WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:03.000 Now one of your pudding. I got a string going 2 00:00:03.040 --> 00:00:06.120 on here, something just because my dog. Something killed your dog. 3 00:00:06.919 --> 00:00:08.960 My dog. We're flying through the air over the tree. 4 00:00:09.039 --> 00:00:13.640 I don't know how it did it, Okay, Damn, I'm 5 00:00:13.640 --> 00:00:16.120 really confused. All I saw was my dog coming over 6 00:00:16.199 --> 00:00:17.800 the fence and he was dead. And once you hit 7 00:00:17.839 --> 00:00:19.679 the ground like, I didn't see any cars. All I 8 00:00:19.679 --> 00:00:38.320 saw was my dog coming over the fence. Sat, what 9 00:00:38.359 --> 00:00:42.960 are you putting? We got some wonder or something crawling 10 00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:51.759 around out here? Did you see what it was? Or 11 00:00:51.920 --> 00:00:54.159 was it was? Standing up? I'm out here looking through 12 00:00:54.159 --> 00:00:55.920 the window now and I don't see anything. I don't 13 00:00:55.960 --> 00:01:03.880 want to go outside. Jesus Quice, you better hello, get 14 00:01:03.960 --> 00:01:06.480 somebody out here. Quin, I'm out there. I thought of 15 00:01:06.560 --> 00:01:09.480 a bit of about text nine. I don't know easy 16 00:01:09.560 --> 00:01:11.239 ann ount there, Yeah, I'm walking right. 17 00:01:11.319 --> 00:01:13.680 Hey, all right, Films have a welcome my guest to the 18 00:01:13.719 --> 00:01:16.200 show Bill. Muns. Welcome to the show Bill. 19 00:01:16.200 --> 00:01:18.719 Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here, Brian. 20 00:01:19.159 --> 00:01:22.680 I have been looking forward to this conversation. Obviously, anybody 21 00:01:22.719 --> 00:01:26.079 who's been following anything to do with the Bigfoot community. 22 00:01:26.560 --> 00:01:29.200 My feed has been blowing up over the last couple 23 00:01:29.200 --> 00:01:34.000 of weeks talking about this new documentary film capturing Bigfoot 24 00:01:34.760 --> 00:01:38.519 and this alleged new stuff that's out there in relation 25 00:01:38.599 --> 00:01:40.920 to the PG film. We're going to get into some 26 00:01:40.959 --> 00:01:42.840 of that, but before we do, let's set the stage 27 00:01:42.840 --> 00:01:44.719 for people who may not be familiar with you and 28 00:01:44.760 --> 00:01:47.200 your work on the PG film. Can you talk a 29 00:01:47.239 --> 00:01:49.680 little bit about how you got involved with this film 30 00:01:49.799 --> 00:01:51.840 and what that history has been like for you over 31 00:01:51.840 --> 00:01:52.879 the last few decades. 32 00:01:53.560 --> 00:01:57.840 My background is actually originally a makeup artist, starting with 33 00:01:57.920 --> 00:02:02.599 regular makeup and gravitating towards the special effects, the creatures, 34 00:02:02.640 --> 00:02:06.120 the monsters, all that stuff. But also back in the 35 00:02:06.200 --> 00:02:11.039 nineteen sixties, sixty seven, sixty eight, when Roger actually filmed 36 00:02:11.240 --> 00:02:15.560 is footage, I was a student filmmaker at Valley College, 37 00:02:16.159 --> 00:02:20.319 so I was actually shooting sixteen millimeter films same time 38 00:02:20.439 --> 00:02:24.919 Roger was. And what I found out I finally got 39 00:02:24.960 --> 00:02:29.080 involved heavily with the whole topic around two thousand and eight. 40 00:02:30.199 --> 00:02:35.800 What I found is that no prior researchers had those 41 00:02:35.840 --> 00:02:40.680 two areas of specialized knowledge. They were not filmmakers. They 42 00:02:40.719 --> 00:02:45.599 really didn't understand cameras, lenses, film stock, lab processing, all 43 00:02:45.639 --> 00:02:48.520 of that. They didn't understand it from the point of 44 00:02:48.560 --> 00:02:52.680 somebody who had done it and done it. And then 45 00:02:52.719 --> 00:02:54.800 when it gets to the question is what we see 46 00:02:54.800 --> 00:02:57.319 in the film? Is it something real or is it 47 00:02:57.520 --> 00:03:00.479 a guy running around in some kind of furk costume. 