Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3 - Page 116

LTC8K6 · 19th November 2010, 01:22 PM

Sewer birds?

Drewbot · 19th November 2010, 01:27 PM

This might work

Óðinn · 19th November 2010, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Maybe you could list your reason(s) why.

I see you missed the whole point of the sun height graphic. From the hilltop view it is apparent there was enough open space so the trees wouldn't necessarily block the sun. In which case the horizon at the PGF site could have blocked the sun before sunset. I don't claim it was likely that the sun was in full view at 5pm Oct 20 at the PGF site, but apparently it was possible from an astronomical point of view. That's all.

I didn't think the footage of Roger casting a track was from the 2nd reel because I couldn't see the next track and supposedly Roger was filmed "practice" casting. Also, I wasn't convinced that the same camera was used that shot the PGF. However, that has all changed now that I've confirmed the aspect ratio of the 2nd reel frames, plus you've identified the next track and matched the casted track to the LeClerc composite. Nice job! I'm not sure how I missed it but that orange footage didn't help.

I'm getting more and more convinced that all the alleged 2nd reel and PGF footage were shot with the same camera. At least their aspect ratios match and I think I found a common scratch on the PGF and some of the 2nd reel frames. Looks like the same scratch might be on the casting frames too. It seems at least they went thru the same machine that scratched each film. Could have been Green's projector I suppose.

So far it's possible the 2nd reel was shot as claimed, after the PGF at the PGF site. Now to pin down the date and time of day.

Óðinn · 19th November 2010, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

Here is the image that some have suggested was shot at 5pm when the sun was at an angle of 14-15 degrees ie very low. Note the short shadow cast by Patterson's body (red and blue arrow) and the shadow under Patterson's plaster jug. Also note the small object and shadow at the end of the red arrow.
The second image is that of me taken with the sun at a similar angle, according to the NOAA site. http://i52.tinypic.com/1zltcac.gif
http://i52.tinypic.com/2r5qam1.jpg
Note my shadow going off the sidewalk and well into the street.
Note the absence of a shadow under my clorox jug (it's up on my leg).
Note the length of the shadow of the small object on the pavement in front of me.
I slept at the Holiday Inn last night, and there is no way that Patterson still was shot at 5pm on October 20, 1967.

Nice re-enactment. But you didn't quite nail it. You may be correct that the shadows aren't long enough for 4pm PST Oct 20, but that was the basis of the sundial. Hypothetically, if the casting frame was shot at the PGF site on Oct 20th, it was some time after 12:30pm PST. The sundial shows the position of the sun (azimuth) at 12:30 (1:30pm PDST) when the PGF was supposedly shot. The azimuth angle appears to change by approx 50-60 degrees, which is ~3.5 hours.

The altitude angle (sun height) is a whole other story. I didn't consider it in my hypothetical. I was testing the casting footage as if it was shot as claimed. Maybe the altitude angle would dispute this, as you've attempted to show. Let's have a look.

I say you didn't nail your demo because of a few things. You have the camera relative to the sun angles wrong, your body position isn't quite right and your distance from the camera is wrong. What size lens did you use?

Somehow I doubt your demo was taken at 4pm PST Oct 20th. IF the casting frame was taken Oct 20, then the longest part of Roger's shadow was hidden behind his body (as was the rest of the trackway). Not saying that was the case, but IMO it must have been if the casting footage is authentic.

So what did the shadow on your face look like? I recommend giving this one another shot by looking up the azimuth for 5pm PDST Oct 20 (which you have done) then look up the time of day that the sun is this height for this time of year in your neck of the woods. Then go out and try it again at this time. But this time try to position the camera and your body so that your shadow is hidden from the camera view. It's more important to test if you can replicate this footage, than try to demonstrate otherwise. If you show several orientations that cover all the possibilities without reproducing this frame then it's busted. But it will take several examples that cover all the bases to do this.

Good luck!

ETA: Space 2 14.5" long flat objects 41" apart and use them to est your camera distance. Make them appear as in the casting frame.

