Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter
1 hour 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?

 

 

Martin - if you choose to not learn the history of these events so not to come off sounding like a fool - people who know the history will think you are one.

 

So tell us all you know about non-chartered flights from late 1967 .... would two seconds be enough time for you?  For your information - Green and his party flew to Northern California in late August of 1967  -  but just try getting a record from the airport they flew out from so to verify the flight occurred.  Airports don't keep such records for decades after the fact. It was on a tip that Green recalled the pilot gave an Interview to the Chilliwack Progress upon his return to British Columbia. I, along with two others went to the Progress to see if we could track down any information about the Pilot's interview and that is how we came across the Interview with Keith Chizzari. We did some more searching and found Keith and if by a miracle we learned that Keith kept his flight log from 1967. In that log was a reference to Green's flight to California and Keith's return trip home. Had we not learned Keith's name - the same lack of information would have existed as with the film's flight.

 

You ask what you are missing ... I'd say about everything!  The film was processed in a lab somewhere by using a processor. So when you write "No lab. No processor. No mail service. Non chartered flight info" it's meaningless and untrue. The fact the film was processed speaks for itself. Not knowing where and by whom is just that and doesn't mean the film is worth any less.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

BFH,

What you call history is only footerlore...

 

 You sound foolish when you talk about footerlore as actual history. It makes you sound childish and uneducated. I know you are bright enough to understand this basic concept.

 

"Insert childish image here:

 

There isn't single piece of evidence other than the leader and Kodak boxes the film came out of that is supported by physical evidence. Those two items indicate an approved Kodak lab. 

 

If you have something else that isn't a cowboys campfire story then whip it out.

 

Pat,

I didn't notice you asking any questions. I just saw you mading excuses for the dodgey timeline.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Haha ! Your leader isn't even evidence Martin, it is a unsubstantiated claim for cryin' out loud ! Regardin' the Kodak box, was it a empty box...could it have been the second reel ? Who, when, where an how was the second reel developed ?

 

It's no wonder you don' want to answer questions...you don't have any meaningful answers.   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
11 hours ago, Martin said:

 

 You sound foolish when you talk about footerlore as actual history.

 

 

Many of the skeptic go-to points are equally folklore.   Many are based on statements that cannot be verified.  Dates that don't line up don't seem to matter.  Suit descriptions of a constantly changing suit doesn't seem to bother.  Bob Heironimus is championed as the man in the suit until Jerry Romney is needed (and just how tall was Gimlin come to think of it?). What Bob H said is some kind of fact until some other thing he states caught on tape conflicts with it and needs to be ignored.  Gimlin and Roger announced the day of the filming they caught a bigfoot up until the time it was somehow shot earlier. 

 

It is definitely foolish to think of much of this skeptic folklore as actual fact.    The PGF may be a hoax.  Consider just how absolutely easy that should be to prove.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

The lynchpin of the hoax theory is an earlier film date, along with an earlier developing date. It's the skeptic's magic bullet theory. Roger said he filmed the creature on Oct. 20th and mailed off the film later the same day and we know the film was at Al's house two days later. To prove a hoax, an earlier film date and earlier developing date is a must have.  

What would Roger have to gain by making up a fake tight timeline when for some it makes his account less believable rather than more believable?

What is there besides speculation and conjecture, (and maybe a little wishful thinking) that points to an earlier film date?

 

sidenote: This has always amused me. Let's say the film was faked and Roger merely filmed a human in a fur suit. And remember, the PGF had no sound. So, from a hoax viewpoint, since there was no sound and Roger just filmed a human walking in a fur suit; why would Roger tell Bob Gimlin "Cover me", referring to his rifle. What would be the purpose for a fake film?   

Edited by OkieFoot

Share this post


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

The lynchpin of the hoax theory is an earlier film date, along with an earlier developing date. It's the skeptic's magic bullet theory. Roger said he filmed the creature on Oct. 20th and mailed off the film later the same day and we know the film was at Al's house two days later. To prove a hoax, an earlier film date and earlier developing date is a must have.  

What would Roger have to gain by making up a fake tight timeline when for some it makes his account less believable rather than more believable?

What is there besides speculation and conjecture, (and maybe a little wishful thinking) that points to an earlier film date?