48 00:03:01.039 --> 00:03:05.080 In order to analyze that, you've got to be somebody 49 00:03:05.120 --> 00:03:10.919 who's actually designed and built for costumes. If you haven't 50 00:03:10.960 --> 00:03:16.039 done it, you really don't know enough to properly analyze it. 51 00:03:16.719 --> 00:03:20.719 So I came into this with those two backgrounds, which 52 00:03:20.840 --> 00:03:25.159 made me a sort of a unique analyst in the 53 00:03:25.199 --> 00:03:29.759 whole topic from beginning right up until the current day. 54 00:03:30.479 --> 00:03:35.960 It very quickly put me very high up in the hierarchy, 55 00:03:36.039 --> 00:03:39.479 if you will, of researchers. One of the things that 56 00:03:39.520 --> 00:03:44.240 I understood that nobody else did was most people, if 57 00:03:44.280 --> 00:03:47.280 they could get one copy of the film, they thought, Okay, 58 00:03:47.639 --> 00:03:51.479 I've got the film. What they didn't realize is that 59 00:03:51.599 --> 00:03:53.759 because everything we have is copies, we don't have the 60 00:03:53.800 --> 00:03:58.960 original to work with. Every copy is different in some way. 61 00:03:59.159 --> 00:04:03.639 Every copy has some information and maybe another copy doesn't 62 00:04:03.680 --> 00:04:08.400 have And these other people, not being filmmakers, didn't understand that, 63 00:04:09.080 --> 00:04:12.479 but I did. So I started scanning copies and I 64 00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:17.800 built up an archive of more scanned copies than any 65 00:04:18.319 --> 00:04:23.480 researcher had ever possessed, and that allowed me to do 66 00:04:23.600 --> 00:04:27.160 research on a level that nobody else could. Anything that 67 00:04:27.240 --> 00:04:31.319 comes up where someone sees something in a frame and says, oh, 68 00:04:31.519 --> 00:04:34.240 this is that. This is a hernie on the leg, 69 00:04:34.319 --> 00:04:37.279 this is a gunshot from the woods, anything like that, 70 00:04:38.079 --> 00:04:40.079 they just look at the one copy and they seem 71 00:04:40.160 --> 00:04:43.360 to think, Okay, that's it. As soon as that one 72 00:04:43.360 --> 00:04:45.839 of that topic comes up, I go to all my 73 00:04:45.920 --> 00:04:50.000 other copy and if it's not in all the other copies, 74 00:04:50.959 --> 00:04:55.720 then it's not original data. It's a copy artifact. Quite 75 00:04:55.759 --> 00:04:59.439 a few researchers have actually made mistakes because they were 76 00:04:59.439 --> 00:05:02.240 looking at one copy. Somebody looks at it and says, oh, 77 00:05:02.240 --> 00:05:05.759 there's a splice in my copy. Ha ha, it's been splice. 78 00:05:05.879 --> 00:05:09.160 It means somebody's doing something sneaky. I just go to 79 00:05:09.199 --> 00:05:12.480 another copy and see on this other copy, isn't splice 80 00:05:12.519 --> 00:05:13.399 in the same spot. 81 00:05:13.560 --> 00:05:13.600 No. 82 00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:17.639 I go to the next copy. Is it splice there? No, Okay, 83 00:05:17.959 --> 00:05:21.480 the splice isn't in the original. It's in one of 84 00:05:21.480 --> 00:05:25.879 the copies, So it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Having that 85 00:05:26.120 --> 00:05:29.319 archive of all these copies allowed me to do research 86 00:05:29.879 --> 00:05:34.079 and nobody else could. All of that, combined my filmmaker background, 87 00:05:34.160 --> 00:05:38.120 my makeup effects background, plus the archive of copies that 88 00:05:38.199 --> 00:05:41.480 I built up and everything simply put me in a 89 00:05:41.519 --> 00:05:45.319 position where I can analyze the film in ways that 90 00:05:45.399 --> 00:05:46.319 nobody else can. 91 00:05:47.079 --> 00:05:50.639 I think that's a great place to start. Because you've 92 00:05:50.680 --> 00:05:53.079 spent so many years studying the film. I guess the 93 00:05:53.160 --> 00:05:55.839 question for me is when you first got involved in this, 94 00:05:56.319 --> 00:05:58.759 what was the first thing about the film that convinced 95 00:05:58.759 --> 00:06:01.759 you that it deserved to you taken so seriously and 96 00:06:01.839 --> 00:06:03.680 for you to do the work that you've been picked 97 00:06:03.759 --> 00:06:05.519 up and went into all those years. 