is the biggest leap
Speaker 2: that people are making right now from this new footage
Speaker 2: exists to absolutely case closed this film it has been
Speaker 2: proven to be a hoax? And I guess that would
Speaker 2: lead into what's the last word from you? You've done
Speaker 2: arguably more work on this film than frankly anybody has
Speaker 2: ever done, and studied it at nauseum. What do you
Speaker 2: think the biggest leap people are making right now from
Speaker 2: this new footage to it proving case closed this is
Speaker 2: a hoax? And I guess what's the last word you
Speaker 2: want to leave people with about the film, your experience
Speaker 2: with it, taking into consideration this new documentary.
Speaker 3: As much as I know, the two big eased for
Speaker 3: most of the people who are getting excited about it
Speaker 3: are either the idea that the new footage is a
Speaker 3: rehearsal and that it was supposedly shot before the PGA.
Speaker 3: A lot of people are grabbing onto that saying, okay,
Speaker 3: case clothes and.
Speaker 2: Stay tuned for more sasquatch outaesy, we'll be right back
Speaker 2: after these messages.
Speaker 3: The other thing I'm hearing is the people who are
Speaker 3: saying Roger's son, Clint, says it's a hoax, and they
Speaker 3: imply that maybe Patricia said something along that line as
Speaker 3: well that for some people they're leaping to what Clint
Speaker 3: apparently said and saying that's it. Okay, case close. So
Speaker 3: there seem to be both of those elements that most
Speaker 3: of the people who were talking it up embrace one
Speaker 3: or the other. Some embrace both. As they say, they're
Speaker 3: not really thinking it through properly, and I don't want
Speaker 3: to say that like I'm demeaning them in any way.
Speaker 3: They don't really understand how this information has to be
Speaker 3: processed correctly. Now the rehearsal thing, rehearsal replica, we've already
Speaker 3: talked about that, and you were talking about the whole
Speaker 3: b roll thing that maybe this was Bero or such
Speaker 3: like that. There's another issue which actually doesn't get a
Speaker 3: lot of talk, but which I'm very strong believer in,
Speaker 3: and that's the fact that I do believe Roger did
Speaker 3: buy a suit and I do believe he put Bob
Speaker 3: Ranymous in it and went out in the woods and
Speaker 3: filmed him. Now it's not the PGF that we see,
Speaker 3: but I believe that Roger actually did that. Okay, if so,
Speaker 3: when the producers were talking to me, we have puttage
Speaker 3: nobody's ever seen before. I thought that was the footage.
Speaker 3: I thought Roger's dry run with Bob Eronymous, that's the
Speaker 3: one I'm going to see. They said no, But I
Speaker 3: believe that footage exists. And if it does, if I'm
Speaker 3: correct in what Aberonimus says, and probably a lot of
Speaker 3: what Philip Moore says could be true. But that footage
Speaker 3: is not the PGF. It's something else. Now. The reason
Speaker 3: I'm drawn to that, a man named Harry Kimball wrote
Speaker 3: a letter to some TV show producers who did a
Speaker 3: Big Poot documentary back in ninety six and he said
Speaker 3: in this declaration letter, I worked at Cana West Labs
Speaker 3: in nineteen sixty seven and Roger came to the lab
Speaker 3: with some footage he had shot of a tall front
Speaker 3: of his in the woods in an ape suit. And
Speaker 3: they all looked at the footage and they all laughed
Speaker 3: at how silly it was. Now this guy, Harry Kimball
Speaker 3: working in the lab, he described this footage precisely in
Speaker 3: the technical specifications. He said it was shot on high
Speaker 3: speed hectochrome. He said it was cooked in hot soup.
Speaker 3: Of vernacular for a forced processing you overdeveloped to commensate
Speaker 3: for under exposure. We also call that pushing. So he
Speaker 3: said the film was pushed. He's cooked in hot soup,
Speaker 3: he said. Roger zoomed in and out. He said, he's
Speaker 3: shot with a camera other than the K one hundred. Now,
Speaker 3: soon as researchers like Chris Murphy and Peter burn and
Speaker 3: everybody got this letter, Peter burn actually talked to the
Speaker 3: guy who corresponded with him and get more information. But Burne,
Speaker 3: Chris Murphy, everybody who knew about it pretty much dismissed
Speaker 3: it because they said the guy's wrong on everything. He's
Speaker 3: not describing the PGEF. Everything technically is wrong. PGF codochrome
Speaker 3: not ectochrome. It was developed perfectly. Roger has a prime
Speaker 3: lens on his camera, he does not have a zoom,
Speaker 3: and we know for a certainty it's a K one hundred.
Speaker 3: So the guy's wrong. So they said, Okay, he's wrong,
Speaker 3: just a crank, no big deal. I saw the letter
Speaker 3: and I thought it more about it. I had studied
Speaker 3: Roger's other documentary footage. I had a reel of six
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty feet of other footage, what you call
Speaker 3: b roll that Rogers shot, just mostly landscapes and stuff.
Speaker 3: One thing where he photographed a guy who did have
Speaker 3: a big foot encounter got named Fred Beck photographed him
Speaker 3: apparently he was possibly going to use him in his documentary.
