Jump to content
Bill

Pgf Site Sun Angle Investigation

Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor

ATTA BOY!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is a link to a website that is an interactive 3-D Modeling program, for calculating/viewing the Sun's position in the sky....for any date/time...

 

http://andrewmarsh.com/apps/staging/sunpath3d.html

 

 

Although, I'm not sure if it allows for selecting years other than 2018. 

 

Here are two 'screen captures'....for Oct. 20th, at 1335....for the approx. PGF filmsite coordinates....(I added-in Roger's 'angle-of-view'...(relative to True North)...for the F352 point in the filming....based on Steven Streufert's diagram)...

 

Solar-Calculator-Oct20th1335-B.jpg

 

 

This is with the model rotated, to a view just above 'ground level'...

 

Solar-Calculator-Oct20th1335-Lower-Eleva

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David NC
On 11/22/2018 at 3:04 PM, 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.

 

The actor from Harry and the Hendersons  was Kevin Peter Hall. He died from Pneumonia which was complicated by HIV which he contracted from a blood transfusion given to him after a car accident. The car accident happened during the time he was filming but not related to the movie or TV series he was working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

Thanks. I learned that from Bill Munns. Somewhere I read  bad info that the suit and heat exhaustion caused his death. Kevin Peter Hall was a big guy. He was the 'Predator' in a couple movies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prob2236

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The dangers of heat exhaustion in a suit are well known and the cool-suit technology (introduced in the 1980's) is less known, so it is easy for someone to know the latter and not the former, and think s hot suit was the cause of death. But by the time Harry and the hendersons was made, the cool suit technology had begun to be used in movie creature suits. I actually wore a cool-suit vest and cap (the vendor let me try it on) when I was preparing a bid for some gorilla suit work on Congo is 1981. It's a remarkable technology, pumping a cold liquid through the vest or cap worn by the actor. It didn't pump when the actor was actually performing, but as soon as they cut the camera and let the actor take a chair, they plug it in and cool him off.

 

Of course, in 1967, this technology wasn't even wishful thinking.

 

Prob2236:

 

You replied as I was composing my message, so I've added a reply to your question.

 

Nothing about the sun angle proves patty is or is not a guy in a suit. A multitude of other evidence does, however, and so based on that determination, the sun angle helps us try to resolve the issue of Patty's height. The lie detector thing is questionable on several levels. Aside from the fact it's not actually 100% reliable (it actually measures body biometrics, not the conscious thought of the person being examined), there exists a possibility Roger did get a suit and put a guy in it and film him, as this would be a reasonable action for anyone making a bigfoot documentary. The man doing such a recreation segment may not know what his footage looks like and thus can confuse the PGf with some other recreation footage he participated in. So he'd be telling the truth that he wore a suit for some filming, but be wrong to claim the PGF was his footage, not a conscious lie but a simple mistaken assumption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prob2236

Interesting.  Its amazing clip thats for sure.  It seems like in a lot of ways its still the gold standard for proof.  I had just thought that the hoax had been put to bed when he took a lie detector.  Again not directing my criticsm to you or the board in general, it just always seemed like the lie detector results occurred and then were largely ignored by the people who examined the film.  Im one of those people who thinks that, when it comes to bigfoot, you have to rule out all of the obvious, more likely, out come before coming to a conclusion like Sasquatch.  A guy who admitted to wearing the suit and passing a lie detector, while not a guarentee, seems like a pretty signifcant piece of the puzzle.  Still im incredibly interested in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Consider this:

 

When a person is wearing an ape suit, they actually don't know exactly what they look like, unless they can stand in front of a full length dressing mirror. And when they perform on camera, all they see and recall is what was in front of their eyes, usually the ground in front of themselves to see where they are walking. They cannot see the scene as the camera sees it, so they may not really know what their footage looks like. So it's reasonable to say that a person wearing an ape suit in the woods for a filming may not really know what his footage looks like.

