Well, Here it is...
http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_049.htm
If we take an established height of 7' 4" for the subject in the film, then we should also be able to determine the height and or diameter of several
objects whose distance from each other and the assumed camera potion was also established . Particularly the large log in the foreground ..
If we now have accurate measurements from those objects, then we should be able to check those measurements against those same objects
and the known height of Jim McClaren in the film that John Green made ..
Do we know the lens that Green used ?
If not, then Mr. Munns methodology should work for determining that lens ..
It would seem that actually knowing Jim McCLaren's exact height, gives us a known quantity that was missing in the PGF, and when used with the model
that Bill Munns created, should provide a method of checking the results ...
Full Version: Taking A look At The Munns Report
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Film, Video, Photo & Audio Discussion > Patterson / Gimlin Film
I've been at a disadvantage all day since every time I try and view or download the report I get knocked offline. I've only read it to page 6.
It's great that the first bit is out, can't wait for the rest.
This is just 'setting the scene', so to speak, but it does look to be a very earnest and serious effort to understand the film in its entirety. It doesn't look like he's using any overly simplistic methods or assumptions--though I'm not a photogrammetricist (lol, and I would challenge anyone to a dual if they were to accuse me of such!).
Neat.
This is just 'setting the scene', so to speak, but it does look to be a very earnest and serious effort to understand the film in its entirety. It doesn't look like he's using any overly simplistic methods or assumptions--though I'm not a photogrammetricist (lol, and I would challenge anyone to a dual if they were to accuse me of such!).
Neat.
Munns' report can also be downloaded as a PDF at http://www.themunnsreport.com/the_munns_report_r1.pdf.
Another observation ..
In past discussions, much has been made about the subject's apparent stride length .
Measurements have been made , and used to support one position or another ..
From one such discussion:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=509854
and
How does the computed height of 7' 4" affect other observations, such as stride length and foot size as seen in the film, and measured
on the ground?
In past discussions, much has been made about the subject's apparent stride length .
Measurements have been made , and used to support one position or another ..
From one such discussion:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=509854
and
How does the computed height of 7' 4" affect other observations, such as stride length and foot size as seen in the film, and measured
on the ground?
Jim McClarin's height was "at least" 6'5 1/2 "in his boots" (John Green, The Apes Among Us, pg. 124).
QUOTE(LAL @ May 18 2009, 08:29 AM) 
Jim McClarin's height was "at least" 6'5 1/2 "in his boots"....
I'd say the "at least" estimate is conservative. McClarin is a tall guy, as can be seen in the Squatchopedia speaker photo for the International Bigfoot Symposium.
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ May 18 2009, 06:48 AM)
Another observation ..
In past discussions, much has been made about the subject's apparent stride length .
Measurements have been made , and used to support one position or another ..
How does the computed height of 7' 4" affect other observations, such as stride length and foot size as seen in the film, and measured
on the ground?
In past discussions, much has been made about the subject's apparent stride length .
Measurements have been made , and used to support one position or another ..
How does the computed height of 7' 4" affect other observations, such as stride length and foot size as seen in the film, and measured
on the ground?
Excellent observation. If the 7' 4" hieght can be verified, many other things about the film and peripheral evidence can be checked using this new "yardstick".
I look forward to the many many many threads about this.
QUOTE(peregrine @ May 18 2009, 10:30 AM)
I'd say the "at least" estimate is conservative. McClarin is a tall guy, as can be seen in the Squatchopedia speaker photo for the International Bigfoot Symposium.
He and John Green look to be, literally, head and shoulders above the rest.
well most of the stuff zoomed past my head...but to say the man invested some heavy thinking would be an understatement...fascinating read...looking forward to the debate over this...
QUOTE(LAL @ May 18 2009, 11:02 AM)
He and John Green look to be, literally, head and shoulders above the rest.
Then it should be a simple exercise to insert Jim McClarin ( a height that we can actually measure precisely ) into the Munns' model, and see how the objects scale, compared to a 7'4" Patty ...
One thing that I found pretty remarkable was that the height of the subject would be less than 5 feet tall if a 25mm lens was used. I guess one of the first casualties of this new analysis will be Bob H.'s claim to be the man in the suit. He's not short enough or tall enough.
We KNOW how big the cast of Patty's foot is. 14.5" Right?
Why can't that be used as a ruler?
Is the frame showing Patty's foot 14.5" or not?
If the new 15mm lens means the frame shows a 15.2" foot, then I guess those casts don't mean anything.
Why can't that be used as a ruler?
Is the frame showing Patty's foot 14.5" or not?
If the new 15mm lens means the frame shows a 15.2" foot, then I guess those casts don't mean anything.
QUOTE(Drew @ May 19 2009, 08:10 AM)
We KNOW how big the cast of Patty's foot is. 14.5" Right?
Why can't that be used as a ruler?
Is the frame showing Patty's foot 14.5" or not?
If the new 15mm lens means the frame shows a 15.2" foot, then I guess those casts don't mean anything.
