Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

kitakaze
25 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 !

 

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 !

 

 

 

Pat, that post is nearly unreadable in terms of coherency. You stated the following...

 

Quote

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... 

 

Gimlin claims that he and Patterson were at Bluff Creek for all of October up to the alleged filming day.

 

Do you accept or reject that claim by Gimlin?

 

I personally reject the claim that he was in Bluff Creek for all of October. I think he was there earlier in October and then returned later to stage the event.

Share this post


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

 

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?

 

 

All that was said was the two men had been up in that area before.

 

There is no evidence that DeAtley financed Roger on the trip to California. The story was that DeAtley never was interested in Roger's hobby until Al found out that Roger had actually managed to get a film of his encounter. That was when Al seemed to all of a sudden show an interest in becoming involved.

13 hours ago, kitakaze said:

 

I personally reject the claim that he was in Bluff Creek for all of October. I think he was there earlier in October and then returned later to stage the event.

 

Which you have not one shred of evidence to support.

Baghdad Bob_2.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Martin,

 

Patterson said..."why don't we ride up into this area we had ridden into before, a desolate type area down a couple of canyons, there's a creek running through it." , that doesn't put them on site.

 

Laverty said he had been through the site either the 19th or that Friday the 20th in the mornin', the tracks weren't there.

 

21 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

Which you have not one shred of evidence to support.

Baghdad Bob_2.jpg

It's laughable, he claims he interviewed Heironimus about the use of Chico at Bluff Creek...he believes it was filmed on two different occasions...yet he never asked Heironimus about them borrowin' Chico for the 20th filmin' !!! haha ! Heironimus never mentions anythin' about this two part hoaxin' either. Matter of fact, Heironimus gives dates from Sept...to first week of Oct, second week of Oct. an third week of Oct.... (roll eyes here), all this while sayin' they made the tracks after filmin', an they announced the film before they had the fil developed. How pray tell...is that the first week of Oct ? :huh:

 

Pat...

 

Share this post


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

...............

 

Laverty said he had been through the site either the 19th or that Friday the 20th in the mornin', the tracks weren't there.

 

.......

 

Pat...

 

 

More footer spin.

 

Lavery said he didn't notice any tracks as he passed by in a vehicle driving down the road. 

 

He never said there were no tracks.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
On May 7, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Bigfoothunter said:

 

There is no evidence that DeAtley financed Roger on the trip to California. The story was that DeAtley never was interested in Roger's hobby until Al found out that Roger had actually managed to get a film of his encounter. That was when Al seemed to all of a sudden show an interest in becoming involved.

 

Wrong. DeAtley financed the publishing of Roger's 1966 book at Franklin Press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
8 minutes ago, kitakaze said:

 

Wrong. DeAtley financed the publishing of Roger's 1966 book at Franklin Press.

 

 

Good enough if true Kit but how do we know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

"I did pay for having the book printed. I loaned him the money. Franklin Press." Al DeAtley, March 17th 1999 MoB, p 248

Share this post


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

 

More footer spin.

 

Lavery said he didn't notice any tracks as he passed by in a vehicle driving down the road. 

 

He never said there were no tracks.

 

 

 

 

^^ is this true?  Is there a Laverty quote that corresponds?  

 

Are we paraphrasing comments to fit our agenda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

 Lyle Laverty said, "I passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th" and he noticed no tracks.

 

Wikipedia cites Perez and the Bigfoot Times newsletter as the source.

 

I don't have an agenda. 

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
11 hours ago, kitakaze said:

"I did pay for having the book printed. I loaned him the money. Franklin Press." Al DeAtley, March 17th 1999 MoB, p 248

 

I think this detail- if true - means absolutely nothing.  However, why do you believe him?

 

by your definition Al is a conspirator in the PGF who - like roger- stiff the players in the conspiracy but just somehow knows they will keep quiet ( Heironimus, Gimlin).   Why believe anything he has to say?  How do you decide which statements are real and which are not?

 

i guess what I am getting at is it seems you are fine with taking certain things as fact by Al (and others) when they say them or are said to have stated them ( attributed to Al by 'Mr. Agenda' long ).  Yet, you can completely reject other things said by the same person as a lie.  I can't understand by what criteria we should accept some statements and reject others from the same sources you say are by definition liars and frauds ?

 

I thank you for answering the previous Q by the way.  I have no problem if Al helped roger on his " book". I can't imagine the cost were Simon and Schuster level book advance but a few bucks similar to a loan.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

If you had no interest whatsoever in how we know about DeAtley funding Roger prior to the PGF, you probably should not have bothered wasting my time and yours asking.

 

Both Gimlin and Heironimus had vested interests in not exposing themselves. Whistle-blowing Gimlin and goodbye Judy. Whistle-blowing Heironimus and goodbye any pay, goodbye trusted friendship with Gimlin.

