Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

OkieFoot
BFF Donor
6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

it makes sense for Roger and Bob to think they were staying longer and then when conditions changed they left.  These were:

 

-Weather changing 

-No tracking dogs coming

-Being tired.

-The realization they got lucky once and they were unlikely to be so lucky again.   This faced with other factors might be enough to have them go home.  Then, as they thought of home the thoughts would turn to the hope of seeing the developed product when they got back/ vindication.

 

 

For me this explains how they could mail the film out urgently and then end up traveling back to that same location (Yakima) anyway a day later.   Yes, had they known that they could have just carried the film with them.  It is something I THINK I would have done but then again, they had another roll of film and maybe thought they might get another.

 

They surely knew their best chance of possibly spotting the creature again was in the immediate days after their initial encounter in the afternoon of the 20th and that the longer they waited to do more searching their chances of seeing it again would decrease. And they probably were rather slim to begin with.

 

So it makes sense they wanted to get the film developed quickly so they could get a quicker start on a new search if nothing was on the film. Until Mother Nature intervened.  

Edited by OkieFoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Neither one of them thought they had anythin' worth while on film, which is understandable with the distance an the runnin' etc.. They've said this in the past.

 

They got footage they weren't sure showed anythin', got casts made, an had just seen one of possibly three sasquatches(based on the tracks reported earlier). If the film showed nothin' as was thought, an quite possible, gettin' to town an gettin' folks, perhaps scientists an trackin' dogs to the scene seems logical.

Stayin' in the area with hopes of more, is not only logical, it is what I would do for the simple fact of hopin' for more. 

What would you do ? Leave the area you just seen a sasquatch to develop a film you're not sure shows anythin', or try an get back to the area in hopes of more. 

 

One thing I can say...the what if's...or what have you's...still cannot explain what they documented that day ! 

 

Pat...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
8 hours ago, PBeaton said:

 

What would you do ? 

 

One thing I can say...the what if's...or what have you's...still cannot explain what they documented that day ! 

 

Pat..

   

 

 

I’d do diff than they did.  That’s because I am a city slicker who is Monday morning Quarterbacking this event 50 years later.  Just because I am a diff person and placing myself there I have to look at what they reported.

 

Nothing they report seems to be a deal breaker.  Seems believable or understandable.   Being the people they were at the time needs to be considered.  Guys like that were cur from a diff type of wood.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Y’all post as if the PGF wasn’t a hoax.

 

Cute ;)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

F347-F360-ArmBend-Bob-AG2.gif

 

 

Chabal_Patty_ArmProportionComp1.jpg

 

 

CalfContractionBobboAG1_zps00s01ugm.gif

 

 

C8ButtSepF308F309AG1Large1.gif

 

 

F61-F307-Finger-Bend-Rotated-AG3.gif

 

 

PattyWristMovementAG1B.gif

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Y’all just showed the PGF was a bloke in a suit, not a soccer professional.

 

Sad...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

 

HumanFootXRay-ToeLengthComp2.jpg

 

 

HumanFootXRay2C.jpg

 

 

 

 

PattyLadyBlevyBodyContourComp2.jpg

 

Squatchy wrote:

Quote

not a soccer professional.

 

 

I agree with you, dude.....definitely not a soccer professional in a suit.

 

The 'arm proportion' is all wrong.  ;) 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
22 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Y’all post as if the PGF wasn’t a hoax.

 

Cute ;)

 

You post as if a hoax has been proven.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Both sides of this issue are beating a dead horse.    Under the conditions the film was made and lack of documentation prevents either side from being able to prove their point.   Both opponents and proponents put far to much weight on the importance of the film.    It neither proves nor disproves existence of BF at this point in time.    While a modern version would be interesting it would prove nothing either other than suggest that BF or the Patty costume survives to this day.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
52 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Both sides of this issue are beating a dead horse.

 

By asking Q we have some new eyes looking at this.  Some have turned up some info here and there to put more in perspective what development might be possible.  For instance, yellow page ads have been put on this thread to consider and most of us had not looked at those before.  That is something the thread has made possible.  Neither side can prove its' case but that does not mean we should stop trying.  You never know what might turn up.   Someone on the BFF looked at 1960s era college game films to get an idea about development labels and so on.  It didn't produce any earth shaking news but what a great idea.  Think if some of those films had labels which suggested new leads on other development possibilities.

 

 

52 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 

   Under the conditions the film was made and lack of documentation prevents either side from being able to prove their point.   Both opponents and proponents put far to much weight on the importance of the film.

 

I think the issue here seems to be a new area to debate.  We could just take on its' face those who 100% believe are convinced in the PGF and those who do not are 100% sure it was a hoax.  The film development gives us a more objective or less emotional or interpretive issue to debate around.  It is a very important ancillary issue.  Either the film was filmed that Fri and shown on Sunday or it was not.  Since it was shown on Sun there is no debate about the ending part of the story.  So was the film if shot on Fri able to be developed by the Sunday showing. If not then it means the film was shot before Friday which suggests a hoax.   So this issue is a bit like pregnancy. Someone is either preg or they are not.  I like this issue.  In fact if it is proved the film was filmed on Friday its not proof of a real event by itself but highly suggest it was a real event.  

 

52 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 

 

 

   It neither proves nor disproves existence of BF at this point in time.    While a modern version would be interesting it would prove nothing either other than suggest that BF or the Patty costume survives to this day.  

 

I am OK with people saying, "Just look at the film."    However, the film to some is not by itself 100% certain.  In this way we can say, "if the film is real then do these ancillaries issues also add up to support it."   

 

As far as the idea we will never know, I say, You never know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^^^ Well said, Backdoc!

 

Personally, I find the PGF inconclusive, so I'm far more interested at this point in the events and historical context surrounding the film.

 

There's no harm in taking a look at the intricacies of the backstory.

 

Its fascinating stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
4 minutes ago, OldMort said:

^^^ Well said, Backdoc!

 

Personally, I find the PGF inconclusive, so I'm far more interested at this point in the events and historical context surrounding the film.

 

There's no harm in taking a look at the intricacies of the backstory.

 

Its fascinating stuff...

 

Keep up the good work and insight OldMort.  

 

We may be too far off now at 50 years (deaths, closed labs, and so on) but we can at least try to clarify what we can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
47 minutes ago, OldMort said:

Personally, I find the PGF inconclusive, so I'm far more interested at this point in the events and historical context surrounding the film.

 

Have you read this paper?

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I’ve read it too.

 

I’m not impressed nor convinced by self-published pseudoscience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×