Jump to content
HOLDMYBEER

INTERVIEWS OF FRANK ISHIHARA

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

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

 

I agree, Norse.  

 

The degree of difficulty of replicating the film subject...(even 'in part', let alone completely)….speaks very strongly in favor of it not being a 'guy in a suit'.  

 

On another forum, I was just recently having a discussion about Dfoot's failed attempt at replicating "the Patty suit". He was someone who worked in Hollywood...and had experience with costumes...but yet, after months of trying to re-create the "Patty suit"...he failed, completely. 

 

He was unable to replicate any of the realistic features seen on Patty. 

Share this post


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

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.   

 

If the shoe fits right? (Im not directing this at you by the way)

 

But we will never prove that Patty is real and we will never prove the film was filmed a week early or later or whatever.....

 

There is only one way to prove that something like Patty still exists.... and I know I sound like a broken record. Sorry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bill,

 

Just a thought, it's possible he owned the business, sold it an remained on runnin' it for them. I know one guy recently sold his company for a small fortune, but still works there runnin' the place workin' for new owner.

 

Pat... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
49 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

If the shoe fits right? (Im not directing this at you by the way)

 

But we will never prove that Patty is real and we will never prove the film was filmed a week early or later or whatever.....

 

There is only one way to prove that something like Patty still exists.... and I know I sound like a broken record. Sorry.

 

All very fair and all part of the fun and games.  That being said, it’s a hell of a film.   

 

I hope you do put that BF on a slab.  Until then I’ll cherry pick what I do and do not like on the BF subject.  I’ll expect the rest to do the same, it’s what keeps the topic interesting.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
5 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

All very fair and all part of the fun and games.  That being said, it’s a hell of a film.   

 

I hope you do put that BF on a slab.  Until then I’ll cherry pick what I do and do not like on the BF subject.  I’ll expect the rest to do the same, it’s what keeps the topic interesting.   

 

What makes the PGF different for me other than the film itself?

 

Is we know where the dang thing was filmed. We have follow on film comparisons, distances, sizes, tracks, etc

 

You get on youtube? There are some impressive looking bigfoot film. But we have no idea who shot it, where it was filmed, nothing....

 

It has withstood the test of time. Most do not even get off the ground before proven a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Pat:

 

I suppose it's a viable prospect to speculate about. Could be that by using the name "Technicolor", he was bought out/taken into the Technicolor company family of labs. "Technicolor" as far as i know is a registered company trade name, not a common word anybody can use. So maybe he did sell to Technicolor, continued to work there, and then finally left for whatever reason Frank hinted to.

 

Bill

Share this post


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

Bill,

Maybe he did somethin' to upset the new owner(s) in the winter of '67...😉😉🤣

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I thought about that, when I was reading the email.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
4 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Just a thought, it's possible he owned the business, sold it an remained on runnin' it for them. I know one guy recently sold his company for a small fortune, but still works there runnin' the place workin' for new owner.

 

Leonard's brother George bought out 2 brothers and became the sole owner during the mid-50's..

 

3 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Maybe he did somethin' to upset the new owner(s) in the winter of '67.

 

What new owners?????   George Tall was THE sole owner.  George's son Bruce took the reins in 1974.  Bruce's son Michael  joined his dad later and both were at the helm when TALLS CAMERA shuttered 4 stores in  2016.

Leonard split off to form CX Corporation ( film processing machines ) in 1968. Sold CX after 10 years. He had something like 70% of the US market for processors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Catmandoo,

 

Maybe I'm just tired, I recall you mentionin' about the Tall camera stores, but I thought the Technicolor lab was a separate enterprise/business from his camera stores.

 

HOLDMYBEER mentions... 

"Frank believed Leonard Tall, the owner, would never jeopardize his considerable investment and Technicolor’s license.." 

 

Pat...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Twist wrote:

Quote

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.  

 

You've got it backwards, you "Bigfoot proponent" you... ;)   

 

The truth/fact of the matter is....all the 'hand waving', and speculation of a false 'developing timeline' does not make the physical analysis...of a physical subject....go away. 

 

That would be the physical features that neither you...nor Squatchy...nor Dfoot...nor anyone else.....will ever be able to replicate, via a man wearing a suit......and the physical analysis that you cannot even deal with:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
16 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

I agree, Norse.  

 

The degree of difficulty of replicating the film subject...(even 'in part', let alone completely)….speaks very strongly in favor of it not being a 'guy in a suit'.  

 

On another forum, I was just recently having a discussion about Dfoot's failed attempt at replicating "the Patty suit". He was someone who worked in Hollywood...and had experience with costumes...but yet, after months of trying to re-create the "Patty suit"...he failed, completely. 

 

He was unable to replicate any of the realistic features seen on Patty. 

 

For anyone wanting to make a replica Patty suit, I can't see how they would know just how long to make the arms,  and also how long to make the legs so the body proportions would be in line with what John Green, Reuben Steindorf and ThinkerThunker calculated. Plus, how wide to make the shoulders, how to make toes that would flex realistically, the correct girth around the middle, size of the butt, etc., so when it's all finished, it looks like Patty. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Here's an obituary of Leonard Tall from the time of his death in 1998.

 

article

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

For anyone wanting to make a replica Patty suit, I can't see how they would know just how long to make the arms,  and also how long to make the legs so the body proportions would be in line with what John Green, Reuben Steindorf and ThinkerThunker calculated. Plus, how wide to make the shoulders, how to make toes that would flex realistically, the correct girth around the middle, size of the butt, etc., so when it's all finished, it looks like Patty. 

 

 

The feature of the toes on Patty's right foot that is more realistic/un-suitlike than the upward movement, Okie.....is the difference in the apparent length of the toes, when seen from above...(in F307-310)….and from below the foot....(in Frame 61).

 

If the film subject were just a 'guy in a suit'...he would have been wearing costume feet...and the lengthy-looking toes...(as seen, when lifting upwards)….would have also appeared quite lengthy when the very same foot was viewed from behind...with the foot vertical.

 

Why don't those lengthy toes appear just as lengthy, with the foot oriented vertically???

 

The answer is....for the very same reason that a human's toes don't. (I have posted images....(including x-ray images of a human foot)….demonstrating why it is that way....with real, live feet/toes). ;)

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Catmandoo,

 

Maybe I'm just tired, I recall you mentionin' about the Tall camera stores, but I thought the Technicolor lab was a separate enterprise/business from his camera stores.

 

HOLDMYBEER mentions... 

"Frank believed Leonard Tall, the owner, would never jeopardize his considerable investment and Technicolor’s license.." 

 

Pat...

 

 

 

Im a little confused as well about Tall and the Technicolor / Talls Camera Shop situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...