Jump to content
Bill

Pgf Site Sun Angle Investigation

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
18 hours ago, Bill said:

another Bluff Creek trip needs some funding 

 

 

 

OK, I have an oddball Idea I don't know if it's been tried.  

 

There are many viewers of shows like Finding Bigfoot and so on.  I have to think there are a lot of interested people in the subject at some level.  I wonder what the chances of starting some kind of 'Go Fund Me' site might do.  Say a site devoted in to raising money for <fill in the blank> regarding the PGF or Bigfoot.

 

I could imagine some news story or press release getting a little play where people like Bill Munns or Jeff Meldrum might be on TV getting a quick interview.  It might be to raise X amount of $$$$ for a Bigfoot Challenge.  That would be some challenge to take people or challenge a Stan Winston type to make a Patty suit using 1967 materials.  I could be some expedition to Bluff Creek to do some more mapping and investigation.  

 

 

I know it sounds crazy but maybe just maybe that might raise a decent amount of money.  

 

I still say for me the Bigfoot Challenge has the best opportunity for not just TV play but scientific play.  

 

If word could get around via technology a well credentialed group known to the public like Munns, Meldrum, and so on were doing this it might work.  Heck, you never know, on the Bigfoot Challenge maybe even some Skeptic Society types might be just arrogant enough to push a TV producer to say yes to this. 

 

Anyway, a go fund me for Bigfoot stuff to the larger public itself vs just the users of the BFF.  

 

Crazier things have worked.

 

added:  It would have to be some well credentialed person vs just me (who no one would know) and a couple of  friends.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Not exactly what you propose BD but here is a link to a recent topic on the General Forum for a go fund me started by a guy with a masters in wildlife biology.    I don’t think he got any help and took a little flack, warranted or not is up to your discretion.

 

maybe bigger names would garner better results, idk.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

It is my opinion that these go fund me type of things should be primarily for victims,  those that have suffered loss.

 

The idea is to get them back on their feet again so that they can rebuild their lives etc.

 

The recent fire in Paradise (just up the hill from me) is a perfect example.

 

I find "begging" for money for personal and frivolous pursuits such as "expeditions" rather pathetic to be honest.

 

If you can't afford to fund your own hobbies or interests then you have to go without.

 

At least that's the way I was raised...  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

makes sense OM.  I agree actually.

 

I am suggesting a Go Fund Me like effort not necessarily an actual GFM in the traditional sense.    I don’t know what form it would take an no nothing about actual GFM sites which are famous on Facebook.

 

My my preference would be something previously proposed where a tv show was dedicated to a contest to mimic Patty with 1967 materials.  You had previously said these ideas are hard to pitch and get accepted.  

 

If if there was $200 we could offer the Stan Winston Challenge.  Stan said a Patty suit could be made for $200 today. 

 

Maybe raising money might might not be the best way to go about it.  Just thinking out loud.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

So, I've decided not to bother trying to 'make a deal' on Jref, with one of the skeptics...to question kitakaze on his 'Patty suit' claim...since, it would probably take too long to ever get anything of substance, out of kit. It would likely be years.....or, possibly decades.  So I'll just go ahead, and post what I've worked-out for the time of the filming. 

 

To begin with...I needed to verify the direction of 'Due North', relative to the objects/trees at the filmsite, and relative to the camera's line-of-sight. 

 

Here is Steven Streufert, and Crew's 'measurement diagram' of the filmsite….(drawn to scale).....with their indication of 'Due North'...

 

BBM-Diagram1Crop2.jpg

 

To verify that, I used a Topographical Map. I took screen captures from two Topo Map images....(to get two markers, on the same Longitudinal Line)….and pasted the 'screen captures' together, and then drew a line connecting the two markers...

 

FilmsiteTOPOMap-GPSCoordinates1NorthSout

 

That white 'N/S Line' runs parallel to the section of Bluff Creek nicknamed "the Bowling Alley". So that seems to confirm the direction of the N/S Line, as shown on Streufert's diagram. 

 

Before I post the graphic, showing the time I derived for the filming.....here is one piece of information which shows, very clearly and simply, that the filming time was not right at 1:00 PM, or even shortly thereafter.....the sun's position in the sky,  in the Bluff Creek area...right at 1:00 PM....Daylight Savings Time...on October 20th...

 

WillowCreek-SunPosition-1300Oct20th.jpg

 

Link to the 'Suncalc.org' webpage:

 

https://www.suncalc.org/#/40.9396,-123.6314,10/2019.10.20/13:00/1/3

 

At 1:00...the sun was 'Due South' in the sky. Therefore, the tree's shadows (TC-1 and TC-2) would have been running 'Due North'.  But, in the film....they aren't. And, they're not even close to due N/S. Instead, they're running well East of North.

 

Here is my graphic...calculating the time of the filming. I accurately plotted trees TC-1 and TC-2, and their shadows, onto Streufert's diagram...

