Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Fister Crunchman

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

Recommended Posts

Guest Thepattywagon

Wasn't Ralph Richardson in Greece in '67?

Not that it really matters, since DeAtley suffers from 'CRS' disease where film delivery/development is concerned. :wacko:

I don't believe DeAtley. And if he's lying, it means he is either covering up for Roger and Bob, Roger, Bob and Bob, or Roger, the Bobs and himself. But even IF he is lying about his lack of recollection, it doesn't necessarily mean that he knew the actual film was a hoax, or, if it was, just WHO was wearing the suit. He could have decided not to remember things as a simple way to tidy up the timeline mess that Roger and Bob G created, and for no other reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Lal, which scenario do you tend to go with re DeAtley's involvement?

Also, Re your last post, I just don't see DeAtley having any urgency to get the Bigfooters there on that Sunday---- why? Why not the next weekend? What is so pressing about having them see the film?

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Wasn't Ralph Richardson in Greece in '67?

Not that it really matters, since DeAtley suffers from 'CRS' disease where film delivery/development is concerned. :wacko:

I don't believe DeAtley. And if he's lying, it means he is either covering up for Roger and Bob, Roger, Bob and Bob, or Roger, the Bobs and himself. But even IF he is lying about his lack of recollection, it doesn't necessarily mean that he knew the actual film was a hoax, or, if it was, just WHO was wearing the suit. He could have decided not to remember things as a simple way to tidy up the timeline mess that Roger and Bob G created, and for no other reason.

I agree, Pattywaggon.

I don't know what the real deal was or how events actually unfolded.

But all the stuff about everyone dashing about that friday and saturday is a confection for media consumption. It doesn't ring true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So the cibachromes can bring out detail that isn't in the "Microscopic photography"?

Where did the picture that Kit posted with MK come from? Are you saying that is an artist's rendition and any other picture of Patty that shows more detail than the picture you posted are bogus?

Caddy should be embarrassed for a lot of things, including his interpretation of the Skookum cast that he claims showed testicle prints,

but in this case he should be embarrassed for claiming he could interpret anything out of that blurry shot. He may have a better reputation in the "Bigfoot community" than MK Davis but he isn't any less guilty of pulling conclusions out of the orifice that is positioned within the region of the gluteus maximus.

spittake.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackdog

spittake.jpg

It's twue, it's twue!

Ty posted a picture of the jewels here.

Edited by Blackdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You would think Bigfoot's furry grapes would be a little more impressive...

ivan-marx3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Lal, which scenario do you tend to go with re DeAtley's involvement?

Also, Re your last post, I just don't see DeAtley having any urgency to get the Bigfooters there on that Sunday---- why? Why not the next weekend? What is so pressing about having them see the film?

Fister

I'm still rereading the interview and I'm not ready to go with any of them. DeAtley may have been trying to be cool for the interview but he may have been excited out of his gourd at the time, anxious to see what Roger had, anxious to share it immediately with the others and start planning for retirement. Roger may have told him to get the others there at once. If you had a film that important would you want to wait? Roger was talking to a reporter as soon as he could get in touch with one. He was trying to get scientists to the area and Bud Abbott at some point said he'd wait to see the film. Since there'd already been a rainstorm might Roger have been anxious for scientists to document the site while there was still something to document? It was shown to scientist days later. Wouldn't they have questioned a wait of a week?

Why didn't anyone interview DeAtley on all these vital points at the time? Didn't anyone question the timeline in 1967? Here we are decades later trying to piece things together when many of the people involved are dead, missing or not remembering. Tough task. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
He was trying to get scientists to the area and Bud Abbott at some point said he'd wait to see the film.

Don Abbott, cultural anthropologist for the Royal BC Museum. He had already been there three miles away at the end of August. Patterson invited a guy already duped by Wallace, so he would have little to fear even if Abbott showed up. If Patterson really wanted dogs and wanted to actually track a great big Ladyfoot that stunk horribly and left big fat tracks, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to do. When the film wasn't accepted by scientists as proof of Bigfoot, Roger could have turned around and gone back to Bluff Creek to use all the resources DeAtley had to throw at it to track Patty. Instead they went to Hollywood and made Bigfoot Enterprises and then off barnstorming. If the PGF were done today, it wouldn't last five minutes. It's lasted 43 years because everything that needed to be done right away wasn't and the people who should have been doing it were too busy trying to vindicate their egos and beliefs. They were too busy trying to rub people's faces in the film to think wait a minute, where and how did you get that developed and where is the original film?