98 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:09.199 Oddly enough, the back of the neck. It's not exactly 99 00:06:09.240 --> 00:06:12.519 what you think of when you think about Patty. But 100 00:06:13.519 --> 00:06:16.399 because I've actually built ape suits and I've worked with 101 00:06:16.480 --> 00:06:19.560 them on set, know all the problems dealing with it. 102 00:06:20.399 --> 00:06:22.639 One of the biggest problems with an ape suit is 103 00:06:23.079 --> 00:06:26.639 until more recent stretch fur was available, but it wasn't 104 00:06:26.680 --> 00:06:30.360 back in the sixties. The problem is trying to keep 105 00:06:30.480 --> 00:06:34.800 where the head mask stops and where the tors goes 106 00:06:34.959 --> 00:06:39.160 start the back of the neck, trying and keep that smooth. Now, 107 00:06:39.199 --> 00:06:42.199 if you connect them, you're going to restrict the actor's 108 00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:45.639 ability to move that head left or right. In the 109 00:06:45.720 --> 00:06:48.319 old days, when they did it, they'd have a bunch 110 00:06:48.399 --> 00:06:51.480 of extra loose fur. They'd have a big fold back there, 111 00:06:52.199 --> 00:06:54.199 and in order to hide it, they made the shoulders 112 00:06:54.279 --> 00:06:58.720 much bigger, so you had these huge shoulders and this 113 00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:02.879 fold that allow for the head movement was buried between 114 00:07:02.920 --> 00:07:06.839 the shoulders. But when they started doing more normal shoulders, 115 00:07:06.839 --> 00:07:09.160 they couldn't do that. So what they would do is 116 00:07:09.199 --> 00:07:12.560 they would not attach the head to the body. They're 117 00:07:12.600 --> 00:07:16.480 actually separate, so the head could move around freely. Then 118 00:07:16.600 --> 00:07:21.000 the fur the head going down to the body gets 119 00:07:21.040 --> 00:07:23.480 all ruffled up as you turn the head from side 120 00:07:23.519 --> 00:07:26.519 to side, tilt the head up, tilted down, all that. 121 00:07:27.639 --> 00:07:32.399 Trying to keep that move after a radical turn of 122 00:07:32.439 --> 00:07:37.000 the head is damn near impossible. You just hope that 123 00:07:37.079 --> 00:07:39.680 the cameras looking from the front knock the back and 124 00:07:40.120 --> 00:07:43.399 doesn't see the back of the neck. In patterson film, 125 00:07:43.879 --> 00:07:46.319 we see the back of the neck almost the entire time, 126 00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:50.560 except for when she looks back real quick and then 127 00:07:50.680 --> 00:07:53.920 snaps her head back to look forward, moves on and 128 00:07:53.959 --> 00:07:56.439 we see the back of the neck again and it's 129 00:07:56.480 --> 00:08:01.600 as perfect after she turns as before she turned. We 130 00:08:01.720 --> 00:08:06.800 couldn't do that in nineteen sixty seven with any suit technology. 131 00:08:07.439 --> 00:08:10.639 It couldn't be done until nineteen eighty four, when they 132 00:08:10.759 --> 00:08:14.519 started using hair that had been tied into a spandex 133 00:08:14.639 --> 00:08:19.240 base stretched for Then they could go from the torso 134 00:08:19.360 --> 00:08:22.439 to that neck or torso to the head in a 135 00:08:22.560 --> 00:08:27.639 smooth spandex webbing, and it could handle all the movement 136 00:08:27.759 --> 00:08:30.920 and it would stay smooth. So it can be done now, 137 00:08:31.439 --> 00:08:35.200 but could not be done before nineteen eighty four. Patterson 138 00:08:35.240 --> 00:08:40.399 Films nineteen sixty seven, But the technology of that smooth 139 00:08:40.600 --> 00:08:44.080 back of the neck did not exist then. So actually 140 00:08:44.519 --> 00:08:48.600 that the one thing I was thinking of that actually 141 00:08:48.639 --> 00:08:51.960 in my mind said this is serious enough. I should 142 00:08:51.960 --> 00:08:53.159 really take a good look at it. 143 00:08:53.399 --> 00:08:57.159 Let's pass forward to the very moment we're sitting in now. 144 00:08:57.279 --> 00:09:01.320 Twenty twenty six, mid March. I mentioned it at the 145 00:09:01.360 --> 00:09:03.799 top of this. My feed has been blowing up over 146 00:09:03.840 --> 00:09:06.559 the last couple of weeks. I've been inundated with messages 147 00:09:06.679 --> 00:09:11.080 and emails and people sending text messages and asking me 148 00:09:11.240 --> 00:09:15.440 to weigh in on this new capturing Bigfoot documentary that's 149 00:09:15.480 --> 00:09:17.759 out there. I think all of this really started with 150 00:09:17.840 --> 00:09:22.279 somebody left a review for this film and it mentioned 151 00:09:22.320 --> 00:09:26.879 