That is another big red flag for me.
If any reasonable person had the original film or a vested interest in what happened to it - you would think that they would take the very little time and effort to keep track of it.
After all - we are talking about the original film of the purported find of the century.
Actually, let's be serious. Somebody that had a vested interest in that film would know exactly where it is or would have the ability to track it down. For some reason - they prefer to keep its location secret. Either that - or it has been destroyed. (IMHO)

The original film's exact location is known to a handful of people.

To the best of my understanding this is the current situation.

A number of attempts have been made by the copyright holder (and others) to reacquire the original from the current holder. When ANE went bankrupt the original was at the ANE business offices because it was to be incorporated into another documentary. I am unclear if ANE bought it, or was loaned it. I believe Mrs Patterson states that it was on loan. Then the company went bankrupt, and its assets were frozen by the court. The film was collected, along with every other thing in the offices, and those "assets" were sold at action in lots.

When some of the principals in the story realized what had happened, the deed was either already done, or unstoppable. At some point the purchaser learned about the film. ANE had a lot of exposed reels of film, and this PG film was apparently mixed in.

At some point negotiations for the reacquisition of the film were looking good, but apparently Rene Dahinden got involved (as someone who had been sold limited copyright to some portions of the film in Canada) and, again - according to those in the know - Mr. Dahinden's contentious manner sunk the whole deal, and pissed off the new holder of the original film greatly, so that now whenever the matter is broached the holder quotes an unreasonably high price for reacquisition.

The individuals who know where the film is do not want others to again sour the milk, and so they keep the identity of the business holding it to themselves; but it is apparently in Florida.

So that's the stated situation. I've heard that story from a number of people involved. Others may know more. There was that gentleman who was putting together a book with Mrs. Patterson's cooperation, and he supposedly had more info, but that project seems to have fallen off the radar.

If you knew, or know anything about Mr. Dahinden, the story is quite easily believable.

Anyway... for whatever it's worth. Just passing on information.

Thank you Colobus for that explanation.

Makes sense to me, especially knowing ANE went bankrupt, Im not sure why this thought hadnt occured to me as a possible explanation for the original being out of hands of Mrs. Patterson.

Thank you.



Yep, that sounds right.

By "negotiations" - you mean $$$, right?

After all - what other reason would there be for a disinterested party to hold the film except $$$?
Since they hold the original film - why wouldn't they put it on the market to see how much $$$ it was worth to somebody? That is what a real business or person would do if they discovered they had something potentially valuable. Publicity would only potentially INCREASE the value of the film they hold.
After all - there are millionaires and at least one billionaire (see BFRO and MM) willing to spend mucho $$$ to see if this thing is real or not. The original film could be used privately in any way shape or form by the owner.
Plus - I'm sure a secondary large lump sum payment would interest any copyright owners.
Without naming the specific owner - the amount of $$$ wanted could be made public. Maybe a consortium could raise the money as well. That may not be good for those "in the know" because they obviously want the film for their own reasons - but it would be best for the research as a whole.

Nope - the accepted explanation given by "those in the know" makes some sense on the face of it - but a little rational thinking makes it fall apart real quick. IMHO.

"and at least one billionaire"


Who is the billionaire?

Sorry - I misremembered and upon reviewing - I find that he is "only" worth about 100 million...
Still doesn't alter the key points of my argument though - does it?

The version I heard said that Dahinden told the would-be seller that he had the rights to the film and that a sale to anyone beside himself would be illegal. The film holder then said he wouldn't sell to anyone unless the bidders worked out their differences with Dahinden (and his estate, presumably) and got him to withdraw his objection.

I can imagine other scenarios under which a seller would decide to "hold the film for ransom" at a high set price rather than put it up for auction. For instance, the seller may have come to realize, from comments made to him during negotiations, that the potential buyers don't want the film for its money-making potential or for bragging rights (e.g., that it is located in "their museum"), which would motivate bidders for an ordinary antique. Rather, They'd be happy if ANY Bigfooter pried it loose from him and allowed scientists to examine it. Therefore, they aren't really in competition with each other and wouldn't bid aggressively against each other. Better for the seller then to demand a ransom price.