Speaker 3: But I studied his footage that Roger had shot before
Speaker 3: he did the PGF, and I found out that Roger
Speaker 3: did shoot ectochrome. He did force develop or push one
Speaker 3: of the rolls. You can tell because the grain structure
Speaker 3: is greatly expanded when you do that, and on this
Speaker 3: one roll the grain structure was insanely big. He did
Speaker 3: use a zoom lens, including a ten to one zoom
Speaker 3: on some of his cameras, and he shot other cameras
Speaker 3: other than K one hundred, probably an aeroflex. So I
Speaker 3: looked at this letter that Harry Kimball wrote and realized
Speaker 3: the technical specifications he described perfectly describe some of Roger's
Speaker 3: other documentary footage, beating me to conclude. He really saw
Speaker 3: some footage that Rogers shot with a guy in an apes.
Speaker 3: I believe that really happened. Now, his son Clint, in
Speaker 3: this documentary says, I saw my father burn the suit. Okay, fine,
Speaker 3: it's probably the suit that he bought that he put
Speaker 3: anonymous in and shot and then put the footage away
Speaker 3: because it look silly. That's probably the suit he burned.
Speaker 3: So yeah, Clint's telling the truth. His father burned a suit,
Speaker 3: but it's not the PGF, it's not Patty, it's not
Speaker 3: the Patty suit. Things like that. At first glanced, she
Speaker 3: listened to what Clint is saying, and they think, ah,
Speaker 3: oh okay, proof of Holks Stune deal. But if you
Speaker 3: understand this other footage Roger probably shot, aside from almost
Speaker 3: totally vindicating Bob her on him, it explains Clint's observation
Speaker 3: after Roger shot PGF and it was real, and he
Speaker 3: was thinking of going down to the theaters and showing
Speaker 3: it and making money with al. He suddenly realized, Oh,
Speaker 3: so people know I've got a suit and I shot
Speaker 3: somebody in it. That could damage my credibility, that could
Speaker 3: hurt this theatrical show. So I better get rid of
Speaker 3: the suit. That makes all the sense in the world
Speaker 3: to me. So when I heard when Clint was saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: I saw my father burn the suit, it didn't rattle
Speaker 3: me in any way, because it's perfectly logical. If Roger
Speaker 3: really did get a suit, put Eronymous in it and
Speaker 3: shoot fell and show it at Canos Labs that Harry
Speaker 3: Kimball saw, Roger really did all that, and his documentary
Speaker 3: footage suggests he did, because technically at Matt everything perfectly.
Speaker 3: If he did all that, then what Clint is saying
Speaker 3: makes perfect sense. Doesn't prove the film to hoax, but
Speaker 3: it makes sense. This is where we have to look
Speaker 3: under the surface of a lot of these claims instead
Speaker 3: of rushing to judgment. If we look under the surface,
Speaker 3: the story is even more amazing. But it's not necessarily
Speaker 3: going to be the story that people want when they
Speaker 3: want to believe in a hoax. There are other explanations
Speaker 3: for it. If they're not open to those possibilities, then
Speaker 3: they're just living in fantasy land, and I hope they
Speaker 3: enjoy it.
Speaker 2: Do you have anything coming up?
Speaker 3: Bill?
Speaker 2: Are you working on anything else you want to tell
Speaker 2: everybody about while we've got the opportunity before we get
Speaker 2: out of here.
Speaker 3: I am working on a follow up book, probably have
Speaker 3: it out in the summer. I will actually be addressing
Speaker 3: this Capturing Bigfoot film, my involvement, my analysis. Hopefully by
Speaker 3: then there will be some public access to some of
Speaker 3: the stills from it. I'd love to be able to
Speaker 3: show them. I do plan on talking a lot about it,
Speaker 3: and now that this whole crazy controversy is going on,
Speaker 3: it gives me even more to discuss, so I can
Speaker 3: actually go through to a lot of people putting out
Speaker 3: all these ideas. I can make a nice list of them,
Speaker 3: and then I can go right through them, item by
Speaker 3: item and address every single one of them. I am
Speaker 3: working on the book now. I'm expecting it's going to
Speaker 3: take a few more months to finish, hopefully to have
Speaker 3: it out sometime in the summer, and it will specifically
Speaker 3: deal with a lot of the mysteries, the controversies, tying
Speaker 3: up the loose ends, trying to make sense of all
Speaker 3: of the crazy stuff that's swirling around the Patterson film.
Speaker 2: We'd love to have you back when the book comes out.
Speaker 2: I will link to your first book when Roger Matt
Speaker 2: Patt if you guys can go over there and pick
Speaker 2: that up. Bill, thanks so much for taking the time
Speaker 2: to come on explain some of this stuff. I've had
Speaker 2: an absolute blast talking to you.
Speaker 3: Pleasure.
Speaker 4: They say you don't gotta go home, but you.
Speaker 2: Can't stay, and I don't want to.
Speaker 1: Be a.
Speaker 4: World happen.
Speaker 5: Try this chart that chid everything call me ride back
Speaker 5: right back and the joy for me, Joy stay right,
Speaker 5: come it right away, Sassie Still start things said say
Speaker 5: stands side side stay stay State, still say games stays
Speaker 5: states and things stay nay nay ens