Jump to content
HOLDMYBEER

INTERVIEWS OF FRANK ISHIHARA

Recommended Posts

Airdale

I would posit that, if the subject of the film is indeed an unacknowledged North American primate, then any inconsistencies surrounding the processing of the film or the date claimed for its exposure are moot. Conversely, if the film is an elaborate hoax and its subject a human in a costume, no amount of intellectual dissection of said inconsistencies at half a century's remove will prove or disprove it. The only way to shed any light on the matter is via expert in depth examination of the subject seen walking along the bank of Bluff Creek in the PGF; just the kind of thorough research displayed by Bill Munns that resulted in his book, "When Roger Met Patty".

 

So have fun with this my friends. I seriously doubt it is even possible to reach any firm conclusions at this point in time. Even if it can be determined beyond reasonable doubt that the claimed date, time and/or place the film was processed is inaccurate, it provides no concrete evidence regarding the authenticity or lack thereof regarding the subject known as Patty.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
8 hours ago, Bill said:

Her's the short version of the issue:

 

The film used to film the PGf was Kodachrome II type film, and only Kodak (plus a few properly licensed labs) could process it. This is as compared to Ektachrome type film, where any commercial lab could buy the E-6 chemicals and process such film. So with a very limited number of labs who could process Roger's Kodachrome film, the question is: "Could he have gotten it processed between Friday, when he filmed the encounter, and Sunday morning, when he and others watched the processed film."

 

It is reported Roger sent the film from Northern California to Washington State Friday evening, but documentation on that delivery is lacking. Al DeAtley, Roger's brother-in-law, received the film and actually arranged the processing, either at the Technicolor Lab in Seattle, or the Kodak Palo Alto Lab, but neither lab is reported to be processing Kodachrome film on Saturday.

 

So, people advocating the film is a hoax often claim the film was not shot on Friday, october 20, 1967,  that the claim of filming on that day is a lie, and the lie proves the film was hoaxed. Advocates for the film being authentic usually try to offer the theory that the processing was simply done as a special order, so the usual lab procesing schedule was simply adjusted for the special order.

 

That's what the timeline issue boils down to. Does the processing schedule allow or dispute the claim the film was shot on Friday October 20?

 

 

Very good- thank you for this, Bill.

So, much of this whole thing is based on Roger's claim the creature was filmed on Friday October 20, not Thursday the 19th or Wednesday the 18th, and people met to watch the processed film two days later on a Sunday if I'm following this correctly. And if Roger lied about filming the creature on Friday then anything he says can be a lie. My question would be, why would Roger back himself into a corner by stating he filmed the creature on Friday and not Wednesday unless he didn't realize people would be questioning the who/when/where of the film processing for the next 50+ years. And I guess this is where the doubt comes in... So now what if he had filmed the creature on Wednesday the 18th? Why would he have said, "Friday"? What was the big deal about what day the creature was filmed if he didn't think anyone would question the time it took to process the film? Hmmmm...

21 hours ago, Airdale said:

 

Welcome ThinkAboutPools! I've been interested in this subject since the early sixties and was a  junior in high school when the PGF was shot. Being familiar with the state-of-the-art in movie ape costumes, as in the original "Planet of the Apes", the still photos in Argosy Magazine had me pretty well convinced that the subject in the film was a real Bigfoot. Any doubt that remained was dispelled by Bill Munns' book, "When Roger Met Patty", as well as meeting Bob Gimlin. WRT the subject of this thread I am as mystified as you, and this is not the first thread to exhaustively deal with it. As it is said, different strokes for different folks!;)

I too am a huge fan of Planet of the Apes, Airdale. I own a bunch of POA collectibles and have met some of the cast over the years. I've also found it interesting that people mention John Chambers on here frequently. Thanks for your input!

16 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

The PGF is the best piece of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. There are those who question its legitimacy by claiming it's a hoax. Having failed to prove it's a hoax via claims of the subject being a man in a suit, or by studying the proportions and various other parameters of the creature, they have resorted to attacking the development of the film itself.