This is why I dont put stock in any of these claims and until someone produces actual contractural documentation- they are all basically urban legends.

Heres how this works ( just picking various rumors) and without the actual documentation to discern the actual wording, no one knows.

RP is/was the sole "owner" of the film with all rights secured. ( that much is self evident because he took the film)

Now, ostensibly Dahinden has the "rights" to the film. Thats a loaded statement and meaningless without the actual contract defining what "rights" he has. Does he have the "right" to use it, use certain frames and what limits are set on it because the OWNER of the film has the superior right. ( having a "right" under contract to use something does NOT transfer ownership or negate the owners rights any more than leasing land to a hunting club gives the members "ownership" of the land)

It all boils down to what the EXACT wording/terms and conditions were set forth and the signatures attached. ( if theres no written agreement- then its over right there)

Now, depending on whether he has SOLE rights or individual rights ( however defined by contract) determines who can do what downstream. If he has SOLE rights then he then becomes the person from which all subsequent rights have to come from. If he just has individual usage rights then the owner can give lesser,equal or superior right to whomever he/she wishes.

Now to this scenario.

Lets assume the physical film was with this ANE company ( either by sale/loan or usage right) and was listed as an asset when the business went into receivership and discharge.

If no one challenged the court, filed a claim of ownership or made petition before discharge- then the Bankruptcy Court's awardment is the final absolute and all previous agreements/rights etc are NULL and VOID. ( the US court is the highest sovereign and its authority is final)

So my question is- was the original film listed as an asset to be liquidated in this bankruptcy.

If it was, then the awardee owns the film lock stock body barrel and soul with all rights and priviledges thereof and all prior agreements are void. ( thats how the court does it- if they didnt contest it before the court, its over)

I would like to see the courts order to see if the film was there and who actually owns it now.

That will settle the issue once and for all.

ANE = AMERICAN NATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC of Salt Lake City

Found it here - http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/ronolson.htm

Ok let me see if I am following the map

The Original- the first film straight from the camera is MIA and possibly in FL with a lawyer type.

The First Generations Mrs. Patterson has one and John Green has one.

The Second Generations- 4 from John Green's copy. Dahinden has one and he has passed where is it?
Who is D. Swindler? Dead or Alive?
"To CA" what is that one? what that JB's? The one that was on ebay?
Then the last one showing "Green Enlarged" is that the one M.K. used, I think he got from Rick?

And the 2nd Generations from Patterson who has them? Mrs. Patterson as well?

I know in Dahinden's book he said he had a copy as well as Green, Kratz and one other I thougth. So Dahinden didn't have a 1st Generation ever he got his from Green? And where did Kratz copy go? I know Dr Meldrum has several of the casts from that collection but I never heard he had a film.

No wonder the film has a life of it's own not only does it show a Bigfoot but it sure gets around.

Also for those in the know when would you really see a breakdown in the picture? I would think the 1st Generation would be as good as the Original but 2nd? 3rd? 4th? When does it really start to get grainy like some of the "poor" copies we have seen on news reels or old documentaries.

Degradation occurs in even the first generation copy to another piece of film. The film grain of he original is a random pattern of image disruption. The film grain of the first generation copy is a different random pattern, which will add its own distorting effects. Now, all film grain is not equal. faster film has larger grains, while slower film has finer grain. If the original were copied onto slower film, meaning finer grain film, the compounding grain distortions could be minimized, although not eliminated completely.

Each generation of duping from film to film will degrade the image. Considering that the film was 16mm film, that's a pretty small frame size, and so the smallness of the subject will make it subject to initial grain distortion, as well as camera movement and focus blur, as well as shutter speed blurring (goes to motion blur of the subject moving through the frame). So considering that the original image was most likely not as crisp as anyone would have preferred, with several things adding up to a less than sharp image, the duping processes would only compound the problem of clarity.

Someplace I read a document, posted online, apparently authored by Bruce Bonney, that discussed his examination of the original film back in 1980 (or there abouts) and his making the cibachrome prints. The document indicated that the original film stock was (is) Kodachrome II. I have looked for that document online since but cannot find the document. Does anybody know of the document I am referring to and where I might find a copy of the document? Does anyone know where I might reach Bruce Bonney?