Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Twist,

 

"Do you believe that Baker and Winston are unqualified to comment on the subject of PGF and give an opinion on man in suit vs. genuine creature ?"   Yes, I believe they are qualified to comment on the PGF.

 

Backdoc's comment "The older I get the better I was." is pretty close.  For Baker an Winston to comment after years of learnin' new techniques, materials etc, after the PGF lessons their opinions in my view.  

 

"In 1969, after attending California State University, Long Beach, Winston moved to Hollywood to pursue a career as an actor. Struggling to find an acting job, he began a makeup apprenticeship at Walt Disney Studios"  That was two years after the PGF when he was just gettin' started.

 

"Baker's first professional job was as an assistant to prosthetic makeup effects veteran **** Smith on the film The Exorcist." , Exorcist was 1973, five years after the PGF for him.

 

My point, after a lifetime of learnin', it's easy to say they could create it, or it looked bad, however if you look at what they were actually capable back in the day...it tells a different story, an that is the era that is relevant here, which Martin fails to grasp. The best at the time said they couldn't recreate it.

 

Pat...  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Prohaska thought he saw muscle movement.

I think he was mistaken.

DeAtley could have provided a huge budget for the Patty suit.

 

Regardless the timeline isn't supported by evidence or statements of the primary people involved.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


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

Prohaska thought he saw muscle movement.

I think he was mistaken.

DeAtley could have provided a huge budget for the Patty suit.

 

Regardless the timeline isn't supported by evidence or statements of the primary people involved.

 

Your statement is as silly as saying that DeAtley could have provided a huge budget for a Shuttle launch in 1967 - even though the shuttle had yet to have been invented.

 

About movement ...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

Share this post


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

 

Your statement is as silly as saying that DeAtley could have provided a huge budget for a Shuttle launch in 1967 - even though the shuttle had yet to have been invented.

 

About movement ...

 

 

What airport do you suggest Roger took the film to in order to catch DeAtley's chartered flight?

or 

Did he take it to the post office in Eureka like he told Hodgson on the same day he allegedly mailed it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

With reference to my post of January 21 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/53386-the-actual-developing-of-the-pgf/&do=findComment&comment=979325

 

and in the name of investigative transparence I want to put forward additional discovery:

 

1- I have found a photocopy of a letter from Peter Byrne to Al deAtley dated Oct. 27, 1995, apparently following-up to their recent phone conversation. The letter contains no content pertaining to the film development questions, only that Peter suggests they get together and further discuss things. I mention this letter only as it tends to corroborate direct communication occurring between the two in 1995 as set out in my January 21 post.

 

2- I have found  yet another photocopy of a letter from Bryne to deAtley dated February 10, 1999. The letter thanks deAtley for meeting with Peter. The letter reflects their discussion of the question of how the film got to deAtley "in Seattle." Peter asks deAtley to contact him if he remembers anything further. I describe this letter as it tends to corroborate further direct contact between the two and that they explored questions about transport of the film apparently without resolution. The letter seems to make clear deAtley could not recall how the film was transported.  The discussion would seem to complicate any notion Patterson simply handed the film to deAtley in Yakima. This letter was written 3-4 years after the original phone calls and likely written several years after the original draft of footnotes. It appears to me the earlier statements by deAtley were likely dismissive responses over the phone while the later meeting resulted in unsolved questions.

 

I have no intention of posting these personal communications, but instead, simply describe what I have read.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
3 hours ago, Martin said:

Prohaska thought he saw muscle movement.

I think he was mistaken.

DeAtley could have provided a huge budget for the Patty suit.

 

Regardless the timeline isn't supported by evidence or statements of the primary people involved.

He is not the only one to say they see muscle movement !

Think what you'd like, doesn't change what they see...but nice try !

DeAtley could have done a lot of things...like get the film developed quicker than usual. Do you think it a big budget professional suit, or made by Rodger ?

