Jump to content

DeAtley interviewed by proponents?


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
18 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^^ Could you elaborate on the statement above, please? Are you claiming deliberate hoaxing?

 

If taking a photo and flipping it horizontally and/or vertical while representing it as a different size and location each time in each case is hoaxing - then you betcha!

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

If taking a photo and flipping it horizontally and/or vertical while representing it as a different size and location each time in each case is hoaxing - then you betcha!

 

What about taking a photo and stretching/changing the aspect ratio to match another photo in relation to size?  Just curious.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
5 hours ago, Twist said:

 

What about taking a photo and stretching/changing the aspect ratio to match another photo in relation to size?  Just curious.

 

I think I had made it clear at the time as to what the difference was and I believe you to be intelligent enough to have understood it quite clearly. However in the event you have forgotten, then I will summarize that discussion rather briefly. The image you speak of was created because there was a couple of shall we say 'regulars' for a better term who were pretending not to see the gap between the toes on the wood carving and how that related to the outer track wall of the ground impression ... I posted a large image of that track-wall that the toes made when forming the ground impression and placed an insert of the carving with in it in such a way that even those with the poorest of eyesight would have to recognize the "V" shaped gaps between the wooden toes. That no matter how one pressed the stiff wood carving into the dust - the contour of the gaps would always be present much like the design of the sole impressions of the shoe prints seen all around them. That insert was always referenced as the Wallace carving that had the split in the heel. When I originally offered that ground impression with the Wallace carving it was like this ...

86036d39-8f2d-459e-98e9-e9dd7f8b8a26_zps

 

And when the particular 'regulars' wanted to pretend not to see the difference between the two - I helped them by widening the insert of the carving so that even Ray Charles should have been able to run his hand over a computer screen and feel those gaps. Aspect Ratio changes had been common place among these same 'regulars' when attempting to show matches between carvings and ground impressions each time the two images being used were photographed at slightly different angles to each other. No one ever complained then when that was actually the time to do so. It was only when Kitakaze couldn't find a sinister reason for my using that widened insert image that his only alternative was to all of a sudden come up with a distraction about the aspect ratio change. My use of that widened insert was never about altering two images to make them match where size and width was an issue, but to show the gaps between the toe tips that the 'regulars' were pretending not to see. In Byrne's case he took the same photo and represented it as a photo of a track find in altogether different locations and of different sizes ... not to mention flipping it either horizontally or vertically to give a false impression that it was a photo of a find in what ever location he was reference it to have been taken at.

 

Did you not participate in those particular discussions - just curious?    :)

 

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
4 hours ago, Twist said:

I appreciate the detailed response however that was not at all related to why I was asking.

 

You aren't shy, so feel free to better explain yourself if you think I have misunderstood your remark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know?

 

Considering 1967 and what was available and the remote area of Bluff Creek, I would say they did a decent job documenting the PGF site.  Considering the excitement and the few hours of daylight in the October mountains, this would hold true for Roger and Bob.  If the skeptics can stay with me here for a minute, they filmed the creature, took some plaster casts, filmed the track way, did the jump test.  Others made crude maps and photos of the site initially (Lyle L.) as well as photos over time and movies (Jim McClarin walk).

 

It seems Roger did all he could to document the PGF event the best he could given what he had at the time to use and considering the excitement and time crunch.  He told others where the site was and they did some documenting themselves.

 

What about statements attributed to someone.  What did they really say?

 

We can then watch TV video or radio audio of who said what about what.  We can hear this for ourselves and decide what it means and in what context.  If there is a dispute, we can, "Roll the tape."

 

As far a DeAtley or others are concerned we really don't know what was said exactly and in what context. I don't have a problem with the idea he might have said, "its a hoax" just to shut someone up.  The problem is if someone writes in some article or book 'This person said that' we have that author to rely on.  This assumes the author has no bias as well.  Al could have said exactly what was attributed to him.

 

This is why it is hard with most things PGF- wise to have solid resources on some of these interviews.  There is no one who would say Bob H denied saying the soil at bluff Creek was 'white as snow' since we can hear the saved radio interview for ourselves.  What did Al say and in what interview.  Can we hear his words?  What did any of the players in the PGF saga say.  What was the context?  When was it said- early on or years later?

 

The skeptic relays on things which are less reliable -- "who said what? "

The believers tend to rely more on the objective- the film, tracks, trackway footage. (ok so we can call it the assumed objective since the skeptic will say those things are hoaxed)

 

This is not to say each only focuses on those things as each is  aware of both. It just seems the skeptic does most of their PGF shopping where they expect to find conflict.

 

BD

 

 

 

 

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

 

You aren't shy, so feel free to better explain yourself if you think I have misunderstood your remark.

 

Theres nothing to explain.  My question is simply what it was.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
HOLDMYBEER

This has taken far too long so I will post the essential details. A review of old notes and journals is still taking place but I will lay out a foundation. This same post will be placed in several relevant threads.

