Jump to content
JustAGuy

A new first gen. copy of the PGF film may have been discovered

Recommended Posts

Bigfoot Gumbo

Very interesting stuff! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Very curious.  I hope to continue to get updates.   Thanks Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Old Mort:

 

The box shown in the image I received is the store package box for a 50' load in a magazine format, ready to be put into a camera to film. It has a "expiration  date" (a sell by date for the store stocking it) Nov. 1969, and an emulsion number 726518670  V , which is of no consequence to analysis of processed film. I'm pretty sure the 7265 part is the film type, because I remember commercial ektachrome as 7255, and eastman color negative stock as 7251 (later 7254). I shot a lot of these last three in film school.

 

There is also a picture of a metal film can such as what Kodak would return the processed 50' roll in to the customer, but no box.

 

As a general impression based on what I know and see in the images sent to me, the ANE can likely holds either a release print of a 30 minute program reel, or maybe the edit master from which release print are printed from. The edit master would be one generation up in finer quality. The 50' roll is not likely anything from Roger, as he is not known to have ever used 50' magazine cameras and film. John Green however, is proven to have used a 50' magazine camera to film McClarin.

 

That's as much as I know right now.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just an update:

 

I have had several exchanges of emails with the original poster, and he did clarify some things as much as he knew about the film owner and efforts to get it analyzed. He apparently made an assumption I was involved with the analysis, but it was a flawed assumption. I have still not had any direct contact with whomever owns the film in question. The most likely determination is that the film in question is simply a print copy of the ANE documentary, exactly the same as my Copy 14 in my inventory. So it would be equal to Copy 14, which is a good and useful copy, but nothing spectacular.

 

I have no idea who might be doing an analysis for the owner (the number of qualified people in the world to do this properly,  you can count on one hand and have a few fingers left over), and don't have much confidence this unknown analyst can do a truly comprehensive appraisal of the film, but the owner is well within his rights to select whomever he wants to do it. But the prospects of this find being something remarkable in the PGF research world are getting less by the day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

Thanks for the update!  That's very considerate of you.  The very fact that the owner hasn't reached out to you despite your inquiries/communications is telling in and of itself.  Do we know if the film was in fact a part of EB's estate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

the curious thing about the ANE film company and Eric Beckjord is that there isn't any known connection. ANE went bankrupt in 1974, and Beckjord was active in the PGF research field from around 1978 or so. And the EB estate has no connection with the ANE company, and Eric's known copies (I've scanned three of his) are not connected to the ANE copy family in any way.

 

So I would assume the earlier reports of some connection of the EB estate to this new found copy are an assumption that was inaccurate.

 

But as long as the film's owner doesn't communicate with the research community, the second hand and third hand news does get modified by incorrect assumptions inevitably added by the extra hands.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

This whole thing sounds like a whole bunch of nothing again.

 

I looked for the original Reddit post today and it looks like that thread has been taken down. (At least I can't find it).

 

Its a shame that people waste others time with these games.

 

If only the PGF original were available!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

OM

 

The Reddit post is still active, but no recent activity on it.

 

I personally don't think this posting was a game, just an enthusiastic person making assumptions that were inaccurate. All of his personal communications with me were more matter-of-fact.

 

I don't doubt that a new copy has been found, but nothing about it can be reasonably expected to alter what we know about the film, especially is it's just another print of the documentary, like my Copy 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 minute ago, Bill said:

 

 

...nothing about it can be reasonably expected to alter what we know about the film...

 

Is it possible something similar to this might contain unseen reel #2 footage in it (like the reported stomp test and further filming of the trackway)?  I'm guessing the ANE stuff out there does not vary in content copy to copy and thus, there is no expectation it would contain additional unseen Reel #2 material.

 

In order to see Reel #2 footage (beyond the 5 tracks we have) are we just going to have to hope a pure Reel #2 copy only is found some day?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The best hope for unseen footage would be if we can ever see reel two of the theatrical program Roger and Al made and showed in theaters in 1968-69. We currently only have verification of the first 30 minute reel content, but it has no PGF material in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Steve Streurfert provided me with a link to  a podcast interviewing the man who owns the film and talks about it.

