Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

PGF Research Update

Recommended Posts

wiiawiwb

Welcome back Bill.  Glad to hear things are going well with your new venture. Also glad to hear you will be returning back to the PGF when time and resources allow. 

 

Looking forward to you continuing your well-grounded analysis. Your work is a veritable treatise on the subject matter.

 

Any chance of having Gigantofootecus involved in the photogrammetric work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

wiiawiwb:

 

Thank you. The new venture is quite exciting, and the deep learning work is fascinating. At the moment, I'm refining the plan for analysis of audio and video (of people talking) and pre-processing the multimodal data set (audio and video/visual) into one common dataform (linear graphs), so the training model is more efficient. 

 

In regard to your question about Gigantofooticus, I've always respected his skill and knowledge in that endeavor (stereo-photogrammetry), even though we have occasionally looked at the PGF material from different perspectives, but as to the new PGF work, I would expect my crew will be local hired (here in Vietnam) for the bulk of the work. I would certainly welcome him to review the work once we get it done. 

 

I was going through some more threads, and found a few more things about my work where i thought a comment would be appropriate:

 

Thread: Was it a suit?”  Page 11 Martin 

“Bill Munns wrote, "One researcher, Bill Miller, found technical data from a Kodak technician that stated the K-100 cameras were tweaked so even when the dial is set to 16 fps, the camera actually runs at 18 fps. . . . I have nine K-100 cameras now. . . . I tried it on one camera , and got 18 fps, but the rest still need testing [and all with "film running through the camera"]."[170]”

 

Answer:  What I did was pull the lens on the camera, so I could see the shutter, and filmed the camera operating with a 240 fps video camera. The K-100 running speed was set at 16fps. I took 240 video frames from my sequence and frame by frame, counted the number of times the shutter opened in those 240 frames (1 second). The shutter opened 18 times.

 

Thread: Was it a suit?  Page 14, Squatchy McSquatch

“Too bad Munns skipped over the lens issue...”

 

Answer:  Actually I devoted 10 pages in my book to this issue, p 317-326, and I explain that I get conflicting results depending on the data and formula used, which means there’s an error in some data, and I need to find the error. Given the volume of data, it’s a challenge. So given my discussion of the lens issue is more comprehensive that the sum of Squatchy’s posts in this forum, I don’t think the verb “skipped” is the correct one. Maybe Squatchy “skipped” that part of the book.

 

Same thread, Page 14, OntarioSquatch

“To give you an example of how bad it is: back in 2015 I posted on the JREF forums the highest quality frames of the PGF that I could find, and ended up getting insults and false accusations like I was dealing with people suffering from emotional trauma. The exact same thing happened to Bill Munns. Long story short: some people aren’t capable of giving this film a fair analysis”

 

Answer: The JREF experience was strange, but even more strange is reading how they revise the reality as months and years go by, so their claims, as well as their insults, actually evolve into utter fantasy. It’s a classic triumph of skeptical confirmation bias over reality and fact.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

It's very good to see you posting here again, Bill.  Many of us have been trying to keep the PGf discussion reality based while you were away.  Your invention and the associated software venture sounds very interesting.  And, it's wonderful to know that you will be doing more PGF analysis in the future with better image enhancement technology!  Can't wait to see and read more about both of those things.  Welcome back and the best of luck with everything!  8  )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

xspider1:

 

Thank you for the well wishes. Keeping the PGF discussion reality based is a challenge when some people are doing all they can to bury the realities with obfuscation and derailing nonsense.

 

The image enhancement technologies include optical flow,    SIFT and RANSAC. The preliminary tests have shown a remarkable alignment of various PGF copies, one to another, so the images can be merged to strengthen the true image data while reducing or nullifying the film grain. Once the grain is nullifed, the deconvolution process can sharpen the image data with no worry it would sharpen the grain. 

 

I do a brief appearance on the Finding Bigfoot season finale (not sure if it has aired on TV there) and i talk about the process. I haven't seen the show edit so I don't actually know what material they'll use, but this image enhancement was the main theme of my lecture to the public at Willow Creek, which they filmed, and the Finding Bigfoot team were in the front row during my lecture. Bob was also there, and gave a very kind introduction to me.

