Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Identifying Things From Rp's Footage

Recommended Posts

Bill

More photos for possible ID

This one is first the store Roger enters (the first scene on the reel), then Scene #1 of Fred Beck, then Scene #2 of Fred.

I doubt that the location can be determined by these photos, but certainly doesn't hurt to show them and ask. Too bad we can't see the plates on the vintage car, to see what state it is.

FredBeckscenes.jpg

As for the deer, in the old forum, there seemed to be a strong consensus that the deer was a Black tail.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

The deer appear to be black tail deer to me also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

BTW who was Fred Beck? Was he someone who had had a sighting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

If I were a betting man, I'd say that the mystery guy is Roger. The jacket seems to be the same colour and has what appears to be a pleat in the back, the cut seems to be similar around the shoulder and he's wearing dark denim jeans. I know the jacket hangs low and loose but in the mystery man pic, it looks like he might have his hands in his pockets which would pull the bottom in tighter to the body.

Just my opinion :)

Judging from the posture of the man with the Big tree/VW Bus it looks as if he could be looking down into the view finder of an old style box camera. They were still very common in those days and you framed the scene by holding the camera around waist level and looked through viewfinder which was a window on the top of the camera body. I think its Gimlin still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Crow:

Fred Beck had some kind of encounter that Roger profiled in his book.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackdog

Fred Beck reported the (in)famous Ape Canyon story. Beck was also a proponent of paranormal bigfoot so, to me anyway, that's like taking the word of Erik Beckjord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbhunter

I said this on the old BFF, and could be wrong, but I really think that's a Columbian Black Tail, not a muley. I know I'm going against the grain here, but that's my thought. I think May would be a good "guesstimate".

Also, I don't think it would be odd at all to have snow like that in May in Northern California. It wouldn't be right on the coast, but the area up Hwy 96 could certainly have a considerable amount of snow in May. If you come in a little bit from the coast you'll find the cold/wet is dumping a ton of snow just inland from the California/Oregon coast. I camp in/near the Red Buttes in Oregon (on the California/Oregon border) not far from Happy Camp and this year it was in June or July that I went and I was the first person through some of the snow drifts.

I don't know if this will help in giving any idea of the amount of snow someone *might* find, but here is a link to the California Dept of Water Resources. I think you can get an idea of an area near there...maybe? And maybe find some historical data, but ultimately, the area will have significant snow well into late spring, early summer.

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/snow/COURSES.05

I think your photos show Patterson to be in and around the Bluff Creek area in or around May 1967.

Ace, I totally agree, it is a blacktail. A mulie has more white along hind quarters, the mulie's ears would be larger and a blacktail's colors as seen here, more closely resemble a white tail. Especially the head and neck area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Bill, is this footage all camera original and if so is it Kodachrome II or Ektachrome or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus:

All are copies from the camera original.

Reel 1 was Kodachrome and the other 5 were Ektachrome camera original.

That's one of the curious things i noted in my full description of this, wondering why Roger was shooting so much Ektachrome here, but used Kodachrome for Bluff creek.

No solution to that question yet.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Paranassus:

All are copies from the camera original.

Reel 1 was Kodachrome and the other 5 were Ektachrome camera original.

That's one of the curious things i noted in my full description of this, wondering why Roger was shooting so much Ektachrome here, but used Kodachrome for Bluff creek.

No solution to that question yet.

Bill

Bill would somehow Kadachrome have been a make or break situation for what Roger hoped or expected to film at Bluff Creek? If we didn't know the film stock would we be able to tell Ektachrome from Kodachrome? Maybe the camera store was out of Ektachrome when Roger provissioned for Bluff Creek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Crow:

"Bill would somehow Kadachrome have been a make or break situation for what Roger hoped or expected to film at Bluff Creek?"

Not really. It's a finer grain film, but intended for great color when the camera original is projected, while Ektachrome is presumed to be copied for editing and a release print, so the original is a lower contrast stock and projecting the original doesn't look as vibrant in color saturation as the Kodachrome.

If Roger chose the Kodachrome specifically for the Bluff Creek shoot, it sort of weakens the "he tried to hide the flaws of the suit" because he chose the film with the highest quality image, and wasn't hiding anything that way.

But it really could be as simple as Roger buying the film on the trip, and going to a smaller camera supply store where they stocked more Kodachrome for home users and less Ektachrome for pro users. Maybe?

"If we didn't know the film stock would we be able to tell Ektachrome from Kodachrome?"

