Jump to content
Crowlogic

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

BH, Martin's question asking you if you had firsthand knowledge of the soil conditions at Blue Creek Mountain was straightforward. Your answer showed zero comprehension of what firsthand knowledge is. You were asked to explain how another poster had misused the term.

 

You repeatedly ignored and dodged the question and would only state you don't consider them a serious researcher.

 

What is flawed about dmaker's understanding of firsthand knowledge yet correct about yours?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

BH, people tend to respect someone that can admit an error. It is obvious that you did not understand the term. That is fine, who cares? But then you pointed at me and called me a failure in that regard. In civil discord, that would require you to explain where you believe my error to be, or to apologise for the false accusation. 

 

Your blatant dodging of the question is doing you more harm than if you just said you were wrong and apologised. Now you just look petty and belligerent. Why should you be taken seriously when you refuse to back up your accusations and lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong? 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
10 hours ago, dmaker said:

BH, people tend to respect someone that can admit an error. It is obvious that you did not understand the term. That is fine, who cares? But then you pointed at me and called me a failure in that regard. In civil discord, that would require you to explain where you believe my error to be, or to apologise for the false accusation. 

 

Your blatant dodging of the question is doing you more harm than if you just said you were wrong and apologised. Now you just look petty and belligerent. Why should you be taken seriously when you refuse to back up your accusations and lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong? 

 

I addressed the term as it was presented to me,

 

As far as how my responses look compared to yours .....  the record can speak for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

You have not explained why you claimed that I failed to understand the term. This is the question you are comically avoiding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Haha ! Remember a certain skeptic mentioned confirmation bias earlier...he makes me laugh ! He talks of confirmation bias...if I've I'm in error here with what you said/meant...please let me.

 

Squatchy McSquatch...."Bigfoot doesn't exist."

 

dmaker..."I am saying that I don't believe that bigfoot exists."

 

An we all know that one certain skeptic... ;) "..I consider it to be a social construct, as in not a real animal at all."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

PB, what, exactly, is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

     On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 7:53 AM, Martin said:

 

 

"All one has to do is remember the the sight was investigated by incompetent bigfoot hunters with a severe case of confirmation bias....  It was simply beyond their ability."

 

This was also added by another..."Portrait of Confirmation Bias in G Minor..."

 

My point was, I thought the confirmation bias claims funny.

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
5 hours ago, PBeaton said:

     On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 7:53 AM, Martin said:

 

 

"All one has to do is remember the the sight was investigated by incompetent bigfoot hunters with a severe case of confirmation bias....  It was simply beyond their ability."

 

This was also added by another..."Portrait of Confirmation Bias in G Minor..."

 

My point was, I thought the confirmation bias claims funny.

 

Not to mention that when the evidence is laid out that points to a real working foot as having made the tracks - they have not a single word to offer that the evidence is wrong other than to just say it like the parrot who speaks a few words it has been taught, but is unable to do any more than that. So when they cannot intelligently discuss the evidence they are confronted with - they instead blame it on bias on the part of the person(s) who has tested the evidence and can intelligently discuss that evidence. In that light it is both pathetic and funny, Pat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

All of the evidence available indicates that the "actual developing of the PGF" was done thru normal channels.

 

Bigfoot hunters haven't shown one shread of actual evidence that it was even possible to process the film as claimed. 

 

The only primary involved claims it was a hoax.

 

Fred Ishara say Forde did not process the film and if they did he would have known.

 

No next day mail service was available.

 

No record of any chartered flight has been provided. No charter service has come forward.

 

DeAtley says it was a hoax.

 

Patterson didn't have the financial means to have chartered a flight much less a courier service to shuttle the film.

 

Forde Labs in Seattle made copies of the original that had Kodak leader on the roll indicating processing in Palo Alto.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Martin
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
23 minutes ago, Martin said:

All of the evidence available indicates that the "actual developing of the PGF" was done thru normal channels.

 

Haha ! Oh really, an just what actual evidence would that be ? As I've been sayin'...speculation on both parts ! But I'd love to see your evidence !

 

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

Bigfoot hunters haven't shown one shread of actual evidence that it was even possible to process the film as claimed. 

 

Uhhh...They claimed the filmin' date was Oct 20th...an the film was indeed processed. The 2nd reel was developed after, the same mystery remains with it...yet...it was also processed. 

  

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

The only primary involved claims it was a hoax.

 

The only primary involved...did you forget Gimlin ? DeAtley thought it was a hoax because he didn't think Roger could be that lucky, that is what he told Byrne. If he actually knew it was a hoax as claimed, when he says it's a hoax...he could back up his claim quite easily. 

 

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

Fred Ishara say Forde did not process the film and if they did he would have known.

