Jump to content

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’m with Mort, the timeline is extremely interesting but I don’t believe it changes what’s on film.  
 

As a BF believer I’m 50/50 on the film.   I don’t feel it’s conclusive enough to say with certainty.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very safe to say that the film processing timeline and related questions practically cry out that something is being deliberately hidden  from public disclosure. The mistake made by the skeptical crowd is the expectation that this hidden fact somehow proves the film is a hoax. What they fail to see is that nothing about the development changes the evidence in the film, but the development issue can change our appraisal of the character of the men involved. Human frailty is universal, and some people's imperfections are more serious or unpleasant than others. While I think Bob is a good man at heart, I've always felt Roger was flawed as a person, and I think Al was boldly unconscionable and not above flaunting laws or social giudelines in search of profit. But the common error is to associate their personal flaws, whatever they might be, with the integrity of the film, a sort of guilt by association, which is a truly horrible and amateurish way to analyze the film's issue of authenticity.

 

In the matter of the timeline, there really are only two scenarios. Either the claimed date and location of processing is not correct, or a lab technician was bribed or coerced to break the lab rules and processing schedule and do a special rush order on Saturday. I share the interest of others here in wishing we could get to the truth of this, and i think it would be a fascinating story to learn the truth of. But I expect we'll never really solve it, as the key players have taken the truth to their graves. There are many mysteries associated with the PGf that still confound me, and I would love to one day have a full and truthful knowledge of the event, as it is remarkable. So I applaud those who continue to research and question things. 

 

My only concern is when interest in the greater mystery (including the timeline) suggests a different analysis and conclusion about the film's authenticity, when the concern or question at issue doesn't impact upon the film's empirical evidence. If it doesn't change the evidence within the film, it doesn't change the conclusion based on the evidence in the film. Just that simple.

 

But like so many here, I'd love to know what really happened when the film was processed. I suspect it is a fascinating story.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bill said:

I think it's very safe to say that the film processing timeline and related questions practically cry out that something is being deliberately hidden  from public disclosure. The mistake made by the skeptical crowd is the expectation that this hidden fact somehow proves the film is a hoax. What they fail to see is that nothing about the development changes the evidence in the film, but the development issue can change our appraisal of the character of the men involved. Human frailty is universal, and some people's imperfections are more serious or unpleasant than others. While I think Bob is a good man at heart, I've always felt Roger was flawed as a person, and I think Al was boldly unconscionable and not above flaunting laws or social giudelines in search of profit. But the common error is to associate their personal flaws, whatever they might be, with the integrity of the film, a sort of guilt by association, which is a truly horrible and amateurish way to analyze the film's issue of authenticity.

 

In the matter of the timeline, there really are only two scenarios. Either the claimed date and location of processing is not correct, or a lab technician was bribed or coerced to break the lab rules and processing schedule and do a special rush order on Saturday. I share the interest of others here in wishing we could get to the truth of this, and i think it would be a fascinating story to learn the truth of. But I expect we'll never really solve it, as the key players have taken the truth to their graves. There are many mysteries associated with the PGf that still confound me, and I would love to one day have a full and truthful knowledge of the event, as it is remarkable. So I applaud those who continue to research and question things. 

 

My only concern is when interest in the greater mystery (including the timeline) suggests a different analysis and conclusion about the film's authenticity, when the concern or question at issue doesn't impact upon the film's empirical evidence. If it doesn't change the evidence within the film, it doesn't change the conclusion based on the evidence in the film. Just that simple.

 

But like so many here, I'd love to know what really happened when the film was processed. I suspect it is a fascinating story.


I went fishing this winter on the coast and was climbing vantage grade up off the Columbia river on I 90.

 

As Im passing this 48 wheeler lowboy semi truck pulling a giant excavator up the hill?

 

I see De Atley construction on the side. I smiled to myself. That family has more money than about anyone in the state….

 

I bet my bottom dollar that if Mr. DeAtley wanted film developed on weekends or after hours? It happened no questions asked.

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

There were actually two rather well known "Al Deatleys" in the Pacific Northwest and oddly enough they both were involved in the business of paving and rock crushing etc.

This has led to much confusion over the years...

 

Albert DeAtley of Yakima Washington and PGF fame, owned Superior Asphalt Company and passed away in 2019.

His obituary can be viewed here: Albert DeAtley Obituary (2019) - Yakima, WA - The Seattle Times (legacy.com)

I'm not even sure that Superior Asphalt Company exists any more. It seems that Al of Yakima was in the wine business in his later years.

 

Albert Neil DeAtley of Asotin Washington was the owner of the DeAtley Company and passed away in 2017.

His obituary can be viewed here: Albert DeAtley Obituary (1937 - 2017) - Clarkston, ID - The Oregonian (oregonlive.com)

"Annually, DeAtley Crushing Service (a division of the DeAtley Company) successfully completes projects that involve production of road building aggregates and asphalt paving aggregates for numerous projects associated or contracted by the Washington State Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Transportation, Idaho Transportation Department, as well as numerous counties and highway districts in the three northwestern states."

