Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Fister Crunchman

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

Recommended Posts

Bill

There's no "gleam in the eye" on any version, except the Cibachrome.

Probably an image artifact of that version.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

There's no "gleam in the eye" on any version, except the Cibachrome.

Probably an image artifact of that version.

Bill

Thanks, Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

You're welcome, Lu.

Great to have you back in the neverending saga of "AS the PGF Turns"

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

You're welcome, Lu.

Great to have you back in the neverending saga of "AS the PGF Turns"

:)

Bill

It's as though I never left. I've just been remembering why I did.

In the déjà vu department I just found three pages of posts from you, me, Crow Logic, Sweaty Yeti and Kitakaze............on JREF! And all I was trying to do was find a picture of that Wah Chang mask.

I know you can't reveal your sources but can you tell us anything more about what they said? I'm not getting an impression DeAtley had much to do with Roger and his pre-expeditions and only really got involved when he saw the film could be a money-maker.

When are you going to write a book? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Lu:

"I know you can't reveal your sources but can you tell us anything more about what they said?"

Not sure what you mean by this? Are you referencing my remark about the veracity of the Byrne/DeAtley issue? If so, I can't go into any specifics, other than to say that I have reason to doubt the accuracy of Long's description, and I personally wouldn't rely on his description of what transpired between the two men.

As to a book, I'm writing it chapter by chapter as my report effort. But whether it'll ever get published in a traditional "book" format, can't say. First I gotta figure out this film, and it sure is a hard nut to crack. Things just suddenly took another "u" turn last night, with some obscure info, which may amount to nothing, or may be a fascinating development. Don't know yet.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Ahh yes the old magic glint routine! Bahahahahaha!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Great to see so much interest in the glass-eye story. It is more important than has been recognised.

Here’s a detailed analysis of why the glass eye story is nonsense.

Four Conclusions to Draw:

1. A ludicrous story---- how and why a glass eye was (said to be) fixed onto the mask.

2. Three or more witnesses who saw, handled, wore the headpiece very soon after Bluff Creek. None of whom mention a glass eye.

3. Another ludicrous story---- BH saying the glass eye will be the clinching proof of his role as mime when the suit shows up.

4. A tired end to an investigation---Greg Long needed a surprise climax for his pot-boiler of a book and had to use this farrago of eye-nonsense to fulfil that function.

Detailed Commentary:

According to BH and his proponents, stills from the PG film show a glass eye at or below the right eye socket of the Patterson film subject. Long and BH claim it was one of Bob’s spares and was stuck to the suit by Roger at their one and only suit rehearsal.

1. The story of how and why the eye came to be attached to the suit reads like a made up tall-story:

BH is doing his one and only suited walk rehearsal for Roger and BG at Tampico. He tells Roger there’s a problem: his eyes are an inch or more behind the mask and will be invisible to camera in the turn sequence. But BH has the solution. He whips out a spare prosthetic eye he happens to have on him. In an instant, Roger has it attached to the mask ‘molded into the clay fabric or whatever he used’ () (clay fabric--WHAAAAT???). It works beautifully because the eye is visible without a hitch, there and then, when BH turns his head. It sounds like RP fixed the eye in without BH removing the headpiece, too.

Here’s the quote: (page 403 MOB). Long and BH are looking at a picture of the bigfoot:

I said to Roger, ‘I don’t know if you can see my eyes from so far away.’ So there was a simple solution. I took one of my extra prosthesis eyes, and Roger took it and—he stuck his finger forcefully on the right eye of the Bigfoot (ie in Long’s pic of Patty)---molded that eye right there into the socket of the mask, molded it into the clay fabric or whatever he used, put the eye in there, and turned the eye a little bit, and when I turned my head, the eye was looking straight at him.’

The fixing details are ludicrous. Clay fabric. Instant adhesion. Instantly satisfactory result for the filming of the head-turn. Is it likely BH would have a spare eye with him? Why would he? Do they break down or wear out? No. And they are said to be expensive.

