Jump to content
Daniel Perez

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

Recommended Posts

Bill

Redbone:

 

At your leasure, could you plug into your model the Big Tree and Hardy, at 82 feet apart, and see how far they are from Roger's camera.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
44 minutes ago, Bill said:

Redbone:

 

At your leasure, could you plug into your model the Big Tree and Hardy, at 82 feet apart, and see how far they are from Roger's camera.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

If they are both the same distance from Roger, it would be 223.5 feet. (not center to center, but Big Right to Hardy Left)

I have not put either tree into CAD yet, but I think I can do so with Hardy.

 

I might be begging for some new full frames soon. Especially helpful is a frame where Roger changes position.

 

Scratch that... I am having trouble figuring out where Hardy begins and ends in the image I have. 223.5 feet is not right.

 

EDIT: Is this image is a correct indication of Laurel and Hardy?

If yes, they are about 200 feet center to center and 212.5 Big R to Hardy Left.

 

LandH.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Redbone:

 

I have the frames, but wasn't clear. When you say "Roger changed  position", he shifts about 4-5 feet forward as Patty passed TC3 (the shadow tree), and he films Patty through the tree cluster as she walks directly away from him . Then Roger makes his major **** running forward to close to the big log, where he films the sixth segment. Which position did you mean?

 

attached is a diagram of Laurel and hardy.

 

Bll

L and H.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Another consideration: Patty's path isn't a rounded arc like a segment of a circle. She turns to walk near perpendicular to camera line of sight (for the lookback, and then does a reverse curve away from camera, getting steeper as she goes, until she's walking almost directly away from camera (during the frames from about 500 to 700).

 

The diagram attached is reliable, based on her size in frame, and position relative to trees.

Bluff Creek paths.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
24 minutes ago, Bill said:

Another consideration: Patty's path isn't a rounded arc like a segment of a circle. She turns to walk near perpendicular to camera line of sight (for the lookback, and then does a reverse curve away from camera, getting steeper as she goes, until she's walking almost directly away from camera (during the frames from about 500 to 700).

 

The diagram attached is reliable, based on her size in frame, and position relative to trees.

Bluff Creek paths.jpg

I knew this but I don't have enough info to place her in big chunks of the sequence. The path will get better defined as I go.

I can use the big images that have the animated walk, but I don''t trust that they are all scaled correctly.

I know Roger was only in a few positions. Even if I have just a frames around 720 and 850 where he moves just a few feet.

 

As for any other frames, maybe we just fill in with Patty is different locations where we want her plotted.

If you don't want the full scans shared here, I'm ok with that. Just let me know if there's a way I can grab couple different ones, like a box link.

Probably the only requirement is that the scans come from the same source film.

 

I set up a section in my spreadsheet to more easily answer the distance question, but it only works for items the same distance from camera.

I was way off on Laurel and Hardy so I need to re-plot them both for all the frames I have so far.

 

This is Big Right to Hardy Left

image.png.6932a4fcc6c74da4b2761abeba568764.png

 

This is center to center

image.png.716cb91981cff4beb45c5976466be24b.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Redbone:

 

Please email me at 2billmunns@gmail.com  and I'll send you some frames from various positions, such as all the positions marked on my diagram (the black numbers along Roger's path)

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

Reading all the posts when time permits. Just so nice to have a lot of input from researchers with different backgrounds and different expertise. Might have to make another field trip  to the P-G filmsite to look things over again. Just got an e-mail from Robert Leiterman and I asked "all measurements are going to the center of the stump?" His reply, for handy reference: "Of course. If it’s a standing tree it’s taken from the outside edge of the middle."

 

A page from my notebook from 2012. What bothered me immensely from that summer trip was the amount of mosquitoes all over.  By 2012 Robert Leiterman and company had already pulled some measurements and when I was there we were in the double check mode on pulling measurements. When we pulled from the Q stick to the bank of Bluff Creek it really hit me as to how big this area is. 