 

sidenote: This has always amused me. Let's say the film was faked and Roger merely filmed a human in a fur suit. And remember, the PGF had no sound. So, from a hoax viewpoint, since there was no sound and Roger just filmed a human walking in a fur suit; why would Roger tell Bob Gimlin "Cover me", referring to his rifle. What would be the purpose for a fake film?   

 

 

Since there has been little to success coming even close to a functional PGF suit, the next best thing is the "magic bullet" as you say.  That is, an earlier timeline.

 

I do think it is reasonable to ask Qs about the timeline.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

When you consider some of the details in Roger's story that he filmed the encounter on the 20th and mailed the film later the same day;

He was at Al Hodgson's store in Willow Creek around 6:00pm on the 20th, and I don't think there is any dispute about this. Willow Creek would be on the way to Eureka. 

He contacted the newspaper reporter later on that same evening, and I've never seen anything disputing this. We know the article about his encounter appeared in the next days edition.  

We know Al DeAtley had the film on the 22nd.

 

It just seems to me for anyone that thinks the whole thing was a hoax and would like to prove it; an earlier film date is the only path they can take. And it means doing things backwards; it means starting out with a preconceived idea and then looking for evidence to support it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

As far as smoking guns go; the "impossible film development time-line", to me, is just about as lame as it gets.  That is a straw that some PGf denialists grasp because there isn't anything at all indicating a hoax.  And, I agree that making up an impossible film development time-line makes absolutely no sense at all.  The film development time-line is also A.) not impossible in any way and, B.) irrelevant.  We don't know for a fact that the film was taken on 10/20/67 and apparently neither does anyone else living, except for Bob G.  In the final analysis however, it doesn't even matter.  The film was taken by someone and it was developed.  Those 2 things we know for sure, 100%, without a doubt.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

I can't think of any logical reason for Roger to make up a fake tight timeline, and then for Bob Gimlin to go along with it for the next 50 yrs.

Let's say Roger made a fake film on the 18th and had the film developed on the 19th or 20th when he got back home. This timeline seems reasonable and no one would question it.

 

But instead Roger fabricates a fake tight timeline that causes some people to question the film's authenticity. Roger showed his film to scientists and took it to two movie studios so he obviously wanted people to believe his film was genuine.

If Roger wanted people to believe his film was real, why fabricate a tight timeline that would cause some people to question the timeline and think the film was fake? Roger makes a fake film then helps sabotage his own chances of selling the film as real and making some money. To me, it makes no logical sense. 

 

sidenote: Say the film was fake; When the film was viewed at Al's house on the 22nd, does this mean while John Green, Rene Dahinden and Jim McClaren were watching the film, Roger was laughing behind their backs because he knew the men were watching a fake film and they didn't? Or was Roger on pins and needles the whole time because he was afraid they would notice the film was really a human in a fur suit? ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

OkieFoot,

 

Let's not forget Disney said they couldn't replicate it...yet somehow Roger could !

 

Roger had had film developed, he knew the development time, if he was brilliant enough to create a suit way ahead of its time, brilliant enough to knowingly create tracks with anatomical characteristics of the primate foot unknown to most, that it went unrecognized for decades(an then not cast them !!!???)...yet couldn't figure out the timin'...is absurd !

 

Had they hoaxed the film earlier, waited to view it to see how it looked, Roger could easily simply pretend to wait for the film for a couple days. When he spoke to the press that night, he told them the film was off to be processed, all they had to do was wait a couple days, view it on the 26th or thereabouts. He had tried to get scientists an dogs to the site, they could have gone to the site with the researchers to blow there minds with those ahead of their time masterpiece tracks ! Skeptics can't say he wouldn't want that, because Roger tried to get scientists an trackin' dogs to the site in the first place.

 

Skeptics don't believe the film could be developed that quickly, had it taken a couple more days to develop...would it change their opinions of what is on that film... ;) 

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
56 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

OkieFoot,

 

Let's not forget Disney said they couldn't replicate it...yet somehow Roger could !

 

Roger had had film developed, he knew the development time, if he was brilliant enough to create a suit way ahead of its time, brilliant enough to knowingly create tracks with anatomical characteristics of the primate foot unknown to most, that it went unrecognized for decades(an then not cast them !!!???)...yet couldn't figure out the timin'...is absurd !

