Jump to content
Bill

Pgf Site Sun Angle Investigation

Recommended Posts

Bill

Pat:

 

I've seen some of the photos Haas took that day of McClarin's filmed walk. Nothing conclusive but interesting material.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is something which may be of significance, regarding Jim's re-creation walk.  

 

I was just looking over John Green's filmsite measurement diagram....and I noticed the figure for the distance of "Patty's"/Jim's path, as he passed behind tree TC-2......."30 Feet"...

 

John-Green-Filmsite-Measurement-Diagram1

 

Since it appears that Patty was not that far behind tree TC-2, in her walk....and may have been much closer to it than 30'.....that would place Jim well behind Patty, at that point in their walks. 

Backtracking from there, to the F352 spot....Jim would be even further back in the scene than Patty was.....probably about 10' further back. 

 

As an example, using one possible figure....if Jim was 15 feet further behind TC-2 than Patty was....then that would place Jim about 25 ft. further back than Patty, at the F352 spot.  

 

The dashed line that John Green drew, for "Patty's" path....actually is primarily indicating where Jim walked....which, was supposedly very close to Patty's path. 

 

A few details which indicate that the 'dashed line' is showing Jim's path.....are... 1) the path goes behind the stick on the ground (labeled with a length of "26""). Jim walked behind it....Patty passes by in front of it.

Secondly....the pattern of the walked path replicates Jim's walk. The path curves, for the 'look back', and then continues straight...all the way past tree TC-2.  That is the pattern of Jim's walk.....not Patty's. She walked an 'S-shaped' path, through that segment of the walk. 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
BFF Donor

Excellent observation Sweaty!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

Thanks, wiiawiwb.  :) 

 

I may try contacting Jim McClarin sometime soon, to ask him what he knows/remembers about that diagram of John's.  There are a couple of other things I've thought about asking him...regarding his re-creation walk. So, this gives me a little more incentive to contact him. 

 

Depending on what the 'maximum distance' is, as to how far behind tree TC-2 Patty could have been....(which is still yet to be determined)….this detail of '30 feet' could put an end to the notion of Patty being 7' tall....(walking height, that is).

 

As for how I finally was able to see what that notation actually says....(after looking at the diagram many times)....it was when I saw the diagram in Daniel Perez's 'Bigfoot Times' magazine, from 1992….(which focuses on the PGF.)   The diagram appears sharper, with finer lines/print....and, as a result, I was able to decipher John's handwriting. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Although...incredibly hard to guess the distances accurately, I would think McClarin would be closer when he gets to the trees. I believe this as his direction of travel appears a little more parallel to the camera after his look back, as apposed to her headin' more straight away, or to the left. I base this on their profiles. 

Least how it looks to me.

JimMcClarinPattyPathComparison1.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I'm a bit behind here on the thinking but given the data points, is there a means to an actual answer vs. just more speculation?

 

Variable A = Patty's Path

Variable B = Jims Path,

Variable C = Original camera position(s)
Variable D = Recreation camera position(s)

Variable E = Camera lens/zoom

etc......

Constant = Tree(s)   

 

I don't see how we derive actual numbers to determine a height.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Although...incredibly hard to guess the distances accurately, I would think McClarin would be closer when he gets to the trees. I believe this as his direction of travel appears a little more parallel to the camera after his look back, as apposed to her headin' more straight away, or to the left. I base this on their profiles. 

Least how it looks to me.

 

 

I agree with you, Pat...on the directions of their paths being different. 

 

After the 'look back', they head off in significantly different directions. Patty turns immediately...(pivoting on her left foot, in a single step)….and heads off at about a 40-degree angle, with respect to the plane of the camera. Jim, on the other hand....simply continued walking in the direction he was heading....straight ahead....parallel with the plane of the camera.

 

If Patty were far enough behind tree TC-2, then it would be possible for Jim to be closer to the tree...but, Bill Munns has done some modeling of the scene and Patty's trackway...(working with the 'sun angle', and other relevant angles)….and stated that he wasn't able to model a scenario in which Patty was very far behind that tree. 

That is one detail which needs to be determined, using all of the relevant 'angles', and 'lines'.....the maximum distance that Patty could have been behind tree TC-2. A 'maximum' distance will tell us a lot, regarding who was closer to TC-2. 

 

 

There is one detail which speaks against Jim being closer to the tree, though...and that is the higher level of ground which Jim walks across. It is pointed-out in the graphic you posted. Since it is pretty much a certainty that Jim was further back in the scene at F352....and, under the scenario in which he was closer to the camera by about F389...(at TC-2)…...then Jim's and Patty's paths would have to have crossed at some point in-between those two frames. But yet, we never see Patty walk across a higher patch of ground....(that being....the higher level of ground that Jim walked on).   

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
On 11/30/2018 at 10:40 PM, Bill said:

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

 

 

I have a question, Bill...regarding the 'North-South' line. In this diagram of Steven's....the 'North-South' line runs at a slight angle, to the left....relative to the vertical grid lines...

