PG Film Hoax? Bill Munns on Capturing Bigfoot

was it was? Standing up? I'm out here looking through the window now and I don't see anything. I don't want to go outside. Jesus Quice, you better hello, get somebody out here. Quin, I'm out there. I thought of a bit of about text nine. I don't know easy ann ount there, Yeah, I'm walking right.

your work on the PG film. Can you talk a little bit about how you got involved with this film and what that history has been like for you over the last few decades.

What I found is that no prior researchers had those two areas of specialized knowledge. They were not filmmakers. They really didn't understand cameras, lenses, film stock, lab processing, all of that. They didn't understand it from the point of somebody who had done it and done it. And then when it gets to the question is what we see in the film? Is it something real or is it a guy running around in some kind of furk costume. In order to analyze that, you've got to be somebody

who's actually designed and built for costumes. If you haven't done it, you really don't know enough to properly analyze it. So I came into this with those two backgrounds, which made me a sort of a unique analyst in the whole topic from beginning right up until the current day. It very quickly put me very high up in the hierarchy, if you will, of researchers. One of the things that I understood that nobody else did was most people, if they could get one copy of the film, they thought, Okay,

I've got the film. What they didn't realize is that because everything we have is copies, we don't have the original to work with. Every copy is different in some way. Every copy has some information and maybe another copy doesn't have And these other people, not being filmmakers, didn't understand that, but I did. So I started scanning copies and I built up an archive of more scanned copies than any researcher had ever possessed, and that allowed me to do

research on a level that nobody else could. Anything that comes up where someone sees something in a frame and says, oh, this is that. This is a hernie on the leg, this is a gunshot from the woods, anything like that, they just look at the one copy and they seem to think, Okay, that's it. As soon as that one of that topic comes up, I go to all my other copy and if it's not in all the other copies,

then it's not original data. It's a copy artifact. Quite a few researchers have actually made mistakes because they were looking at one copy. Somebody looks at it and says, oh, there's a splice in my copy. Ha ha, it's been splice. It means somebody's doing something sneaky. I just go to another copy and see on this other copy, isn't splice in the same spot.

start the back of the neck, trying and keep that smooth. Now, if you connect them, you're going to restrict the actor's ability to move that head left or right. In the old days, when they did it, they'd have a bunch of extra loose fur. They'd have a big fold back there, and in order to hide it, they made the shoulders much bigger, so you had these huge shoulders and this fold that allow for the head movement was buried between the shoulders. But when they started doing more normal shoulders,

they couldn't do that. So what they would do is they would not attach the head to the body. They're actually separate, so the head could move around freely. Then the fur the head going down to the body gets all ruffled up as you turn the head from side to side, tilt the head up, tilted down, all that. Trying to keep that move after a radical turn of the head is damn near impossible. You just hope that the cameras looking from the front knock the back and

doesn't see the back of the neck. In patterson film, we see the back of the neck almost the entire time, except for when she looks back real quick and then snaps her head back to look forward, moves on and we see the back of the neck again and it's as perfect after she turns as before she turned. We couldn't do that in nineteen sixty seven with any suit technology.

It couldn't be done until nineteen eighty four, when they started using hair that had been tied into a spandex base stretched for Then they could go from the torso to that neck or torso to the head in a smooth spandex webbing, and it could handle all the movement and it would stay smooth. So it can be done now, but could not be done before nineteen eighty four. Patterson Films nineteen sixty seven, But the technology of that smooth

back of the neck did not exist then. So actually that the one thing I was thinking of that actually in my mind said this is serious enough. I should really take a good look at it.

out there. I think all of this really started with somebody left a review for this film and it mentioned something about this alleged new footage that they've apparently showed in this documentary, and people are losing their minds over it. People are coming out of the woodwork and immediately it's a Patterson Gimlin Film's a fake, it's a hoax. Everybody's

talking about it. They've got the smoking gun. You were actually in the film, along with people like Bob Heronymus, the late doctor, Jeff Meldrum, apparently Patricia Patterson's in it, Clint Patterson's in it. They've got all these folks, right. I think they even tried to do an interview with Iva Diatley, who was Roger Patterson's sister. Let's get to this point where you were actually in the film as well. When a'pturing Bigfoot first approach to you, What did they

tell you that made you want to participate? Number one? And was there a point where you realized that the documentary seemed to be leaning in pretty hard on the idea that there was this Patterson Gimlin dress rehearsal film that they were going to drop in everybody's laps at some point in time during the documentary.

