Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, OldMort said:

 

Right! No better or no worse.

 

Its a matter of individual choice, we all have our own interests.

 

Personally, I find the history of the film and the colorful life and times of Patterson and Gimlin far more interesting than any ongoing "analysis" of 954 images of "raw data."

 

To each his own... :)

 

 

But ''true/legit science' is not a matter of personal preference, Mort....other than if one chooses to look at/consider what it is saying....or not. The science behind the 'physical analysis' of a physical subject....is a matter of physical reality

 

You, like many other skeptics and scoffers.....are free to choose to ignore reality/stick your head in the sand....in favor of your personal preferences.....(like when, and by whom a film got developed...…...WOW)….....but, as for me...I'll take reality. :)  

 

It's a really cool reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
8 hours ago, OldMort said:

Yes, I would say that its been good for your forum.

 

Our forum, the BFF is a community funded and driven forum. I have merely volunteered to manage it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfjewel

Good discussion. I was going to ask the very question that NCBFr did:

 
“I honestly do not get the whole point of this thread.  The video exists and it certainly is not CGI.  We know how and with what equipment it was made (ok, the speed of the film is still not 100% nailed down).  We know the exact spot of the video.  Depending on your perception, it may or may not show evidence of a BF.  I understand both perspectives.  Please explain to me why it matters when it was shot and developed. “
 
NC, Gig, and other posters answered my unwritten question on what all this detail really is about; and does it matter? To some it matters to find a hole or glitch in the story of how the film was developed. To others, not. Only participate if you care. Well stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr
BFF Donor
10 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

Our forum, the BFF is a community funded and driven forum. I have merely volunteered to manage it.

 

 

And we love you for it.  Many thanks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfjewel

I Second that, NC. Gigantor looks at how the forum is doing overall, and seeks to keep topics “unstuck” and relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 6:14 PM, OldMort said:

 

Their seem to be various accounts of this, but most of them agree that Roger didn't come till quite late in the day.

 

A possible Sunday developing of the film?

 

That is what I would like to nail down.

 

A later Sunday showing, if that what it was, allows a significant ease in any time crunch.  I think this could be a big deal.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^^^  BD, here are a few accounts:

 

"Green told me he arrived on Sunday morning knowing a film would be available for review. He waited with DeAtley and wife for a very long time, no other persons present. Patterson didn't arrive till afternoon, alone. He and DeAtley looked at the film privately, then showed it to Green. According to McClarin, he and Dahinden arrived much later, having taken the bus from Portland. Patterson was already gone by the time they arrived. They viewed the film with DeAtley and Green."

 

"According to Green, during the hours he sat with DeAtley and his wife awaiting Patterson and the others, he asked DeAtley if he had the film and if he had seen it. DeAtley indicated he had the film and that he had not seen it."

 

"Green described the wait with DeAtley and wife as interminable, lasting for hours. He described them as very polite. DeAtley said he had the film but that he wanted to wait for Patterson's arrival before showing it."

 

^^^  - ace PGF timeline investigator and Forum member Hold My Beer, from his interview with John Green

 

 

"The film was already on the projector when John went to DeAtley's and I don't believe for a minute that Roger and/or DeAtley had not viewed the film before people started arriving. And while I am not 100% certain - I thought John had once told me that Roger and DeAtley was there when he arrived. There should be an early accounting of that day in writing somewhere."  - Bill Miller

 

 

Chris Murphy's version -

""Al DeAtley picked-up the film at the Seattle airport on the morning of Saturday, October 21, 1967. He had the film processed at the Alpha Cine laboratory in Seattle and returned to his home in Yakima that same day. Patterson and Gimlin arrived at Yakima sometime on Sunday morning, October 22, 1967. During this time, John Green arrived at De Atley's home and the two men awaited Patterson's arrival. When Patterson arrived, De Atley took him alone to the basement of his home and showed him the film. The film was then shown to John Green. Bob Gimlin was not present. We are told he was at home resting."

 

I'm sure there are more....

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On 2/13/2019 at 2:15 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Forgive me if I choose to discuss the topic of this thread instead of lashing out at opposing viewpoints and taking cheap shots at the skeptical community.

