Jump to content

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, MrSkwatch said:

 

Maybe a sample of film that requires K2 processing is out there that shows it was developed somewhere other than a licensed establishment? Maybe an old adult film? I'm not sure why they would go through the trouble of acquiring the equipment but we are talking about people willing to break the law. Sorry if this was already brought up.


Anything is certainly possible.  I was not alive at the time but it’s been said that black market adult films of the day would have been filmed on more common film types due to the processing limitations.   Why use a more difficult media when the alternative is cheaper and easier to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of my research involved scanning vintage adult films to document camera identification marks and film stock edgecodes and the film Stock Agva-Gevert was identified often. So it was an alternative to any Kodak film product and didn't have the processing restrictions Kodachrome did. Commercial Ektachrome was also an alternative with a simple E-6 processing anyone could do, skilled amateur or pro alike.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back, some genius here put forth the theory that Al DeAtley was operating a Kodachrome Porn lab out of his basement. :lol:

Edited by OldMort
typo
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Recently, I have been in touch with the gentleman who is the new owner of the alleged original PGF.

 

He gave me an in depth summary of the impartial analysis that was performed on the film. I won't include all that here.

 

I told him that my specific interest was in an examination of the edges of the film in order to ascertain whether or not the embedded latent images that Frank Ishihara has alluded to were present. The presence of these images would confirm once and for all that the PGF was indeed processed at Technicolor NW. Processing mystery solved etc. He seemed to want to ignore the issue.

 

The film owner was adamant that there would not be any further examination of the film. This, despite my suggestion that such an examination could help as far as establishing his film's provenance. I pressed him for a little more info and he gave me this:

 

"I received additional help from Bill Munns, which I am very grateful for. As a result of his input I sent a piece of film back to the analyst so any Kodak K-100 camera marks were present. (sic) He stated that there was indication of marks, but degradation was such that he could not find several in a row, or discern the outlines of the marks with any certainty. But, his conclusion was it was likely from a K-100 camera."

 

And finally:

"There are intermittent "half moon" looking light areas along the left side of the film (left side if you look at it with the emulsion side away from you) but, as he stated, whereas there were three or for in sequence, they were indistinct and he couldn't say for sure they were what we were looking for. But, as an examiner with his credentials and experience, he felt in his gut that the film was likely from a K-100. As I recall he said not all K-100s had that rotating exposure cutout, but that is unclear as well."

 

Any comments or clarifications from Bill would be more than welcome of course. 

 

And my questions for Bill:

1. What is it exactly that they were looking for here, Ishihara's latent processing images or K-100 camera marks, or both?

2. Is the use of a K-100 now in question or is this new search for camera marks strictly to verify the possible authenticity of this alleged original?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mort:

 

Yes, I did provide the gentleman with more info on the film, and a way to likely identify the original, using the camera ID mark. All known copies of the PGF which were contact printed (made by Roger in Nov. 1967) have a partially blocked ID area. Apparently a guide roller in the printer blocks that area when the light is shined through the source film to the copy stock. It clips most of the ID half-circle shape, but not all, leaving a notch in the left aperture edge at the top. I continue to occasionally correspond with the gentleman, as we've become friends of a sort. He hasn't communicated to me anything that would suggest his film is definitievely the PGF original. But he hasn't communicated very much to me, and said he prefers not to share either the analyst's report or any images of the film, and I respect his decision in that matter. So I can't say with any certainty exactly what he and his analyst are looking for., other than the ID marks as i advised him to consider looking for.

 

The only true and unaltered camera ID mark I've seen was on the transparancies Patricia had, which Roger had made by a lab from his original. Since they were made by a still print system, they didn't need the guide roller a contact printed film needs, so the ID mark was shown complete on the transparancies.

 

I don't know anything about Frank Ishihara's claim of a lab-introduced latent image that is added in processing. I've never heard of a lab doing so. And the latent images that show on the contact copies (which do have the kodachrome stock identification and 1967 date code), do not have any other latent images except the copy stock name and date code. But some copies have the right side sprocket area masked off. This would be done if the printer was set up to add an optical sound track, so the area (on single perf film) keeps the right side unexposed by picture so it can be exposed with an optical sound track. It's possible the lab image was put on the right side and subsequent copies masked off the right side just because that's how the printer was set up at the time the copy was made.

 

The use of the camera ID is twofold.  1. to identify the true camera used, and   2. to identify the camera original because the copies have a partial ID area, not a full one, like the original does.

 

To those of you in the forum who don't know what camera ID marks are, the attached image shows the K-100 camera ID marks and how they look when printed and cropped.

A3_05.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I don't know anything about Frank Ishihara's claim of a lab-introduced latent image that is added in processing. I've never heard of a lab doing so.

 

Frank had mentioned that if he could examine the original he could easily prove whether or not the PGF was processed in his lab or not.

 

He had implemented a unique innovation to the Pako K-12 processor that would imbed an ID on the film edge certifying that the film was processed at Technicolor NW.

 

It is described as "an almost invisible latent image" by Ishihara.