And, would Bob H have been concerned about the eyes’ visibility to the camera anyway? No. Why would he? He’s just a wild lad on a jest he has little interest in, by his own account. 1.000 dollars is what he wants. He notices little about the whole suit, really, by his own account. And yet he is concerned about a small technical detail for the filming AND has an immediate solution for it.

2. By incredible good fortune, the film captures not too much and not too little of this eye, but just the right amount. You can’t see it clearly bulging out unrealistically from its ‘clay –fabric’ (!), but it isn’t completely invisible either. It’s in just the right amount of shadow, gleaming out there. To give BH his proof of involvement. Fantastic good luck for a good guy. Maybe. But no, come on , it’s just an untrue story.

BH and Greg Long invented this false story for a reason or two. It links BH to the main story via his most BH- distinctive feature—his glass eye. And it is a ‘hero-detail’ --- BH saves the day for the main project even though he is only a junior player. You remember this sort of stuff from films and novels, I bet.

They were looking at the pic of Patty which Long brought to an interview, noticed the eye-gleam ( a film artefact) and, bingo, they had a story which linked Bob to Patty via his most BH feature.

This does sound very Greg Long, doesn’t it?

3. The post film-day story of the eye sinks the whole eye-thing irretrievably.

Bob took the suit straight home. Lots of his people soon saw the suit. Some of his people handled it. Some donned the headpiece and walked around in it. They do not mention the eye to Long when he interviews them.

Bob did not remove the eye at any point because he tells Long he is depending on the eye being on the suit for his proof of involvement, years later. That’s an important point. BH’s story cannot stand if he, or proponents, claim he removed the eye before Opal at al saw the suit. The eye will be on the suit when the suit turns up, claims Bob. And he Bob, will be the only person able to predict the eye is there, so proving his involvement at Bluff Creek.

Therefore, there’s no way to wriggle off the hook by saying maybe BH removed the eye from the suit before Opal and the rest saw the suit.

( I know this story is full of ludicrous holes—but that is BH’s and Long’s problem, not mine)

Remember, BH offers, and Long accepts, the eye story as PROOF of BH’s involvement at Bluff Creek. That’s why, in the book, the eye story is positioned as the climax of Long’s investigation and the ‘clinching revalation’. It is delayed in the book’s sequence for maximum impact.

4. Now let’s look at the details of what Opal, Willa, and John see, and do not see, when they handle and wear the suit headpiece (Willa and John).

Check out page363: Opal Hieronimous opens the boot of here car and the suit startles her. What she says is crucial---‘Then I discovered it was just a suit. But that head laying there, you know, staring at me!’ She is frightened by the mask staring up at her.

‘Staring at me’.

But she does not mention that, oh Gothic –horror! –one of her son’s prosthetic eyes is staring up at her from the hideous head. She could not fail to mention that, if there was an eye. It would have been the glass eye that was staring at her. So,if Opal saw a suite, there was no eye on it. Bob’s eye-story is sunk.

In the afternoon, (page 364, MOB) both Willa Smith and John Miller are said to have donned the headpiece and walked around in it for fun. They make no mention of a glass eye on it. No mention of their reaction to the crazy detail of a BH eye stuck to the mask. John Miller is interviewed by Long on pages 364 365. He reports donning the headpiece, walking on the porch, looking through the window, foolin’ around in the headpiece. He says it stunk. But Miller never mentions the gruesome detail of one eye hole blocked up by one of his cousin’s false eyes. He would have, if BH story is true. It would be such a crazy, memorable detail.

I think BH’s eye-story is dead in the water.

Did any of BH’s chums at the tavern mention the eye? No.They would have, if there was an eye on the suit.—it’s the most BH detail in the BH story--- crazy Bob, hey, sticking his false eye on a bigfoot suit. What a guy. And mammary glands too.

Either BH’s people saw a different suit, so Bob’s corroboration is gone, or Bob was telling untruths about the glass eye, so Bob’s credibility is gone.

