I'm of the opinion that the missing first reel footage shows bits and pieces of the type of stuff that leads into the Patty segment.

I say scenery and maybe some Louse Camp footage.

Do I think there is "Patty rehearsal footage showing Bob H or anyone else being instructed. No.

Would we see Patterson shopping for fur and sewing a Bigfoot suit together, No.

How about Roger with tape measure fitting up Big Bob? No.

Or maybe a shot of a calender showing a date wildly off from Oct 20 1967? No.

How about some casts being poured in Roger's back yard that look exactly like the Bluff Creek casts? No.


So that's what I think is on the missing film and what I think is not on the missing film.

Crow Logic,

Not sure bout a missin' first film piece ? Are you sure you heard right ?

Pat...

The missing film is the footage on the first part of the Patty reel. The Patty segment is on the very end of the first of 2 reels of film Patterson is said to have used at Bluff Creek.

From the subtitle of the thread.

Why do you think it's necessary to take a stand?
I'm just curious to see what the whole film contains. That doesn't mean I have, or need to have, an opinion of what is on it.

I'm curious as to why no one has seen or examined the original roll of film. Where is it? Has it been spliced? Who owns this original roll of film? I think its highly important to putting together this puzzle.


Has there been anyone in the past that has examined the original roll? If so, who and when? What did they report etc.

Lots of people do have opinions on what's on it.

Carried over from the other thread, since it is about this topic:

The "missing footage" I am aware of thus far is at least three scenes or segments of one man on horseback (probably Bob) with a pack hose, riding through various landscapes. I have a few frames scanned of each segment, from John Green's film reels.

The last segment shows the man riding down a road, and then the camera pans over to th tentpole trees beside the road. The PG Film at Bluff Creek starts immadiately after the tentpole tree segment. At the time I scanned the film, I was unaware this was first reel footage, and was encouraged to scan some frames by Chris Murphy, who suggested I do so, so samples of Roger and Bob would be potentially useful for future publishing about them.

So i can't say precisely how long these three segemnts are, but they may add another 15-20 feet to the first reel. And a scene of Roger (presumably filmed by Bob) is likely also part of that, and that could add another 5-6 feet or so.

That would reconstruct about half of the reel right there, and it's just footage of men riding a horse through wilderness country, no Bob heironimous lurking about or suiting up, no "practice runs" at Bluff Creek, no suspicious content at all.

Now that I can appreciate the relevence of these segments, I would hope the opportunity presents itself for me to scan the full segments, and then reconstruct that back into the first reel compilation.

Bill

Bill, respectfully, but that just can't be. The missing film obviously shows Bob H. unbuttoning the flap drawer of the suit (fashioned from horse-hair) and squatting to take a ...........Oh, nevermind.

Bill - how have you established the provenance of the film you are describing that supposedly preceeds the famed portion?

Since it is a copy - how can you be certain it is not a copy of an edited piece of film?

Thanks.

CrowLogic:

QUOTE

Crow,
Do you understand what ' missing ' means ?




Bill,


When you are reviewing a motion picture in a movie theater, are you able tell the order the scenes were shot in ? ( ... in the absence of inside information )

If you had the raw footage which is at least a 2nd generation copy, with no time-stamping on it, would you be able to determine the order in which it was shot ?


If you knew there was another 60% of the film missing; how would you determine, where in the available footage the
missing footage would fall ?


In the absence of any other verifiable information, would there be any reason to assume the missing footage was shot
before the available footage ?


I would really like to know what tools you have available to accomplish this, so if you just wish to dismiss my questions with
a lecture about negativism and obstructionist skeptics nitpicking, I'll just take that as a " No, there are no such tools available .. ";
and any reconstruction would simply fit the agenda of the parties involved...

Patterson was making a movie, a story about a group of people searching for sasquatch. Bob Heironimus was involved with it, as well as other locals. This would appear to be a fictional story.

That is what we know is on the rest of the footage. Anything else would be guessing, and nobody else can really "Make a stand" on that.

\
Greg do you understand that this thread is for people to post what they suspect might be on the missing footage. NOT the importance or unimportance of the missing footage. So what do you think is on the missing film? I've stated my thoughts so lets hear yours. Don't try and derail this!




We know all that but what speciffically do YOU think is on that missing footage?