Evidence against the processing timeline:

- the film itself. It is missing, the leader with the date was never inspected prior to the film's disappearance

- testimony of industry insiders such as Ishihara and our very own Old Mort, who have explained why the processing was unlikely

- weather kept planes from flying out on the 20th

- Al Deatley's convenient 'memory lapse' as to the details of the processing

 

You can choose to focus only on 'what's on the film' but this is a fool's errand if the story behind the processing is a lie.

 

 

haha ! Cheap shots like fools errands.

 

How is the film bein' "missing", evidence against the processin' timeline ? haha ! 

Testimony of industry insiders who do not know where or when the film was developed. "processing was unlikely" how, if you don't know where an when ? Not to mention the film was indeed processed an viewed. haha ! 

Weather kept planes from flying, says who ? Weather, as far as we know did not become a issue until after they claimed to have already sent the film. Rains didn't start til 5:30ish Oct 21st. But...nice try.

DeAtley's memory lapse or refusal to cooperate is evidence against the processin' timeline how ? Exactly...it isn't.

 

The filmed subject an the tracks cast, witnessed by others are evidence, as apposed to your speculation of said evidence. So I choose evidence.

 

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:55 PM, OldMort said:

Right! No better or no worse.

Its a matter of individual choice, we all have our own interests.

Personally, I find the history of the film and the colorful life and times of Patterson and Gimlin far more interesting than any ongoing "analysis" of 954 images of "raw data."

To each his own... :)

OldMort,

 

If you find the colourful life an times of Patterson an Gimlin more interesting than the actual evidence, that's your call. However there's more than just images of "raw data",  there are physical plaster casts documented by multiple sources on different dates from the film site. 

The tracks an casts represent evidence, of either a unclassified bipedal primate or a man made hoax. If you think reel 1 is a hoax, up to you. Reel 1 however is supported by reel 2, I'll go straight to the skeptical argument, the tracks were hoaxed at a later date. You then have to account for the tracks themselves, everyone knows I've mentioned this for years, they depict anatomical characteristics that were not common knowledge back then. Matter of fact, the concept a bipedal primate would exhibit midfoot flexibility was argued against by science itself, until only recently. So we have evidence of primate anatomy decades ahead of its time visible in the 2nd reel, in the casts by Titmus an photos by Laverty. How did Patterson an Gimlin hoax the tracks ?  If they somehow understood primate foot anatomy decades ahead of everyone, why did they not cast a example of it ? Why create anatomically correct tracks, only to make casts of the flattest tracks ?  The anatomical features found in these tracks an cast went unrecognized for decades, until our scientific knowledge caught up with the facts we now recognize to be perfectly natural bipedal primate foot anatomy.

 

I agree, to each their own, but what do you think of the "other evidence " OldMort ? 

🍻

Pat...

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

ps:"Roger's brother-in-law, Al de Atley, was the first person to see the film. I understand that he had put up the money for Bob and Roger to make the trip and had one-third interest in the results. Roger, Rene, Jim McClarin and I all saw it for the first time on the same day, at Al's house in Yakima." pg 118 Apes Among Us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^^  BD, here are a few accounts:

 

"Green told me he arrived on Sunday morning knowing a film would be available for review. He waited with DeAtley and wife for a very long time, no other persons present. Patterson didn't arrive till afternoon, alone. He and DeAtley looked at the film privately, then showed it to Green. According to McClarin, he and Dahinden arrived much later, having taken the bus from Portland. Patterson was already gone by the time they arrived. They viewed the film with DeAtley and Green."

 

"According to Green, during the hours he sat with DeAtley and his wife awaiting Patterson and the others, he asked DeAtley if he had the film and if he had seen it. DeAtley indicated he had the film and that he had not seen it."

 

"Green described the wait with DeAtley and wife as interminable, lasting for hours. He described them as very polite. DeAtley said he had the film but that he wanted to wait for Patterson's arrival before showing it."