are interested. They got right back to me the same day that said, thank you for reaching out, Bill. We were planning to content you. We definitely would like to interview for the film. So that's actually how it got started. It's funny, but all they told me was we have some new footage that has never been seen before. It came from a rather unusual place and could potentially change the way people see this Patterson Gimblin film. But they

wouldn't give me any clues at all. Now, there were a couple of mystery footages that I've been searching for, and I was hoping that maybe it's this one, maybe it's that one. I even hinted to them telling him what I was hoping to see, and they assured me, no, it's not that, No, it's not Bailer. So going in I didn't have a clue what I was going to see. Now, they arranged to come up to near where I was living, in the mountain community outside Los Angeles and Lake Harrowhead.

They got a house there for the day and they came up to me, brought the crew and everything, and we worked out a time I went over there before they would show me anything or tell me anything. They interviewed me for about four hours on the film and we went through everything. We really covered it comprehensively. I was very impressed by the amount of research they had

done on it. Their questions were very intriguing. Clearly there was an element of skepticism in the form of their questions, but I had no problem with that at all, because I approach everything totally factually. If you can show me real evidence it shows it's a fake, I'll take it. I have no problem calling something a fake. There was something out there one called Matilda, and a guy brought

me footage and wanted me to authenticate it. And I looked at it, and I had to tell them, sorry, guy, if you bock a mask with the hair replaced, and he begged me to reconsider that, say it was real, and I couldn't because I went where the facts went and I had to dismiss it. With a Patterson film, I go where the facts go, and if it actually goes to a hoax, I have no fear of going there at all. I admire the process more than the result. The result is simply if you do the process right.

But I admire the process. Okay, if the process takes us to hoax, I'll go there. If it takes me to reel, I will go there, but I will go there the right way. I won't go there the wrong one. I was getting a feeling from them that they were skeptical and that they might be showing me something I would challenge the conventional thinking. We interviewed for about four hours. Finally, afterwards they actually showed me a video scan of the

film clip and what it was. Starts out with someone pretending to be Bob Gimlin, guy on horseback with a Winchester rifle, and then he goes out of frame and someone that sort of looks like Patty in a modestly halfway decent suit and nothing spectacular, walks along through the wood, virtually duplicating to the end degree the Patterson film, including one pose where one foot is raised up so the sole of the foot straight up and down and you see the whole bottom of the foot and it's pure white,

exactly like cebachrume seventy two of the Patterson Gimblin film. And it's virtually identical the post, which is really quite fascinating. Anyways, they showed me the video of the whole thing and said, what do you think. I said, Hey, it's obviously a man in suit. The suit isn't anything spectacular. It's not like an off the rack Halloween costume that Philip Morris would sell. It was custom made for this filming, but it's not Rick Baker, Stan Winston, John Chambers Hollywood quality.

It's not anywhere near that.

magnifier eye loop. I was able to actually look at the film because in the video you don't see any of the edge code or marking on the sides, and that's valuable information about the film. You can only see that if you're actually looking at the actual film, or if you have a scan that literally has the full width side to side, including all those rocket holes. So I'm looking at the film and they're filming me while I'm doing that. I hope it's in the documentary, but

I haven't seen it, so I don't know. But anyways, they're filming me while I'm examining it, and I'm speaking out loud at what I'm saying, and I tell them, Okay. This is filmed on codochrome two film stock. It has a manufacturer's date code of nineteen sixty six. It was manufactured at the Rochester, New York plant. It is a camera original. It is not a print or copy. It was photographed with a Kodak K one hundred camera, most likely the single lens model, not the three lens turret model.