 

They're just grasping straws IMO...  :)

 

Thank you.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

by 1967, roger had a fair amount of experience filming with both kodachrome and ektachrome film stock, so he can reasonably be assumed to know the processing options for both. I was shooting student films in college in 1967, and I learned the processing options for Kodachrome and Ektachrome very quickly. So I see it as being something Roger could easily also figure out. With that consideration, it is unlikely that he would shoot Kodachrome film and think he could lie about how quickly he could get it processed. So it is more probable that what he once remarked about Al's getting the film processed in a way that could put a man's job in jeopardy if told, tends to make sense. It was likely done in an unorthodox way, somebody was bribed or pressured to bend the normal lab rules, and neither Al nor Roger wanted to disclose exactly who did what. But each person tends to interpret the data we have in different ways, hence the never-ending debate.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

To touch on Airdales’s point.   I do not believe that analysis on this film or the timeline will ever conclusively prove its origins one way or another.  As I said earlier I do find it interesting to discuss and this is a discussion board after all.  And let’s keep in mind that all the “grasping at straws” that is done on this subforum generates the majority of the content here, like it or not.  

 

Ive stated before only two things could really occur that would settle the debate IMO.

 

1) Roger admits it was all a hoax (unlikely)

2). BF is finally proven and documented and it’s plainly obvious it’s the same species we see on the film. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
8 hours ago, Bill said:

It was likely done in an unorthodox way,

 

I'm sure it was. Can you imagine?

 

"We got Bigfoot on film!!!   can you develop this ASAP?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2019 at 12:15 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

Can someone please explain to me, a novice of all things Bigfoot, what in God's name is the big deal about the who/when/where of the processing/developing of the PGF? I am completely bewildered by this topic. And if it's been covered and discussed a million times before on this or other sites can you just do me a solid and provide a link for the ignorant, please?

 

 

 

The type of film Roger used to film the PGF required very special processing to process it.  One could not just run into any Walmart-type place.

 

The film was shot on Friday early afternoon leaving a tight window to get the film to Roger's relative Al.   Al would have to (once receiving the film) find a lab 1) which could develop the specialized film with their specialized process  2) was open or Saturday or 3) would be willing somehow to develop the film Saturday (or early Sunday) for a viewing that took place at Al's house Sunday ( some say evening).

 

The window the development was limited to a development which fit into a tight timeline:   Friday early afternoon to Sunday evening. We know Sunday because people showed up for the claimed first viewing of the PGF that Sunday (some say evening).  Reasonable skeptics have asked the Q as to how this was accomplished.  When questioned on this issue Roger made cryptic comments indicating the development process happened in some secret way (a favor?) because if he revealed it the person who developed it would get in trouble or fired.  Essentially he was saying it was done as some favor in some behind the scenes way.

 

There have been many knowledgeable posters (such as Old Mort) who have explained why getting this film developed under the claim timeline not be easy. I would encourage you to read some of his old posts on the topic.

 

The skeptic's have a hard time dismissing the PGF itself esp when it comes to a suit reproduction.  If it could be shown the PGF claimed development window was just too tight then it would mean they lied as to when the film was developed.  <----- That would raise further Q as to a hoax.

 

The film is pretty darn impressive.  We have incomplete information about what was possible at the time and what was assumed possible.  There are things apart from the film which at facts which don't hurt Roger's account.  There are hurdles there which make it difficult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

 

I don't think the reason behind the secrecy is quite as simple....or as minor/trivial as that, Bill. 

 

Roger's film simply being put ahead of other people's films wouldn't really account for Al's 52-year long "memory lapse", or his reluctance to discuss the matter. 

 

 

I don't want my entire confidence in the PGF timeline to hinge on trusting Roger. 

 

H O W E V E R...

