Does anyone really know where the original version of the film is? Is it locked away in a safe somewhere or is it at someone's lab? I'm just wondering because it seems everyone is working off of copies of copies and that would make a big difference in the final analysis of this film. You can PM me if you would rather not post the answer here.

Same with the Paul Freeman video footage. That’s the one I would really like to see analyzed to see how many takes it took to get it the way he wanted. What’s on it before and after.

Cut4sign

You can bet on that. The original , is of very good quality. It was shot on kodachrome 2 film. The very best film at the time. The speed was 25 , which necessitated a very slow shutter speed. This , however didn't prevent some of the frames from being of very good quality. The processing of this film is a highly coveted secret of Kodak's. It produces the highest contrast , most stable film , the industry has ever known. It is , however , labor intensive to develop it , and the industry has turned away from it to more labor friendly films. I know where it is , in general. There are people who know specifically where it is. I hope they can get it. M.K.

So M.K.,

With all the work you've done, it's been from a copy? Even the full size poster? Imagine what you could do with the original!

Cut4sign

I guess I should say the reason I'm asking this is I thought I had heard at one time that no one knew where it was. If this is the case I can't help but have this vision of knights riding through the forest on broom handle horses in search of the Holy Grail It seems like this would be the most sought after piece of evidence.

The life sized poster was made from a print , taken from the master , taken in the early eighties. It is a cut above. M.K.

Maybe what’s happened to the original film is that someone in the company when it was going under, knowing its effects would be auctioned off for a pittance, walked off with it as a souvenir. He may think it’s valueless, but won’t turn it in because he feels a bit wary of admitting he took it.

A reward offer of $5000 might flush him out, if he heard of it. And he might, eventually. One of his friends would pass the info on to him. (He must have several friends who know he has it. They should be offered rewards to, for providing a lead to him. (The offering body should, of course, be OFAR.)) LA radio stations and weekly papers should be encouraged to repeatedly publicize this—perhaps by giving them a share of the loot if the owner says he heard of the offer from info. they communicated.

It would be nice if the scoftics’ sneer about the "blurry" film were to be qualified by “copies of the original,” but that’s like hoping they’d qualify “shaky” by “initial portions of the film.”

My understanding is the original film was scratched by repeated viewings that first Sunday back in 1967 in Yakima, WA.

Rumors place the original film in Los Angeles, CA or Florida.

i remember a while back that the old troll was trying to sell it for a million bucks on ebay, he said it was the original, knowing him, he probably stole it...... old troll(Voldemort)

Rumor again has it that the "copy" of the film was, shall we say, appropriated from the collection of the late Rene dahinden.

It is generally accepted that Beckjord obtained his copy directly and legally from Patricia Patterson, and is allegedly a first gen copy from the original film.

I thought I heard that someone from England owned it as of about 6 months ago.

The original? Thats a new rumour to me.

I can't remember now that you bring it up, it might have been an original 'copy' or some terminology like that.

How much do you guys think the original copy would be worth today?

Really how dumb could they have been to repeatedly watch the master?! However the camera negative master that is another thing altogether and that would be the thing to have. Having spent a lot of time in recording studios especially in the days when magnetic tape was in use master recordings were made and only played to make other recordings, (dubs). Since there was some sort of professional film company involved I can't believe they would have viewed the master to death. I would say that the kindest thing would be to get hold of the best available copy and to a frame by frame restoration then treat the restored film to a NASA style enhancement, if that hasn't been done already.

More than $10,000 and less than $1,000,000 (a lot less).

The rumor I heard placed it in the care of a Florida attorney who has it in a bank vault.
Were the hell did I hear that? Can't remember.

Crow Logic, It should be remembered that De Atley, Patterson and others were not professionals. I doubt if they even realized that repeated showings of the master would do damage to it. What they wanted to see was what was on that section of film. And then to prove to the people who came from outside of Yakima of the films validity. Like John Green and others. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight it was the wrong thing to do. But I suspect most people of the day and in that situation would have done the same.


OK, here is the story I heard (I believe here in the archives someplace, but not sure). There was legal proceadings involving the owner of original film. And the film was siezed in resitution of non payment for the legal fees owed the law firm. And that the film in now in the law offices vault someplace in Florida.

Now is it true - I don't know. You could find out if you knew the owner of the film. There should be court records for forfiture of property. Unless the film was turned over as part payment of the legal fees outside of the legal system.

But like most, it is a story until it sees the light of day.

***

Mkianni, I type too slowly. Like I said, I don't know where I heard about the Florida vault, but I think it was here somplace.