 

16 hours ago, norseman said:

I see De Atley construction on the side. I smiled to myself.

 

crush.jpeg.788a41f6c849d7e7fcc3351ebef9afa1.jpeg

Is it possible that this is what you saw while cruising up the Vantage grade? 

 

Yes, DeAtley of Yakima was a wealthy man in his later years but 54 years ago or so, his father's company was struggling mightily when Al Jr. took over. I seriously doubt that he had any clout whatsoever in those days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, OldMort said:

There were actually two rather well known "Al Deatleys" in the Pacific Northwest and oddly enough they both were involved in the business of paving and rock crushing etc.

This has led to much confusion over the years...

 

Albert DeAtley of Yakima Washington and PGF fame, owned Superior Asphalt Company and passed away in 2019.

His obituary can be viewed here: Albert DeAtley Obituary (2019) - Yakima, WA - The Seattle Times (legacy.com)

I'm not even sure that Superior Asphalt Company exists any more. It seems that Al of Yakima was in the wine business in his later years.

 

Albert Neil DeAtley of Asotin Washington was the owner of the DeAtley Company and passed away in 2017.

His obituary can be viewed here: Albert DeAtley Obituary (1937 - 2017) - Clarkston, ID - The Oregonian (oregonlive.com)

"Annually, DeAtley Crushing Service (a division of the DeAtley Company) successfully completes projects that involve production of road building aggregates and asphalt paving aggregates for numerous projects associated or contracted by the Washington State Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Transportation, Idaho Transportation Department, as well as numerous counties and highway districts in the three northwestern states."

 

 

crush.jpeg.788a41f6c849d7e7fcc3351ebef9afa1.jpeg

Is it possible that this is what you saw while cruising up the Vantage grade? 

 

Yes, DeAtley of Yakima was a wealthy man in his later years but 54 years ago or so, his father's company was struggling mightily when Al Jr. took over. I seriously doubt that he had any clout whatsoever in those days. 


It was definitely DeAtley. Not sure of the logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2021 at 4:40 PM, Bill said:

 What they fail to see is that nothing about the development changes the evidence in the film, but the development issue can change our appraisal of the character of the men involved. Human frailty is universal, and some people's imperfections are more serious or unpleasant than others.

 

 

I don't know if this is a disagreement but I have to give another thought on your post to offer this food-for-thought:  

 

I 100% agree what is on the film is definitive.    That is, if the cameraman was a hero or a crook, the film content is the film.   I just think the 1) The development timeline and 2) a Patty suit demonstration/ consideration are two additional issues we can have a more objective discussion around involving the PGF.  That is, we can't always squeeze more out of what is on the film.   We have hit some snags on solving lens issues and other issues involving the film itself.  We keep working that problem to be sure.     In the meantime, we can work the development timeline issue (and the suit issue).

 

So what is my point?

 

Well, there can be times where we essentially fall in love.   This usually applies to a person we love but we can fall in love with an idea.  Yet, love can be blind.  What I like about the PGF development issue it serves a purpose to give any passion the film is convincingly real a bit of a pause.  Maybe that pause is necessary.   A person can strongly conclude the PGF is real.  Any person could become so convinced they close off all options.     I will say again the PGF development timeline is not a deal breaker for me.  But, I will say I think it serves as a very useful exercise in keeping us honest.    If I thought Patty looked like a real creature when compared that might just be the way I see it and that is that.    But, if I have to consider this other factors like the development timeline/ issue then it might give m some pause.  I would suggest that pause helps guard us against falling to far in love too quickly when our better judgement might tell us to take it slow.  I am not saying 50 years is too quick to reach a conclusion.  I am just thinking we can know what we know to the point we might disregard some fairly reasonable considerations.   We all know a person could not just run down to the one-hour photo at Walgreens in this case.  

 

Maybe I can feel this way because I am not sold one way or the other.    It is always good to be sure but we need to be sure what we think we are sure about.   Respectfully to all sides, I just see the PGF development timeline/ issues as an important consideration.  It's a good challenge in the study of the film and event.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

I don't know if this is a disagreement but I have to give another thought on your post to offer this food-for-thought:  

 

I 100% agree what is on the film is definitive.    That is, if the cameraman was a hero or a crook, the film content is the film.   I just think the 1) The development timeline and 2) a Patty suit demonstration/ consideration are two additional issues we can have a more objective discussion around involving the PGF.  That is, we can't always squeeze more out of what is on the film.   We have hit some snags on solving lens issues and other issues involving the film itself.  We keep working that problem to be sure.     In the meantime, we can work the development timeline issue (and the suit issue).

 

So what is my point?

