Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HOLDMYBEER

INTERVIEWS OF FRANK ISHIHARA

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
BFF Donor

My Crazy Q of the day:

 

We can see in the interview statements by Frank Ishitara Frank indicates the original PGF might have special markings on it (whatever they may be).  These markings would tell Mr. Ishitara -and I assume other people- where the film was developed.   I would think most decently trained developers might know this as well if they developed the film.   They might at least assume it might be possible.  With that in mind, 

 

Is it possible the original film -which we think no longer exists, whereabouts unknown - disappeared in an effort to hide it from people who might use it to find out where it was developed? 

 

If Roger and Al had some special favor done to develop the film wouldn't the original possibly point back to the developer?   If so, if secrecy is needed, isn't there a motivation to loose the original, esp by the person who developed it?

 

Perhaps what we call the original is really just one of a few 1st gen copies.  Perhaps the original is hidden somewhere from DAY ONE or was destroyed quickly in an effort to cover the tracks of the developer.

 

I am not saying this is likely but I am just asking.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Nothing about the current absence of the camera original can be reliably traced to any concern about how it was developed or what is shows. The disappearance, as much as we know, was simply a series of unfortunate events, caused by Roger's family being unprepared to recover the original from ANE, when he passed away (suffice to say, attending to the matters of his death took priority), and subsequently caused by Rene Dahinden's obsession with owning and controlling the film.

 

The processing timeline, and the hoax accusations that depend on it, were not a factor of concern when the original disappeared after Rene Dahinden and Bruce Bonney analyzed it. Their effort is the last reported instance of the whereabouts of the original film. Neither man had any motive to surpress the question of the film's developing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 hours ago, Bill said:

Nothing about the current absence of the camera original can be reliably traced to any concern about how it was developed or what is shows. The disappearance, as much as we know, was simply a series of unfortunate events, caused by Roger's family being unprepared to recover the original from ANE, when he passed away (suffice to say, attending to the matters of his death took priority), and subsequently caused by Rene Dahinden's obsession with owning and controlling the film.

 

The processing timeline, and the hoax accusations that depend on it, were not a factor of concern when the original disappeared after Rene Dahinden and Bruce Bonney analyzed it. Their effort is the last reported instance of the whereabouts of the original film. Neither man had any motive to surpress the question of the film's developing.

 

Thanks for the info Bill.

 

Bill, given your experience and background in the film and move industry.  What do you make of HMB's post in regards to Franks statements of the PGF NOT being developed at Technicolor in Seattle, and/or a "private lab" in the NW?  Nothing to do with the subject matter, just about Technicolor or a private lab processing this KII film on a weekend.  

 

Does Frank and his words pass the sniff test?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Twist:

 

The lingering question is whether either Frank or Leonard would bend the rules, either for extra pay or under some form of pressure. Both do occur in the real world, so we cannot just brush aside the possibility something like that happened here. Indeed, Roger's own remarks about somebody getting fired tend to keep that option alive.

 

The inherent problem is that when people do this, there's generally little or no documentation, and the people involved tend to deny that such happened. I've seen enough examples of the theory and the reality contradicting the theory to know it happens. So it's not implausible to still suspect the film was developed at the technicolor facility on the weekend of October 20-22, 1967.

 

With regard to Frank, I suspect he's sincere, but I wonder if his appraisal of Tall's character is accurate. I also wonder about Al's character, and how far he might go to "motivate" someone in the lab to bend the rules. The only question I have about Frank's testimony is that I suspect there were more lab employees who were capable of helping operate the Kodachrome developer, because it's bad business to have the bare minimum of employees to do a task or job, because as soon as one's out sick or otherwise absent, the lab can't afford to shut down a processing capability and obligation to customers because one guy is absent. Any good business would have several employees to handle a task, so they can maintain their commitment to customers even if one guy is out sick. So I suspect there were others who could help run the Kodachrome processor, even if they weren't officially certified by Kodak to do so.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Thanks Bill.  I appreciate your time and response.   I'd agree that a given company may want or need to have a few more capable employees able to run and operate the business should one or two key individuals get sick.  

Share this post


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

The only question I have about Frank's testimony is that I suspect there were more lab employees who were capable of helping operate the Kodachrome developer, because it's bad business to have the bare minimum of employees to do a task or job, because as soon as one's out sick or otherwise absent, the lab can't afford to shut down a processing capability and obligation to customers because one guy is absent. Any good business would have several employees to handle a task, so they can maintain their commitment to customers even if one guy is out sick. So I suspect there were others who could help run the Kodachrome processor, even if they weren't officially certified by Kodak to do so.