 

The groan-inducing comprehension fail is that you think I take anything DeAtley says as given and true. Whether anything he says is true is not the point - it's what he wants the listener to believe to be true that matters. Therein is where DeAtley's story about his after the fact involvement in the PGF falls apart.

 

He wanted Green and Dahinden to believe he was not supposed to tell how he got the film developed. He wanted Byrne and Long to think he just oops forgot how he accomplished the most critical and involved part of getting the film to a projector in his basement on a Sunday within 36 hours of filming.

 

You are ready to spitball humming and hawing about Patterson. You are not in any way ready to tackle the involvement of l DeAtley, the person we are told was responsible for the actual development of the PGF.

Share this post


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

 

More footer spin.

 

Lavery said he didn't notice any tracks as he passed by in a vehicle driving down the road. 

 

He never said there were no tracks.

Martin,

 

Do you have a quote where he says"..he didn't notice any tracks as he passed by in a vehicle driving down the road." ? Or is this your spin at skeptical folklore ?

 

12 hours ago, Martin said:

 Lyle Laverty said, "I passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th" and he noticed no tracks.

 

That was his reply to bein' asked about his earlier statement, about bein' by the site earlier an his sayin' there were no tracks on site...

 

 “I recently read (but have mislaid my printout) that you said that you had come past the Patterson film site only days before you discovered the tracks there on Oct. 21, and that there were no tracks there then. I’d greatly appreciate it if you would confirm (or disconfirm) that you said that, and give me an estimate of how many days prior to Oct. 21 that might have been.”

 

Laverty's reply..."“As near as I can recall, I passed by the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th [presumably before 1:30]. I was part of a timber sale preparation crew working in Bluff Creek the entire summer. We operated out of a portable camp at Notice Creek during the week and returned to Orleans on the weekends.” 

 

That they were passin' that particular area for work all summer, an never seen or mentioned seein' P/G, could also suggest that P/G had not been to the film site prior to the 20th.

 

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

i guess what I am getting at is it seems you are fine with taking certain things as fact by Al (and others) when they say them or are said to have stated them ( attributed to Al by 'Mr. Agenda' long ).  Yet, you can completely reject other things said by the same person as a lie.  I can't understand by what criteria we should accept some statements and reject others from the same sources you say are by definition liars and frauds ?

Backdoc,

 

He sounds more an more like DeAtley all the time, so expect the same type of replies...it will all depends on what he is tryin' ta sell !

 

Example... "I have never discussed Roger's use of Chico other than at Bluff Creek."

 

Compared to... "I asked Heironimus about the length of duration Chico was at Bluff Creek. I asked how and when they came to get Chico. I asked when they left and how long after Heironimus left. We also spoke about the use of Chico at the South Fork filming in May. We did not discuss the use of Chico on the Argosy cover or the staged filming on October 20th."

 

Above he also says he discussed the length an duration Chico was at Bluff Creek, etc etc., yet never once about the use of Chico for the second part of his so called 2 part hoax...at Bluff Creek ! The other half of his hoax claim...simply never came up...by either of them...huh ! ;);) (So it's more likely your time bein' wasted.)

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Pat,

Laverty drove by site. In a jeep on a nearby road.  He didn't stop and check the area. He drove by just like he had in the past with his crew of workers. Are you disputing that?

 

I posted the statement and sources.

 

He is the text in full:

"US Forest Service "Timber Management Assistant"[75] Lyle Laverty said, "I [and his team of three, in a Jeep] passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th"[76] and noticed no tracks. After reading the news of Patterson's encounter on their weekend break, Laverty and his team returned to the site on Monday, the 23rd, and made six photos of the tracks. "

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

The whole Laverty thing was debunked about a year ago...this Is a letter from Roger Knights to Bill Miller that was shared on this forum by Bigfoot Hunter:

 

Bill,

 

