The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

[EnolaGaia]

... Did anyone ever find the lab that processed it?

No.

According to the standard account DeAtley handled the processing, and he's consistently dodged the issue or claimed to not remember any details.

Biggest thing for me though, is the tight time frame, I'm fairly sure it was caused by a cock up by someone. In California or Washington I don't know, but I suspect it was DeAtley.

DeAtley, rather than Patterson, seems to be the party at the center of whatever really happened. He hosted the Sunday screening. I assume he'd made the arrangements to have guests from out of town be at his house for the screening. He supposedly received the film and got it processed over that particular weekend. He was the financial and business ramrod behind Patterson's Bigfoot projects, including the documentary film Patterson was trying to make. He's the one most likely to have all the critical answers, and he's the one who's done the least talking over the decades.

 

[lordmongrove]

That is where we have a difference of opinion. When I view the film I do not see a smooth natural gait of an animal. I see a person struggling to walk in a cumbersome costume.

Having worked with gorillas and other apes, i see an animal with massive upper body strength and bulk and a smooth, none human gait. But the most telling thing is when the animal's head is side on. It has an sloping forehead. Human foreheads rise directly up. A human head / skull would not be able to fit into a hypothetical full head mask if this were an ape suit. If the mask were built to accomadate that then the sloping profile we see would need to sit atop of the human forehead making the mask look far too outsized for the body.

 

[oldrover]

No.

I was never clear on that. Thanks.

DeAtley, rather than Patterson, seems to be the party at the center of whatever really happened. He hosted the Sunday screening. I assume he'd made the arrangements to have guests from out of town be at his house for the screening. He supposedly received the film and got it processed over that particular weekend. He was the financial and business ramrod behind Patterson's Bigfoot projects, including the documentary film Patterson was trying to make. He's the one most likely to have all the critical answers, and he's the one who's done the least talking over the decades.

We've seen the whole of reel 1, and there's nothing on it before Patty shows up, it's as neutral as they could want. Does that tell us anything I wonder? Yet if the man in it isn't Bob Gimlin, that'd be a hell of a risk for them to have taken, but as I recall it's hard to make him out.

So that might mean the film was shot sometime during that trip there, mailed to DeAtley, and processed. Then for some reason DeAtley decides to stage a screening on the Sunday, which he forewarns Patterson and Gimlin about, alternately, did the two of then get wind that DeAtley was going to go ahead and screen the film without them, leaving them with a mad scramble back to Washington?

 

[oldrover]

If it was the latter, then the big effort of impressing on people in California that they had taken the film that day would stake a good spot in the limelight for them.

 

[EnolaGaia]

When I was trying to figure out exactly what your comments meant, I was brainstorming on some angles I'd not seriously considered before. At one point I shifted my hypothetical perspective to three new fixed points:

(a) The Sunday screening was already anticipated, if not already planned, by Friday;
(b) The film shown on Sunday hadn't been shot on Friday the 20th, and was already in DeAtley's possession; hence ...
(c) The key explanation became why the October expedition was undertaken at all.

This led to a focus on why it was important to impress a number of folks in California in all the running around Friday afternoon / evening.

A new speculative take on the narrative (affording multiple nuanced variations on the details ... ) occurred to me. Its most basic outline goes something like this ...

- Patterson had previously (by May 1967) obtained funding and rented a movie camera to make a Bigfoot documentary.

- The documentary production had stalled after shooting some footage during the summer(?).

- By the end of summer Patterson had blown all his funding, in large part on staging and filming a surprisingly convincing 're-enactment' scene originally intended to serve as the dramatic centerpiece of the originally-envisioned documentary about Bigfoot (as opposed to being a purported sighting of Bigfoot).

- Patterson owed folks (most especially DeAtley) money, and he was already overdue in returning the camera he'd rented (for which he'd eventually face legal action).

- DeAtley and Patterson were facing a dilemma about pulling the plug on the project or finding some way to make the results to date generate a return on the investment. It was 'put up or shut up' time on the project.

- In late August tracks were found and publicized in the Humboldt County (California) area which Patterson had visited and already knew.

- Someone, somehow, at some time came up with a new plan to leverage the already-processed documentary 'sighting' footage in a new way. Forget the documentary production - they could profit as much or more from simply marketing that one expensively-obtained scene.

- Given the August emergence of a new tracks story, they could piggyback on its publicity by arriving on the scene with a credible film. However, they still needed some tracks to support the film and to follow up on the August developments. The film already in hand, plus some tracks evidence, should do it ...

- Patterson recruited Gimlin for the October expedition. (The possibilities diverge / multiply at this point, depending on whether Gimlin was in on the real plan or was being set up as a corroborating witness.)

- Whether or not a second 'sighting' was staged (for additional filming; for a naive Gimlin's benefit), the tracks were generated and casts made on Friday.

