Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)

Recommended Posts

MIB
BFF Donor
On 2/2/2019 at 9:23 AM, Twist said:

Technically, it could have been filmed, flown and processed in the timeline given.  I have issue with the logistics of it, not that they are impossible but the whole thing from start to finish would of had to go off lickity split clean to happen.  I"m open to them doing so but but believe it unlikely.  

 

I would say it might be challenging to do again, but they weren't doing it again, they were just doing it, and if the pieces hadn't fallen in place, we would't be talking about it.    Who, when he was in grade school, thought Tom Brady would have 5 superbowl rings?    Does the fact that nobody else has been able to do it somehow take those away from him?     Same thing regarding the PGF timeline.    The film exists.  It was shot.  It was developed.  It has been shown.   The "how" might be interesting but the difficulty of repeating "how" has no bearing on the legitimacy of the images shown.   That's a red herring set up long ago that people continue to chase .. I suppose because they have nothing legitimate to chase.   From a semi-outsider perspective, it's a waste of time.   The timeline will never be "debunked" any more than the content of the film can be "debunked" ... because whatever they are, they are.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

IMO it’s not a question of “repeating how”.

 

It’s an issue of ‘confirming how’ and such confirmation has never occurred.

 

The timeline could be easily be debunked. IF the camera original ever resurfaces and the leader has a date earlier than Oct 20, then all sorts of holes appear in PG’s story.

 

IF the suit used in the PGF ever resurfaces, then the whole thing falls apart.

 

Granted, these are only ‘ifs’ but consider the alternative:

 

Filming a creature that physically matches Patty hasn’t occurred in the 50+ years since the PGF. That says a lot to me, as a skeptic, about the film.

 

And as I stated earlier on the first page of this thread, the development timeline has never been confirmed. Acceptance by believers does not a confirmation make.

 

So why bother debunking what has never been confirmed in the first place?

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

So why bother debunking what has never been confirmed in the first place?

 

triple-facepalm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I agree G. Lol Im trying to approach the new year with less sarcasm and my usual vitriole...

 

But let’s be honest. 

 

Show one instance where the actual-filing-of-the-pgf was confirmed to have taken place on Oct 20 1967.

 

Quraduple face palm, if you will, but It’s sound.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Vitriol ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
22 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

IMO it’s not a question of “repeating how”.

 

It’s an issue of ‘confirming how’ and such confirmation has never occurred.

 

We don't have conformation of the PGF timeline. Not one which would satisfy either one of us at least. We both are looking for solid proof.  

 

The big hurdle is really not that big of a hurdle though.  Once they found a lab willing to develop the film on Saturday, the only thing needed was to get the film to that lab on Saturday.  A hour (?) later, you got the film in your hand.  I am not saying this is an easy thing but it is a doable thing.  We are told there were no labs which developed on Saturday.  But that is not true.  There was routine Saturday development going on in the Seattle Lab during the busy season.  The busy season is ill-defined as the summer.  For someone to say labs didn't develop KC film on Saturdays is just not true.  Did 'summer' mean still into early October some years?  I don't know.  Few if any are alive who would or if they were alive are not going to remember accurately for or against the film.

 

 

22 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

The timeline could be easily be debunked. IF the camera original ever resurfaces and the leader has a date earlier than Oct 20, then all sorts of holes appear in PG’s story.

 

IF the suit used in the PGF ever resurfaces, then the whole thing falls apart.

 

 

 

Well if it is a suit then it IS a suit. That would settle that.  No original suit have been found and no 1967 demo suit has really been offered.  

 

As far as the camera leader, I would hope it could tell us whatever the truth is and put this to rest.

 

SM,  wouldn't the leader only show us the location of where it was developed and not when?  Would it tell us both?  I know holes in the film edge tell us the vintage of the film/ year of manufacture.  I hope it tells both.  If it did show it was developed as Roger said it goes a long way in suggesting Patty is real.

