Jump to content
Bill

Pgf Site Sun Angle Investigation

Recommended Posts

Bill

Attached is a diagram showing how the path angle affects the apparent shadow positions as they fall on Patty's back.

tree shadow  diagram.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

Does that agree with your very first post in this thread?

 

sunshadows3P1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Your diagram, Bill, doesn't address the question of how far back Patty could have been, while appearing to be very close behind the tree. 

 

I added another potential path to your diagram....to illustrate how a path much further away from the tree (TC-2) could still appear to be close behind it...

 

Munns-Tree-Shadow-Diagram1-Reworked1.jpg

 

 

If an observer is close to being in-line with the line of 'TC-2 - Patty coming into view'...then that distance of depth will be highly foreshortened/shrunk....to where it looks as though she is right behind the tree....(when she is actually several-to-many feet away from it).

 

Also, I am still wondering what your modeling has shown....regarding a maximum distance, that Patty could have been behind tree TC-2.  :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
7 hours ago, prob2236 said:

Doing a lot of research on Bigfoot lately with my renewed interest.  Why so much attention still paid to this PGF?  Didnt a guy pass a lie detector test confirming he was the one in the suit?  Are we just assuming he's lying, the detector was broken and taking upon ourselves to look at things like sun angle to justify it?  Not trying to be a wise guy but why are we discount a giy who seems somewhat genuine in his claim and reaching for some very minor details to prove him wrong?

 

First off, Welcome to the BFF.

 

Bob Heironimus is the guy you are thinking of.  There is a link on this Bff site exploring this.  Without going into it here, Bob H is all over the place and that lie detector is suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Gigantor:

The chart is the same in concept with that posted in the OP. Schematically it shows the data from a different perspective, but is the same concept.

 

Sweaty:

 

That's why we need the sun angle, so we know the angle of sunlight and shadow to compare with Roger's camera line of sight from his position to tree TC2. That will fix the distance Patty is from the tree.

Share this post


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

 

Sweaty:

 

That's why we need the sun angle, so we know the angle of sunlight and shadow to compare with Roger's camera line of sight from his position to tree TC2. That will fix the distance Patty is from the tree.

 

 

Well, to start with, Bill....we can at least model it using the reported date, and time, of the filming....and see what result that produces.

 

 

There is one detail, that I have been working on this evening, that might be a good indicator that Patty was not very far behind trees TC-1 and TC-2. That detail is the distance covered by her steps, while she is visible between the two trees.

 

Here is a graphic I put together, using frames in which Patty covers the same 'apparent distance' as the 'apparent distance' between trees TC-1 and TC-2...

 

F380-F413-Steps2.jpg

 

 

Patty covers that distance in 3 steps. And, at a 'step length' of 43"....it amounts to a little under 11'.  The distance between those two trees was measured, in 1972, as being 12 feet.

 

(The actual frames in which Patty appears directly behind each tree, are Frames 387 and F420.....a total of 33 frames....also 3 steps.)
 

If Patty were far behind those trees...then, due to the effect of 'lengths' appearing to shrink with distance....we would expect to see her taking more steps, covering more ground, than the distance between the trees....of 12 feet. As it is, the distance covered appears to be a little less than that.   

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Bill: Since the PGF site has now been mapped and measured by Bigfoot Bookman and company, 

 

has it been established where true North is on the frame(s) you used in your opening post of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mort:

 

True north should be from Roger's camera to the Q-Stick tree (a tree that is straight, slightly tapering, has no branches, and two color tones, one on the top half, one on the bottom half. Right below it is a tree stump. In Gignator' s post above, copying a chart I made, in the upper left PGF frame, there's a grey tree stump in front of Patty in her F352 pose looking back, and the Q-Stick tree is right above that grey stump. So that's true north.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

shadows.jpg.c797488fe21983505f073b6ae42975e7.jpg716611640_threefiftytwo.jpg.de695eb0f6cbb0771321637288aedbf7.jpg20181020_133302.thumb.jpg.531308edff7bd47a47aa3c50325d8812.jpg

 

Thanks for pointing out where north is in 352, Bill.

 

My pic on the far right was taken on October 20, 2018 at 1:30 pm.

 

Latitude is about 100 miles south of Bluff Creek, 39 degrees north rather than 41.

 

(There must be a correction for that)

 

North is at a line through just in front of the blue truck (as accurate as I can get using Google Earth). 

 

I did this for comparison purposes and the results are fairly close to what is shown in the model...

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Patty's height is a controversy but not Jim McClarin's.

 

-Do we know what time of day Jim McClarin's walking video was taken?

 

-Do we know the exact date that filming occurred?

 

-Does this information, if know, help us out since we do know Jim McClarin's actual height as a reference point?

 

 

It seems like it should be possible for someone to take Jim's Height, the exact time of day his walking was filmed, and the exact date and use the angle of the sun and what we see to determine something.  I am not smart enough to do it.  I know many of you are.  Jim's height is known and if the date and time is known then that sun angle would be the same year after year and could be simulated via computer.

 

Such information might then be applied to the PGF.   Am I hoping too much here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

you are assuming Jim walked the exact same path as Patty, and assuming John Green's camera was exactly the same spot as Roger's. But both assumptions would need to be proven before a true comparison can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
44 minutes ago, Bill said:

you are assuming Jim walked the exact same path as Patty, and assuming John Green's camera was exactly the same spot as Roger's. But both assumptions would need to be proven before a true comparison can be made.

 

 

Great point.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Oddball Q for those who lean Skeptic:

 

 

Assume for a second the  "sun's angle investigation" somehow proved objectively the PGF film was filmed 100% on Oct 20th early afternoon exactly like Roger claimed. 

Would that be proof the PGF did somehow get filmed on the 20th, then developed (real or fake) under the timeline Roger claimed for the Sunday showing?

 

Let me add I understand it is unlikely even the sun's angle will not nail down that kind of proof. 

 

So pretend somehow the sun's angle proves the filming occurred on Oct 20th.  Would that then prove the timeline Roger claimed and if not, why not?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I’d have no option but to agree that the timeline happened as Roger tells it IF the “sun angle” angle worked out as proof.  I have no reason to doubt that the parties involved in the Sunday viewing were present as claimed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

The McClarin film by Green was filmed June 23rd 1968, not sure exact time.

There was is/also another film of McClarin doin' the walk by another person who was there with them, so it seems. Daniel Perez mentions/shows it in his Bigfoot Times newsletter, Oct. 2013 issue. So, includin' McClarin's original super-8 film of him walkin' the trackway on Nov 5th, 1967, there was likely three films of him walkin' Bluff Creek. 

George Haas who was also there that day took nearly three dozen photos of the site. There were also others there with them as well, not sure if they documented the site while there.

 

Bill,

 

Have you had the opportunity to view Daniel Perez's material on the site, like the Haas photos etc.?

 

Pat... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×