Actually you may be closer to the truth than the version I heard. That the film is in custody of a Florida attorney. If would have been sold off to pay for lost income by the law office if it had been siezed.

You've made an excellent point that Patterson and Al De Atley were not professionals! I have to think that De Atley had ambitions that perhaps were enhanced by what Patterson captured on film but to hear the skeptics tell it De Atley was running a full blown film company with the means to make the hoax.

The film company that skeptics like Korff talk about, and which you probably are referring to, was Ron Olson's ANE, which did a trial showing of the PGF in Oregon in 1968 before Patterson & DeAtley decided not to let ANE distribute their film more widely, but to do the job themselves. Later, in 1970, Patterson went to work for ANE, and in 1971 ANE did distribute the film nationwide. In the 90s, a former ANE employee, Clyde Reinke, claimed that Patterson had made the orgiginal PGF film as a hoax while employed by ANE. He got his dates mixed up. If Patterson had absconded with the film and showed it on the road in 1969, ANE would have sued him for the money he was frolicking in. See Long's book, pp. 249 & 263-65. See also Chris Murphy’s Meet the Sasquatch, p. 86.

If you want the spicy version, listen to Korff's podcasts earlier this year on Xzone (before the host shut him up on the topic), where he was claiming that Bigfoot would fit in nicely with Mormon theology, and so the Olsons (Mormons) were hoaxing it for that reason, and that Meldrum (another Mormon) is in the Bigfoot biz for the same reason.

As RB says, it's quite a cast of characters in the Sasquatch scene.

Do you have a link for that show Roger?

I haven't heard that before ..

Do you have a source ?

Are these posters available to buy? I'd love to own one.

Paul1968UK,

There is more to this story than what is on the surface but you should do your own research and come to your own conclution. I'm just leaving my opinion out, I'm not trying to be an A-hole. Sorry I can't remember the link off hand but I'm sure it's still out there.

m


BIGFOOT: MAN OR BEAST? (1971)

Director: Lawrence Crowley ; Hosts/Narrators: J. English Smith, Phil Tonken; Screenplay: Lawrence Crowley; Music: unknown; Production: American National Enterprises

DVD-R

There’s a mystery here. And while it’s certainly not in competition with a mystery like Bigfoot, it is perplexing. Bigfoot: Man or Beast? has a copyright of 1971 clearly present on the opening titles. About 20 minutes in, the film switches over to another Bigfoot movie, the 75 minute In Search of Bigfoot, the opening titles of which have been deleted. It has a copyright of 1975 clearly displayed on the end titles. The IMDb lists these as separate films and they are available separately but how could a 1971 film have had a 1975 film tacked onto it when originally released? There’s something strange going on.

Here’s part of the answer to the mystery. Ron Olson, a Bigfoot researcher who is featured in Bigfoot: Man or Beast?, had a family connection to American National Enterprises (ANE), the producers of the film: Olson’s father was part-owner of the company. Ron convinced his father to produce the first Bigfoot documentary, the 20 minute film we see here. I suspect that after In Search of Bigfoot was made, ANE made a deal with the producers of that film, Bostonia Films, to splice the two together for television or theatrical release.

But on to the film as we know it today. The host of Bigfoot: Man or Beast?, J. English Smith, is camped out with some Bigfoot researchers and he introduces us to Ron Olson. Ron drives a horrendously noisy, polluting tractor-type vehicle which no doubt scared away every critter in the forest, Bigfoot included, for miles around. Way to think, Ron. No wonder you never found Bigfoot.

Next we hear from various eyewitnesses including Fred Beck, whose hunting troop was attacked be several Bigfoot, and the infamous Albert Ostman, who claimed to have been kidnapped by a family of the hairy beasts. There are segments with researchers John Green, Richard Grover (who relays the “ Fife Heights incident”), Rene Dahinden, and the ever-popular Grover Krantz.

Then we hear an “approximation” of Bigfoot cries before University of British Columbia professor Dr. Charles Guiguet puts the kibosh to all these monster sightings as folklore.

We get a nice long look at the Patterson film and then a short—but interesting because it exists—interview with famed stuntman and gorilla imitator Janos Prohaska. Prohaska was on many television shows and a few movies inside a gorilla suit before he and his son were killed in a plane crash in 1974.

Then, of course, we go into In Search of Bigfoot, the camping movie with Robert Morgan, a review of which you can read here. It’s worth tracking down Bigfoot: Man or Beast? for the original 20 minutes because of some unique segments seen nowhere else and because it was the first to go where many would follow.