something about this alleged new footage that they've apparently showed 152 00:09:26.879 --> 00:09:30.200 in this documentary, and people are losing their minds over it. 153 00:09:30.200 --> 00:09:32.399 People are coming out of the woodwork and immediately it's 154 00:09:32.440 --> 00:09:35.320 a Patterson Gimlin Film's a fake, it's a hoax. Everybody's 155 00:09:35.360 --> 00:09:38.559 talking about it. They've got the smoking gun. You were 156 00:09:38.600 --> 00:09:41.600 actually in the film, along with people like Bob Heronymus, 157 00:09:41.639 --> 00:09:45.879 the late doctor, Jeff Meldrum, apparently Patricia Patterson's in it, 158 00:09:45.919 --> 00:09:48.600 Clint Patterson's in it. They've got all these folks, right. 159 00:09:49.200 --> 00:09:51.399 I think they even tried to do an interview with 160 00:09:51.559 --> 00:09:56.440 Iva Diatley, who was Roger Patterson's sister. Let's get to 161 00:09:56.480 --> 00:09:59.320 this point where you were actually in the film as well. 162 00:09:59.639 --> 00:10:02.480 When a'pturing Bigfoot first approach to you, What did they 163 00:10:02.480 --> 00:10:04.960 tell you that made you want to participate? Number one? 164 00:10:05.639 --> 00:10:07.679 And was there a point where you realized that the 165 00:10:07.720 --> 00:10:10.480 documentary seemed to be leaning in pretty hard on the 166 00:10:10.559 --> 00:10:15.559 idea that there was this Patterson Gimlin dress rehearsal film 167 00:10:15.600 --> 00:10:18.720 that they were going to drop in everybody's laps at 168 00:10:18.759 --> 00:10:21.120 some point in time during the documentary. 169 00:10:21.039 --> 00:10:23.720 I had heard through the rumor mill that somebody was 170 00:10:23.759 --> 00:10:27.919 working on a new documentary and it had some new 171 00:10:27.919 --> 00:10:31.120 footage nobody had ever seen before. So through the rumor 172 00:10:31.159 --> 00:10:34.440 mill I was hearing about this and found out what 173 00:10:34.519 --> 00:10:38.200 the name of the company was. Oddly enough, I sent 174 00:10:38.480 --> 00:10:42.559 them an email and said, I hear you have something 175 00:10:42.559 --> 00:10:45.720 you're putting together on this. I would certainly be very 176 00:10:45.759 --> 00:10:49.440 curious to see whatever new footage you have and perhaps 177 00:10:49.519 --> 00:10:52.799 even give you a professional appraisal on it if you 178 00:10:52.879 --> 00:10:56.399 are interested. They got right back to me the same 179 00:10:56.480 --> 00:10:58.960 day that said, thank you for reaching out, Bill. We 180 00:10:58.960 --> 00:11:02.200 were planning to content you. We definitely would like to 181 00:11:02.240 --> 00:11:06.360 interview for the film. So that's actually how it got started. 182 00:11:06.360 --> 00:11:10.279 It's funny, but all they told me was we have 183 00:11:10.480 --> 00:11:14.759 some new footage that has never been seen before. It 184 00:11:14.879 --> 00:11:20.320 came from a rather unusual place and could potentially change 185 00:11:20.759 --> 00:11:24.320 the way people see this Patterson Gimblin film. But they 186 00:11:24.360 --> 00:11:27.320 wouldn't give me any clues at all. Now, there were 187 00:11:27.360 --> 00:11:31.600 a couple of mystery footages that I've been searching for, 188 00:11:31.759 --> 00:11:34.320 and I was hoping that maybe it's this one, maybe 189 00:11:34.360 --> 00:11:37.480 it's that one. I even hinted to them telling him 190 00:11:37.519 --> 00:11:40.399 what I was hoping to see, and they assured me, no, 191 00:11:40.519 --> 00:11:44.799 it's not that, No, it's not Bailer. So going in 192 00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:49.200 I didn't have a clue what I was going to see. Now, 193 00:11:49.360 --> 00:11:52.279 they arranged to come up to near where I was living, 194 00:11:52.320 --> 00:11:55.559 in the mountain community outside Los Angeles and Lake Harrowhead. 