All Roger's Ektachrome reels have the word "Ektachrome" burned through in the margin onto the copy stock, alomg with the footage edge codes Kodak puts on Ektachrome, but not Kodachrome (to help in editing). So the Ektachrome film rolls are unmistakable.

Maybe the camera store was out of Ektachrome when Roger provissioned for Bluff Creek."

A possibility, yes.

oddly, two years ago, I wondered if maybe the Bluff Creek PGF was on Ektachrome stock (before I even knew anything about this documentary footage or Roger using Ektachrone for some of it), because that would have easily solved the processing timeline, because so many private commercial labs can process Ektachrome. but from the quality I found on the transparancies Mrs. Patterson has, it's gotta be kodachrome original. the clarity is breathetaking.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

Paranassus:

All are copies from the camera original.

Reel 1 was Kodachrome and the other 5 were Ektachrome camera original.

That's one of the curious things i noted in my full description of this, wondering why Roger was shooting so much Ektachrome here, but used Kodachrome for Bluff creek.

No solution to that question yet.

Bill

Bill, I'm curious how you know Patterson shot with Kodachrome? (or was it Kodachrome II) Without seeing the "out of camera" original, wouldnt that be very difficult to determine? I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. Thanks.

(edited to add)

I saw your previous post about the "burn through" and I'm curious if the other footage that supposedly belongs to the "reel 1" and "reel 2" footage are also showing the same "burn through" effect on the copies youve seen and if it shows the same stock. Does any of Pattersons other footage use this same stock? (or only the bluff creek footage?) Curious if it was only this footage that shows the Kodachrome (or was it Kodachrome II?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

River:

"Bill, I'm curious how you know Patterson shot with Kodachrome? (or was it Kodachrome II) Without seeing the "out of camera" original, wouldnt that be very difficult to determine? I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. Thanks."

You have two choices of film, Kodachrome and Ektachrome. With Ektachrome, the lab does a full width print-through specifically to print the original's latent image footage edgecode. That's on all five of Roger's Ektachrome reels, plus the actual "Ektachrome" words. The one half reel on the doc footage doesn't have this, but has "Eastman Safety Film" on the copy, which is the latent image of the copy stock, so the printing masks off the sprocket areas. It's not Ektachrome. The best copy of the PGF, the Patterson Archive copy, is also on "Eastman Safety Film" copy stock, the type used to copy Kodachrome.

But in so far a my personally certifying that the PGF original is on Kodachrome, I can't myself. To those who believe the film was done earlier and the processing wasn't done on Sat. oct 21, 1967, the designation of Kodachrome stock keeps the procesing timeline controversy alive.

My basis for deciding the original was kodachrome is the exceptional image clarity of the transparancies copied from the original. They are so far beyond any Ektachrome quality and fine grain, it's like night and day. But frankly, if the original were proven to be something other than Kodachrome ll, it wouldn't affect my analysis, so in that sense, I don't have a dog in this race, figuratively speaking.

(edited to add)

I saw your previous post about the "burn through" and I'm curious if the other footage that supposedly belongs to the "reel 1" and "reel 2" footage are also showing the same "burn through" effect on the copies youve seen and if it shows the same stock. Does any of Pattersons other footage use this same stock? (or only the bluff creek footage?) Curious if it was only this footage that shows the Kodachrome (or was it Kodachrome II?)

There's burn through sprocket holes and edge flashing on all the reels in the doc footage. it's pretty standard stuff when a 100' daylight reel is loaded into a camera in low light but not a true perfect pitch black darkroom. That's the same whether it's Kodachrome or Ektachrome. It's just a light pattern caused by a way of loading the camera. But the way kodachrome is copied, the masking on the sides does mask a lot of the sprocket burnthrough stuff, leaving just remnants, while the Ektachrome, printing through film edge to edge, prints the whole sprocket burn shape onto a copy.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

Thanks Bill, I appreciate you sharing that info here with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FuriousGeorge

Kodachroooooome

They give us those nice bright colors

They give us the greens of summers

Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah

Bill,

I was curious if you know who processed the stock and if they are still around to give you tidbits of info? I wonder if high importance was declared when the film was handed off to the developer. Was there some sort of confidentiality agreement or if it was passed along with a giggle as if it were a goof?

I knew a film developer and he said they all use to make copies of the good stuff.............. like naked pictures and such lol or anything weird that they could show to their friends for a laugh. Not morally correct but it happens everywhere film gets developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...