Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

Guest LAL

Yes. Porno. Fine entertainment. The story, I mean, not the porno. I would love for you to run through the scenario over how any of it makes sense. Let's start with why anyone should fear to lose their job. A porno house developed some non-porno? Gads!

Who said anything about a porno house? People shot their own films with home movie cameras. What part of moonlighting didn't you understand? Roger said the guy could lose his job. "Guy", not the whole establishment.

What's your source on Patty running while still in sight? I thought running was deduced from the prints they found when they tried to track her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
The glass eye thing you see in the cibachrome is a speck of something on the print or transparancy. It's not in the 4x5 transparancy from the true camera original of that frame, and that's one generation better than the cibachrome print you reference.

Was that posted anywhere, Bill? Because that really gave me a surprise seeing that wall-eyed thing looking not quite back at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Who said anything about a porno house? People shot their own films with home movie cameras. What part of moonlighting didn't you understand? Roger said the guy could lose his job. "Guy", not the whole establishment.

What's your source on Patty running while still in sight? I thought running was deduced from the prints they found when they tried to track her.

How about we start running some facts that can be sourced regarding any of this porno stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

"Was that posted anywhere, Bill? Because that really gave me a surprise seeing that wall-eyed thing looking not quite back at me."

I don't think so. You asked me and I replied to you.

On the porno thing, I'm the one who made the original suggestion of it as a possible idea, in the old BFF (which we regretfully can't get to today).

Anyways, it's just a thing of the time, but like other underground activities of human culture, there's no documentation, so there's no point in asking for proof because we'll never find it. It'll never solve the timeline issue, just a prospect to wonder about as a possible explanation. Maybe proof of the timeline will finally surface to show how it was done, maybe not. Maybe it'll always be just a guessing game. So any porno processing capability will never go beyond a purely speculative "what if" sort of thing.

Added:

"How about we start running some facts that can be sourced regarding any of this porno stuff?"

Maybe we could ask Charlie Sheen?

:)

Bill

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

How about we start running some facts that can be sourced regarding any of this porno stuff?

Peter Byrne suggested the film was developed by someone who had been developing adult films after hours at the lab. This showed up on a blog post about a luncheon with him several years ago. It does make sense. However just paying someone to process the film after hours makes sense too. I have a friend who couldn't do some work for me because it would be moonlighting and he could have been fired for it. He's an electrician. Some companies just have a policy like that.

How about we start running some facts that can be sourced regarding any of your rambling hoax conjectures? In the meantime I'll settle for just the one source from you. You're always asking for mine. Fair's fair. <_<

Edited by LAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The reason proving the PGF could have been faked is not my ultimate goal to me is because I've already done it, and it has already been done before me.

Really?? Almost ALL of Us must have missed that.

Showing that the PGF could have been faked does not prove that it's fake (That's a 'duh'). But, that would make it less likely to be real because:

The main reason it is likely to be real is because it looks real and because it has never been recreated to any extent beyond that which is laughable. If the CC "recreation", the Blevins suit or, the silly looking Gorilla/Bigfoot suits from the era are an integral part of any hoax theory then, that won't cut it.

If it looks real (and, it does) and it cannot be shown to have been "hoaxable", after many attempts and for decades, then it is likely not to be a hoax. That is plain and simple logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Excellent. Then Al has no reason whatsoever to open his wallet for Roger in NorCal for three entire weeks, no reason for him open his wallet to charter a plane in a storm night flight, no reason for him to open his wallet to open a 16mm film developement lab for operation on a Saturday when there is no conceivable need for such a rush and expense. 0_o

Yes. Porno. Fine entertainment. The story, I mean, not the porno. I would love for you to run through the scenario over how any of it makes sense. Let's start with why anyone should fear to lose their job. A porno house developed some non-porno? Gads!

The monies you mention are not the $75000 big payout. The monies you mention are chump change in comparison.

In the world of 1967 porn was a very underground industry. Yes its something almost everybody had (men) but its something nobody had get it? If you knew or had a connection to a porn house and developing lab and you had a face to the public you kept it well under the table even though everybody had it, yet nobody had it. DeAtley was a businessman and vied for public works contracts among other things and squeaky surface clean was the order of the day. That's why you keep mum about the development lab not to protect a lab or a technician who might have moonlighted.

Its highly unlikely that a porn lab developed the PGF anyway. The bulk of the product was fairly low grade film. That's why they were called Blue Movies back then as it had a largely blue tint and thats why Steely Dan's song makes the reference "I like your pin shot. I keep it with your letter. Done up in blueprint blue. It sure looks good on you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty, could you please indicate on that image exactly where Patty's right hand is?

It seems to me paradoxical that you would argue for an exceptionally long humerus, ulna and radius and show an image in which the body obscures the forearm and say the hand couldn't contact the thigh.

Well, here are a couple of views of Patty, from directly behind.

