Patterson Reel number 2 ?( Bought At Yardsale)

This is being claimed by someone from another forum I am a member of.If true this is absolutly amazing that after all these years a 2nd reel of film has turned up. Not only that but a similar creature is shown on this one and it was purchased at a yard sale for $10.00 . This person is known at Bigfoot Forum by many of its members and always seemed to be very sincere in all his posts. See what you think.
Quoted By Sasquatch September 22,2005

I purchased a 16mm film reel at a yardsale in Happycamp California this last weekend. The tape is labeled "Patterson - 1967 - Reel #2" I paid $10.00 for it. I hooked it up to my dads old projector. The film shows what seems to be the photographer running through thick brush filming a creature as it wonders up the hill for about 45 seconds until he falls behind and loses sight of it. It looks just like the "famous" Patty footage accept it is just of the back of the creature but for one moment when the creature stops and looks back at him for about 3 seconds. Is this fake? It looks just like the creature in the original film. You can see "spit" or slobber falling from the creatures mouth and see its chest expanding with each breath. It looks real to me but I don't know if it is some kind of hoax. Is there someone who can analize this and tell me if it is original? I have never heard of any additional reels of this encounter. Is it worth any money?

September 30,2005

I have spent the last 12 days securing a copyright on this film. I should have a legal document in the next 3 weeks stating that I own the rights to this film. At that time I will send a copy (to be returned to me) to someone, maybe Dr. Meldrum, who can give me realistic feedback on this footage.THe lady I bought it from was named Luci Davison just north of Happycamp, California. She lives in a green, double-wide mobile home. She said her husband, Ben, died 23 years ago and it was his tape which he had aquired at an estate sale in Oregon in 1971 (she thinks).

October 14,2005

My ownership of this reel has been confirmed. I have already had a private buyer purchase this reel "and my legal ownership" for a 6-figure amount. That's all I can legally say do to the purchase agreement. I have no idea if this tape will ever be made public because it is in the hands of a private organization. I don't really care what anyone thinks now. I know the truth, I was very-well taken care of financially. A word of caution to you "experts" on this site.........you can gain a lot more information by encouraging people, rather that attacking them like they are some kind of idiot. Best of luck to all of you.

If true I can not wait for the chance to view this and how in the world has this stayed out of view all these years.


[edit on 15-10-2005 by Harry55]

Why did he sell it to a private organisation? >.<

That movie is worth a LOT.. And now we might never see it.. *Sigh*

For you that may not know the importance of a possible 2nd film being discovered let me give you a little history on the first film and how it came to be.

The controversial reel of film was shot by Roger Patterson, a former rodeo rider who had become deeply fascinated with Bigfoot after reading press reports about the creature in 1957. He wrote and self-published a book in 1966 entitled Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Patterson then set out to film a documentary about sightings of Bigfoot.
On October 20, 1967, Patterson and his friend Bob Gimlin were riding on horseback in the wilds of California's Bluff Creek valley, with Patterson carrying a rented 16mm camera to shoot some atmospheric footage for his planned film. He ended up filming a lot more than just scenery. Patterson and Gimlin spotted a huge, dark-furred, bipedal creature hunched over in the middle of a creek. The beast rose to a full height that Patterson estimated at seven feet, four inches, and began walking toward the woods. Thrown to the ground after his horse reared up in fright, Patterson anxiously yanked the movie camera from his saddlebag and began shooting. The day's filming had left him with only 28 feet of film in the camera, but he managed to record the alleged Bigfoot's image briefly before it fled from view.

Patterson and Gimlin discovered that a number of footprints had been left behind, and they preserved them in plaster casts. The tracks were fourteen inches long and five inches wide. But these trophies were almost insignificant in comparison to the prize inside Patterson's camera.

This film has stood the test of ridicule for almost 50 years. Been studied peice by peice by thousands of scientist and researchers and is no doubt the best possible film of Bigfoot in existance today.
There has been talk over the years of a missing second reel of film by several researchers and a few claim to have seen parts of it. Now if this story is true this would mean not one but two such films exist. And the fact it was bought at a yardsale for $10 is beyond belief. Now lets hope if such a film exists that the private group will share this for all to see and study. Does anyone here have knowlege that a second reel existed?