 

So many questions... Looking back, I just wish both René Dahinden and John Green would have asked Roger Patterson ALL these questions when they first saw the movie on October 22, 1967. Dahinden told me once that the box the film was in was sitting on the table and that he should have walked over to have a look at it, but he never did. They should have asked to see the camera, right then and there.  But then again, that was not their home and there may have been some social awkwardness to ask all these questions, etc. 

IMG_5219.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearfoot
On 3/19/2020 at 11:39 PM, Daniel Perez said:

Reading all the posts when time permits. Just so nice to have a lot of input from researchers with different backgrounds and different expertise. Might have to make another field trip  to the P-G filmsite to look things over again. Just got an e-mail from Robert Leiterman and I asked "all measurements are going to the center of the stump?" His reply, for handy reference: "Of course. If it’s a standing tree it’s taken from the outside edge of the middle."

 

A page from my notebook from 2012. What bothered me immensely from that summer trip was the amount of mosquitoes all over.  By 2012 Robert Leiterman and company had already pulled some measurements and when I was there we were in the double check mode on pulling measurements. When we pulled from the Q stick to the bank of Bluff Creek it really hit me as to how big this area is. 

 

So many questions... Looking back, I just wish both René Dahinden and John Green would have asked Roger Patterson ALL these questions when they first saw the movie on October 22, 1967. Dahinden told me once that the box the film was in was sitting on the table and that he should have walked over to have a look at it, but he never did. They should have asked to see the camera, right then and there.  But then again, that was not their home and there may have been some social awkwardness to ask all these questions, etc. 

IMG_5219.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearfoot

Just wanted to comment on all the awesome input from other members and to keep this thread going. Seems I have to downsize some of my photos! Today only 2 or 3 mb! I think just last week you could have 6 or 7. Only have 3 more of the sandbar but not the actual site. I'll try later!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

 A lot of the discussion on this thread by numerous individuals has centered on how far  the film subject is to the camera at various stages of walking and how tall  the subject is, often referred to as "Patty" (a nickname originally coined by the Russian investigator, Dmitri Bayanov that has stuck throughout the years) and various solutions have been proposed. One thing that I don't think has been discussed in this thread  is the limb proportions of Patty. Here is an image of a American female I found on the internet, Lindsay Hayward, who stands between 6 feet 8 inches and 6 feet 9 inches tall. It would be an interesting exercise, indeed, to see how Lindsay's limb proportions tally with Patty. By good fortune she just happens to be standing in a pose that I hope is useful for serious discussions.  The image of her standing in front of the door shows her feet, too. 

f2c45c6715ee9a557a96b751997bd521--juggernaut-tall-women.jpg

Linsay Hayward.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
On 3/14/2020 at 3:59 PM, Bill said:

I'm going to say this just one more time (hopefully). The lens/distance/height issue is maddeningly complex, the solution infuriatingly elusive. I have data and analysis that supports several conclusions, and there can be only one true conclusion, so there must be an error somewhere in the data. That's my main concern and goal, to find and rectify that error, whatever it might be. It could be there is a variable I haven't yet identified which is influencing the calculations. And it could be that Patty's height is simply not what we expect or want it to be, and the mysteries of the PGF could be compounded instead of resolved.

 

I'll keep working the problem, as best I can, and if I occasionally shoot down someone's effort because of some factual matter, please don't take it personally or think I have any agenda to debunk other analysis. I just want to get to the truth, the real, singular and scientifically valid truth of the matter. 

 

These are the factors I am confident are conclusive beyond dispute:

 

1. The sun position and shadow angles, as evidenced by the shadows on Patty's body during the lookback, are settled (and noted earlier in this discussion).

 

2. The site surveys of Bluff Creek, along with the Green and Dahinden site measurements, are reasonably accurate and thus reliable.

 

3. Patty walks past tree TC-2 close enough to almost brush her shoulder against the tree trunk. I cannot find any 3D modeling where the shadows (both Tc1 and TC2) can be replicated if she's in any other position.

