[Drew]

Here is a frame of Roger Patterson with a bucket of plaster
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/64dc0ebb.jpg

I would assume Bob Gimlin was filming this sequence.
Can anyone ask Bob Gimlin if he remembers if this was part of the 2nd roll of film at Bluff Creek, and verify that it was filmed the same day as the footage of Patty was shot? Also, he says they filmed the stomp-test after the filming, would it have been on this roll of film?

If anyone has contact with him, please forward these questions to him.

Thanks

[Melissa]

You know, it took me about 2 seconds to find where this is coming from. I won't remove it, but If I start hearing comments like "Why won't you believers get these questions answered", I will.

Besides, if William Parcher wants to ask a question of the people here, he should be bringing this here himself.

Im not sure why the answer to this question matters. It seems to me this is much to do about nothing, and gets nothing answered about the question "What is the subject of the Patterson Film", which by the way is the question that needs to be answered.

Not sure why "who shot, what sequence" really matters.

[Drew]

None of that is going to happen, we are simply trying to figure out, if Bob Gimlin remembers which roll of film this is from. Remember that there is a stomp test that was filmed that no one has seen, if it is on the same roll as this, that would be quite a find. The reason I brought it here, is because I know some people here are in some sort of contact with bob Gimlin. I would ask him myself but I doubt anyone would give me his email adress!

Also, we know Bob Gimlin shot it, if it was the same day as the footage was shot, right? Who else could have shot it? Thus he is the only one who could answer the question of which roll of film was it?

This post has been edited by Drew: 14 July 2010 - 12:26 PM

[Melissa]

I understand why you're asking this question. I do however disagree on what some people think is important, when it comes to this film.

If this is footage from the "stomp test" - what difference does it make? If Bob Gimlin did film this, again, what difference does it make?

[Steenburg]

i don't need to ask Bob about this again we have talked about now over 100 times. The image you are looking at is from the second role of film Roger loaded into the camera after the Patty role was finished. He is casting one of the two footprints castings he made that day. Bob Gimlin is holding the camera. Bob does not remember holding the camera but admits that he probably did,on more than one occasion. some of the footage taken on the Patty role was taken by Bob as well as it is Roger on film pulling the pack horse. Roger had the small horse while Bob rode a larger horse. Also taken later on this second role of film is the jump test, Just before the jump test is a shot of the line of footprints in the sandbar. One of which has already had plaster poured into it but is still drying. Later you see Roger standing under a large tree with both castings in his hands. He is wearing his jacket in those shots. this second role of film is in the hands of the BBC. It was loaned to them just before Roger died and they never returned it. Patrica has been talking about trying to get it back for years but nothing has ever come of it.

Thomas Steenburg

This post has been edited by Steenburg: 15 July 2010 - 08:40 PM

[DrOnion]

Thank you Tom.

[Grazhopprr]

Steenburg, on 15 July 2010 - 06:38 PM, said:

i don't need to ask Bob about this again we have talked about now over 100 times. The image you are looking at is from the second role of film Roger loaded into the camera after the Patty role was finished. He is casting one of the two footprints castings he made that day. Bob Gimlin is holding the camera. Bob does not remember holding the camera but admits that he probably did,on more than one occasion. some of the footage taken on the Patty role was taken by Bob as well as it is Roger on film pulling the pack horse. Roger had the small horse while Bob rode a larger horse. Also taken later on this second role of film is the jump test, Just before the jump test is a shot of the line of footprints in the sandbar. One of which has already had plaster poured into it but is still drying. Later you see Roger standing under a large tree with both castings in his hands. He is wearing his jacket in those shots. this second role of film is in the hands of the BBC. It was loaned to them just before Roger died and they never returned it. Patrica has been talking about trying to get it back for years but nothing has ever come of it.

Thomas Steenburg

I've never read that this second roll was at the BBC. Maybe everyone can use their Facebook connections, and start an email slam to the BBC to return the film to Patricia. Since that's part 2 of the saga, it needs to be re-united with what's left, and put into digital form. I'd consider starting the email slam process, but I'm just a widget in this machine. Anyone of considerable influence up to that?

