Site Measurements Discussion
To scale a digital model with real world measurements, some real world measurements must be introduced
into that model and identified with some of the digital elements. This will be a point of contention in this report, so this discussion
is important to establish a perspective for your evaluation of the material.
The Bluff Creek site today does not resemble
the site 42 years ago. All the distinctive trees in the center cluster are reported to be gone. I had hoped to visit the site and
simply make an evaluation of it, and try to determine if anything remained which could be positively identified as being the same
as 42 years ago. But that goal has been hampered by logistical setbacks.
So in my analysis, at this point, I must rely on the
prospect of other measurements previously taken by other investigators. And precisely because I know the measurement issue will be
contentious, I must discuss this with anticipation of the debate which will follow.
The known site measurements were made by
John Green and Rene Dahinden in the months or years immediately following the report of the filming. These measurements are at least
38 years old. In that context, they should be regarded as "historical measurements" moreso than modern ones. Critics like to talk
about how a site survey and measuring should be done today, but that is an unfair standard, to hold an effort of the past to any standards
and technological sophistication of today. Measuring devices based on laser technology, considered essential by today's standards,
did not exist then. At the time, the technology was most likely a simple tape measure.
Technology aside, the context in which
measurements were taken is also relevant to any discussion of the reliability of measurements. We cannot judge men as having failed
to meet our current specifications if these men, nearly 4 decades ago, did not forsee the debate today on the film, or did not anticipate
the advent of computer graphics which would allow for a digital site model to be made and thus would need their measurements to scale
such a digital model.
We can only judge the men and their measurements on the context of their time and their intent, and in
that regard, judge if they succeeded or failed.
A similar dilemma is faced with any scientific or analytical study of historical sites and measurements. One example, from my experience
visualizing the Seven Ancient Wonders of the World, is the Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria. It was built about 2300 years ago, and
measured for historical reference about 1000 years ago, and then destroyed by an earthquake, it's rubble cleared and some other structure
rebuilt on its foundation. So all we have is those measurements taken a thousand years ago, for any estimation of it's size, shape,
and design. Can we rely on those measurements to any extent, or simply say they are so old and unreliable that we do not know what
the Lighthouse looks like? Scholars, authors and scientists do study the Lighthouse, and frequently publish factual reports and descriptions
of it, and the measurements are generally included. That would indicate that there is some merit to those measurements, and we may
rely upon them for some understanding of how tall the Lighthouse was.
But every criticism of the Bluff Creek site measurements
that I have seen thus far, could be equally applied to criticize the Pharos Lighthouse measurements.
A. They are all whole numbers
in feet (even though at the time of the lighthouse construction, the measurement in cubits was more common, and there's no precise
translation of cubits to feet as there is meters to feet). So are the measurements accurate to a fraction of an inch, or were they
rounded to the foot? Does the lack of apparent precision below the 1' level invalidate the measurement?
B. The measurements cannot
be replicated today. Does that invalidate them?
C. The person taking the measurements has no known "certification" as
a skilled and reliable person to perform measurements. Does that invalidate the measurements?
D. The measurements were
not taken to satisfy our needs today, but rather to simply satisfy the needs of the man taking them, at that point in history. Does
that invalidate our use of them today?
If you answer Yes to these questions, you essentially argue to invalidate most historical
measurements, including those of the Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria. If you reasonably argue not to invalidate historical measurements,
then we reasonably do not need to invalidate the Bluff Creek Site measurements either.
We must acknowledge that if the filming of the PG Film occurred today and an investigative team of certified professionals were employed
to do a site survey tomorrow, the entire measurement process would be vastly different, and the measurement would likely be reliable
to decimal fractions of an inch. But this measuring did not occur today. It occurred over 38 years ago, in a simpler time, with men
likely using simple tape measures and making their own determination as to whether their measurements needed to be accurate rounded
to the foot or more precise, for their purpose, not ours today. They did not document the points of measurement for us, but for themselves,
by a method of their preference.
We cannot judge the historical measurements of others by our current standards, except to say,
by our standards today, all historical measurements will surely fail to compete in accuracy and degree of documentation. And all historical
measurers (except for the occasional trained surveyor) will likely be dismissed as "uncertified" by today's standards. Yet we do not
throw out all the historical measurements. And neither should we throw out the measurements of John Green or Rene Dahinden. Rather,
we grade them with consideration as to their potential for accuracy and consistency with each other and any data we can develop independently.
We
may think of this grading as a plus/minus evaluation, although the very process of grading is itself subjective and can be contested.
So the ideal process would be for one to do a grading evaluation, and allow critics to offer alternate or opposing grading criteria,
and ideally, impartial people to make the judgment or determination as to which argument is the more compelling or credible. In that
regard, I will offer my appraisal of the grading of evidence quality.
Within the above estimated 1% margin of error, I see four plusses and no minuses.
Plus - the measurement triangulations match
the digital model triangulations well.
