Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

I am not sure if this has ever been asked before about the PGF so I think I will ask. In the developing of the PGF film and when Al received these 3 reels from Roger on October 21 1967 . Now when he took these 3 reels to the place of where they developed the film . Why has no one come out about what they saw on those 3 reels that were being developed. I mean there had to be a process in developing this type of film and it must of took a person who knew what they were doing to do so. So this person / people who were involved in the developing of the film were the first to see what was on that film.  My question is this  and should be further studied as to why no one has asked. Why has no one spoken up about what they really saw on those 3 reels in the developing stage ?  Has some one asked this question and has it been answered.

 

I just feel that if I was developing film for some one and seen some thing strange on the film. Do you really think that you would stay silent about it or would you make a copy of it for your own personal file. After all this is the civilian life and not the military where we in the military one must stay silent and restrict it.  Again I am trying to stay with an open mind on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

^ Only a true PGf scofftic would down vote an honest and helpful response from probably the world's foremost expert in this subject matter: a person who has been involved specifically in creature costume creation and filming since the 1960's and who has spent countless hours honestly and productively working on a solution to this mystery.  Unfortunately the dark-side is apparently still here (albeit, thankfully much less present than in years past).  Sorry, Bill.  Thank-you for being an extremely knowledgeable and generous voice of reason in regard to the PGf.  We appreciate your efforts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Well it wasn't me either...

 

A couple of things to add though:

 

1. The film moves through the processor at a pretty fast clip.

 

2. 16mm is a very small format to view with the naked eye while it is in process.

 

3. Most of the K-12 process takes place in the dark.

 

4. Films are generally not viewed via projection after processing, an exception may be made for "special processing".

 

Can I have a down vote too?

Edited by OldMort
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I've never heard of a lab inspecting film by a process involving a film gate and a pulldown claw (like a projector) but I have used film viewers where the shutter is rolling and the file rolls continuously through the light projection to the ground glass screen (a sort of rear projection.). This viewer device is between a pair of rewinds, and you can inspect the film as fast or slow as you choose by the force you apply cranking the rewind handle. That type of inspection allows a better appraisal of what's on the film, and looking for scratches or blur, bad focus, etc.  And it won't scratch the film.

 

But it would be done after the processing is complete, and the film is ready to be packaged to return to the customer.

 

ADDED:  I just remembered that when running film through the viewer and rewinds, the picture might be slightly blurry, but any scratches (going the same way as the film) tend to stand out as more solid, making them easier to detect, if that's what the technician is looking for.

Edited by Bill
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

From what I recall of the Ishihara material, the only time that the Technicolor Lab projected film was for "special orders" outside of normal business hours.

 

He has stated that this only occurred just once after processing an order for the "government." I would assume that the customer was present.

 

Bill Miller has provided an anecdotal account of being at Forde Lab in Seattle and being shown by a long time employee, (the guy) the very wall in a room at the lab where the original PGF was first shown right after processing. No further details are available....

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Thank you Bill

So then there was only one reel and a possible of another one .   So on the one that we do know of is of the creature and its tracks. But there has to be more to what was found on the aftermath when the creature was first filmed. The other part I have a problem with is the lab that the film was developed. Is it true that it only took a day to have this film developed and it was shown by Monday.? I can see a lab tech going through the film and checking it for scratches.  But how would have this tech felt seeing some thing not right on the film. That lab tech I would think would be the third person to have seen this creature . Except the difference being it would of been on film. So if this lab tech did see this strange creature on film was he ever question back then ? or has  this lab ever been question in the past or even in the present?

 

I am just not sure if a lot has been said about the so called lab of where this film was developed. The same goes on how the change of custody of the film was applied. That no one really knows where the original film of the creature is.

 

But thank you Bill and OldMort since there is a lot to learn  on the processing of this film back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
3 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

But thank you Bill and OldMort since there is a lot to learn  on the processing of this film back then. 