Bigwallace23.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

"If the PGF were done today, it wouldn't last five minutes. It's lasted 43 years because everything that needed to be done right away wasn't and the people who should have been doing it were too busy trying to vindicate their egos and beliefs. They were too busy trying to rub people's faces in the film to think wait a minute, where and how did you get that developed and where is the original film? "

I do have to differ with you on the above. The PGF has withstood 43 years of challenges because it's a genuine mystery, not a cheap hoax. I will agree that people of the time did not have much experience investigating such a film, and could not anticipate what we today want to see as documentation and preserved evidence, but we can't fault them for not being psychic and failing to see the future interest or analysis efforts we are subjecting the film to.

The film timeline, which you seem to feel is so vital to prove a hoax, is simply a curious example of human frailty, because Roger was far too experienced in getting film processed to plan a very ingenious hoax and then turn around and plan a faulty procesing timeline when he knew so very well what a believable timeline was. There is curiosity and mystery in the timeline, yes, we all know that. Something is not right about the description. But that doesn't prove a hoax with anywhere near as much certainty as you attribute it to. And the status of the film original isn't anywhere as mysterious or suspicious as you imply. It was not "missing" for at least 13 years after it was filmed, when Rene Dahinden got access to it from the film vault, and set out to work with Bruce Bonney to make the Cibachromes. So to attribute the current "missing" status to any part of an original 1967 hoax is a wild stretch of the imagination.

Bottom line is the "missing" original is utterly lame, as any kind of proof of hoax. And the timeline, while obviously flawed as described, also fails as a proof of hoax because of Roger's real experience with correct processing timelines. The irregularity in this case argues more for real world human frailty than hoax, because the accused "hoaxer" clearly knew what was right and wrong in processing claims, and wouldn't be expected to make such a mistake if his endeavor was so well planned. It's human frailty in a spontanious and unexpected situation that more often makes things "messy" for later investigators.

I know you really do feel the film is a fake, and you really do think you've solved it. I've sometimes felt that way too. But I caution you not to discount it so readily, because it still has some surprises in store, and one current piece of evidence I'm following takes Bob H. utterly and completely out of the PGF picture, once and for all. Don't know yet how it'll pan out, and I don't expect any progress real soon, but it could put everything you've done, and everything Long did, into the "irrelivent" bin. Better re-think some of your base assumptions. Just a friendly piece of advice.

Bill

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Correction: Don Abbott. I've done that before - on the phone last time. Just call me Lou Costello.

Lu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

...it still has some surprises in store...

:) That's exactly the way I look at this. We will almost certainly never be 100% sure of the entire story. And, that is another good reason for one not to grasp at every straw that just happens to adhere to their own ideas regarding the validity of the film. And, the point you made about the time-line is very interesting too. Why would anybody (especially a masterful Bigfoot hoaxer who knows full well how long it takes to get film developed) screw up what would be an easy and fairly insignificant part of a complex web of lies? That part of the 'hoax theory' (if there is any coherent version of such a thing) never made any sense either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

xspider1:

That's a flaw of the timeline proving hoax thing. A hoax is usually planned, especially if it involved getting a costume, modifying it, scouting locations, coordinating several participants, plus making up a false description of the event. You plan based on knowledge you have of what is believable. Roger knew exactly what is believable about getting film processed. He wouldn't have planned a curiously mixed up timeline. He would have planned one that was based on his actual experience, made sense in time and pipeline of effort and activity. People are more likely to do things that don't make sense to later investigators when they really didn't plan the event, but rather responded to the circumstances spontaniously, taking any window of opportunity to get the end result, getting the film processed.

At least, that's how it looks to me, and I've seen a lot of spontanious events over the years, which resulted in people doing curious things that on later consideration seemed odd and even unexplainable.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
The film timeline, which you seem to feel is so vital to prove a hoax, is simply a curious example of human frailty, because Roger was far too experienced in getting film processed to plan a very ingenious hoax and then turn around and plan a faulty procesing timeline when he knew so very well what a believable timeline was.

Special pleading. Your argument is predicated upon a notion that has no basis in fact - Roger's filmmaking and writing prowess. Your argument runs on the logic that a scew-up can't really be a screw-up because hoaxers are too smart to screw up. Hoaxers screw up and do things that astute observers show the hoax. The PGF and events around it are full of screw-ups.

I don't consider the impossible timeline vital to proving a hoax. A suit and/or a confession, yes, impossible timeline, no. The impossible timeline proves two things...

1) These men were not telling the truth about what they did.

2) PGF believers will go out of their way to maintain belief even when it is clear the people at the source of the film have invented a fake story.

Human frailty? Really? Frailty? You have an impossible sequence of events that is adhered to by three people joined in a for-profit venture. Roger is far too experienced at believable timelines and film processing? He had one unfinished film that you have never seen. What is this great experience at timelines you speak of? Professional Hollywood filmmakers make films costing far into the millions and they screw up timelines all the time, so as a person having worked in the film industry, where you get this from eludes me.

