Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Fister Crunchman

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

Recommended Posts

Guest

Kit - I never said anything about giving Gimlin a free pass. I have said numerous times I am not a "believer". I am not convinced either way of the film as a hoax or as authentic. But as Giganto stated it is entirely fair to critique BH's story on its own merit. In my mind it is not either/or - BH vs BG/RP. Someone knows the entire truth but that someone is probably not on this forum.

BH clearly indicated or implied in the audio/video clip a few posts ago that RP was shaking the camera for effect. I have watched that film from the very beginning many times and it is clear to me that Roger is moving forward while attempting to film and once he gets to a good position he settles down and we see the best part of the footage.

If you are going to come out of the closet, so-to-speak, after 30+ years and try to claim to be the actor in the most famous and contraversial bigfoot film I think you better have your story straight. BH's story is convoluted and nonsensical in numerous ways, IMO.

Sorry folks - this is a Deatley thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
If you are going to come out of the closet, so-to-speak, after 30+ years and try to claim to be the actor in the most famous and contraversial bigfoot film I think you better have your story straight. BH's story is convoluted and nonsensical in numerous ways, IMO.

Excellent. I think if you're going to claim the existence of an uncatalogued huge bipedal primate living in the woods of California, you better have your story straight.

RP and BG's story is convoluted and nonsensical in numerous ways. So we can count you as a skeptic of both the PGF and Bob Heironimus. I'm quite OK with this. I don't expect anyone to unequivocably accept Bob Heironimus' story without proof just as I would hope that people get sucked into things like the PGF without proof.

I will expect that we can see skeptical arguments from you against Patterson, Gimlin, and Heironimus. I look forward to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Excellent. I think if you're going to claim the existence of an uncatalogued huge bipedal primate living in the woods of California, you better have your story straight.

RP and BG's story is convoluted and nonsensical in numerous ways. So we can count you as a skeptic of both the PGF and Bob Heironimus. I'm quite OK with this. I don't expect anyone to unequivocably accept Bob Heironimus' story without proof just as I would hope that people get sucked into things like the PGF without proof.

I will expect that we can see skeptical arguments from you against Patterson, Gimlin, and Heironimus. I look forward to this.

Why don't you adress my point? I was talking about a very specific thing regarding BH's testimony, which you never addressed except for this ride around the inconsistencies of BG's and RP's which have absolutely nothing to do with what BH stated in that video I was referencing. BG and RP have a film, which are what these threads are about. BH has nothing but a story, a claim.

BTW I never claimed the existence of sas and is quite beside the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To further clarify my approach..I am taking the deductive reasoning approach of, if all other possibilities can be eliminated then that which is left, however implausible it may, must be the truth. IMO BH's story is weak and if I/we can eliminate him as a character in a suit then that only leaves two other possiblities, either another actor is in a suit or its real. Then move on from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree, though - Bluff Creek only being on Kodachrome doesn't need to be suspicious, it's just out of pattern.

Not at all. Anyone who has shot a lot of low budget or student type films knows that you shoot with "whatever you have on hand." I've had to shoot films with short ends and mismatched stock, because that is what we had left.

Reversal stock, such as Kodachrome and especially a short end, is exactly what I would have had loaded up in my camera if I were going out to scout locations, or shoot some B-roll in order to show to investors. Processing of this film was much easier at the time, and could be done at many local TV stations. (As I recall one of the tv stations in Pittsburgh used to be one of the bigger film processing places in the country. The warning always was that they would put your stuff in when the chemicals were weak, so it was advised not to use them). Having reversal stock available and using a short end of it in a daylight spool in the camera would have made a lot of sense, and I think wouldn't be out of pattern at all- neither suspicious or out of pattern. If he were getting ready to shoot a part of a film that was going to be used for potential mass reproduction, he would have switched out the film for one of the negative stocks- probably something like 7245.

Also, you might want to check and see if they had a CP16. I think those were available at the time, and although they are a

"sound on film" camera, you can still run regular single or double perf film through them.

The fact that Patterson got the exposure right on a reversal film stock, snap shot, and multi-speed (fps) spring wound camera, is pretty impressive.

St. G-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...