Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

masterbarber

Please continue the discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

RE:  Mr. Ishitara and the development (with repetitive comments by me)

 

Mort,

 

Sorry to be repetitive.  In fact you probably have more sympathy from me than many other posters on the BFF.

 

I guess I am repeating comments about Mr. Ishihara only because the proponents of a hoax continue to repeat Mr. Ishitara's comment as some sort of proof.  It is not.  I think most should agree his comments are not proof.  He may be right, and he may have had nothing to do with the PGF whatsoever.  It could also be the opposite as he may be wrong on details and/ or he may have had a Major connection the PGF and is just not telling.

 

Here is why the need for the posting:   We had a poster who claimed that Mr. Ish. would know what was going on with another lab as if that statement was certain.  By what criteria would he have ANY idea what was going on with another lab? 

 

If Mr. Ish. comments continue to appear by those saying they prove something I say they cannot necessarily take them as the truth.  So if I was being repetitive, it was in response to Mr. Ish. continuing to be served up as some sort of proof vs some sort of isolated statement of what could be his opinion only.   That opinion may be wrong or suspect.   That opinion might even have a slight outside chance of being the opinion of the man who secretly developed the film.   Also. if not him, someone like him who might also say the same thing as cover.

 

If everyone would agree to not continue to repost the statement of Mr. Ish. as some sort of proof and truth determination I see no reason for me to throw out the fact he could be wrong or even the guy who developed the film.

 

Let's all search for the truth wherever that may take us to the extent we can even know.

 

I think that clears it up for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Short video which deals with the subject of Kodachrome film processing.  this might spark good questioning:

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
15 hours ago, Backdoc said:

I guess I am repeating comments about Mr. Ishihara only because the proponents of a hoax continue to repeat Mr. Ishitara's comment as some sort of proof.  It is not.  I think most should agree his comments are not proof.  He may be right, and he may have had nothing to do with the PGF whatsoever.  It could also be the opposite as he may be wrong on details and/ or he may have had a Major connection the PGF and is just not telling.

 

 

No its not proof, but his statements in conjunction with the available evidence provide a strong case that he had no part in the processing... I guess I will repost this piece yet again as to my personal conclusions on the matter.

 

"Lets get back to the idea that one individual was able to accomplish this all alone. That person would have to possess all the overlapping skill sets, knowledge and necessary experience that would be required in this rather specialized profession. He/she would also need to have access to a facility with a K-12 processor. In 1967 there were relatively few labs in the western US that had that capability. I believe that there were probably only a handful of people on the west coast at the time who fit the bill, which brings us to one Frank Ishihara of Seattle Washington.

 

Ishihara has been mentioned (or suspected of) as being the person who developed the PGF during his tenure at Technicolor Lab in Seattle where he was responsible for installing and putting into production their K12 processor. I am certain that he was highly qualified and would be part of that small circle that I just mentioned above. I recently read a piece by investigator Roger Knights about Ishihara and am summarizing it here briefly.

Knights apparently interviewed Frank Ishihara (Head Technician at Technicolor Lab in Seattle in 1967) several years ago and offered the following information: Ishihara has claimed that he never worked on a Saturday in order to develop the PGF.  According to Ishihara, (and this is very important) the " Kodachrome II movie developing team" worked only from 12am to 8am Sunday thru Thursday. Ishihara also indicated that it would have been impossible for an employee to sneak in alone and process the film. Only Ishihara had a key to the building and he states that he would have easily been aware of someone coming in and tampering with the processor. He would have noticed that chemicals had been used and that the baths had been heated and that the chemical makeup of the baths had been altered. Also, most Kodak processors had a counter on them which indicates usage time. This too, would have alerted Ishihara since the run times of the machines were usually carefully logged. Did Ishihara do it alone? Who knows..

 

The question that needs to be answered is: What would be the motivation for withholding the truth 50 years after the fact?

 

15 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Here is why the need for the posting:   We had a poster who claimed that Mr. Ish. would know what was going on with another lab as if that statement was certain.  By what criteria would he have ANY idea what was going on with another lab? 

