Jump to content
HOLDMYBEER

INTERVIEWS OF FRANK ISHIHARA

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Twist,

 

I almost spit my beer out haha ! 

 

As I've repeatedly mentioned, Frank Ishihara never says Leonard Tall didn't develop the film, he constantly uses "wouldn't", "would not', "would never" to describe his beliefs on the matter.

Again, as I've said, his own words suggest he did not know if it was actually developed by Technicolor, that's why he had hoped to view the original film to rule out the PGF had been processed there.

 

"On several occasions he said he could prove the film was not processed at Technicolor if he could somehow examine the original film."

 

"Despite Frank’s insistence that no K12 16mm film could be processed at the Technicolor lab outside of hours without his knowledge, he kept expressing a desire to examine the original film to determine if it was processed at Technicolor NW. I detected the hint that it was possible. He acknowledged that a single, knowledgeable person could operate the machine. He also indicated that his Pako installation was such that processing made very innocuous marks on the original that could be detected after close examination and that he (Frank) wanted to examine the original film to determine if his equipment had somehow been used to process the PGF."

 

As I've repeatedly said Twist, I am not saying Tall processed the PGF, I am expressing the same uncertainty as Ishihara, thus recognizin' the possibility "..if his equipment had somehow been used to process the PGF."

 

Pat...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
29 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

As I've repeatedly mentioned, Frank Ishihara never says Leonard Tall didn't develop the film, he constantly uses "wouldn't", "would not', "would never" to describe his beliefs on the matter. 

Again, as I've said, his own words suggest he did not know if it was actually developed by Technicolor, that's why he had hoped to view the original film to rule out the PGF had been processed there.

 

As far as the use of "would and wouldn't",  with the exception of one quote where Ishihara uses "would" as an expression of certainty, these are the words of HMB, they are not direct quotes from Frank. Do you understand the difference?

 

 Perhaps before you jump to misleading conclusions you should check with the author as to precisely what was quoted for the written summary that is posted here.

 

Ishihara has stated many times that the film wasn't processed there and has explained why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
27 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

As far as the use of "would and wouldn't",  with the exception of one quote where Ishihara uses "would" as an expression of certainty, these are the words of HMB, they are not direct quotes from Frank. Do you understand the difference?

OldMort, everyone knows this, you should have noticed by my last question to HOLDMYBEER, I recognized this as well.  

 

27 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

 Perhaps before you jump to misleading conclusions you should check with the author as to precisely what was quoted for the written summary that is posted here.

I did. I asked, read for yourself. Next is your turn !

 

27 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

Ishihara has stated many times that the film wasn't processed there and has explained why.

You just whined to me about jumpin' to misleadin' conclusions ! Do me...no...do us a favor OldMort...quote me where Ishihara states the film wasn't processed there !!! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
20 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

quote me where Ishihara states the film wasn't processed there !!!

 

Exactly.    We've only read "would not" .. not "could not."   We've read a belief system, NOT knowledge.   We've even heard from Frank indicating he wanted to check so he could be sure ... which means he was not sure, not absolutely.   I guess some folks don't want anyone to notice that.

 

We don't know whether it was done or was not done  but we do now know it was possible and we can reject all claims to the contrary. 

 

MIB

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)

You just whined to me about jumpin' to misleadin' conclusions ! Do me...no...do us a favor OldMort...quote me where Ishihara states the film wasn't processed there !!! 

 

See below vvv

 

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 12:15 PM, HOLDMYBEER said:

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

 

Ishihara also mentions it in Long's book. I have also heard him state the exact same things even more strongly in a detailed interview with Roger Knights. Can you explain why these are all misleading conclusions? Explain why you have it right and every interview and interviewer has it wrong...

 

I have no idea what you are talking about in the rest of your post. :)

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

OldMort,

 

Are you freakin' kiddin' me ?! haha !

 

You literally just said "..these are the words of HMB, they are not direct quotes from Frank. Do you understand the difference?" An here you are quotin' the HOLDMYBEER quote that I quoted for cryin' out loud ! 

 

I can't speak for the other's you mentioned OldMort, however, we're talkin' bout HOLDMYBEER's posts here. 

 

I asked from a quote from Ishihara himself OldMort, do you have one ? Really isn't complicated. 

 

ps: "I have no idea what you are talking about in the rest of your post." 