 

Anyways, we will get the PGf the respect it deserves. That I am sure of.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I was reviewing more discussions and found a few more things I can provide some insight to:

 

thread: The actual developing of the PGF p2    Page 30, Old Mort, July 19

A question for the resident PGF experts:
Has it been confirmed by anyone (Munn 's perhaps) what type of film was in the camera for the "second reel" of the footage that was allegedly filmed on October 20, 1967?
I don't see anything on Munn's site pertaining to that.
Any help would be appreciated,,,

 

Answer:  The footage of Roger standing by a tree, holding two cast footprints (which is generally attributed to second reel) has a Kodachrome latent image in the edgecode, on a copy held by a Russian Researcher, who received the footage from Rene Dahinden in 1971, so the original camera stock for that footage would have been Kodachrome film.


SAME THREAD  Page 45  Sweaty Yeti  Aug, 23

Bill Munns' diagrams of Jim's and Patty's paths show them walking distinctly different paths. One way that we know their paths were along different lines....is due to the different angles their bodies are oriented relative to the view of the camera.

 

Answer: There are several problems with the comparison of Jim’s walk and Patty’s walk, problems that have not been resolved, and apparently not even understood by many people arguing for or against the PGF authenticity. Far be it for me to tell anybody what they can or cannot argue, but I will say that the comparison will not prove either for or against argument. There are other reasons to study Jim’s walks (there were two tries, which not too many people know, filmed with two different cameras) so the footage has value, but until the variables are factored into the comparison, comparing Jim’s walk to Patty is problematic.

 

Same Thread  Page 48  Bigfoothunter   Aug. 24

Munns was able to test the two lens options and found the one that indeed lined up the trees in the PGF. It was only when someone found there was an after-market lens that would fit on Rogers camera that a new option arose even though there was no proof Roger had access to it, nor was it mentioned on Roger's rental papers. Munns said to me that because it was still an option - it then had to be tested in a 3D model so be scientific.

 

Answer:  Originally, I tested the 25mm Cine Ektar and the 15mm Cine Ektar lenses because both were made for the K-100 camera and had companion viewer lenses so the camera operator could see the framing of what he was filming correctly. But later study of the McClarin walk footage and Jim’s calculation of distance with a matching 15mm put him well in front of trees he clearly passed behind, so the 15mm was ruled out conclusively. Only much later did I find the 20mm Anstigmat lens Kodak put on the Model E cameras. It was a fixed focus lens with a C Mount, so it could be put on the K-100 camera. But it did not have a companion viewfinder lens for the K-100. However, the viewport on the K-100 has a safety viewing area larger than the actual camera field of view, so using a 20mm lens with a 25mm viewfinder lens can work, as long as you just assume what you see in the safety area of the viewfinder will actually be in your film. The 20mm has not been fully tested, as the above notes, so it is inconclusive in that respect. Since this question comes up frequently, I do not, at this time, have a conclusion I can offer on the lens used. Further work needs to be done. All I ask is please take me seriously when I say this issue is more complex than you may expect, and I suspect when it is finished, the results will be quite controversial. This does not imply it will prove Patty a fake, because she is not. But the result may change a lot of things about the PGF. I say this because I know where the data is going, but cannot disclose the direction until I have the rigorous analysis documentation to back it up.

 

I hope these remarks will clear up some of the discussion.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Welcome back to the forum, Bill. :) 

 

The Image Enhancing analysis you're working on sounds very interesting. Hopefully it will provide a clearer, and more convincing, look at the mouth/lip movements on Patty. From what I have seen, already...there are at least a couple of film frames which show a puckering/pursing of the lips.....a movement which would have required an extensively engineered mask, to create. The masks used in the POTA movie didn't even have the capability for that kind of movement. They only had a simple 'up and down' movement.

 

Bill wrote:

Quote

Answer: There are several problems with the comparison of Jim’s walk and Patty’s walk, problems that have not been resolved, and apparently not even understood by many people arguing for or against the PGF authenticity. Far be it for me to tell anybody what they can or cannot argue, but I will say that the comparison will not prove either for or against argument. There are other reasons to study Jim’s walks (there were two tries, which not too many people know, filmed with two different cameras) so the footage has value, but until the variables are factored into the comparison, comparing Jim’s walk to Patty is problematic.

 

 

Regarding Jim's recreation walk....is it pretty certain that, at the F352 location, Jim's path was further back in the scene than Patty's was? 