 

Isn't supported by evidence or statements of the primary people involved...oh really ! Roger an Bob said it was filmed the 20th, when does DeAtley say it was developed ? You just suggested DeAtley "..could have provided a huge budget...", why couldn't he throw a few bucks out there for a rush development ? Evidence provided by others who went to the site confirm they were there on the 20th as they claimed.

You have even less to support your unknown timeline...or have you been able to pinpoint a date...or is it still simply a guess at this point ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

OK... so we can agree that DeAtley had the resources to pay for a chartered flight and pay for a suit for Roger.... 

 

Who said they were not at the site on the 20th?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
9 hours ago, Martin said:

Prohaska thought he saw muscle movement.

I think he was mistaken.

DeAtley could have provided a huge budget for the Patty suit.

 

Regardless the timeline isn't supported by evidence or statements of the primary people involved.

 

What he saw was -to his mind- a real creature on film.  No one disputes this.  That was his contemporary and learned opinion.  He mentioned muscle movement yes.  Who knows all he didn't mention in addition to that.  His conclusion is Patty was a real creature.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
5 hours ago, Martin said:

OK... so we can agree that DeAtley had the resources to pay for a chartered flight and pay for a suit for Roger.... 

 

Who said they were not at the site on the 20th?

I said the ability to get a film developed quickly.

 

I was establishin' that they were there on site on the 20th, what evidence can you present that places them on site prior to the 20th as would be needed for you claim...to have a leg to stand on... 

 

 

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

What he saw was -to his mind- a real creature on film.  No one disputes this.  That was his contemporary and learned opinion.  He mentioned muscle movement yes.  Who knows all he didn't mention in addition to that.  His conclusion is Patty was a real creature.

Backdoc,

 

He knows this already...haha ! ;);) 

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
11 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

I said the ability to get a film developed quickly.

 

I was establishin' that they were there on site on the 20th, what evidence can you present that places them on site prior to the 20th as would be needed for you claim...to have a leg to stand on... 

 

So Pat, do you reject Gimlin's claim that he and Patterson spent all of October up to the day they say they filmed Patty on the 20th at Bluff Creek? Three weeks is plenty of time.

 

Roger's one week on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

"A little over a week"....on the honest hand. :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
7 hours ago, HOLDMYBEER said:

With reference to my post of January 21 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/53386-the-actual-developing-of-the-pgf/&do=findComment&comment=979325

 

and in the name of investigative transparence I want to put forward additional discovery:

 

1- I have found a photocopy of a letter from Peter Byrne to Al deAtley dated Oct. 27, 1995, apparently following-up to their recent phone conversation. The letter contains no content pertaining to the film development questions, only that Peter suggests they get together and further discuss things. I mention this letter only as it tends to corroborate direct communication occurring between the two in 1995 as set out in my January 21 post.

 

2- I have found  yet another photocopy of a letter from Bryne to deAtley dated February 10, 1999. The letter thanks deAtley for meeting with Peter. The letter reflects their discussion of the question of how the film got to deAtley "in Seattle." Peter asks deAtley to contact him if he remembers anything further. I describe this letter as it tends to corroborate further direct contact between the two and that they explored questions about transport of the film apparently without resolution. The letter seems to make clear deAtley could not recall how the film was transported.  The discussion would seem to complicate any notion Patterson simply handed the film to deAtley in Yakima. This letter was written 3-4 years after the original phone calls and likely written several years after the original draft of footnotes. It appears to me the earlier statements by deAtley were likely dismissive responses over the phone while the later meeting resulted in unsolved questions.

 

I have no intention of posting these personal communications, but instead, simply describe what I have read.

 

 

The following post I made last yeardetails that meeting between Byrne and DeAtley and then Greg Long meeting with DeAtley the next month on March 17, 1999...

