Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SweatyYeti

Pgf Filmsite... Images

Recommended Posts

Guest

Suzi, 'the pool of blood' is a theory/ rumour that MK Davis started following his analysis of footage that John Green took (or someone with him) when he visited the Bluff Creek site shortly after the original film was made by RP. MKD claimed that RP and BG had conspired in a bf slaughter and the aged film with its red hue in the ditch/ burial pit on the left of the photos above was evidence of this and BG/RP came accross Patty scratching around in the mud trying to recover her relatives.

Load of rubbish IMO.

Edited by megatarsal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Susiq2, not to draw away from the oringnal topic of discussion to much. the pool of blood nonsense was given short shrift. rightly so. it's no brainier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

This is *so* amazing to see the scope of that area, and what the men were dealing with as they ran after BF for pictures. Did anyone fall?(beside the horse which I remember something about falling and bending a stirrup)

Wow, Sweaty, You are Amazing!

Of course, I already knew that. ;)

Gee, thanks, Susi... :blush: You are a Sweetie! :) This is just like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, actually....and, a tricky one, at that!

It's taking a few years, to get finished...but, it's fun, nonetheless.

As far as anyone falling...according to Bob Gimlin, Roger did fall to his elbows...at one point in the filming. I think BG says it was right after Roger crossed the creek, that he fell.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks Sweaty Yeti. Ive always wondered how those few initial frames fit into the time frame and topography of the creak basin and thnow thanks to your explanation above I now understand. Brilliant. Thanks.

Thank you, megatarsel...it's my pleasure. :) Like I just said to Susi...this is one challenging...(but fun)...."jigsaw" puzzle to work on. I'm glad I can help, in some manner.

Just another question related to your pics above - the 'S' shaped log in the background on the larger pic with the small yellow dot; is this the blurry object in the foreground on the right with the larger yellow dot that RP has reached with his camera? if so then there is more flat terrain/ creak bed beyond the 'horizon' in this photo than i appreciated.

Thanks :)

Yes, the 'yellow dots' are indicating that they are 'one and the same'.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Rene Dahinden...

Bigbluffcreek3.jpg

Rene Dahinden...

Bigbluffcreek1.jpg

Peter Byrne...

Bigbluffcreek2.jpg

John Green...

Green+Film+Site+Photo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Footage of the film site from John Green and Jim McClarin's visit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks for posting those images, kit. :)

I'm going to continue the analysis of the details surrounding 'Roger's movements with the camera' over in the 'Camera Stops' thread....rather than continuing it here.

Since there is no real 'dividing line' between Roger's movements 'immediately before, during, and after the 'camera stops'...and his movements during the rest of the filming....I think I should broaden the scope of that thread to include all of Roger's movements...(the path he took, and his repositioning)....and actions with the camera (stopping/restarting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is an overlay of the Byrne photo...(taken in 1972, showing Michael Hodgson holding a measuring pole)....with the 'Full Frame' version of Frame 350...

FullFrame350ByrnePhotoCompAG1.gif

Here...I highlighted some of the trees, and objects in the scene...to make it easier to see how the 'relative lengths/distances' change...from one image, to the other...

FullFrame350ByrnePhotoCompLinedAG1.gif

Note: The colored lines are the same thickness, from one image to the other.

I was just reading, in Chris Murphy's new book..."Know The Sasquatch"...that the Byrne photo was taken with the camera at a higher elevation, above the ground. The greater spacing between the foreground objects does seem to indicate that Byrne's camera was higher-up, than Roger's camera was.

So this might be strong evidence that Roger was filming the 'look back' sequence while down on his knees....(after stumbling, and falling.)

One thing of note...in the 'Frame 350' image....the spacing between objects is greater, horizontally....while the spacing between objects is less...in the vertical direction.

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

Good stuff, Sweaty!

