Looking Ahead
As noted from the Introduction, this Report is not complete yet. Release One has focused on the Digital Model of
the Bluff Creek Site and the camera lens specification. The work still in progress is noted as follows, with an appraisal of its status
and an estimation of the work to be done.
1. Height Analysis - The preliminary height estimate I have is about 7' 4" (as posed
in F352) for a subject about 98-99 feet from camera (based on the site model dimensions as shown and a preliminary trackway position
of mine locating the subject in F352, not shown here). But additional analysis and refinement are still in progress, as well as consideration
of how best to calculate the margin of error factor.
I expect to re-evaluate the height of the subject on film, currently estimated
at 15%, based on some new scan data being collected, so that number may change, in a range of 1 or 2%. When finalized, the documentation
for determination and margin of error will be noted. Most likely, this will be a part of Release Two of this Report. The lens focal
length is fixed for now, but suffice to say, if other researchers do test the site model, camera position coordinate data and find
other options for focal length which also replicate the film object arrangements and size in all camera positions, then this lens
determination must be re-evaluated to resolve the issue. The distance estimate is based on a preliminary trackway estimate of shape
and position, and is undergoing further analysis. This may alter the distance estimate of the height calculation formula, but in all
likely-hood, any change will increase the distance (and height) moreso than likely to decrease it, given the current estimate already
places the subject very close to the trees it walks behind.
So the Height Analysis is the next major aspect to finalize, along
with the trackway position and shape (as noted below).
2. Trackway Position Analysis - First, let me distinguish between the trackway path which the film itself can determine, and the trackway
data as developed after the fact by Bob Titmus, nine or so days after the filming. I will be relying only upon the film itself for
developing a trackway path estimate, not Titmus' diagrams. This trackway path analysis requires several steps as follows:
A.
A study of the changing size of the subject body, as a near/far distance proportion, graphed against a left/right change of position
as the subject walks among the trees. So graphing change of distance (based on change of size) with horizontal position shift will
yield a path graph shape. This is merely a shape, radiating out from the camera position, with multiple prospective "ripples" of the
path, each larger and further than the previous one. At this point, none has preference.
B. Aligning this group of outward rippling
paths with the Digital Model is done by using the trees the subject walks among as the locators for where in the digital model this
rippling outward set of path graphs must orient to.
C. Eliminating all paths which fall in front of any tree or object the subject
walks behind, and eliminating any paths that fall behind any tree or object the subject walks in front of. This reduces the path options
to a narrow corridor.
D. Using the sunlight and shadow of the two trees the subject walks behind, a final triangulation of the
path location can be fixed, because only one path option will allow the tree shadows to fall on the subject as we see in the film.
Note that alignment of the sunlight angle is based on shadows the trees actually cast, and which are evident in the film, and thus
form a reliable reference for the sunlight angle alignment.
This is the current intended methodology and a preliminary analysis
through this 4 step process has been done. A new scan of the film with greater clarity is anticipated to allow for a more precise
analysis. Documentation of the method also needs to be thorough. This will take time.
Then there will be a study to determine
if the Titmus trackway data can be integrated with this film-derived trackway path analysis. Some discrepancies have already been
pointed out by another researcher collaborating with me on this aspect of the analysis, and we continue to challenge all assumptions
and re-check all data to see if the film-derived trackway and the Titmus reported trackway can be reconciled into one analysis.
3. Comparative Anatomy - I have already completed one Comparative Anatomy study which yielded a conclusion that the PG Film Subject has
a conspicuously short lower leg (as compared to the upper leg). It can be reviewed on the BFF thread below, as it was posted there
last August, 2008.
A
review of this study will be done, using the camera position and angle to path direction data developed in this study, to fine tune
the analysis set-up of the Poser figure against the PG Film image backdrop. And I anticipate additional still image frames will be
used because the larger the number of figure poses one uses to compare the anatomy, the greater the likely-hood the result is reliable
in comparison.
This Comparative Anatomy Analysis, when revised, will also include a more specific body width analysis.
Impact
of This Analysis:
The Release One material greatly diminishes the prospect the film was hoaxed with a human in a fur costume,
because the height issue greatly diminishes the number of humans of sufficient height to be capable of wearing said costume.
It further undermines any contention that the alleged costume is some hand-me-down suit left over from another project, because there may
not be any prior project with a fur costume of the size determined here. And the complexities and design fitting requirements
of such a large costume all but eliminate any consideration that such could have been done in a casual, amateurish, or unprofessional
environment. And this height determination effectively negates any prospect that Bob Heironimous could have worn a suit to appear
in the PG Film, because he is more than a foot too short in height, to have performed in this film.
Secondly, the height determination
effectively negates most, if not all Hollywood rumors of who made the claimed suit, or who put hair on it, or such, because you cannot
make a suit or costume without being very familiar with its size and bulk, yet apparently none of these people making these recollections
were aware of the fact the figure was by far larger than any ape suit of the time. Such an oversight of that very significant material
fact means these stories, however fanciful they sound to hear, have dubious basis in fact, and are likely just Hollywood fantasy.
The people describing the alleged "suit" are not remotely describing the truth of what's in the film, if they neglected to mention
its unique immense size.
Finally, the Height Determination combined with the Comparative Anatomy Analysis (particularly the leg
proportions), after each is individually studied, will be studied as a combined anatomical specification.
If both are sustained
by further analysis, they have the combined potential to exclude from consideration any human performer as being what we see in the
film. If such occurs, then what we are seeing is something real.