Do we have a actual quote from Ishihara sayin' he did not process the film, far as I recall seein', we have one Hsaio sayin' Ishihara only remembers processin' one film on a Saturday for the military. As OldMort mentioned, the processor wouldn't likely study or view the entire film, sounds like somethin' easily forgotten had he been lookin' at wilderness images. No one else has come forward either. 

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

No next day mail service was available.

 

Pilot...

 

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

No record of any chartered flight has been provided. No charter service has come forward.

 

You said yourself just said, researchers were incompetent, now you believe they were...huh !  ;) 

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

DeAtley says it was a hoax.

 

He said...because he didn't think Roger could be that lucky. If it was a hoax, an he knew it...as I said...he could have said it.

 

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

Patterson didn't have the financial means to have chartered a flight much less a courier service to shuttle the film.

 

Patterson uses...oh what is it...oh ya...a phone, calls DeAtley, he tells him to go here, DeAtley calls a developer, then friend/associate/pilot, they take film for developin' an bring it to DeAtley...speculation of course, but since you're doin' it. 

23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

Forde Labs in Seattle made copies of the original that had Kodak leader on the roll indicating processing in Palo Alto.

 

That is a claim that has not been established.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Martin said:

All of the evidence available indicates that the "actual developing of the PGF" was done thru normal channels.

 

Wrong as usual. It has been shown that any lab with a K-12 processor could have done the job within a few hours.

 

Quote

 

Bigfoot hunters haven't shown one shread of actual evidence that it was even possible to process the film as claimed. 

 

Wrong again. We have found that there were labs open on Saturdays in the fall because of game reels that colleges would needing developed on a game by game basis. That season ran between Sept to Dec.. So it was possible to do - it is the who and where it was done that is the question.

 

Quote

 

The only primary involved claims it was a hoax.

 

Wrong again - DeAtlley held the position the film was genuine and has been said he referenced it was a hoax.

 

Bob Gimlin and Patterson said it was real. Patterson was said to have passed a polygraph that it was not a hoax.

 

 

Quote

 

Fred Ishara say Forde did not process the film and if they did he would have known.

 

That is only an assumption on his part.

Furthermore your statement just debunked your earlier statement that it wasn't possible for the film to have been developed as claimed.

 

 

Quote

 

No next day mail service was available.

No record of any chartered flight has been provided. No charter service has come forward.

 

Wrong again - No reason for there to be a record as records were not kept for flights flown 49 years ago.

 

Wrong again - Murray's Field had pilots on call who would fly a package for hire.

Green and his party were flown to California the same day - to say that instead of people that a package could not be flown back the other way is ridiculous.

 

 

Quote

Patterson didn't have the financial means to have chartered a flight much less a courier service to shuttle the film.

 

 

Wrong again - Patterson had the means to call DeAtley to tell him of the encounter and taking a film. DeAtley had the means to pay for the film to be flown back.

 

Edited by Bigfoothunter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, Martin said:

 

 

Fred Ishara say Forde did not process the film and if they did he would have known.

 

 

 

Ishara cannot even be certain someone in his own lab didn't do it behind his back. 

We cannot be certain Ishara didn't develop it himself.

 

Further, how does Ishara know what goes on at some lab.  "He would have known" is a pretty big assumption. 

 

The point is this:

How would he be in a position to know what goes on at any other lab with any certainty?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Ishara cannot even be certain someone in his own lab didn't do it behind his back. 

We cannot be certain Ishara didn't develop it himself.

 

 

The Zapruder film was seen for the first time by the public because Robert did work in his employers lab that they didn't know about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
3 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Wrong as usual. It has been shown that any lab with a K-12 processor could have done the job within a few hours.

 

Yet no lab in the PNW was even open on Saturday for processing K-12 film. If so then who? Name the labs in the PNW who owned a k12 processor?

 

Wrong again. We have found that there were labs open on Saturdays in the fall because of game reels that colleges would needing developed on a game by game basis. That season ran between Sept to Dec.. So it was possible to do - it is the who and where it was done that is the question.

 

You have no idea if colleges even used Kodachrome II film. If so then show me an example of a college using that specific film in the PNW.

 

 

Wrong again - DeAtlley held the position the film was genuine and has been said he referenced it was a hoax.

 

DeAtley has claimed on 2 occasions that the film was a hoax.

 

Bob Gimlin and Patterson said it was real. Patterson was said to have passed a polygraph that it was not a hoax.

 

Bigfooter lors. When and where did Patterson take a polygraph? Where are the results?

 

 

 

That is only an assumption on his part.

Furthermore your statement just debunked your earlier statement that it wasn't possible for the film to have been developed as claimed.

 

So far you have named 2 places that could had the equipment to develop the film. Palo Alton and Forde in Seattle. Palo wasent open on Saturdays period and Frank Ishara said that only did rush jobs for government on saturdays.He specifically said he would have remembered if they had developed the film.