 

BBM-Diagram10-North-South-Line1.jpg

 

 

But, in this 'Full Frame' image of F352....I drew a line from the bottom/center of the film frame....(which should represent the spot of ground Roger is standing on)....up to the base of the "Q-Stick" tree....and that line runs slightly to the right of the vertical line made by the Smiley Stump / 'Q Stick' tree...

 

 

F352-Full-Frame-North-South-Line1-B.jpg

 

 

In both of those images...the Q-Stick Tree and the Smiley Stump are seen, or represented as being 'in-line'.....so, given that similarity.....I'm wondering which line more accurately represents a true 'North-South' line....(as seen from Roger's perspective, in F352)? 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The reason why I am asking about the 'North-South' Line, is because I want to compile a list of the angles of various lines, which relate to Patty's position/distance behind tree TC-2. 

 

These are the lines....which would have angles associated with them....(relative to the direction of the sun's rays, and to each other)...

 

Angles - Relative to North-South Line

 

Sun Azimuth:     -151 degs. (or... 29 deg.)
Tree TC-1 -to- TC-2 Line: 
Roger's Line-Of-Sight to TC-1/TC-2: 
Patty's Path:  

 

To begin with...I would like to know exactly where the 'north-south' line is running, from Roger's position....at the F352 spot.

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

I can't recall the specifics of the north line determination, but we did run a 300' tape measure from the Que-stick tree past the smiley stump, and continued it almost 300' (until we got to the washed out part where the terrain drops about 8 feet. I seem to recall we did a compass reading of that measure line and it was true north.

 

Bill

Share this post


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

Sweaty:

 

I can't recall the specifics of the north line determination, but we did run a 300' tape measure from the Que-stick tree past the smiley stump, and continued it almost 300' (until we got to the washed out part where the terrain drops about 8 feet. I seem to recall we did a compass reading of that measure line and it was true north.

 

Bill

 

 

Thanks, Bill.....but, I don't understand how a line running through the Que-Stick tree and the Smiley stump could be a true 'North-South' line....when there is another line running at an angle relative to the 'Que Stick-Smiley stump' line on this diagram...labeled as "North-South"...

 

BBM-Diagram10-North-South-Line1-D.jpg

 

 

It's not a problem, if you are unable to provide more details regarding a true 'North-South' line....I can get in touch with Steven Streufert, and ask him about it.  :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

I cannot answer about the map data. There are a few issues with the site I wish to go back and re-check or verify. Haven't been able to yet, but still hope to.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks for the reply, Bill.  :)

 

Well, I guess you won't be getting there anytime soon....if you're in Vietnam, now.  I can get in touch with Steven Streufert, and see what he knows...or can find out via a trip to the site, regarding the 'North-South' line.

 

One other detail, regarding that...(that I saw mentioned in one of Streufert's videos)....is that 'Magnetic North' is offset from true 'Geographical North'.  This article explains it, in detail...(I'm not implying that you're not aware of this detail, Bill....I'm just posting it for the sake of any readers who may not be aware of it)...

 

https://gisgeography.com/magnetic-north-vs-geographic-true-pole/

 

You mentioned using a compass to find 'North'...but that would have found magnetic North...and been slightly off from 'True North'. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweati:

 

Actually, I'm in Southern California now, been back for about 8 months. But another Bluff Creek trip needs some funding and I don't have it right now.

 

Thanks for pointing out the difference between magnetic north and geographic true north. One of the things I'd love to clear up on site.

 

Anyways, the essentials of the site are reasonably verified to a certainty. It's some of the details that need further verification. Whether those details affect any analysis is another issue. 

 

Steven and his team have done an excellent job on the site, and we are all indebted to them for their effort and diligence.

 

Bill

Share this post


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

Sweati:

 

Actually, I'm in Southern California now, been back for about 8 months. But another Bluff Creek trip needs some funding and I don't have it right now.

 

Thanks for the update, Bill.  I hope you can find some funding, and make another trip there...sometime in the near future. 

 

 

Quote

Thanks for pointing out the difference between magnetic north and geographic true north. One of the things I'd love to clear up on site.

 

Anyways, the essentials of the site are reasonably verified to a certainty. It's some of the details that need further verification. Whether those details affect any analysis is another issue. 

 

Steven and his team have done an excellent job on the site, and we are all indebted to them for their effort and diligence.

 

Bill

 

You're welcome, on the 'magnetic north' detail. :) 

 

I would think that finding 'True North' to a high degree of accuracy would be very important, in building an accurate model...for narrowing-down where Patty's path was within the scene....and how far back behind tree TC-2 she was...or at least...the maximum distance she could have been, behind that tree. 

 

Yeah, I agree...Steven, and his team sure have done a lot of great work....in re-discovering the site, documenting/measuring all the objects within it...and producing all the videos of the site.

 

I'd love to get to see the filmsite myself, someday.....but that won't be anytime soon.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...