One can speculate almost anything. What's the point, that it's fun to make guesses, rather than knowing?

RayG

Same here.

Add you thoughts about what you think is on it for better or worse or refrain from posting on this thread.

For better or worse right?

OK then...

I think that the missing portion of the footage contains the original pilot episode of "The Monkees" with a 40 year old Roger Patterson cast in the Davy Jones role.
The pilot was subsequently rejected by the studio because Roger was deemed too short for the role so he was replaced by a much taller Davy Jones and the rest is history.

Roger was so distraught he set out to make his own pilot. The unusual gait of the Patty subject was later said to be the inspiration for the famous Monkee walk and the conical head shape gave Mike Nesmith the idea to wear a stocking cap. Roger never finished the pilot because he ran out of film.


Here's a rare clip from Rogers original pilot.

Click to view attachment

What anyone thinks won't make a diddly-squatch bit of difference.

Maybe the missing footage contains:

cowboys riding tall in the saddle
cowboys practicing rope tricks
cowboys eating beans around the campfire
some stuff nobody is supposed to see
two words: Brokeback Mountain
cowboys fighting over footprints (real or fake)
cowboys singing the cowboy song
etc., etc., etc...

ps: I'll post where I want, thank you very much.

RayG

I seem to see a thigh malfunction on the left, this may have some veracity to the real missing footage as it will counterbalance Patty's disability and she can walk straight again!

Sorry ( ... sincerely ) I missed your point, that was my skeptical cynicism showing.

I apologize for my sarcastic ' do you understand what ' missing ' means ? '..

QUOTE

...what speciffically do YOU think is on that missing footage?

I think the missing film is the end of the reel, not the beginning ..

I goes without saying that if it is post ' stroll through the creek ' footage,
it might contain a few seconds of the alleged person in a suit, leaving character in some manner ..
It does end as the subject approaches a very large uprooted tree, which jives with a claim that the
alleged person in a suit, jumped into a depression left by a large uprooted tree.
Of course, said person could have derived this information by viewing the film and adapting it
to his story. And I fully appreciate that there are those who prefer to go with the latter ...

Whatever else it might contain is entirely open to speculation by everyone. My speculation, is that it is
missing, because it contradicts the ' ran out of film ' part of the story ..

Many of the riding frames include Bob Heironymous, could Bill Munns be putting Bob Heironymous at the scene within a minutes of the filming of the footage?

Parcher @ JREF has isolated film frames of Bob Gimlin riding Bob Heironymous' horse CHICO at Bluff Creek, and there is an admissio by Bob Gimlin that he used BobH's horse at Bluff Creek.

It wouldn't be a reach to find that there are frames of BOB H there on the same roll of film. Especially since he is suspected by some of being the person in the costume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvEERL2Efdk
See the 5 second mark when John Green says "There (or Here is) Bob"

Thanks to W. Parcher over at JREF for linking to this.

Bill-
Do you have more frames than are on that Video? Because that is John Green Narrating, and I'm wondering if that is the footage you scanned.

Does anyone know the actual chronological history of the two reels of film, maybe from the time it was immediately filmed to where it is now?

I tend to agree with Crow Logic's initial assessment, even though I'm broadly skeptical about the footage. Speculatively, I think it's likely to contain fairly innocuous and insignificant information, albeit from some beautiful scenery. Here's why:

If the film is genuine (as in the version of events as claimed by Gimlin / Patterson), there won't be anything suspect on it. There would be no reason for anything suspect to be on it.

If the film is a hoax, only an idiot would shoot incriminating information knowing that it would have to go off to a developing lab where technicians would have to study the processed film for defects. The last thing you'd want after all that effort is for a technician to come out and say, "Yeah: I remember that; one of the frames of the fella getting into the monkey suit was over-exposed".

The only incriminating things I imagine it might contain are: more than one take (in which case, why send that reel for processing?) and possibly Bob H riding alongside the others. I feel there's no reason to suppose either of these are any more likely than general wildlife footage as there's no valid basis for making that assertion. In addition, in the media business, footage typically (but not always) gets mislaid / lost because it's irrelevant, not because it's got a picture of the alien standing on the grassy knoll. This is the Bigfoot business, though ...

I think the missing footage shows the aftermath of a sasquatch massacre.

