Jump to content
Crowlogic

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

^

We did slate on older buildings a couple times(pain in the butt tryin' to save slate shingles/tiles)...like I said...same experience an equipment. It's a pain, like I said, not that common, but unless your guy was cuttin' the tiles on site, not sure the need for a specialist, unless the companies had no experience with them, we had.

 

Again...friends, people who know one another...do favors for each other all the time.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

 

 

^

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."  

Pat Kodachrome was SPECIAL PROPRIATERY KODAK PROCESSING.  Which makes the private lab part not viable no matter how many people worked there.  Roger shot himself in the foot, he didn't think it through and how many people could have known the particular requirements of developing that film.  So to the local yokels private lab could work.  We know otherwise now.

 

Now then  how do you think a non Kodak lab developed Kodachrome film when only Kodak could do it?  Another Patterson lightening in a bottle instance?  BTW I don't believe Heironmous.  I do however believe he was not the only person Patterson could have employed.  Remember he was close with ANE a movie company.  Movie companies have actors and effects people and or connections to them.  Also the plane carrying the film wouldn't have reached Patterson's area until late and then had to get to the secret lab for mystery developing.  Sooooo did the mystery lab just happen to be an all night affair and remember a stranger would have been arriving with the film and begging the favor, not Roger who claims connection with lab?  Oh and it was a Friday night or rather early weekend Saturday morning.  Sure works for me...............

 

Crowlogic,

 

"Which makes the private lab part not viable no matter how many people worked there." Then why did you bring them up ?

 

Now then, how did you completely rule out the possibility the film wasn't processed by a Kodak lab ? Where any pornos filmed in 16mm Kodachrome film durin the 60's ? Where were those filmed developed ? 

 

"Remember he was close with ANE a movie company." An just when did this occur Crowlogic...before or after the PGF ?

 

As I've said, I don't know, an neither do you. Ever hear that ol' sayin "I know that I know nothing." ?

 

Pat... 

 

That was a common happening in the 60s with pornos.     Someone would send film into a Kodak processing center with child pornography and someone at the lab would notice the content and get the film maker arrested.      If there were viable alternatives to Kodak processing it would have been used.     As I recall,  there was some need for the processor to do color balancing for color prints.  .    I have some super 8 film where the color is messed up.     The processor would not have made the right adjustments and grass would be some color other than green and human faces yellow or orange and that sort of thing.   Film was packaged in a foil package with an expiration date and was somewhat sensitive to exposure to heat in a hot car.     Bob Gimlin should know where they had the film processed.   I have vague memory of him saying it was taken to some town in California to get sent in for processing.    The rush film processing was done with the US mail.   As I remember you could get it in two days where I lived in a small town in Eastern Oregon.    I never used it because it was too expensive.  Any place in California would have been as quick because of the proximity to the bay area.  

 

I really don't know what this has to do with anything.    What are you skeptics trying to prove?    We have the film and it has the processing date right on the film.    It is on the film.    Every negative, print, and film has the processing date right on it.    Has digital pictures been out so long you have forgotten that?  

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
  • Upvote 1

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...

OldMort,

 

I use ta work roofin for years, say you needed your roof done an we were friends, say I did side jobs on the week ends, would you ask me to do a side job that was both quicker an cheaper, or go through my boss ? Same guys workin, same equipment/tools, same experience/guarantee. Who would you choose ?

 

Clearly it would likely be a friend, not some "friend", illicit manner...really, it's not like you're buyin a sawed off pump in the backroom of the local dive ! If he worked for the Kodak company an did side jobs or after hours jobs if he could, eh, it was the 60's an a known lab.  

 

Had I shot the film, I would trust the one I know willing jeopardise his job for me to do the job personally, than trust a stranger that doesn't no me nor give a BLEEP. But I grew up with people who believed their word was bond, that it meant somethin...not as common today from what I see. 

 

Pat...

Pat, processing Kodachrome film is not quite the same thing as pounding a bunch of nails while swilling beers with your buddies on a Saturday afternoon.. Please refer to my post #232 in the Munns thread. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50663-the-munns-report-3/page-12. These are the "industrial facts" from my personal experience in the industry.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

Forgive me if this is a newbie question - But, what proof do we have as to exactly when the film was shot, when it was developed, and when it was first shown to people who had no previous involvement in the search for BF? (I'll call them "outsiders".)

 

 

Thanks!

No all there is is Roger's story and Gimlin's more or less covering it.  But just stop and think for a moment.  A special film type that only Kodak develops, gets flown out of the wilderness on Friday night of Oct 20 1967 and is ready for showing on the afternoon of Oct 22 1967.   For me at least it required a bit too much bigfooter koolaid to wash that down? 

 

 

You're a one line show, Crowlogic.

