Jump to content
xspider1

The 50th Anniversary of the amazing Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film has arrived and there is no debunk in sight! 8 )

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
4 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

It's October 18. and a perfect sunny day here in Northern California. I'm about 100 miles or so south of Bluff Creek. It's 1:28 in the afternoon.

 

My observations: The sun is not especially high in the sky but is quite bright. Many of the rays are filtered through foliage causing a high contrast array of light and shadow.

 

The shadows are surprisingly lengthy at this time of day. They appear to be the same length or slightly longer than the object causing the shadow.

 

008.jpg.afe9a6fb51d3c1794e44b05f6e1ca4c2.jpg

Telephone pole and shadow.

 

 

012.jpg.e6fdb79ec0df4970bc099312e0a5bffe.jpg

Signpost and shadow. Note the extreme contrast of light and shadow.

 

Do we see these same kinds of lengthy shadows in the PGF?

 

 

ETA: These shots are taken due East.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

 

Great post.  Thanks OM.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Can you do any photos with a 2 foot carpenter's square? That would help calculate the sun angle more exactly.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

This is the data for Bluff Creek's GPS location for today 10/19- 10:00am Pacific time. It is for a subject that is about 6'5" tall:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/41.3459,-123.6846,11/2018.10.19/12:41/2./0

 

The Sun angle is around 38 degrees and the shadow length would be about 8' but that is at 10:00am. I will check again at 1:00 pm either today or tomorrow if I remember to.

 

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 9:34 AM, Bill said:

Can you do any photos with a 2 foot carpenter's square? That would help calculate the sun angle more exactly.

 

 

Sorry I don't have one available right now.

 

I took some more pics just now though, at 1:30 October 20th - the alleged date and time of the filming 51 years ago.

 

20181020_132953.thumb.jpg.ac7daaf80fc30b7043cd99c10ad12298.jpg

(Telephone pole looking East from above) The angle of the shadow has changed slightly in just two days.

 

 

20181020_133146.thumb.jpg.345708f609475e14c7cb1602e1fc845c.jpg

Same signpost facing North East from ground level.

 

 

20181020_133302.thumb.jpg.85dc0ffc6503b81890b7c24f0ce8c8e0.jpg

Same telephone pole from ground level. My orientation from behind the pole is as directly north as I can estimate.

(I could be slightly off, but not by much.)

All shadows appear quite lengthy even from this angle...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

In the your image the shadow of the lower box just above the reflective strips doesn't look too lengthy though. The bottom of the box might be around 7 ft above the ground but its shadow doesn't look to be much more than that. Maybe around a foot longer than the height of the box? The view angle makes it difficult to determine it. It looks to be the same approximate view angle as what Roger had when filming Patty  and probably a bit more acute than at Bluff Creek but it looks pretty close. At about 90 feet away one might guess that the shadow of the box may appear to be even closer to the pole, i.e., shorter than when is closer and looking more down on it

 

Nice work Old Mort. Good investigation idea.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
9 hours ago, hiflier said:

In the your image the shadow of the lower box just above the reflective strips doesn't look too lengthy though. The bottom of the box might be around 7 ft above the ground but its shadow doesn't look to be much more than that. Maybe around a foot longer than the height of the box?

 

 Correct. That's what I stated earlier, the shadow is just slightly longer than the actual structure that causes the shadow.

 

Yes, I agree the sun angle does look pretty close to what we see as far as Patty's shadow.

 

Yet, in the few frames where you can see her shadow in the PGF the shadows appear quite short. 

 

Where are the lengthy tree shadows that should be present at 1:30 on 10/20/67?

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
11 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

 Correct. That's what I stated earlier, the shadow is just slightly longer than the actual structure that causes the shadow.

 

Yes, I agree the sun angle does look pretty close to what we see as far as Patty's shadow.

 

Yet, in the few frames where you can see her shadow in the PGF the shadows appear quite short. 

 

Where are the lengthy tree shadows that should be present at 1:30 on 10/20/67?

 

 

 

 

 

A good question Old Mort. Don't have the answer but will have to look at the PGF again to get up to speed on what you are talking about. Could take some time so be patient with me :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
On 10/20/2018 at 4:21 PM, OldMort said:

All shadows appear quite lengthy even from this angle...