Oh my gosh, Harry! This is exciting. I sure hope we get to see this and SOON.

Sorry to say, but you could have gotten a lot more than 6 figures if this is in fact true. Especially with what you say is on the footage. Like previously mentioned, the 1st film has stood the test of time for nearly half a decade and is the best "evidence" known to man with regard to bigfoots existence. With the continued evidence of how it may be real, like the deep heavy breaths and slobber coming out of it's mouth, it is worth far more than merely 6 figures. Sounds pretty cool though, I wonder if anything will come of this, or if the public will ever view the footage. One can only hope.

Originally posted by Harry55
For you that may not know the importance of a possible 2nd film being discovered let me give you a little history on the first film and how it came to be.

The controversial reel of film was shot by Roger Patterson, a former rodeo rider who had become deeply fascinated with Bigfoot after reading press reports about the creature in 1957. He wrote and self-published a book in 1966 entitled Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Patterson then set out to film a documentary about sightings of Bigfoot.
On October 20, 1967, Patterson and his friend Bob Gimlin were riding on horseback in the wilds of California's Bluff Creek valley, with Patterson carrying a rented 16mm camera to shoot some atmospheric footage for his planned film. He ended up filming a lot more than just scenery. Patterson and Gimlin spotted a huge, dark-furred, bipedal creature hunched over in the middle of a creek. The beast rose to a full height that Patterson estimated at seven feet, four inches, and began walking toward the woods. Thrown to the ground after his horse reared up in fright, Patterson anxiously yanked the movie camera from his saddlebag and began shooting. The day's filming had left him with only 28 feet of film in the camera, but he managed to record the alleged Bigfoot's image briefly before it fled from view.

Patterson and Gimlin discovered that a number of footprints had been left behind, and they preserved them in plaster casts. The tracks were fourteen inches long and five inches wide. But these trophies were almost insignificant in comparison to the prize inside Patterson's camera.

someone's gonna have to do some explaining
on how Patterson had extadordinary sense to hastily grab the (rented) camera... from the saddlebag, and evidently the 2nd reel/roll of 16mm. film

which he must have put in the rented camera while in pursuit of the furry
animal, that scared his horse which threw Patterson to the ground in the 1st place......i think those older technology, 1967 era, cameras and films
required special handling and adeptness in refilling the camera and most likely one needed to be in subdued light in the very least, to reload a film camera.

Hardly an impromptu exercise that could be accomplished while running thru the woods and across streams, while chasing an unknown, possibly dangerous creature...
lets just see how the story unfolds..... or develops (wry ironic remark)

Sorry but I think this is a bit too convenient to be true. I'll personally eat every bloody hat in the world if this film ever turns up. My bet is we wont hear about it ever again (unless someone tries a convincing copycat fake).

Lets consider the evidence here:
----------------------------------------

1 - man conveniently finds a tape marked as reel #2 and the word patterson. Not only is he already informed enough about conspiracies to recognise the name, but he's also awake / sober / thinking straight (delete as needed) enough to be sharp enough to buy it for $10!

2 - He announces that he has it and makes a big show of saying how he's going to make sure he's legally protected before showing anyone. See the problem I have with this is that even assuming he's found out how you go about this, your not telling me you wouldn't show someone???? Jesus this is supposed to be one of the biggest bigfoot finds of the last 50 years for gods sakes.

3 - He further teases everyone with a discription of footage showing things that would normally rule out a fake. (the drool, the breathing etc) Almost as if he's been reading a conspiracy forum about things sceptics would like to see

4 - Amazingly suprise suprise a mystery buyer comes along and makes him rich!! Sound to anyone like the plot of a cheap B movie? Sounds to me like someone living in fantasy land and has all the hallmarks of your average attention seeker.

This 'mystery buyer' has bought this after somehow finding out about this footage when probably most of the conspiracy boards were unaware of it. Sound strange? No info an a validity check at all which you'd think would be a must for a 6 figure sum. For all they know even if it were real, after all these years a copy could have been run off, meaning although they own the rights it could surface online before they show it or release it.