GT/CS · 19th November 2010, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Nice re-enactment. But you didn't quite nail it. You may be correct that the shadows aren't long enough for 4pm PST Oct 20, but that was the basis of the sundial. Hypothetically, if the casting frame was shot at the PGF site on Oct 20th, it was some time after 12:30pm PST. The sundial shows the position of the sun (azimuth) at 12:30 (1:30pm PDST) when the PGF was supposedly shot. The azimuth angle appears to change by approx 50-60 degrees, which is ~3.5 hours.

The altitude angle (sun height) is a whole other story. I didn't consider it in my hypothetical. I was testing the casting footage as if it was shot as claimed. Maybe the altitude angle would dispute this, as you've attempted to show. Let's have a look.

I say you didn't nail your demo because of a few things. You have the camera relative to the sun angles wrong, your body position isn't quite right and your distance from the camera is wrong. What size lens did you use?

Somehow I doubt your demo was taken at 4pm PST Oct 20th. IF the casting frame was taken Oct 20, then the longest part of Roger's shadow was hidden behind his body (as was the rest of the trackway). Not saying that was the case, but IMO it must have been if the casting footage is authentic.

So what did the shadow on your face look like? I recommend giving this one another shot by looking up the azimuth for 5pm PDST Oct 20 (which you have done) then look up the time of day that the sun is this height for this time of year in your neck of the woods. Then go out and try it again at this time. But this time try to position the camera and your body so that your shadow is hidden from the camera view. It's more important to test if you can replicate this footage, than try to demonstrate otherwise. If you show several orientations that cover all the possibilities without reproducing this frame then it's busted. But it will take several examples that cover all the bases to do this.

Good luck!

I think he got it right. Why don't you do a similar recreation showing he got it wrong.

Skeptical Greg · 19th November 2010, 04:36 PM

Mangler got it right also ..

Got to see if I can find the 3D model he made of the casting..

Bingo: ( The modeled sun elevation is 41 degrees. Higher than the Sun maximum on Oct 20 )
I'm sure Óðinn will share with us the problems he has with Mangler's work ...

DennyT · 20th November 2010, 12:02 AM

My photo was shot a couple of days ago. Obviously not near Bluff Creek (notice the palm trees). I obviously could only match the sun angle of October 20, not the simultaneous azimuth; I just tried to approximate the angle between solar azimuth and camera axis.

My wife was at work at the time so I just used a tripod and delay timer on my DSLR; thus I had no "director" to help me match the pose exactly. It was shot at about 7 feet, with a crop frame sensor so the effective focal length was around 50-55. But I did about 12 shots and they were all a bit different. It wasn't meant to be anything more than a demonstration of the issue of relative shadow length.

DennyT · 20th November 2010, 12:31 AM

D, no animals were harmed in the making of this film. Except me.

also, I am surprised that no one identified the blobsquatch in the background.

DennyT · 20th November 2010, 12:56 AM

DeAtley's projector seems to have been a prominent scratcher. Jim McLarin thinks it is possible that the "second reel" was showed Oct 22. Others disagree. At any rate, I think it is a reasonable assumption that Patterson's films were run through DeAtley's projector, possibly several times, either that day or some other day, before release. Common scratches may have arisen from that.

William Parcher · 20th November 2010, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

You can see the same knee and boot marks in the composite next to the track...

The kneeling knee mark looks like it might even be deeper than the track itself and Roger was a tiny lightweight man. Maybe they didn't show a stomp test because it produced results that were deeper than Patty.

William Parcher · 20th November 2010, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I see you missed the whole point of the sun height graphic. From the hilltop view it is apparent there was enough open space so the trees wouldn't necessarily block the sun. In which case the horizon at the PGF site could have blocked the sun before sunset. I don't claim it was likely that the sun was in full view at 5pm Oct 20 at the PGF site, but apparently it was possible from an astronomical point of view. That's all.

Well, we don't know when Dahinden took that elevated photo in 1971. It may have been summer with the sun high in the sky. One thing we do see with the partial sandbar shadowing... it isn't the mountain ridge itself causing the shadowing - it's the dense and towering trees growing on it.

