Jump to content


Photo

Al Deatley: When , How And Why Was He Involved?


  • Please log in to reply
259 replies to this topic

#1 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 06:37 AM

A ‘best-fit’ account of how, when (and why) Al DeAtley was involved with the Patterson-Gimlin film would be good to have. His involvement before, on and just after Friday October 20 1967 seems particularly poorly defined.

New information about DeAtley seems very slow in coming. Can we learn anything by sifting through the information/ misinformation/disinformation we already have?

Here are four alternative DeAtleys for starters.

Kick them around a bit if you have an opinion.

Which Is Al DeAtley? Gotta better one?

1.
De Atley had little or no involvement with Patterson’s Bigfoot projects before Friday 20 October 1967. On that date Roger phoned him out of the blue from NC and successfully persuaded DeAtley to charter a 300 dollar plane- delivery for the new film, go get the film processed immediatley, hire a projector, set it up in his home and welcome in the Bigfooters to see it on the Sunday.

2.
De Atley was financing Patterson’s Bigfoot projects before Friday October 20 1967. Roger phoned him on Friday October 20 1967 from NC with the amazing good news that he had had his camera running and trained on a Bigfoot. DeAtley immediately charters a 300 dollar plane to deliver the new film, gets it processed the next day, hires a projector, sets it up in his home and welcomes in the Bigfooters to see it on the Sunday.

3.
De Atley financed a joint project with Patterson to hoax a Bigfoot film and market it. The hoax film is made in NC on Friday October 20 1967. De Atley charters a plane for 300 dollars to fly it home immediately. He spends Saturday getting it processed, hiring a projector, setting it up in his home and he welcomes in the Bigfooters to see it on the Sunday.

4.
De Atley was not involved on Friday 20 October 1967 nor the following day. The film was made and processed earlier than that and made its way to De Atley's house for Sunday 22 October 1967 by other means than a De Atley charter plane on the Friday. DeAtley held a showing of it for the Bigfooters on Sunday 22 October 1967.
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#2 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 06:43 AM

What's the big rush, from Al DeAtley's point of view? for delivery and processing and showing?

Even if he was part of Friday October 20 1967, why not just leave it till Monday?

Fister
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#3 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 07:01 PM

What's the big rush, from Al DeAtley's point of view? for delivery and processing and showing?

Even if he was part of Friday October 20 1967, why not just leave it till Monday?

Fister


Because if there was nothing on the film the plan was for Bob and Roger to stay for another week and try again. I don't know if they were out of food and short on money by then but they may have needed Al to wire money for supplies. That probably would have had to be left 'til Monday.
  • 0

#4 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 07:18 PM

Seems to me if it was a hoax, why hurry? Why pay someone to develop it after hours and risk someone's job (adult films were illegal and the tech may have been moonlighting in developing them)? Why risk having Dahinden, known for his skepticism, view it? Why arrange a showing for scientists within days? Why not just ask a few friends if it looked good enough to go on tour and make money off gullible audiences?
  • 0

#5 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,477 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 01:04 AM

5. Al DeAtley sees in the Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman film being hobbled together by Roger the kernel of an idea to funnel capital into his poor financial decisions that caused his paving company newly taken over from his father to start tanking. He convinces Patterson that the proper way to do it is to stage a hoax and show the film around the country for financial gain, which Roger can then use for his family and to continue his search properly funded. The film is made the first week of October and the original film is edited to remove evidence of hoaxing as well as splicing it together with footage shot prior to and after the Bigfoot sequence to support the backstory they offer. DeAtley maintains involvement for two years until he has generated enough capital to get his company out of the red and signs his rights over to Patterson.