195 00:11:56.360 --> 00:11:59.720 They got a house there for the day and they 196 00:11:59.720 --> 00:12:02.679 came up to me, brought the crew and everything, and 197 00:12:02.720 --> 00:12:06.200 we worked out a time I went over there before 198 00:12:06.240 --> 00:12:09.639 they would show me anything or tell me anything. They 199 00:12:09.720 --> 00:12:13.639 interviewed me for about four hours on the film and 200 00:12:13.679 --> 00:12:19.240 we went through everything. We really covered it comprehensively. I 201 00:12:19.320 --> 00:12:21.679 was very impressed by the amount of research they had 202 00:12:21.720 --> 00:12:26.399 done on it. Their questions were very intriguing. Clearly there 203 00:12:26.519 --> 00:12:31.840 was an element of skepticism in the form of their questions, 204 00:12:32.720 --> 00:12:36.440 but I had no problem with that at all, because 205 00:12:37.559 --> 00:12:41.759 I approach everything totally factually. If you can show me 206 00:12:41.879 --> 00:12:45.120 real evidence it shows it's a fake, I'll take it. 207 00:12:45.639 --> 00:12:48.759 I have no problem calling something a fake. There was 208 00:12:48.759 --> 00:12:52.960 something out there one called Matilda, and a guy brought 209 00:12:53.039 --> 00:12:56.279 me footage and wanted me to authenticate it. And I 210 00:12:56.399 --> 00:12:59.320 looked at it, and I had to tell them, sorry, guy, 211 00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:03.480 if you bock a mask with the hair replaced, and 212 00:13:03.559 --> 00:13:06.840 he begged me to reconsider that, say it was real, 213 00:13:06.960 --> 00:13:10.120 and I couldn't because I went where the facts went 214 00:13:10.759 --> 00:13:13.399 and I had to dismiss it. With a Patterson film, 215 00:13:13.639 --> 00:13:16.840 I go where the facts go, and if it actually 216 00:13:16.879 --> 00:13:19.279 goes to a hoax, I have no fear of going 217 00:13:19.360 --> 00:13:24.799 there at all. I admire the process more than the result. 218 00:13:25.159 --> 00:13:27.639 The result is simply if you do the process right. 219 00:13:27.960 --> 00:13:32.080 But I admire the process. Okay, if the process takes 220 00:13:32.159 --> 00:13:34.720 us to hoax, I'll go there. If it takes me 221 00:13:34.799 --> 00:13:37.399 to reel, I will go there, but I will go 222 00:13:37.480 --> 00:13:40.039 there the right way. I won't go there the wrong one. 223 00:13:40.559 --> 00:13:42.600 I was getting a feeling from them that they were 224 00:13:42.720 --> 00:13:45.679 skeptical and that they might be showing me something I 225 00:13:45.679 --> 00:13:51.759 would challenge the conventional thinking. We interviewed for about four hours. Finally, 226 00:13:52.039 --> 00:13:57.879 afterwards they actually showed me a video scan of the 227 00:13:57.879 --> 00:14:02.000 film clip and what it was. Starts out with someone 228 00:14:02.120 --> 00:14:05.240 pretending to be Bob Gimlin, guy on horseback with a 229 00:14:05.240 --> 00:14:09.200 Winchester rifle, and then he goes out of frame and 230 00:14:09.279 --> 00:14:12.639 someone that sort of looks like Patty in a modestly 231 00:14:13.519 --> 00:14:18.279 halfway decent suit and nothing spectacular, walks along through the wood, 232 00:14:19.279 --> 00:14:26.759 virtually duplicating to the end degree the Patterson film, including 233 00:14:27.519 --> 00:14:32.080 one pose where one foot is raised up so the 234 00:14:32.120 --> 00:14:34.440 sole of the foot straight up and down and you 235 00:14:34.480 --> 00:14:37.320 see the whole bottom of the foot and it's pure white, 236 00:14:37.960 --> 00:14:42.519 exactly like cebachrume seventy two of the Patterson Gimblin film. 237 00:14:43.080 --> 00:14:49.679 And it's virtually identical the post, which is really quite fascinating. Anyways, 238 00:14:49.720 --> 00:14:52.559 they showed me the video of the whole thing and said, 239 00:14:52.559 --> 00:14:56.360 what do you think. I said, Hey, it's obviously a 240 00:14:56.399 --> 00:15:00.759 man in suit. The suit isn't anything spectacular. It's not 241 00:15:00.960 --> 00:15:04.799 like an off the rack Halloween costume that Philip Morris 242 00:15:04.840 --> 00:15:09.159 would sell. It was custom made for this filming, but 243 00:15:09.399 --> 00:15:15.320 it's not Rick Baker, Stan Winston, John Chambers Hollywood quality. 244 00:15:15.360 --> 00:15:17.679 It's not anywhere near that. 245 00:15:19.320 --> 00:15:22.039 And stay tuned for Morse sasquat Chotasy will be right 246 00:15:22.080 --> 00:15:23.559 back after these messages. 