What I'm saying is that your Google horizon view could trick you into thinking that the sandbar still has direct sunlight as late as 5pm on Oct. 20th.

Maybe somebody could also calculate the sun angle at Bluff Creek for:

Oct. 5th (possible BH day)
Oct. 12th (possible BH day)
Oct. 17th (possible day of demo cast film as told to Krantz)

demonunderyourbed · 20th November 2010, 03:01 PM

"also, I am surprised that no one identified the blobsquatch in the background."

clearly by the shear size of it and its muscle structure,its to big to be a man in a suit. and could we recreate a suit that good anyway???? best ask some guy who worked for jim henson he'd be your best expert lololol

DennyT · 20th November 2010, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by demonunderyourbed

"also, I am surprised that no one identified the blobsquatch in the background."

clearly by the shear size of it and its muscle structure,its to big to be a man in a suit. and could we recreate a suit that good anyway???? best ask some guy who worked for jim henson he'd be your best expert lololol

The subject was apparently between 6 feet and 6 feet 5, wearing shoulder pads, and had his clothes on under the suit.

demonunderyourbed · 20th November 2010, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

The subject was apparently between 6 feet and 6 feet 5, wearing shoulder pads, and had his clothes on under the suit.

tut well now you mention it i can clearly see that now..i was being distracted by the sun glinting on its glass eye...

Óðinn · 20th November 2010, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

I think he got it right. Why don't you do a similar recreation showing he got it wrong.

Why don't you?

DennyT · 20th November 2010, 06:44 PM

Óðinn · 20th November 2010, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Mangler got it right also ..

Got to see if I can find the 3D model he made of the casting..

Bingo: ( The modeled sun elevation is 41 degrees. Higher than the Sun maximum on Oct 20 )
I'm sure Óðinn will share with us the problems he has with Mangler's work ...

Mangler backed off on this one, for unspecified reasons.

Skeptical Greg · 20th November 2010, 07:31 PM

Maybe because it was done ?

Óðinn · 20th November 2010, 08:08 PM

Nope. But why don't you ask him?

William Parcher · 23rd November 2010, 07:28 PM

Swastika Steve is so screwed up in his analysis to determine the actual location of the PGF that he doesn't even realize that he is looking at a flipped PGF frame. See his video Part 3...

LTC8K6 · 23rd November 2010, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Swastika Steve is so screwed up in his analysis to determine the actual location of the PGF that he doesn't even realize that he is looking at a flipped PGF frame. See his video Part 3...

That's pathetic.

What are the odds that if I tell them in a comment, that they will deny it?

AlaskaBushPilot · 23rd November 2010, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

It wasn't meant to be anything more than a demonstration of the issue of relative shadow length.

Nicely done.

I saw a photo from even higher up above the site than has been posted here yet. My first impression on seeing it was how deep and steep the terrain is.

I think I'll try to find it because it lends more credence to the doubt there could be direct sunshine at 5 pm.

River · 23rd November 2010, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Swastika Steve is so screwed up in his analysis to determine the actual location of the PGF that he doesn't even realize that he is looking at a flipped PGF frame. See his video Part 3...

I noticed that too. I believe that was from discovery? I think that is John Green speaking in the background during the begining "theres Bob now with the packhorse". Is it though? Where is the wig?

AlaskaBushPilot · 23rd November 2010, 09:43 PM

This picture is from "The Larry Lund Collection" here:

http:thelarrylundcollection.blogspot.com/

I'll need to look at a topographical map to get the stream orientation, but it is pretty clear how steep and high the terrain is. The sun would have to be at just the right angle shining through the draw or else very high in the sky in order to shine directly on the scene.

AlaskaBushPilot · 23rd November 2010, 10:49 PM

This is the google earth shot of the site at 41.44 N 123.7 W.

Coincidentally the shot was taken on october 13 2006. Not sure what time, but check out the shadows, not quite due north. So it is just before solar noon. Almost all of Bluff Creek is entirely in the shade.

