Jump to content
Daniel Perez

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

Recommended Posts

Daniel Perez
Posted (edited)

Without question, the P-G filmsite (Patterson-Gimlin filmsite) has been relocated with 100% accuracy. And it can be proved.  Fixed landmarks, notably the trees and stumps that are still there. The "big tree" (a Douglas fir) can be seen today as it can be seen behind Patty in the original October 20, 1967 footage. 

 

Those who have located other "sites" as the P-G filmsite are plainly wrong, most notably M.K. Davis, and I suspect why he has chosen his own site is to put the spotlight on himself and his less than stellar research, rather than put the spotlight on those who did the work: Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin.

 

There was never a Munns-Perez site or a Munns site. When Bill Munns was there with us in the Summer of 2012 it was very clear to him within minutes of observing the site that this was indeed the P-G filmsite, and I believe he said words to the affect of "I'll sign off on this," meaning there was no doubt this was the P-G filmsite.

 

In the early days before there was any fuss about the location it was simply called the "filmsite," and later the late great René Dahinden started calling it the Patterson-Gimlin filmsite and in the Bigfoot Times newsletter (1998 to present) I simply opted for a shortened, abbreviated version: the P-G filmsite.

 

After René's death in 2001 the filmsite got "lost" as it were only because a great many trees had grown up in the area which in essence disguised the location and it was the fine work of Mr. Steven Streufert and Robert Leiterman and colleagues who set about the task of rediscovering the location, and Steven Streufert used my map in Bigfoot At Bluff Creek to get a precise bearing of the physical location.

Edited by Daniel Perez
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

^^ I watched some recent Davis videos from his Facebook page, it appears that he is still in total denial about where the actual site is.

 

He stated something to the effect of, "It can be anywhere you want it to be."

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I think it would be fair to say he is in denial about most truthful aspects of the PGF.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Yes, he comes across as delusional.

 

But he is definitely doubling down.

 

Reminds me of someone else... :)

 

 

Share this post


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

Clarification:

 

I mentioned I had observed a map or diagram posted on the BFF referring to many possible locations of the PGF film site.  After observing the YouTube video a bit back involving a team finding and showing the site and many landmarks, it leaves no doubt about the site.

 

I want to address any confusion my post might have caused in naming the site.  I was referring to names attributed by others on a diagram.  MK Davis site, Munns Site, Peter Burn site were sites others had noted - not me.  I was referring to their map and their attributions.  That is why I Referred to the “Munns-Perez, and others” site as the video features Munns, Perez, and many others just not names familiar to me as an average reader/ poster.

 

I hope my post did not rub anyone the wrong way on any of that.  I had no intention of causing any trouble in this way. Thankfully,  thanks to the work of many individuals we can just refer to the site as The Patterson Gimlin Film Site.

 

On a separate note, the thing that gave me the most “Wow!” Moment on the site YouTube video is when Bill Munns shows Roger’s filming location and it is like 5-7 feet Lower now than in 1967.  For those who have not watched the video, See It!

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Backdoc:

 

You didn't do anything wrong or offensive when you described various site locations by people associated with them. The labels were simply inaccurate, in terms of how we should properly identify the site. It is simply better to say one site is the real site, and other locations are mistaken sites. After that, nothing wrong with saying which researchers endorse which sites.

 

My correction was merely to ensure the site is always properly identified as the true PGF site. My contribution to locating and identifying it was not as important as the contributions of others (Steve, Robert, Ian, etc.)

 

actually, parts of the site, including exactly where Roger stood when he filmed the lookback, are about 8-9 feet lower.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

A reply to MindSquatch. Keep in mind that at the time in question, 1967 and sometime after that you could drive to the P-G filmsite, believe it or not. The whole area was actively logged at the time, but no longer. In fact, the P-G filmsite  may have been a turn around point for log haulers, as you could come off the Bluff Creek Road, cross the creek and be on the filmsite.

 

So no, it was not that hard to get to. Much harder to get to today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Just watched America Paranormal Bigfoot on YouTube recently.

 

There is a part where a couple guys take a Base Station by helicopter to the PGF film site.  The problem is when they land they state, "This is the exact site..." and "This is the sandbar where Patterson shot his film"    That can't be correct.  

 

It was impressive they took the Base Station and mapped out via computer the measurements of the site as they understood it to create a 'bigfoot' to walk across there.

 

Q   How close were they to the actual site?

Q   Have the since been made aware they are X distance away from the actual site?

 

 

This is at the 4:30 mark where they set off on the adventure by helicopter

At the 6:20 mark is where they say it is the exact location.

At 6:45 is where he states this is the sandbar.

Share this post


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

I saw this episode quite a few years ago. To answer your question, I don't know how close they were to the actual site. Likely just several hundred yards away downstream.