 

4.Green's camera has a lens on it that's about 0.8mm longer in focal length than the lens on Roger's camera, and Green is about 4.375 feet further back than Roger's camera was, based on comparisons of the PGF to McClarin's walk filmed by Green. This is determined by measures of the background object distances compared to measures of the foreground object distances. The only factor that might alter this calculation is lens distortion, but I rate this variable as a very low prospect for altering the calculation. But it should be conclusively discounted, not dismissed by assumption.

 

For the rest, questions still linger, in my mind.

 

On 3/16/2020 at 11:50 PM, Bill said:

Back to the trees, I've been reviewing the data and there's simply no way to construct an arrangement of objects (Trees TC1, TC2, and TC4, plus Green's camera location), using the numbers precisely as noted by the measuring diagrams of Dahinden and Green. Any construction of these objects must position TC-4 so it is in between TC1 and TC2. If it doesn't, it's an invalid diagram, because tree TC-4 must be seen there.

 

As to the solution, it's another of those infuriating "there's an error in the data somewhere" situations, so take a guess which number is incorrect.

 

I've also tried constructing the tree diagram starting with the horizontal angle from TC1 to TC2 with a 25mm lens, and I get a center to center distance of 63 inches.

 

Sorry if I'm throwing confusion into the topic, but the film doesn't lie, and neither does mathematics. and the starting point for a solution is the first paragraph above.

 

The solution is near. I found the infuriating "there's an error in the data somewhere" problem.

 

In every model I've tried (and they all failed one way or another) starts with the assumption that Roger was 4.375 feet ahead of where John Green was.

With a 20mm lens, practically everything in the foreground works out pretty closely to known site measurements. It's the far trees that cannot be placed correctly, and Bill, you are the one that told me.

 

A 20mm lens HAS to be ruled out because it makes the Q-Tree, the Big Tree, and Laurel and Hardy way too close.

That leaves the 25mm lens as the only real option. The 25mm model gets the far trees nearly into correct position, but all of the foreground objects cannot be placed.

 

So here's the error. Roger CANNOT be 4.375 feet ahead of John Green.

 

I made of list of all the known dimensions, gotten from John Green, Rene Dahinden, Chris Murphy, Daniel Perez, and Bill Munns.

It all starts with the triangle of TC1, TC2, and TC3 and the know distance of John Green from these trees.

 

A document is coming to explain this all step by step, but it's nowhere near finished, nor is the working CAD model. In this document I am trying to list the source for each 'known" dimension, and hopefully I will be able to provide links.

 

On 3/18/2020 at 8:54 AM, Redbone said:

It's important to say now... This is a work in progress and dimensions and distances I share now, may change as I learn how to get more precise results. I already anticipate that I will learn something down the road, that will make me go back and re-evaluate what I found at the beginning.

 

The dimensions and distances HAVE changed, so here I am jumping ahead of myself, and something may come along that makes me re-evaluate again.

All of the math formulas I've used are correct, but the distance data that was wrong made all of the results wrong.

 

My new calculations are based on the 'perceived' distance between TC1 and TC2 from John Green's position, which is 87.58" center to center from 105.25 feet from TC1 center. This is subject to interpretation, and can change depending where on the trees these measurements were taken. If you measure at the base of the trees, the dimension changes. I used what I assume is waist high or above on these trees.

 

Applying all of the focal length math, that I will spell out in the coming document, Roger is 139.02 feet from TC1. That puts him well behind John Green, and the focal length is NOT different by .8mm. I still don't know John Green's focal length, but at the moment it does not matter for these calculations.

 

(Note that the math done this way creates a small, known error, based on the smaller angle between TC1 and TC2 from RP's position and the fact that TC2 is farther from him than TC1. This error that is mostly insignificant, but I will see if I can't nail that down later on. )

 

IF (and he doesn't) Roger had a 20mm lens, he would be at 114.55 feet from TC1 which is about 5 feet behind John Green's position. He had to be on (or extremely near) the line from TC4 to JG.

 

I'm not far enough along to "accurately" place Patty in F352 (VFC354) but an educated guess puts her at about 143 feet from RP with a 25mm lens.