And I was looking at it. I was able to tell them all of those things about the film by the physical exam. So everything I've just told you, now those are the facts of its actual film. Okay, So anybody who's talking about what is it and everything else, it is codo chrome. It has a camera date code, which means when it was manufactured nineteen sixty six. Okay. It was manufactured at the Rochester, New York plant. It

is a camera original, It is not a copy. It was shot with a Kodak K one hundred camera, probably the single lens version. So all of those are the facts of this film. So I was able to determine that in my physical exam. Now it comes down to the big question what is this? There are two possible explanations. Is it a rehearsal for a later hoax, which many people claim, or is it an after the fact replica where you have the PGF and someone tries to duplicate it.

And I discussed again on camera for then I discussed the considerations that would go into either one of those explanations. My conclusion personally is that it is a replica after the fact, and the reason I conclude that is because you can't say it's a rehearsal for the final PGF hoax unless you can first prove the PGF is a hoax, but not with it film. You have to prove it to hoax some other way. So far, nobody's ever done that.

So if you can't start by saying, we prove the PGF as a hoax, so we can say this is a rehearsal of it, you can't do that until you prove the PGF as a hoax, and nobody's done it, so they're trying to do it with everything in the documentary, but until somebody actually offers a conclusive proof that it's a hope, you can't really go with the rehearsal scenario.

It doesn't work because you couldn't do the rehearsal and then Roger goes out and films the real thing, and the real thing, spontaneous and totally uncontrolled by Roger, is a perfect match for rehearsal. That's impossible if it's real. Roger had no control what happened. But he had no control over it. So if he had a rehearsal in mind, he's not telling Patty what to do. So if it's real, the rehearsal thing falls apart. It simply makes no sense.

A replica, on the other hand, makes perfect sense because you literally have Prince framed Prince of the PGF to look at. Okay, at this point, what's my poe. I'm standing here, My right foot's raised up so high that we can see the bottom of my foot. And whoever made the costume made the feet white. Now nobody in the right mind make it a bigfoot or an ape suit or gorilla suit would make the feet white. That makes no sense. You'd make them a medium brown, or

if it's a gorilla suit, a black skin tone. You might make the soul in the palm a little lighter than it'd be a light kind of pinkish baige, but it wouldn't make it white. But this one, the feet are white in the PGF. If you have a copy of some of the frames and they expose to try to bring up detail in Patty's body, which is dark, you overexpose the feet and they look white. So if somebody making the costume was shown the PGF and they're shown these stills and wow, the feet are white, I'll

have to make the feet white to match it. That's exactly what it looks like. But if it was a rehearsal and you had no idea what was coming next, nobody making that costume would have made the feet white. There is no reason for that. It defies all logic for building a costume if you want it to look correct. It only makes sense if you understand that it's a replica. I shorted through all of these pros and cons of

both a rehearsal or a replica. Now what they have in the final cut of the film, I don't know. I haven't actually seen that, so I don't know how much of it they used. They couldn't have used at all. I talked too much, you know, I'm.

a name, what's their resume? Then what evans did they look at? You can't just say, yeah, they looked at the film. What specifically in the film did they look at? Did they find the date code that the lab put on it? If so, the date code the lab put on wouldn't say maybe late sixty six are early sixty seven, would have a date December tenth in sixty six or something like that, if it was a code of any kind, would have a specific day. So they don't have a day.

The only thing that seems to make sense is they had somebody look at the foliage in the picture and say, what kind of looks like winter. That means late sixty six, early sixty seven. But winter in sixty six sixty seven looks the same as winter in sixty seven sixty eight. Last I checked, when winter comes, there's no year in written in the trees. So if they're looking at the foliage, yeah,

they could identify time of year, but they couldn't identify year. Now, all of this comes up with this quote about we think it was shot late sixty six early sixty seven. They have offered nothing to explain how that conclusion was reached. And if they can't explain how the conclusion was reached,

they're not offering a fact. They're offering a claim, an idea, an opinion, a maybe, but they're not offering a fact until they tell you who the experts are, what they actually examined, what their method was of studying the evidence to get to that conclusion. They haven't offered yet.