My guess: we'll never see this 2nd reel because it never existed except in the minds of one slightly derranged person. I've always loved the paterson footage and would love to get a hold of the full length version shown on TV a week or two back. (the one with the lead up showing patterson running through the woods chasing the bigfoot.)
Don't you just love liers?

Wayne...

Ya, I read through the thread on the other site, and it turns out that he is probably (99%) a faker. He has several threads about 'amazing pictures!' and such, which he never does anything about. And just because people are being sceptic about this, he turns agressive.

I say bogus.

And on the other hand, i dont believe that there is a second PB footage.

didn't patterson admit that he faked it?

or was that his wife that admitted he faked it?


you know what would be fun way of outing the faker? send him an email private message and tell him that you would gladly pay millions for the movie. tell him you will give him a piece for brokering the sale. tell him you want the name of the company that bought it from him.

if he gives it to you, you know he sold something. if he comes up with excuses, odds are he's full of it.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Crakeur]

Originally posted by Crakeur
didn't patterson admit that he faked it?

or was that his wife that admitted he faked it?


you know what would be fun way of outing the faker? send him an email private message and tell him that you would gladly pay millions for the movie. tell him you will give him a piece for brokering the sale. tell him you want the name of the company that bought it from him.

if he gives it to you, you know he sold something. if he comes up with excuses, odds are he's full of it.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Crakeur]

actually now after bob h. claimed he was the one in the suit someone elses wife said she was the one in the suit and that she and her husband pranked both patterson and gimlin.

I would have believed him if he would have sold it for more than 6 figures....come on,a film like that could bring a million or millions easily.
2nd reel......yeah right.

100% lies until proven ! Its really as simple as that.

Even a single frame taken from of the movie with a digital camera or whatnot could help this story out.

Too good to be true.

i think those older technology, 1967 era, cameras and films
required special handling and adeptness in refilling the camera and most likely one needed to be in subdued light in the very least, to reload a film camera.

Hmmm...

If I remember correctly the amature cameras of that era used film cartriges ( sorta looked like a thick short 8 track tape, for those of you that remember such )...

Harry55...

I'm a member too, and I think it's a hoax, for several reasons...

1) the way it was presented ( I think the person was looking for attention )...

2) Unless the film is stored correctly, belive it or not it will shrink ( I've had this happen ), and not fit in the projector, and if authentic it is old film...

3) what is on the film doesn't match what was stated here...

Sasquatcher states...

The film shows what seems to be the photographer running through thick brush filming a creature as it wonders up the hill for about 45 seconds until he falls behind and loses sight of it.

But Paterson and Gimlin states...

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean--because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel.

www.tracone.com...

According to Patterson and Gimlin she took off running for the hills, and according to Sasquatcher she ambles up the hills...

didn't patterson admit that he faked it?

or was that his wife that admitted he faked it?

To my knowlege they never have, I think that was claimed by Greg Long to sell his book...

Jedi_Master, I have a lot of questions too. I even emailed Sasquatcher in an attempt to find out more. I hope somehow this could be true because another film could be very helpful in research of this creature. Sasquatcher became a member in 2003 at BFF and I always enjoyed his posts. He was never proved to be a fake or liar at anytime. Why would the man do something like this when he seemed to be after the same as the rest of us in trying to proof this creature real or unreal ?
I had not thought about the possibility of the film shrinking from age. Very good point you made. Lets hope if true this film turns out ok as he has mentioned.
One thing I am surprised has not been mentioned yet is if true the poor elderly lady in the trailer that lost her husband and did not realize what she had . Does she have recourse ? I feel she should.

OK folks, I have a solution to at least part of the question.

I believe the alleged film discoverer is a USA resident.

If so, then surely he/she would have conducted the sale transaction of the film by check or money order, probably not cash.

The check/money order would have to be presented to a bank somewhere to be cashed and/or deposited.

I dated a woman who was a bank manager for several years, and I know for a fact that all transactions involving US$10,000 or more must have some kind of "currency reporting form" filed with the IRS.