 

 

 

Wrong again - No reason for there to be a record as records were not kept for flights flown 49 years ago.

 

So who? Some service and some pilot?

 

Wrong again - Murray's Field had pilots on call who would fly a package for hire.

Green and his party were flown to California the same day - to say that instead of people that a package could not be flown back the other way is ridiculous.

 

What field was used? Are you sure it was Murray?

 

 

 

Wrong again - Patterson had the means to call DeAtley to tell him of the encounter and taking a film. DeAtley had the means to pay for the film to be flown back.

 

So DeAtley was funding Roger'saying bigfoot endeavors? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Wrong as usual. It has been shown that any lab with a K-12 processor could have done the job within a few hours.

 

 

That has never been in dispute - What is unknown is which lab had a K-12 processor and staff available at a time when they were normally closed. The only lab in Seattle that is thought to have had a K-12 was Technicolor where Ishihara worked. Just ask Murphy.

 

2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Wrong again. We have found that there were labs open on Saturdays in the fall because of game reels that colleges would needing developed on a game by game basis. That season ran between Sept to Dec.. So it was possible to do - it is the who and where it was done that is the question

 

You haven't found anything... A Photo Lab owner in Colorado mentioned that his lab sometimes developed such films. Nice job of cherry picking information. Your "find" has nothing to do with the availability of labs or a K-12 processor in Seattle and doesn't address the absurd idea that such films would be shot using Kodachrome II, the most expensive and most difficult film to process. Ask your buddy in KC how much it cost to process 3 hours (about 4,000 ft. of film) worth of KII movie film next time you chat. Processing hours of black and white film for a bunch of college jocks is totally irrelevant to whether or not a lab had a K-12 processor available for use on a Saturday. 

 

2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Wrong again - DeAtlley held the position the film was genuine and has been said he referenced it was a hoax.

 

Bob Gimlin and Patterson said it was real. Patterson was said to have passed a polygraph that it was not a hoax.

 

"Has been said," "was said to have"....Said by whom, Bigfoot Hunter? Deatley has claimed it was a hoax on more than one occasions and to various sources .

 

2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

That is only an assumption on his part.

Furthermore your statement just debunked your earlier statement that it wasn't possible for the film to have been developed as claimed.

 

 

I think Martin is confusing Forde lab with Technicolor which is where Ishihara worked,  Its possible for the film to have been developed at Technicolor because it is believed that they had the equipment, but Frank said he didn't do it and would have remembered if he had because he always viewed "special orders" using a projector. Do you think Frank is lying? If so, why?

 

2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Wrong again - No reason for there to be a record as records were not kept for flights flown 49 years ago.

 

Wrong again - Murray's Field had pilots on call who would fly a package for hire.

Green and his party were flown to California the same day - to say that instead of people that a package could not be flown back the other way is ridiculous.

 

 

The weather conditions on that day restricted any flights out of Eureka as documented in the available pilots flight logs per Byrne's research.

Green? What are you an about now? Green's trip down to Bluff Creek earlier that summer? Yes, we know planes could carry people even in those days. They flew from BC to Orleans correct? This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You are very fond of parroting Murphy. Do you ever have any ideas or opinions of your own regarding this general topic?

 

2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Wrong again - Patterson had the means to call DeAtley to tell him of the encounter and taking a film. DeAtley had the means to pay for the film to be flown back.

 

Yes, Patterson used Hodgson's phone to call Al, so he had the means. Big Al--- not so much. Wasn't he a "struggling businessman" whose company was "in the red" at the time.  How would he pay for it from Yakima? Lay out in detail the logistics of such a transaction for us please.

 

Forum member HMB has shared "first hand" knowledge of plane charter businesses from that era:

 

"I've had reservations about Murray field the following reasons:

 

1- In 1967 I worked for a small airport/ fixed base operation (flight school, air charter, plane rental). We generally closed at 5pm but in all cases were closed by dark. If someone came in wanting a charter flight we could arrange it but they would have to have cash or a local check or have a pre-approved account. Credit cards weren't happening then. Some stranger coming in during office hours promising the charter would be paid by someone in another state likely just wouldn't get service. A round-trip flight in this case could start at 225-300 dollars and the final bill considerably more for multi-engine aircraft. I don't think Bob and Roger were carrying that sort of cash.

 

2- Peter Byrne spent a lot of time with Murray Field. Of the five charter pilots they had at that time, Peter talked with four. Peter examined their log books and was satisfied none of them made the flight. The fifth fellow was deceased at the time of his inquiry. Peter tried to find next of kin who might have access to those log books but was not successful. Despite this Peter persists in thinking Murray Field is somehow the answer"

 

 

Have at it....

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...