Plus - The measurements of Dahinden do position his reference camera position proximate
to Roger's actual camera, verified by the Byrne Photo camera position.
Plus - Green's measurements to his camera do proximate
his actual filming position for his on site filming test, verified by optical analysis of his film.
Plus - Both Dahinden's
and Green's measurements tend to concur or compliment each other, when integrated into the digital model.
Any minuses go back
to methodology, and I have already explained why we cannot fault men 38 or more years ago for not doing it the modern way we consider
professional today. And we cannot fault them for not doing it to suit our needs today because they could not possibly back then have
acticipated our need or intended use of their measurements. They did it at the time with their available tools and measure devices,
for their purpose, with notation appropriate for their intended use. We cannot judge them wrong for that.
Now, taking the opposite
approach, are the measurements "wrong", beyond the stated error margin? Is there any proof that the Bluff Creek site itself, and the
trees and other objects in the Bluff Creek site should be scaled differently? Is there any proof from another investigator that the
trees are in different positions, that the cameras are in different positions, and the triangulations formed are different triangles?
Given
the way the measurements and digital site model tend to generally coincide, is there any proof that this model is dimensionally or
proportionately wrong?
To all the above questions, I am not aware of any reason to say they are "wrong".
In anticipation
of the critical or skeptical response, I believe there are two approaches arguing to discredit my findings.
1. One is to say
things are not determined correctly and thus are not "reliable", and we don't know what the truth is. Any person can actually take
that position with no justification other than to say "I'm not convinced".
2. The other is to actually prove I am wrong.
But
"I'm not convinced " is not the same as "you are wrong". To say I am wrong requires some credible explanation of what is more right,
not in the theoretical sense of describing procedures that should have been done to make it right (as that is still just "I'm not
convinced"). Proof I am wrong requires some pro-active proof of what is more right than what I have offered.
So let us examine the Measurements in this context.
1. Three of Rene Dahinden's measurements, for the trees I designated as T-C1,
T-C2, and T-C4, form a triangle. The digital model of those three objects can form a triangle as well. The triangles are substantially
correct in comparative form. Given the uniqueness of triangles (for any three numbers or objects, there is essentially one resulting
triangle), this similarity allows a reasonable conclusion that the three measurements of Mr. Dahinden are proportionately correct
(in proportion to each other) and so if they are dimensionally incorrect, they must be incorrect by a common proportional factor,
which in a highly uncommon type of measurement error. A reasonable conclusion is that Dahinden's measurements are a fair representation
of the tree distances, any error being rounding to a whole number in feet.
2. Two of Mr. Dahinden's measurements converge on
a point where he has estimated Roger's camera to be, and that point is correct in perspective for the site view. It is off in depth
from the tree objects (relative to Roger's true camera position), but depth perception is the more common error in any estimations
of position. It is also within about a foot (as scaled in the site model) of the Byrne Photo camera location, suggesting a corroboration
of measurements and optical alignment.
3. John Green's measurements converge on his camera location where he filmed his re-enactment
of the PG Film with Jim MacLarin shortly after the PG Film was taken. His measurements converge at a location within a foot of his
camera location determined by optical analysis, which means that his measurements, all longer than 100', may have a margin of error
of 1% (to be off by a foot).
4. John Green measured a position of his to tree T-C1 as 105', and to tree T-C4 as 162' Using John
Green's measure from his position to tree T-C1 (105') and then using Rene Dahinden's following measure of tree T-1 to tree T-C4 (58')
totals 163'. The line from Green to T-C1 to T-C4 is not quite a true straight line, which would triangulate into a slightly longer
distance than the direct Green position to T-C4, but the worst case scenario is an error of 1' over a distance of 162' or 163' (either
way, well under 1%), when you combine the measurements of both men. Could one be drastically in error without the other also in error?
Or could both be in error, but in opposite amounts, to null out the others error? Or is it more reasonable to say the men's measurements,
when combined, as reasonably consistent, within a margin of error under 1%?
A. Show more reliably taken measurements that disagree with the ones I used.
B. Show a digital model with different object positions
that do not correspond to Green's or Dahinden's measurements, and if that digital model still corresponds to what we see in the film,
that would prove the measurements wrong (or the digital model wrong).
C. Show that there are errors in my digital model as represented
by the data sheet, compared to the results I displayed.
Any of these would show me wrong.
I will close this discussion
with one final comment. As I have noted above, the Bluff Creek site measurements known to exist are like historical measurements,
taken at a time of less sophistication in measuring and surveying that today, and I believe they are better judged in that context.
If anyone wishes to argue for them being so unreliable that we should not even consider them, I would ask why they fail to be regarded
as comparable to other historical measurements and graded accordingly.
As long as the digital model matches the film, and the
measurements match the digital model, we have no cause to say the measurements are wrong. We simply need to establish a reasonable
margin of error, to grade the degree of accuracy, for any measurements we might subsequently take from the digital model.