 

^^^  - ace PGF timeline investigator and Forum member Hold My Beer, from his interview with John Green

 

 

"The film was already on the projector when John went to DeAtley's and I don't believe for a minute that Roger and/or DeAtley had not viewed the film before people started arriving. And while I am not 100% certain - I thought John had once told me that Roger and DeAtley was there when he arrived. There should be an early accounting of that day in writing somewhere."  - Bill Miller

 

 

Chris Murphy's version -

""Al DeAtley picked-up the film at the Seattle airport on the morning of Saturday, October 21, 1967. He had the film processed at the Alpha Cine laboratory in Seattle and returned to his home in Yakima that same day. Patterson and Gimlin arrived at Yakima sometime on Sunday morning, October 22, 1967. During this time, John Green arrived at De Atley's home and the two men awaited Patterson's arrival. When Patterson arrived, De Atley took him alone to the basement of his home and showed him the film. The film was then shown to John Green. Bob Gimlin was not present. We are told he was at home resting."

 

I'm sure there are more....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Pat wrote:

Quote

DeAtley's memory lapse or refusal to cooperate is evidence against the processin' timeline how ? Exactly...it isn't.

 

Al's "memory lapse"/his refusal to provide details does not in the least bit constitute evidence against the 'processing timeline', Pat. ;) 

 

The reason why it does not is because Al has always proposed/suggested that the film is a hoax. He has never tried to "protect the alleged PGF hoax".  Here is just one example of Al having no reluctance in suggesting the film is a hoax...

 

De-Atley-Thinks-Film-Is-AHoax2.jpg

 

 

 

What Al's refusal to provide details does 'speak against' is the 'moral integrity' of some aspect of the film development.

That type of issue is indicated by Al's quick ending of his interview with Greg Long...

 

 

De-Atley-s-Bye-Bye1-B.jpg

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
12 hours ago, PBeaton said:

I agree, to each their own, but what do you think of the "other evidence " OldMort ? 

🍻

 

Pat, I have read what I can and watched the documentaries etc. regarding the authenticity of the film subject.

 

Since I have no background or knowledge of biomechanics, anatomy, costume design etc., I must leave that for the experts.

 

I don't see much agreement there, so to me it remains inconclusive.

 

I find the "height issue" very interesting and have followed that research quite a bit. It seems to remain unresolved as far as I know.

 

By the way, I have seen very little new "analysis" of the raw data on this forum for quite some time now...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I am one skeptic that is reasonably convinced the creature does not exist and even more convinced than ever that this thread should not exist. :no:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^^^ .... and I'm even more convinced than ever that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this sub-forum. LoL.  :no:

 

On a separate note, a few days ago there were more than a few folks here that were complaining about the "Actual Developing" thread.

 

The ongoing discussion here was characterized as grasping at straws by skeptics for lack of better "evidence", "stick to the "film" etc.

 

"It is because their attacks on the subject of the film itself have failed, so they're grasping straws. In a way, the fact that they are resorting to this line of questioning is good."

 

Now a few days later, we have a new thread on the developing of the film (Processing of P-G Film -New Information) started by Mr. Daniel Perez.

 

"But he's not one of "them", you may say.

 

Just like most of us here, I doubt that his purpose is to "attack" or grasp for straws.

 

Rather, I suspect that he has an ongoing historical interest in the film.

 

Welcome to the discussion Mr. Perez...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On 2/11/2019 at 6:03 PM, OldMort said:

^^^ I don't recall any of the mean skeptics here, or anyone for that matter ever questioning if P and G were truly at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek or at Syl McCoys' the evening of the 20th.

 

What exactly is their presence there supposed to prove in your opinion?

 

Hodgson "corroborates"  their visit here: http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/interview-with-al-hodgson-mr-bigfoot-of.html

 

Hodgson's story however, is quite different than the one Gimlin has been telling for decades.

 

"Corroborate" - To confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)

 

As far as the shipping of the film, all we have is the "word" of Gimlin.

 

Since Gimlin was admittedly a participant in this alleged activity he cannot be used to corroborate his own story.

 

Remarkably, we have no witnesses to this event, nor do we have a record of any flight to Yakima that night or of a film being shipped there.

 

OldMort, 

 

"As far as the shipping of the film, all we have is the "word" of Gimlin." Not sure where or how you came to that conclusion when we know Patterson told the reporter that he air mailed the film to DeAtley in Yakima.

 

Remarkably, we have witnesses to the development of the film, yet it was still developed. An we don't have any record of where or when the film was developed, yet it was still developed.  

 

Pat... 

Patterson's first interview.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×