Of course! And Patty spits bullets for breakfast!
Dudlow

Yep, and they bleed pink I presume!

Hi

You guys talk about the film like it had an ending ~ ?

Peace
Tim

I think that whatever is on the film would be extremely interesting to see. It no doubt would be footage from the prior days and weeks. He was working on a documentary, so, I am sure that there were other clips pertaining to what he was up to before Oct. 20th, 1967.

Riverrun asked me a question about a post I made ages ago. I'm sure Riverrun won't mind me replying via this thread.

What I had originally said was this...


My source for the splicing was Eric Beckjord, since he was one of the recipients of the five first gen copies that were made, but in hindsight, my comment above may have been innacurate. My understanding at the time was that in order to make the five copies (which Beckjord told me were not copies of the entire reel, only the interesting part), that the original would have needed to be spliced - perhaps someone with a better understanding of duplicating film could help out here.

As we can see from the youtube clips of the discovery channel show, the original reel of film did as I stated contain footage of Patterson and Gimlin on horseback - that footage is most definitely from the original reel before the PGF was filmed. Please don't forget that even at 16fps, the original reel only contains a few minutes of footage.

Thanks Paul


I've been trying to run down sources of information about the original roll but it seems like no one has examined it (or if someone did, I havent been able to find any information about it) I think the only films that have been shown publically were copys made.

From what I have read, it was the original that was shown to Green, Dahinden et al. on the Sunday night, and they showed the whole reel over and over until it was pretty scratched up (I can't remember who made that remark off the top of my head).

Presumably, the copies were made and the original put away somewhere - who knows where it went.

Before he died, Beckjord told me that he sold his copy to John Green for $10,000, he used that money to pay for a 48ft yacht that he wanted to use to protest the war in Iraq (see Beckjord's mock-up photo below).

I happen to be of the opinion the the missing portion of the film contains the JREF'ers wearing togas at an all male roman orgy............and they want that film back fast, lol............

A good question that I cant answer properly is... How would they have known if that was the "original roll" or a copy made when viewing it? Couldnt it just as easily been a copy they were viewing? What kind of forensic evidence would note the difference between the original and a copy? (that couldnt be faked etc) How would you know the difference between an original roll and a copy of one? (anyone with that knowledge feel free)

"A good question that I cant answer properly is... How would they have known if that was the "original roll" or a copy made when viewing it? Couldnt it just as easily been a copy they were viewing? What kind of forensic evidence would note the difference between the original and a copy? (that couldnt be faked etc) How would you know the difference between an original roll and a copy of one? (anyone with that knowledge feel free) "

See my Report Material in Release 1A, which explains exactly how to distinguish the master camera original from any copy.

http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_003.htm

This is how I verified that some transparancies Mrs. Patterson had were copied directly off of the actual camera original, because the Camera ID notch was intact in those transparancies, perhaps the only existing and accessable photographic images of the camera ID marks. All 16mm film prints mask off most, if not all of the Camera ID mark.

Thanks Bill, I remember reading that in your report now that you've mentioned it. Would it be possible to make a copy with the camera ID notches not masked off? Also, what are the other alternatives to making copies of 16mm film? (im very uneducated in film copying!) Thank you.



I see in your report that you have the original listed as "now in FL" . Is there any way to verify that? Why was Ron Olson (with ANE) in possession of this film? (do we know the story behind that element?) You also have stated that the assets were sold off. Was this done by a bank? (or public auction? etc)

Riverrun:

"Thanks Bill, I remember reading that in your report now that you've mentioned it. Would it be possible to make a copy with the camera ID notches not masked off? Also, what are the other alternatives to making copies of 16mm film? (im very uneducated in film copying!) Thank you."

Traditional copying, even contact prints, on 16mm, masks off the sides where the sprockets are, because film has a latent image film stock edge code (such as the one noted in the NASI Report, and verified by me, that Mrs. Patterson's Archived Film Copy is printed on Kodak 78 Safety Film stock). This latent image is exposed into the side area during manufacture. But if the copying method exposes this side area again, that latent image identifying the film stock is faded or even erased by the second exposure. So the copy printer masks off the sides. In doing so, it also masks off the camera Identification mark exposed area (almost completely).

