Jump to content
Crowlogic

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf

Recommended Posts

Crowlogic

It's an established fact that the PGF was shot on Kodak Kodachrome 16mm movie film.  It is an equally established fact that Kodachrome required the very proprietary system that Kodak created for that film.. Consider for a moment that you are Roger Patterson and his cohorts and you've just invested in and or have just shot the most important film in human kinds history.  Assuming there was a real lab that could handle the film other than Kodak why risk it?  Why not take it to the best most reliable and quality lab in the form of Kodak?  Red flag IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I was going to answer to your post in the Munns thread regarding the film processing, but I am glad to see you have started a separate thread for it. Obviously, the processing time is key to establishing the validity of the timeline. The owners of the two largest processing labs in the Seattle area at the time have both stated on the record that there was no lab in the PNW capable of processing Kodachrome film and that all such film was sent to Kodak in Palo Alto. "The technology simply didn't exist in the PNW at the time."

So lets not talk about how this is unimportant and that the film stands on its own merit. Where, when and by whom was it processed?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Bigpgfdaily4a.jpg

 

 

Films of the mythical Sasquatch which will be shown to British Columbia scientists Thursday were secretly processed. This was revealed in a telephone interview with the man who claims to have filmed the monster, Roger Patterson of Yakima, Wash.

"I got them done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told. It would be ticklish having them done the standard way. The films could be stolen," said Mr. Patterson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^For a long time the developing time line seemed off to me although I can believe in many respects that where there's a will there's a way.  But on more critical analysis I realized that Patterson would have been vitally aware of how unique and irreplaceable the film he shot was.  As such a "backroom under the table" treatment of the film does not go with the precious unique material reported to be on the master film.  Why did he need to rush to develop it in the first place?  Since he couldn't have predicted that a time scale when he'd get his footage there's no clear reason why he had to rush it getting viewed so quickly.   I think the PGF Patty footage was shot a few days earlier and that they sent the film for developing at Kodak then P&G made their track line and casts so as to make it look like the whole thing happened on OCT 20.  The fact that Patterson and Co were under no obligation to have the film reviewed so soon and the impossible nature of having the film developed by a private lab indicates that there are serious and damaging elements to the story that weigh heavy against it being true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

 Regarding, "I got them done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told. It would be ticklish having them done the standard way. The films could be stolen," said Mr. Patterson." How is this man doing the processing considered trustworthy if what he is doing could jeopardize his job? The likelihood of a lone dishonest individual stealing the film is far greater than it being stolen by a reputable commercial lab. Seems like Roger wasn't thinking very clearly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^Roger was thinking like a hoaxer who had big dayglo red flag waving about the timeline.  But it's not the film being stolen it's the lack of the true method that only Kodak had for their film.  If the developing lab botched it the film was as good as gone anyway.  It's strange that Roger's precious film was ultimately handed over to ANE which is another question mark that needs to be addressed.  Why not a copy?  Copies were used for everything else to good effect.

 

Interesting Patterson says a private lab then he says a person working for a private lab might loose their job if he told.   There were big commercial film labs and a few media company labs.  But back then photo labs were big business and hobbyists were not going to be handling Kodachrome.  A private lab would mean one person working for themselves who can't loose their job because they are their own boss.  

 

So let's see we have an impossible timeline where a very specialized type of film was developed in spite of the film requiring proprietary chemicals and equipment and it was done by a private lab with multiple employees one of whom was willing to sneak the film in and jeopardize his job.  Oh and Roger trusted that person who was willing to go behind the bosses back and magically develop that film and be honest with Roger who was not present but still hundreds of miles away in Northern California and not make a copy of this unique film for himself and sell it to the highest bidder.  OK sure seems legit to me.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I was going to answer to your post in the Munns thread regarding the film processing, but I am glad to see you have started a separate thread for it. Obviously, the processing time is key to establishing the validity of the timeline. The owners of the two largest processing labs in the Seattle area at the time have both stated on the record that there was no lab in the PNW capable of processing Kodachrome film and that all such film was sent to Kodak in Palo Alto. "The technology simply didn't exist in the PNW at the time."

So lets not talk about how this is unimportant and that the film stands on its own merit. Where, when and by whom was it processed?