I am not sure about the exact location of the photo that I posted earlier because there was no caption to it. But it seems to me that the site would be in the shade at 5 pm in October from this google earth shot.

William Parcher · 24th November 2010, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

That's pathetic. What are the odds that if I tell them in a comment, that they will deny it?

He responded with 100% mumbojumbo.

Originally Posted by River

I noticed that too. I believe that was from discovery?

Yeah. He and his partner are lost in a world of confusion. They think they are looking at a "seep" or water puddle or something and that they will make a note to look for that the next time they go hunting for the exact location. Duh! They are looking at the flowing creek itself... just like it is illustrated in Titmus' map which they are also looking at. They can't seem to connect the dots and realize that they are seeing the actual root logjam (said to conceal Patty) and the creek running under it. You can even see little riffles in the moving water.

This is what they are imagining since they make no mention of a flipped frame. If you watch their video and follow the conversation closely - it's obvious that they do not account for a flipped frame at all. They talk as if there is nothing wrong with the scene.

Steve & Robert's Patty World Panorama...

William Parcher · 24th November 2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by River

I think that is John Green speaking in the background during the begining "theres Bob now with the packhorse". Is it though? Where is the wig?

It is Gimlin and he isn't wearing the wig.

LTC8K6 · 24th November 2010, 09:38 AM

Yeah, I decided to just post a link to your post, WP. I decided not to try and explain anything to him about the flipped frames at the beginning of that copy of the PGF. Heck, he's unlikely to listen to anything from me.

I remember long ago when the flipped frames were under discussion.

I cannot remember if the same copy has the repeated frames as well, though.

William Parcher · 24th November 2010, 09:44 AM

National Geographic showed repeated (looped) frames within the Patty walk scene.

SweatyYeti · 24th November 2010, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Just to be clear... this is the "next track"?...

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/14766522.gif

Here you go, William....I measured where Patty's next footprint would have been...(for a step length of 41")...

Drewbot · 24th November 2010, 11:20 AM

How do you know? Do you know if that is an incline or a decline slope? Did you take that into account?

William Parcher · 24th November 2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Here you go, William....I measured where Patty's next footprint would have been...(for a step length of 41")...

I put Meldrum's measurements at the top, then did a calculation. It looks like foreshortening creates an illusion in the plaster pour scene. One can (wrongly) think that the "next track" ought to be further away than it actually is.

SweatyYeti · 24th November 2010, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

How do you know? Do you know if that is an incline or a decline slope? Did you take that into account?

The long shadow is straight, isn't it? The ground, right there, is flat....for the most part.

GT/CS · 24th November 2010, 12:25 PM

Because the camera is so close to the ground and so close to the plaster print I doubt it's possible to accurately calculate how far the thing that looks like the next track is from the plaster track.

LTC8K6 · 24th November 2010, 12:27 PM

Perspective compression from the camera lens is also a factor imo.

LTC8K6 · 24th November 2010, 12:29 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Focal_length.jpg

DennyT · 24th November 2010, 01:06 PM

The Meldrum composite is quite distorted. The images of the distal prints were not taken from a perpendicular POV. This compresses the step length and the length of the print. You can make the trackway look a number of different ways depending on which frames you choose to make the composite.

SweatyYeti · 24th November 2010, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Perspective compression from the camera lens is also a factor imo.

You're right, it is a factor. I didn't have time to deal with it on my lunch break.....so I didn't.
At such short distances, though, it wouldn't make a big difference in the diagram.

But, in response to WP's post....here is where it measures for a shorter 'step length'....with approx. 20" of space between the footprints...

LTC8K6 · 24th November 2010, 01:23 PM

There is, what may be a track in the background, right at Roger's eyes.

DennyT · 24th November 2010, 02:50 PM

can't just measure pixels.

get it?