- All the frenzied running around late on Friday was an act intended to generate corroboration for the notion the film had been shot that day (and, by extension, represented an authentic sighting).

- Having accomplished the stagecraft to support this interpretation of events, they returned to Washington and the debut DeAtley had arranged - the viewing of the already-processed film by other Bigfoot aficionados.

I repeat - this is all brainstormed speculation toward explaining the Friday frenzies and ambiguities from a different angle.

The only agenda items that were potentially jeopardized by Murphy's Law were the grooming of corroborating contactees and the presentation of track casts on Sunday, because these were the actual objectives of the October expedition.

If the heavy rains had hit one day earlier (Friday) the whole thing would have fallen apart.

 

[oldrover]

Exactly!

But i differ on a few points, or at least my speculation has gone down different lines in some details.

(a) The Sunday screening was already anticipated, if not already planned, by Friday;

Here, I suggest that the decision may have been made by DeAtley alone.

(b) The film shown on Sunday hadn't been shot on Friday the 20th, and was already in DeAtley's possession; hence ...
(c) The key explanation became why the October expedition was undertaken at all.

Here, yes I agree fully. I definitely believe the film was processed and in DeAtley's possession, or at least in Yakima somewhere.

Patterson had previously (by May 1967) obtained funding and rented a movie camera to make a Bigfoot documentary.

- The documentary production had stalled after shooting some footage during the summer(?).

- By the end of summer Patterson had blown all his funding, in large part on staging and filming a surprisingly convincing 're-enactment' scene originally intended to serve as the dramatic centerpiece of the originally-envisioned documentary about Bigfoot (as opposed to being a purported sighting of Bigfoot).

Again, full agreement.

- Patterson owed folks (most especially DeAtley) money, and he was already overdue in returning the camera he'd rented (for which he'd eventually face legal action).

This is the most interesting part, he owed DeAtley money. I didn't know that. This might, might, be an explanation for DeAtley deciding to say bugger it, and go it alone with the Sunday screening, if that is what he did. Thereby leaving P & G in the lurch unless they could establish a link. Which they did by going through the charade of visiting Hodgson, the Ranger etc. This might, be why they let themselves get stuck with such a lame mechanism of transporting the film to Washington, I struggle to believe they planned it that tight in advance.

As to the rest, that is what I think may have happened too, but as you say, it's purely speculation.

If the heavy rains had hit one day earlier (Friday) the whole thing would have fallen apart.

This part though I differ slightly, I believe it would have fallen apart from P & G's perspective, but DeAtley would have carried on anyway.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Exactly! But i differ on a few points, or at least my speculation has gone down different lines in some details.

The different lines bit is no problem. It simply reflects the fact that once one starts down this alternative speculative path there are a lot of forks - each one of which leads to divergent orientations to the details and how everything fits together.

Here, I suggest that the decision may have been made by DeAtley alone.

That's fair. There's always the possibility that DeAtley blind-sided Patterson when Patterson phoned him late on Friday. However, I personally think it's more probable that any surprises from DeAtley's end were fine-grained rather than anything radically overturning the original operational context. For example - moving the screening get-together earlier than originally anticipated rather than springing the whole screening notion on Patterson from out of the blue.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Here, yes I agree fully. I definitely believe the film was processed and in DeAtley's possession, or at least in Yakima somewhere.

This is the premise upon which this whole line of speculation depends. I believe it's a reasonable premise, given that no one has yet been able to piece together a credible timeline and chain of custody that could explain Kodachrome film shipped from Arcata / Eureka late on Friday being available for viewing in Yakima on Sunday.

This is the topical area where (IMHO) any shenanigans planner screwed up. Patterson's use of Kodachrome meant the film would have to end up being processed by Kodak in Palo Alto, and Kodak Palo Alto absolutely did not operate over weekends. If it had been Ektachrome, there would have been a possibility of getting the film processed more locally with some arm-twisting or begging about a Saturday rush order.

You'll also note that running into this pesky issue afterward would explain why DeAtley was so famously evasive, cranky, and ultimately amnesiac whenever questions were raised about the film's processing.

 

[EnolaGaia]

This is the most interesting part, he owed DeAtley money. I didn't know that. This might, might, be an explanation for DeAtley deciding to say bugger it, and go it alone with the Sunday screening, if that is what he did. Thereby leaving P & G in the lurch unless they could establish a link. Which they did by going through the charade of visiting Hodgson, the Ranger etc. This might, be why they let themselves get stuck with such a lame mechanism of transporting the film to Washington, I struggle to believe they planned it that tight in advance.

DeAtley had been the business / financial backstop for Patterson's escapades for some time. I don't know what Patterson may have owed DeAtley as of fall 1967. There's also the possibility that DeAtley was acting preemptively, having concluded Patterson's documentary project was doomed to crash and leave a financial crisis he'd probably be pressured to fix.