PG film. Is that what I'm hearing you. I don't want to put words in your mouth, just.

not shot after twoy ten. But in terms of when it could have been shot, it could have been shot in sixty seven, sixty eight, sixty nine, seventy, seventy one, seventy It could have been shot any of those times. The date code doesn't tell you when it was shot. And the film is good and codek codo chrome processing was available during all those years, so yeah, it could have been shocked any of that time after the fact.

things back from the government. They frankly nobody else has been able to get because they don't know the process

or take the time to do this. But Eric has produced his own documentary films in the past, and I don't know if that's how this happened, but he actually went to a screening and got to see Capturing Bigfoot, and he came back right after it looked like just a couple hours maybe after he had seen this film, and he sets down and does this thirty three minute or so reaction video, and he's talking about this film in this reaction video, and he's pretty convinced that this

forty second or so clip that we're talking about now from nineteen sixty six. He says, it's spot on Patty. In his opinion, he's pretty convinced that what he saw was what he believes to be the dress rehearsal for this right. So once that came out, I went on and did a couple of lives over on my social media, and I don't think it was fifteen minutes after I posted the first one, my phone rings and it's Doug Hicheck, and Doug's calling me saying, hey, man, I saw your post.

I want to talk a little bit about this and give you a little inside information. So Doug and I have a thirty minute or so conversation, and Doug is telling me that he's pretty convinced that this is something that's been known in the Bigfoot community for decades, that Roger and Bob were filming a documentary when they filmed Patty. That's why they were in the woods with a freaking

camera when this happened in nineteen sixty seven. And Doug is simply saying he believes, although he hasn't seen the footage, that this is probably a part of or a piece of that b roll footage that was being filmed at one point in time or the other, when Roger and Bob were filming for this Dock coumentary that was ultimately produced, I had seen several people say that that is the narrative that I'm seeing in the Bigfoot community from people

that are obviously on the side. They're siding with Bob and Roger. They believe Patty's real, they believe in the footage. They're going to that saying, hey, this is just b roll. We've known about it for years. Nothing to see here kind of thing. But I've also talked to people like Eric. I haven't talked to Eric personally, but what Eric described seeing, he was very adamant that's not what he was looking at. Again, it's a very subjective thing for a lot of people.

If you haven't seen that, it's possible to get confused, I think. So I reached out to Todd Prescott over at the Sasquatch Archives. He's the only person that I know that actually has a copy of not only Roger Patterson's documentary that he eventually produced and released, but he also has the BBC documentary that was done on the film as well. So Todd is a pretty knowledgeable person

when it comes to bigfoot stuff. So I reached out to Todd yesterday and I said, Hey, this is circling the drain here about this potential nineteen sixty six smoking gun footage that people are talking about in this new documentary could possibly be a piece of this b row footage. Man, you got a copy of it? Can you tell me is it in the dock? Because that would solve everything.

Right if we can pull up the documentary that Roger Patterson filmed and produced and this forty second clip is in there, and you compare the two and it's the same thing, this is pretty much case closed in my opinion. But Todd told me it wasn't in either one of those documentaries. Now was it something that got left on the cutting room floor? Again, if you take it another step forward, that is always a possibility. But that sort of gave me pause a little bit to say, I

don't think it's the be roll footage. I think we're talking about something different here, which is what it sounds like we're talking about during this conversation, that it could have been filmed at some point in time after the PG film was filmed and released. So there's something else that could be potentially going on there. For me, I think it becomes more of the total the circumstances. I know you and I just met, so you don't know a ton about me, and you probably don't listen to

the show. But I am one of these people that always looks at the totality of the circumstances.

this footage, because that was the other thing. In addition to showing it to you, they showed it to the late doctor Jeff Meldrum, they showed it to Bob Eronymous, they showed it to Clint, they showed it to Patricia, and there was obviously reaction videos. That's TV one oh one. You sit somebody down and show them something they're not expecting, and then you get their reaction. That was one of the things that Doug and I had a conversation about it, and I don't think Doug would have an issue with

me talking about this publicly. He said that Jeff was also ambushed at some event he was doing, and these folks just showed up and showed him this, and he wasn't expecting the footage, and his reaction that seen on camera is more of I got ambushed here, and it was more about the way that it was shown to him, and it wasn't necessarily being framed that he was so surprised by this alleged footage. The way it was presented.

