Jump to content

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018


Daniel Perez

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

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.

 

Thanks for mentioning that, Backdoc. :)

 

I have been working on the matter of the time of the filming, and have found a way in which it can be pinned-down to within a very small 'window of time'.  The time was significantly later than 1:30 PM.  I don't want to reveal what the filming time was, right now...for a couple of reasons. 

 

I was originally looking at the segment of the film where Patty crosses the shadows of trees TC-1 and TC-2...to determine what the maximum distance was, that she could have been behind tree TC-2 as she passed behind it....(for the purpose of getting a more accurate height comparison with Jim McClarin)....and, in working with the angles of the shadows....I realized they can be used in determining the time of the filming. 

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

 

Thanks for mentioning that, Backdoc. :)

 

I have been working on the matter of the time of the filming, and have found a way in which it can be pinned-down to within a very small 'window of time'.  The time was significantly later than 1:30 PM.  I don't want to reveal what the filming time was, right now...for a couple of reasons. 

 

I was originally looking at the segment of the film where Patty crosses the shadows of trees TC-1 and TC-2...to determine what the maximum distance was, that she could have been behind tree TC-2 as she passed behind it....(for the purpose of getting a more accurate height comparison with Jim McClarin)....and, in working with the angles of the shadows....I realized they can be used in determining the time of the filming. 

 

Hope your work gives you the payoff for us all!  I look forward to the reveal.  

 

Last year a few posters took pics from their yards on Oct 20th.  The shadows and sun had the "look" of the PGF but I guess so would a couple days before or after Oct 20th.

 

Later Time?

IF the PGF was shot later than the assumed 1:15 or 1:30pm that would give even less time for Roger and Bob to accomplish what they claimed to do.  I do keep in mind what Gimlin stated about how it gets darker earlier up in the mountains in October.  That point makes me think whatever they were trying to do they had the upcoming darkness in the back or their mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A coupla things to consider? The time back to camp for the plaster to cast the prints. Reel 2, or what there is of it shows Roger in somewhat low angled daylight casting a print. And then there's the photo of Roger holding the already casted prints. Was that just before sunset on Friday or very early or very late in the day on Saturday? And I've forgotten how Bob Gimlin's covering the tracks with bark/cardboard in the we hours of Saturday morning fits into the casting sequence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

A coupla things to consider? The time back to camp for the plaster to cast the prints. Reel 2, or what there is of it shows Roger in somewhat low angled daylight casting a print. And then there's the photo of Roger holding the already casted prints. Was that just before sunset on Friday or very early or very late in the day on Saturday?

 

 

A round of boxing is 3 min long.  When you watch the round, a lot of things happen in just 3 min.  I think we do need to consider all Bob and Roger claimed to do post- PGF event and see if they could fit them in.  Maybe they could and maybe they couldn't.  I'm open to both.   I think people can accomplish a lot of things in a short period of time though.  It's not like Patterson said, "If we ever see a bigfoot I want to do a stomp test"   It would be more like Roger reloading the camera while Bob is doing something else such as mixing and pouring plaster.  Then, as Roger walks over to the trackway with a newly loaded camera he starts filming the trackway. Then just seconds later he might say to Gimlin, "Bob claim up and jump off the stump for me.  Let's see how deep you go.   Wait, OK  I'm Ready."   That again just takes seconds.    That activity alone is just one off the list which doesn't take long.  They can do other activity while the plaster dries.  

 

Now the distances of travel, that is another thing all togather.

 

59 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

 And I've forgotten how Bob Gimlin's covering the tracks with bark/cardboard in the we hours of Saturday morning fits into the casting sequence. 

 

We can only go by Gimlin's claim here but that all did occur after the PGF events occurred.   Time is not so much an issue on that point but maybe others things are.  We do know from Al at the store Gimlin got the boxes from Al at the store so Al can confirm that.  It doesn't tell us if Patty is real or fake only that Al or someone said it might rain so, "Hey take these cardboard boxes"  Gimlin did not use them but did claim to use some bark early in the AM when the rain came to try to cover the tracks.  If there was no cardboard at the site the next day; that jives with the facts since Gimlin did not used the ruined/ wet boxes.   Gimlin claimed to cover a couple tracks with bark. I don't know if others claimed to have seen this bark.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

We can only go by Gimlin's claim here but that all did occur after the PGF events occurred.   Time is not so much an issue on that point but maybe others things are.  We do know from Al at the store Gimlin got the boxes from Al at the store so Al can confirm that.  It doesn't tell us if Patty is real or fake only that Al or someone said it might rain so, "Hey take these cardboard boxes"  Gimlin did not use them but did claim to use some bark early in the AM when the rain came to try to cover the tracks.  If there was no cardboard at the site the next day; that jives with the facts since Gimlin did not used the ruined/ wet boxes.   Gimlin claimed to cover a couple tracks with bark. I don't know if others claimed to have seen this bark.