 

[EnolaGaia]

This part though I differ slightly, I believe it would have fallen apart from P & G's perspective, but DeAtley would have carried on anyway.

I should have said 'could have' instead of 'would have'. Sorry ...

Under the scenario we've very generally sketched here DeAtley wouldn't have suffered if P & G hadn't made it back to Yakima by Sunday. DeAtley would have been left in a situation no worse than to screen the film alone and leave it to later for Patterson to tell his story and present the track casts.

 

[oldrover]

Under the scenario we've very generally sketched here DeAtley wouldn't have suffered if P & G hadn't made it back to Yakima by Sunday. DeAtley would have been left in a situation no worse than to screen the film alone and leave it to later for Patterson to tell his story and present the track casts.

Yes, so it might make sense that it was he, rather than the two left to drive back from California, who made the decision to screen. It's speculation, but it certainly makes sense.

What is certain though, is that at the first arrival at Hodgson's store, the post offices would have been closed, and everybody would know that, they'd also know that the chances of an overnight mail delivery were mil also. That is one of the definite facts we have.

Less certain, but still by far the most likely, is that they couldn't realistically have processed it from Friday evening to Sunday anyway. And in any case if he had chased around finding a place, which would have been from a very limited list, he'd remember it.

So that the film was viewed on Sunday suggests that it had been in DeAtley's possession and developed previously. Also note in Swifty's video, Gimlin is very clear in stating he didn't accompany Patterson inside wherever to 'mail it'. So absolutely I agree with-

This is the topical area where (IMHO) any shenanigans planner screwed up.

 

[oldrover]

So, someone screwed up, or jumped over somebody else's head. And given that as you say

DeAtley had been the business / financial backstop for Patterson's escapades for some time. I don't know what Patterson may have owed DeAtley as of fall 1967. There's also the possibility that DeAtley was acting preemptively, having concluded Patterson's documentary project was doomed to crash and leave a financial crisis he'd probably be pressured to fix.

DeAtley seems to have a big neon arrow pointed at him as the main candidate.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Yes, so it might make sense that it was he, rather than the two left to drive back from California, who made the decision to screen. It's speculation, but it certainly makes sense ...

It might help if there's any specific information on when and how DeAtley(?) made the contacts that resulted in the other Bigfoot aficionados (Green and Dahinden? ... ) being in Yakima for the Sunday screening.

If anyone alleged the contacts occurred before Patterson phoned DeAtley Friday evening, that would be a smoking gun.

If the contacts didn't happen until after that phone call, it keeps both the standard account and the speculative conspiracy version in play.

However, I don't recall seeing any details on this ...

 

[EnolaGaia]

... DeAtley seems to have a big neon arrow pointed at him as the main candidate.

Yep ... It's always seemed to me that the fog is densest around DeAtley in Yakima.

 

[oldrover]

However, I don't recall seeing any details on this ...

There is an account from one of the men who attended. But I don't recall what he said about it. But here's a point, where did these men come from, as in how far did they travel? Because P & G emphasise they didn't know if they had anything on film, so if their version was accurate, DeAtley must have already seen the film before making the calls.

Now given DeAtley claimed to have had it developed in the morning, he must have called them pretty late.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The subject of how the Sunday viewing audience coalesced is another relatively murky aspect of the story.

Some accounts are more or less mute on the subject. Others vary in the depth of detail, the contacts mentioned, and / or clues to the locations and timing.

For example ... Here's what one gets from one of the more detailed reconstructions of events - Christopher Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal (accessible on Google Books), suppositions and all ...

- P&G initially planned on phoning DeAtley Friday afternoon / evening, then awaiting word back from him as to what to do next. In other words, they hadn't resolved to head back to Yakima yet.

- P&G arrived @ Hodgson's store (which was closed) and used the pay phone to call Hodgson's home circa 1800 (6 pm). Hodgson came back to the store to meet with them.

- It's unclear whether or when P actually called DeAtley (earlier, from the pay phone, or late after Hodgson opened the store again).

- P is assumed to have asked Hodgson to call Don Abbott (Vancouver) and ask Abbott to come to the sighting area with tracking dogs.

- Hodgson is assumed to have called Abbott, who declined to make the trip but said he'd wait to see the film.

- It was Abbott who called John Green and notified him about the day's events. Green had tracking dogs. Murphy assumes Abbott had called Green regarding the dogs.

- Abbott also contacted DeAtley to request the film be shown in Vancouver to academics at UBC.

- John Green phoned Rene Dahinden, who was staying at a hotel in San Francisco. Green had to leave a message (Dahinden wasn't in ... ) instructing Dahinden to contact Hodgson. The hotel clerk note written for Dahinden shows a time of 2035 (8:35 pm).