That report #1A I did before scanning Mrs. Patterson's material, and everything I reported there was verified by Mrs. Patterson's film material. The full notch was seen on large transparancies of the camera original. The slight remnant of the notch was seen on the true contact printed copy Mrs. Patterson had. The Oprically printed copies Green and Gimlin have are more tightly cropped and have no remaining hint of the ID notch.

35mm film printers are sometimes set up to print the full film width, because edge code numbering is added to the film and needs to print through to copies for editing of theatrical films (so once you edit a work print, you can go back and find the exact frames of the negative to splice together to match the work print edit). But there's no evidence so far this kind of full width printing was ever attempted for the PGF.



I see in your report that you have the original listed as "now in FL" . Is there any way to verify that? Why was Ron Olson (with ANE) in possession of this film? (do we know the story behind that element?) You also have stated that the assets were sold off. Was this done by a bank? (or public auction? etc)

On the true camera original, I do not have any information beyond what is generally reported in other forum discussions, and what others have told me in e-mails. So the remark about it being in Florida is simply a general assumption i have been told by several sources, but I have not verified myself. Same for how it got there. I don't have any special information about how it got sold or otherwise came into the possession of the current reported owner, except what others in this forum have reported.

Bill

I actually have an old 16 mm camera and projector (thanks grandpa!) but it is not of the same make as the one patterson used. Its from the late 1930s.

Sorry for the off topic post here, I just whipped this thing out for the first time in years. The reels are quite small and dont hold many minutes of footage per reel. Surprisingly enough, the projector still works! I noticed that on the films there is no id notch such as with the camera patterson used. In fact the full frames sometimes touch the holes used to feed the film through the camera. I did notice some things (other than the lettering) outside of the full frame images though. Although I'm not sure what they represents. (yes i took a photo of it upside down, but the lettering said "kodak safety film" in that section. notice in the arrows there is still a partial image) Also there are some small blocks and circles (no idea what it represents)

Are there similar markings or lettering on copy of the patterson film you scanned? (or would it only be present on the original?)


Now back to the topic at hand!

Riverrun:

The triangle between the sprockets, which apparently has more picture content, is the Camera Identification mark for the camera was used for the film you show.

Each camera type has it's own mark, so one can tell which camera was used. The camera used for the film you show should be a Bell & Howell Filmo 70 model, according to the reference chart of Camera ID Marks, published by the American Cinematographer's Handbook and reference Guide, (1947)

Bill

Ah! That is pretty neat, that each camera had an individual "notch" as to identify the camera. I thought the arrows represented the direction of the film. I think I may have edited my post to add another image while you were responding. Does the copy of the patterson film you scanned also have lettering and or the squares and circles present also? I'm curious if a copy would have these present. I understand that anything outside of the full frame image may be masked. (meaning the film stock might be labeled but nothing else present?) Would the film stock be the same on copies made or would it be possible to copy onto different film stock with reasonable results?

Riverrun:

Only a camera original film will have "Kodachrome" or Ektachrome" in the latent image code on the side.

Mrs. Patterson's archive copy says "Eastman 78 Safety Film " (which is a copy film stock) on it's film stock edge code latent image (which develops with the regular film developing). Kodachrome wouldn't be used as a copy stodk because it's too contrasty. Special copy stocks are lower contrast, so in copying, contrast doesn't build up too much.

Squares, bars, circles, dots and similar geometric patterns are codes for film manufacture date. But a hole cut in the film aperture gate itself, and with film image showing through, as the triangle was in your sample, is the Camera ID mark (it actually is a hole in the aperture side, so light passes through it when you film your regular scene.

So on your sample, after the "ILM" is a square and a dot, which are the MFG codes, part of the latent image.

The triangle is the Camera ID notch.

Bill

Yeah I got that the triangle was the identifying notch after you mentioned it. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject. That was directly what I was shooting for, to find out if the copy would be on a different type of film stock or otherwise be indentifiable as an original based on a close inspection of the film. Good stuff. Thanks for sharing and teaching me a little bit about it. I appreciate it.

Sebastian over at West Coast Sasquatch forum has a model of the camera that took the Patterson film, he showed it to us once when we got together. It looked a lot more modern than that one, it was 60's looking if you know what I mean?

So here are some stills from the 1st and 2nd reels I've found elsewhere, can anyone add more?
Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment