Jump to content

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018


Daniel Perez

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Twist said:

There are lots of claims about BF that are unfounded.   Why the obsession with this one?  

 

Because out of all of the other claims, Kit's supposed suit was the lynch pin to his own undoing. So he never produced the suit. Getting the ISF itself to pressure him to do it is a good move IMHO. Of course to date, the ISF had not done so either because no one thought of it or someone knew there was no suit but kept the carrot dangling. I think the ISF should make him come clean rather that be allowed to hide behind the ISF front line unchallenged.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hide behind a front?   What is this some war?  Let’s not lose sight of the fact we are talking about a single message board poster making a claim about a BF suit.   This is not national level security stuff here.  If you believe it is maybe it’s a time to step back from the internet and breath.  

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

Lighten up. You don't think it's a big deal fine. Just say so without the trash talk okay?

 

Lol, If that’s trash talk........😭

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

 

Lol, If that’s trash talk........😭

 

It's worthless talk. 

 

Btw, for a Bigfoot "proponent"....you sure do come across as a skeptic.  You repeat every 'party line' I have ever heard from the skeppy's.

 

Like it or not, Twist....I will continue making an effort to get to the bottom of kit's 'Patty suit' claim.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gigantor is correct, nobody there cares about any of this stuff.

 

All of the PGF threads at ISF have been dead for a long time now.

 

The "ISF" isn't going to "make" anyone do anything (LOL) and KK is long gone from the scene.

 

I'm with you Twist - some folks here are taking this hobby a little too seriously.

 

Deep breath - Real world, and repeat...

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OldMort said:

.....some folks.....

 

And others just criticize. But hey, it takes all kinds. Tolerant and intolerant. It's what makes the Forum.......uh......interesting?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Twist said:

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. 

 

I had no history with Kit having come late to the BFF party.  In fact, I was one of the few people here who actually didn't mind having Kit around even though we agreed on virtually nothing.  there have been times Kit helped me with some Q's or even some generic info about the PGF, names of people, types of suits, and so on.  You can imagine my surprise when I found out this guy had claimed he saw THE Patty suit in the study of Al in a glass cage/case.  I thought he was joking at first. For me, if it was a suit they destroyed it long ago if they did a hoax for money.  That alone made any suit claim hard to believe.

 

Now, he was not just making a small claim he was making a doozy.   Think about the level of what he was claiming here.  I offer the idea James Randi had stated it is OK to use tricks/lie/fool people so long as they are in on it at least eventually and you are doing it to teach a lesson.  Randi did this with his set- up of "Carlos" who was a regular joe who Randi manufactured claims of psychic powers.  Randi and Carlos fooled the public for a while and showed them how easy they could be fooled.   I compared Kit's suit- in -the- case along those lines as well.  Kit was either duped by someone (seeing what he thought was the suit when it was nothing) or Kit was trying to dupe the believers in Kit's mind to prove a point along the lines of Randi/ teach a lesson.   The more I learned the more I felt Kit was just full of it and I doubt it happened at all.

 

Sweaty wasn't the only one asking him about the claim. I asked on many occasions and cheered others that did as well. This was not because I saw this as a boxing match. This was because it should have been questioned.

 

I don't consider the issue of the Patty suit in a case as obsession but proper Push Back.  

 

Yes there are many bigfoot claims out there; many PGF claims as well.  They all should be questioned.  They are not all created equal however.  Response must be in proportion to the claim.

 

OK I'm moving on (or will try to)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
40 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

Gigantor is correct, nobody there cares about any of this stuff.

 

All of the PGF threads at ISF have been dead for a long time now.

 

The "ISF" isn't going to "make" anyone do anything (LOL) and KK is long gone from the scene.

 

I'm with you Twist - some folks here are taking this hobby a little too seriously.

 

Deep breath - Real world, and repeat...

 

 

 

 

O.k....Mort....taking deep breath......now, planning on trying to 'strike a deal' on Jref/ISF...for one of the scoffers there to help get to the truth behind kit's claim.

