Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)

Recommended Posts

MIB
2 hours ago, OldMort said:

HMB also cautioned against drawing that very inference from what was merely a subjective observation on his (HMB's) part:

 

Indeed.   And what I'm saying is that claims it was absolutely not done in Seattle remain in doubt.   There are 3 buckets: 100% proven yes, 100% proven no, and everything in the middle.   This remains in the middle bucket until/unless further clarifying evidence comes to light.   It can be said that it most probably was not done in Seattle, but it cannot truthfully and accurately be said that it absolutely was not done in Seattle.

 

MIB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
17 minutes ago, MIB said:

It can be said that it most probably was not done in Seattle, but it cannot truthfully and accurately be said that it absolutely was not done in Seattle.

 

I agree with your statement...

 

I think the real value of HMB's interview with Ishihara is that it clears up many of the misconceptions that have been discussed here regarding this issue.

 

We now have a far more accurate picture of what was actually possible and what wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I find it interestin' Ishihara mentioned Leonard Tall contacted him on a Friday night, the two went in on Saturday an developed a film. Ishihara said..."Tall was the only other individual at the Technicolor lab capable of processing a Kodachrome film outside of normal hours.",  he simply didn't think Tall would risk doin' it for fear of messin' up an loosin' their licensin' with kodak. Which we all know, you get somethin' done on the downlow or on the side...you don't have those same guarantees as on the up an up.

 

Well...a claim that was or wasn't possible...depends how you look at it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ What that means is that it WAS possible for it to have been done by one person alone w/o Frank knowing it, so what is left is debate over what makes it more or less probable, but no matter how probable, it was no longer impossible.    Out of curiosity, where were Tall's qualifications that would make it possible for him to do it w/o help but the other regular processing techs (whatever they were called) could not?    That would suggest he was a lot more than just a camera shop owner.    (I think this might have been mentioned, I just don't remember what was said.)

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

To me, Frank has basically stated this film was not developed in the NW  during that weekend. I believe him.   I'm more inclined to believe it was produced a week or less before.  For whatever reason, the timeline was fabricated.  The film is or is not a hoax.  If BF is real I'd tend to lean towards it resembling patty.  The film (subject) is one thing, the timeline is another.   The timeline, IMO, is wrong.  The film is intriguing to say the least.  

 

8 minutes ago, MIB said:

^^^^ What that means is that it WAS possible for it to have been done by one person alone w/o Frank knowing it, so what is left is debate over what makes it more or less probable, but no matter how probable, it was no longer impossible.    Out of curiosity, where were Tall's qualifications that would make it possible for him to do it w/o help but the other regular processing techs (whatever they were called) could not?    That would suggest he was a lot more than just a camera shop owner.    (I think this might have been mentioned, I just don't remember what was said.)

 

MIB

 

When this one person showed up in the NW lab alone to process this, I'm assuming Tall?   Did he also bring a yellow kodak leader and mailing box to avoid sending it out with the custom white box or packaging that was used?

 

Is it not PGF lore that a yellow kodak leader and shipping box was present at the viewing?

 

How deep is the rabbit hole?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
12 minutes ago, MIB said:

  Out of curiosity, where were Tall's qualifications that would make it possible for him to do it w/o help but the other regular processing techs (whatever they were called) could not?  

 

Tall was an inventer. He started CX Corp.,  invented the machines for "one hour processing"   Very qualified.  In 1963, "TALLS CAMERA SUPPLY" had 3 locations in  the Seattle area. I am not sure what he had in 1967.

 

18 minutes ago, MIB said:

Out of curiosity,

 

 Curiosity killed the cat,  Kodachrome processing brought him back.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

If we assume a scenario that the film was made and shipped before the 20th, then what were Roger and Bob doing for the 2.5 hour period between the 6:30pm visit to Al Hodgson's store that took place on the 20th, and the 9:00pm meeting with Al H. and Syl McCoy later on that same night at the Ranger Station? Were they driving the backroads hunting jack rabbits? Were they visiting relatives? They had to have done something during this time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

They could have stopped and had a burger, they could have had a beer, who knows what they did then.  2.5 hours to attest for is nothing compared to a potentially impossible development of a film type that was only capable thru proprietary chemicals.   Really?   To top it off, the main guy in the NW responsible for the development of this type of film has essentially closed the door on it being done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
41 minutes ago, Twist said:

To me, Frank has basically stated this film was not developed in the NW  during that weekend. I believe him.   I'm more inclined to believe it was produced a week or less before.  For whatever reason, the timeline was fabricated.  The film is or is not a hoax.  If BF is real I'd tend to lean towards it resembling patty.  The film (subject) is one thing, the timeline is another.   The timeline, IMO, is wrong.  The film is intriguing to say the least.

"basically''...? He hasn't...but you believe he has...an you believe him !

The rest Twist...well...I'll let you be inclined ta fancy what ya like.  