- Dahinden traveled to Willow Creek, arriving at Hodgson's store circa noon on Saturday the 21st and meeting with Jim McLarin.

- P calls Hodgson's store from Orleans. He notifies the Willow Creek folks he and G had decided to head home after getting the film sent to DeAtley and the rains' arrival.

- Dahinden and McLarin head out for Yakima.

- P & G arrive back in Yakima late Saturday or early Sunday.

- Green arrives at DeAtley's house early on Sunday afternoon. He and DeAtley await P's arrival. When P arrives, DeAtley shows P the film privately, then they show it to Green multiple times.

- Dahinden and McLarin arrived circa 1500 Sunday afternoon, and the viewing cycle is repeated.

According to this version of the storyline, it was Patterson who initially triggered all the contacts, the contacts propagated, and the contactees basically headed for Yakima on their own initiative.

 

[oldrover]

The subject of how the Sunday viewing audience coalesced is another relatively murky aspect of the story.

Some accounts are more or less mute on the subject. Others vary in the depth of detail, the contacts mentioned, and / or clues to the locations and timing.

For example ... Here's what one gets from one of the more detailed reconstructions of events - Christopher Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal (accessible on Google Books), suppositions and all ...

- P&G initially planned on phoning DeAtley Friday afternoon / evening, then awaiting word back from him as to what to do next. In other words, they hadn't resolved to head back to Yakima yet.

- P&G arrived @ Hodgson's store (which was closed) and used the pay phone to call Hodgson's home circa 1800 (6 pm). Hodgson came back to the store to meet with them.

- It's unclear whether or when P actually called DeAtley (earlier, from the pay phone, or late after Hodgson opened the store again).

- P is assumed to have asked Hodgson to call Don Abbott (Vancouver) and ask Abbott to come to the sighting area with tracking dogs.

- Hodgson is assumed to have called Abbott, who declined to make the trip but said he'd wait to see the film.

- It was Abbott who called John Green and notified him about the day's events. Green had tracking dogs. Murphy assumes Abbott had called Green regarding the dogs.

- Abbott also contacted DeAtley to request the film be shown in Vancouver to academics at UBC.

- John Green phoned Rene Dahinden, who was staying at a hotel in San Francisco. Green had to leave a message (Dahinden wasn't in ... ) instructing Dahinden to contact Hodgson. The hotel clerk note written for Dahinden shows a time of 2035 (8:35 pm).

- Dahinden traveled to Willow Creek, arriving at Hodgson's store circa noon on Saturday the 21st and meeting with Jim McLarin.

- P calls Hodgson's store from Orleans. He notifies the Willow Creek folks he and G had decided to head home after getting the film sent to DeAtley and the rains' arrival.

- Dahinden and McLarin head out for Yakima.

- P & G arrive back in Yakima late Saturday or early Sunday.

- Green arrives at DeAtley's house early on Sunday afternoon. He and DeAtley await P's arrival. When P arrives, DeAtley shows P the film privately, then they show it to Green multiple times.

- Dahinden and McLarin arrived circa 1500 Sunday afternoon, and the viewing cycle is repeated.

According to this version of the storyline, it was Patterson who initially triggered all the contacts, the contacts propagated, and the contactees basically headed for Yakima on their own initiative.

From all of which it sounds as though the arrival of the men wasn't planned by the three stooges then. Which then gives us an even more plausible reason for the tight time frame. They didn't intend it to be, they just seized the opportunity of pedaling their film when the 'experts' came calling.

 

[EnolaGaia]

From all of which it sounds as though the arrival of the men wasn't planned by the three stooges then. Which then gives us an even more plausible reason for the tight time frame. They didn't intend it to be, they just seized the opportunity of pedaling their film when the 'experts' came calling.

Right ... It seems there's more reason to suspect a screw-up and resultant scrambling than I'd originally thought.

Some additional notes ...

It would have been 'two stooges' on Sunday. Gimlin had been through a lot on Saturday (going to the filming site to cover tracks; packing up and driving out of the backcountry in the rains; hassling with getting his truck after it mired down or slipped off; and driving all the way back to Yakima). He went straight home, exhausted, and went to bed. He wasn't present at the Sunday screenings.

It's not clear how Green got to Yakima, but according to Murphy's account he was the first 'outsider' to arrive at DeAtley's house. In Murphy's account he viewed the film after DeAtley privately screened it for Patterson (in DeAtley's basement), but before Dahinden and McLarin arrived.

Dahinden got to Willow Creek via bus, arriving sometime on Saturday and checking in with Hodgson and McLarin. He was present with Hodgson when H received a phone call from Patterson (from a town north of WC) advising H that P & G had changed plans and were on their way back to Yakima.