 

So if we assume Bob heironimous was telling the truth, that he wore an ape suit for Roger to film, it still presents a concern that he didn't know what his footage looked like, and maybe over the years, his memory simply shifted to believe the PGF was his footage. That would be the kindest and most diplomatic way of explaining Bob's claim, and it explains the claim in a manner that still fully vindicates the PGF as authentic.

 

The fact of the matter is Bob H.'s claim presents many problems that simply cannot be reconciled with what we see in the PGF. Now each of us is entitled to weigh the various conflicting facts and determinations and form their own opinion as to the authenticity of the PGF. But even those solidly skeptical of the PGF authenticity are skeptical of the claim by Bob Heironimous, even considering his reported lie detector test. Other threads in this forum delve into this in great detail.

 

If I may offer some friendly advice to you as a newcomer, we do try to keep each discussion thread on topic, or at least try not to stray too far, when other threads cover the questions raised better. That way, people researching a particular question may have some expectation the thread discussion will stay on topic, and they can search topic titles for the discussion they want to research more. 

 

There's a lot that can be said about Bob H, but it does really belong in a thread focused on him and his claims, and efforts to analyze his claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prob2236

I get it.  Many of the other board topics are months if not years since their last post.  Regardless, if thats what the board perfers ill gladly comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
52 minutes ago, Bill said:

 

There's a lot that can be said about Bob H, but it does really belong in a thread focused on him and his claims, and efforts to analyze his claims.

 

Very true, Bill.  Analysis, and arguments, regarding Bob Heironimus should stay in other, appropriate threads. 

 

Regarding the thread topic...I have been working on making diagrams of the various angles that relate to Patty's position at tree TC-2. I don't have anything that I can post yet....but I will, at some point in the near future. 

I'm considering making a small-scale physical model, that would illustrate all of the various lines and angles involved...and how they affect the distance that Patty was, or could have been, behind tree TC-2. 

 

The main point I'm trying to determine, and show....is what the maximum distance was that Patty could have been behind TC-2.  

 

That 'maximum' distance is a key figure to determine, in this geometry puzzle. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

I've modeled it in a 3D computer graphics program, but would welcome seeing a physical model testing the same idea.

 

Good luck to you in doing it.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
BFF Donor

Question: I have in my desk "Meet the Sasquatch" by Christopher Murphy. It has a whole chapter on a physical model he constructed of the film site. It includes inferred distances. Are these not good enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
6 minutes ago, gigantor said:

Question: I have in my desk "Meet the Sasquatch" by Christopher Murphy. It has a whole chapter on a physical model he constructed of the film site. It includes inferred distances. Are these not good enough?

 

I may need the Canadians to jump in here, eh.  The cover image of Patty in the 'look back' scene is an airbrushed image to make her more 'human looking'. Correct or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is a composite image I put together yesterday....showing the distance between the shadows of trees TC-1 and TC-2....(courtesy of Patty's back)...

 

Tree-Shadows-on-Back-Two-Frames1-Sharpen

 

 

The distance between the tree shadows is only a few feet. Patty only takes about a half-step, from where the shadow of the first tree falls on her back, to the point where the shadow of the 2nd tree falls on her back. 

 

Those two shadows run parallel to each other, on the ground and on creature's backs....and since the distance between them....(a few feet)....is a certain fraction of the actual distance between the trees....(12 feet)....that fraction/percentage tells us what the sunlight's angle was, relative to the line of 'TC-1 - TC-2'. 

 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

Sweaty:

 

I've modeled it in a 3D computer graphics program, but would welcome seeing a physical model testing the same idea.

 

Good luck to you in doing it.

 

Bill

 

 

Sure, Bill.  :)  One reason why I've decided to make a physical model, is so that I can see it for myself...and see how all these various angles come into play.  It's a complicated picture. 

 

In your computer model...have you determined what the furthest distance was, that Patty could have been behind tree TC-2??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The Chris Murphy model is interesting, but we haven't been able to verify the dimensions as compared to the new site survey data, which is definitive of the still existing landscape elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...