 

Had they hoaxed the film earlier, waited to view it to see how it looked, Roger could easily simply pretend to wait for the film for a couple days. When he spoke to the press that night, he told them the film was off to be processed, all they had to do was wait a couple days, view it on the 26th or thereabouts. He had tried to get scientists an dogs to the site, they could have gone to the site with the researchers to blow there minds with those ahead of their time masterpiece tracks ! Skeptics can't say he wouldn't want that, because Roger tried to get scientists an trackin' dogs to the site in the first place.

 

Skeptics don't believe the film could be developed that quickly, had it taken a couple more days to develop...would it change their opinions of what is on that film... ;) 

 

Pat...

 

bolded underlined part: it is amazing how Roger could have all this advanced knowledge but couldn't get the timeline right; those pesky details :unsure:. That's like car designers at GM or Ford that develop a new model car with new, advanced features and technology but have trouble figuring out where to put the antenna.

 

bolded italicized part: that's an intriguing question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

The bolded italicized part?   My answer ... not hardly.  

 

Those skeptics mentioned ... they're not engaging in science and they're not operating from a fact-based perspective.   Watch the behaviors.  "Meta-think" rather than getting sucked into playing on the field of their choosing:  they're trying to re-frame all views contrary to theirs as religion / belief system so they can address them / respond with their own counter-religion / counter belief system and do not have to address facts as facts, yet, at the same time, dishonestly present their position as one of science.

 

Transparent double standard, transparent spin.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
On 5/3/2017 at 11:36 AM, Backdoc said:

 

Many of the skeptic go-to points are equally folklore.   Many are based on statements that cannot be verified.  Dates that don't line up don't seem to matter.  Suit descriptions of a constantly changing suit doesn't seem to bother.  Bob Heironimus is championed as the man in the suit until Jerry Romney is needed (and just how tall was Gimlin come to think of it?). What Bob H said is some kind of fact until some other thing he states caught on tape conflicts with it and needs to be ignored.  Gimlin and Roger announced the day of the filming they caught a bigfoot up until the time it was somehow shot earlier. 

 

It is definitely foolish to think of much of this skeptic folklore as actual fact.    The PGF may be a hoax.  Consider just how absolutely easy that should be to prove.

 

 

 

 

Both camps have there fair share of folklore. That is very true.

 

17 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

^^

......

He was at Al Hodgson's store in Willow Creek around 6:00pm on the 20th, and I don't think there is any dispute about this. Willow Creek would be on the way to Eureka. 

He contacted the newspaper reporter later on that same evening, and I've never seen anything disputing this. We know the article about his encounter appeared in the next days edition.  

We know Al DeAtley had the film on the 22nd.

 ........

 

I agree. I don't think anyone is disputing the details you listed.

4 hours ago, PBeaton said:

OkieFoot,

 

Let's not forget Disney said they couldn't replicate it...yet somehow Roger could !

 

Pat...

 

The Disney claim needs further investigation. Byrne showed the film to some people in the animation department. We're they qualified ?  Seems like costuming would have been a better place to start.

 

We do know that 5 people who worked in the Disney animation department said they couldn't recreate the film. Regardless.... this is not the same as "Disney" making a claim as to its authenticity.

 

The rest of your post is 100% footerlore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

"We do know that 5 people who worked in the Disney animation department said they couldn't recreate the film. Regardless.... this is not the same as "Disney" making a claim as to its authenticity."

 

^ Says it all...haha !

Image result for baby groot gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

From Wikipedia, 

 

Disney executive Ken Peterson. Krantz reports that in 1969, John Green (who owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film)[238] interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who, after viewing the Patterson film, asserted "that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film."[114][233][239] Krantz argues that if Disney personnel were unable to duplicate the film, there is little likelihood that Patterson could have done so. Greg Long writes, "Byrne cited his trip to Walt Disney studios in 1972, where Disney's chief of animation and four assistants viewed Patterson's footage and praised it as a beautiful piece of work although, they said, it must have been shot in a studio. When Byrne told them it had been shot in the woods of Northern California, 'They shook their heads and walked away.'"[136][240]

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×