Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Twist
2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

You obviously do not know how aircraft charter works.   Pilots are payed to fly not sit around.   No fly, no pay.   That is even true for airline pilots.   The pilot would be notified they might need him but he would be free to do other flying.   Charters are pretty rare anyway.  If the flying was part of bank check processing,   he would simply divert from a normal route to pick up the film and go on his way.    It may not have been much of a diversion if his territory involved flying to the Check distribution centers in San Francisco.    

 

Right, pilots are paid to fly, not sit around. Is it your story then that a pilot SAT around by a land line for a week or two to wait for the call to fly this film to WA where it was then rush developed by a Kodak lab guy just waiting by a land line to develop a trackway film?   Remember, you just got done explaining how arranging things sans cellphone is difficult.   

 

Or did Big bad Mafia AL have the pull to re-route already chartered planes????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Twist you remind me of my sister-in-law and that is not a compliment.   She will argue with you about something she has no idea about including aviation.  .      I was a professional aviator for 38 years  and know a bit more about the subject and how pilots are paid than you do.     You are the one that used the word retainer.    The only people I know that are paid retainers are lawyers.   I said that a pilot, working for a FBO would do other flying until he was called.   Then he would then do it when his schedule allowed.  Most of them work days training students or spraying crops in places like Yakima.     An overnight trip would be easy to schedule because they normally do not work at night.   .    Corporate pilots can be on call.   But no one has claimed a corporate pilot was involved.    They work for the corporation and the paving company at that point was not big enough to have owned an airplane and employed a pilot.     .   The bank check planes were not chartered.   They operated under a contract with the banks.    Just like airlines today fly mail under contract with the Post Office not charter.   And like the little FED EX airplanes fly to all the small airports.    They are not chartered or owned by FedEx.   They fly packages under contract to Fedex who requires them to be painted that way.               If you sit at an airport, you can watch the mail loaded into the airplanes of major airlines along with passenger baggage.        As long as a bank check flyer complied with their contract with the banks, they can fly their own routes and schedules and haul anything but passengers,   like film, motion pictures,  or unexposed 16 MM for a cowboy.      .     Different rules apply to airplanes hauling passengers.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Thanks for the explanation SWWASAS, but was it necessary to be slandering your sister in law online where she is unable to defend herself? 

 

Even after your explanation I do not see how setting up a hoax while out on a camping trip is drastically more complicated than setting lining up multiple pieces and players to rush fly and process a KII film on the weekend.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
12 minutes ago, Twist said:

Even after your explanation I do not see how setting up a hoax while out on a camping trip is drastically more complicated than setting lining up multiple pieces and players to rush fly and process a KII film on the weekend.   

 

Al Deatley Jr. stated he would've used Richardson Aviation. Sind he did not positively SAY that that is what he did I would think his relationship with the owner, Ralph Richardson, would include Ralph's wife who handled all of the charter scheduling. So Al could have simply called her early evening n Oct 20th and requested that she contact one of the pilots to fly the round trip to Eureka from.....Seattle?...Yakima? And then while the pilot is in the air call the owner of the lab (if it was NOT DeAtley) and tell him, or have him tell his tech, to open the lab and get the chemicals and the machine ready to process KII film.

 

None of that would be complicated apparently for the son of the owner of Superior Paving to pull off and pull everything off after hours. Costly yes, but not complicated.

 

The PGF however WOULD be complicated when one thinks of the 'costume', the location, getting the timing of the actual Patty walk with Gimlin on site holding the gun and recovering horses,the acting involved after the event and getting the film to Eureka. Gimlin covering the tracks with bark or cardboard in the dead of night because of the rain...............and so much else and THAT, my friend, would be VERY complicated to pull off as a hoax compared to DeAtley calling a couple of businesses and paying who knows how much money to make sure the film got delivered and then developed for Sunday afternoon's showing.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

^ Exactly!  PGf detractors need for 'the film development time-line' to have been impossible because that's evidently all they've got (and it isn't much, by any stretch of the imagination.)  And, the notion of a PGf hoax requires about ten thousand times more complexity than a plane being used to expedite the transportation of a film to a lab for after-hours development.  That's not rocket science, but a career denialist will never see that because they are, by definition, very good at denying.  :wacko:

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

xspider wrote:

Quote

Exactly!  PGf detractors need for 'the film development time-line'  to have been impossible because that's evidently all they've got...

 

It has been shown that the 'film development timeline' was not impossible, xspider.

 

Hence...those who need it to be impossible have lost the battle.  :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

One way we know the timeline wasn't "impossible" is:

Roger and Bob met with two people the evening of the 20th who could have confirmed that or exposed a lie if anyone had asked.

Roger called the newspaper reporter on the night of the 20th at the same meeting with Al H. and Syl McCoy at the Ranger Station. The reporter could have confirmed this or said they spoke on a different night, if anyone had asked. In the Oct. 21st issue, the article says the call was on the 20th. It wouldn't make any difference to the newspaper just what day the call to the reporter was made. The actual date Roger called doesn't change the story. The paper's focus would be the story itself so if they say it was made on the evening of the 20th, there's no reason to doubt the date. 

There's zero evidence that says the film was made before the 20th.

 

The important factor; the developed film was at Al D.'s house by the 22nd.