247 00:15:27.600 --> 00:15:32.080 So I'd say, just some medium grade level of proficiency 248 00:15:32.360 --> 00:15:35.240 making the suit. They showed me the whole footage, so 249 00:15:35.279 --> 00:15:39.759 it starts out with his Bob Gimlin impersonator doing supposedly 250 00:15:39.799 --> 00:15:42.679 what Bob did in Bluff Creek, and then it has 251 00:15:42.759 --> 00:15:46.120 this guy in the suit doing the paddy walk and 252 00:15:46.159 --> 00:15:49.879 walking through there, and that's basically the clip. Then they 253 00:15:49.919 --> 00:15:54.399 actually gave me the physical film, actually held it in 254 00:15:54.399 --> 00:15:57.759 my hands. They gave me an eye loop ten X 255 00:15:57.879 --> 00:16:01.639 magnifier eye loop. I was able to actually look at 256 00:16:01.679 --> 00:16:05.759 the film because in the video you don't see any 257 00:16:05.799 --> 00:16:09.200 of the edge code or marking on the sides, and 258 00:16:09.240 --> 00:16:12.879 that's valuable information about the film. You can only see 259 00:16:12.919 --> 00:16:16.639 that if you're actually looking at the actual film, or 260 00:16:16.639 --> 00:16:18.879 if you have a scan that literally has the full 261 00:16:18.919 --> 00:16:23.279 width side to side, including all those rocket holes. So 262 00:16:23.320 --> 00:16:25.919 I'm looking at the film and they're filming me while 263 00:16:25.919 --> 00:16:29.279 I'm doing that. I hope it's in the documentary, but 264 00:16:29.320 --> 00:16:31.440 I haven't seen it, so I don't know. But anyways, 265 00:16:31.440 --> 00:16:35.240 they're filming me while I'm examining it, and I'm speaking 266 00:16:35.279 --> 00:16:37.720 out loud at what I'm saying, and I tell them, Okay. 267 00:16:38.159 --> 00:16:41.919 This is filmed on codochrome two film stock. It has 268 00:16:41.960 --> 00:16:46.840 a manufacturer's date code of nineteen sixty six. It was 269 00:16:46.960 --> 00:16:52.200 manufactured at the Rochester, New York plant. It is a 270 00:16:52.480 --> 00:16:56.679 camera original. It is not a print or copy. It 271 00:16:56.759 --> 00:17:00.879 was photographed with a Kodak K one hundred camera, most 272 00:17:00.960 --> 00:17:04.920 likely the single lens model, not the three lens turret model. 273 00:17:05.559 --> 00:17:07.279 And I was looking at it. I was able to 274 00:17:07.319 --> 00:17:10.680 tell them all of those things about the film by 275 00:17:10.720 --> 00:17:14.519 the physical exam. So everything I've just told you, now 276 00:17:14.880 --> 00:17:19.880 those are the facts of its actual film. Okay, So 277 00:17:19.920 --> 00:17:22.559 anybody who's talking about what is it and everything else, 278 00:17:23.079 --> 00:17:26.160 it is codo chrome. It has a camera date code, 279 00:17:26.160 --> 00:17:30.680 which means when it was manufactured nineteen sixty six. Okay. 280 00:17:31.079 --> 00:17:34.680 It was manufactured at the Rochester, New York plant. It 281 00:17:34.799 --> 00:17:37.839 is a camera original, It is not a copy. It 282 00:17:37.920 --> 00:17:41.400 was shot with a Kodak K one hundred camera, probably 283 00:17:41.400 --> 00:17:44.720 the single lens version. So all of those are the 284 00:17:44.799 --> 00:17:48.039 facts of this film. So I was able to determine 285 00:17:48.039 --> 00:17:51.559 that in my physical exam. Now it comes down to 286 00:17:51.559 --> 00:17:56.279 the big question what is this? There are two possible explanations. 287 00:17:57.279 --> 00:18:00.759 Is it a rehearsal for a later hoax, which many 288 00:18:00.759 --> 00:18:05.160 people claim, or is it an after the fact replica 289 00:18:05.720 --> 00:18:09.759 where you have the PGF and someone tries to duplicate it. 290 00:18:10.680 --> 00:18:15.079 And I discussed again on camera for then I discussed 291 00:18:15.680 --> 00:18:20.039 the considerations that would go into either one of those explanations. 292 00:18:20.920 --> 00:18:25.079 My conclusion personally is that it is a replica after 293 00:18:25.160 --> 00:18:29.680 the fact, and the reason I conclude that is because 294 00:18:29.839 --> 00:18:34.160 you can't say it's a rehearsal for the final PGF 295 00:18:34.200 --> 00:18:39.079 hoax unless you can first prove the PGF is a hoax, 296 00:18:39.720 --> 00:18:42.119 but not with it film. You have to prove it 297 00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:45.559 to hoax some other way. So far, nobody's ever done that. 298 00:18:46.279 --> 00:18:49.960 So if you can't start by saying, we prove the 299 00:18:50.000 --> 00:18:53.119 PGF as a hoax, so we can say this is 300 00:18:53.160 --> 00:18:56.720 a rehearsal of it, you can't do that until you 301 00:18:56.799 --> 00:18:59.200 prove the PGF as a hoax, and nobody's done it, 302 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:03.359 so they're trying to do it with everything in the documentary, 303 00:19:03.880 --> 00:19:08.839 but until somebody actually offers a conclusive proof that it's 304 00:19:08.880 --> 00:19:14.160 a hope, you can't really go with the rehearsal scenario. 