Assisting in the hoax is accomplice Ray Wallace who creates the tracks that are said to be of the family of Bigfoots that lures Roger to the Bluff Creek area, assisting in selecting the film location and Lawrence "Scoop" Beal of the Eureka Times-Standard newspaper who ensures detailed coverage of the event is frontpage news the next day and that his newspaper will be the "scoop" on the nationwide story. Close friend of fellow accomplice Bob Gimlin and cast member from Roger's Bigfoot film, Bob Heironimus is used to play the role of a female Bigfoot that mirrors the female Bigtfoot allegedly witnessed by William Roe portrayed in Roger's self-illustrated Bigfoot and copied from an illustration done by artist Morton Kunstler for the 1959 True magazine article that sparked Roger's obsession with Bigfoot. Kunstler drew his version of a female Bigfoot entirely from imagination. A female was chosen to help make up for the lack of massive height Patterson attributes to male Bigfoots and to cover the rubber chestpiece of his Bigfoot suit. Accomplice Bob Gimlin is used to present a second witness for support and to play a fake role of a wise Indian tracker continuing from Roger's Bigfoot film.

Patterson died without admitting the hoax in 1972 so as to allow his wife to continue profiting from the film. This is consistent with an admission of hoaxing by Roger allegedly made in 1961 to Yakima businessman Harvey Anderson.

Edited by kitakaze, 04 February 2011 - 03:29 AM.

  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#6 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 02:30 AM

Because if there was nothing on the film the plan was for Bob and Roger to stay for another week and try again. I don't know if they were out of food and short on money by then but they may have needed Al to wire money for supplies. That probably would have had to be left 'til Monday.


This doesn't quite work-- Roger and Bob had struck camp and were ready to high tail it back to Yakima when they sent the film off on its way to Al. So Al hurrying like mad to see if the film was good enough or if no, the boys need to rerun at Bluff Creek --that wont work. The boys would be back in Yakima anyway by the time, Sunday, anyone sees the film.
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#7 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 02:50 AM

5. Al DeAtley sees in the Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman film being hobbled together by Roger the kernel of an idea to funnel capital into his poor financial decisions that caused his paving company newly taken over from his father. He convinces Patterson that the proper way to do it is to stage a hoax and show the film around the country for financial gain, which Roger can then use for his family and to continue his search properly funded. The film is made the first week of October and the original film is edited to remove evidence of hoaxing as well as splicing it together with footage shot prior to and after the Bigfoot sequence to support the backstory they offer. DeAtley maintains involvement for two years until he has generated enough capital to get his company out of the red and signs his rights over to Patterson.

Assisting in the hoax is accomplice Ray Wallace who creates the tracks that are said to be of the family of Bigfoots that lures Roger to the Bluff Creek area, assisting in selecting the film location and Lawrence "Scoop" Beal of the Eureka Times-Standard newspaper who ensures detailed coverage of the event is frontpage news the next day and that his newspaper will be the "scoop" on the nationwide story. Close friend of fellow accomplice Bob Gimlin and cast member from Roger's Bigfoot film, Bob Heironimus is used to play the role of a female Bigfoot that mirrors the female Bigtfoot allegedly witnessed by William Roe portrayed in Roger's self-illustrated Bigfoot and copied from an illustration done by artist Morton Kunstler for the 1959 True magazine article that sparked Roger's obsession with Bigfoot. Kunstler drew his version of a female Bigfoot entirely from imagination. A female was chose to help make up for the lack of massive height Patterson attributes to male Bigfoots and to cover the rubber chestpiece of his Bigfoot suit. Accomplice Bob Gimlin is used to present a second witness for support and to play a fake role of a wise Indian tracker continuing from Roger's Bigfoot film.

Patterson died without admitting the hoax in 1972 so as to allow his wife to continue profiting from the film. This is consistent with an admission of hoaxing by Roger allegedly made in 1961 to Yakima businessman Harvey Anderson.


Very intruiging scenario, with considerable explanatory power regarding some details about DeAtley etc which have been tussled over many times.
No longer needed--- any awkward account of how DeAtley found a lab to work Saturday and process the film in amazing short time.
It would have been processed in a timely fashion sometime earlier in October.

Also no longer needed--- any heroics with charter plane or amazingly swift postal alternatives for friday night.
The film would have been brought out of Bluff Creek and to its processing in a timely fashion sometime earlier in October.

Also not needed------ top speed driving heroics here and there all Friday evening by Roger and Bob, after equally high speed to-ing and fro-ing with casts etc that afternoon at Bluff Creek.