You'd think Michael Bay with $200,000,000 for Transformers 2 and years of filmmaking could get a timeline right. You'd be wrong. Roger has never even completed a film and you're having him as filming processing and timeline man extraordinaire.

Why?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Special pleading. Your argument is predicated upon a notion that has no basis in fact - Roger's filmmaking and writing prowess.

You have made a case against Bill’s views. So Kit, what’s the real story then?

Let’s walk through what happened the week beginning 16 October and ending on the Sunday 22 October 1967. Just want to see what it looks like.

Roger and Bob Gimlin go down to Bluff Creek a few days before Friday 20 October. (Or is it three weeks before?) They go in Gimlin’s truck with horses and all the equipment needed for camping in the woods.

They pass the days easily, driving the logging roads and riding the woods. No pressure.

The hoax film is already with DeAtley. It was made on an earlier expedition to Bluff Creek in September or October. It was made roughly as described by Bob Hieronimous. They know they have something they can market.

Why have they returned to Bluff Creek, then? What is the point or purpose of this expedition? Why not just announce the film in Yakima/ Seattle, get it in the newspapers and begin making money?

Is the purpose of this trip to provide authenticating witnesses? (Al Hodson, the Nor Cal newspaperman, etc) Is it also to make a more exciting/authentic media story? Ie, ‘ the minute we got the film and casts we ran out of the woods, told the local bigfoot expert and the local newspaper!! It was so exciting!!! It was real!!!!’

Maybe they thought this would raise less suspicion than pitching up at a Seattle newspaper saying, ‘Here’s a bigfoot film we shot and processed a week or two back. In Northern California. We never told anybody down there, at the time. We just brought the film home.’

But I have a slight problem here. Why did they wait till Friday, before driving down to Al Hodson? As we all know, Friday gives them a very troublesome timeline. Why didn’t they go see Al Hodson and ‘’mail the film’’ etc on the Wednesday, say? And go earlier in the day? That would give a believable timeline.

Patterson and Gimlin had plenty of downtime that week in the woods. Someone as bright and astute as Patterson would have turned things over in his mind and spotted Friday as a potential problem.

What do you think Kit? Is this the likely scenario, and we just accept that Patterson messed up a little by choosing Friday for the big day?

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

"You'd think Michael Bay with $200,000,000 for Transformers 2 and years of filmmaking could get a timeline right. You'd be wrong. Roger has never even completed a film and you're having him as filming processing and timeline man extraordinaire.

Why? "

Seriously, you can do better than a wild claim of "special pleading", when you know all too well that Roger got cameras (more than one) got film, went out and shot scenes with them, had the film processed, and in some cases, then went back to the lab and made copies of some of his footage. The Michael Bay $200M thing is a pathetic smokescreen. It's the people who do the lowest budget projects that have the most direct contact with procesing labs, because they don't have a big crew to do it for them. I made 16mm films from 1966 to 1969, and I was the director, cameraman, grip, and gofer, and I took the film to the lab myself, picked it up myself, talked to the lab people ("when will it be ready" sort of stuff) and that's how the low budget world works. To say he wouldn't know about processing if he didn't finish a film is pure silliness. Anybody who sets out to make a movie sure learns about processing timelines long before they have a finished film in the can. Every single roll must be processed, and so every time you shoot a roll, you deal with the processing timeline.

There's no "timeline man extraordinaire" thing going on here, that's just your smoke and mirrors way of trying to escape a rational discussion, with your usual grandoise exhaggeration. Processing timelines are not rocket science. You've got Kodachrome which needs a few special labs, licensed by Kodak, to process, and Ektachrome, which most any commercial lab can do, and Roger used both film stocks. Either one has an overnight turnaround in the lab itself, excluding any delivery time to the lab or to the customer. Some labs are closed on weekends, some go 24/7, depends on their business plan. Just about anybody with half a brain figures out the timelines by the second roll of film they drop off at the lab.

Dude, you're the one who keeps showing the images from Roger's footage with the VW Bus, to try and show his filming activity. Now you're in denial that he knew how film gets processed? You are smarter than that. Roger had experience with cameras, film and processing. Bite the bullit and concede that.

Kit, you really are wasting your time and energy trying to make such lame arguments, and you'd be doing us all a favor not throwing in Michael Bay, because it looks like you don't even know the difference between a film processing timeline and a film production timeline. The former is so easy to learn and know, it's astomishing, while the latter is an insane challenge for anybody to comprehend, but confusing the one with the other is not a star on your debating resume.

Can we set aside the theatrics, Kit, and have a meaningful dialogue with reasoned issues and rational examples?

:)

Bill

Added as an afterthought:

"Special pleading" is when you say a guy who made saddles and small stagecoaches is qualified to make a creature suit the first time out the door, zero prior documented experience. Special pleading is when you claim a guy can do something there's virtually no evidence he had any hands on connection to before.

Edited by Bill

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...