 

Quote


On April 30, 2016 at 4:30 AM, HOLDMYBEER said:

 

   On April 29, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Crowlogic said: 

............................... Sure Al had nothing better to do than run all over the northwest for his deadbeat brotherinlaw.  Even if he sent a lackey he's got to pay the lackey then pay the super premium to the lab.  So Al spends what close to a grand getting Roger's film developed?  Oh and he paid his pilot and ran the plane up from California so add another few hundred bucks. ..............

 

I interviewed Ralph Richardson back in 2008. He was DeAtley's pilot in those days. He convinced me neither he nor his wife made a trip flying the film for DeAtley.

 

 

 

This is how to know when one is being fleeced by Al DeAtley hiding his involvement in the PGF hoax...

 

Peter Byrne to Greg Long about speaking with Al DeAtley on the actual development of the PGF...

 

"What about Al DeAtley? Did you ask him how the film was processed?"

"I did. I talked to him two or three times on the phone. I tried to see him, but he wouldn't see me. He doesn't want to talk to people about it. It's extremely difficult to get him to talk. A man like that leads a private life and avoids hangers-on knocking on the door for handouts. He said to me, 'It's fake. I know it's fake' I said 'How do you know it's fake?' He said, 'Listen. He (Patterson) told us all he was going down there and find the Bigfoot and shoot some footage and come back. He did. He went down there. That's just ******* luck, or something. That doesn't happen in real life, you know.' Ivan marx did the same thing. He was living in Northern California, and he told people he was going to northern Washington and find a Bigfoot, get footage, and come back and sell it and make lots of money. He did exactly the same thing. Then, at the same time, almost in the same breath, DeAtley said, 'But, don't quote me on that with people here. This is the family here (in Yakima).' DeAtley is married to Roger's sister. DeAtley said, 'They all believe Roger. They all believed in his integrity. They all believe that film is real. I'm the outsider here.' He had a few very derogatory things to say about Roger. My guess is he really didn't like him." - MoB, p. 187

 

What is most interesting about this discussion between Byrne and DeAtley is that it in fact only occurred just weeks before Greg Long then himself interviewed DeAtley. Pay very close attention to how DeAtley then deals with Greg Long and his attempts to pin down solid information from DeAtley...

 

I turned DeAtley's attention to the story of the shipment of Patterson's film footage from Eureka to Yakima. "You then received the undeveloped film and you had it processed some place. Can you tell me about that? Because Roger is now an excited guy, and I would assume he needs to call someone, and he calls you up. Did he call you up and say - ?"

 

"You know Peter Byrne?" he interrupted me.

 

"Right."

 

"Peter was up here a couple weeks ago, and I talked to him. And he has done a tremendous amount of research on that issue right there. That's his issue. In fact, he went so far as to check all the charter outfits."

 

Ah, I thought, Byrne had read the news story on the Man in the Suit and rushed to Yakima to follow up.

 

"And I told him the first time he interviewed me three weeks ago, 'I can not, I can not remember exactly how it happened.' But at the time, we were using Richardson Aviation to do some charter work. Both the Richardsons are now dead, and they've been out of business about ten years. But I would lay you odds, knowing my mind and knowing how I operate - I did this all the time. In other words, we were running road construction work all over the state, and if we had a machine break down someplace and had to get it fixed, I would get Ralph Richardson to fly to Portland or Seattle to pick up a part and deliver it to the closest town to where that machine was. So, if - and I did get a call from Roger. I can't recall what time of day or anything else, but I do recall getting a call. And i do recall that he wanted me to finance getting that thing up here and getting it developed. And I did. And I - I just know what I - I - I," he stammered, "would have - what I would have done? I would have called Ralph, who I had credit with, and said, 'Get one of your airplanes, go to Eureka, pick this up, and meet me at Boeing Field, Seattle.' I don't think I'd have him bring it here. That wouldn't be my approach. Peter Byrne found out the film was processed there, he thinks at Technicolor [in Seattle]... He did a lot of research on that, too. But the missing point is, who brought the film up. That's what Byrne is trying to pin down."

 

"Yeah. Sure." I made a mental note to contact Byrne as soon as possible regarding this supposedly remarkable news - that he knew where the footage was processed.