 

From about 1992-1997 Peter Byrne operated a full-time project out of Parkdale, Oregon. He had a major sponsor and a full-time staff dedicated to somehow resolving the sasquatch mystery. One of their investigational approaches focused on the study of the Patterson Gimlin Film. With the permission of the Patterson family they scanned a high-resolution copy of the film. It was then analyzed by Jeff Glickman of BlitzMatch. At the same time a paper was written by Peter tracing the history and provenance of the film,” BEING A PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION  of THE 1967 PATTERSON-GIMLIN FOOTAGE.” Fortunately I have enjoyed access to the file that contains a number of original documents and the early drafts of this paper.  Apparently the paper was first written in 1996 with changes made in 1999, 2000 and 2005.

 

While looking over the file I came across a draft page of footnotes used in the paper. It is in typed form with a number of hand-written edits. Footnote #33 (appearing on page 34 of the original paper) discusses what was then known about the transport of the film from Bluff Creek to Yakima in  October 1967. The footnotes relates in some detail Peter’s contact with the pilots working out of Murray Field and his inability to find documentation of any flights having transported the film. The footnote continues on to detail, based on two conversations in 1995 and 1996, the claims of Al DeAtley that Patterson simply handed him (DeAtley) the film. The footnote goes on to reason, based on Peter’s review of pilot’s records at Murray Field and upon DeAtley’s statements, that Patterson learned the film would not likely get out on Friday or Saturday (weather) so he simple carried the film to Yakima and handed it to DeAtley.

 

Peter has always characterized DeAtley’s opinion of the film as likely a hoax but I have never before heard the DeAtley statements that Patterson personally handed him the film. Over the last several months I have urged Peter to review his journals and notes to see if there is more information that he might have forgotten. Initially he was resistant (“I don’t care what anyone thinks, I think the film is real”) but has more recently come to understand the importance of these facts and is slowly going into archived material to see if there might be more.

 

I do not have permission to copy Peter’s paper. I am urging him to edit it for further publication, perhaps here with his permission.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

This is just fantastic evidence of hoaxer DeAtley being busted.

 

Byrne goes deep and finds no evidence of the film being air shipped. 

 

Speaks to DeAtley about it and ninja tells him twice that Patterson didn't air ship it but handed it to him.

 

That would have to have been on Sunday.

 

You know, that day they showed it.

 

On. Sunday.

 



Circle them wagons, true believers.

 

Your icon just took one more great, big, fat nail in the coffin.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
5 hours ago, kitakaze said:

This is just fantastic evidence of hoaxer DeAtley being busted.

 

Byrne goes deep and finds no evidence of the film being air shipped. 

 

Speaks to DeAtley about it and ninja tells him twice that Patterson didn't air ship it but handed it to him.

 

That would have to have been on Sunday.

 

You know, that day they showed it.

 

On. Sunday.

 



Circle them wagons, true believers.

 

Your icon just took one more great, big, fat nail in the coffin.

 

Very much a diversion. You're dealing with fallible Humans. I'm dealing with this video and why there's only 59 seconds of what could be minutes of more hoaxed film. The debate on this over and you know it. Try as anyone might this footage is what's important. And I don't need a circle of wagons to think what I think. P&G couldn't have known they got the filming right until it was developed no matter HOW the development happened. Not shooting more of ol' Hot Bob in the hot suit when everything was in place and good to go makes zero sense. It's a glaring issue in my book.

 

rFuelVu1.gif?w=970

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

"Try as anyone might this footage is what's important."

Hiflier; to me, you couldn't have said it any better. If someone thinks the film is fake, then

they need to analyze it and prove it's fake, and not get sidetracked on side details that won't lead anywhere.

Does it really make any difference just who developed the film? The name of whoever developed the film can't explain the figure's distinctly non-human body proportions, or why it's tracks were 5 times deeper than actual human tracks left behind in the same soil.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Thank you. There comes a time when chaff is recognized as chaff. So is there any individual personal record by Dahinden, Green, or McClarin for viewing the PGF at DeAtley's in Yakima, WA on Sunday October 22, 1967? Kinda important.......and I think you already know why I'm asking. 

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

hiflier,

 

It has always been mentioned they viewed the film on sunday the 22nd, if they didn't view it on that day, surely they would have corrected the date.

Rene's book Sasquatch/Bigfoot, pg 115 mentions Rene arrived in Willow Creek the day after filming, pg 116 mentions "Next day, the group viewed the film at the Yakima home of Patterson's brother-in-law."

 

Pat...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Thanks, PB. That works. So unless Rene Dahinden got it wrong then it helps greatly in sorting out the three film "hand-off" stories. Because if the film was definitely shown on Sunday it narrows down when the film must have been delivered and when it must have been processed. This is important to this argument regarding timelines and everything else. It also tells me that Patterson and Gimlin were not going to hand this film off to just anyone. The thought being this: If it was hoaxed and Hieronimus was in on it then why would Gimlin and Patterson trust the film to him knowing he had already involved himself in something shady. In other words, there would be no reason to trust that Hieronimus wouldn't run off with it for himself. Showing the film on Sunday also demonstrated the intense importance of what had occurred and how critical it was to get it to someone they were fully confident in being connected to someone who had the money to get the job done quickly and securely on a weekend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...