 

If so, what would be your best estimate of how much further back he was, from Patty's location? My present estimate is somewhere between 12 - 25 feet. 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Thanks for the updates Bill.  Very intrigued about what you are working on in regards to the lens information.  Look forward to further updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Very glad to have your voice heard here once again Bill.  Looking forward to any additional information you can provide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Bill, I wish you all the best in your new endeavors and I'm glad to hear that you are still involved in unraveling the mysteries of the PGF.

 

Thanks also, for responding to my post in the "actual developing" thread:

 

12 hours ago, Bill said:

thread: The actual developing of the PGF p2    Page 30, Old Mort, July 19

"A question for the resident PGF experts:
Has it been confirmed by anyone (Munn 's perhaps) what type of film was in the camera for the "second reel" of the footage that was allegedly filmed on October 20, 1967?
I don't see anything on Munn's site pertaining to that.
Any help would be appreciated,,,"

 

Answer:  The footage of Roger standing by a tree, holding two cast footprints (which is generally attributed to second reel) has a Kodachrome latent image in the edgecode, on a copy held by a Russian Researcher, who received the footage from Rene Dahinden in 1971, so the original camera stock for that footage would have been Kodachrome film.

 

 

My next question then would be: Does the "cast pouring" and "track way" footage also present the latent Kodachrome edge code markings? Can these three separate film strips be conclusively tied together in any way?

 

I fully realize and understand that you are primarily focused on the film itself and what information can be gleaned from it , and your work in that regard has been commendable. As for myself, I am almost exclusively focused on the timeline issues. It is insufficient for me to hear, "We have the film, so it got developed somehow." As someone who worked in the Photo Processing industry for several years I wish to find out where, when and how, even if just for my own satisfaction. It is not my intent to debate the merits of either line of investigation here, as that issue has been discussed to death and in my mind one opinion is as valid as the other.

 

I have been re-reading some of the older threads in this forum recently and came across some older posts by you that piqued my curiosity though. 

In a post from February 9, 2011 in a thread titled, "Al Deatley - When. How and Why was he involved?" you stated the following:

 

"A lie about the timeline doesn't change the anatomy of the subject. It doesn't change the cameraman's behavior. It doesn't change the camera subject interactions I've charted and which also indicate to me a real spontanious filming event. It doesn't change the best evidence, which is the film image data itself. So yeah, I suspect whatever is screwy about the timeline description is more likely human frailty because there's no hoax I see in the best evidence, which is the film itself."

 

And then later in the same paragraph, this:

 

"Now I think I actually know why the timeline thing is such a mess, but I have no proof, just a confidential person's remarks, from someone who may be described as "in the know" who told me something that fixed the timeline. Without proof, there's no need for me to say what it is, because immediately somebody will say "prove it", and I can't."

 

I am curious as to how the messy "standard" timeline can be "fixed," I see at least a few ways, but they all have problems:

1. The film was shot and processed at an earlier date.

2. The film was not viewed at DeAtley's on Sunday, October 22, but rather at a slightly later date.

3. The film was misidentified as Kodachrome but was instead Ektachrome, allowing for simple processing either on Friday, Saturday or even Sunday. (This scenario can't be true since you have conclusively identified the film as Kodachrome.)

4. The "secret" Porn Lab theory.

5. The events transpired just as Patterson described. (If this were true, then a "fix" would not be needed.)

6. ________________ Fill in the blank.

 

Most of what is discussed here on this forum is subjective opinion, hypothetical scenarios, "what ifs" and very little in the way of actual positive "proofs." I for one would be interested in what you were told that "fixed the timeline." No proof is necessary as it is hearsay, but it would make for a stimulating discussion and in conjunction with the work of other researchers possibly lead to new information that could advance the search for the truth of the films provenance. I know for a fact that there are more than a few researchers who are withholding or sitting on facts, "holding their cards close to their vest" for whatever reason. Human frailty possibly? Let me make it clear that I am not accusing you of that, I have nothing but respect for your work and the amount of time and effort that you have put into it.