19th November 2010, 01:22 PM	#4601
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 15,985	Sewer birds?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

19th November 2010, 01:27 PM	#4602
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,440	This might work
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,440	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

19th November 2010, 03:20 PM	#4603
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by William Parcher Maybe you could list your reason(s) why. I see you missed the whole point of the sun height graphic. From the hilltop view it is apparent there was enough open space so the trees wouldn't necessarily block the sun. In which case the horizon at the PGF site could have blocked the sun before sunset. I don't claim it was likely that the sun was in full view at 5pm Oct 20 at the PGF site, but apparently it was possible from an astronomical point of view. That's all. I didn't think the footage of Roger casting a track was from the 2nd reel because I couldn't see the next track and supposedly Roger was filmed "practice" casting. Also, I wasn't convinced that the same camera was used that shot the PGF. However, that has all changed now that I've confirmed the aspect ratio of the 2nd reel frames, plus you've identified the next track and matched the casted track to the LeClerc composite. Nice job! I'm not sure how I missed it but that orange footage didn't help. I'm getting more and more convinced that all the alleged 2nd reel and PGF footage were shot with the same camera. At least their aspect ratios match and I think I found a common scratch on the PGF and some of the 2nd reel frames. Looks like the same scratch might be on the casting frames too. It seems at least they went thru the same machine that scratched each film. Could have been Green's projector I suppose. So far it's possible the 2nd reel was shot as claimed, after the PGF at the PGF site. Now to pin down the date and time of day.
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598	Last edited by Óðinn; 19th November 2010 at 04:08 PM.

19th November 2010, 03:58 PM	#4604
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by parnassus Here is the image that some have suggested was shot at 5pm when the sun was at an angle of 14-15 degrees ie very low. Note the short shadow cast by Patterson's body (red and blue arrow) and the shadow under Patterson's plaster jug. Also note the small object and shadow at the end of the red arrow. The second image is that of me taken with the sun at a similar angle, according to the NOAA site. http://i52.tinypic.com/1zltcac.gif http://i52.tinypic.com/2r5qam1.jpg Note my shadow going off the sidewalk and well into the street. Note the absence of a shadow under my clorox jug (it's up on my leg). Note the length of the shadow of the small object on the pavement in front of me. I slept at the Holiday Inn last night, and there is no way that Patterson still was shot at 5pm on October 20, 1967. Nice re-enactment. But you didn't quite nail it. You may be correct that the shadows aren't long enough for 4pm PST Oct 20, but that was the basis of the sundial. Hypothetically, if the casting frame was shot at the PGF site on Oct 20th, it was some time after 12:30pm PST. The sundial shows the position of the sun (azimuth) at 12:30 (1:30pm PDST) when the PGF was supposedly shot. The azimuth angle appears to change by approx 50-60 degrees, which is ~3.5 hours. The altitude angle (sun height) is a whole other story. I didn't consider it in my hypothetical. I was testing the casting footage as if it was shot as claimed. Maybe the altitude angle would dispute this, as you've attempted to show. Let's have a look. I say you didn't nail your demo because of a few things. You have the camera relative to the sun angles wrong, your body position isn't quite right and your distance from the camera is wrong. What size lens did you use? Somehow I doubt your demo was taken at 4pm PST Oct 20th. IF the casting frame was taken Oct 20, then the longest part of Roger's shadow was hidden behind his body (as was the rest of the trackway). Not saying that was the case, but IMO it must have been if the casting footage is authentic. So what did the shadow on your face look like? I recommend giving this one another shot by looking up the azimuth for 5pm PDST Oct 20 (which you have done) then look up the time of day that the sun is this height for this time of year in your neck of the woods. Then go out and try it again at this time. But this time try to position the camera and your body so that your shadow is hidden from the camera view. It's more important to test if you can replicate this footage, than try to demonstrate otherwise. If you show several orientations that cover all the possibilities without reproducing this frame then it's busted. But it will take several examples that cover all the bases to do this. Good luck! ETA: Space 2 14.5" long flat objects 41" apart and use them to est your camera distance. Make them appear as in the casting frame.
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598	Last edited by Óðinn; 19th November 2010 at 04:31 PM.