 

Yes, you would think so... but that's not how it worked in my experience at least.

 

Bill, I consider you a friend, we have discussed more than a few things in private and we have shared information and ideas as well.

 

I respect your work and opinions always, but I have to say that you are not quite correct on this one.

 

I have worked in a large commercial photo processing facility and as far as I know, you haven't.

 

As I have stated countless times, lab work was highly compartmentalized, each person had a certain specialty.

 

For example: If I am "the guy" running the processor, that's it. I probably know nothing about chemical analysis, chemical mixing, quality control etc.

 

 My duty is to put the roll onto the processor (in darkness) and make sure it makes it through to the other end (light).

 

Cross-training? No, not in my experience. The pay level differences could never justify it.

 

If someone was out for whatever reason it meant that you just had to work just that much harder.

 

If a crucial absence occurred the top brass guys would step in. After all that's why they were in their positions.

 

As far as "guys" trained in "helping to run the Kodachrome processor," in my experience that's not the way things went.

 

If a processing person was absent for whatever reason the rest of the crew would have to work twice as hard in order to compensate.

 

I dreaded those times, they were hellish and I still have nightmares about them to this very day.

 

I finally learned my lesson the hard way.

 

After 8 years of employment with my particular lab, they finally had me train a young lady to do my work and I did so enthusiastically thinking that my burden would finally be relieved somewhat.

 

As soon as I had thoroughly trained and certified her, I was called into the office one bright morning and terminated. I know for a fact that she was being paid less than half of my salary.

 

With this as their operational policy, its not surprising to me that this company ceased to exist shortly after my "departure."

 

And so it goes...

 

Perhaps I didn't work for a "good business", but I certainly did learn a lot about life...:sungum:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

What do you make of HMB's post in regards to Franks statements of the PGF NOT being developed at Technicolor in Seattle, and/or a "private lab" in the NW?  

Does Frank and his words pass the sniff test?  

Twist,

 

Can you provide a statement from HOLDMYBEER's posts where Ishihara actually states the PGF was NOT developed at Technicolor ? 

 

Thanks.

 

Pat...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
On 2/17/2019 at 9:20 PM, HOLDMYBEER said:

2- FRANK SAID TECHNICOLOR NW DID NOT PROCESS THE FILM

 

Frank had several reasons for believing Technicolor did not process the film in Seattle:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On 2/17/2019 at 6:20 PM, HOLDMYBEER said:

POST 3

2- FRANK SAID TECHNICOLOR NW DID NOT PROCESS THE FILM

 

Frank had several reasons for believing Technicolor did not process the film in Seattle:

 

HOLDMYBEER, 

 

Is "FRANK SAID TECHNICOLOR NW DID NOT PROCESS THE FILM"  YOUR lead/title into next line of information, or did he make said statement ? Because your openin' sentence suggests a uncertainty, "believing", as does later speculation on his part.

 

Not tryin' to be picky or a pain in the rump on this matter, simply tryin' understand whether it was still a possibility, as I read it, or was it definitive as some here also read it.

 

To be clear, I'm not sayin' Tall did, I'm suggestin' Ishihara didn't think he would, which is understandable, but thus a unknown an thus a possibility. It's that simple as far as I can tell.

 

Thanks !

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
12 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

I finally learned my lesson the hard way.

 

After 8 years of employment with my particular lab, they finally had me train a young lady to do my work and I did so enthusiastically thinking that my burden would finally be relieved somewhat.

 

As soon as I had thoroughly trained and certified her, I was called into the office one bright morning and terminated. I know for a fact that she was being paid less than half of my salary.

 

 

 

When things like this happen, one might even be so mad at the lab laying them off, one might be willing to bend the rules/ break the rules.  By no means am I saying this happened in the case of the PGF as I don't have a clue.  However, I point this out to show there are always in the real world all kinds of things going on behind the scenes which, if we knew them, might account for something being done in a way that was far from usual or expected. 

 

I would never think an anesthesiologist at our local hospital would have diluted patients pain shots as he was injecting the rest into himself as he was a drug addict.   His actions/ behavior was atypical for a usual employee and certainly for hospital policy but it occurred none the less.

