Jump to content

When Was This Riding Footage Shot?


Recommended Posts

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.

A simple experiment can show how this line of thinking is flawed (no offense, Demon).

Gather a group of people and show them something detailed for about 30 seconds, then take it away. Now ask them (independently) to describe what they saw in as much detail as possible.

Most descriptions will vary, and IMO it's doubtful that any two will match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Demon:

Respectfully, it appears to me that you want to hold Roger to a strict definition of his words, without any allowance for the frailties of human expression.

I don't consider anybody's testimony to be strictly relied upon, but instead look for factual data which may corroborate or impeach a person's testimony.

So I don't personally hang on every word anybody said, and look to the data instead for my determinations. I looked at the 1967 interview Roger and Bob gave, specifically to see if what in actually in the film matches up with, or contridicts what they said, and in general, it all matched up very well, and there were no contridictions (except a difference of opinion between Roger and Bob at one point, and the film data supported one man over the other.)

Certainly you are entitled to analyse what they said, and form your conclusions from the circumstances as compared to what they said, if that is the analytical approach you prefer. So your approach appears to differ from mine, said without any judgment of whose may be better.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grazhopprr

I'm a bit confused. The reason they brought horses, and parked the truck, and rode them with a pack horse, was because of lack of road access to Bluff Creek. Yet, they show the pack horse, on a road, and Bob says he chased Rogers horse and pack horse up and down the road to catch them. He also said that the way back to the truck was 2 miles by road, but closer over the ridge. Why didn't they just drive the truck up the road to Bluff Creek in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused. The reason they brought horses, and parked the truck, and rode them with a pack horse, was because of lack of road access to Bluff Creek. Yet, they show the pack horse, on a road, and Bob says he chased Rogers horse and pack horse up and down the road to catch them. He also said that the way back to the truck was 2 miles by road, but closer over the ridge. Why didn't they just drive the truck up the road to Bluff Creek in the first place?

If Patty is real, it could be they parked where it was convenient since they had no idea they were going to film her. That's assuming you are asking why the truck wasn't closer to the film site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Bob Gimlin has answered the question for us when he did an interview with the Minnesota Bigfoot Research Team. He tells us right in the following interview that Roger shot that footage at Bluff Creek in October when the allegedly shot Patty on Oct. 20, 1967 (from 16:00)...

Bob Gimlin: "...and Roger was taking pictures of the trees and of me riding up there leading the packhorse with the equipment on it, the sleeping bags and stuff..."

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mnbrt/2010/02/13/mnbrt-radio-with-bob-gimlin

BG says Roger took that film of him the same day they shot Patty on Oct. 20th. The math and the science show that it was in September near the 10th around near 1:00 pm. That is a big problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It is the ground. Your eyes are being fooled by an illusion. And how does a flat object on the ground hide a shadow being cast there?

What really matter is the massive fact that Gimlin is telling us that this footage was shot by Roger on October 20th, it directly precedes Patty on John's first gen copy, but in actuality it was shot in early to mid September.

We are dealing with a major find here. Gimlin says he never touched the camera and that that footage was shot Oct. 20th. BH says there were only two horses there during the filming and what the science is shoing us is that what Gimlin has been telling us about the footage is not the truth.

This issue needs to be seriously addressed by Gimlin. It is far more important than any massacre hooey that he is all to glad to speak about.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at that pic.

The rider's shadow stops at exactly the edge of the darker gray area of the ground (sorry Indie, I also think it's the ground). But is it the edge of the road? A shoulder? Do we know this?

Because if we don't, there could very well be a few more inches of shadow not visible from this angle.

This timeline based on the sun angle is FAR from being proven. This was mentioned earlier, and curiously not addressed by anyone who feels convinced this is proof of the month it was shot. As was mentioned before, there are far too many variables to make this any kind of proof. It may be possible to get to that point, but it's a long way off.

So, no, this hasn't been shown to have been shot in early to mid September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing some 3D modeling studies of men on a horse and sun angles, and it looks like Oct. 20 is still in contention. I hope to get the charts done tomorrow or Sunday (depending on how the Christmas travel to the relatives goes).

I have no trouble recreating the shadows as seen with sun elevations of 35 degrees and 40 degrees, and GF said above (post #2) the highest on Oct 20 was 38 degrees 15 minutes. So my samples are within his range.

Bill.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

As luck would have it, I got time to wrap up the charts and here's the master one:

shadowanglesmainchart.jpg

It tested a digital horse and rider with sun angles of 40 degrees elevation and 35 degrees elevation, with positions every 10 degrees from 90 degrees to 180 degrees (sun to the rider's back, and directly in the camera line of sight)

The upper two rows were the set of tests.

The lower left is a PGF extras frame, and measured the sun angle (yellow line) then to the right, sun angles were compared to the shadows in the models.

Now here's an enlarged chart of just the sun angles test images:

shadowanglescloseup.jpg

It looks like at 40 degrees elevation, the position of sun to rider was about 146-147 degrees around, to get a match. With a 35 degree elevation, we need a position more like 153-154 degrees to match.

Now the camera in relation to subject is a variable still to be factored in, and my digital camera is arbitrarily scaled to about 70 feet away, if the horse was about 5' high at the top of the hind quarters. The horse might be smaller in the real footage. But if there's a 25mm lens on the camera (I don't buy it, but let's go with it to satisfy the conventional wisdom), then the rider needs to be at least 100 feet from camera, maybe more, and that'll just make the angle match even easier. I will have to test this stuff again with a more distant camera, but this was just a preliminary to see what the results would be.

So it appears a sun elevation of 38 degrees and change isn't impossible for the scene, and Oct. 20 isn't ruled out as the filming date.

More to do. Any suggestions of other variables to plug into the test model are welcome.

Bill

Happy Holidays to one and all.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

The red lines show the elevation of the ground that the shadow is falling on, how much longer would the shadow be if it were on level ground?

post-9-031821600 1293298122_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit:

"Why is the Gimlin frame flipped 180? "

A lot of the rider footage has been flipped in various TV Documentary uses. The ANE Program, for example, used two segments of Roger and flipped one, (same landscape, so the flip was absolutely verifiable), I think somebody flipped the "Gimlin" sequence too, in some showings.

But I have three scan copies showing that the Gimlin image I posted is correct, left to right, in relation to the PGF, so I use it that way.

Indiefoot:

Yes, there's a little rise at the ground where the shadow of Bob's head is, and if the ground were more flat, the shadow would likely be longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

The rise in elevation amounts to around 10% of the height of the horse and rider, from that point on my math is suspect. It does seem to me that it would change the final outcome.

post-9-053063100 1293302166_thumb.jpg

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