There are thousands of people out there who work for the IRS in various capacities.

Couldn't someone on the board know someone who works for IRS who could check to see if the alleged film finder did indeed file a currency transaction form for a large amount recently? Heck I've known three or four IRS employees in my life, unfortunately I don't know anyone right now, but surely ONE OF YOU knows or can contact someone from IRS who could check this.

All we need is the name of the person and even without a date of birth or SSN it will be easy from there on in.

Thats so not legal. lol. Those are private matters and thats just outrageous.

Just sit back and let the guy soil himself ! All hoaxers eventually do. Once he cannot provide any proof whatsoever, boom.

I'll have to go along with everyone to say that it's a fake claim.
1. This guy is obviously a Bigfoot "fan" and he's obviously aware of the "greatness" of the original Patterson film. Wouldn't he want to share it with everyone to prove that it exists? Give/sell it to CNN?
2. Where is the company that bought the 2nd reel? How did they come in contact with the new owner of the reel? Obviously they saw the business opportuniy the reel holds. Why not make it public? If you're going to spend a "6 figure" investment on it, you'll surely want some returns on the investment. And they'll start to market themselves and the film they have... Yet, there's nothing out there.
3. I can't recall ever hearing about a second reel. Not by Patterson or any other person. Patterson would have shared the second reel as well. Why show only one film when you have two to support your findings?
4. How did the second reel end up with the lady? (Or her husband?) There will have to be a connection between the husband and Patterson, and a very good reason as to why he has the second reel!
5. $10 for an old film reel? If you're an old lady and you're throwing stuff out of the house, would you try to sell a film you have no knowledge of what's on it? And for $10 at that?

Hopefully we're all wrong and there is really a second reel...

LOL Yeah! I can see a lady selling her vintage reel. LOL Guy gets home and puts it on a projectore and its vintage porn!


MEEEEOOOWW!!!!

New Update 2nd Reel Clip .
Here is evidence of the existance of a second reel being shot. Also a new post by Sasquatch stating the Pattersons Family are the ones who purchased the reel from him for 6 figures that he bought for $ 10.00 at the yard sale. Here is the latest : Start Reading Post Here October 1.2005
Who knows what is true ? But the story does continue. He states he is not allowed to tell what he knows but bigfoot is real. Why would they buy the missing reel and require him to keep quite if true ? You be the judge and be sure to read entire post.

I'd say this guy sasquatcer was lying.

I'd say he had no legal right to the copyright and it would not have been given to him unless he could prove he bought the tape with copyright, and the ladies husband did the same before him. In any event copyrights are surely registered in the public domain and it would be a simple task for someone to confirm the recent application for and granting of copyright on this new reel of film.

I believe people in the other forum were starting to say things like this to him about the patterson family suing him for copyright (based on his last reply). And to silence them he decided to say it was the Pattersons who bought it ROFLMAO So he just broke his supposed confidentiality agreement with the Paterrsons.

They would not have needed to buy it they just would have sued his ass in court. *excepting that they might have bought it back off him *this would be legal in order for the Pattersons to own the tape, they already by default have the copyright so if this is all true the poster Sasquatcher would have had no right to broadcast or sell it commercially. The sensible legal thing to do in such circumstance would be to come to an agreement with the copyright holders (Pattersons) for say a percentage of the proceeds. Anyway - whatever - he's lying because he said he had gained copyright.


The clip you link to is apparently the original footage we have all seen with some more bits that most people haven't seen, I like many others can't view it, but I can hear the soundtrack. (BTW the reason you can't see it is because you need the latest version of QTime Vers 7 - to view it. I have 6.5.2 for Win '98 - Version 7 is for Windows 2000 & XP only, win 98 can't get it!) This link does not show the new footage of bigfoot breathing and slobbering climbing up a hill.

Edit: I'm just hoping by posting the following link we can all "save target as..."

www.southwestdj.com...

Nope not for me, it wants to save it as an html, doesn't recognise it as a video file!

[edit on 5/11/2005 by Wig]