Share this post


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

We are told there were no labs which developed on Saturday.  But that is not true.  There was routine Saturday development going on in the Seattle Lab during the busy season.  The busy season is ill-defined as the summer.  For someone to say labs didn't develop KC film on Saturdays is just not true.  Did 'summer' mean still into early October some years?  I don't know.  Few if any are alive who would or if they were alive are not going to remember accurately for or against the film.

 

What do you mean by the "busy season" is ill-defined'?

 

What do you really know about when busy seasons were in the photo industry? - "I don't know". 

 

I would agree...

 

Having worked in that very industry I can assure you that the busy times were as predictable as can possibly be. 

 

They were from late spring up till late August or early September when summer vacation was over, and again around Christmas.

 

Octobers were always remarkably slow, and that time was mainly used for minimal routine processing and equipment maintenance etc...

 

No amount of special pleading on your behalf turns October 20th into summertime.

 

Besides, doesn't your timeline actually require the lab to be closed?

 

Instead of spending your time beating dead horses to a pulp, you may want to review "Actual Developing threads #1 and #2."

 

All of this has been covered there many many times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

What do you mean by the "busy season" is ill-defined'?

 

What do you really know about when busy seasons were in the photo industry? - "I don't know". 

 

I would agree...

 

Having worked in that very industry I can assure you that the busy times were as predictable as can possibly be. 

 

They were from late spring up till late August or early September when summer vacation was over, and again around Christmas.

 

Octobers were always remarkably slow, and that time was mainly used for minimal routine processing and equipment maintenance etc...

 

No amount of special pleading on your behalf turns October 20th into summertime.

 

Besides, doesn't your timeline actually require the lab 

 

All of this has been covered there many many times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t have a set idea.  No idea requires me to need any fact to fit any notion.

 

Frank Ishhara, who you previously agreed was in a position to be the guy to develop the film easily on a Saturday had he wanted to, stated “to the best he could remember...” regarding the Saturday service hours.  If I asked a person at my bank if they were ever open at Christmas they would not state, “ to the best I can remember” they would state, “nope” with  certainty because they knew.

 

we should note IF frank had agreed to develop the film at his lab it would be easily 100% doable.  Not saying he did but that alone would make the impossible possible.

 

I consider the various ideas put fourth.  You clearly just stated in your experience development during a busy season went into Sept.  That is something I would not have suspected so it already goes deeper into sept than I would suspect.  I have no problem marking you down as an expert and would put strong weight on what you say yet once again.

 

I don't know if you ever worked in the Seattle lab.  I don’t know if the Seattle lab handled more volume than your lab or less.  Maybe it doesn’t effect scheduling issues.   I would just guess a big lab would have a longer busy season vs a smaller lab due to larger volume.  Maybe not.  Maybe a larger lab might have / afford more help so they had a shorter busy season.  My wild guess though is the Seattle lab ( west coast region) had a larger volume and thus a longer “busy season” than some other labs.  Maybe this required a few extra saturdays to cope with the volume?     

 

 

 

I am am not trying to force some stretch in October 20th as you seem to imply.

 

October was a slow time, works for me.

Lab was open, works for me.

Lab wasn’t open but someone made allowances, Good enough.

Lab was closed with impossible PGF timeline, fine by me.

 

 

 

Extra credit quiz:

 

Please list the final Saturday development date for “the summer busy season” for the Seattle lab in the following years

 

1966

1967

1968

 

 

please note this must apply to the Seattle lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
30 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

Frank Ishhara, who you previously agreed was in a position to be the guy to develop the film easily on a Saturday had he wanted to, stated “to the best he could remember...” regarding the Saturday service hours.  If I asked a person at my bank if they were ever open at Christmas they would not state, “ to the best I can remember” they would state, “nope” with  certainty because they knew.

 

No he didn't say that at all... Please cite the origin of that quote.