This eye story destroyed Bob Hieronimous’ credibility, either way.

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Great to see so much interest in the glass-eye story. It is more important than has been recognised.

Here’s a detailed analysis of why the the glass eye story is nonsense.

(Snip...)

In the afternoon, (page 364, MOB) both Willa Smith and John Miller are said to have donned the headpiece and walked around in it for fun. They make no mention of a glass eye on it. No mention of their reaction to the crazy detail of a BH eye stuck to the mask. John Miller is interviewed by Long on pages 364 365. He reports donning the headpiece, walking on the porch, looking through the window, foolin’ around in the headpiece. He says it stunk. But Miller never mentions the gruesome detail of one eye hole blocked up by one of his cousin’s false eyes. He would have, if BH story is true. It would be such a crazy, memorable detail.

I think BH’s eye-story is dead in the water.

Did any of BH’s chums at the tavern mention the eye? No.They would have, if there was an eye on the suit.—it’s the most BH detail in the BH story--- crazy Bob, hey, sticking his false eye on a bigfoot suit. What a guy. And mammary glands too.

Either BH’s people saw a different suit, so Bob’s corroboration is gone, or Bob was telling untruths about the glass eye, so Bob’s credibility is gone.

This eye story destroyed Bob Hieronimous’ credibility, either way.

Fister

Good assessment of yet one more of Bob H's GAFFS, Fister. :)

BUT....in response to this post of yours, earlier in this thread...

Come on, Sweaty, play better than this.

The title of this thread is 'DeAtley'.

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.

Fister.

....I'd like to say that minor 'off-topic side trails' are unavoidable, in normal conversations....and analysis.

My post, about the 'Morris suit'...was a counter-argument to kitakaze's proposed scenario for the PG Film, in which he included off-topic discussion of...

Ray Wallace...Lawrence 'Scoop' Beal...Bob Heironimus...William Roe...Morton Kunstler...Bob Gimlin...and Harvey Anderson.

(Interestingly...kit omitted Philip Morris. ;) )

But, Philip Morris is part of the package that kit is trying to sell, regarding the PG Film....and is 'fair game'...along with the rest of the characters that kitakaze mentioned...(in off-topic fashion).

I noticed that you didn't 'correct' kit, in his off-topic ramblings, Fister.

Instead...you said this to him, in response to his post...

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

My response to that post of yours...in which I posted a rebuttal to a small part of kitakaze's proposed scenario...was very simply...

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

Minor 'off-topic' side trails, or side-points, are something that just happen, in normal, everyday conversations...and on Discussion Boards. Don't worry about them, too much, Fister. :)

Again, good summary of the 'glass eye' story....despite the fact that it was off-topic.

Edited by Splash7
Remove Name Calling of Bob H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Fister, a tip 'o my scarlet red Husker hat to you, sir, and a green "+," too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

BUT....in response to this post of yours, earlier in this thread...

....I'd like to say that minor 'off-topic side trails' are unavoidable, in normal conversations....and analysis.

I noticed that you didn't 'correct' kit, in his off-topic ramblings, Fister.

Minor 'off-topic' side trails, or side-points, are something that just happen, in normal, everyday conversations...and on Discussion Boards. Don't worry about them, too much, Fister. :)

Again, good summary of the 'glass eye' story....despite the fact that it was off-topic.

You got me, SweatyYeti, you got me on all counts there. Holding up my hands here.

I'm learning all the time my man.

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Fister, a tip 'o my scarlet red Husker hat to you, sir, and a green "+," too.

Cheers my friend.

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Sometimes the ramblings and off-topic excursions lead to more, or even new information. The image may have lost some quality going from DVD to me and from message board to message board but it's certainly more accurate than some of these enhanced versions we see.

Bryne was researching the developing of the film. Researchers do things like that. DeAtely recalled using Richardson Aviation and thought he would have called Ralph to go down and get it. He would have rented the projector on Saturday and shown the film on Sunday. I don't seem to see a red flag waving. Should I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

.