ETA: I'm not talking about finding out one person at the BBC to email. That one person can block a slam. Email every department at the BBC with the same request. That way it doesn't get ignored by one person or department.

This post has been edited by Grazhopprr: 16 July 2010 - 09:54 AM

[OregonMan]

Grazhopprr, on 16 July 2010 - 07:31 AM, said:

I've never read that this second roll was at the BBC. Maybe everyone can use their Facebook connections, and start an email slam to the BBC to return the film to Patricia. Since that's part 2 of the saga, it needs to be re-united with what's left, and put into digital form. I'd consider starting the email slam process, but I'm just a widget in this machine. Anyone of considerable influence up to that?

From what I've read, the BBC can't find it. Keeping track of footage back then wasn't a priority. It might show up as the BBC is going through their huge collections of tapes/films and transfering them the digital, so I've heard.

[Grazhopprr]

I dunno. They probably did a bit of looking, but didn't take it very far. If every department at the BBC was slammed with emails, they would have to do a major search for it just to shut us up, hehe.

[Melissa]

Steenburg, on 15 July 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

i don't need to ask Bob about this again we have talked about now over 100 times. The image you are looking at is from the second role of film Roger loaded into the camera after the Patty role was finished. He is casting one of the two footprints castings he made that day. Bob Gimlin is holding the camera. Bob does not remember holding the camera but admits that he probably did,on more than one occasion. some of the footage taken on the Patty role was taken by Bob as well as it is Roger on film pulling the pack horse. Roger had the small horse while Bob rode a larger horse. Also taken later on this second role of film is the jump test, Just before the jump test is a shot of the line of footprints in the sandbar. One of which has already had plaster poured into it but is still drying. Later you see Roger standing under a large tree with both castings in his hands. He is wearing his jacket in those shots. this second role of film is in the hands of the BBC. It was loaned to them just before Roger died and they never returned it. Patrica has been talking about trying to get it back for years but nothing has ever come of it.

Thomas Steenburg

Okay, you can call me stupid, but there is something I don't understand. Tom, how many rolls of film did Patterson shoot? Am I correct in assuming the first role is all "documentary" film (which we knew Patterson was shooting) and the second roll had Patty and these "tracks" etc filmed?


FYI Drew, I read your comments over at the JREF. No, it's not an excuse. I can tell you this, based on what I know. The film turned over to the BBC, became part of a bankruptcy or what a bankruptcy court calls "restructuring" (business needs help being sheilded from creditors, but does not want to go out of business. In this country one example is a Chapter 13). I was told the BBC did file bankruptcy, and this film (because it was in the posession of the BBC) became part of that bankruptcy. It was sold as part of a "Lot" to someone - who had no idea what they had bought. There are some who have a good idea where this film is. I know Bankruptcy filings are public record here in the US. I am not sure why they would not be in other countries. If they are public record, anyone should be able to find this information.

If the BBC knew they had the film, then (depending on the law) they would need to send a letter to the owner of the property informing them of the bankruptcy and what they needed to do to claim ownership. In some areas, only a letter in a newspaper will suffice, notifying of a bankruptcy proceeding. Nothing is automatically returned once bankruptcy is filed. This is of course dependant on the law, where the BBC operated. People and businesses lose property all the time because of bankruptcy proceedings such as this.

This has been discussed before on the BFF and other sites. Not sure why you have never heard this. I can tell you this, based on my limited knowledge of bankruptcy law, the story I have been told makes perfect sense.

[Drew]

I think it was ANE that went bankrupt, the BBC is a government agency in England, I don't think it can go bankrupt.

The original film roll #1, was supposedly sold at auction to someone, and a lawyer in Florida or something has it, it makes no mention of the second roll however. I think Rick Noll is the person who said something about the Lawyer in Florida.

The first roll has the Patty walk on it, remember the film 'ran out' at the end and Roger went under a Poncho to change it? That is where the alleged 2nd roll starts. That would include the Stomp test, the casting (if it was casting of the trackway at the site, following the walk)

This post has been edited by Drew: 20 July 2010 - 08:33 AM

[Melissa]

I dont know if it was the BBC or ANE - I have heard both mentioned. ANE may be a subsidiary, and maybe why both are discussed.. I don't know. My understanding is that auction you discuss was in fact the result of a bankruptcy proceeding, which is usual and customary, or not unusual at all.