No worries, I'm not surprised. 🤣

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PBeaton said:

An here you are quotin' the HOLDMYBEER quote that I quoted for cryin' out loud ! 

 

That's incorrect. Its not the same quote that you quoted.

 

I  referenced that particular quote in order to establish that the consensus conclusion among researchers has been that Ishihara denies any personal involvement or that of his lab in the processing of the PGF.

 

Of course there's no quote from Ishihara there, neither have I implied that there was or would be! Ah, The hazards of cherry picking.

 

If you seriously have any real interest in finding this information, instead of spending your time playing wobbly pop gotcha games, I suggest delving into Long's book or better yet see if you can access researcher Roger Knights' excellent interview with Frank. Knights was a former member here and also had a blog of sorts for a while. I believe that at least parts of that interview still exist somewhere deep in the bowels of another forum. Track him down, I'm sure someone here knows how to reach him.

 

But rather than searching for and relying on a single particular quote to confirm a conclusion, you might want to consider the full body of statements and evidence as well.

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


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

 

That's incorrect. Its not the same quote that you quoted.

 

I  referenced that particular quote in order to establish that the consensus conclusion among researchers has been that Ishihara denies any personal involvement or that of his lab in the processing of the PGF.

 

Of course there's no quote from Ishihara there, neither have I implied that there was or would be! Ah, The hazards of cherry picking.

 

If you seriously have any real interest in finding this information, instead of spending your time playing wobbly pop gotcha games, I suggest delving into Long's book or better yet see if you can access researcher Roger Knights' excellent interview with Frank. Knights was a former member here and also had a blog of sorts for a while. I believe that at least parts of that interview still exist somewhere deep in the bowels of another forum. Track him down, I'm sure someone here knows how to reach him.

 

But rather than searching for and relying on a single particular quote to confirm a conclusion, you might want to consider the full body of statements and evidence as well.

 

I’ve come to the conclusion that some here need the PGF to be true exactly as told by Patterson and Gimlin so bad that there is no limit to the mental gymnastics they’ll perform to make it so.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Can someone phrase the Frank Ishitara opinions in some context of  When he said what he said.

 

I am more interested in opinions given ideally soon after the PGF in 1967.

 

We know Long's book would count of one major interview or statement.   We also know, thanks to HMB, the recent email/interview/phone exchange with Mr. Ishitara.  Those are two important interviews  (with the information from HMB taking the gold medal easily).  These important Ishitara opinions occurred decades after 1967.

 

What is the earliest stuff we have by interview/ video/ print of Mr. Ishitara?   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

That's incorrect. Its not the same quote that you quoted.

I missed the "s", as in "quotes". You pointed out I was quotin' HOLDMYBEER, not Ishihara, "..these are the words of HMB, they are not direct quotes from Frank. Do you understand the difference?  Only to then do the exact same thing when asked for a quote from Ishihara...you posted words from HOLDMYBEER !

 

Quote

 

I  referenced that particular quote in order to establish that the consensus conclusion among researchers has been that Ishihara denies any personal involvement or that of his lab in the processing of the PGF.

As I have referenced multiple examples of Ishihara's uncertainty here within HOLDMYBEER's research/posts.

 

"Despite Frank’s insistence that no K12 16mm film could be processed at the Technicolor lab outside of hours without his knowledge, he kept expressing a desire to examine the original film to determine if it was processed at Technicolor NW. I detected the hint that it was possible. He acknowledged that a single, knowledgeable person could operate the machine. He also indicated that his Pako installation was such that processing made very innocuous marks on the original that could be detected after close examination and that he (Frank) wanted to examine the original film to determine if his equipment had somehow been used to process the PGF."

 

Quote

 

Of course there's no quote from Ishihara there, neither have I implied that there was or would be! Ah, The hazards of cherry picking.

Here you go with the cherry pickin' claim again. You an Twist are the ones sayin' Ishihara said it was not processed at Technicolor, you just recognized the fact that there is no such statement to be found in HOLDMYBEER's posts. There are however multiple examples of his uncertainty, as I have pointed out.

   

Quote

 

If you seriously have any real interest in finding this information, instead of spending your time playing wobbly pop gotcha games, I suggest delving into Long's book or better yet see if you can access researcher Roger Knights' excellent interview with Frank. Knights was a former member here and also had a blog of sorts for a while. I believe that at least parts of that interview still exist somewhere deep in the bowels of another forum. Track him down, I'm sure someone here knows how to reach him.