David Deal

I'll ask Olson about it. (I'll PM you his phone number after I've posted his response, if you tell me youwant to ask additional questions.) I talked to him for a moment yesterday, but he had to get off the phone. I called this morning within the time-window when he was supposed to be available, but was told, "He's left for the day." (Don't let your child grow up to be an investigator--it's a fast tract to insanity.) I'll call again on Monday and add your question to my list.

Xzone broadcasts every weekday night for four hours at 10 PM Eastern time, and Kal prances, brays, and feeds on the host's sugar cubes for the last hour or two (after the summer is over) on Thursday. Here's the link to listen live: http://www.talkstarradio.com/

But it's more convenient to listen from the archive. The archive for the current month can be reached from here: http://www.xzone-radio.com/archives.htm

Thereafter, podcasts must be purchased from http://www.iradionow.com Click on one of the categories on the left (Entertainment, I think), then click on Xzone from the list of options.

===========
I'd initially thought you wanted Ron Olson's film, so my 1st response (above this post) was about that. I just talked to Olson and he said that someone posted his film on the Internet. (Its title is in Long's books somewhere--but you won't find it under that title, or under Olson, because the poster didn't want to make those traceable by the copyright holder.) Olson said he has lots of 16mm & 35mm reels of that film, but that he wants to keep them under wraps, because he's thinking of someday re-editing it into another film.

Are there prints/posters made from the original film? Love to have one!

And where's the guy from Arizona that was selling casts from the Patterson print?

This guy sells footprint casts and whole dinosaurs as well:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigfoot2.html

But where can we get that poster?

Didn't they say it was the original that they were looking at through a microscope on Monster Quest?

One of the original copies maybe.

There is a lot of speculation and rumor, but I'm not sure if anyone actually knows where the one and only 'original copy' is located.

Except of course for the person or persons who have it. Maybe they don't even know they have it.....................

I need to cut back on the caffeine.

Thanks for that link! Is this the best Patterson cast available? There was a guy on here a while back that mounted them on wood and such for around $70. Anyone remember this guy? I think he was from Arizona.

Hi


I can remember watching that film back when i was a kid, back then i bet they didn't think about keeping it in good condition or makng copys right off , I bet it got grainy before it was copyed, But that is just me thinking before i checked it out

Tim

Ok, I'm confused a bit here. Olson is claiming to have the master? Or is he claiming to have a 1st generation copy? Patterson told Gimlin on his deathbed that De Atley had the film (master) in his possession in 72, Olson's ANE received a copy in 68, correct?

My question is, what happened to the other 77' feet of film?

You have the 23' of Patty, what was on the film before that?

After it got processed there should have been 100' of film, then I'm assuming it get's edited, and 77' disappear. Maybe they were cut from the film, but they should have edited a copy, not the original 100' roll of film.

The original film should be 100' long shouldn't it?

Anything that is 23' long is an edited copy of the film, or the edited original.

Good point Drew. From what I understand, prior to the Patty footage the reel had shots of Roger and Bob tooling around on horseback and Roger taking footage of the trees, (colors of leaves, woods, etc..) and surrounding environment. The second reel would have the footprint footage and the depth comparison done by Gimlin jumping off the boulder and landing in the sand with the heel of his cowboy boot.

Maybe Takes 1-27? I'm joking I'm Joking! It's Friday!

Could be.

This is probably the best time to ask. Does this forum have an agreed upon nomenclature for the original film and the subsequent copies? Reviewing the threads that mention the P/G film reveals a variety of terms like "master copy", "original copy" and "first generation copy" being used by different authors. What is the proper term for the film that came out of the camera, and what is the proper term for the first copy made from the film that was in the camera?

I think there is a chart showing the PGF family tree of copies somewhere.

The original being "lost" fits very well into the argument that this film is a hoax.
No original - no way to check out many of the claims.

*Insert "your favorite conspiracy theory movie theme song" here*

I can't find the thread where Owen posted that chart, but I pm'd him to see if he could send it my way. If I get it, I'll put it up. Unless someone else finds it first.

This may be what you're referring to.

Thank you.

By that chart - it appears that much of the analysis is done on a second generation copy! (copy of copy)

Did Patterson sell the original and rights to ANE?

I'm hoping to understand this one myself. According to Patterson in 1972, De Atley had the original. This I read coming from Bob Gimlin. Yet, it went from ANE to lawyer guy in Florida? So De Atley back to ANE? I need help here or more detailed research. There are a handful of guys in the Bigfoot community that know the specifics, hoping they'll chime in.

I'm lacking the time it would take to try and reinvent the wheel on this one, which would be foolish anyhow.

And nowhere do we see any indication of anyone having more than the ~ 23 feet of Patty footage ..

Thank you, Colobus.