Here's an e-mail I just sent to Dan Perez. I fear that he won't print it, or not all of it, especially since next month will likely be entirely devoted to John Green. So you may post this online wherever the matter of Laverty's drive-by is being discussed.

~~~~~~~

I am glad you (Dan Perez) posted Jim McClarin's statements last month (June) that Patty's tracks would not have been visible to passengers in Lyle Laverty's Jeep. I had obtained a similar statement from Laverty himself about nine years ago, in a follow-up questionnaire of mine that was read to him by Bigfoot skeptic Michael Dennett. (Laverty hadn't responded to my follow-up e-mails.)

I asked if it was possible that he might have missed seeing the tracks and he responded, "It was possible--it was quite possible."

I wasn't able to publish that because he required that his questionnaire answers not be made known. Dennett was very stern to me about that. I figure that the reason for his desire for secrecy was to avoid creating a possible difficulty in his upcoming senate confirmation hearing to be an Asst. Sec. of the Interior.

I've written to Laverty twice since then asking for release of his interview, without response. I think that now there's no reason for maintaining confidentiality, because it's important for Bigfooters and skeptics to know the truth, and because I want to undo my Bigfoot Times article of 9/2006, in which I claimed that Laverty's failure to see the tracks on Thursday or Friday morning discredited Heironimus's claim that the tracks had been laid down days or weeks in advance of Oct. 20.

 

Roger

^^^ Note: My bolding of relevant statements.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

If you had no interest whatsoever in how we know about DeAtley funding Roger prior to the PGF, you probably should not have bothered wasting my time and yours asking.

 

I am just suggesting you are telling us to believe a liar sometimes and not other times.  Yet, you are determining 1) he is a liar and 2) which lies to believe. 

You can understand why I might be cautious of comments/ quotes which come from a work which seems to be agenda driven.

I leave the possibility open the PGF is a hoax.  Since Roger had limited resources, we look around for any boogeyman  we can find as the man behind the hoax.  Al would be a reasonable suspect in that he was a person close to Roger. 

 

1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

Both Gimlin and Heironimus had vested interests in not exposing themselves. Whistle-blowing Gimlin and goodbye Judy. Whistle-blowing Heironimus and goodbye any pay, goodbye trusted friendship with Gimlin.

 

I can somewhat agree with this but in perspective: You are saying Heironimus has a motivation to keep his mouth shut. We both agree 100% that he claims he did not even keep his mouth shut for 24 hrs even after the filming event where he states he showed the man behind the curtain in the trunk of his car in a show-n-tell.  THEN after that and only after that, he kept his mouth shut.  You would have me think he did this because, "One of these decades by golly they might actually pay me that $1,000. The last thing I want to do is mess up my chance to get paid some day that money they owe me from 3-4 decades before"   Obviously those who are involved in nearly any conspiracy have early on a motivation to keep quiet and cash in.  I am suspect of those who think others could cash in in a large way while those cheated out of the winnings just sit there and keep quiet.  This is a stretch for me.  I think we agree in general it makes sense if a group of people got together and pulled a hoax for fame or money, it makes sense they would have a motivation to keep quiet. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

The groan-inducing comprehension fail is that you think I take anything DeAtley says as given and true. Whether anything he says is true is not the point - it's what he wants the listener to believe to be true that matters. Therein is where DeAtley's story about his after the fact involvement in the PGF falls apart.

 

1)  "Whether anything he says is true is not the point"  <--------  I happen to think it kinda is the point.

2)  I get what you are saying.  You are saying Al is involved so he is motivated to say things to get investigators off his trail.  To do this, he might throw a Rabbit out there to take them off Al's scent.  I understand that is possible.

 

I am not so sure anything really falls apart when you look at it:

 

Al could have this family issue where Roger the black sheep needs some help now and then.  So Al helps him.  When Roger scores Al helps him cash in and Al in the process.   Al might not even care if it is real or faked by Roger so long as they cash in.  Al might even be suspicious of Roger's luck.  However, Al turns it into a money making film no diff than a producer who promotes a film of a UFO. As long as the people show up, he is glad to take their money.  He has no problem when Gimlin won't play ball to even have a 'fake Gimlin' there to help sell the film.  If he thinks the film is real, having the real Gimlin there is not the going to matter to Al. He would be no diff than a Civil War re-enactment.  He is not thinking he needs the actually Gen. Grant or Lee.   If Al thinks it is a hoax by Roger but one people are paying to see then so be it.  Al knows people are paying to see the lady in the circus turn into an ape.  Why should this be any diff.

Al might be a guy who just doesn't care.  He just sees an opportunity to make money.  In that process it is possible there was some rush to get the film developed asap.  There may have been a pathway there to do so and Al took it. To Al Roger might be like the picker who always looks for rare baseball cards in people's attics.  He give him money in the form or work or loans just to keep the bum afloat because his is 'family'    Then one day, Roger finds the Honus Wagner card.   It could be a fake and Roger is not above faking it.  Al doesn't care.  Just cash in a be part of the windfall.  If it IS a real Honus Wagner card who is more likely to find it but a guy who looks for years, and goes to an old house where he was told the old lady was said to have had a lot of old stuff in the attic.

 

Bigfoot - the Honus Wagner card.

 

 

1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

He wanted Green and Dahinden to believe he was not supposed to tell how he got the film developed.

 

 

...or maybe he was told not to tell.

 

1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

 

 

He wanted Byrne and Long to think he just oops forgot how he accomplished the most critical and involved part of getting the film to a projector in his basement on a Sunday within 36 hours of filming.

 

same a previous.

 

1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

You are ready to spitball humming and hawing about Patterson. You are not in any way ready to tackle the involvement of l DeAtley, the person we are told was responsible for the actual development of the PGF.

 

If Al is responsible for development can we say it is at least possible Roger and Bob are telling the truth if their position is they don't know exactly how the film was developed other than it was a 'favor' where they are told in the generic sense they are not supposed to tell.  It is possible Roger just 'mailed off the film' and the next time he saw it was at Al's on Sunday.  The only thing on anyone's mind then would be 'let's see it'.

 

 

 

Even though we disagree, I will still be reading your Al stuff.

 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...