At least that Eric got from the documentary was that Jeff was almost teary eyed because it seems like he was watching his dreams dissolve in front of him about the Patterson Gimlin film. And I just don't know that's necessarily accurate. And I didn't know that until Doug called me and he said Jeff actually called him right after

that and said, look, these guys just ambushed me. I just thought it was really icky the way that they did it, and that knowing Jeff the way that I knew him seems more accurate to me of what may or may not have happened. Again, it's hard to say because you were in the film and you haven't seen the final result. So I guess that leads me to

a couple of questions here. Number one, before anybody's calling this a smoking gun, which there are plenty of people out there doing right now as we speak, what do you think of the first questions that need to be answered about that particular clip? And I guess the second part of that would be, how important to you is the chain of custody with something like that compared to what people think they see on screen? And stay tuned

for more sasquatch out to see. We'll be right back after these messages.

to the next fact? You need a logical structure of ideas. You have to think about pretty much everything that you're seeing in the film, but you have to really weigh these two alternatives realistically. If you automatically dismiss one because you want to go the other way, you're not a critical thinker. And unfortunately, that's a lot of what's happening. So many people who want to believe the film's a hoax. They are so excited about this that they just utterly

and completely dismiss the alternative without thinking it through. That's not critical thinking, but that's what a lot of people or doing. So what I think people should do is really realistically start putting both ideas on the table and then working through the logic of each idea and what does it need in order to fit together, and work

through the whole logic of each one of them. I saw this film for the first time almost a year ago, so I've had a year to work through these two alternative and the whole logic structure of if it's a rehearsal or if it's replica. Okay, most people, now, I've only known about this for a couple of days maybe, and they're trying to process it, but they don't have anywhere near as much time to think through these two

alternatives and really seriously analyze all the ramifications. To any assumption you make, you have to follow that to its logical conclusion. Does it fit the puzzle? If it comes up in a piece that doesn't fit, is not a good fit. It's literally like a jigsaw puzzle, all of the logical components of each explanation, and you have to think of it. Do all the pieces fit together? In

my appraisal, they only fit together with a replica. But for people who if they really want to do it's right and they really want to call themselves a critical thinker, they have to be courageous enough to explore both possibilities in detail without making a snap decision. So that's what I would suggest for people going into it with that. In terms of chain and custody, that's not really that important. I know a lot of people think it is, but

in this case, no, it's actually not. It is so close to the Patterson Gimlin the true Fellow, So close to it. It's obviously related somehow. All of its value is in understanding how it's related. But the chain of custody actually isn't that significant. From what I was told, it came to them from the daughter of a man who worked at Boeing Aircraft. The man had it in his safe for many years. He could have been the man who helped make this film and then when after

it was seen, he kept it. I can't imagine him having it if he wasn't part of making the film. He might have been the person who helped Al Diatley get the PGF processed when Al miraculously had it done over a weekend when they say the Seattle lab was closed on Saturday night, Al somehow worked a miracle and got it processed. Nobody knows how, and Al conveniently forgot,

which of course he didn't. I just didn't want to say it, but it raises the question, and maybe he went through this man at the Boweling Aircraft facility in their photographic unit who helped him get it processed somehow.

