Jump to content

When Was This Riding Footage Shot?


Recommended Posts

When was this portion of the PGF filmed?

I had always thought it was shot immediately before the Patty sequence.

Here is Roger Patterson in an interview in November of 1967:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

We were just taking some shots of the scenery and of myself and Bob and...

7e32f81f.jpg

But according to Odinn at JREF, this footage could not have been shot on Oct 20, 1967, the sun angle would place it around September 10th.

http://www.forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6661377&postcount=2252

The earliest date to achieve a 54 degree altitude sun angle at Bluff Creek, in 1967 was Sept 10th 1:00pm DST.
That's what I'm sayin' (for a 54 deg altitude angle). However, 54 degrees is the altitude angle if the shadows were orthogonal to the camera POV, which was probably not the case. Close tho. But for example, a 50 degree sun angle pushes the date to Sept 20th.

altitude.png

So which is it?

Edited by Drew
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll play. It should be noted that we can only measure sun altitude angles (reliably) on a photo if the shadows run parallel to the film plane, which they don't in that photo. That said, the lengths of the shadows were probably foreshortened by less than 20%. But IMO, they weren't foreshortened enough to make up the difference of what the length of the shadows should have been at Bluff Creek on Oct 20th, 1967 1:00pm DST. The altitude angle on that date & time was 38deg 15min.

altitude2.png

So IMO, this footage was not shot Oct 20th, but I'm not convinced this was a frame from the alleged "scenery" footage before the PGF. Roger probably took tons of footage, possibly on different trips. We don't even know if this footage was shot at Bluff Creek, whose horses those are, etc. Bob H claims there was no packhorse at Bluff Creek. Is that even Gimlin with the packhorse?

I believe some of this footage as well as the pour and trackway scenes were duplicated on the ANE film. Roger might have provided several reels of film to ANE who edited all those scenes together. We need to sort all that stuff out before assuming the sun angles mean anything nefarious.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Ok, I'll play. It should be noted that we can only measure sun altitude angles (reliably) on a photo if the shadows run parallel to the film plane, which they don't in that photo. That said, the lengths of the shadows were probably foreshortened by less than 20%. But IMO, they weren't foreshortened enough to make up the difference of what the length of the shadows should have been at Bluff Creek on Oct 20th, 1967 1:00pm DST. The altitude angle on that date & time was 38deg 15min.

altitude2.png

So IMO, this footage was not shot Oct 20th, but I'm not convinced this was a frame from the alleged "scenery" footage before the PGF. Roger probably took tons of footage, possibly on different trips. We don't even know if this footage was shot at Bluff Creek, whose horses those are, etc. Bob H claims there was no packhorse at Bluff Creek. Is that even Gimlin with the packhorse?

I believe some of this footage as well as the pour and trackway scenes were duplicated on the ANE film. Roger might have provided several reels of film to ANE who edited all those scenes together. We need to sort all that stuff out before assuming the sun angles mean anything nefarious.

Giganto:

My recollection of Bill's comments is that these packhorse/fall shots were on the same roll of film (Mrs. Patterson's master "vault" copy) as the PattyBob walk scene. If I am correct, then perhaps he can make available more of these stills from this roll for your analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no packhorse footage on Mrs. Patterson's archive PGF copy.

My only scans of packhorse (aside from the new copy 8) were from one of John Green's rolls.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, do you have a shot list from Mrs. Pattersons archive PGF copy? or does that only contain the walk scene?

Can anyone ask John Green if the Packhorse scenes were shot on Roll #1 originally?

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the interview with roger and bob,a couple of things stood out to me.

1 Roger is already calling the subject "she" all the time.well documented roger's "obsession" with female bigfoots

2 Roger is already correcting Bob as to what the creature looked like.Bob says its arms where way past its knees,roger has to correct him.

3 Roger says the creature was 120ft away from him as he fell off the horse.He's stumbling around to get his camera,the creature is walking away at a fair speed. turning the one time briefly.Yet roger could clearly see the shape of the nostrils,noting they were not the same as a gorilla.That's some really good eye sight.To see the shape of its nostrils from that distance.

3 He says the face was bare around the cheeks and nose. all this he noticed from as he says an instant looking at it.Remember all he has is the original footage on 8mm.No tools like we have to zoom and enhance.

just my two cents worth.Seems roger does all the talking and bob is hesitant to answer anything, on the off chance he doesn't get the answer correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Par for the course. Mr. Gimlin is criticized nine ways to Sunday if he doesn't correctly remember the most exacting details of the encounter, forty years later. Patterson, however, is criticized for having too fine a memory for details. I understand perfectly. Clear as mud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Demon:

The original footage was on 16mm, not 8mm.

Bill

sorry my mistake.still he had no tools like to day. so how did he see all that.from 120ft ??? just a thought

Edited by demon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Par for the course. Mr. Gimlin is criticized nine ways to Sunday if he doesn't correctly remember the most exacting details of the encounter, forty years later. Patterson, however, is criticized for having too fine a memory for details. I understand perfectly. Clear as mud.

you're not replying about my post???

i'm talking about the 1967 interview. not long after they shot the footage.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

Edited by demon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Demon:

I, for one, don't know what Roger saw before he turned the camera on, so I cannot judge how good a look he got at it before he turned the camera on, or while he was running toward it and his camera was filming the ground as he ran forward.

Generally, having been a cameraman myself in the late 60's with 16mm cameras (making student films and low budget documentaries) I can attest to the fact the cameraman on the scene may reasonably see more than the results on film.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

you're not replying about my post???

i'm talking about the 1967 interview. not long after they shot the footage.

Understood. Also understand the irony of criticism I've seen within the time the new BFF has been up and running. Gimlin criticized for not remembering details, now you find the stretch to criticize Patterson shortly after the encounter for having too fine an eye for detail.

Edited by Incorrigible1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood. Also understand the irony of criticism I've seen within the time the new BFF has been up and running. Gimlin criticized for not remembering details, now you find the stretch to criticize Patterson shortly after the encounter for having too fine an eye for detail.

not criticizing anyone am voicing an opinion,As i suggest it seems funny that their recollection of the event shortly after has already differed from each others,

And a fine eye for detail. 120ft way struggling to get up and get his camera,yet notices its nose wasn't like a gorilla's. but when asked about its lips he replies i never really noticed them??? but you did the nose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Demon:

I, for one, don't know what Roger saw before he turned the camera on, so I cannot judge how good a look he got at it before he turned the camera on, or while he was running toward it and his camera was filming the ground as he ran forward.

Generally, having been a cameraman myself in the late 60's with 16mm cameras (making student films and low budget documentaries) I can attest to the fact the cameraman on the scene may reasonably see more than the results on film.

Bill

if you read the transcript he says he got only one brief glance at the face.And looking through the view finder am sure he couldn't see fine detail at that distance while trying to steady himself and focus on filming, plus it had its back to him then except for the head turn second.As roger stated he didn't even know if he had managed to shoot any footage of the "creature".

Edited by demon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...