Kit, what role would you ascribe to Messrs Green, Dahinden, Maclaren, and Hodson in this scenario?
Are they to be seen just as gullible dupes---- whose presence for tracks around Bluff Creek, and for the film in Yakima, serves DeAtley by adding gravitas and authenticity to the film? Or implicated--accomplices of some sort?

I wonder if there is a scenario to offer which posits a filming at Bluff Creek earlier than October 20 (just like Kit's does, ----but which seeks to affirm it was the flming of a real Bigfoot? Could such a scenario offer as much explanatory power as Kit's, for some of these awkward details of timings, motivation, etc etc?

Fister
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#8 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,477 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 04:07 AM

Kit, what role would you ascribe to Messrs Green, Dahinden, Maclaren, and Hodson in this scenario?
Are they to be seen just as gullible dupes---- whose presence for tracks around Bluff Creek, and for the film in Yakima, serves DeAtley by adding gravitas and authenticity to the film? Or implicated--accomplices of some sort?


The first people who arrive and document anything are Lyle Laverty with a timber counting crew which he says was about six men altogether. Laverty photographs some of the prints. Bob Titmus shows up just after that and makes 11 casts and claims to track Patty up into the brush on the mountain side where Patty seemed to squat and observe the men. No photos or an documentation of this in any form, and Titmus' tracking abilities of Bigfoot are already highly suspect from the Slick expedition. Jim McClarin shows up days after Titmus, counts about 12 - 18 tracks total, and films a walkthrough later lost.

Byrne and Dahinden later come and Green comes with McClarin a year later where they only find indistinct impressions that are not certain as to being from the original tracks. All Byrne, Dahinden, Green, and Hodgson have previously been duped by Wallace stomper tracks in the Bluff Creek area...

1960 - First year of Willow Creek Bigfoot Days Festival, Peter Byrne is duped by Ray Wallace hoaxing Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek...

Posted Image

August 1963 - Third year of Willow Creek Bigfoot Days Festival, Al Hodgson is duped by Ray Wallace hoaxing Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek...

Posted Image

August 1967 - Seventh year of Willow Creek Bigfoot Days Festival, John Green and Rene Dahinden are duped by Ray Wallace hoaxing Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek...

Posted Image

2011 - LAL, Mulder, and Hunster seriously deny Green and Dahinden were hoaxed.


Posted Image

Posted Image

Under this scenario Al DeAtley has already met with Wallace as has been claimed by Wallace in a letter to Ray Crowe and DeAtley is aware of who the preeminent Bigfoot hunters are and what their connections are. All the most prominent are invited to the first screening and immediately provided credibility to the film. Any data and material needed to confirm or deny a hoax is removed from access by researchers. No original film, no developer information, no stomp test or plaster pour footage, and a timeline that makes no sense upon any serious examination, but is brushed away as irrelevant. "Just look at the damn film!" as Dahinden said, insuring the hoax never be exposed. And that's what's happened for the last 43 years. Patterson had the motive - dying of cancer, obsessed with proving Bigfoot, he had the experience - 1961 first attempt with a rented Hollywood suit as reported by Harvey Anderson of Anderson's Sport and Camera Shop in Yakima, and he had the means - rich construction mogul brother-in-law Al DeAtley to fund and plan execution and marketing of hoax. Patterson had already been to Hollywood to meet with attorney Walter Hurst and copyright Bigfoot, he was in NorCal in the summer, he was there again in September after the Wallace hoax, after the Sept 1-4 Mt. St. Helens alleged trip, but before returning with Bob Gimlin, and then he was back in LA with Hurst to form Bigfoot Enterprises only 11 days after filming. He would have done so sooner but Green and Dahinden had persuaded him against his wishes to at least show the film to scientists at UBC first before he went barnstorming.

The PGF, I believe, has been allowed to continue because nobody really went after the means - DeAtley. Byrne tried to sort it out with DeAtley three weeks before Greg Long showed up and DeAtley told Byrne to let it go - it was a hoax and he knew it. He told Byrne that he knew the film was a hoax because Roger said he was going to film a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek just before leaving. This directly contradicts DeAtley's statements to Long that he had no contact at all with Roger between the book and the film coming out. He told Byrne to promise not to quote him for the problems it would cause in his family. He plies Long with tales of frolicking in money, feeling the film was a hoax and guilt of it, and tales of Patterson's wickedness, debauchery, and adultery and Long fails to note several key indicators that DeAtley has had far more involvement with Patterson than he is letting on, such as his knowing Heironimus through Patterson and confirming the answer he gave Heironimus when confronted by him in 1970 at the Saddle Tree club.

