Jump to content
Bill

Pgf Site Sun Angle Investigation

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Bill,

Return emails from John G., said he couldn't be of any help, Peter B. believed the subject was probably walkin' due North an Daniel replied Murphy has directions correct(but myself, that doesn't tell me anythin' as I'm not familiar with Murphys coments of hand). Daniel did say he took readin's on his GPS, he might be able to help if ya got in touch with him. Peter sent a photo of the sight from when he was there, has the guy with stick for measurin' hieght, kinda cool.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I asked the Administrators if they could re-open this thread....and they did. I asked, because since this thread was last active....the PGF filmsite was re-discovered, and measurements were made of the site. 

 

In Post #6...(October 10th, 2010)...Bill wrote this:

Quote

Hogsback:

You are correct in that the investigators of old apparently didn't document true north in relation to what we see, and today, so much has changed, it may be difficult to orient anything standing today with the old footage landscape. I keep hoping I can get to the site myself, and see if I can positively ID anything as the same as in the film. But I won't know how successful that would be until I actually can go there. So that's still a goal.

How it will all play out, I can't even guess.

 

 

Well, Bill got there....in 2011, I think....and here is Steven Streufert's diagram of the filmsite, as it exists today....with measurements between some of the original trees and stumps, that were there in 1967....

 

BBM-Diagram1.jpg

 

 

Here is a crop of the middle area, to make it a little easier to read...

 

BBM-Diagram1-Crop1.jpg

 

 

I don't have any insights, or analysis to add to this discussion, at the moment. I just thought this was a worthy line of analysis...and with the added information from the discovery of the filmsite…..maybe Bill could continue with his analysis. 

 

I am interested in seeing if further analysis...working with various angles....such as the 'sun angle', Patty's 'path angle', 'tree angles', and 'tree shadow angles'.....can pin-down just how close Patty actually was to Tree TC-2, as she passed behind it...

 

F431-Crop1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
54 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

...can pin-down just how close Patty actually was to Tree TC-2, as she passed behind it...

 

Sweaty, can you please explain why this is important so people like me understand? 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
58 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

Sweaty, can you please explain why this is important so people like me understand? 

 

Thanks

 

 

How close Patty was behind that tree factors into the comparison with Jim McClarin, and his 'body height'. 

 

Jim walked a different path than Patty did, just before....and after....the F352 location. He was further back in the scene at F352, and the extent of how much further back can be narrowed-down...if we can determine whether or not Patty walked closely behind tree TC-2.

 

It looks like she is only a foot, or three, behind it.....but that hasn't been determined definitively, as of yet. 

 

You might also want to ask Bill Munns the same question, since he started this thread....and, in it, said that he wanted to get on-site measurements....to further his analysis.  :) 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The importance of this topic is that the best potential calculation of Patty's height will result from a final determination of the lens on Roger's camera, and how far Patty was from Roger's camera. And as Sweati noted above, Patty's distance from tree TC2 (which casts a shadow on her back) is the only really reliable bit of data with connects Patty's position to the Bluff Creek location layout in a measurable way. So once the location itself can be mapped out to a definitive degree, including exact locations of the center group of trees (including TC2) then we have the potential to fix one point of Patty's path and know exactly how far she is from camera at that point. The time of day she was filmed, and the sun angle, are a part of the final calculation of her distance from the tree labeled TC2, to produce the sun's shadow on her back.

 

Knowing her height allows us to better corroborate her height with her foot size, which corroborates the footage of her with the footage of the trackway. A definitive height can potentially exclude people who are claimed to be Patty in a fur costume, if her height is significantly different from the height of the claimed person.

 

When this thread started, the Bluff Creek site was "lost" and all we had were some suspected locations. Again, as Sweati noted, finding the site (in 2012) with an absolute certainty of identification, and the subsequent additional site survey work more recently, have taken a major element of the PGF mystery from "undetermined" to verified to a certainty. Therein lies the importance of this topic.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

Anyone know the estimated temperature on the ground when the PGF was made?   I am curious because those who claimed to wear a suit would have been in a full costume which would have been very hot. Professional  stuntmen have suffered health problems from heat exhaustion in 'full suits'. I believe a stuntman from 'Harry and the Henderson's' died from heat exhaustion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

If this chart is correct, at 2:30pm that day it was approximately 80F. The chart is for that zip code so I am sure there may have been variations, and maybe a tad cooler in the woods, but probably not by more than a few degrees.

 

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ca/red-bluff/KRBL/date/1967-10-20

 

This website doesn't give hourly temperature like the one above but its data confirms the above temperatures are accurate.

 

https://www.almanac.com/weather/history/zipcode/96080/1967-10-20

Edited by wiiawiwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

^^^Thanks. Nice info.   Red Bluff municipal temp. was projected as 80F at an elevation of 348'. I take that as air temperature.  The creek area reflected a lot of light (sand ).  My guess is that the Red Bluff Creek site was well above 80F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill
5 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

Anyone know the estimated temperature on the ground when the PGF was made?   I am curious because those who claimed to wear a suit would have been in a full costume which would have been very hot. Professional  stuntmen have suffered health problems from heat exhaustion in 'full suits'. I believe a stuntman from 'Harry and the Henderson's' died from heat exhaustion.

I've never heard about a stuntman on "Harry and the Hendersons" dying, because the show is reported to have used cool-suit technology for the suited actor, and that goes a long way toward relieving the man of the high temperature inside a suit. But Don McLoud nearly died filming "Tanya's Island", in a full ape suit. He sweated so much, his dehydration caused an electrolyte failure in his body and he nearly died.  I worked with him on a subsequent project and so got the info direct from him.

 

So yes, the heat buildup inside a full ape suit is potentially deadly for the person wearing it, and ambient heat of the location is a factor.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Using the weather in Red Bluff as an accurate gauge of conditions at Bluff Creek would not be of much value in my opinion.

 

Red Bluff is not far from where I live and sits at an elevation of around 300' at the northern end of California's Central Valley.

 

Bluff Creek is over 100 miles (as the crow flies) North West of Red Bluff and is over 2000' higher in elevation.

 

The topography, eco-systems and micro climates of each area have very little in common at all. 

 

P.S. I am glad to see that this thread has been re-opened! I was just reading it a few days ago.

 

It was a shame that so many great old threads had to be shut down...

 

 

Edited by OldMort
ps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

^^^ The Municipal temperature gauge is what we have.  Apparently, the temps at the PGF site are not recorded by visitors. Vegetation has changed drastically.  In 1967, the sand/dirt reflected a lot of light. Thanks for the altitude value.  I factor in 4% more ultraviolet light per thousand feet of altitude. I guessed over 80F at the PGF site for 1967.  We will never know what the temp was in 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Are there any historical temperature readings at the site available at all, even current ones? if so, we can match it up to the temperature readings on those dates using the link above. Then, we could develop a mathematically relationship by which to extrapolate the temperature at the site on October 20, 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

^^^^  No historical temperature recordings.........only guesses. Recent visitors have not included temp readings in their activity.  The terrain has healed and is quite different now than 1967. Have Sherman set the WAYBAK machine to October 20, 1967 and shaaazzzaaam, we would have many answers and questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
17 hours ago, OldMort said:

It was a shame that so many great old threads had to be shut down...

 

We have upgraded our server and there is no need to do that any longer. Please let me know if you want to unlock any other thread.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×