I don't know how Dahinden got to Yakima. My guess is that he rode up there with McLarin (who lived in Eureka). McLarin's presence at the Sunday screening party isn't consistently mentioned by all authors.

According to Murphy's account (cf. above) Dahinden and Mclarin were the last to arrive, circa 1500 Sunday afternoon. Other accounts simply treat all of them as being present, without mentioning multiple arrivals.

All the accounts of the Sunday proceedings I've seen claim no guest(s) viewed the film until Patterson had arrived and DeAtley screened the film privately with P in the basement.

It occurred to me Dahinden (in San Francisco as of the 20th) would have been well-positioned to receive a previously-submitted film in Palo Alto, directly from the only known Kodachrome processing lab, and personally carry it north to Yakima. Murphy's account would negate this speculation, insofar as his version has Dahinden arriving after Patterson and Green had already viewed the film.

 

[oldrover]

Murphy's account would negate this speculation, insofar as his version has Dahinden arriving after Patterson and Green had already viewed the film.

As would Gimlin's, who stated that he'd accompanied Patterson to 'mail' it, but of course memory is too fallible to hold him to that statement.

It's not clear how Green got to Yakima, but according to Murphy's account he was the first 'outsider' to arrive at DeAtley's house. In Murphy's account he viewed the film after DeAtley privately screened it for Patterson (in DeAtley's basement), but before Dahinden and McLarin arrived.

Dahinden got to Willow Creek via bus, arriving sometime on Saturday and checking in with Hodgson and McLarin. He was present with Hodgson when H received a phone call from Patterson (from a town north of WC) advising H that P & G had changed plans and were on their way back to Yakima.

I don't know how Dahinden got to Yakima. My guess is that he rode up there with McLarin (who lived in Eureka). McLarin's presence at the Sunday screening party isn't consistently mentioned by all authors.

According to Murphy's account (cf. above) Dahinden and Mclarin were the last to arrive, circa 1500 Sunday afternoon. Other accounts simply treat all of them as being present, without mentioning multiple arrivals.

It'd be interesting to know where Green left from, and where Danhiden was staying, it's probably here somewhere, as I recall it, but not clearly. I'll have a look.

In addition to Palo Alto, wasn't there a lab in Seattle that could have processed it, this seems like a real Achilles Heel in the story, it should be possible to check if there was and if it was open, what the turn around time would have been, and whether if there was one in Seattle, they processed it themselves or sent it elsewhere.

It really is sounding like the scramble wasn't planned by them. But that they decided to take advantage of it, before realising they'd actually painted themselves into a corner.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... It'd be interesting to know where Green left from, and where Danhiden was staying, it's probably here somewhere, as I recall it, but not clearly. I'll have a look. ...

Green was Canadian, and he was a well established Bigfoot writer / 'expert' prior to 1967. He'd worked with both Abbott and Dahinden, which makes me suspect he was based in the Vancouver / BC area. However, I can't confirm this.

Murphy's book includes a photo image of the hotel clerk's note to Dahinden, but I don't recall if the name of the hotel was printed on it.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... In addition to Palo Alto, wasn't there a lab in Seattle that could have processed it, this seems like a real Achilles Heel in the story, it should be possible to check if there was and if it was open, what the turn around time would have been, and whether if there was one in Seattle, they processed it themselves or sent it elsewhere. ...

No - not according to the film lab professionals Long interviewed. They told him Kodachrome could be accepted at Seattle, but even they would have to have forwarded it to Palo Alto (the regional processing center). The Seattle lab (and / or others in Washington) could have processed Ektachrome film if DeAtley had managed to arm-twist them into working on a weekend.

Boeing in Seattle also had an in-house film lab, but a former pro told Long unequivocally that Boeing couldn't process Kodachrome, and they would also have had to forward it to Palo Alto.

Murphy, on the other hand, did a lot of vacuous hand-waving based on Kodak labs in the eastern US and concluded it was probable that the film was processed in Seattle. However, his book provides no indication that (a) Murphy acknowledged nor understood the significance of the film being Kodachrome or (b) Murphy ever checked whether any labs were operating on the weekend in question. This is one of the points on which I don't trust Murphy's research or his judgment.

 

[Swifty]

I haven't watched this short documentary yet, the title's a bit sensational so apologies if it's crap ..

edit: it's crap but enjoyable crap ...

I like the bigfoot @ 0:44, the two having sex @ 2:10 are hilarious (quite an achievement to ship all those suits out into the forest !)

 

[oldrover]

No - not according to the film lab professionals Long interviewed. They told him Kodachrome could be accepted at Seattle, but even they would have to have forwarded it to Palo Alto (the regional processing center). The Seattle lab (and / or others in Washington) could have processed Ektachrome film if DeAtley had managed to arm-twist them into working on a weekend.

Boeing in Seattle also had an in-house film lab, but a former pro told Long unequivocally that Boeing couldn't process Kodachrome, and they would also have had to forward it to Palo Alto.

So really, all it would take to prove the film was a hoax is to demonstrate that? One thing though, are we absolutely sure it was Kodachrome? Although it does seem strange to me that in 1967 13 years after Kodak had been obliged to allow other companies to develop their film that no one on the east coast of the U.S could process it except the lab in Palo Alto. I'm reluctant to accept Long, in the same way I am to accept early works by Robert Paddle in my own area of interest, I might agree broadly with what they say, and be coming from the same mindset, but I'm concerned about confirmation bias, and selective presentation of the evidence.

In any event, another question would be how long it'd take to develop it, now I've no idea but I do know some people who might so I'll ask them.

 

[oldrover]

I haven't watched this short documentary yet, the title's a bit sensational so apologies if it's crap ..

edit: it's crap but enjoyable crap ...

I like the bigfoot @ 0:44, the two having sex @ 2:10 are hilarious (quite an achievement to ship all those suits out into the forest !)

I didn't watch all of it, but I saw the two that were in love, and it was hilarious. I've got to say though that despite the fact that these are more modern none of them are a patch on the Patterson Gimlin film, and I mean that in a genuinely insincere way. Most of them are every bit as good, and if you saw the PG film in that lot I think we'd be laughing just as hard at that one too.

 

[EnolaGaia]

So really, all it would take to prove the film was a hoax is to demonstrate that?

Yes - if the film was processed by Kodak, at a Kodak facility, in accordance with Kodak's practices and policies of the time.

The only alternatives that could refute this would be demonstrating:

- The film was processed by some 'pirate' lab or well-equipped photo geek DeAtley could reach over the weekend who'd figured out how to emulate Kodak's Kodachrome processing; OR

- The film was processed by Cinechrome in Palo Alto (an eventually defunct independent lab founded by a former Kodak employee, which claimed to be able to process Kodachrome); OR

- The standard timeline and chain of custody consistently professed by all concerned has always been wrong.

One thing though, are we absolutely sure it was Kodachrome?

All accounts I've seen - including those attributed to Patterson himself - consistently claim he was using Kodachrome.

Although it does seem strange to me that in 1967 13 years after Kodak had been obliged to allow other companies to develop their film that no one on the east coast of the U.S could process it except the lab in Palo Alto. ...

West coast ...

 

[oldrover]

West coast ...

Exactly.

Yes - if the film was processed by Kodak, at a Kodak facility, in accordance with Kodak's practices and policies of the time.

Apparently, Kodak had been forced to share the method with outlets to allow them to process it by this time.

After 1954, as a result of the case United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., this practice was prohibited in the United States as anticompetative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome#Launch_and_later_history

I asked about processing time, and I'm told it was actually very fast, so definitely do-able if the right lab could be found. And that's really what it comes down to isn't it, was there a lab capable of doing it in the right area and that was or could have been open on a Saturday. As much as logic tells you the whole P G film is utter nonsense, unless it can actually be demonstrated that's that film wise.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Apparently, Kodak had been forced to share the method with outlets to allow them to process it by this time.

After 1954, as a result of the case United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., this practice was prohibited in the United States as anticompetative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome#Launch_and_later_history

I asked about processing time, and I'm told it was actually very fast, so definitely do-able if the right lab could be found. And that's really what it comes down to isn't it, was there a lab capable of doing it in the right area and that was or could have been open on a Saturday. As much as logic tells you the whole P G film is utter nonsense, unless it can actually be demonstrated that's that film wise.

It's more complicated than it seems at face value ...

First - the primary thrust and effect of the 1954 consent decree was to de-couple the sale of Kodak color film from prepayment of that same film's processing. It only meant customers paid for the film alone, then had to pay separately for submitting the film for processing. It turned what was originally one transaction (allowing the customer to shoot the film and mail it directly to a Kodak processing facility) transformed into two transactions. This did nothing to accelerate the overall filming / processing loop.

In the 1954 consent decree, Kodak agreed to make its processing technology and materials (chemicals) available to third parties. This agreement covered all Kodak film formats (of which Kodachrome was the oldest and most complex specimen in color photography).

This doesn't mean everyone suddenly became capable of processing any or all Kodak film types. You still had to have the Kodak-supplied chemicals and the Kodachrome-specific know-how. If you needed to process Kodachrome quickly you needed to invest in one of Kodak's own Kodachrome processing machines. I've never been able to confirm that these Kodachrome-specific machines were even considered part of the 'technology' Kodak was required to share under the 1954 decree.

The speed at which Kodachrome could eventually be processed under the K-14 process might fit the required timeframe, but that process wasn't introduced until the 1970's.

