Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Pgf....boggles The Mind

Recommended Posts

Wheellug

Never found the PGF boggling. What I do find boggling is the vast suggested alternatives that are created, disproved, recreated..etc.

I suppose in one way it's a good thing to try to create an alternative theory, then have it disproved. It leaves us at square one.

Edited by Wheellug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Roger said he drove to Eureka and mailed it Friday afternoon/evening and DeAtley received both rolls Saturday and had then had developed at the nearest kodachrome lab that closed at noon on Saturdays and was hundreds of miles away using a process that took somewhere between 2 hour (claimed by the guy at Dwayne's Photo who had never used or seen the K-12 process) and 36 hours ( as claimed by Kodak Labs) to complete and was premiering the PGF Sunday at his house in Yakima.

Am I missing something?

The facts.

Dwayne's Photo Lab was a true licenced Kodachrome film developer, the last one in the country that actually did process Kodachrome. Their development time was an hour or less, start to finish. Kodak's time would be the same as they were using the same machines and chemicals.

Bill

added: If it matters, I was the person who actually corresponded with the staff at Dwayne's Photo lab, to get the time estimate. So my information is firsthand, direct from the source.

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Bill,

I saw your previous post elsewhere re: processing time

It is somewhat misleading to claim that it took approx 1 hr to develop the PGF when the person you interviewed admits in their next breath that they were not familiar with the process but guessed that it would be close to one hour.

Your comments regarding this marginalize your objectivity IMHO. You are the film guy right? Then why do you settle on an answer from a person who had never (in your own words) used and was unfamiliar with the processes and procedures used to develop Kodachrome film circa 1967?

Regardless this is a big problem. 1 hour or 24 hours it is still too long to fit Patterson's timeline.

Once again if I am missing something please let me know.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Martin:

You obviously are intent on arguing the timeline as problematic, as your goal. If you have no confidence in the description of the processing of kodachrome film from an employee of a lab that processes kodachrome, because the person doesn't personally run the machine, then you are simply looking for excuses to try and exclude facts.

If you want to look at the reality of film processing, just about any film is processed in less than an hour, with negative types much faster (less procesing steps), and reversal type films (including Kodachrome) longer, because of more steps, but no matter how complicated, there's no reason it should take over an hour, true actual time elapsed from in the machine to out and dried. That goes for now, for 1967, and pretty much throughout the history of film. We're not making cheese or wine here, where aging the product production time produces a superior result.

What you are missing is a sense of perspective. The timeline has issues or problems, yes, that has been acknowledged throughout the PGF history. But the actual time it takes to process film once it is in the hands of the lab technician, that has never been an issue. The problems are where the film was processed, how long it takes to get the film to that lab, how long it takes to get the film back to the customer. Those are the issues you should be arguing, but it's hard to argue those other than speculate because the facts of that aspect of the situation are not known with certainty.

Al DeAtley had the processing done, and he conveniently doesn't recall where or how. Each of us can speculate about why he fails to recall these facts, and we can bemoan the lack of documentation, but the fact is, the absense of information simply puts the issue into the "unresolved" pile of PGF questions, and nothing can be proven either way. It remains a question.

My advice to you, for whatever it's worth, is that you need to reconsider and re-structure your arguments. The real question at hand is do you want to argue to win or argue to truly understand?

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm not doubting the development processing time. I can accept that it's a one-hour process for those limited number of facilities with the capability to do the processing. One hour, in real life, assumes they have no other work queued ahead of Al DeAtley and put Al's work at the top of the list. The timeline questions revolve around the time it would take to pick up a Saturday delivery, get to the processing facility, get to the head of the line, and if they are closed, convince someone or pay someone to do the processing off-hours, someone who had the authority and ability to keep the shop open.

The more difficult timeline is the shipment on Friday to arrive in Seattle on Saturday, as was claimed. They had filmed Patty and did several things afterwards that are (mostly) not in dispute:

- filmed the trackway and made comparisons by riding alongside and doing jump tests off a rock

- contacted the store owner in Willow Creek who came back to his then-closed store (closed at 8pm) and, around 8:30pm, told him of the sighting.

- conducted a phone interview with a reporter who transcribed the conversation and printed the story Saturday morning

- broke camp, packed equipage and horses, loaded the trailer.

It was a bit of a slow horse ride in and out of the sighting area. They had only until the mailing facility closed to get the shipment off. They have stated they "mailed" the film, some presume that means US postal, which closed at normal hours, and some believe there was a chartered aircraft, which had to be done at the larger city that was a three hour drive each way. So how did they get to each of the stops in time? Add Gimlin's statement that they left the film site when it got dark and not before, and that *really* pinches the timeline.

Edited by HardDataLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

HDL:

You are correct.