Using the 15.7% estimate (Bill Munns Report) puts Patty at 81.181 inches. (<<THIS IS STILL AN ESTIMATE AS I'M NOT FAR ENOUGH ALONG IN THE CAD MODEL TO ACCURATELY PLACE HER AT THIS POINT YET)

 

Same math makes her 81.878" from 114.55 feet with the 20mm lens.

 

There are tolerances and potential errors that may effect results plus or minus because most of the measurements were rounded to feet.

 

As a check of the work so far, I attempted to place the cut log and Q-Tree as 265 feet from each other, and Q-Tree 290 feet from the Old presumed RP position (4.375 feet ahead of JG - I got the 290 ft value in an e-mail from Bill Munns)   Making the almost certainly incorrect assumption that the Hardy and the Big Tree are the same distance as Q-Tree from Roger, the distance between them center to center is 91 feet.

That is a LOT closer than the 20mm model that I shared before. Adding up Daniel's notes above gives about 85 feet, so we are getting close. I feel this will get dialed in as I proceed on the CAD model.

 

More to come...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez
50 minutes ago, Redbone said:

The 25mm model gets the far trees nearly into correct position, but all of the foreground objects cannot be placed.

 

Thanks for posting, Redbone. The more thoughtful the exchange, the more it   continues to stimulate our thinking -- as to what might me the right solution/answer. What I am fascinated by is the aforementioned quote from your notes. My only comment is that it would seem to me that with the 25 mm lens it either has to be all or nothing. It can't be both.

 

One thing that has to be kept in mind: Roger Patterson rented a fixed lens camera, not the turret model, and I suspect the camera was equipped with the 25 mm lens, which seemed to be the standard issue for the Cine-Kodak K-100 camera. See attached photos. My best guess is it was the 25 mm lens, based on the what Kodak was producing and what René Dahinden was able to come up with early on in his research of the matter.

 

But a great post, Redbone, and I look forward to reviewing it some more later today.

 

IMG_5235.jpg

IMG_5234.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone

I threw this together to show how easy it might be to mistake a 20mm lens with a 25mm lens, if we don't know the actual distance from the objects in the photo.

Everything looks the same, but the angle of view changes substantially. Angle of view and on-site measurements are key to everything.

FYI - The UFO is not real, but the water tower would reveal my location. I know some of you smart fellers could still figure it out.

 

It's different math to determine the 20 to 25 mm distance difference for my Canon camera vs Roger's Kodak K100, but the point should still be clear.

1956026653_20mmvs25mm.thumb.gif.3b35bf0afeb1a5542e62061111b453b7.gif

 

Here is a screen shot of the document so far, still incomplete but it shows where the TC1 distance to camera calculations came from.

The red text is red because I skipped all the explaining and went to the CAD drawing. I will fill all of that in before I share the whole document.

 

image.png.115d78a9d157c1951d92f3031f9be0f2.png

 

Note the 0.7" difference in calculations. That, I believe, is the small error I was talking about in the previous post. I hope to figure out how to resolve that, but not sure it matters at this point.

EDIT: I know how to fix this and will do so now before I go any farther...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Redbone:

 

As much as i loved the 20mm lens prospect, and invested years of research hoping to validate it, I too must concede the 25mm lens is almost certainly the lens on Roger's camera.

 

As to the calculation of Roger's distance compared to Green's camera distance, I would refer to the folowing to explain my calculation

 

http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr 3_2_5_3 pgf_jg compare p2.pdf

 

If my analysis of the different positions of the two cameras is flawed, I welcome the correction, as long as the correction explains the error (so I can recalculate)

 

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez
Posted (edited)

René Dahinden = primary researcher of Roger's K-100 camera = 25 mm lens.

(Not sure if any of you ever met him but he was a friend and colleague for over a quarter of a century. Highly reliable source).

Capture.JPG

maxresdefault.jpg

Screen Shot 2020-03-30 at 8.21.32 PM.png

Edited by Daniel Perez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...