 

It is my sincere belief that the truth of the PGF will only be revealed through the sharing of information and cooperation among those who research it whilst still maintaining any necessary confidentiality and avoiding legal liabilities. As the 50th Anniversary of the PGF approaches; I think its high time that investigators lay their cards on the table... (I also realize that this is wishful thinking), :)

 

Regards;

OM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Old Mort:

 

Thanks for the letter and the detailed remarks. Given the "fixed the timeline" remark was 6 years ago, I'm trying to think what it was and nothing substantial comes to mind. God knows I've explored a variety of theories and considered a lot of remarks from people (on the record and off) but nothing sticks in my mind currently as being important enough to mention. So I can only say whatever it was, I subsequently lost confidence in the information offered by another person, so I must have discounted it as not leading to anything truthful or reliable. And it got filed in the "dead end" folder in my mind.

 

Regards your question about the trackway footage, the print casting footage, and the Roger by the tree holding casts footage, there's nothing which actually connects these three footage segments in any conclusive way, as being on the same camera reel. Everything we have is copies made usually from edited reels, so the running time, the order, and any relationship of the segments is inconclusive in terms of what might have been the total content of the second reel. There is currently no known verification that the trackway or the casting footage are Kodachrome, just the Roger holding casts segment.

 

Only Roger was known to have done contact prints from his camera originals, so he must have done his second reel as well as his first, to get the "Holding casts by the tree" footage to have the Kodachrome latent image printed through. If Roger did print his entire second reel, and i would assume he'd definitely do it for the trackway, those copies have not surfaced yet in anybody's collection I am aware of. All the known Green-Dahinden copies (which include trackway, casting, and holding casts segments) were optically printed so all edge latent image data from the original is lost through that process.  And the ANE copies were also optically printed (I think through a liquid gate process, because the scratches are less even though the printing was done later that the Green/Dahinden set, suggesting a liquid gate scratch removal process.). Both Canawest Labs (that did the Green Dahinden copies) and ANE (lab unknown) had the footage we call "second reel", but we don't know in what form, if either had a complete reel or just segments, We also don't know if they had camera originals or copies of second reel material. Both did have the camera original of the first reel. So in both cases, we don't know if they had the full second reel or not. The known footage attributed to second reel only amounts to about 25' out of 100'  So 75' is unaccounted for and unexplained.

 

back to the timeline, I seem to have just resigned myself that this would never be resolved and I let go of it. Any idea I have confidence can be resolved, I keep in mind and continue to investigate.

 

As to your remark about keeping things close to your vest, I've learned that revealing information before it's fully vetted for reliability can be problematic, and can hurt the cause as much as keeping things a secret too long. So all information has a right time to be released. I obviously know far more than I've published and I plan to reveal it in the future, but I want to make sure the material is fully vetted as to reliability and factual analysis. However, in terms of the film, processing, and film stock types, in that respect, I am pretty sure I've disclosed everything I know. No "secrets" lurking in relation to that topic.

 

Hope this helps, and feel free to ask more questions any time.

 

Bill

Sweaty:

 

I'm hesitant to give an estimate for Jim's position because When I finally offer a determined position, I want to math and analysis to be rock solid, and it still needs some work.  But he was further back than Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bill wrote:

Quote

Back to the timeline, I seem to have just resigned myself that this would never be resolved and I let go of it. Any idea I have confidence can be resolved, I keep in mind and continue to investigate.

 

 

I think that the only real hope for resolving the 'film development' timeline issue, is through Al DeAtley.

 

He was the one who received the film on Saturday....brought it to the developer....and bought it back home, or picked it up later in the day.....and then hosted the first showing of the film on Sunday. I don't buy for a moment that he has "forgotten" who developed the film.  

 

Hopefully, one day Al will "remember"...and reveal where, and by whom, it was developed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

I would agree. Al is the key and my best guess is he doesn't want to say what he did, not that he can't remember.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Added:

 

Twist and WSA, please forgive my overlooking your posts. Thank you for your comments. WSA, I know we have some history, and I'm pleased to hear from you again. Twist, I believe you're new, in so far and any dialogues with me, but I invite you to freely ask any questions you might think of. I have read a number of your posts, so I have some idea of your point of view, and I would be pleased to discuss the subject if you would.

 

Also my best regards to the forum team.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

It's great to have you back Sir.

 

I only have one question. In your expert opinion, is the PGF a hoax?

 

I ask for the new members who haven't been around. With all the detailed back and forth, it's not obvious...

 

Share this post


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

×