In the first few frames of this animation...Patty's arm appears to be several inches away from the side of her right thigh...but, then it appears to come closer to the thigh...

PattyWalkingAwayAG10Fade1B.gif

On a side note....it's interesting that, in the last few frames...Patty's right leg seems to move inwards, towards the center....as it swings forward.

It's a detail which is consistent with the left and right footprints of the trackway being nearly in-line.

This image shows a little more of the arm. It appears a little further away from the leg than it is, in some other Frames....because Patty's right leg is swung forward, and to the left...

PattyRVArm1.jpg

It's hard to say, with certainty, that Patty's fingers couldn't have brushed against the side of her leg...but it looks to me, from this rear view, that her arm is a little too far away from the leg...(laterally)...for her fingers to have contacted the leg.

But as far as her fingers bending...the fact remains that her hand doesn't turn, in the slightest....as it should, if it were being brushed by a leg moving forward.

The fingers simply curl/bend.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Peter Byrne suggested the film was developed by someone who had been developing adult films after hours at the lab. This showed up on a blog post about a luncheon with him several years ago. It does make sense. However just paying someone to process the film after hours makes sense too. I have a friend who couldn't do some work for me because it would be moonlighting and he could have been fired for it. He's an electrician. Some companies just have a policy like that.

How about we start running some facts that can be sourced regarding any of your rambling hoax conjectures? In the meantime I'll settle for just the one source from you. You're always asking for mine. Fair's fair. <_<

That possible scenario would account for some of the secrecy surrounding the development of the film...and, also account for how the film could have arrived at DeAtley's house, by Sunday morning....being either picked-up at, or delievered from, someone's home...after normal business hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Concerning proof of hoax, Bill is absolutely right that testimony needs to be probed and found to be supported by facts.

What about a suit? There are only three people who could produce a suit that would seriously challenge the veracity of the film. Patricia Patterson or Bob Gimlin or Al De Atley. They wont. If the did, there would still be serious work to do matching it up to the film.

If anyone else produces a suit supposed to be from Bluff Creek, there are insurmountable 'chain of custody' issues.

Even if it's a good suit and a good match to the film, the person producing it might just be a hoaxer or a Bob Hieronimous type limelight-seeker. Without a valid 'chain of custody' record from Bluff Creek to present, their claim would remain unsubstantiated. Ther's no proof of hoax ftrom such a suit.

Kit has nothing to put in a documentary that goes beyond his own dubious notions of 'proof' and that would do it for the rational -minded, If he had any 'proof' of a hoax at Bluff Creek, he would be busting a gut to get that documentary out, not procrastinating here and hoping tro find time to post his music videos on You-tube someday.

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThePattyArcade
Just look at this arm. How more obvious could it be? We are asked to think the Patty has the bonzo combination of being ripped like a bodybuilder, yet she has this loose hanging flab like a floppy sleeve and ridiculous bean bag crackless butt..

I think you are making a mistake in comparing Patty to a body builder. I'm sure you already know this, but men who are legitimately strong often do have a lot of bulk on their bodies.

It is possible to be physically strong and have some fat. Those guys you see in the Mr Universe competitions aren't actually all that strong, many of them starve themselves and take steroids to look they way they do.

I don't think Patty would have access to a gym or steroids, so I think she'd fit into the strongman (or strongwoman, if you prefer) category

tl:dr Stongman= actual physical strength Mr Universe= aesthetics

Here are some pictures for comparison-

tcmom23023986.jpg A strongman

arnoldschwarzeneggerroi.jpg Arnie

The guy at the top probably is stronger than Arnie, even if he doesn't look it :)

I'm just trying to clarify what you meant when you said "ripped like a body builder" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

Does it need to be 24 hours after a point is given?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

Kit:

"Was that posted anywhere, Bill? Because that really gave me a surprise seeing that wall-eyed thing looking not quite back at me."

I don't think so. You asked me and I replied to you.

Bill,

if I understood correctly, you couldn't post it if you wanted, for copyright reasons, is that right? Would it be possible to show us just a small excerpt, like her upper face with the eyes? If not, that's still cool. :)

Respectfully

- Shake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

That possible scenario would account for some of the secrecy surrounding the development of the film...and, also account for how the film could have arrived at DeAtley's house, by Sunday morning....being either picked-up at, or delievered from, someone's home...after normal business hours.

It also explains why there are no records to be found. Dahinden told Long DeAtley gave him the impression it was processed by a friend of his in Seattle (pg. 292). If DeAtely had a friend who was moonlighting in developing "questionable material" they certainly wouldn't have wanted that known. The stuff was illegal and there were reputations to be considered. For Long, DeAtely had "no recollection".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

That's interesting LAL, thanks. One thing I don't get is how a perceived or even an actually impossible time-line makes the PGF automatically fake. I guess I don't get that because, much like the plethora of hearsay and attention getting that the film has inspired over the years; the time-line has no effect what-so-ever on what we see in the film or the fact that it cannot be recreated. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...