 

The bottom line: Regardless of any speculation of how it all happened, and with zero evidence the film was made before the 20th, we know a pilot flew the film out and we know a lab developed the film on the 21st, since several people viewed it at Al D.'s on the 22nd. The viewing on the 22nd isn't disputed by anyone and cannot be ignored when trying to poke holes and discredit the timeline. 

 

The logical conclusion: With zero evidence the film was made before the 20th and with the developed film being at Al's house by the 22nd, it would appear the timeline wasn't 'impossible'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ Repeatability is more or less irrelevant.   Like requiring winning the lottery twice before anyone believes you won once, it just does not work that way.   Attacking the timeline does not address the CONTENT OF THE FILM.   Nobody has been able to produce "the suit."  Nobody has been able to reproduce "the suit."   Nobody has been able to adequately reproduce "the walk."   Nobody can reproduce the combination of step length, track size, and track depth.   Obviously, the scoftics set up the repeatability of the timeline as a strawman to attack because the film itself appears, after all this time, to remain beyond rational deniability.   

 

MIB 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

I agree; the figure in the film is the real key. If there is no analysis that points to "human in a suit", why should we believe it really is a human? 

I know I've said before; analysis of the figure in the film and the timeline (even with the blanks filled in) are not going to point in opposite directions. 

 

Something that carries a lot of weight with me is: How likely is it a couple of cowboys without much money would make a fake Bigfoot film and then take it to two movie studios and let people with expertise in special effects watch it? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

What the believers sometimes fail to emphasize:

 

The PGF timeline is not completely clear.  The film itself required special developing which made its' development requirements more unique and limiting.  The window to get this development done was not impossible but was not easy either.

 

What the skeptics fails to ignore:

 

Nearly anything and everything on the film! That subject on the film exhibits biomechanical and other traits which nearly dare the skeptic to try to produce it with a suit.

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
17 hours ago, Twist said:

Thanks for the explanation SWWASAS, but was it necessary to be slandering your sister in law online where she is unable to defend herself? 

 

Even after your explanation I do not see how setting up a hoax while out on a camping trip is drastically more complicated than setting lining up multiple pieces and players to rush fly and process a KII film on the weekend.   

My sister-in-law while well meaning thinks she knows everything but is really clueless about most things.  .    Slander is making false or malicious statements, unless you consider a comparison to you slander.     An actual example of something she did,    is upon seeing me reach into the garbage disposal in my own house,   because it was making a  sound like there might be silverware in it,   she informed me that you did not stick your hand in it to turn it on, but turn it on with the switch on the wall which she then pointed to.       I was glad that she did not flip the switch when my hand was in it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
47 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

What the believers sometimes fail to emphasize:

 

The PGF timeline is not completely clear.  The film itself required special developing which made its' development requirements more unique and limiting.  The window to get this development done was not impossible but was not easy either.

 

I have to disagree with that.  I think there is something critical you're missing.   P&G, DeAtley, the pilot .. were all doing things "organically" in the moment.   Whether it was easy or not doesn't matter, they didn't have history's schedule to replicate.   They just did the best they could at the time.   The challenge is ours, not theirs.

 

MIB 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

My sister-in-law while well meaning thinks she knows everything but is really clueless about most things.  .    Slander is making false or malicious statements, unless you consider a comparison to you slander.     An actual example of something she did,    is upon seeing me reach into the garbage disposal in my own house,   because it was making a  sound like there might be silverware in it,   she informed me that you did not stick your hand in it to turn it on, but turn it on with the switch on the wall which she then pointed to.       I was glad that she did not flip the switch when my hand was in it.  

 

That was meant to be tongue and cheek.  Sorry should have put a /s or jk.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I have to disagree with that.  I think there is something critical you're missing.   P&G, DeAtley, the pilot .. were all doing things "organically" in the moment.   Whether it was easy or not doesn't matter, they didn't have history's schedule to replicate.   They just did the best they could at the time.   The challenge is ours, not theirs.

 

MIB 

 

 

 

MIB,

 

I don't disagree.  I could say the more hoops needed, the harder it would be, but not by any means impossible or even unlikely.  It  just requires more effort to make it happen. 

 

For me, they found a way to get the film to a normal regular lab and had a person agree by chance or favor to develop the film.   If they did not get it there by then they would have had it there by Monday and shown the movie on Tuesday.  Big deal.  Roger even planned to stay in the area longer anyway if his story is to be believed to try to get more footage.

 

It is not as if Al was chartering a flight when he had never done so before.  It was not as if Al was using some courier or whatever having never done so before. It sounds like in the usual course of his business he had done so many times.   He did what he was familiar with.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

 

For some reason, I had never thought about why Roger and Bob took their pack horse with them on the afternoon of the encounter. There wouldn't be any need for a pack horse if they planned to search a few hours then go back to camp.

Something I thought rather interesting was Bob telling John Green in their interview that on the day of the encounter Roger said they should get their gear together and take it with them when they rode out after lunch so they could stay if they had to and could stay later into the night if they needed to. 

That's why they had the pack horse with them; I don't know why that never occurred to me.

This speaks in favor of everything on the level.

 

Another thing that speaks against a hoax; They got their gear together but the one item they didn't take with them was plaster of paris.

If they had planned a hoax and knew they would be casting some of their fake tracks, wouldn't taking some plaster of paris be a no brainer?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×