 

I have observed too many times in my life where connections, favors, and just plain old luck explained how something happened which people thought would be difficult.

 

-How does the nurse get a RX for their sick kid on Sunday so fast?

-Why doesn't a cop get a speeding ticket?

-Tell me there haven't been times where we have all heard the phrase, "You didn't get this from me" or "you didn't hear this from me"

 

The PGF and other things involve real people, not robots .  People are complicated.  People can be honest or not. They can be heroes and bad guys even in the same person.  Because they are people they might have diff motivations, connections or reasons for behaving like they do.  We cannot always know why they do what they do.  We might find if we did, what we see as a smoking gun today was really no big deal.  They can be chaotic in their actions.  Those actions- esp when some of the actions are hidden- don't always fit into a perfect detective problem solving tree.   Was the person involved in a crime?   Was the person having an affair?  Was the person embarrassed about some other unrelated detail which caused them to lie not motivated by the material issue but about something small?

 

This is not to dismiss the concerns mentioned by others.   They just should not be too quick to assume they know and understand each person involvement or reasoning.

 

Sometimes things also just fall into place by rare luck.  When Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones, Hahn Solo) crashed his vintage plane on a golf course, it just so happened one of the people who first attended to him happened to be Dr. Sanjay Khurana was golfing that day on that very spot.  If you are going to crash a plane, it helps to have a highly skilled doctor right there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

If someone thinks Roger lied about shipping off the film on the evening of the 20th, then they also have to believe Bob Gimlin is a liar too. Bob has corroborated this in the past. 

Share this post


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

If someone thinks Roger lied about shipping off the film on the evening of the 20th, then they also have to believe Bob Gimlin is a liar too. Bob has corroborated this in the past. 

 

Bob seems like an honest guy.  When I see him in the various recent videos that comes across.  It really comes across in the very few things/ interviews given closer to the event like Arthur C Clark show back in the 1970's.

 

If it is a hoax, then Gimlin is in on it and that would make him a liar.  In that way I think we can say Gimlin vouches for Roger.  But like 1977's Superman:

 

Superman (catching louis lane from falling to her death) "Don't worry miss, I've got you."

 

Louis Lane"You've got me, Who's Got You!"

 

 

I guess I am saying Bob vouching for Roger doesn't prove what Roger claims is true. (it doesn't hurt his cause though)

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

 

 

Very good- thank you for this, Bill.

So, much of this whole thing is based on Roger's claim the creature was filmed on Friday October 20, not Thursday the 19th or Wednesday the 18th, and people met to watch the processed film two days later on a Sunday if I'm following this correctly. And if Roger lied about filming the creature on Friday then anything he says can be a lie. My question would be, why would Roger back himself into a corner by stating he filmed the creature on Friday and not Wednesday unless he didn't realize people would be questioning the who/when/where of the film processing for the next 50+ years. And I guess this is where the doubt comes in... So now what if he had filmed the creature on Wednesday the 18th? Why would he have said, "Friday"? What was the big deal about what day the creature was filmed if he didn't think anyone would question the time it took to process the film? Hmmmm...

I too am a huge fan of Planet of the Apes, Airdale. I own a bunch of POA collectibles and have met some of the cast over the years. I've also found it interesting that people mention John Chambers on here frequently. Thanks for your input!

 

 

That's a good question. It doesn't make sense for Roger to lie about the filming date; it doesn't accomplish anything. And in a hoax scenario, it doesn't make much sense to make a fake film and then rush to get it developed.

 

a little sidenote: Here's an overlooked detail; In a hoax scenario, why did Roger try to bring in a tracking dog if he had made a fake film? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
5 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

That's a good question. It doesn't make sense for Roger to lie about the filming date; it doesn't accomplish anything. And in a hoax scenario, it doesn't make much sense to make a fake film and then rush to get it developed.

 

a little sidenote: Here's an overlooked detail; In a hoax scenario, why did Roger try to bring in a tracking dog if he had made a fake film? 