You still havent answered by question - why is this "stomp" test footage and the casting of tracks important? I guess I am unclear as to the reason why..

[Drew]

Melissa, on 20 July 2010 - 12:37 PM, said:

I dont know if it was the BBC or ANE - I have heard both mentioned. ANE may be a subsidiary, and maybe why both are discussed.. I don't know. My understanding is that auction you discuss was in fact the result of a bankruptcy proceeding, which is usual and customary, or not unusual at all.

You still havent answered by question - why is this "stomp" test footage and the casting of tracks important? I guess I am unclear as to the reason why..

ANE is the film company that hired Patterson to do the documentary, no one is claiming that the bankruptcy is unusual, and it has nothing to do with the 2nd reel, which according to legend, is in the hands of the BBC, who couldn't find the reel when they were going to return it.

If the stomp tests were indeed on the 2nd reel as Bob Gimlin and John Green claim, then it would back up the story that Bob told, If they are not on the 2nd reel, then Bob's story is once again changing.

Of course there is a chance, and something that I think more likely than the BBC not giving it back, that the 2nd reel is in the hands of someone close to the film, and knows if they release it, it may undermine the patterson film itself. Would it be detrimental to the film, if the 2nd reel shows Roger manipulating tracks, or Bob H. at the scene? Perhaps it is as simple as they didn't want people to know that BobG was riding BobH's horse on the day of the filming. Because the stomp test would certainly show Chico, since they compared the stomp test to the horse's footprints.

[Melissa]

Which Bob? Bob G or Bob H?

Okay, well I think there is something getting lost in translation. Is the film in Patricia's posession a first generation copy? (First Reel).

[Drew]

Melissa, on 20 July 2010 - 02:05 PM, said:

Which Bob? Bob G or Bob H?

Okay, well I think there is something getting lost in translation. Is the film in Patricia's posession a first generation copy? (First Reel).

Defer to Bill Munns on that.

[OregonMan]

Drew, on 20 July 2010 - 10:57 AM, said:

Of course there is a chance, and something that I think more likely than the BBC not giving it back, that the 2nd reel is in the hands of someone close to the film, and knows if they release it, it may undermine the patterson film itself. Would it be detrimental to the film, if the 2nd reel shows Roger manipulating tracks, or Bob H. at the scene?

Really? People really entertain these ideas? I'm not being sarcastic, just astounded at the conspiratorially-ness of the scenario.

[Steenburg]

Melissa, on 20 July 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

Okay, you can call me stupid, but there is something I don't understand. Tom, how many rolls of film did Patterson shoot? Am I correct in assuming the first role is all "documentary" film (which we knew Patterson was shooting) and the second roll had Patty and these "tracks" etc filmed?


FYI Drew, I read your comments over at the JREF. No, it's not an excuse. I can tell you this, based on what I know. The film turned over to the BBC, became part of a bankruptcy or what a bankruptcy court calls "restructuring" (business needs help being sheilded from creditors, but does not want to go out of business. In this country one example is a Chapter 13). I was told the BBC did file bankruptcy, and this film (because it was in the posession of the BBC) became part of that bankruptcy. It was sold as part of a "Lot" to someone - who had no idea what they had bought. There are some who have a good idea where this film is. I know Bankruptcy filings are public record here in the US. I am not sure why they would not be in other countries. If they are public record, anyone should be able to find this information.

If the BBC knew they had the film, then (depending on the law) they would need to send a letter to the owner of the property informing them of the bankruptcy and what they needed to do to claim ownership. In some areas, only a letter in a newspaper will suffice, notifying of a bankruptcy proceeding. Nothing is automatically returned once bankruptcy is filed. This is of course dependant on the law, where the BBC operated. People and businesses lose property all the time because of bankruptcy proceedings such as this.

This has been discussed before on the BFF and other sites. Not sure why you have never heard this. I can tell you this, based on my limited knowledge of bankruptcy law, the story I have been told makes perfect sense.