19th November 2010, 04:23 PM	#4605
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,164	Originally Posted by Óðinn Nice re-enactment. But you didn't quite nail it. You may be correct that the shadows aren't long enough for 4pm PST Oct 20, but that was the basis of the sundial. Hypothetically, if the casting frame was shot at the PGF site on Oct 20th, it was some time after 12:30pm PST. The sundial shows the position of the sun (azimuth) at 12:30 (1:30pm PDST) when the PGF was supposedly shot. The azimuth angle appears to change by approx 50-60 degrees, which is ~3.5 hours. The altitude angle (sun height) is a whole other story. I didn't consider it in my hypothetical. I was testing the casting footage as if it was shot as claimed. Maybe the altitude angle would dispute this, as you've attempted to show. Let's have a look. I say you didn't nail your demo because of a few things. You have the camera relative to the sun angles wrong, your body position isn't quite right and your distance from the camera is wrong. What size lens did you use? Somehow I doubt your demo was taken at 4pm PST Oct 20th. IF the casting frame was taken Oct 20, then the longest part of Roger's shadow was hidden behind his body (as was the rest of the trackway). Not saying that was the case, but IMO it must have been if the casting footage is authentic. So what did the shadow on your face look like? I recommend giving this one another shot by looking up the azimuth for 5pm PDST Oct 20 (which you have done) then look up the time of day that the sun is this height for this time of year in your neck of the woods. Then go out and try it again at this time. But this time try to position the camera and your body so that your shadow is hidden from the camera view. It's more important to test if you can replicate this footage, than try to demonstrate otherwise. If you show several orientations that cover all the possibilities without reproducing this frame then it's busted. But it will take several examples that cover all the bases to do this. Good luck! I think he got it right. Why don't you do a similar recreation showing he got it wrong.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,164	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

20th November 2010, 12:02 AM	#4607
DennyT Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,526	My photo was shot a couple of days ago. Obviously not near Bluff Creek (notice the palm trees). I obviously could only match the sun angle of October 20, not the simultaneous azimuth; I just tried to approximate the angle between solar azimuth and camera axis. My wife was at work at the time so I just used a tripod and delay timer on my DSLR; thus I had no "director" to help me match the pose exactly. It was shot at about 7 feet, with a crop frame sensor so the effective focal length was around 50-55. But I did about 12 shots and they were all a bit different. It wasn't meant to be anything more than a demonstration of the issue of relative shadow length.
	__________________ unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends. Last edited by DennyT; 20th November 2010 at 12:33 AM.

20th November 2010, 12:31 AM	#4608
DennyT Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,526	D, no animals were harmed in the making of this film. Except me. also, I am surprised that no one identified the blobsquatch in the background.
	__________________ unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends. Last edited by DennyT; 20th November 2010 at 12:42 AM.

20th November 2010, 12:56 AM	#4609
DennyT Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,526	DeAtley's projector seems to have been a prominent scratcher. Jim McLarin thinks it is possible that the "second reel" was showed Oct 22. Others disagree. At any rate, I think it is a reasonable assumption that Patterson's films were run through DeAtley's projector, possibly several times, either that day or some other day, before release. Common scratches may have arisen from that.
	__________________ unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.

20th November 2010, 09:13 AM	#4610
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,975	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 You can see the same knee and boot marks in the composite next to the track... The kneeling knee mark looks like it might even be deeper than the track itself and Roger was a tiny lightweight man. Maybe they didn't show a stomp test because it produced results that were deeper than Patty.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

20th November 2010, 09:25 AM	#4611
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,975	Originally Posted by Óðinn I see you missed the whole point of the sun height graphic. From the hilltop view it is apparent there was enough open space so the trees wouldn't necessarily block the sun. In which case the horizon at the PGF site could have blocked the sun before sunset. I don't claim it was likely that the sun was in full view at 5pm Oct 20 at the PGF site, but apparently it was possible from an astronomical point of view. That's all. Well, we don't know when Dahinden took that elevated photo in 1971. It may have been summer with the sun high in the sky. One thing we do see with the partial sandbar shadowing... it isn't the mountain ridge itself causing the shadowing - it's the dense and towering trees growing on it. What I'm saying is that your Google horizon view could trick you into thinking that the sandbar still has direct sunlight as late as 5pm on Oct. 20th. Maybe somebody could also calculate the sun angle at Bluff Creek for: Oct. 5th (possible BH day) Oct. 12th (possible BH day) Oct. 17th (possible day of demo cast film as told to Krantz)
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

