Jump to content

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018


Daniel Perez

Recommended Posts

MIB
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

So, the level that Rene made his measurement at would have to have been right down at ground level....(at the remnant of the tree roots).

 

Not necessarily.  Down is not gone.   If it had tipped over, but was present, which is what a tree being "down" implies in more or less local use of the word .. down = fallen .. then he still could have measured at any height, any distance above the old ground level he felt was appropriate, so it could have been a measurement any distance along the trunk above original dirt level with consideration, or not, to what angle the tree might have sloped at while standing.    It's actually a larger unknown than if the tree were still standing.   

 

MIB

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Not necessarily.  Down is not gone.   If it had tipped over, but was present, which is what a tree being "down" implies in more or less local use of the word .. down = fallen .. then he still could have measured at any height, any distance above the old ground level he felt was appropriate, so it could have been a measurement any distance along the trunk above original dirt level with consideration, or not, to what angle the tree might have sloped at while standing.    It's actually a larger unknown than if the tree were still standing.   

 

MIB

 

 

On Rene's first trip to the filmsite...one of the trees was down on the ground, MIB. 

 

His hillside picture shows a tree on the ground, right behind the debris pile....(highlighted by the yellow arrow)….in the location where TC-1 would have been standing...

 

Dahinden-Filmsite-Aerial1-G.jpg

 

 

It looks to me as though the tree on the ground is TC-1.....as there is a tree standing to the right of the fallen tree....which is probably TC-2. 

 

But, as far as measuring the distance between TC1 and TC2...it wouldn't make any sense for Rene to make a measurement some number of feet above the ground...to a "phantom" tree....(which is no longer standing). 

 

He could see in the film images that the tree had a lean to it....so, how would he be able to get an accurate estimate on the degree of it's lean...and, hence...it's distance from TC-2??

 

It would be a lot simpler to take a measurement at ground level...to something that is actually there....the remnant of the tree. :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

In the above photo, TC-1 and TC-2 are down. TC-3 is standing (the red arrow)

 

This is verified by the photo of young Eric Dahinden and the markers for the survey work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
15 hours ago, Bill said:

In the above photo, TC-1 and TC-2 are down. TC-3 is standing (the red arrow)

 

This is verified by the photo of young Eric Dahinden and the markers for the survey work.

 

 

Thanks for the info, Bill. :) 

 

In that hillside view, I had only been able to detect one tree being down....(that could have been a candidate for either TC1 or TC2).

 

If that was the case, then it only makes it more likely....(and, pretty much a 'definite')….that Rene had to take his measurements for the distance between the two trees right down at ground level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)

Can I just say as a fan from the bleachers, you guys have continued to do an outstanding job in your analysis of the PGF and esp the filming site.  I am impressed how many of you have squeezed information out of what we have to go on.   When I consider this comes from some photos, a film, some early investigation attempts, and a filming site ever changing and very remote, and an event 50 years old, I am even more impressed.   

 

It would seem to me one measurement off even a couple feet or even 1 foot or less might be enough to throw other things off quite a bit.   Here is my primitive thought which might or might not directly apply to the PGF:

 

Pretend example:   Tree #1 and Tree #2 each exactly 12 inches diameter (across) with exactly 10 feet between them (as measured by the right outside edge of tree #1 to the left outside edge of tree #2)

 

0<-------------------->0     Exactly 10 feet between the trees.  I report "I measured the trees and they are EXACTLY 10 feet apart"

 

Now take another person who assumes that 10 foot is from the center of tree #1 to the center of tree #2.   

 

T#1                       T#2

   <------------------------>

 

In that example, this would add, 6 inches + 6 inches = and addition 1 foot.   This would make a person conclude the distance between tree #1 and tree #2 was "exactly 11 feet" and not 10 feet.

 

Could that 1 foot error magnify other mistakes in calculating other things?

I am glad we know what we know but do we know for sure what we really think we know for sure?