How long it takes a film to go through the processing machine (the true devlopment) isn't an issue.

The issues are:

1. Transport of film from camera operator to lab

2. How the lab is set up for processing. They usually would do the regular processing batches first, as that was the bulk of their work, and then re-adjust the machines to push or pull film (over-process to compensate for under-exposure, or under-process to compensate for over-exposure), and pushed or pulled film would likely wait until the regular processing is done)

3. A lab may not run certain types of processing every day. They may hold film until they have a sufficient volume of footage to justify running the machine. That's more common today, with less film being used and needing processing.

4. Time to inspect the film (each lab may have its own internal policies about extent of inspection before sending the film back to customers.)

5. Paperwork, how long the administrative office takes on the work order documentation

6. Sending the processed film back to the customer.

All of those can chew up time, but those times vary with each lab, and may vary day to day, depending on staffing, work load, machine maintainance, shipping methods, etc.

As we don't know the facts, we have no proof either way about the truth of how the film actually got processed. We just know it did, and we can analyze what's on the film as a result.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Sounds very similar in waiting for lab results for evidence as well Bill? :)

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Thermalman:

Yes. Same procedural bottleneck to work through.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

It grows tiresome! hears it is in the old nitshell. Show me one shred of factual proof that given the materials of the time 1967 you can reproduce what Patterson filmed that day. You can argue timelines all you want it doesnt make one bit of difference! In 45 years even with todays technology and fabrics noone has even come close to Patty. To me that is the end game of the whole argument surrounding the PGF. as they say show me the money meaning show me how it was faked. YOU CANT!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Thank you Bill.

I have no problem whether it takes 1 hour or 36 hour to develop the film.

In my original post I suggested 2 to 36 hrs.

The timeline is as or more critical as the investigation into the lens on the camera and the blur rate etc.

I am willing to consider nearly any reasonable timeline I just don't see how it could be done.

Anyone, please explain a reasonable timeline that ends Friday night in Bluff Creek on horse back and premiers Sunday night in De Atleys home.

Thank You.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Martin:

I don't attempt to explain the timeline. I acknowledge it is mired in conflicting recollections and descriptions, and thus remains a question we'll probably never have an answer to.

But an unanswered question proves nothing, for or against.

I've occasionally speculated about how it might have occurred, as have many other people, but I've resigned myself to the assumption that we'll never have the proper facts to resolve it, so I just let go of those speculations and give my attention to topics or elements of the PGF mystery I think can be solved.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Thanks Bill

I respect your work and commitment.

Maybe I should just move on.......

I have problems with Patty's fur........... and the logistics of the timeline.

I could possibly get over the "suit" issue if I could understand the film logistics........

That is why I ask and am persistent in wanting to know a reasonable explanation of the PGF time-lime since x-spider mention it re: BobH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Martin, Bill is absolutely right to stick to the film, as his efforts have yielded a lot of good data, both as to the hominid and the camera. I wouldn't want him distracted by other outside of the film -- with the exception of negotiating an inspection of the purported Kit suit.

However, it's up to others to examine with the same degree of scrutiny the timeline issues. If it were merely some logistical anomalies and minor discrepancies owing to fallible memories, ignoring the backstory would be acceptable. But people had strong motivations to produce something, and the statements that conflict include many made contemporaneous to the event and not as apt to be memory failings. So in that light, the anomalies raise some questions. So your concerns have validity in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Thanks Bill

I respect your work and commitment.

Maybe I should just move on.......

I have problems with Patty's fur........... and the logistics of the timeline.

I could possibly get over the "suit" issue if I could understand the film logistics........

LOL.....Everyone has a bad hair day some point in their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Martin:

We don't have a reasonable explanation for the timeline, because if it's true, somebody did something unreasonable, unorthodox, bent some rules or otherwise did something they don't want to admit doing. Therein lies the problem. It's like fixing parking tickets or getting a handicap parking permit when you aren't handicapped. People do these things but they aren't very forthcoming in telling us publicly how they did it.

The transport of the film may have been done by a pilot who for some reason doesn't want to admit he was flying, and the lab in Seattle may have processed the film, but under some circumstances they don't care to admit. So we're stuck with questions.

On issues of Patty's fur, I wrote a paper on the topic which is intended for publication in the Relic Hominid Journal (RHI). I don't have a publication date yet, as that is determined by Jeff Meldrum, but it specifically studies and addresses many of the more common concerns about Patty's fur. I'll post when it's published, and it may answer some of your problems with the fur.

The lines around the hip in particular troubled me for years, but the paper finally addresses those, among other anatomical features seen in the fur.

Your persistence in seeking a reasonable explanation is respectable. The film is a mystery in many respects, and challenges us to try and find the true solution.

Bill

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...