Jump to content
HOLDMYBEER

CONVERSATION WITH AL DEATLEY

Recommended Posts

OldMort
7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

It seems to me that his reason has more to do with Al protecting himself/his reputation. 

 

Al has stated numerous times that he doesn't think the film is genuine.

 

He was dubious about it even after the first viewing yet was delighted to gain from it financially until things died down and he sold his share to Roger.

 

How does his current obfuscation and denial protect his "reputation"?

 

He willingly profited from something he believed to be fake.

 

Whats done is done...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, OldMort said:

 

Al has stated numerous times that he doesn't think the film is genuine.

 

He was dubious about it even after the first viewing yet was delighted to gain from it financially until things died down and he sold his share to Roger.

 

How does his current obfuscation and denial protect his "reputation"?

 

He willingly profited from something he believed to be fake.

 

Whats done is done...

 

 

 

 

 

 

His “reputation” is a construction mogul and lives in a mansion that hosts U of W booster club functions. He is one of the most influential and wealthy men in Washington state.

 

https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al-deatleys-house/view/google/

 

I think he is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I am well aware of all that.

 

Do you think DeAtley's high-roller circle are unaware of his involvement with the film? Or is it just taboo for them to speak about it in front of Al?

 

Perhaps they just don't give a crap...

 

My point is: Why would someone in his high societal standing characterize the film that he profited from as a hoax yet refuse to give any details.

 

How does it tarnish his reputation in any way if he divulges how the film was shipped and how it was processed?

 

How does it benefit him to remain silent - clearly he's already untouchable.

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Maybe its his way of distancing himself from the film?

 

He financed the expedition. He made money off the film. But Roger was running the show and may have duped him.

 

So essentially he is a victim like the rest of us.

 

Personally I doubt Roger was capable of duping Al. You dont accrue that kind of wealth in construction that way. Lot of cut throats in tha biz. Ive been stuck for 20 k hauling rock myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

My point is: Why would someone in his high societal standing characterize the film that he profited from as a hoax yet refuse to give any details.

 

How does it tarnish his reputation in any way if he divulges .... how it was processed?

 

 

Or.....when it was processed? ;) 

 

The time...(i.e...date)….of the processing wouldn't tarnish Al's reputation, if it had been filmed/processed several days earlier....would it, Mort? :popcorn:  

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^^ "How it was processed" as in where and when. Same with the shipment...

 

You're the one pushing the "reputation" angle so I'm sure you are quite capable of answering your own question. :) 

 

Let us all know, Ok?

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor
15 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

In addition, Bob Gimlin wasn't making money off of the film for many years, well after Roger had passed. So, Al wouldn't have been keeping silent on the film development details for Gimlin's sake, during that period of time.  

 

But he might be keeping silent on part of the reputation of Bob Gimlin who was with Roger who had no part in the hoax. If Al knew that Roger played a hoax with this film then I would think that this would be enough to stay silent and not speak of it. Bob is just as innocent as all of us who have seen the film except he was there and seen this thing up close. If Al started to open up now what he really thought and maybe even knew it was a hoax. It would cause a ruckus and might even tarnish the reputation of Bob Gimlin who has been touring and still talking about what he saw on that day. Just my opinion.

Edited by ShadowBorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
8 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^ "How it was processed" as in where and when. Same with the shipment...

 

You're the one pushing the "reputation" angle so I'm sure you are quite capable of answering your own question. :) 

 

 

 

But You are the one who said this.....(remember? ;) )...

 

Quote

How does it tarnish his reputation in any way if he divulges ... how it was processed?

 

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to answer my question, Mort....because, by extension....what you proposed speaks against Al having any reason for withholding the detail of an "earlier filming date". 

 

Thank you (from your skeptical side of the fence) for making that point, Mort.  LOL. 

 

 

So, just to be perfectly clear on this......you would agree that the date of the filming....if it were earlier than the 20th....would not tarnish Al DeAtley's reputation? Yes...or....no? :popcorn: 

 

 

1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said:

But he might be keeping silent on part of the reputation of Bob Gimlin who was with Roger who had no part in the hoax. If Al knew that Roger played a hoax with this film then I would think that this would be enough to stay silent and not speak of it. Bob is just as innocent as all of us who have seen the film except he was there and seen this thing up close. If Al started to open up now what he really thought and maybe even knew it was a hoax. It would cause a ruckus and might even tarnish the reputation of Bob Gimlin who has been touring and still talking about what he saw on that day. Just my opinion.

 

 

One problem with your highlighted statement, Shadow.....if Al "knew/knows" that the film is a hoax.....why then does he only say he "thinks" it is a hoax??

 

The scenario you are proposing is a bit convoluted. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

what you proposed speaks against Al having any reason for withholding the detail of an "earlier filming date". 

 

Let's get this correct first.

 

I haven't proposed anything -  I have asked you a question:  "How does it tarnish his reputation in any way if he divulges how the film was shipped and how it was processed?"

 

You are the one making a claim (that Al's silence is to protect his reputation). 

 

You have yet to expand on your claim as to how and why your claim is correct.

 

Its not up to me to explain your "claim". That falls on you.

 

Go.. .:)

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Gimlin

 

If the PGF is a hoax Al might have known or not but there is no doubt at all the Gimlin would know.  I cannot think of any reasonable scenario where Gimlin would be fooled.  It would require so much nonsense it hurts my brain to even give it space.  If it was a hoax there is No Way Bob Gimlin was duped.  He would be in on it 100%.  I am not saying it is a hoax, but it IS one or the other.  If it is a hoax, Gimlin is one of the hoaxers.

 

Al

 

It is possible there was a hoax and Al even suspected a hoax but was not himself a hoaxer.   What did he care so long as Roger was the one claiming it was real and people were lining up to pay the $$$ to see the film.