Kodachrome was processed in large batches on dedicated machines, requiring 3 - 4 staffers (1 mechanic, 1 chemist, and 1 or more processing operators). It took 2 to 3 hours to load and warm up the machine before processing could be done. The core processing procedure would take at least 1 to 2 additional hours.

The photo professionals Long interviewed (two of whom had personal recollections of making Ektachrome copies of the original Kodachrome Patterson film) were consistent on the following points:

- Nobody in the Yakima / Seattle area could do initial processing of Kodachrome film in 1967. Accepting Kodachrome meant shipping it off to Palo Alto. Period ...

- Kodak absolutely did not operate their processing labs on weekends.

- It would cost at least $2000 to open up / start up a lab to do a processing run on demand and on a day the lab was otherwise shut down.

- The Patterson film from which the Ektachrome copies were made appeared to be standard Kodachrome.

- Nobody specifically recalled edge printing on the original film indicating where it had been processed (it should have including a code of 'P' or 'PA' for Palo Alto processing), but at least one of them stated the routine edge markings were visible, meaning it had been processed by Kodak.

I would also point out that I've never seen any account of that weekend's events that specifically claims, nor reasonably indicates, the film shown at DeAtley's house was Kodachrome rather than (e.g.) an Ektachrome copy. This always bothered me, because the color vividness of the former is markedly greater than the latter, and I've never seen any of the Sunday audience members mention the publicly-presented film (as of 1967 / late Sixties) being notably 'duller' than the one they saw at DeAtley's house.

 

[oldrover]

It's more complicated than it seems at face value ...

First - the primary thrust and effect of the 1954 consent decree was to de-couple the sale of Kodak color film from prepayment of that same film's processing. It only meant customers paid for the film alone, then had to pay separately for submitting the film for processing. It turned what was originally one transaction (allowing the customer to shoot the film and mail it directly to a Kodak processing facility) transformed into two transactions. This did nothing to accelerate the overall filming / processing loop.

In the 1954 consent decree, Kodak agreed to make its processing technology and materials (chemicals) available to third parties. This agreement covered all Kodak film formats (of which Kodachrome was the oldest and most complex specimen in color photography).

This doesn't mean everyone suddenly became capable of processing any or all Kodak film types. You still had to have the Kodak-supplied chemicals and the Kodachrome-specific know-how. If you needed to process Kodachrome quickly you needed to invest in one of Kodak's own Kodachrome processing machines. I've never been able to confirm that these Kodachrome-specific machines were even considered part of the 'technology' Kodak was required to share under the 1954 decree.

The speed at which Kodachrome could eventually be processed under the K-14 process might fit the required timeframe, but that process wasn't introduced until the 1970's.

Kodachrome was processed in large batches on dedicated machines, requiring 3 - 4 staffers (1 mechanic, 1 chemist, and 1 or more processing operators). It took 2 to 3 hours to load and warm up the machine before processing could be done. The core processing procedure would take at least 1 to 2 additional hours.

The photo professionals Long interviewed (two of whom had personal recollections of making Ektachrome copies of the original Kodachrome Patterson film) were consistent on the following points:

- Nobody in the Yakima / Seattle area could do initial processing of Kodachrome film in 1967. Accepting Kodachrome meant shipping it off to Palo Alto. Period ...

- Kodak absolutely did not operate their processing labs on weekends.

- It would cost at least $2000 to open up / start up a lab to do a processing run on demand and on a day the lab was otherwise shut down.

- The Patterson film from which the Ektachrome copies were made appeared to be standard Kodachrome.

- Nobody specifically recalled edge printing on the original film indicating where it had been processed (it should have including a code of 'P' or 'PA' for Palo Alto processing), but at least one of them stated the routine edge markings were visible, meaning it had been processed by Kodak.

I would also point out that I've never seen any account of that weekend's events that specifically claims, nor reasonably indicates, the film shown at DeAtley's house was Kodachrome rather than (e.g.) an Ektachrome copy. This always bothered me, because the color vividness of the former is markedly greater than the latter, and I've never seen any of the Sunday audience members mention the publicly-presented film (as of 1967 / late Sixties) being notably 'duller' than the one they saw at DeAtley's house.

Surely this kills it then, I hadn't realised it was as clear as this.

 

[EnolaGaia]

There's another possible explanation, but I've never come up with a really compelling rationale to back it up.

P & G had supposedly arrived in the sighting area the previous Saturday, according to the October 21 newspaper story Patterson phoned in on Friday evening. In other words, the day of the famous sighting was the sixth day they'd been in the area according to that account.

Greg Long pointed out that comments obtained during his interviews (especially with Bob Heironimus) suggested P & G could have either (a) made an earlier trip to the area in September or (b) arrived for a single October trip as early as the first week in October.