 

There are many, many, many threads here on BFF about the film, processing, etc .. down to incredible minutiae.   It seems you have a lot of reading to do to catch up.   What it boils down to is .. nobody knows.   We have a handful of "dots" that can be fairly reliably verified and many many contorted paths for connecting them.   I do not believe we will ever have a detailed, reliable account of the film's journey from Oct 20 to Oct 22.    The most we can hope for is a contested best guess.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

See how would of it been handled if this creature was filmed in the present day of 2019. How would we have investigated the filming today if we had no idea that there was no film back then? See I truly believe that a lot of mistakes were made back then that might have not been made today in our present age. Even though the technology is different today then back then. Our investigation today should still be the same as it was back then.

 

I did not know that there was a lot of threads about the processing of the PGF film. Even the custody or handling of the film . I just never payed that much attention to this except for when I first seen the film on insearch of. I only knew of the two players in the filming of the creature. I was amazed with what they captured on that film and truly excepted it. Now I am not saying that I doubt the film or that it is all a hoax. But there are holes in the way it was handled and there are two that can confirm the truth  about the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ That, too, is part of what has been discussed in gory detail.  :(     You could know that, too, by reading the threads.    Many/most are right here in this section you're posting to dedicated to the PGF. 

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Thanks MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Shadowborn:

 

Just to clarify a few things:

 

The verified first reel has 76 feet (3/4th of the reel) showing various segments of either Roger or Bob riding a horse and pulling a smaller white pack horse through the woodland country. The remaining 23.8 feet is the PGF encounter. This is the first reel.

 

The trackway footage is generally described as second reel, but we only know of about 25 feet of footage attributed to that reel,  so we can't say what was on the other 3/4ths of that reel. Also, we have never seen an intact copy of the three assumed segments (the trackway, Roger casting a footprint, and Roger standing by a tree holding two plaster footprint casts) which shows their order or even verifies those three segments were on the second reel.  So the second reel footage is problematic in ways that limits it's analysis potential.

 

Finally, back to the lab inspection of processed footage, I have some footage of an experiment Eric Beckjord did in 1982, with a guy in a gorilla suit trying to replicate the PGF. The way a lab technician usually examines processed film, a tech would not be able to tell the difference between the PGf and footage like Beckjord shot. So you should not assume that if a lab tech examined the film, he could immediately recognize it was a true entity and not a costumed human. A documentary filmmaker might reasonably film segments of a human in a fur costume even if he's making a legitimate documentary on the subject of Bigfoot. It was common then to "recreate" or "dramatize" a described incident to show the audience what is described as having occurred. So in that context, a lab technician would not likely be surprised or astonished by the footage. Only rigorous analysis (far beyond the capabilities of a lab) can determine the authenticity of the footage.

 

Finally, labs do see a lot of footage that may be curious, or noteworthy in some positive or negative respect, but the technicians who examine the processed film as generally expected to exercise discretion and not take any entitlement or authority to tell people other than the customer what they saw on the footage. If they did, they'd soon lose all their business. There isn't any formal "code of silence" but informally, the lab is expected to always defer to the customer as to who and how the content of the footage is brought to the attention of other people. The only exception is "obscene" material, (especially if it involved children) which the lab was required to report to law enforcement authorities.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
15 hours ago, OldMort said:

.........Can I have a down vote too?

 

I had to laugh at our witty friend Incorrigible giving it to you.

 

4 hours ago, MIB said:

 

There are many, many, many threads here on BFF about the film, processing, etc .. down to incredible minutiae.   It seems you have a lot of reading to do to catch up.   What it boils down to is .. nobody knows.........

 

It has essentially been lawyered to death. So many people have injected so much doubt about every minute aspect of the PG film that the actual existence of Roger Patterson is open to debate, and 50 years after Gimlin dies, Patterson will be the equivalent of Zorro. And this is as intentional as a courtroom criminal defense.

 

Under such assail, and as has also been demonstrated, even a feat as documented and repeated as a visit to the moon becomes doubted by millions of people. 

Edited by Huntster
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Thank you. I must admit to being dumbfounded that a purely technical and factual answer of laboratory procedures is somehow "disapproved". It reminds me of our dear departed court jester, Squatchy, who voted down a posting of mine that was pure fact and technical reference. Maybe some people are offended that i actually have some knowledge to contribute to the discussion.

 

Oh well. I'll just continue to dwell in the land of facts, knowledge, and truth. Nice place to live.

 

Bill

 

 

It just what they do....it's nothing new.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×