 

The light and shadow observations are interesting and those factors definitely should tell us more to confirm the date and time of the filming.  Thank-you for bringing those things up again, Backdoc!

 

Regarding comments such as the one above: are the shadows cast by any subject not completely independent of the viewing angle?  (they are)  I.e., it matters not at which angle we view a subject; that subject will still cast the same shadow (which is a result of the subject and of light, nothing else.)  Shadows appear differently depending on the viewing angle, but shadow length, width, shape and intensity don't change based on the position of the viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Yes I agree.

 

A forum member had stated earlier that the shadows would appear quite different if viewed from a different angle.

 

They remain lengthy (in this case) no matter where they are viewed from.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Oldmort,

 

Look how short the shadow is for the mailbox or the cars. 

Pat...

 

20181020_133146.thumb.jpg.345708f609475e14c7cb1602e1fc845c.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I guess its all relative, Pat.

 

I think there could be some foreshortening effect due to the lens that was used (Phone camera.)

 

I have no idea what its specs are.

 

Just wanted to share the pics, make of them what you will... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Glad you did Old Mort. Definitely food for thought. I noticed the somewhat short shadows of the cars too and they are about what? 4 ft high. The SUV is taller of course. Not saying you haven't brought some good images here as examples though. Some it comes down to short subject short shadow? Would certainly make sense and hope I don't sound to obvious or simplistic by saying that. Patty had some shadows from some trees pass across her back as she was passing them and then of course her own shadow out front as she was moving away. And maybe that is the thing: Distance from the subject, the viewer's own angle to the subject and the height of the viewer.

 

Roger was pretty danged short and no doubt he was in somewhat of a crouched position? Maybe even on his knees at first? One thing is her shadow was not straight out in front of her because as she turned she was facing the Sun. So her shadow was probably angling away more to her left side and away from Roger. It wasn't flat ground either as she began 'sink' a bit deeper when she started to get closer to the tree area. Her shadow would have been dropping into the slope before she got there so it may have aided in it looking foreshortened. Not making excuses here, Old Mort, just trying to reason things out. I think we all are so it is all good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

Images of the Sun facing Bluff Creek on the P-G filmsite in the rough general vicinity of where Roger Patterson was positioned when he shot the first part of his movie on October 20, 1967. By watching how the shadows were cast on the P-G filmsite in the early 1970s the late René Dahinden made a brilliant deduction --  the time the film was shot was not merely a matter of someone stating what time it happened by way of a wristwatch but the shadows on the filmsite told the time as well. Using this methodology René was able to narrow the window when the film was shot, perhaps anywhere from 1:15 p.m. in the afternoon all the way to 2:15 p.m. or thereabouts. Granted, you can do this type of specific study when the filmsite was wide open and the trees did not block out the Sun. However, almost 51 years later, on October 8, 2018 I was able to take images of the Sun at 1:18 p.m; 1:32  p.m. and another shot at 2:03 p.m. In each case study it is clear the filmsite in 1967 (very open and largely devoid of trees in the filming sequence) was brightly lite. The same holds true in 2018. If it were not for all the trees blocking out the Sun it would be brightly lite.  Images made using a NikonD750 camera.

DSC_8065.JPG

DSC_8068.JPG

DSC_8070.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

 

Some have speculated a mid or late Sept filming date in spite of how the red on the trees looks.  Maybe this sun's angle consideration will lend more weight to a mid to late October filming time and especially Oct 20th.    I will leave it up to those a lot more with it than me to determine that.    We know other than 100,000 years ago it is safe to say the Suns position is consistent from year to year.  This should yield clues to the extent we can squeeze information out of that fact.  Daniel Perez makes a great point in the above post of trying to determine the time of day (1-2PM or whatever the case).  I am guessing most skeptics would stipulate the filming time of day was likely early afternoon.  What they will argue is ANY OTHER date other than Oct 20th.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
19 hours ago, OldMort said:

I guess its all relative, Pat.

 

I think there could be some foreshortening effect due to the lens that was used (Phone camera.)

 

I have no idea what its specs are.

 

Just wanted to share the pics, make of them what you will... :)

OldMort,

 

Thanks for sharin', wish I'd thought of doin' the same.

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×