 

41 minutes ago, Twist said:

When this one person showed up in the NW lab alone to process this, I'm assuming Tall?   Did he also bring a yellow kodak leader and mailing box to avoid sending it out with the custom white box or packaging that was used?

The claimed leader on the film isn't evidence, it's a claim, nothin' more. The film would have likely shown up in the yellow box it came in.

41 minutes ago, Twist said:

Is it not PGF lore that a yellow kodak leader and shipping box was present at the viewing?

The claimed leader on the film is just that, a claim.  

41 minutes ago, Twist said:

How deep is the rabbit hole?

As deep as you are willing to dig. You have to remember Twist, it is the skeptic who offers nothin' to the equation besides doubt here. You say you don't think it was filmed on the 20th, give me a day or a place ? 

 

Where has Ishihara said that Twist ? He was completely familiar with why all the questions regarding the developin' of the film...where did he say it couldn't have been developed on that weekend ?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

So your ok dismissing the information HMB presented in regards to Frank?   On what grounds ?  What do you have to counter what was claimed by Frank?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
16 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

So what does account for it in your opinion?

 

 

 

DeAtley's reaction, to Long's observation....indicates to me that the secretive details behind the film processing are something which would be embarrassing....(at the very least)….to Al, himself

 

What that detail is....I don't know. But I don't need to know, because what it is not...is a simple "earlier processing date". 

 

Al has never had any reluctance to call the PGF a "hoax". He has said many times that he thinks the film is a hoax. Therefore, he wouldn't have such a strong reluctance to reveal an earlier filming/processing date. 

 

And, by logical extension....neither was this Roger's reason for his secrecy regarding the 'film development' details.  :) 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
9 hours ago, Twist said:

They could have stopped and had a burger, they could have had a beer, who knows what they did then.  2.5 hours to attest for is nothing compared to a potentially impossible development of a film type that was only capable thru proprietary chemicals.   Really?   To top it off, the main guy in the NW responsible for the development of this type of film has essentially closed the door on it being done. 

 

Proof of a hoax isn't going to come from the timeline, regardless of what Frank I. has to say. I think Frank has become the gospel for some because what he has said fits what some want to hear, so they latch onto him. There have been other accounts about developing on here in the past but they got more or less dismissed. So unless Frank knows something about Roger's film itself, he's just another voice.

Any proof of a hoax will need to come from the film itself, so wake me whenever Frank I. can explain how a human rotates it's knees laterally as it walks; and how a human in a suit was able to make tracks 6 times deeper than those made by actual humans in the same soil; and how the human in the suit had an IM Index far out of human range. 

The timeline and the developing of the film has no effect on this and this is why it's not going to yield a smoking gun.

If anyone thinks the timeline points to "hoax", then there is a list a mile long of items that have so far defied logical explanations. 

It's like the alligator in the swamp analogy. One can get bogged down in the timeline while forgetting the real goal of trying to prove a hoax should be to prove the figure on the film is really a human. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
17 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

 

Proof of a hoax isn't going to come from the timeline, regardless of what Frank I. has to say. I think Frank has become the gospel for some because what he has said fits what some want to hear, so they latch onto him. There have been other accounts about developing on here in the past but they got more or less dismissed. So unless Frank knows something about Roger's film itself, he's just another voice.

 

I'm not in this thread trying to prove Patty a hoax, I'm trying to discern the facts behind the actual developing of the PGF, as is the title of the thread.

 

He has not become the gospel because of what his actual message is, but he is and should be considered an expert in the field during era of the PGF developing.  Do you dispute his knowledge of KII processing specifically in the NW during this time frame?  Do you offer a better expert or at least facts that dispute his views?
 

Please post links to the other accounts of KII processing that have been dismissed short of, "it could have been a secret Porn lab" or other wild speculation.  Bring another processing option that has substance.  

Edited by Twist
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
4 hours ago, Twist said:

So your ok dismissing the information HMB presented in regards to Frank?   On what grounds ?  What do you have to counter what was claimed by Frank?  

Twist,

 

I'm actually usin' what he said.

 

Ishihara said Tall was capable of developin' the film on his own, he also said Tall had been previously been contacted on a Friday(I presume, otherwise they could have simply developed it normally) an they developed a film on a Saturday. So...we have precedent.

 

Ishihara also makes mention of the license Tall purchased from Kodak, that came with a great many stipulations on developin' film etc..

Is it possible that is the reason for keepin' the person an location of developin' a secret, so it wouldn't jeopardize his licensin' agreement with Kodak ?

 

I think it could both explain an account for secretive development of the film.

 

Pat...      

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
3 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

What that detail is....I don't know. But I don't need to know, because what it is not...is a simple "earlier processing date". 

 

You don't know, you don't need to know, but you do know what it isn't...

 

So even though you don't need to know, do you have any ideas on what it is?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

×