DeAtley recalls with vivid detail much of what they did during the marketing of the film and the first showing at his home, but when asked for a single detail as to how and where the film was developed he simply "draws a blank."

The full story of the PGF is a lot more complex than people have been led to believe.

Edited by kitakaze, 04 February 2011 - 05:23 AM.

  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#9 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 04:50 AM

Very powerful and coherent argument Kit, I got to admit.

But it’s ‘steady as we go’ for me I’m afraid. So I will chew over your words carefully later.

For now, here is as far as I have figured out regarding my own beliefs. No fireworks I’m afraid.



There is just no scenario in which we can find sufficient motive for Al DeAtley to spend his time and money in such great haste on the weekend of Friday October 20 1967. I don’t think it all happened as DeAtley, Patterson and Gimlin say it did that weekend.

So this analysis is supplementary to those which aver that no lab could have been found at such short notice, on a Saturday.

If, as he maintains to Long, DeAtley was a bigfoot despiser and not involved with Patterson’s project at all before 20 October,, it would have taken an incredible conversion to Bigfootery during Roger’s Friday phone-call to prompt DeAtley’s immediate outlay of time and money. In this scenario, the Bigfoot despiser is called out of the blue by Patterson and informed that Patterson has—he hopes ---shot some film of a bigfoot. Al has to immediately get all excited about bigfoot there and then if he immediately charters a flight, or even just agrees to receive the film and spend the next day making arrangements for immediate processing and showing of the film to Bigfoot luminaries at his home. He must be gushing mad about Bigfoot to do this—he’s busy, has a family and business to run, after all, and a reputation as a business man to think of. Not a credible conversion.

No use saying that in the phone-call Al suddenly saw the business potential of the Bigfoot stuff he had despised till then. Al the businessman would simply have said, ‘OK Roger, get your film processed and we’ll see what you got when you bring it to me. No Roger, I won’t charter a plane to bring it home. No, I wont process it tomorrow. No rush. Maybe you got something on film or maybe you didn’t. We’ll see Monday or Tuesday. And no Canadian Bigfooters. Please.’ Why should Al get all in a lather? Next week would do. He can make a hard headed assessment of business potential next week, without any outlay.

Now the alternative scenario.
If Al DeAtley had, contrary to what he tells Long, actually funded Patterson for an October hoax, why would there be such a mad rush once the mime was filmed? Why would all this special hurried effort from Al DeAtley be at all advantageous? Al could have said, ‘OK Roger, do the business at Bluff Creek that week beginning Monday16 October , bring the film back to me and we will take it from there.’ There would be nothing to be gained from heroic efforts by Roger or by Al that weekend. Time would not be of the essence.




So I don’t believe the shipping and processing of the film happened as told by DeAtley, Patterson and Gimlin. There is insufficient motive and opportunity for events to have unfolded in that way. There are so many soft spots in their stories, it seems. And the reason is--- because it didn’t happen that way. For me anyway.

I remain convinced so far that it’s a real Bigfoot not a man in a suit in the film.
























Edited by Fister Crunchman, 04 February 2011 - 04:53 AM.

  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#10 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 07:08 AM

In post #5 Kit wrote 'the film was made in the first week of October'.

Kit, I thought Patterson was down in NorCal in the first week of September?

Am I getting it wrong? What's the story for first week in October?

Was Gimlin with him?

What about Bob H and his witnesses? Does first week in October fit what he and they say?

Sorry to be a pain but this version of events does admittedly seem to stack up well.