 

This is what Martin wrote - "Fred Ishara say Forde did not process the film and if they did he would have known."  Its clear that Martin simply made an error with the name of the lab where Ishihara worked (Technicolor). He is not the first to have done so. Murphy's work regarding the processing is riddled with similar errors. He is not implying that Ishihara was privy to the goings on at Forde Lab. Let it go.... 

 

15 hours ago, Backdoc said:

If everyone would agree to not continue to repost the statement of Mr. Ish. as some sort of proof and truth determination I see no reason for me to throw out the fact he could be wrong or even the guy who developed the film.


 Agreed... and let's also agree to examine any and all of Gimlin's statements with similar scrutiny.

 

16 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Let's all search for the truth wherever that may take us to the extent we can even know

 

That will only come if either of these two ever "confess."  If so, no matter what the final outcome, I will not hesitate to say, "Well done sir!"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

For what it is worth Mort:

 

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

 

Are you telling me you agree if a film (in this case the PGF) was processed at Forde, Fred Ishara would have known about it?  Really?

 

That is what he posted.  Do you agree with that?  If so, can you tell me how Mr. I would know about it.  I am more than willing to open minded on how.  Sounds like a pretty certain statement to me about something very unlikely.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

No, that's not what I said at all - quite the opposite. Re-read what I said slowly...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

If Martin states that what he said then so be it.  Martin can tell us.  if he did I obviously missed it.  If that is his thinking then so be it. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

For what it is worth Mort:

 

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

 

Are you telling me you agree if a film (in this case the PGF) was processed at Forde, Fred Ishara would have known about it?  Really?

 

That is what he posted.  Do you agree with that?  If so, can you tell me how Mr. I would know about it.  I am more than willing to open minded on how.  Sounds like a pretty certain statement to me about something very unlikely.

 

 

 

All it took is someone who had the means to process the film. Two respected and informed people told me that 1 - 3 people could develop a roll of film. And from a cold start it would take about an hours notice to have the temps right for the processing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

     On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 6:17 AM, 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 !

 

Quote

 

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. 

  

Quote

 

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. 

 

Quote

 

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. 

Quote

 

No next day mail service was available.

 

Pilot...

 

Quote

 

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 !  ;) 

Quote

 

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.

 

Quote

 

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. 

Quote

 

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 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^ The timeline can not be supported.

 

That seems to be the case. No lab. No processor. No mail service. Non chartered flight info. Gimlin doesn't know even though he was there..... 

 

Am I missing something?

 

Wasn't this a big deal? Scientist on the way? Tracking dogs on the way? 

 

What is missing other than blind faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
8 minutes ago, Martin said:

 Gimlin doesn't know even though he was there..... 

 

Am I missing something?

 

 

 

I think you are on this point anyway Martin,

 

hoax or not Gimlin tells Roger was on the phone for a phone call or two.  Roger said he was mailng off the film.   Gimlin would not care to where.  Roger may have said "to Al" or " to be developed".   Why would Gimlin then say, " no you must tell me exactly where or I will hold my breath until you do!"    Gimlin wouldn't give a dang esp when they would be basking in the excitement of what happened earlier.

 

if Gimlin doesn't know that does not strike me as unusual.  Why does it you?  By what reasoning should he know.

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

^ The timeline can not be supported.

 

That seems to be the case. No lab. No processor. No mail service. Non chartered flight info. Gimlin doesn't know even though he was there..... 

 

Am I missing something?

 

Wasn't this a big deal? Scientist on the way? Tracking dogs on the way? 

 

What is missing other than blind faith?

Was that a response to my answerin' your questions ?

 

Seems like a bunch more questions I could respond to, while you avoid answerin my earlier questions !

 

So, do you feel like addressin' the responses to your earlier questions Martin ?

 

Thanks Martin !

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
52 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

What is missing other than blind faith?

 

 

A 'suit wearer'.....a 'suit maker'.....a confession by either Roger, or Bob....a replication....or anything which can even be called "ambiguous", when seen under the same conditions that Patty is seen under. 

 

Is that enough of a deficiency, in the 'hoax' scenario? :) 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

SweatyYeti,

 

Haha ! He couldn't even address his own questions...tried to sidestep with more questions... reminds me of someone else...who flip flops...

 

:drinks: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×