 

 

 Regarding, "I got them done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told. It would be ticklish having them done the standard way. The films could be stolen," said Mr. Patterson." How is this man doing the processing considered trustworthy if what he is doing could jeopardize his job? The likelihood of a lone dishonest individual stealing the film is far greater than it being stolen by a reputable commercial lab. Seems like Roger wasn't thinking very clearly!

 

 

Provenance can not be swept under the rug. It is refreshing to see forthright recognition of that from those that are on the fence about the film. Those are very good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I  respect  your opinion.  I appreciate   your insight.   I am  not on board  with  the film  not being  on the level.  I  like  Kit and he is   a nice young man. 

He  is  the worst   resourse   ever  when it comes to the Patterson film.  His  camp fire stories are worse than   the so called believers.

Imagine   a  shortsubject   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

So let's see we have an impossible timeline where a very specialized type of film was developed in spite of the film requiring proprietary chemicals and equipment and it was done by a private lab with multiple employees one of whom was willing to sneak the film in and jeopardize his job.  Oh and Roger trusted that person who was willing to go behind the bosses back and magically develop that film and be honest with Roger who was not present but still hundreds of miles away in Northern California and not make a copy of this unique film for himself and sell it to the highest bidder.  OK sure seems legit to me.

 

You have Roger with connections that could make suits that didn't exist at the time - people who could make tracks 5x deeper than other men - and people who would not even divulge their involvement or at the very least come out and say they figured out how to make the alleged Patty suit so to sell it for big $$$ to Hollywood ... so why would Roger or DeAtley not have a connection to process the film ... that would seem more legit to me than the silly theory you proposed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Where, when, and by whom was the film processed, since the technology to do so was not available in the PNW at the time?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

 Regarding, "I got them done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told. It would be ticklish having them done the standard way. The films could be stolen," said Mr. Patterson." How is this man doing the processing considered trustworthy if what he is doing could jeopardize his job? The likelihood of a lone dishonest individual stealing the film is far greater than it being stolen by a reputable commercial lab. Seems like Roger wasn't thinking very clearly!

OldMort,

 

A private place suggests familiarity, who would you trust more, a place you are familiar with or a place you weren't familiar with ?

 

If they knew the man, an he was doin them a favor by rushin the development of the film at his risk of getting in trouble with his boss...sounds trustworthy enough.

 

Pat...

ps: Crowlogic,  So you don't think private labs have employees ? 

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^I said labs were big business.  But there are private photographers who of course did their own developing.  However Kodachrome was not in the non Kodak lab possibility.  So please explain how the outlandish time line done was done in conjunction on a film requiring proprietary methods and materials?  Patterson unwittingly put his foot in his mouth with his developing story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^

Regardin private labs you said, an I quote..." A private lab would mean one person working for themselves who can't loose their job because they are their own boss."  

 

It would seem it was done by someone who had the capabilities to process the film, who or where I do not know...but neither do you.

 

The only guy you have that claims was in a suit, said he took the suit with him when Patterson an Gimlin went to tell of what happed, an we know that was Oct 20th. If you don't believe Heironimus, as most don't, then you're still up a creek with even less to go on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Pat, you ask who would I trust more to develop my film. Well, I would certainly send it to Kodak rather than some "friend" working in an illicit manner at an unknown lab. There are so many things that can go wrong during processing. I would make sure I get it done right before I unveil it, regardless of how long it takes. How did Patterson know that this guy could deliver the goods without messing up? Had Roger used this guy before and could trust him based on prior experience?

If you have just shot the most earth shattering film of all time are you going to trust this "guy who is risking his job" just for the sole purpose of showing the goods to the world the following day? I doubt it...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

It is obvious that most posters on this thread were not adults in the 1960s.     Kodak developed nearly all of the color film in the country.    You took it to your local drug store, they asked you how soon you needed it,  and you paid through the teeth to get it back quickly.    If you did not need it so quickly it took longer but was cheaper.  Most of that cost was express shipping.     It was all processed in a Kodak lab someplace.    Only larger cities had them and it tended to be regional.  You could not find a special local guy to watch over your color movie because just the movie format without prints was special processing.   Professional photographers making graduation and wedding pictures in their own labs often colored them by hand because they could only process black and white pictures.      Local photographers capable of color photography development were very rare because it is a complex chemical process.    You would not trust your local guy with something important because compared with Kodak they were rank amateurs.             

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...