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill
Posted (edited)

There is definitely an error in the data we have, as Redbone remarked a few posts ago. I've been struggling with trying to find the error for quite awhile. It could be something as simple as a tree measure off by 6 inches. But it's maddening trying to solve. Hopefully one day, we will resolve it and get to a factual analysis that correctly factors in all the data.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
17 hours ago, Bill said:

There is definitely an error in the data we have, as Redbone remarked a few posts ago. I've been struggling with trying to find the error for quite awhile. It could be something as simple as a tree measure off by 6 inches. But it's maddening trying to solve. Hopefully one day, we will resolve it and get to a factual analysis that correctly factors in all the data.

 

I don't see this situation as "maddening" at all, Bill.  I think one reason why some people see it that way, is because they have trouble accepting a film subject on the shorter side. The mindset, or pre-judgement, of a "tall" Patty might infer some "error" which doesn't really exist.

 

But, even if that is not the case....another reason why I don't find this modeling dilemma to be a maddening, or frustrating venture...is because the way I look at the analysis revolving around the modeling of the filmsite, and Patty's 'walked path'....is, it's not an "all or nothing" affair. The modeling, and the solutions derived from it, are not simply either "correct"...or "incorrect". 

 

There is a 'degree of error' involved in any filmsite model....and in any derived solutions. So, I look at this situation as one in which we can start with a fairly large 'degree of error'....and, through continual refinement of the model....(including refinement of the film-site measurements)….we can reduce the potential 'degree of error', and in so doing...continue to narrow-down a  'height range' for Patty. 

 

One fresh example of such refinement, AFAIC, has been the input from you, regarding trees TC1 and TC2 being down at the time when Rene Dahinden made his measurements of the distance between the 2 trees.....and, my proposal that that would mean he must have measured that distance down at 'ground level'.

That little bit of information should help in refining the modeling of the 'tree triangle'...and, in other related measurements.

 

 

Btw, I have been working on plotting a filmsite model, on a grid of 1' x 1' squares….starting with the 'TC1 - TC2 - Camera' Triangle....and plotting Patty's path onto it.....and refining it as I go. I will post my latest diagram, sometime soon. 

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Can I just say as a fan from the bleachers, you guys have continued to do an outstanding job in your analysis of the PGF and esp the filming site.  I am impressed how many of you have squeezed information out of what we have to go on.   When I consider this comes from some photos, a film, some early investigation attempts, and a filming site ever changing and very remote, and an event 50 years old, I am even more impressed.   

 

I would agree, Backdoc… ;) ....there has been a lot of good analytical work done, on the modeling of the filmsite….by a few members. 

 

Hopefully, there will be continued contributions from everyone involved....so we can "put our heads together", and keep making progress. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearfoot

SweatiYeti, Have been thinking about the piece of film where you called attention to Patty's buttocks. So many things on the film that raises doubt but also some that just can't be explained. Since a bipedal creature has to have buttocks what would a modern human female covered in hair the length of Patty's look like? Especially one who was a little overweight with rather large buttocks.  Maybe others here on the forum have a different opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
On 5/9/2020 at 10:00 PM, Bearfoot said:

SweatiYeti, Have been thinking about the piece of film where you called attention to Patty's buttocks. So many things on the film that raises doubt but also some that just can't be explained. Since a bipedal creature has to have buttocks what would a modern human female covered in hair the length of Patty's look like? Especially one who was a little overweight with rather large buttocks.  Maybe others here on the forum have a different opinion?

 

Sorry for the long delay in replying, Bearfoot…..I have been away, for a couple of days. 

 

I'm not sure how to answer your question, though. I'll have to think it over, and get back to you. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 5/9/2020 at 9:00 PM, Bearfoot said:

SweatiYeti, Have been thinking about the piece of film where you called attention to Patty's buttocks. So many things on the film that raises doubt but also some that just can't be explained. Since a bipedal creature has to have buttocks what would a modern human female covered in hair the length of Patty's look like? Especially one who was a little overweight with rather large buttocks.  Maybe others here on the forum have a different opinion?


Bear,

Bill Munns has examples of “overweight “ people taken at the beach for comparison of a “overweight” or “fat” person vs Patty.  Granted these people who are in skin and not covered in hair.   I think the buttock area and fat distribution on these people are good reference points to the concept you are talking about, even though it’s not a Harry subject.

 

Real people or real apes are not Patty but lacking a body we have to start somewhere.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...