If the sighting / filming had occurred days or weeks earlier than the alleged October 20 (Friday) date, there could have been time to submit the film for routine Kodak processing - even if they had to await the then-typical turnaround time of up to 2 - 3 weeks.

This version neatly eliminates the film processing timeline / timeframe problems. However, it would also expose the fact they'd been there twice since the August tracks discovery or they'd been there for some weeks rather than the days Patterson claimed to the newspaper.

Hodgson's store wasn't the nearest pay phone. Patterson called Hodgson from a pay phone north of Willow Creek on Saturday the 21st to notify him they'd changed plans and were heading back to Yakima.

Maybe the standard account's version of Patterson / DeAtley communications was backwards. Maybe Patterson confirmed that DeAtley had received the film they'd submitted days or weeks earlier (via a call from elsewhere than Hodgson's store), and that was the cue to kick up all the dust on Friday and return to Yakima.

They didn't count on other folks rushing to Yakima to see a film that shouldn't have been ready on Sunday and secondarily opening up a logical problem with their storyline.

I've never figured out why it would have been so important to hide the earlier-than-publicized date of the sighting / filming. The only explanation I've come up with is that someone thought they could maximize the impact / publicity by revealing the existence of the film as immediately as possible following the alleged sighting. This doesn't make much sense, in that I can't figure out what additional risk they would have endured by simply inviting everyone to see it on October 22nd and claiming it had been shot several days, or even weeks, earlier.

It was the screening that 'made the splash' ... I don't see how claiming they'd patiently awaited film processing for days or weeks would have undermined their claims or diminished the impact.

 

[oldrover]

P & G had supposedly arrived in the sighting area the previous Saturday, according to the October 21 newspaper story Patterson phoned in on Friday evening. In other words, the day of the famous sighting was the sixth day they'd been in the area according to that account.

I may be wrong, but in the Gimlin interview a few posts back, he seems to suggest they'd been there for quite a while longer than a week or so.

If the sighting / filming had occurred days or weeks earlier than the alleged October 20 (Friday) date, there could have been time to submit the film for routine Kodak processing - even if they had to await the then-typical turnaround time of up to 2 - 3 weeks.

This version neatly eliminates the film processing timeline / timeframe problems. However, it would also expose the fact they'd been there twice since the August tracks discovery or they'd been there for some weeks rather than the days Patterson claimed to the newspaper.

And this has always been my belief, although I didn't realise there was a supposed two to three week turnaround. But see above, and it's been suggested he'd been there on another trip a while before. Although, I've never heard it argued that the man in the bulk of the film wasn't Gimlin, unless, the majority of it was filmed elsewhere, there are no distinguishing features as I recall in the landscape.

Hodgson's store wasn't the nearest pay phone. Patterson called Hodgson from a pay phone north of Willow Creek on Saturday the 21st to notify him they'd changed plans and were heading back to Yakima.

Again as i recall that call box is on a different road, or route out of the Bluff Creek area, but I'm not sure at all about this, though I used to know the name of the place.

Maybe the standard account's version of Patterson / DeAtley communications was backwards. Maybe Patterson confirmed that DeAtley had received the film they'd submitted days or weeks earlier (via a call from elsewhere than Hodgson's store), and that was the cue to kick up all the dust on Friday and return to Yakima.

I find that an extremely plausible idea.

They didn't count on other folks rushing to Yakima to see a film that shouldn't have been ready on Sunday and secondarily opening up a logical problem with their storyline.

And this. I had toyed with the idea that DeAtley had decided to push ahead for some reason leaving P&G running around like headless chickens. But I find your version of events far more convincing and a very plausible reason for the scramble that followed.

I've never figured out why it would have been so important to hide the earlier-than-publicized date of the sighting / filming. The only explanation I've come up with is that someone thought they could maximize the impact / publicity by revealing the existence of the film as immediately as possible following the alleged sighting. This doesn't make much sense, in that I can't figure out what additional risk they would have endured by simply inviting everyone to see it on October 22nd and claiming it had been shot several days, or even weeks, earlier.

It was the screening that 'made the splash' ... I don't see how claiming they'd patiently awaited film processing for days or weeks would have undermined their claims or diminished the impact.

The only scenario that I can imagine at the moment, is that after being overtaken by events, events which they'd worked hard to establish a timeline for, they decided to exploit the attention, and cash in as soon as possible. Bluntly, I can't ascribe too much intelligence to them as they were after all selling bigfoot.

Another thing, is that assuming they'd taken the film sometime previously, the hypothetical phone conversation between Patterson and DeAtley, might have contained confirmation from DeAtley, that the film had been developed, was back in his possession, he'd seen it, and it passed muster. So they, P&G should go ahead with their charade to establish a time.