 

Good points. And why the rush at all, hoax or not? What difference would it have made if the film was processed that weekend or the next? Yeah, it was a big story but the world could have waited a few more days.

 

I'll have to read up on the tracking dog story. Off the top of my pointed head I could surmise that Roger was bluffing to make his story seem more legit. I think doubters would have been more impressed if he had ACTUALLY spent the time and resources and brought a tracking dog back down there...lol

12 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

 

The type of film Roger used to film the PGF required very special processing to process it.  One could not just run into any Walmart-type place.

 

The film was shot on Friday early afternoon leaving a tight window to get the film to Roger's relative Al.   Al would have to (once receiving the film) find a lab 1) which could develop the specialized film with their specialized process  2) was open or Saturday or 3) would be willing somehow to develop the film Saturday (or early Sunday) for a viewing that took place at Al's house Sunday ( some say evening).

 

The window the development was limited to a development which fit into a tight timeline:   Friday early afternoon to Sunday evening. We know Sunday because people showed up for the claimed first viewing of the PGF that Sunday (some say evening).  Reasonable skeptics have asked the Q as to how this was accomplished.  When questioned on this issue Roger made cryptic comments indicating the development process happened in some secret way (a favor?) because if he revealed it the person who developed it would get in trouble or fired.  Essentially he was saying it was done as some favor in some behind the scenes way.

 

There have been many knowledgeable posters (such as Old Mort) who have explained why getting this film developed under the claim timeline not be easy. I would encourage you to read some of his old posts on the topic.

 

The skeptic's have a hard time dismissing the PGF itself esp when it comes to a suit reproduction.  If it could be shown the PGF claimed development window was just too tight then it would mean they lied as to when the film was developed.  <----- That would raise further Q as to a hoax.

 

The film is pretty darn impressive.  We have incomplete information about what was possible at the time and what was assumed possible.  There are things apart from the film which at facts which don't hurt Roger's account.  There are hurdles there which make it difficult.

 

 

 

Thanks for your insight. I have been reading a bunch of these threads in the PGF section. I find all of this stuff real interesting. As of right now I feel the film developing timeline isn't that big of an issue and it is quite possible and probable a favor or two was done to get the film processed in such a short window of time.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
8 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

Good points. And why the rush at all, hoax or not? What difference would it have made if the film was processed that weekend or the next? Yeah, it was a big story but the world could have waited a few more days.

 

I'll have to read up on the tracking dog story. Off the top of my pointed head I could surmise that Roger was bluffing to make his story seem more legit. I think doubters would have been more impressed if he had ACTUALLY spent the time and resources and brought a tracking dog back down there...lol

 

 

The reason I said it doesn't accomplish anything for Roger to lie about the filming date is because Roger had the developed film in his hands that he wanted people to see. Remember he sought out scientists and two movie studios to view his film. Whether or not Roger made the film on the 18th and told people he made it on the 20th, it could not change what is seen on the film. That's why Roger lying wouldn't accomplish anything. The film itself is the key. When someone is watching and analyzing the actual film, no one is going to care whether the film was made on the 18th or the 20th. Analysis of the figure is the key; no one is going to accomplish anything by getting bogged down in the swamp with alligators. I still believe in Occam's Razor in all this.

 

On the tracking dogs: Let's say I had been a person with tracking dogs and got a call from Don Abbot and agreed to bring some down all the way to Bluff Creek in N. Calif.. If I went to the trouble and expense to take my dogs to Bluff Creek to try and pick up a scent trail, and later found out the whole thing was a big hoax, Roger Patterson wouldn't be able to find a place to hide from me.  ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
1 hour ago, OkieFoot said:

If I went to the trouble and expense to take my dogs to Bluff Creek to try and pick up a scent trail, and later found out the whole thing was a big hoax, Roger Patterson wouldn't be able to find a place to hide from me.  ;)

 

Yep because the next job my hounds would have would be treeing Roger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...