 

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

And I've forgotten how Bob Gimlin's covering the tracks with bark/cardboard in the we hours of Saturday morning fits into the casting sequence

 

What I was getting at was the time, and day, that the prints were actually cast. I'm assuming it was late Friday afternoon and the photo of Roger holding those casts were just before sunset? Then Bob went out again early Saturday morning and covered tracks that maybe didn't get messed up from the casting process? And I don't remember Lyle Laverty saying anything about bark covered tracks so if that's the case then who uncovered them and why. Maybe that's part of the second reel? Which would have to have been be shot on Saturday? Or at least the remainder of the reel if the casting footage was done on the previous Friday afternoon?

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

 

What I was getting at was the time, and day, that the prints were actually cast. I'm assuming it was late Friday afternoon and the photo of Roger holding those casts were just before sunset? Then Bob went out again early Saturday morning and covered tracks that maybe didn't get messed up from the casting process? And I don't remember Lyle Laverty saying anything about bark covered tracks so if that's the case then who uncovered them and why. Maybe that's part of the second reel? Which would have to have been be shot on Saturday? Or at least the remainder of the reel if the casting footage was done on the previous Friday afternoon?

 

Great Q and points ( to which I don't have the answer).  I have asked in the past this Bark issue. That is, I would bet the person who was second to arrive would not expect to see the tracks covered.   Gimlin probably covered them, the first person arrives seeing the tracks AND some covered tracks (2 or 3?)  they pull the bark away and have no reason to put it back.  Then person 2, 3, 4, and so on arrive.    Those people then would not see the tracks covered.  It might even been seen as a lie Gimlin tells as some other arriving witness would correctly state, "I didn't see a couple tracks covered"  Yet, the reason they might not under that scenario is person #1 already removed them.  Gimlin could be 100% honest, person #1 (Loverty, or even some unknown person to us at this time) takes the bark away.  Then all that follow would state, "I didn't see or remove any bark"  

 

Cue the hardline skeptics here to say, "AaaaaaHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Gimlin is a liar!"

 

 

We would expect someone could claim the site initially looked like this:

 

 

 

 

 

0        0     0     [ X]      0      0    [X]      0        0       0

^Track                ^bark               ^bark    

 

 

 

Then, after they arrive...

 

 

 

 

 

0     0        0      0       0       0     0         0        0        0     <---- Just tracks 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
9 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Hope your work gives you the payoff for us all!  I look forward to the reveal.  

 

Last year a few posters took pics from their yards on Oct 20th.  The shadows and sun had the "look" of the PGF but I guess so would a couple days before or after Oct 20th.

 

 

 

There is a "payoff", Backdoc…..but it may not be what we Bigfoot proponents would like to hear.  The time of the filming was well after 1:30. I am 100% certain of that. 

 

I'm holding off on posting the time that I worked-out....for a specific reason. But I'll post my work, with the 'filming time'....before too long. :) 

 

 

Quote

Later Time?

IF the PGF was shot later than the assumed 1:15 or 1:30pm that would give even less time for Roger and Bob to accomplish what they claimed to do.  I do keep in mind what Gimlin stated about how it gets darker earlier up in the mountains in October.  That point makes me think whatever they were trying to do they had the upcoming darkness in the back or their mind.

 

The actual filming time doesn't give them a lot of time to accomplish the tasks they did...but, I still think things went the way they claimed. 

 

Due to several details on the film subject's body....(most significantly....it's arm length, and proportion)....I am absolutely certain that it is/was a real creature...and not a 'guy in a suit'. 

 

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

 

 

Due to several details on the film subject's body....(most significantly....it's arm length, and proportion)....I am absolutely certain that it is/was a real creature...and not a 'guy in a suit'. 

 

 

 

I have always said many things Roger and Bob claimed could be Wrong by honest mistake OR, for reasons of their own, a lie or designed misrepresentation and STILL Patty could be real.  

 

I have even thought it possible, for reasons of their own, Roger and Bob might have been deceitful for some way to keep others from cashing in.  Maybe after the excitement and when they cleared their heads they just continued with the standard story since they were already all in.  This would have nothing to do with the creature.

 

Is it possible there was some deceit on Roger and Bob's part early on what day the filmed, time, or whatever as they were afraid someone else might film Patty and jump their fame and $$$$$$.  I don't know.  

