Jump to content

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)


Guest Admin

Recommended Posts

  • gigantor locked and unlocked this topic
59 minutes ago, NCBFr said:

 

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.  

 

Don't worry, you're not only one. I've already said a lot more on this subject than I thought I ever would because the whole backstory has never really mattered much to me. To paraphrase what you stated; we have a film and that's the key. Regardless of how it got developed and who did it; we have a film that has been analyzed and it was at Al D.'s house on the 22nd.

However,  some have looked at the timeline and have questioned it and it seems everything has gotten microanalyzed. The lack of details in some areas seems to fuel conspiracy ideas among doubters. They feel Roger didn't have enough time to do everything he has said and question the film's authenticity. However, a smoking gun was never going to be found.

 

The problem in a hoax scenario is it's based on speculation. After 50+yrs., there is still no analysis that points to the figure as being a human in a suit and there is still no credible evidence that says Roger fabricated his story.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
28 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

However,  some have looked at the timeline and have questioned it and it seems everything has gotten microanalyzed.

 

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.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

could just be some of us are  interested in the developing timeline because it is a rather difficult puzzle to figure out.  OM happens to have experience in film development so no surprise there that he may be interested.   I have a back ground in logistics with a heavy emphasis on expedites and coincidentally a majority of it is in California.  To this day anything north of Redding California up to the Or border can be challenging to execute time sensitive expedites.  So I find all these moving parts coming together as rather interesting as well.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gigantor said:

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.

 

They, they, they... Who is they?

 

I think you are greatly overestimating this vast army of "skeptical they's" that are attempting to spoil your party. 

 

As Twist said, some of us just find it a fascinating topic. Whether it is proven fake or real is of little consequence to me.

 

Its more the mystery than the solution...

 

Its something to research and discuss while we await any "big news" from the real "bigfoot world." Its been pretty slow hasn't it?

 

Meanwhile, you have over 4,500 posts and 60,000 views on this topic.

 

"In a way, the fact that they are resorting to this line of questioning is good."

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 12:46 PM, OldMort said:

 

They, they, they... Who is they?

 

I think you are greatly overestimating this vast army of "skeptical they's" that are attempting to spoil your party. 

 

As Twist said, some of us just find it a fascinating topic. Whether it is proven fake or real is of little consequence to me.

 

Its more the mystery than the solution...

 

Its something to research and discuss while we await any "big news" from the real "bigfoot world." Its been pretty slow hasn't it?

 

Meanwhile, you have over 4,500 posts and 60,000 views on this topic.

 

"In a way, the fact that they are resorting to this line of questioning is good."

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This right here.

 

I find the PGF a fascinating topic and am in no way required to believe it was anything more than a guy in a suit.

 

It would be nice to confirm the where when and how’s of it’s processing.

 

 

 

 

Edited by WV FOOTER
edit removed content
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 4:42 PM, Bill said:

 

 

  Join the club, lol.

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Removed Content
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

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.

 

 

So for a quick recap:

 

Evidence for the processing timeline: The film itself lol and Roger and Bob's word :P

 

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.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

Meanwhile, you have over 4,500 posts and 60,000 views on this topic.

 

"In a way, the fact that they are resorting to this line of questioning is good."

 

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

 

 

 

But, no better than the physical analysis of the physical subject.  ;) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

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.

 

Ding ding ding.  We have a winner.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

But, no better than the physical analysis of the physical subject.  ;) 

 

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... :)

Edited by OldMort
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OldMort said:

"In a way, the fact that they are resorting to this line of questioning is good."

 

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

 

Without skeptics posting, this particular sub-forum gets little to no activity.   Perhaps its the view of the BFF that this forum should remain dormant.  

Edited by Twist
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
17 minutes ago, Twist said:

Perhaps its the view of the BFF that this forum should remain dormant. 

 

No, not at all. Please forgive me skeptics and do carry on.  :)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

No, not at all. Please forgive me skeptics and do carry on.  :)

 

 

On behalf of all PGF skeptics here on the BFF, I accept your apology and thus your admittance of transgressions against the skeptic community as a whole.   We will do as you suggest and carry on, may your forum bare the fruits of our horse beatings!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked and featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...