 

So why any uneasiness with Al?

 

Say a hoax was done.  Al gets a call that they "Got the sucker"   Al arrange development and for whatever reason in a hurry.   Maybe whatever happened at this step had Al bending rules to get the film developed.   Say Al broke some law or rule to get it done or Al used some favor to get it done at this step.  Hoax or Real, Al wouldn't really want to talk about it.

 

That might explain him not wanting to get into the details regardless of the film being a hoax or not.

 

Say 'Fred' fakes a work- injury back in 1967.  Fred calls his sister 'Sally' the nurse saying, "I injured my back but everything is closed and the closet hospital is hours away".  Sally the nurse somehow 'finds' them pain pills on a Saturday/ Sunday even though no clinic or pharmacies are open until Monday.  When later asked, "Sally, where did Fred get those pain pills if no one was open on Saturday?" Sally might not want to talk about it.  If Fred was faking the injury or not, Sally's actions might get her or someone she works with in trouble under the example here.  

 

I wonder if Al's silence is more something like my wild story.  That is, Al's actions regardless of the film being real or not, related to something he did or an action he took that could get him and/or a someone else in trouble or expose something embarrassing.  <---- isn't that more likely?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
21 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

Let's get this correct first.

 

I haven't proposed anything -  I have asked you a question:  "How does it tarnish his reputation in any way if he divulges how the film was shipped and how it was processed?"

 

 

 

Actually, Mort....you asked that question in a response to a post of norseman's, less than an hour after his post....(not in a direct response to one of my posts)...

 

Old Mort wrote:

Quote

My point is: Why would someone in his high societal standing characterize the film that he profited from as a hoax yet refuse to give any details.

 

How does it tarnish his reputation in any way if he divulges how the film was shipped and how it was processed?

 

How does it benefit him to remain silent - clearly he's already untouchable.

 

 

In that post, you wrote...."My point is". Now, you're saying... "I haven't proposed anything".  :wacko:  

 

So, to try to understand what you have been "proposing"/"not proposing".....I'll ask you again, to clarify...

 

You would agree that the date of the filming....if it were earlier than the 20th, and Al DeAtley revealed such a detail....that it would not tarnish Al's reputation? Yes...or....no? :popcorn: 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

So, to try to understand what you have been "proposing"/"not proposing".....I'll ask you again, to clarify... 

 

 

 

Clarify this: "It seems to me that his reason has more to do with Al protecting himself/his reputation."

 

Go... 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor
On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 11:28 AM, Backdoc said:

 

If the PGF is a hoax Al might have known or not but there is no doubt at all the Gimlin would know.  I cannot think of any reasonable scenario where Gimlin would be fooled.  It would require so much nonsense it hurts my brain to even give it space.  If it was a hoax there is No Way Bob Gimlin was duped.  He would be in on it 100%.  I am not saying it is a hoax, but it IS one or the other.  If it is a hoax, Gimlin is one of the hoaxers.

Maybe he ( Bob Gimlin ) did have a part in this hoax . But he is already to deep into with all the touring that he has done. So if Al was to come out with the truth now what would this do to the film of this so call creature that some of us tend to believe to be real. It really does not mean much to Al or Roger. But it sure does mean a lot to Bob if it comes out that he was in on a hoax after saying all these years what he saw was real. Now you know that on my part this is all speculation. My way of thinking out of the box.

 

This whole thing could have very well been settled if Bob would have shot the darn thing when he had the perfect chance. We would have the body and a film and there be no doubt  what these creatures are..

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
17 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

Maybe he ( Bob Gimlin ) did have a part in this hoax . But he is already to deep into with all the touring that he has done. So if Al was to come out with the truth now what would this do to the film of this so call creature that some of us tend to believe to be real.

 

Gee, if Al DeAtley has been trying to protect Bob Gimlin from being seen as a hoaxer....then you would think he might actually try promoting the film as legit, rather than calling it a hoax....(for the last 50 years). LOL. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Why would a conspirator remain quiet?

 

We know Bob Heironimus claims he didn't get paid for being the guy in the suit. He was to be paid about $5,000 in today's dollars.   So Roger and Al are cashing in to some extent and Bob H stays silent publicly?   Bob H must see Roger on the Merv Griffin show and so on.  He must assume 1) They are making some 'payola' on this thing and 2) they need to buy his silence soon or the payola will stop as Bob H can kill the golden goose.

 

We know Gimlin got into an actual legal spat over the film depending on who owned it at that confusing time.  So Gimlin is getting ripped off.   What does he do if it's a hoax? He tells them privately to pay up. They don't.  He then goes public through the courts but to my understanding never once claimed the film was a fraud during even this time or any time.  

 

What do Al and Roger do?  Apparently try to keep all the money for themselves.  If it's a hoax, they go out of their way to fight legally NOT to pay Gimlin who at any time could reveal the hoax. They go out of their way to not pay Bob H who could as well.  

 

 

Al and Gimlin's actions are not actions of people who think they have a fake Picasso but a real one. 

 

Gimlin could have come out at any time over those decades and said (with twinkle in the eye) "here is how we did it...."     Instead he remain silent -save for a few public statements.  In those he Doubled Down (!) on his statements about seeing a real hairy massive creature.  Even though there was nothing to be gained but reawakening further ridicule he stated again it was a real creature. He was NOT selling.  He was not appearing on any seminar or conference.  To the best we can tell he got nothing out of doing that.

 

 

Al and Roger's actions are not that of 2 people involved in a hoax.

Bob H actions are not the actions at all of a man involved in a hoax/ job for money who was stiffed while his buddies cashed in.

Gimlin's actions time and time again are that of a man who thinks the PGF is a real creature.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×