 

What he did state though when interviewed by Long was that to the best of his recollection that he only ever came in once on a Saturday and that was to process a film for the government.

 

When asked if he could have possibly opened up the shop on a Saturday to process the PGF, he stated that "he would have remembered it if he had".

 

I will repost this correspondence from Ishihara to Peter Byrne yet again:

 

There is absolutely no lack of certainty in these remarks regarding his work schedule:

 

Ishihara writes:

"Herein lies the problem. You mentioned that you subsequently met with Leonard Tall for discussions on this matter. I am surprised that this timeline did not raise a question. We would not have had our processing equipment operating on that date. Even during the summer when I scheduled extended processing runs to handle the extra seasonal workload, the additional day was Friday and night into Saturday.. I kept the machines processing until the chemical supplies ran too low. The reason for this is that I did not schedule support staff for the extended 6th day run. On our normal startup day which was Sunday evening, we would make up the chemical supply before production processing.

In the fall, in October we did not process Friday nights And we started back up Sunday evenings. There is no way the film was delivered to the lab on Saturday. If the film was delivered to one of Tall's camera stores on Saturday, it still would not have been processed until Sunday night and available for delivery on Monday. perhaps this is the correct timeline and still have no bearing on the integrity of the footage". 

 

53 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 You clearly just stated in your experience development during a busy season went into Sept.  That is something I would not have suspected so it already goes deeper into sept than I would suspect.

 

I stated late August to early September when summer vacations are over. More precisely the time when kids go back to school; the time around Labor Day. 

 

It doesn't "go deep " into September.

 

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 I don’t know if the Seattle lab handled more volume than your lab or less.  Maybe it doesn’t effect scheduling issues.   I would just guess a big lab would have a longer busy season vs a smaller lab due to larger volume.  Maybe not.  Maybe a larger lab might have / afford more help so they had a shorter busy season.  My wild guess though is the Seattle lab ( west coast region) had a larger volume and thus a longer “busy season” than some other labs.  Maybe this required a few extra saturdays to cope with the volume?     

 

I worked at one of the largest (by volume) labs in California.

 

We sometimes worked the first Saturday after Christmas...

 

We had a few hundred employees.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Old Mort wrote:

Quote

Besides, doesn't your timeline actually require the lab to be closed?

 

That's correct, Old Mort.  

 

I don't agree with Backdoc, or anyone else....proposing that Roger had the film developed at a Lab which was open to the public, on that particular Saturday.....the 21st.

 

That scenario does not account for Roger's secrecy regarding where, and by whom, the film was developed. 

 

I've made this point more than once....but that senseless scenario seems to keep re-surfacing. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^ 

Sweaty, when you mention having made the point before about how the film being developed at a lab that was open to the public goes against Roger's secrecy about the developing of the film:

I know I've made this point once before: If the film had been developed at a lab that was open to the public, wouldn't the lab have had some kind of paper record with Al DeAtley's name on it as having brought in a reel of film to be developed; plus something attached to the film container. How else would the lab identify which reel belonged to which customer when they came to pick it up?

 

I could be wrong on this but it seems for the public lab idea you have to make an assumption the public lab was not busy and could develop Al's film the same day; unless they were open on Sunday also. Wouldn't htey develop film in chronological order, as they came in? We need to remember, Al wouldn't get 4 or 5 days advance notice if Roger got something on film that needed to be developed. He wouldn't know until Roger called him and Roger wanted the film developed quickly so Al wouldn't know until pretty much the last minute. 

How would Al know just which lab to go to? Did he call around Sat. aft. trying to find one that could develop his film quickly? What if none could accommodate him?

Could Occam's Razor apply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
BFF Donor
58 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

How would Al know just which lab to go to? Did he call around Sat. aft. trying to find one that could develop his film quickly? What if none could accommodate him?

Could Occam's Razor apply?