 

Not aware if they have been informed about the actual P-G filmsite exact whereabout and doubtful that anyone has reached out to correct the record.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Perez

Share this post


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

I have just thought of one possible way of determining whether there was a 20MM or a 25MM Lens on the PGF camera....and wanted to ask Bill Munns what he thinks, of the idea. 

 

The idea is very simple.....take a couple of pictures of the filmsite, as it is today....(one with each size lens)....from the approximate position where Roger stood/knelt....when he filmed the F352 segment of the film....and see which photograph more closely matches the horizontal field-of-view, with the PGF. 

 

For reference.....here is a full-frame version of F352...

 

F352-HQ4.jpg

 

 

The large trees across the back hillside are still (mostly) there...and hence, the background scene can still be seen/photographed, with enough objects....(trees and stumps)…..to see in which case there is a match....(20MM, or 25MM).

 

Here is an animated-gif I downloaded from Gigantofootecus' review of Bill Munns' 15MM Lens finding...in which Giganto enlarged/cropped a F352 image....to show how much difference there is in the horizontal field-of-view....between a 15MM Lens and a 25MM Lens...

 

15-25-Lens.gif

 

 

In the case of the 20MM Lens....(the only option other than the standard 25MM lens)….the differential would be half of what is seen in the animation....but still, a significant difference.

 

A link to Giganto's review...

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

Unfortunately, there is so much new growth in the area that was totally open in 1967, that from Roger's calculated position, you can't see any of the background trees. You just see new growth.

 

When I was there in 2012, you couldn't even see the big tree until you were about 40 feet from it.

 

The only prospect I imagine is using a camera drone sent up 50-75 feet straight up from Roger's calculated position, because the background trees we want to see are easily 100' or taller, and the new growth is mostly 20-35 ft. high, so if you can look over the new growth, you might still see the old PGF identified trees.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Bill said:

Sweaty:

 

Unfortunately, there is so much new growth in the area that was totally open in 1967, that from Roger's calculated position, you can't see any of the background trees. You just see new growth.

 

When I was there in 2012, you couldn't even see the big tree until you were about 40 feet from it.

 

The only prospect I imagine is using a camera drone sent up 50-75 feet straight up from Roger's calculated position, because the background trees we want to see are easily 100' or taller, and the new growth is mostly 20-35 ft. high, so if you can look over the new growth, you might still see the old PGF identified trees.

 

Bill

 

 

I thought the newer growth would be blocking some of the objects on the far hillside, Bill...but didn't know to what extent. I think Steven Streufert said they had done some clearing, on the main sandbar.  Do you know if Steven and his crew could possibly do any additional clearing-out? 

 

But, as far as this idea....it has some advantages to it, over the photogrammetry solution...which calls for the 'distance from Patty to the camera'. All we need to estimate is Roger's position on the sandbar.....and then see which lens provides an image which matches the horizontal field-of-view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools

What is the general consensus of the distance between Roger and Patty in frame 352?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 7/28/2019 at 11:49 PM, ThinkAboutPools said:

What is the general consensus of the distance between Roger and Patty in frame 352?

 

Someone with advanced knowledge will soon post an answer to this Q which will be reliable and accurate. I was thinking about 100ft. <---- don't take my word for it though.

 

Whatever that distance, it has been said by many people Roger shook the camera in an effort to blur-out the suit so you and I wouldn't know it was a suit.  Yet, it is a fact the point where Patty turns back to look at us (and the seconds around that walk) are the point on the PGF where Patty is 1) Closest  2) the film is near zero on being shaky (it's stable).  This seems to push back at the idea of any purposeful shake. That is, why would you want to risk suit flaw detection by providing for the examiner:  near-perfect sun conditions of that day when Patty is THE closest and THE most stable?  Add to the fact Patty is in the open in a grey clear creek bed vs some thick, dark, wooded area, and it really makes one Q Patty being a designed hoax.  (oh and old Roger used some of the best film of the era in 1967 to do the filming to get one of the best images possible).

 

Some distances on the PGF event were recorded by people who were there early  post-PGF filming.  Green and McClarin arrived the next year in 1968 where McClarin tried to walk as the filmed subject along the close path Patty took.  McClarin had reported somewhere he could still make out a couple tracks in 1968 which had residual plaster from the plaster impression Roger took (footprints) after the encounter.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Suns angle:

 

We are just 1 month away from the 51st anniversary of the PGF

 

the suns angle that day will be the same as the day of filming, at least at the same latitude.  1967 will be the same as 2019 come Oct 20th.

 

if anyone is considering shadows and suns angle issues for the PGF I just wanted to remind you, it’s about 1 month away.  

 

i went out last year on OCT 20th around 1pm ( and a few additional times) and faced forward as if I was looking toward Patty.  To me that sunlight was not a glare and made it easy to see detail on surrounding trees, bushes, people, and so on.

 

heads up guys,  If you have scientific ways to use this for pics of shadows, shadow direction, and so on, better get ready soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...