 

I was standing in the place where Roger had his film developed and whether people choose not to believe it - it happened. The guy Valenti and I met told us he was there when the film was processed. He walked us through the place and had shown us some pics of the operation from that era. The film box was right out in plain view when people were at DeAtley's to view it. All someone had to do is pick it up and look at it .... it was just that no one thought to do it. And why would they when Patterson was never out of touch with these people when they needed him.

 

Furthermore - In a response about Heironimus claiming the film had been shot weeks earlier, Laverty said that an earlier filming date was impossible for he and his crew were working in that area as late as Friday morning (10/20/67). Laverty said he walked over that site and there were no footprints on it at that time. When he returned there on Monday (10/ 23/67) - the tracks were now there. 

 

Patterson had to leave the area on Saturday (10/21/67) due to heavy rain so the window of time fits the October 20, 1967 date. The film of Patty - the pouring of the cast - the track-way - etc., was when it was sunny out and after Laverty had been there as late as Friday morning just hours before the film was taken.

 

That window closes a little more considering that from the time Laverty walked over the site to the time Roger stopped at Hodgins Hardware Store on the evening of 10/20/67 is when the track-way had to of been made. The conspiracy arises from those who can't or didn't bother to make a time-line based on several events that took place in the record.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

  Bob Gimlin should know where they had the film processed.   I have vague memory of him saying it was taken to some town in California to get sent in for processing. 

 

SWWA,

 

Gimlin and Roger took the film to be air-mailed at an airport which has been said to be 'Miller's field'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

I love it!  The proponents have donned the blinders and have thus far not come to grips with the fact that Joe Blow, porno boy,  back room, mom and pop, hobby boy film lab was not able to develop Kodachrome.  Is there some problem with not understanding the word proprietary process and chemicals?  And yes Virginia this does raise serious questions about the film.  It always has.  The question was asked to Patterson in 1967 and he danced around it.  Had not Bill Munns determined that the camera master was Kodachrome the Patterson tale might stand.  But sorry there isn't a bottle big enough to hold that much lightning.  Poor cowboy rents a camera films a bigfoot and in unheard of time has the film airlifted out of wilderness California to be developed by a secret lab that somehow was able to do something that only the film manufacturer could do?  Wow are the blinders that big?   Perhaps PGF buffs need to come up with some success stories where Kodachrome color movie film was developed successfully independently of Kodak.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Bigfoot Hunter, the Forde Lab which you visited with "Valenti" processed the copies of the PGF and had nothing to do with the original processing, but I think you know that! Let me repost the facts again in case you missed them the first time around:

What "guy" did you talk to during your visit BigfootHunter? The owner of Forde Motion Picture Lab in Seattle, Rich Vedvick, is on record in Long's book as stating that they did indeed do some copy work for Patterson using the original film. That fact is not in dispute. They did not, however, have anything to do with developing that original film. He states that it had to be developed in Palo Alto. "There was nobody up here doing Kodachrome, 16mm, or Super 8 at the time." The owner of the other major photo lab in Seattle at the time, Alpha Cine, is in agreement, stating that "If it was Kodachrome, it had to be done by Kodak." and that "The technology didn't exist in the Northwest."

Again, which "guy" did you talk to?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

Furthermore - In a response about Heironimus claiming the film had been shot weeks earlier, Laverty said that an earlier filming date was impossible for he and his crew were working in that area as late as Friday morning (10/20/67). Laverty said he walked over that site and there were no footprints on it at that time. When he returned there on Monday (10/ 23/67) - the tracks were now there. 

 

Patterson had to leave the area on Saturday (10/21/67) due to heavy rain so the window of time fits the October 20, 1967 date. The film of Patty - the pouring of the cast - the track-way - etc., was when it was sunny out and after Laverty had been there as late as Friday morning just hours before the film was taken.

 

That window closes a little more considering that from the time Laverty walked over the site to the time Roger stopped at Hodgins Hardware Store on the evening of 10/20/67 is when the track-way had to of been made. The conspiracy arises from those who can't or didn't bother to make a time-line based on several events that took place in the record.

 

 

If those highlighted details are true, Bigfoothunter.....then it would mean that there wasn't any time available for Roger to have created a fake trackway, and to have wiped-out the trackway of the "actor".

 

That, in turn, means that Patty made the trackway....and had to be, like, extremely heavy...and, like....a real Sasquatch. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^Wonderful Sweaty but weeks before 10/20/67 and a few extra days before 10/20/67 are two very different things.  If Roger made the film say on 10/15/67 and sent the film to Kodak then went back and made his tracks mid day on 10'20/67 everything is still the same as history has recorded it.  Now that you know every pixel on the PGF you need to brush up on the problematic nature of Kodachrome for the independent developer to handle.   Nobody saw the site on 10/20/67 and there are no reports of anyone being on the site during the days leading up to 10/20/67.  So whether you like it or not the film could have been shot a bit earlier and the fake tracks made which gives the Patty segment time for Kodak to process it and still allow Roger his dramatic secret squirrel airlift timeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

 

^^

 

Crowlogic:   "Also the developing of Kodachrome was complex and it is that complexity that further strengthens the case against the timeline of the developing"

 

Please explain the industrial facts to me and how that strengthened the case against the timeline of the developing?