Fister.
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#11 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,477 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 08:01 AM

Roger was supposed to be with Gimlin at Mt. St. Helens Labor Day weekend from September 1-4. The BCM tracks we know are a Wallace hoax were found right before that at the end of August. Green had just come down around the 27th investigating old tracks with the tracking dog White Lady and her handler. He goes back to Canada and boom, the next day on the 28th he gets a call from contractor Bud ryerson that fresh prints have showed up. He gets the Vancouver Sun newspaper to charter a $500 flight back down with White Lady and the handler and Dahinden. Don Abbott shows up from the Royal BC Museum on Wednesday, August 30.

Gimlin says othe next weekend after the Mt. St. Helens trip, Roger shows up in a tizzy saying there's tracks and they have to go to California. But that is all messed up because he's already farting around collecting tracks there in September what must be after the call from Hodgson about the BCM tracks...

September, 1967 Roger Patterson poured a plaster of paris cast of a left & right 9" child's track


http://www.bigfooten...m/sightings.htm

And he's talking to the Times-Standard about 9" tracks found...

He said there's strong belief that a family of these creatures may be in the area since footprints of 17, 15 and 9 inches have been reported found.


He's referring to this little guy on the right from BCM...

Posted Image

But Bob Heironimus says they went the first week of October. Gimlin says they left October 1, but Roger is reporting to the Times-Standard that they arrived a full two weeks later on October 14. Any way you slice it, P&G's versions of things are all over the place and just impossible.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#12 dozy

dozy

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 54 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 08:40 AM

Kit,

Isn't it possible that DeAtley's telling the truth about not being (financially) involved prior to the 20th?

While it's certainly true that the original (which few have seen) may have been spliced / edited for nefarious purposes, we have no way of knowing that for sure. On the other hand, the timeline is problematic.

It's possible that the film was shot and developed in the week(s) before (as you, Long and Heironimus claim and the timeline hints at), but that Al DeAtley still gets involved exactly when he says he does -- on the 20th. One possibility would be that the 20th becomes significant because that's the date on which they know for certain exactly what's on the film, having had it developed (at a normal pace, not in a 24hr rush) from the week(s) prior. That's the day DeAtley gets involved (because he knows that Roger's got something sellable); it's also the day Roger blows his trumpet to the newspapers.

Does anyone when the Sunday screening was arranged?
  • 0

#13 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 09:39 AM

Does anyone when the Sunday screening was arranged?


Good question.
There's a related one--- do we know for sure that the showing actually happened that Sunday? What's the proof other than the word of those said to be involved?
Could it have happened on another date?
See, some of the reasoning about it all presumes that Sunday 22 is a fixed and known date for a showing of the film.
But do we know for sure it happened then?

If it was another date, we might look difrently at other events around it.

Fister
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#14 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 09:43 AM

Roger was supposed to be with Gimlin at Mt. St. Helens Labor Day weekend from September 1-4. The BCM tracks we know are a Wallace hoax were found right before that at the end of August. Green had just come down around the 27th investigating old tracks with the tracking dog White Lady and her handler. He goes back to Canada and boom, the next day on the 28th he gets a call from contractor Bud ryerson that fresh prints have showed up. He gets the Vancouver Sun newspaper to charter a $500 flight back down with White Lady and the handler and Dahinden. Don Abbott shows up from the Royal BC Museum on Wednesday, August 30.

Gimlin says othe next weekend after the Mt. St. Helens trip, Roger shows up in a tizzy saying there's tracks and they have to go to California. But that is all messed up because he's already farting around collecting tracks there in September what must be after the call from Hodgson about the BCM tracks...



http://www.bigfooten...m/sightings.htm

And he's talking to the Times-Standard about 9" tracks found...



He's referring to this little guy on the right from BCM...

Posted Image

But Bob Heironimus says they went the first week of October. Gimlin says they left October 1, but Roger is reporting to the Times-Standard that they arrived a full two weeks later on October 14. Any way you slice it, P&G's versions of things are all over the place and just impossible.


Haven't we discussed reporter error? Even if correct it could just mean that's when they arrived in the immediate area. What's the earliest date for Bob Gimlin saying they left October 1? Where else did they go?

This story has Patterson and Gimlin claiming they filmed "a startled sasquatch" in SEPTEMBER. Believe everything you read?


You failed to place Ray Wallace anywhere near OM/BCM. "Hoax" is your opinion, not a fact. I haven't seen you mention Ed Schillinger saying the Wallace family was faking it and tried to get him to support their false claims.