20th November 2010, 03:01 PM	#4612
demonunderyourbed Guest Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 245	"also, I am surprised that no one identified the blobsquatch in the background." clearly by the shear size of it and its muscle structure,its to big to be a man in a suit. and could we recreate a suit that good anyway???? best ask some guy who worked for jim henson he'd be your best expert lololol
demonunderyourbed Guest Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 245	Last edited by demonunderyourbed; 20th November 2010 at 03:03 PM.

20th November 2010, 03:14 PM	#4613
DennyT Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,526	Originally Posted by demonunderyourbed "also, I am surprised that no one identified the blobsquatch in the background." clearly by the shear size of it and its muscle structure,its to big to be a man in a suit. and could we recreate a suit that good anyway???? best ask some guy who worked for jim henson he'd be your best expert lololol The subject was apparently between 6 feet and 6 feet 5, wearing shoulder pads, and had his clothes on under the suit.
	__________________ unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.

20th November 2010, 04:33 PM	#4614
demonunderyourbed Guest Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by parnassus The subject was apparently between 6 feet and 6 feet 5, wearing shoulder pads, and had his clothes on under the suit. tut well now you mention it i can clearly see that now..i was being distracted by the sun glinting on its glass eye...
demonunderyourbed Guest Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 245

20th November 2010, 06:38 PM	#4615
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by GT/CS I think he got it right. Why don't you do a similar recreation showing he got it wrong. Why don't you?
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598

20th November 2010, 06:44 PM	#4616
DennyT Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,526
	__________________ unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.

20th November 2010, 07:20 PM	#4617
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Mangler got it right also .. Got to see if I can find the 3D model he made of the casting.. Bingo: ( The modeled sun elevation is 41 degrees. Higher than the Sun maximum on Oct 20 ) I'm sure Óðinn will share with us the problems he has with Mangler's work ... Mangler backed off on this one, for unspecified reasons.
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598

20th November 2010, 07:31 PM	#4618
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 13,751	Maybe because it was done ?
	__________________ " What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? " Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !

20th November 2010, 08:08 PM	#4619
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598	Nope. But why don't you ask him?
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 598

23rd November 2010, 08:09 PM	#4621
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 15,985	Originally Posted by William Parcher Swastika Steve is so screwed up in his analysis to determine the actual location of the PGF that he doesn't even realize that he is looking at a flipped PGF frame. See his video Part 3... That's pathetic. What are the odds that if I tell them in a comment, that they will deny it?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

23rd November 2010, 09:16 PM	#4622
AlaskaBushPilot Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,190	Originally Posted by parnassus It wasn't meant to be anything more than a demonstration of the issue of relative shadow length. Nicely done. I saw a photo from even higher up above the site than has been posted here yet. My first impression on seeing it was how deep and steep the terrain is. I think I'll try to find it because it lends more credence to the doubt there could be direct sunshine at 5 pm.

23rd November 2010, 09:19 PM	#4623
River Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,694	Originally Posted by William Parcher Swastika Steve is so screwed up in his analysis to determine the actual location of the PGF that he doesn't even realize that he is looking at a flipped PGF frame. See his video Part 3... I noticed that too. I believe that was from discovery? I think that is John Green speaking in the background during the begining "theres Bob now with the packhorse". Is it though? Where is the wig?
River Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,694

23rd November 2010, 09:43 PM	#4624
AlaskaBushPilot Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,190	This picture is from "The Larry Lund Collection" here: http:thelarrylundcollection.blogspot.com/ I'll need to look at a topographical map to get the stream orientation, but it is pretty clear how steep and high the terrain is. The sun would have to be at just the right angle shining through the draw or else very high in the sky in order to shine directly on the scene.
	Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 23rd November 2010 at 09:45 PM.