 

Sorry you were let go back then after training your cheaper replacement.  However, I am sure glad you are here today to add credible information to the BFF from you lab experiences.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Old Mort:

 

I always appreciate your knowledge and experience, so I thank you for your post above (which I didn't quote  but is readily accessable for anyone who wants to check it).

 

I'm well aware of heavily compartmentalized workplaces. I worked most of my life in an environment where multi-disciplined people were valued (I personally am very multi-disciplined in my work skills), and it was a rude shock when I first went to work for a big company where the job tasks were heavily compartmentalized. After two years there, it was painfully obvious I would never fit in, so I walked away from it.

 

But from my experience, I would say some companies are heavily compartmentalized, and some are much more relaxed and value people with many cross-discipline skills. Your employment, as you described, obviously, was compartmentalized. How Leonard Tall ran his company we don't have as clear an idea of, in those terms. As a generalization, I have found that if the top person in a company is multi-disciplined, there is far more tolerance for employees working the same way, easily crossing over from one task or department to another, while if the top person is simply a business-oriented boss, he or she likes to compartmentalize the workers so only the top management sees the "Big Picture", and workers don't threaten the top management who actually don't know how to do much except manage others. If the top person really is a skilled hands on worker, with broad/diverse skills. I've found such companies show more flexibility in letting the employee team be similarly diverse and multi-skilled.

 

The "get the skilled employee to train the cheap newbee and then fire the expensive employee" gambit is a classic junk management process, popular with management that has no loyalty to it's employees and just cares about the bottom line. Based on what was described about Leonard Tall and Frank Ishihara, I didn't get the impression either was that kind of business guy (especially if Leonard held a patent and was a real "hands-on" inventor, which the usual business geeks aren't). But this is simply my impression, and others may see the matter differently.

 

Bill

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

Pat,   Any number of times Frank told Peter Byrne, me and others that Technicolor didn't process the PGF outside of regular work hours or he (Frank) would have known about it. I never discussed with Frank the thought the film was processed by Technicolor prior to October 20, 1967, for the reason listed below. More to your point, I suppose, is the fact I never asked Frank if he alone processed the PGF. With the sheer volume of questions and answers that have taken place since 2006,  it would have seemed a bit pedantic to ask that question in light of his having denied Technicolor's involvement with other interviewers.  I have to say I don't recall my ever asking him those words. As you might surmise, I have always been in search of corroborative information from each witness, that by asking around all the edges of a topic I try to gather a 'high definition'  picture that affirms or denies the primary question. Not asking Frank that specific question falls to me. 

 

In no case during all our discussions did I ever discuss with Frank any questions about the character of Roger Patterson. In fact, I felt our discussions would reach further if I presented the strongest case for the PGF being real. I pointed out Bill Munns' opinion several times (that's why I sent the book). I really felt any talk about credibility issues with Patterson or DeAtley would tend to leave open easy doors for processing explanations. If you recall, as early as 2006 there were unknowns as to the film stock used for the PGF and hence, options as to how the film was processed. Over time and many interviews more became known about the PGF and several of the options closed. The closing options served to focus our examination to K-12 processing in Washington state, and by Frank's insistence, at Technicolor NW. Left with the primary question as to where the film was processed unanswered, the options were falling to either a challenge to the credibility of Patterson/DeAtley or to the operational security at Technicolor NW. It was in that thin air that Frank discussed the likelihood of Leonard Tall processing the film in the face of no understandable benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

HOLDMYBEER,

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

"It was in that thin air that Frank discussed the likelihood of Leonard Tall processing the film in the face of no understandable benefit." 

 

Purely hypothetical here, but what if it wasn't just for a monetary benefit, what if DeAtley actually told him the truth ? His brother in law filmed a bigfoot, curiosity can be a strong motive as well.

 

"Apart from the natural drives to eat, drink, seek shelter and reproduce, curiosity is one of the most powerful forces humanity exhibits. It's been responsible for virtually every scientific and technological break-though we've known.."

 

I just can't help thinkin' if Frank Ishihara had his uncertainties about the possibility of Leonard Tall processin' the film, then there is still that possibility. 

 

Pat...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Where are Franks uncertainty?  To me I read it more as Frank believes pretty firmly Tall would not have processed the film outside normal protocol but is wise enough to not make a firm assertion in regards to a man he did not monitor or control 24/7.  

Share this post


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

×