 

I would expect that's exactly what he did unless he had inside connections somewhere that allowed him to easily accomplish what Old Mort has stated was impossible.    I 'spect he took whichever could do it most quickly, perhaps balanced against time and cost of transportation.    Clearly someone DID accommodate him ... the existence of the developed film is proof of that.   It may well be that, as speculated, someone broke some rules ... returning a favor.  Or not.    Whatever it was, it was.   No need to overly complicate things.  

 

I don't think we're ever going to know for sure.   Lot of energy going into it which could probably be better spent doing field work but I guess it lets those who won't do field work feel important .. one direction or the other.

 

MIB

 

Share this post


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

I would expect that's exactly what he did unless he had inside connections somewhere that allowed him to easily accomplish what Old Mort has stated was impossible

 

Perhaps you can show me that statement and when it was made...

 

My thoughts on the issue for some time now have been that it was not impossible but unlikely.

 

The best evidence leads elsewhere.

 

In fact, I have outlined some possible scenarios of how it could have  been accomplished.

 

I believe that a Sunday processing is far more likely than a Saturday one.

 

I also believe that how we choose to spend our time and energy is a matter of individual choice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

I would expect that's exactly what he did unless he had inside connections somewhere that allowed him to easily accomplish what Old Mort has stated was impossible.    I 'spect he took whichever could do it most quickly, perhaps balanced against time and cost of transportation.    Clearly someone DID accommodate him ... the existence of the developed film is proof of that.   It may well be that, as speculated, someone broke some rules ... returning a favor.  Or not.    Whatever it was, it was.   No need to overly complicate things.  

 

I don't think we're ever going to know for sure.   Lot of energy going into it which could probably be better spent doing field work but I guess it lets those who won't do field work feel important .. one direction or the other.

 

MIB

 

 

That does sum things up. There's no evidence that points to Roger shipping off the film before the evening of the 20th, and we know Al had the developed film in his hands on Sunday the 22nd,  so however he got the job done, we know he got it done. And got it done very timely. 

And we also know whatever the story behind the developing of the film, it had no effect on the subject actually on the film. It didn't cause the figure to walk with a nonhuman gait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 1:18 AM, SweatyYeti said:

Old Mort wrote:

 

That's correct, Old Mort.  

 

I don't agree with Backdoc, or anyone else....proposing that Roger had the film developed at a Lab which was open to the public, on that particular Saturday.....the 21st.

 

 

SY,

Open or closed, a standard lab is a safer bet than something else.  I say that because of the unique development needs of the KC film.   You know all this a heck of a lot better than I do so I am not telling you anything new there.  1) The development of this film required specialization that was uncommon and limited.   2) If you did think you filmed bigfoot you use the Mayo Clinic of film development vs taking any risk of having the film ruined.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

That scenario does not account for Roger's secrecy regarding where, and by whom, the film was developed. 

 

I've made this point more than once....but that senseless scenario seems to keep re-surfacing. <_<

 

There is one right answer whatever it may be.  Once that is determined, if ever, then all other possibilities will prove to be senseless. 

 

In the meantime, we are all just trying to brainstorm here for fun and for interest.  I would call the 'Al owns a porno lab' scenario as possible.  It does accomplish 1) Speed of turn around of development and 2) lines up with the idea of the 'secrecy' tone of the development.   It doesn't line up with the special needs required for KC film to my way of thinking. It also doesn't line up with my assumed idea Roger would want to know the film was developed by the best place for the safest result.

 

From Al's standpoint though, if he owned or had access to a private lab his preferred path to get the film developed would very likely be that private lab.  I just have to think Al would take such a risk as I doubt until he saw the film for himself he even believed Roger all that much.   But again there are those unique qualities/needs of the KC film.  Could any private lab at the time really have such machines/ chemicals?  How could it be profitable to have such equipment unless it was known to the public and you were running $$$$ of film for many customers.  To do that the lab would have to be known.

 

If someone could show me a private/porno lab had a way and could develop KC film I would say that is the answer!   

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...