This all started by you an Twist's claims based on the posts here by HOLDMYBEER. Based on what is presented in his posts here, I see a uncertainty an thus a possibility. 

 

"..instead of spending your time playing wobbly pop gotcha games..." OldMort, yes I was havin' my friday wobbly-pops, but you're missin' somethin'. I'm not the only one who sees the possibility here.

 

"We don't know whether it was done or was not done  but we do now know it was possible and we can reject all claims to the contrary.  " -MIB

 

"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. " -Bill 

 

Quote

But rather than searching for and relying on a single particular quote to confirm a conclusion, you might want to consider the full body of statements and evidence as well.

We're discussin' HOLDMYBEER's posts here.

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Twist said:

 

I’ve come to the conclusion...   

Prematurely ! 🤣

 

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Went through my file on Peter Byrne's research, and found this printed email from Frank Ishihara to Peter, copied as follows:

 

Email from Frank Ishihara to Peter Byrne  Sunday, April 30, 2006 

Quote: "Anyways, here's the good news. My tenure at technicolor in Seattle Washington was from October 1965 through March 1968. My memory may be getting old, but this one was right on target. Also, as I had time to dwell on it, Leonard Tall resigned from Technicolor while I was there. Since I cannot recall the precise time, I would speculate it was during the winter of 1967. Since he left Technicolor over a divisive issue, it was not in his best interest for me to remain with Technicolor since I was key to the lab's performance. And Leonard was starting up a new, competing processing company (non-Kodachrome). As a consequence, his agenda was to identify photofinishing companies that were actively engaged in starting up Kodachrome processing operations. In the ensuing years, I started up two new operations, first in Long Beach, then three years later in Rialto (San Bernardino). Since Leonard was not one to let dust settle, I would guess that all this took place within a span of three months. I would also speculate that both Leonard and I were at Technicolor in October 1967."

 

What's curious is that this suggests Tall was not the lab owner, but a top administrative employee for some other owner. One doesn't usually leave the company one owns.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
9 hours ago, Twist said:

 

I’ve come to the conclusion that some here need the PGF to be true exactly as told by Patterson and Gimlin so bad that there is no limit to the mental gymnastics they’ll perform to make it so.   

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

Skeptics have never been able to find the "zipper" concerning the PGF.

 

So they attack the storyline in hopes that if they can trip up the storyline? It will somehow refute what we see on the film.

 

To me? That is some serious mental gymnastics.

 

Its been over 50 years. And Roger Patterson is passed on. No one is ever getting to the bottom of this.

 

In my mind? If the film is a hoax? It shouldnt be this hard to prove it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
47 minutes ago, Bill said:

What's curious is that this suggests Tall was not the lab owner, but a top administrative employee for some other owner. One doesn't usually leave the company one owns

 

The Tall family business had 4 brothers. Originally called Talls Travel shop. The name TALLS CAMERA SUPPLY appeared in 1948. George Tall became sole owner in the mid 1950's by buying out 2 older brothers. Leonard Tall started CX Corporation in 1968, had it for 10 years and sold it. George's son Bruce took over in 1974. At the end of TALLS CAMERA, George's son Bruce and grandson Michael were at the reins. All 4 TALLS CAMERA stores shuttered in 2016.

 

I am getting dizzy with all this bantering back and forth.  All the players are dead, but stay tuned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Your painting skeptics with an awfully broad stroke there Norse. 😎

 

If you want to make great claims such as the PGF portraying a real BF then expect the entire body of work to be scrutinized.  It’s nothing new, it happens in all walks of life.  

 

All the hand waiving in the world and claims of skeptics not producing a suit does not make the complications with the timeline go away.  

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it yet again, Patty being real or a hoax, I don’t feel the timeline as presented fits.  I don’t attack the timeline to disprove Patty, I attack the timeline because I don’t feel it fits.  I will not be at all surprised if Patty is somehow proven to be real and we also discover she was filmed a week earlier than currently claimed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Twist wrote:

Quote

I’ve come to the conclusion that some here need the PGF to be true exactly as told by Patterson and Gimlin so bad that there is no limit to the mental gymnastics they’ll perform to make it so.   

 

I came to the conclusion, a long time ago....that you are not a proponent of Bigfoot....but rather, a skeptic. ;) 

 

Bigfoot proponents don't parrot the exact same 'party lines' that the skeptics/scoffers offer-up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...