23rd November 2010, 10:49 PM	#4625
AlaskaBushPilot Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,190	This is the google earth shot of the site at 41.44 N 123.7 W. Coincidentally the shot was taken on october 13 2006. Not sure what time, but check out the shadows, not quite due north. So it is just before solar noon. Almost all of Bluff Creek is entirely in the shade. I am not sure about the exact location of the photo that I posted earlier because there was no caption to it. But it seems to me that the site would be in the shade at 5 pm in October from this google earth shot.

24th November 2010, 09:25 AM	#4626
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,975	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 That's pathetic. What are the odds that if I tell them in a comment, that they will deny it? He responded with 100% mumbojumbo. Originally Posted by River I noticed that too. I believe that was from discovery? Yeah. He and his partner are lost in a world of confusion. They think they are looking at a "seep" or water puddle or something and that they will make a note to look for that the next time they go hunting for the exact location. Duh! They are looking at the flowing creek itself... just like it is illustrated in Titmus' map which they are also looking at. They can't seem to connect the dots and realize that they are seeing the actual root logjam (said to conceal Patty) and the creek running under it. You can even see little riffles in the moving water. This is what they are imagining since they make no mention of a flipped frame. If you watch their video and follow the conversation closely - it's obvious that they do not account for a flipped frame at all. They talk as if there is nothing wrong with the scene. Steve & Robert's Patty World Panorama...
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

24th November 2010, 09:38 AM	#4627
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,975	Originally Posted by River I think that is John Green speaking in the background during the begining "theres Bob now with the packhorse". Is it though? Where is the wig? It is Gimlin and he isn't wearing the wig.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

24th November 2010, 09:38 AM	#4628
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 15,985	Yeah, I decided to just post a link to your post, WP. I decided not to try and explain anything to him about the flipped frames at the beginning of that copy of the PGF. Heck, he's unlikely to listen to anything from me. I remember long ago when the flipped frames were under discussion. I cannot remember if the same copy has the repeated frames as well, though.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

24th November 2010, 09:44 AM	#4629
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,975	National Geographic showed repeated (looped) frames within the Patty walk scene.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

24th November 2010, 11:13 AM	#4630
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,915	Originally Posted by William Parcher Just to be clear... this is the "next track"?... http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/14766522.gif Here you go, William....I measured where Patty's next footprint would have been...(for a step length of 41")...
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,915	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

24th November 2010, 11:20 AM	#4631
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,440	How do you know? Do you know if that is an incline or a decline slope? Did you take that into account?
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,440	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

24th November 2010, 12:01 PM	#4632
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,975	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti Here you go, William....I measured where Patty's next footprint would have been...(for a step length of 41")... I put Meldrum's measurements at the top, then did a calculation. It looks like foreshortening creates an illusion in the plaster pour scene. One can (wrongly) think that the "next track" ought to be further away than it actually is.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

24th November 2010, 12:11 PM	#4633
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,915	Originally Posted by Drewbot How do you know? Do you know if that is an incline or a decline slope? Did you take that into account? The long shadow is straight, isn't it? The ground, right there, is flat....for the most part.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,915	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

24th November 2010, 12:25 PM	#4634
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,164	Because the camera is so close to the ground and so close to the plaster print I doubt it's possible to accurately calculate how far the thing that looks like the next track is from the plaster track.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,164	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

24th November 2010, 12:27 PM	#4635
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 15,985	Perspective compression from the camera lens is also a factor imo.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

24th November 2010, 12:29 PM	#4636
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 15,985	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Focal_length.jpg
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

24th November 2010, 01:06 PM	#4637
DennyT Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,526	The Meldrum composite is quite distorted. The images of the distal prints were not taken from a perpendicular POV. This compresses the step length and the length of the print. You can make the trackway look a number of different ways depending on which frames you choose to make the composite.
	__________________ unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.