Bryne was researching the developing of the film. Researchers do things like that. DeAtely recalled using Richardson Aviation and thought he would have called Ralph to go down and get it. He would have rented the projector on Saturday and shown the film on Sunday. I don't seem to see a red flag waving. Should I?

The red flags I see pointing up something not right are these:

1. DeAtley does not recall using Richardson Aviation in a believable way. He hedges it all round with 'ifs' and hypotheticalsand says he doesn't really remember.

Just read page 252 and following. 'Idon't recall' he says on many matters. He says calling the Richardsons is what he would have done.

2. Motive for all the supposed hurry is missing.

If Al is funding a hoax with Roger, why not wait till Roger gets back with the film Saturday? Process it Monday. Save yourself the cost and trouble of transporting and getting the film processed. (300 plus dollars

and your Saturday spent going for processing and projector hire. Sunday in a rush with the Bigfooters. Why? )

No motive either if Al was not funding a hoax. Let's say a lucky Roger just phoned up DeAtley unannounced and said, hey I've fimed a real bigfoot. Al despises all thing Bigfoot. He would not invest 300 plus dollars and his weekend, there and then. There's no hurry. Let Roger get the thing developed and let's see what he's got. If it's any good, then we can think about investing in it.

So--- quite apart from the difficulty of finding a lab on a Saturday to process that difficult type of film, the exciting story of Al Dropping everything, and forking out dollars to get the film asap----- there's no motive for it. And Al doesn't really remember it that way anyway, when we read his interview with Long.

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

You got me, SweatyYeti, you got me on all counts there. Holding up my hands here.

I'm learning all the time my man.

Fister

Thanks, Fister... :) I feel bad...I may have tried making my point a little too strongly, in that post. On a more positive note...it's "onward, and upward"!

Have a great day! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

The red flags I see pointing up something not right are these:

1. DeAtley does not recall using Richardson Aviation in a believable way. He hedges it all round with 'ifs' and hypotheticalsand says he doesn't really remember.

Just read page 252 and following. 'Idon't recall' he says on many matters. He says calling the Richardsons is what he would have done.

2. Motive for all the supposed hurry is missing.

If Al is funding a hoax with Roger, why not wait till Roger gets back with the film Saturday? Process it Monday. Save yourself the cost and trouble of transporting and getting the film processed. (300 plus dollars

and your Saturday spent going for processing and projector hire. Sunday in a rush with the Bigfooters. Why? )

No motive either if Al was not funding a hoax. Let's say a lucky Roger just phoned up DeAtley unannounced and said, hey I've fimed a real bigfoot. Al despises all thing Bigfoot. He would not invest 300 plus dollars and his weekend, there and then. There's no hurry. Let Roger get the thing developed and let's see what he's got. If it's any good, then we can think about investing in it.

So--- quite apart from the difficulty of finding a lab on a Saturday to process that difficult type of film, the exciting story of Al Dropping everything, and forking out dollars to get the film asap----- there's no motive for it. And Al doesn't really remember it that way anyway, when we read his interview with Long.

Fister

One reason for hurry might be to get the "bigfooters" there on the weekend before anyone had to go to work on Monday. Peter concluded the film was developed by someone accustomed to moonlighting adult film. Roger already knew where to get his Ektachrome developed. Someone may have had a little sideline going that would have been pretty profitable at the time. Roger said the guy could lose his job. Why, if the film was developed during business hours in Seattle.

Al's memory lapses are frustrating, but I can relate to that. I've been trying to recall a trip to Japan circa 1968. I remember a lot about being there, but I can't give any exact days, have no recollection of the flight there or back but I know I like Gion drums even though I'm not sure if I even heard them live. The PGF apparently wasn't the biggest thing in Al's life. He was tired of Roger's schemes but if Roger called him up saying he had the real deal the dollar signs would have been dancing in his eyes.

DeAtley regularly did business with Richardson Aviation. So, if he sent the plane rather than hiring one out of Murphy Field in Eureka, that explains a lot.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...