 

Al DeAtley looked down at lap, averting his eyes from mine. "Uh, I can't recall doing that."

 

That is, he didn't recall how he helped transport the film or where he processed it. I was incredulous. How could DeAtley not remember? He knew Patterson was interested in Bigfoot. Patterson often contacted DeAtley, and in 1966 DeAtley gave him money for his book and handed out fifties and twenties on those occasions when he wanted to get rid of him. 

 

"You can't recall receiving the film," I said with surprise, "either if it was sent to Yakima - as Roger told a newspaper reporter - or meeting the film at Boeing Field or someplace in Seattle where Ralph Richardson or some other pilot handed it to you?"

 

"I can't - I can't recall that," he said, half looking at me. "I can't get it out of my memory banks. They're too flooded back there. Uh, that would be how I would approach it. You know, chartering planes wasn't that expensive back in those days. Thirty bucks an hour or something. That's probably be a ten-hour round trip. So I'm sure that's what I would have done. I do recall getting the projector and showing the film in my basement. That I can recall because that's the first time I saw the film. But I can't recall being in Seattle, whether I drove it over and waited [for the footage to be processed] and brought it back, or whether I met it in Seattle and waited and brought it back. I - I can't recall that. But I can recall showing it." He slapped the table with his hand, and laughed nervously at his own loss of memory. MoB, p. 252 - 253

 

 

So to Byrne he simply tried to throw him off by stating the film was a hoax and don't quote him, but not his hoax. 

 

To Long he gives him Ralph Richardson but says he and his wife are both dead and out of business ten years and then everything else the memory banks are flooded. As Long observed, there is no way that DeAtley just forgot the most crucial part of getting the film into his basement on Sunday.

 

The film was not shot on October 20th. The film was shot earlier and developed in the only way possible at a Kodak lab, almost certainly in Palo Alto, CA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
2 hours ago, PBeaton said:

I said the ability to get a film developed quickly.

 

I was establishin' that they were there on site on the 20th, what evidence can you present that places them on site prior to the 20th as would be needed for you claim...to have a leg to stand on... 

 

 

By Patterson and Gimlin's own admissions they were at or near the site well before to the 20th.

 

So you are claiming that DeAtley had the money and motive to charter a flight, arrange special processing and courier the film for Roger but couldn't afford to pay for a suit?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

^

 

"A little over a week"....on the honest hand. :) 

It's freakin' hilarious ! Now he suggests Gimlin's three weeks is plenty of time...Roger's one week on the other hand...not so much ! haha ! He has already claimed his freakin' buddy Heironimus said eight days, depends on who an when he was asked...either the first week...or second week...but also claimed to be there on the 20th, the third week...so now he just screwed his buddy...an himself ! haha !

 

Between his recently claimin' to have not talked to Heironimus about the use of Chico outside of Bluff Creek, when he has already claimed to have talked to him about the use of Chico at South Folk, claimin' they borrowed Chico for the filmin' an stagin' on the 20th, the Argosy cover...all the while admittin' himself he never spoke to Heironimus about the use of Chico for the stagin' or the Argosy shoot...well... ;);)

Which reminds me, he recently claimed he wasn't sure if Patterson provided the photo of them on Chico for the cover photo, when he had earlier asked me to add credence to his position...if Opal Heironimus wasn't in the window when they returned Chico from the Argosy shoot ! He said..."Never happened, right ?" haha !

 

Absolutely unbelievable...haha !

 

Share this post


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

It's freakin' hilarious ! Now he suggests Gimlin's three weeks is plenty of time...Roger's one week on the other hand...not so much ! haha ! He has already claimed his freakin' buddy Heironimus said eight days, depends on who an when he was asked...either the first week...or second week...but also claimed to be there on the 20th, the third week...so now he just screwed his buddy...an himself ! haha

 

Oh what a tangled web he weaves when speaks with such a forked tongue.   :)

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...