Do you have a better source on Roger casting a nine inch track in September? I hate to admit there's something I don't know but this is the first I've read about that. I found this but it doesn't even say he cast it. Are all the casts pictured his?
  • 0

#15 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:22 AM

Guys ---could we please stick a bit closer to things DeAtley in this thread, pleasio?

I don't think Big Al donned any stompers, or poured any casting plaster, in between dishing out and taking in dollar bills---what ? Really?

Don't get cross I asked politely.

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman, 04 February 2011 - 10:24 AM.

  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#16 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:34 AM

Some posts in other topics earlier this week revealed that Wallace was a teller of tall tales (nonsensical), and I thought it was obvious that no-one should take him seriously on any issue.
(Evidence in the form of letters in Wallace's own hand is available on the web.)

I still take that view---- but Kit tells us that Al DeAtley visited Wallace with Patterson and that Wallace and DeAtley became part of the same hoax project.

I find the DeAtley visit to Wallace so difficult to picture.

Anyone got factual details or speculations, reflections, ideas to help me see DeAtley and Wallace face to face, making nicey- nicey?

It's all getting a bit like a David Lynch movie...... Twin Peaks, Yakima.......

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman, 04 February 2011 - 10:34 AM.

  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#17 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,050 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 11:05 AM

Very intruiging scenario, with considerable explanatory power regarding some details about DeAtley etc which have been tussled over many times.



Very impossible scenario....how an amateur like Roger transformed a Morris suit into Patty, within a time frame of only 9 weeks.


"Clowns to the left of me....Jokers to the right....here I am....a "one of a kind suit"... ;) ...


Posted Image


Posted Image



No longer needed--- any awkward account of how DeAtley found a lab to work Saturday and process the film in amazing short time.
It would have been processed in a timely fashion sometime earlier in October.

Also no longer needed--- any heroics with charter plane or amazingly swift postal alternatives for friday night.
The film would have been brought out of Bluff Creek and to its processing in a timely fashion sometime earlier in October.

Also not needed------ top speed driving heroics here and there all Friday evening by Roger and Bob, after equally high speed to-ing and fro-ing with casts etc that afternoon at Bluff Creek.



Needed......one Miracle Transformation. :D

Edited by SweatyYeti, 04 February 2011 - 11:06 AM.

  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#18 Spazmo

Spazmo

    Chiye-tanka

  • Inactive
  • 807 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 12:16 PM

But Bob Heironimus says they went the first week of October. Gimlin says they left October 1, but Roger is reporting to the Times-Standard that they arrived a full two weeks later on October 14. Any way you slice it, P&G's versions, as well as Bob H's versions, of things are all over the place and just impossible.


Fixed it for ya.
  • 0


#19 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 12:20 PM

Very impossible scenario....how an amateur like Roger transformed a Morris suit into Patty, within a time frame of only 9 weeks.


"Clowns to the left of me....Jokers to the right....here I am....a "one of a kind suit"... ;) ...

Needed......one Miracle Transformation. :D


Come on, Sweaty, play better than this.

The title of this thread is 'DeAtley'.

If we are going to get anywhere we have to be prepared to think about things which are uncomfortable to our present view.

I know like you do, that neither Roger nor anyone else made that beautiful thing crossing the sandbar. It's real.

But let's work for a clear account of Al DeAtley's involvement and related things, here in this thread.

A pitched battle with us all hurling suit information and cast information can be done elsewhere.

Sweaty, tell us what you think DeAtley did and didn't do, if you will. Stuff that fits with Patty being real.

Fister.
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#20 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 02:30 PM

Guys ---could we please stick a bit closer to things DeAtley in this thread, pleasio?

I don't think Big Al donned any stompers, or poured any casting plaster, in between dishing out and taking in dollar bills---what ? Really?

Don't get cross I asked politely.

Fister


Sorry (although I'm not a guy so you couldn't have meant me :P). However, who would have financed a trip by Roger to California in September prior to the filming? DeAtley? I need to know more about this.

I'm rereading Long and am up to the Angora goat business. DeAtely invested $2000 in that.
  • 0