 

I'm reasonably sure that the reason they did this was to safeguard their company's reputation. I'm referring to the Porn aspect here.

If there were ever any accusations of his lab processing illegal or illicit materials, all Ishihara would have to do is ask his accusers to show him the ID images or lack thereof on the film in question. I'm also reasonably sure he did this with the full blessing of Eastman Kodak as it protected their reputation also.

Very clever of Frank, and a very fine way to protect himself as an individual.

 

So there you have it...

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some scans of a PGF copy where the Kodachrome latent image printed through to the copy (on the top edge, in these scans) , and the copy stock latent image was on the opposite side (the bottom, in these scans) but I don't see anything unusual about the latent images that might be a lab imprint.

 

 

 

I can understand the lab wanting some kind of proof if it did or did not develop some film, because in 1967, it was still illegal to process sexually explicit images on film (aka "pornography). So I can see the lab's concern being reasonable. And Kodak was famously determined to resist processing anything sexually explicit or even very suggestive. And I believe they had some kind of stipulation in processing licensing agreements making labs agree not to process such film either.

 

Of course, adult filmmakers could just use Ektachrome or Agva gevert film and easily find a private lab that would look the other way as to the image content (or maybe make copies for their private collections). So all experienced adult filmmakers knew which film stock to use so they could process it safely. it was the amateur guy who persuaded his girlfriend to undress so he could take pictures of her naked that might use Kodachrome and then find the lab confiscating the film once it was processed. 

film evidence 1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very interested in the issue of the PGF development timeline just because it is part of the mystery.

 

IF it could be determined the film is found, and IF it could be determined from some markings the film was developed at Technicolor NW I wonder what effect if any this would have on the odds or a hoax or real film?  That is, if it is confirmed, does this make some move toward the PGF being a real film of a real creature or is one thing (Patty being real) unrelated to the other (the place of PGF development)?

 

To my thinking, one may not have anything to directly do with the other.  However, it would at least make it seem Roger and Bob's story seems more credible.  I realize others might see it the other way.

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, regardless of when or where the PGF camera original was processed, no possible scenario will change or invalidate the evidence within the film that supports a conclusion of authenticity. If the information found by a new review of the original grossly contridicted anything Roger or Bob said, it would indeed damage the credibility of the person, but the proof that the film is authentic is not dependent upon the credibility of either Roger or Bob. 

 

Have you ever played "Pickup Sticks' the old fashioned game where you take a bundle of long sticks and throw them into a pile on the floor, and then you try to remove one stick without disturbing the others.  Well, in the same sense, removing Roger or Bob's personal credibility would not disturb the pile of evidence that the PGF is real.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

IF it could be determined the film is found, and IF it could be determined from some markings the film was developed at Technicolor NW I wonder what effect if any this would have on the odds or a hoax or real film?

 

Since the PGF has been proven as showing an "authentic" creature, the developing issue remains only as an interesting side note for old guys like me who are interested in history and specifically the colorful days of the late 1960's and the lore thereof. There's a mountain of fascinating history surrounding the PGF and in my opinion the PGF saga itself offers one of the very richest slices of Americana from that period. If done properly and accurately it would make for a superb Hollywood film. From a historical perspective, it would be nice to know the truth, wouldn't it?... But no, it wouldn't change anything, BD.

 

We all have different perspectives and reasons for being on this forum. One thing that has perplexed me here though has been the vehement opposition by some supporters of the film to any efforts at investigation or examination of the PGF saga and it's associated lore such as the developing mystery. I truly see no reason to discount or discredit any individuals honest search for the truth. Perhaps this just isn't the place for that.

 

As far as the new owner of the alleged "original" PGF, he is convinced that it is a hoaxed event and mentioned to me that he would willfully destroy the film first rather than allow anyone further access to it. So if he indeed does have the original - we will never know.  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

We all have different perspectives and reasons for being on this forum. One thing that has perplexed me here though has been the vehement opposition by some supporters of the film to any efforts at investigation or examination of the PGF saga and it's associated lore such as the developing mystery.

 


 

I agree.   

The film development is very important and shouldn’t be dismissed.    Strong Believers must admit the holes in the PGF developement story /timeline is a weakness.
 

I know what is on the film is the main determining factor for a hoax or a real event.  Still, the development thing can’t just be dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

As far as the new owner of the alleged "original" PGF, he is convinced that it is a hoaxed event and mentioned to me that he would willfully destroy the film first rather than allow anyone further access to it. 


 

I don’t doubt you at all and what you were told.   I doubt he really believes this is a hoax and would destroy the film.   
 

It’s like a drug dealer who knows the bag of drugs is really just flower but pays for the drugs anyway.  
 

Beyond that, people don’t tend to purchase something just to destroy it.  This is esp true if it could have a high value.  It means the cost of obtaining it is usually high or the value of something they paid little for can fetch a high price.   Either way, people don’t go out of their way to find and pay for things they are not interested in just to destroy it.

 

i don’t doubt what you were told by the person though.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...