There were two roles of film shot in relation
to the men's encounter. Role#1 ended with the Patty footage, as Roger had used must of that film role shooting the fall colors as well as shots of himself and Bob pulling the pack horse, When the creature was filmed there was I believe only 952 frames of unshot space left on the role. That's why the filming of the creature stopped so suddenly, The film ran out. Patterson than reloaded the camera with a second roll of film to shoot all the follow up activities, track path, casting, jumping off a log, Roger holding the casts etc, etc,

Thomas Steenburg

[Bigfoothunter]

Steenburg, on 20 July 2010 - 09:03 PM, said:

There were two roles of film shot in relation
to the men's encounter. Role#1 ended with the Patty footage, as Roger had used must of that film role shooting the fall colors as well as shots of himself and Bob pulling the pack horse, When the creature was filmed there was I believe only 952 frames of unshot space left on the role. That's why the filming of the creature stopped so suddenly, The film ran out. Patterson than reloaded the camera with a second roll of film to shoot all the follow up activities, track path, casting, jumping off a log, Roger holding the casts etc, etc,

Thomas Steenburg

I have a feeling that the person who asked the question had already knew the answer. A cursory glance or a beginners first attempt at research would have been forced to know that Patterson's camera ran out of film as he was filming the creature, so the footprints that were filmed were shot with the second roll of film as Thomas said. (sigh)

Bill
Bigfoot Field Research

[Melissa]

Thank you Tom for that response. Drew, you didn't answer my question. Which Bob are you talking about in post 13?

People who go out into the woods, and find tracks, film them all the time. Why would a film showing stomp tests (which is actually a good idea) or the casting of tracks whether legit or not, be evidence of "wrong doing"?

If I came across a bigfoot, and found tracks, I would try to film the animal and then the casting of any tracks - heck, I never thought about doing a stomp test, I would most likely add that to my list of "things" to do on scene.

I can't figure out what the issue is with this second reel... And Drew, you do realize what your saying - sounds like a conspiracy theory?


Drew said:

Quote

Of course there is a chance, and something that I think more likely than the BBC not giving it back, that the 2nd reel is in the hands of someone close to the film, and knows if they release it, it may undermine the patterson film itself. Would it be detrimental to the film, if the 2nd reel shows Roger manipulating tracks, or Bob H. at the scene?

[Drew]

Melissa, on 21 July 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:

Thank you Tom for that response. Drew, you didn't answer my question. Which Bob are you talking about in post 13?

Bob Gimlin's story would have another inconsistency if there is no stomp test on the 2nd roll.

Quote

People who go out into the woods, and find tracks, film them all the time. Why would a film showing stomp tests (which is actually a good idea) or the casting of tracks whether legit or not, be evidence of "wrong doing"?

If it has the stomp test on the film, then that would be great, but if there is no stomp test, then BobG's story, that the stomp test was filmed, and then mysteriously disappeared, would be false.

Quote

If I came across a bigfoot, and found tracks, I would try to film the animal and then the casting of any tracks - heck, I never thought about doing a stomp test, I would most likely add that to my list of "things" to do on scene.

Great!

Quote

I can't figure out what the issue is with this second reel... And Drew, you do realize what your saying - sounds like a conspiracy theory?

If you think it is a man in a suit as I do, then it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy. I believe they filmed a man in a suit, made up a background story, fudged the timeline wrt the casting, and destroyed the missing film.
***********************************************************************************

To: Thomas Steenburg
You said

Quote

"Bob does not remember holding the camera but admits that he probably did,on more than one occasion"

Was anyone else at Bluff Creek that might have been holding the camera?

Quote

He is casting one of the two footprints castings he made that day

Bob Titmus said he found 4 footprints that had been cast

Quote

Later you see Roger standing under a large tree with both castings in his hands

Can BobG verify that this was the same day as the filming?

Was BobG present for the fake-demo casting that Roger told Grover Krantz he did at Bluff Creek?
Does BobG remember the fake-demo casting? What roll of film is this on? Is this the missing film from roll #1?