It's pretty obvious that whatever is wearing that hair suit, it's not a small biped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks, pattywagon. That photo of Byrne's is a little decieving though, as far as a 'height comparison' goes....because Hodgson is several feet further back in the scene, than Patty is.

To get a better idea of how their heights compare...I put together a crop from each image....(lining them up by the large piece of wood that's obscuring Patty's legs)...

PattyMHodgsonComp2.jpg

Comparing where their knees are, shows that Michael is significantly further back than Patty is. Hodgson is standing just behind the fallen tree...and Patty is standing in front of it...(though, the tree was still standing, at that point in time).

One important factor to consider, in comparing their heights, is that Patty's bent body posture ...(bent-kneed gait, and forward lean)...makes her appear several inches shorter than she really is.

But, the difference in bulk is pretty clear...and significant....without the need for any 'precise measurements'... ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Nice images, Sweaty. : ) The bulk of the Creature has always seemed very convincing to me as well. I guess those arms that look like they could knock down most trees are supposed to just be a normal human arm, a shirt and some fake gorilla fur?? riiiight! ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Nice images, Sweaty. : ) The bulk of the Creature has always seemed very convincing to me as well. I guess those arms that look like they could knock down most trees are supposed to just be a normal human arm, a shirt and some fake gorilla fur?? riiiight! ; )

Sure... ;) All that "added bulk" looks amazingly 'natural'...especially on the legs, with the curved contour on the backside of the thighs...the way the upper-thigh compresses, when the body's weight is placed on the leg...(the 'support phase' of the gait)....and, the lack of any 'folds' on the thighs, even on Patty's longest strides.

All that is easy to accomplish with 'thick padding, and a suit'....just look at Bob in the 'Cow Camp' thing... :lol:

I have to make a correction to something I wrote, in my previous post...

Comparing where their knees are, shows that Michael is significantly further back than Patty is. Hodgson is standing just behind the fallen tree...and Patty is standing in front of it...(though, the tree was still standing, at that point in time)

Actually, since 'appparent distances' between objects on the ground are compressed more-so in the PGF image, than in the Byrne photo...(due to the lower camera position)....Patty's knee being lower in the Frame doesn't necessarily mean that she is closer to the wood, in front of her legs. She may be...but that 'apparently closer' position can be due to at least two factors.

It's a tricky thing, to determine exactly where they both are, within the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

In post 24 I was referring to Patty's general bulk and not her height. I've been around these boards long enough now to know better than to do that! :)

It's just very apparent to me that it would require either a very large person or an inner suit to fill in the space, regardless of her height. But even if she's only 6 or 6'6", there are lots of humans walking around who are over 300 pounds at those heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

In post 24 I was referring to Patty's general bulk and not her height. I've been around these boards long enough now to know better than to do that! :)

It's just very apparent to me that it would require either a very large person or an inner suit to fill in the space, regardless of her height. But even if she's only 6 or 6'6", there are lots of humans walking around who are over 300 pounds at those heights.

I agree, pattywagon....either a very large person/Bigfoot, or a specially molded 'inner core' would be required...to get that much bulk, along with the distinctive body contour that Patty has. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks, pattywagon. That photo of Byrne's is a little decieving though, as far as a 'height comparison' goes....because Hodgson is several feet further back in the scene, than Patty is.

To get a better idea of how their heights compare...I put together a crop from each image....(lining them up by the large piece of wood that's obscuring Patty's legs)...

PattyMHodgsonComp2.jpg

Comparing where their knees are, shows that Michael is significantly further back than Patty is. Hodgson is standing just behind the fallen tree...and Patty is standing in front of it...(though, the tree was still standing, at that point in time).

One important factor to consider, in comparing their heights, is that Patty's bent body posture ...(bent-kneed gait, and forward lean)...makes her appear several inches shorter than she really is.

But, the difference in bulk is pretty clear...and significant....without the need for any 'precise measurements'... ;)

If Hodgson is "significantly further back" doesn't that make Patty much shorter???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...