 

BBM-Diagram-TimeOfFilmingCalculation2F.j

 

At 1:00, PDT....the tree shadows would have been running 'Due North'....running pretty much straight back, towards the hillside....(with a distance between the shadows of approx. 10 feet). But, as shown in the diagram....the shadows are running at an angle, to the right...more eastward.

 

The key detail which indicates that direction, for the shadows...(and hence...the 'time of day')....is the distance between the two trees' shadows...which can be seen, quite easily, in the film images. It just happens to be almost exactly equal to Patty's 'shoulder width'...

 

PattyShadowTwoTreesAG3.gif

 

As the shadow for TC-1 falls off of Patty's left shoulder...the shadow for TC-2 falls onto her right shoulder.

(Patty's path is crossing the trees' shadows at an angle...so, if she turned her body, to be 'square' to the lines of the shadows....her shoulders would probably reach both shadows, at the same time.)

 

That fact tells us that the distance between the two trees' shadows is approx. 25". It also tells us that the shadow for TC-1, as it runs on the ground behind TC-2....is approx. 25" behind that tree.

And...with the orientation of the trees...(the TC-1 - TC-2 Line)...accurately plotted onto Streufert's diagram....(in accordance with measurements made at the filmsite, back in '68)....we can then accurately draw the direction the shadows are running, along the sandbar.

 

The direction/angle they are running at...indicates a filming time of approximately 3:15.

 

There could be some error in my plotting of trees TC-1/TC-2, though.....so, given that....it is possible the filming time was a bit earlier. But I don't see how it could have been much earlier than 3:00.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Oh man, nice work, SY! Good thinking and good sleuthing on the tree shadow angles. It also tells me that since Patty is angled to Roger's camera, and we can see the two shadows when she passes through them,  the now-know distance between the TC-1 and TC-2 tree shadows would say that her shoulders HAVE to be wider than 25"? In fact the further she is determined to be away the wider her shoulders and the larger her body?

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


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

Oh man, nice work, SY! Good thinking and good sleuthing on the tree shadow angles. It also tells me that since Patty is angled to Roger's camera, and we can see the two shadows when she passes through them,  the now-know distance between the TC-1 and TC-2 tree shadows would say that her shoulders HAVE to be wider than 25"? In fact the further she is determined to be away the wider her shoulders and the larger her body?

 

Thanks, hiflier.  :) 

 

Regarding the highlighted part of your post....that is not exactly right, but you are on the right track. It isn't the 'distance from the trees' that has a correlation with Patty's shoulder/body width.....it is the 'time of day'/direction of the shadows, that does.

 

To explain one detail about shadows, first....shadows run parallel to each other....(on flat, level ground)…...they don't converge, or diverge...

 

Tree-Shadows-Snow1.jpg

 

That aspect of sunlight/shadows is how we know that the 'distance of tree TC-1's shadow from TC-2, at the point where it runs behind TC-2' is the same as Patty's shoulder width...regardless of how far Patty was behind those two trees.  We don't need to know what her distance was, from those trees. 

Therefore...in laying-out the run of TC-1's shadow on the filmsite diagram.....the shadow should be drawn such that it passes behind TC-2 at a distance of approx. 25".

In the case where Patty was extremely tall....(in the 7 1/2' range)....then the distance between the shadows would be a bit greater. But, for the purposes of determining the 'time of day' of the filming...we don't need to know Patty's shoulder width that precisely. 

 

 

Regarding the correlation of the 'time of filming' with Patty's 'body width'....here are two different models, for different times of the day...

 

First model....for an approx. 3:00 filming time....Patty's shoulder width/body size would appear to be in the '6-foot something' range...

 

TC1-TC2-Filmsite-Model1-N.jpg

 

 

And, a model for an earlier filming time....call it "2:00".....Patty's 'shoulder width/body size' would appear to be quite a bit greater...(since we know that her shoulder width essentially matches the distance between the shadows)...

 

TC1-TC2-Filmsite-Model2-D.jpg

 

 

Here are the images put into an animation...

 

TC1-TC2-Two-Filmsite-Models-AG1-B.gif

 

(Note: I didn't draw the angles for the sunlight/shadows to necessarily match the times given....this is just to demonstrate the principal involved.)

 

The correlation here is, simply.....an earlier filming time would equate to a wider/larger film subject....while a later 'filming time' would equate to a narrower/smaller film subject.

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Thank you, I get it and am duly impressed :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

You're welcome, hiflier.   Glad that helped to clarify the modeling of this segment of the film. :) 


There are other details which play into the modeling of this segment of the film. This is just one of those details.....the percentage of the way that Patty was across the distance between the two trees, TC-1 and TC-2....when the shadow for TC-1 crosses her back...

 

TreeShadowsonBack1E.jpg

 

 

She was about 75% of the way across the "viewing window" between the two trees, when the first shadow crosses her back. That detail comes into play, when placing how far back Patty's path was, behind the trees.

 

There are several details/criteria which must be met, in producing an accurate model of this portion of the film. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...