There's a lot of speculation about that. But anyways, from what I was told of the custody is that it came from the daughter or this man who worked at Boweling, and he had it and is safe since way back when, the late sixties, early seventies whenever, and he kept it in the safe, and when he passed away, the daughter opened the safe, she found it. She suspected it might be valuable. She contacted the film company. That's the story I've been told. But I don't really consider the chain

of custody issue. I don't see that as really making a difference in terms of how we analyzed it. So I never actually gave it a great deal of thought. I just more or less accepted the that they told me of how they came about it.

spot on. So I want to go back to that for you. You've seen the clip as well, So in that footage from nineteen sixty six, does that suit I guess we could say, quote unquote Patty in that clip. Does it represent Patty in any meaningful technical way for you? Or is that being overstated by Eric and some of the other people that have automatically thrown the towel in and said that is definitely the same suit that is Patty one hundred percent.

at the walk and the walk is amazingly similar. It's easy for a person's brain to transpose that and say, yeah, it was a dead on ringer, And they think they were looking at the suit, so they think it's a match when it's not. But because the walk was a match in their brain, they're trying to reconstruct it in their mind. In their brains, they're thinking, yeah, it looked at on. It wasn't the suit, it was the walk that was so similar. It made you think, wow, this

is a perfect match. When I saw it, I don't have any stilts, they didn't give me any keep, so I haven't looked at it since eleven months ago, So my recollection of the actual appearance of the suit is

more vague. But my reaction was it was not terribly close to her in any way, and most particularly, the head mask was a typical head mask of human wears, and it does not even come close to matching the head shape of Patty, which is so completely unique because right above her browridge, her head goes straight backwards and the human head goes up, and any mask of human is wearing the forehead goes up. So if I'm looking at something and somebody says it is real or fake,

that's the first thing I'll look at. The moment I see the forehead going straight up, I really start thinking faye. But I don't recall seeing a head shape. That's one of my strongest arguments Pjeff being real. I don't recall seeing anything in there that was anything other than an ordinary mask of human wears. The body proportions were not as well done as some people might say. I was not of that impression, so I did not see the body itself as being a match or a particularly good match.

The walk impressed me, though. They really did work at getting the walk dead on. And I think that confuses a lot of people. Like I say, they're thinking about it after the fact. They're trying to think about what suit looked like, but they're actually thinking how perfect the walk was, and that transposes in their brain and their brain just says, yeah, it looked like her. Think that's where that's coming from with a lot of people.

footage that is the smoking gun. But do you know or have any information on whether or not the actually addressed the trackway that was found there because that was the single handed thing. Frankly, that was the thing that convinced Jeff Meldrum that the PG film was real. He said it the first time I ever interviewed him on the show years ago. He said, Brian, I am as convinced as I could be if I were standing there

next to them on that sandbar. That's a real breathing creature, a sasquatch, because of the footprints alone and the foot morphology, and that is a big thing. There are plenty of prints there, examples everywhere, People own replicas of them. It's not hard to find this stuff. So do you know if they address that at all in the documentary or does that not fit the narrative that they're trying to

portray here, So they steered themselves away from that. But do you know if they addressed the tracks at all and the validity of those in addition to what's on the film.

or anything. It's real. Yeah. I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I don't recall anything that's going to be this documentary that goes in that direction.

ever done, and studied it at nauseum. What do you think the biggest leap people are making right now from this new footage to it proving case closed this is a hoax? And I guess what's the last word you want to leave people with about the film, your experience with it, taking into consideration this new documentary.

or the other. Some embrace both. As they say, they're not really thinking it through properly, and I don't want to say that like I'm demeaning them in any way. They don't really understand how this information has to be processed correctly. Now the rehearsal thing, rehearsal replica, we've already talked about that, and you were talking about the whole b roll thing that maybe this was Bero or such

like that. There's another issue which actually doesn't get a lot of talk, but which I'm very strong believer in, and that's the fact that I do believe Roger did buy a suit and I do believe he put Bob Ranymous in it and went out in the woods and filmed him. Now it's not the PGF that we see, but I believe that Roger actually did that. Okay, if so, when the producers were talking to me, we have puttage nobody's ever seen before. I thought that was the footage.