 

https://www.spreaker.com/user/forkermedia/supernrml-special-edition-with-john-john
 

One thing to consider is he described the edge latent image markings, and felt such markings indicated he likely had the original. However, I have the exact same markings on one of my copies, as shown here. On the top row, you can see how bold and obvious the original Kodachrome film type and related edge markings are. But then go to the second row, along the bottom, and see how subtle the markings are for a copy. It would be easy for someone to see only the bold obvious Kodachrome markings and miss the copy markings.

 

So the man most likely just has a copy, like mine.

Kodachrome edge markings.jpg

 

Added:  He also said the date code symbols repeat every 10 years, but the Kodak chart states quite clearly that the codes repeat every 20 years. So while the man may be of good intention, his facts are not quite on the mark.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch
On 9/5/2019 at 8:54 PM, Bill said:

I have no knowledge of it and I am not examining it in any way. So my association with it is not true, unless it's a delayed report from three years ago about a copy donated to the Willow Creek museum, and "Finding Bigfoot" hired me to evaluate the copy. I have not evaluated a new copy since then.

 

So the report if definitely bogus in respect to me and any participation I might be involved with now.

 

 

ADDED:

 

The film can is a 1200' or a 1600' reel, so the only thing it could be is Roger's Theatrical documentary, maybe reel two (Mike Rugg received reel one, but no PGF stull on that reel). Also, ANE's doc came out in 1971, and Roger's theatrical was from 1968-1969

 

So it sounds like whomever is describing it is lacking in real knowledge of the matter. But how the writer can claim my involvement, is really a flat-out lie, unless it's an analysis from several years ago.

 

What was the name of Patterson's documentary that was limitedly released in theatres that René from Finding Bigfoot talked about seeing with her father in the theatre when she was a kid? On the episode called "Birth of a Legend".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
14 hours ago, Bill said:

So while the man may be of good intention, his facts are not quite on the mark.

 

I gave the podcast a listen this morning and will provide a short summary of what this gentleman claims:

 

A few years back he had a working relationship with Patricia Patterson so at that time he had inquired about the ownership and location of the original film. Mrs. Patterson informed him that the film was being held by an attorney in Florida and could not be freed up because Roger Patterson owed him a lot of money. She later backed off on this assertion.

 

Now, just recently and by pure chance he goes to the estate sale of a prominent attorney In Florida and finds a film can labeled Bluff Creek 1967. The can contains what he believes is the original 24 feet or so of the Patty sequence of the PGF. The prior riding footage from earlier that day is not part of the reel. Some non-PGF material from ANE is also included. From what I can understand, he buys the can sight unseen and true contents unknown until he is able to get home and finally pry it open.

 

He quickly gets an "expert independent analysis" done on the film. Among the results of the analysis:

 

1) The film is severely degraded because of improper processing and storage.

 

2) The analyst claims that the film was processed using the K-14 process. (wrong, since K-14 wasn't available until the early 70's).

 

3) What is left of the original film now consists of roughly 30 short strips of film that are stored in acid free envelopes. 

 

4) The analysis claims that the film was broken and brittle because it was probably not processed at a legitimate Kodak lab, instead it is suggested that some kind of bootleg or home processing setup was used. To the analyst, it appears that the film which still has a powerful odor of acetic acid, was improperly washed and rinsed.

 

5) The front end leader has been cut off at a 45 degree angle very close to the first frames. The tail end leader is stuck together and can't be unrolled. There are no written or other markings.

 

The new owner of the film has vowed not to disclose any further details of the film beyond the analysis. Where precisely he got it will remain a secret, and he also states that the film will not be made available for any further examination. He believes that the subject matter of the film, Patty, is a fake.

 

Cool story except, as always, rather than providing any answers it just leads to even more questions...

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

It is interesting the comments regarding bootleg processing.    If true that would clear up some possibilities.

 

Im curious if his opinion on Patty being fake was already in place before buying the film or could there be something on the reel that shows it being a fake.   All assuming he has the “real original” 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

Cool story except, as always, rather than providing any answers it just leads to even more questions...

 

 

There are answers in the various lines of analysis, Mort....if you're interested. ;) 

 

I am currently working on an analysis which should tell us at what time of the day the film was shot. At the moment, it's looking like it was a little later than the reported 1:00 - 1:30 time frame.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...