305 00:19:14.480 --> 00:19:19.039 It doesn't work because you couldn't do the rehearsal and 306 00:19:19.079 --> 00:19:22.119 then Roger goes out and films the real thing, and 307 00:19:22.160 --> 00:19:26.759 the real thing, spontaneous and totally uncontrolled by Roger, is 308 00:19:26.799 --> 00:19:30.960 a perfect match for rehearsal. That's impossible if it's real. 309 00:19:31.079 --> 00:19:34.200 Roger had no control what happened. But he had no 310 00:19:34.279 --> 00:19:37.680 control over it. So if he had a rehearsal in mind, 311 00:19:37.960 --> 00:19:42.680 he's not telling Patty what to do. So if it's real, 312 00:19:43.000 --> 00:19:47.359 the rehearsal thing falls apart. It simply makes no sense. 313 00:19:48.039 --> 00:19:51.920 A replica, on the other hand, makes perfect sense because 314 00:19:51.960 --> 00:19:56.920 you literally have Prince framed Prince of the PGF to 315 00:19:57.039 --> 00:20:00.640 look at. Okay, at this point, what's my poe. I'm 316 00:20:00.680 --> 00:20:03.759 standing here, My right foot's raised up so high that 317 00:20:03.839 --> 00:20:06.279 we can see the bottom of my foot. And whoever 318 00:20:06.319 --> 00:20:11.240 made the costume made the feet white. Now nobody in 319 00:20:11.240 --> 00:20:14.799 the right mind make it a bigfoot or an ape 320 00:20:14.839 --> 00:20:18.279 suit or gorilla suit would make the feet white. That 321 00:20:18.400 --> 00:20:22.400 makes no sense. You'd make them a medium brown, or 322 00:20:22.440 --> 00:20:26.400 if it's a gorilla suit, a black skin tone. You 323 00:20:26.480 --> 00:20:29.680 might make the soul in the palm a little lighter 324 00:20:29.680 --> 00:20:33.119 than it'd be a light kind of pinkish baige, but 325 00:20:33.200 --> 00:20:36.400 it wouldn't make it white. But this one, the feet 326 00:20:36.440 --> 00:20:40.119 are white in the PGF. If you have a copy 327 00:20:40.759 --> 00:20:45.200 of some of the frames and they expose to try 328 00:20:45.240 --> 00:20:49.440 to bring up detail in Patty's body, which is dark, 329 00:20:49.519 --> 00:20:53.880 you overexpose the feet and they look white. So if 330 00:20:53.880 --> 00:20:57.480 somebody making the costume was shown the PGF and they're 331 00:20:57.519 --> 00:21:00.400 shown these stills and wow, the feet are white, I'll 332 00:21:00.400 --> 00:21:02.640 have to make the feet white to match it. That's 333 00:21:02.720 --> 00:21:05.279 exactly what it looks like. But if it was a 334 00:21:05.319 --> 00:21:09.240 rehearsal and you had no idea what was coming next, 335 00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:13.880 nobody making that costume would have made the feet white. 336 00:21:14.480 --> 00:21:18.559 There is no reason for that. It defies all logic 337 00:21:19.359 --> 00:21:22.160 for building a costume if you want it to look correct. 338 00:21:22.759 --> 00:21:26.119 It only makes sense if you understand that it's a replica. 339 00:21:26.400 --> 00:21:31.640 I shorted through all of these pros and cons of 340 00:21:31.720 --> 00:21:35.960 both a rehearsal or a replica. Now what they have 341 00:21:36.359 --> 00:21:38.400 in the final cut of the film, I don't know. 342 00:21:39.160 --> 00:21:41.759 I haven't actually seen that, so I don't know how 343 00:21:41.839 --> 00:21:44.400 much of it they used. They couldn't have used at all. 344 00:21:44.480 --> 00:21:47.000 I talked too much, you know, I'm. 345 00:21:46.880 --> 00:21:48.720 Going to interject the question here. This is where I'll 346 00:21:48.720 --> 00:21:51.319 play a little bit of Devil's advocate, I think, because 347 00:21:51.440 --> 00:21:53.640 I guess the confusion from me and maybe some of 348 00:21:53.680 --> 00:21:55.480 the audience that are going to be listening to this 349 00:21:56.319 --> 00:21:59.240 is if what you said is true and it looks 350 00:21:59.319 --> 00:22:02.160 like this was filmed in nineteen sixty six, which is 351 00:22:02.319 --> 00:22:03.920 pre sixty seven. 