I thought Roger's dry run with Bob Eronymous, that's the one I'm going to see. They said no, But I believe that footage exists. And if it does, if I'm correct in what Aberonimus says, and probably a lot of what Philip Moore says could be true. But that footage

is not the PGF. It's something else. Now. The reason I'm drawn to that, a man named Harry Kimball wrote a letter to some TV show producers who did a Big Poot documentary back in ninety six and he said in this declaration letter, I worked at Cana West Labs in nineteen sixty seven and Roger came to the lab with some footage he had shot of a tall front of his in the woods in an ape suit. And they all looked at the footage and they all laughed

at how silly it was. Now this guy, Harry Kimball working in the lab, he described this footage precisely in the technical specifications. He said it was shot on high speed hectochrome. He said it was cooked in hot soup. Of vernacular for a forced processing you overdeveloped to commensate for under exposure. We also call that pushing. So he said the film was pushed. He's cooked in hot soup, he said. Roger zoomed in and out. He said, he's

shot with a camera other than the K one hundred. Now, soon as researchers like Chris Murphy and Peter burn and everybody got this letter, Peter burn actually talked to the guy who corresponded with him and get more information. But Burne, Chris Murphy, everybody who knew about it pretty much dismissed it because they said the guy's wrong on everything. He's not describing the PGEF. Everything technically is wrong. PGF codochrome

not ectochrome. It was developed perfectly. Roger has a prime lens on his camera, he does not have a zoom, and we know for a certainty it's a K one hundred. So the guy's wrong. So they said, Okay, he's wrong, just a crank, no big deal. I saw the letter and I thought it more about it. I had studied Roger's other documentary footage. I had a reel of six hundred and fifty feet of other footage, what you call b roll that Rogers shot, just mostly landscapes and stuff.

One thing where he photographed a guy who did have a big foot encounter got named Fred Beck photographed him apparently he was possibly going to use him in his documentary. But I studied his footage that Roger had shot before he did the PGF, and I found out that Roger did shoot ectochrome. He did force develop or push one of the rolls. You can tell because the grain structure is greatly expanded when you do that, and on this

one roll the grain structure was insanely big. He did use a zoom lens, including a ten to one zoom on some of his cameras, and he shot other cameras other than K one hundred, probably an aeroflex. So I looked at this letter that Harry Kimball wrote and realized the technical specifications he described perfectly describe some of Roger's other documentary footage, beating me to conclude. He really saw some footage that Rogers shot with a guy in an apes.

I believe that really happened. Now, his son Clint, in this documentary says, I saw my father burn the suit. Okay, fine, it's probably the suit that he bought that he put anonymous in and shot and then put the footage away because it look silly. That's probably the suit he burned. So yeah, Clint's telling the truth. His father burned a suit, but it's not the PGF, it's not Patty, it's not the Patty suit. Things like that. At first glanced, she listened to what Clint is saying, and they think, ah,

oh okay, proof of Holks Stune deal. But if you understand this other footage Roger probably shot, aside from almost totally vindicating Bob her on him, it explains Clint's observation after Roger shot PGF and it was real, and he was thinking of going down to the theaters and showing it and making money with al. He suddenly realized, Oh, so people know I've got a suit and I shot somebody in it. That could damage my credibility, that could hurt this theatrical show. So I better get rid of

the suit. That makes all the sense in the world to me. So when I heard when Clint was saying, oh, yeah, I saw my father burn the suit, it didn't rattle me in any way, because it's perfectly logical. If Roger really did get a suit, put Eronymous in it and shoot fell and show it at Canos Labs that Harry Kimball saw, Roger really did all that, and his documentary footage suggests he did, because technically at Matt everything perfectly. If he did all that, then what Clint is saying

makes perfect sense. Doesn't prove the film to hoax, but it makes sense. This is where we have to look under the surface of a lot of these claims instead of rushing to judgment. If we look under the surface, the story is even more amazing. But it's not necessarily going to be the story that people want when they want to believe in a hoax. There are other explanations for it. If they're not open to those possibilities, then they're just living in fantasy land, and I hope they enjoy it.

all these ideas. I can make a nice list of them, and then I can go right through them, item by item and address every single one of them. I am working on the book now. I'm expecting it's going to take a few more months to finish, hopefully to have it out sometime in the summer, and it will specifically deal with a lot of the mysteries, the controversies, tying up the loose ends, trying to make sense of all of the crazy stuff that's swirling around the Patterson film.