I am reposting a piece I wrote a while back about the "Industrial Facts."

I worked in a large commercial photo processing lab in the Bay Area during the early '70s. We processed almost any type of film "in house", except for the Ektachrome and Kodachrome slide and movie film , which we shipped over to the Kodak lab across the bay in Palo Alto. We would usually receive it back in 2 or 3 days for customer pickup. â€‹As far as I know, no other lab in the entire metropolitan area processed those films except Kodak itself. ...Perhaps it was different in the Great Northwest...Seattle or wherever the PGF was processed.  

Back in those days most major labs would start their work week Sunday afternoon and run around the clock until the following Friday. Three different work shifts per 24 hours. Saturday was the only day of the week that the lab was quiet and empty. The reason for working around the clock is because the processing equipment takes several hours to get up to temperature, chemical concentration needs to be analyzed, processing speed adjustments made, test strips run and checked etc before you are good to go. It is NOT just a matter of paying a technician to dunk a strip of film into a couple of containers of chemicals.

In conclusion, it would cost a pretty penny to have someone open up a closed lab and process one tiny strip of film for you.

OldMort,

You mention "As far as you know...", and perhaps it was different elsewhere.

 

Pat, processing Kodachrome film is not quite the same thing as pounding a bunch of nails while swilling beers with your buddies on a Saturday afternoon.. Please refer to my post #232 in the Munns thread. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50663-the-munns-report-3/page-12. These are the "industrial facts" from my personal experience in the industry.

 

Beer came after, they weren't just buddies...but experienced coworkers, an you missed the entire point OldMort...all it takes is knowing people.

 

What if they new someone who worked at the Kodak lab, what if they were up an runnin all that week end, so all it took was the guy they new to process the film as soon as it came in.

 

You said yourself you don't know...I'll keep it simple...was it possible ?

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I will keep it simple too Pat. There was no Kodak lab in the Pacific Northwest at the time. Just Palo Alto Ca.

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^Pat Roger  stated he had the film developed at a private place.  According to the man himself Kodak didn't process the film.  Of course this flies in the face what we've learned about Kodachrome movie film.  

 

Watch the video on this link and you have an idea what it too to develop Kodachrome.

 

http://gizmodo.com/5883480/the-last-photo-lab-to-develop-kodachrome

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

A:  Special Treatment

 

We all know friends who- if they called for a favor-- we would gladly help.   There doesn't have to be anything done illegal. 

 

Anyone in the adult world has had many times when they either received special treatment or gave special treatment.  

 

The real Q of this thread would have to be this:   Could a mechanism exist where the film could get developed in a fast turn around.  Seems reasonable that it could. 

 

B: Keeping Quiet:

 

Roger early on apparently stated he could not tell how/where the film was developed as he was keeping a confidence to protect someone who did him a favor.  Tell me how this is ANY DIFFERENT than Kit's saying he will not 1) Tell who showed him THE SUIT and 2) Agreed not to record his spy's video feed of the suit office 'break in' as to keep or honor his agreement with the mystery man.

 

Kit keeps quiet to protect someone                 =              He is considered honorable and why are we asking questions?

Roger keeps quiet to protect someone           =              He is hiding something and a liar?

 

BD

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Could a mechanism exist where the film could get developed in a fast turn around? Sure, but only if Roger or his associates personally knew someone very high up at the Kodak Lab in Palo Alto Ca . This would require that the massive processing plant be specially opened on a Saturday to process one roll of film. But Roger didn't do that, In his own words he stated that he "took it to a private lab" because he was afraid it might get stolen. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

 

  Bob Gimlin should know where they had the film processed.   I have vague memory of him saying it was taken to some town in California to get sent in for processing. 

 

SWWA,

 

Gimlin and Roger took the film to be air-mailed at an airport which has been said to be 'Miller's field'.

 

We cannot prove when they took the film but the date it was processed has to be on the film.  The date of processing is on every piece of film developed.   Any copy would have its own processing date.     Now we have people saying it was not even taken in California when they were there.    We have photos taken years later that can be corroborated with the film down to individual trees.     I suppose we are supposed to believe that someone recreated the P/G site in California to match the film created earlier in WA?   Moved around trees and selected them to match a normal growth rate?   I suppose next we will be told it was all done on a sound stage in Hollywood.     Unreal!   Talk about a stretch.    Why is it so important for you skeptics to discredit the film?   It has little bearing on the existence of BF today.   It can be totally fake and yet BF exists.   Get it?      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...