Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Fister Crunchman

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

Recommended Posts

Guest Fister Crunchman

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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"... ;) ...

ClownsJokersandPatty1.jpg

BlevinsPattyComp1.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

"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. "

I was wondering if you have any more reliable source for the above than Long's book, because if you are just relying on Long, sooner or later your senario will fall apart.

The sources I have (which at the moment are confidential) contridict the statement you made. So I was just curious if you have a better source than Long?

Thanks.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Bill, regarding Byrne and DeAtley's discussions with Greg Long and each other just prior to Greg Long, my source is Long. Byrne went into great detail and was very thorough. I won't ask you to divulge your source, but I will ask the manner of the contradiction. Also, without knowing the source or their relation to the interviews done by Long, I have no reason to doubt the validity of Byrne's and DeAtley's statements. They both confirmed the interview and the content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
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?

Beyond that photo of him with just such a cast? What I need is something placing him in NorCal well before October 20 sometime in the summer. Yes, I have that courtesy Bill Munns...

89614c8427372ab9f.jpg

We also have Al Hodgson saying Patterson was in and out of the area in 1967.

We also have film from Patterson's camera of him shooting open logging areas in the mountains of NorCal. It's almost as if he was scouting locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

As I noted, my sources gave me information in confidence, and I must respect that. So I'm not arguing a conclusion, just offering some friendly advice that if Long is your only source for the Byrne/DeAtley material, and you rely upon it as if it were fact, you are very likely setting yourself up for a fall.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Beyond that photo of him with just such a cast? What I need is something placing him in NorCal well before October 20 sometime in the summer. Yes, I have that courtesy Bill Munns...

89614c8427372ab9f.jpg

We also have Al Hodgson saying Patterson was in and out of the area in 1967.

We also have film from Patterson's camera of him shooting open logging areas in the mountains of NorCal. It's almost as if he was scouting locations.

Thanks very much, but that's not what I asked. I don't have a problem with Roger making several trips to California - there was the one with Jerry Merritt, e.g.. I just don't remember reading anything about nine inch casts. Laird Meadow, yes,............Is this in any of the books I might have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

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.

Roger and trips to California in Sept/Oct is a crucial topic.Really crucial.

If we are ever going to solve the puzzle via the back-story we need a reliable timeline for Roger and his NorCal vists in those months.

And details about finance from DeAtley, etc, as you say.

Has anyone ever constructed such a timeline? Or is that still to be done. Maybe it needs its own topic thread.

LAL-- you know what? Here in England the young people have started using 'guys'for everyone, male and female. Just trying to sound young and with it, which I am not.

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Roger and trips to California in Sept/Oct is a crucial topic.Really crucial.

If we are ever going to solve the puzzle via the back-story we need a reliable timeline for Roger and his NorCal vists in those months.

And details about finance from DeAtley, etc, as you say.

Has anyone ever constructed such a timeline? Or is that still to be done. Maybe it needs its own topic thread.

LAL-- you know what? Here in England the young people have started using 'guys'for everyone, male and female. Just trying to sound young and with it, which I am not.

Fister

They do here, too. I even do and I'm not young or with it. I get taken for male a lot on message boards. I don't know if it's my name or because I "post like a man". I don't mind, really, as long as people don't call me "dude".<_<

The nine inch casts may not be all that off-topic. Just when and where were they cast? My impression from Gimlin is that they didn't find anything usable when they went down in October. So where did Roger find these prints? The OM/BCM prints were 15", 13" and 12" and he wasn't there. I can't believe I missed this important piece of Roger trivia.

I'd like to know how much money DeAtley actually loaned Roger. He said he only got his money back from the film tour but that was a considerable amount, more than just a twenty here and there, with or without the goats. Roger made good money rodeoing so just how dependent was he on DeAtley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

DeAtley's selective amnesia regarding details surrounding the film developing timeline is convenient if he knew that it was impossible for it to be accomplished as either Roger or Bob G said. Impossible, that is, without chartering a plane and all the other necessary gymnastics to allow a viewing 48 hours after the filming.

I would draw a distinction between DeAtley's participation after the filming and any alleged BF collaboration leading up to it. If he indeed only got involved after the filming, I could see where he wouldn't really want to know if Patty was real or hoaxed, since it would not affect the money they were making off of the film. He appeared to have a bit of guilt in that regard, knowing there was a good chance the film was faked. So the easiest way to assuage his guilt was to officially remain ignorant. Of course, that would assume he had no part in the planning of a hoax. But who knows; he is not a stupid guy, and may have decided that the only foolproof and simple way to mitigate the timeline mystery was to say he didn't recall the details.

There are many questions I have after reading MoB, and a lot of them have nothing to do with DeAtley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

I would draw a distinction between DeAtley's participation after the filming and any alleged BF collaboration leading up to it. If he indeed only got involved after the filming, I could see where he wouldn't really want to know if Patty was real or hoaxed

.

Spot on, Pattywaggon. Important point.

It's a matter of public record that Al DeAtley played a massive part after 20 October 1967 (I think!). But that does not mean he necessarily had much of a part at all on or before that date.

We must not get carried away by any particular theory about before the filming,------ however persuasive and persistent the folks who push the theory.

Let's ask,. what's the evidence?

I don't know if Al DeAtley played a big part or a a little one, or non at all, before the 20 October weekend. What is the evidence for either proposition? (we must ask).

Nor, if he was involved, do we know if he was just benevolently indulging his sick brother in law's dream project ,without involvement, or cynically financing a hoax to make some money.

He'd be capable of either, I reckon.

So let's agree that once the film was available Big Al did his businessman thing, which he was very good at.

What he did before that? I say, don't rush in. Be boring and sift through the evidence.for a while.

Al DeAtley is very evasive and inconsistent in the Greg Long interview. About his role before the filming. We don't know yet much about why.

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

There are many questions I have after reading MoB, and a lot of them have nothing to do with DeAtley.

Me too. That book is basically a dead duck. Still, it's enjoyable to try to pick some bones out of it.

I wish we could have the tapes of Long's interviews to do some multi-perspective analysis of what gets said.

I think, if you tussle over data (like interviews) with committed people who don't agree with you, you get a lot out of it.

Long makes a very facile story out of his interview data, because there was nobody there challenging or interrogating his reading of it. He sees hoax. so he sees the interviews support it was a hoax. His wife never challenges his interpretation, though she goes every inch of the way with him into the interviews. I wish some of you folks who are felllow members here had been going over the tapes with him. Contestation of evidence produces truth, eh?

Pattywaggon, my favourite other question about MoB concerns the glass eye glued on the horse hide costume mask.

What's yours?

Fister

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...