 

Is that ok with you

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

Kit was either duped by someone (seeing what he thought was the suit when it was nothing) or Kit was trying to dupe the believers in Kit's mind to prove a point along the lines of Randi/ teach a lesson.   The more I learned the more I felt Kit was just full of it and I doubt it happened at all.

 

I"m of the belief that the whole thing was a fabrication to garner attention. 

 

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

And others just criticize. But hey, it takes all kinds.

 

I feel I only criticize the bad posts/thoughts.  😁

 

Edited by Twist
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
59 minutes ago, OldMort said:

Hey, keep us posted buddy...

 

But to be honest, I would much rather see your new sun angle analysis. :)

 

 

If any progress is made, over on "Jref"....I certainly will mention it here. :) 

 

I'll post the work I've done...(and will be doing)....relating to 'sun angles', on this forum, at some point.  I have been able to pin-down the time of the filming, to within a pretty narrow 'window of time'. But, in addition to that...the same film data can tell us what the furthest distance was, that Patty could have been behind tree TC-2.

I still need to do more work, on that....drawing-out, on graph paper, a precise model of the location and angle of trees TC-1 and TC-2...the direction/angle of the tree shadows....and the angle of Patty's path, across the shadows. 

 

A lot of information can be derived from such a model...because the "interplay" between all those distances, lines and angles will only allow for a very limited range of possible models.

As Bill Munns and Giganto have both said, in the past....Patty cannot be very far behind tree TC--2.

 

The 'maximum distance' Patty could been, behind TC-2 is a significant piece of data...because, as I've mentioned....John Green's filmsite measurement diagram shows Jim's path as being 30' behind that tree....(probably 20 feet, or so further back than Patty was). 

 

And, John Green's measurement actually has some supporting evidence. A calculation made by Bill Munns...using the Photogrammetry formula....with a 25MM Lens in the equation, and using Jim McClarin's known 'body height'....gives a solution for Jim's 'distance from the camera'....(as he passes behind tree TC-2)...as 146'...…placing Jim 31' behind TC-2.

 

A match with John Green's measurement. 

 

 

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

^^^

 

im just going to skip my homework and copy off this guy.

 

Thanks, Backdoc….but, it isn't all my work.  :) 

 

Here is an excerpt from Bill Munns' Report....with his photogrammetry calculation, regarding Jim's 'distance from camera'....(at tree TC-2)...

 

Quote

"The applied optical lens formula (to solve for subject distance from camera, explained in detail in my original Report Release material) determines the following: McClarin's known height of 77" (6' 5") tall multiplied by 1" (focal length) (25MM Lens) divided by his size in frame (0.0438") equals 1,757. 99 inches, or 146.49 feet, his calculated distance from John's camera.

 

Thus, by the above calculations, McClarin is about 146 feet from John's camera passing tree TC2, but that tree is 115' from John (by his measurements), making McClarin about 31' back from that tree (based on his known height, size in frame, and the assumed 1 inch/25mm lens spec). But Patterson's filmed subject (PFS) is brushing up against tree TC-2 because of the shadow on her back, placing her about 115' from Roger's camera (which is a few feet closer than John's to that tree), or about 30 feet closer than McClarin to the filming camera.

 

This discrepancy of distance is 20% of McClarin's calculated distance, far more than the above margins of error even combined, to account for this. So the process must yield a conclusion the Patterson Filmed Subject is substantially closer to camera than McClarin. This then calculates the Patterson Filmed Subject (PFS) to be about 5' tall (approximately 20% shorter than McClarin)."

 

http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr%20release%201h%20part%20one.pdf

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2019 at 12:51 AM, 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. 

 

Sweaty, I'm sure there are some that will be elated at a later than 1:30 filming time and will try to make a lot of hay out of it. However, I think there is one thing everyone needs to keep in mind: Regardless of just what time the filming was done, it cannot change two important facts; Roger and Bob showed up at Al Hodgson's store later on the same day as the encounter, on the 20th, after casting the tracks; and the developed film was viewed by several people at Al DeAtley's house on Sunday, the 22nd. 

These events cannot get undone.  

 

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...