Jump to content
Daniel Perez

The Big Tree In The P-G Film

Recommended Posts

Guest

^

 

Steven Streufert has posted some of his diagrams of the surveyed site, in another thread, HMB. I believe they found some of the same tree stumps visible in the background/in front of the Big Tree.

 

So, it is a definite, that they have located the original filmsite...and the Big Tree. :)

Know where that thread is, can't seem to find...?? :music:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I personally believe that Daniel presented a good match for the "big tree". However, the only way to corroborate this is to identify some of the other trees in the area. If Daniel can identify enough trees, to correct scale, then the lens issue gets resolved. But it doesn't matter what the diameter of the tree was unless we know the distance from the camera to the tree. The distance from the camera is crucial to resolve the lens issue. We can disprove a lens based on Patty's step length, but it becomes harder when you are testing 2 lenses whose focal lengths differs by 5 mm. This pushes the measurements into the range of uncertainty, but I believe we can attain the accuracy needed to resolve the lens issue if we had some accurate PGF site measurements to landmarks that can be seen in the film. It is probably the only hope to resolve the lens issue.

ps..I believe that the problem with resolving the lens issue is the fact we are working with copies instead of the original. Copies often redefine the frame aperture which buggers up the photogrammetry. We need to determine whether we even have a full frame from the PGF. It would certainly explain why the focal length of the lens is calculated to be less than 25mm. If the calculation was done on a cropped frame it would push the focal length to less than standard, which is what we see. IMO, it is more likely we are dealing with cropped imagery, rather than a non-standard lens. IMO, only the original film will settle the lens issue.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The positive ID on the big tree is based on the fact that multiple distinctive other trees and objects are also at the same location, in the same positions, and the cumulative effect of all these trees, stumps and fallen logs with the same shapes, spatial relationships and features, plus the site having exactly the correct compass orientation, alltogether make the site ID and the Big Tree ID 100% positive.

 

We have the Big Tree, the Red Tree, the Que-Stick tree, the Ladder Tree, Laurel and Hardy, several stumps, and several fallen or cut logs. It's a pretty impressive fact that after 47 years, so much is still there for verification.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

This search for the Big Tree is a Great example of issues related to the PGF.  We operate on the hope this is the PGF film site.  We see the Big Tree   [x] check.  Then we see many other things that also happen to be exactly where we would expect them and where they would have to be. [x] check.

Result = PGF film site has been found.

 

How this applies to the PGF issues:    Often we hear how one skeptics idea does not favor Roger and Bob or the PGF.  Yet, that one thing put out by the skeptics must be considered with all the other evidence.  Everything must fit.  Just like the search for the PGF film site, we don't just go by the Big Tree.  We say," if this is the Big Tree then there should be these other many landmarks."   Presto, there is.

 

I have read on the BFF many things thrown out there by the skeptics.  So far, it looks to me these proposals are limited to one set of circumstances often chosen by the skeptic.  Yet, it does not add up to the many other things that would also have to be true if their view was correct.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Didn't someone do a LADAR scan of the entire site? That should pretty well pin down where all the locations of the trees are. Honestly while I think the P/G film is an important piece of evidence. I think both proponents and skeptics alike make to much of the film. It does not prove anything either way or we would not be still arguing about it after all this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

If we can get some objective facts and measurement involving the PGF, then it is a basis to have a civilized discussion around. As Bill Munns said on one of the TV shows, if we are going to argue lets at least argue over the same set of facts.

 

I see this as an important exercise. Finding out these details can be helpful to some other point when it comes up.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Didn't someone do a LADAR scan of the entire site? That should pretty well pin down where all the locations of the trees are. Honestly while I think the P/G film is an important piece of evidence. I think both proponents and skeptics alike make to much of the film. It does not prove anything either way or we would not be still arguing about it after all this time.

 

Take a look at 'The Truth Behind: Bigfoot' which is on Netflix. Might be on YT as well. A 3D model was created of the entire site. From this it was concluded that Roger's lens had to be 15mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...