352 00:22:04.640 --> 00:22:09.799 The film stock was manufactured in sixty six. There's nothing 353 00:22:09.839 --> 00:22:13.319 on it that indicates when it was filmed. Now, some 354 00:22:13.359 --> 00:22:17.960 people say that, but there's no actual proof. Like the 355 00:22:18.039 --> 00:22:23.160 director himself is quoted as saying, we had some experts, 356 00:22:23.160 --> 00:22:25.160 so they looked at it and they determined it was 357 00:22:25.200 --> 00:22:29.640 shot late sixty six, early sixty seven. With no disrespect 358 00:22:29.680 --> 00:22:35.240 to the director. That's not a fact. That's just a claim. 359 00:22:35.400 --> 00:22:38.680 But it's not a fact because if it's a fact, 360 00:22:38.880 --> 00:22:41.359 you have to say who the experts are, give us 361 00:22:41.400 --> 00:22:45.799 a name, what's their resume? Then what evans did they 362 00:22:45.839 --> 00:22:48.400 look at? You can't just say, yeah, they looked at 363 00:22:48.400 --> 00:22:52.440 the film. What specifically in the film did they look at? 364 00:22:52.680 --> 00:22:54.920 Did they find the date code that the lab put 365 00:22:55.000 --> 00:22:57.480 on it? If so, the date code the lab put 366 00:22:57.519 --> 00:23:00.920 on wouldn't say maybe late sixty six are early sixty seven, 367 00:23:01.319 --> 00:23:05.359 would have a date December tenth in sixty six or 368 00:23:05.400 --> 00:23:08.640 something like that, if it was a code of any kind, 369 00:23:09.160 --> 00:23:12.759 would have a specific day. So they don't have a day. 370 00:23:13.319 --> 00:23:15.119 The only thing that seems to make sense is they 371 00:23:15.200 --> 00:23:18.880 had somebody look at the foliage in the picture and say, 372 00:23:18.920 --> 00:23:22.200 what kind of looks like winter. That means late sixty six, 373 00:23:22.319 --> 00:23:27.000 early sixty seven. But winter in sixty six sixty seven 374 00:23:27.559 --> 00:23:31.079 looks the same as winter in sixty seven sixty eight. 375 00:23:31.640 --> 00:23:36.279 Last I checked, when winter comes, there's no year in 376 00:23:36.400 --> 00:23:40.240 written in the trees. So if they're looking at the foliage, yeah, 377 00:23:40.279 --> 00:23:45.240 they could identify time of year, but they couldn't identify year. Now, 378 00:23:45.279 --> 00:23:48.359 all of this comes up with this quote about we 379 00:23:48.440 --> 00:23:51.960 think it was shot late sixty six early sixty seven. 380 00:23:52.559 --> 00:23:57.960 They have offered nothing to explain how that conclusion was reached. 381 00:23:58.759 --> 00:24:01.960 And if they can't explain how the conclusion was reached, 382 00:24:02.599 --> 00:24:07.440 they're not offering a fact. They're offering a claim, an idea, 383 00:24:07.559 --> 00:24:11.440 an opinion, a maybe, but they're not offering a fact 384 00:24:12.039 --> 00:24:15.799 until they tell you who the experts are, what they 385 00:24:15.839 --> 00:24:19.720 actually examined, what their method was of studying the evidence 386 00:24:20.079 --> 00:24:23.680 to get to that conclusion. They haven't offered yet. 387 00:24:24.279 --> 00:24:26.759 So just to be clear here, it sounds like to me, 388 00:24:27.200 --> 00:24:30.759 you're saying that it's possible that this was shot on 389 00:24:30.839 --> 00:24:34.279 a Kodak K one hundred film, possibly the single lens. 390 00:24:34.720 --> 00:24:38.079 It was Coda chrome filmed dated from nineteen sixty six. 391 00:24:38.119 --> 00:24:41.599 But you're saying it's possible that the people who made 392 00:24:41.599 --> 00:24:44.799 this film, or somebody independent of them, may have went 393 00:24:44.839 --> 00:24:49.119 out yesterday or last week or ten months ago and 394 00:24:49.319 --> 00:24:52.359 use that film to film something that looks very similar 395 00:24:52.839 --> 00:24:57.519 that might be a replica of sorts of the actual 396 00:24:57.559 --> 00:24:59.079 PG film. Is that what I'm hearing you. I don't 397 00:24:59.079 --> 00:25:00.279 want to put words in your mouth, just. 398 00:25:00.279 --> 00:25:06.079 Let me know. When film is manufactured, it's good for years, 399 00:25:06.119 --> 00:25:09.880 it's good for decades if it started right. So at 400 00:25:09.920 --> 00:25:14.200 any time after nineteen sixty six, somebody could have taken 401 00:25:14.200 --> 00:25:17.720