 

I'll go where the facts take me.  Keep up the good work.

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

 

 

I have always said many things Roger and Bob claimed could be Wrong by honest mistake OR, for reasons of their own, a lie or designed misrepresentation and STILL Patty could be real.  

 

I have even thought it possible, for reasons of their own, Roger and Bob might have been deceitful for some way to keep others from cashing in.  Maybe after the excitement and when they cleared their heads they just continued with the standard story since they were already all in.  This would have nothing to do with the creature.

 

Is it possible there was some deceit on Roger and Bob's part early on what day the filmed, time, or whatever as they were afraid someone else might film Patty and jump their fame and $$$$$$.  I don't know.  

 

I'll go where the facts take me.  Keep up the good work.

 

 

Thanks, Backdoc….I'll certainly try to. :) 

 

I don't mind following the evidence, either....wherever it leads.  I tried very hard to get answers, and evidence of substance, from kita-KABOOM-ze, regarding his 'Patty suit' claim....but, to no avail. 

 

And, on that note....the reason why I've decided to wait on revealing the time of the filming, is because I am thinking of trying to 'strike a deal' on Jref/ISF, with one of the members there....regarding an exchange of potential hoax evidence.

 

The trade being.....a significantly later 'filming time', for the PGF.....in exchange for this person questioning his buddy kitakaze...on his 'Patty suit' claim.  On the BFF, kit could play his evasive games with us proponents....but I don't think that tactic would fly over there...with his skeptic buddies. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, Twist said:

The obsession never ends.  😔

 

 

Just as your obsession never ends. ;) 

 

The difference being, Twist...my obsession is, and has been for a kindof a long time.....the discovery, and proof, of the truth behind the most controversial film of it's kind. This film deserves all the thoughtful attention, it can get. 

 

kit's claim is a part of that controversy/mystery....and I will take an interest in that, for as long as I need to.

 

So, anyway.....pretty cool idea, don't you think?!…..I give the losers over on Jref an incentive to question kitakaze, on his claim....and to actually get to the truth behind his claim.....and, in return....I give them something they can promote as "evidence of a PGF hoax".   :beach: 

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

 

 

 

 

So, anyway.....pretty cool idea, don't you think?!…..I give the losers over on Jref an incentive to question kitakaze, on his claim....and to actually get to the truth behind his claim.....and, in return....I give them something they can promote as "evidence of a PGF hoax".   :beach: 

 

You would think once some other forum -said to be devoted to the truth -found out about the confessions/suit in glass story, they would demand answers.  Most I would think are skeptics on JREF with many full of themselves/big Egos.  It would seem they would not be happy having someone, one of their own,  withhold info to prove their position.  Someone claims to have two items of proof Patty is fake and they refuse to share?!    Hmmmmmm.  Where is their outrage?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
16 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

Where is their outrage?  

 

This is what many here don't realize:

 

They Don't care at all.

 

The fact that you guys take the subject seriously is part of the fun for them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 9:58 AM, gigantor said:

 

This is what many here don't realize:

 

They Don't care at all.

 

The fact that you guys take the subject seriously is part of the fun for them.

 

 

 

You are right in the big pic but can I offer this:

 

Any 100% convinced skeptic coming to the BFF several 1000 times must care deeply about something related to Bigfoot.   What could that be?  Consider what the mental process is for someone who is not just a skeptic, but 100% iron- clad convinced skeptic, and yet a frequent flyer on the BFF.   I agree such a person doesn't care what I think or what 'believers' think about Bigfoot but clearly they have a deep need to be heard by those same believers.  Why?

 

The best I can tell they have not just some childish need to try to show how smart they think they are but to take some glee in sticking the knife in and twisting.  They can't get enough of the glee they will feel when the 'face melting' starts to happen.

 

So do the 'skeptics' care? I would say at least one skeptic cares too much.  It's like an addiction.   Just gotta have that face-melting. 

 

 

Prove it:

This is why there was 100% nothing wrong to have someone like Sweaty and others asking multiple times for proof of a suit claim.  Simply put, if a skeptic making such a claim offers up the proof Sweaty would not have to keep asking for it.  It is not Sweaty, me or others who are keeping at it, it is the man making the claim who Keeps making the claim and offering no proof!     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he still making claims?   He hasn’t done so on here in some time, I believe he’s banned.   There are lots of claims about BF that are unfounded.   Why the obsession with this one?   I suspect that given the history these two have (years upon years as I understand) it’s more personal than a suit claim hence why I label it an obsession. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor locked and unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...