 

Well, there can be times where we essentially fall in love.   This usually applies to a person we love but we can fall in love with an idea.  Yet, love can be blind.  What I like about the PGF development issue it serves a purpose to give any passion the film is convincingly real a bit of a pause.  Maybe that pause is necessary.   A person can strongly conclude the PGF is real.  Any person could become so convinced they close off all options.     I will say again the PGF development timeline is not a deal breaker for me.  But, I will say I think it serves as a very useful exercise in keeping us honest.    If I thought Patty looked like a real creature when compared that might just be the way I see it and that is that.    But, if I have to consider this other factors like the development timeline/ issue then it might give m some pause.  I would suggest that pause helps guard us against falling to far in love too quickly when our better judgement might tell us to take it slow.  I am not saying 50 years is too quick to reach a conclusion.  I am just thinking we can know what we know to the point we might disregard some fairly reasonable considerations.   We all know a person could not just run down to the one-hour photo at Walgreens in this case.  

 

Maybe I can feel this way because I am not sold one way or the other.    It is always good to be sure but we need to be sure what we think we are sure about.   Respectfully to all sides, I just see the PGF development timeline/ issues as an important consideration.  It's a good challenge in the study of the film and event.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with what you said, Backdoc, in those highlighted statements.

 

The most important consideration, by far, is what is seen on the film...(regarding the subject itself.)

 

And, AFAIC....the analysis of those details can be rather simple....and easy to see:

 

A bulging/contracting calf muscle....and quadracep muscle....on the subject's right leg...

 

Articulating toes on the subject's right foot...

 

Articulating fingers...

 

Independent movement of the two sides of the buttocks...

 

A very un-humanlike 'arm proportion'....with a 'shorter than normal' lower-arm....(meaning...no 'arm extensions')...

 

A total lack of folds on the subject's body.

 

There are plenty more realistic/un-suitlike details than those.....but those details, alone, can resolve this mystery....if one has a mind which can accept what they are clearly showing.  :) 

 

 

 

 

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

11 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

I respectfully disagree with what you said, Backdoc, in those highlighted statements.

 

The most important consideration, by far, is what is seen on the film...(regarding the subject itself.)

 

And, AFAIC....the analysis of those details can be rather simple....and easy to see:

 

A bulging/contracting calf muscle....and quadracep muscle....on the subject's right leg...

 

Articulating toes on the subject's right foot...

 

Articulating fingers...

 

Independent movement of the two sides of the buttocks...

 

A very un-humanlike 'arm proportion'....with a 'shorter than normal' lower-arm....(meaning...no 'arm extensions')...

 

A total lack of folds on the subject's body.

 

There are plenty more realistic/un-suitlike details than those.....but those details, alone, can resolve this mystery....if one has a mind which can accept what they are clearly showing.  :) 

 

 

 

 


I agree SY.    I just think of the old Star Trek series where Spock says to Dr. McCoy, “Really doctor, your passion will be your undoing”.   I just want to guard against being So certain I might shut out an occasional reasonable point.    If I didn’t feel this way, then why should I even ask for a Skeptic for a Suit Recreation if I won’t consider weighing the result.    
 

The points you made on that list ( which could be even longer) are strong and I have yet to see even a bad hoax explanation  to them let alone a good explanation.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2021 at 7:29 PM, 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. So if he indeed does have the original - we will never know.  

 

 

That strikes me as perfectly absurd.  If anyone has the original film then, verifying it as such would certainly make it far more valuable than not verifying it.  We're talking a million dollars plus, easy, hoaxed event or not.  So, why would anyone who is convinced that the PGf was a hoax and also believes that they have the camera original not want to verify and cash in at the same time?  I just don't see that sequence of events ever happening.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if that sounded like I don't believe that you were telling Us what you were told, Old Mort.  I just don't buy into it, not for 1 second.   

Edited by xspider1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had some conversations with the film owner, and he seems quite sincere in his intentions with the film that he owns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great information. Thanks all for sharing. I agree with the maybe new owner that the film is hoaxed.. 

I doubt that the individual is the owner. Sounds rather fishy 🤔 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2021 at 7:59 PM, OldMort said:

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

OK, crazy Q's time here for the film guys (especially OM and Bill):

 

1-  With the passing of Mr. Ishihara, do we even know what we would be looking for (latent image) with any certainty or did Frank take that to his grave?   How would we know any suspected latent image is the Frank Ishihara image?

 

2-  Wouldn't about any PGF-like movie film have the mark as well, not just the PGF?  That is, if there is such a secret image shouldn't any film developed by Frank have that image?    Until we find the PGF film, wouldn't it be a good exercise to take other film processed at Frank's place and confirm any latent image so we know what to expect to look for?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I have not seen or read a description of the latent image, so it's form is a mystery to me. But other people worked at the lab, and presumably they knew what the image looked like. it would not have been one man's secret process.

 

2. Assuming what frank said is true, then the latent image should be on every roll of film developed at his lab. It takes a fair amount of work to set up a machine to expose a latent image and not expose any other part of the film, so I can only see it happening for every roll developed, not just the PGF..


So if you can find other film known to have been developed by Frank's lab in 1967, we might be able to determine what that special latent image is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...