Why can't that be used as a ruler?
Is the frame showing Patty's foot 14.5" or not?
If the new 15mm lens means the frame shows a 15.2" foot, then I guess those casts don't mean anything.
Exxxcceelllllent question....however, Munns does feel the use of the cast and the frame of the apparently perpendicular foot can't be accurate since "Patty" is stooping over in the shot. But, regardless, I was still able to partially justify using a shot of Mr. Burns.
QUOTE(Drew @ May 19 2009, 08:10 AM)
We KNOW how big the cast of Patty's foot is. 14.5" Right?
I've never been convinced of this. According to Murphy's book, the actual tracks measured "about 14.5" but the casts range from 14 - 15" so, in my opinion, the actual exact track (or foot for those of us willing to make that logical leap) size remains unknown but is at best 14.5" +/- 0.5".
FWIW- Grieve estimated a height of 6'5" corresponding to foot size of only 13.3", which strikes me as proportion/relationship significantly different from what most propose.
Apeman (who still hasn't read Bill's report so is in no way commenting on that).
Maybe Bill did this, but it occurs to me than an obvious and easy test of the accuracy is to check the measurements between trees near the figure. With a little geometry (and the assumed camera position) we should be able to get a fairly precise estimate of the space between two of the main, measured trees that should either verify or discredit Bill's methodology, right?
QUOTE(Apeman @ May 19 2009, 12:23 PM)
I've never been convinced of this. According to Murphy's book, the actual tracks measured "about 14.5" but the casts range from 14 - 15" so, in my opinion, the actual exact track (or foot for those of us willing to make that logical leap) size remains unknown but is at best 14.5" +/- 0.5".
Right- So popping in 15 mm for the lens, the calculations somehow would have to put the foot in the frame at 14.5" +/- .5" right?, to match the casts.
Also- Bill, would you have presented your project at the Gimlin roundup, if you had known that anyone who questioned the PGF footage's authenticity would be refused entry?
At last I've managed to download the full Munns Report!
The biggest potential torpedo of the entire effort IMO comes on page 10 during the discussion of the lens. Bill mentions that the police report and camera store documention states that Patterson's K-100 was equippped with a 25mm lens as rented to Patterson.
While it is not imposible that Patterson could have changed to a 15mm lens there remains the quesiton of why would he have done so? There is no indication that Patterson was astute enough to appreciate a 15mm lens over a 25mm lens for the purpose he was intending to use the camera.
Since there is no documentation of any person or business entity having supplied Patterson with a 15mm lens the stated standard 25mm lens seems an extremely difficult detail to dispose of.
The biggest potential torpedo of the entire effort IMO comes on page 10 during the discussion of the lens. Bill mentions that the police report and camera store documention states that Patterson's K-100 was equippped with a 25mm lens as rented to Patterson.
While it is not imposible that Patterson could have changed to a 15mm lens there remains the quesiton of why would he have done so? There is no indication that Patterson was astute enough to appreciate a 15mm lens over a 25mm lens for the purpose he was intending to use the camera.
Since there is no documentation of any person or business entity having supplied Patterson with a 15mm lens the stated standard 25mm lens seems an extremely difficult detail to dispose of.
QUOTE(Crow Logic @ May 19 2009, 05:47 PM)
There is no indication that Patterson was astute enough to appreciate a 15mm lens over a 25mm lens for the purpose he was intending to use the camera.
If he wasn't astute enough to appreciate a mere lens change how in Heaven's name would he ever have been astute enough to pull together a monkey suit like that?
QUOTE(wiiawiwb @ May 19 2009, 05:57 PM)
If he wasn't astute enough to appreciate a mere lens change how in Heaven's name would he ever have been astute enough to pull together a monkey suit like that?
If it is a suit Patterson didn't make it. If its not a suit then Patterson could after all have shot the footage with the standard 25mm lens. The lens does not change suit or animal only size of suit/animal.
QUOTE(Crow Logic @ May 19 2009, 05:47 PM)
At last I've managed to download the full Munns Report!
The biggest potential torpedo of the entire effort IMO comes on page 10 during the discussion of the lens. Bill mentions that the police report and camera store documention states that Patterson's K-100 was equippped with a 25mm lens as rented to Patterson.
While it is not imposible that Patterson could have changed to a 15mm lens there remains the quesiton of why would he have done so? There is no indication that Patterson was astute enough to appreciate a 15mm lens over a 25mm lens for the purpose he was intending to use the camera.
Since there is no documentation of any person or business entity having supplied Patterson with a 15mm lens the stated standard 25mm lens seems an extremely difficult detail to dispose of.
The biggest potential torpedo of the entire effort IMO comes on page 10 during the discussion of the lens. Bill mentions that the police report and camera store documention states that Patterson's K-100 was equippped with a 25mm lens as rented to Patterson.
While it is not imposible that Patterson could have changed to a 15mm lens there remains the quesiton of why would he have done so? There is no indication that Patterson was astute enough to appreciate a 15mm lens over a 25mm lens for the purpose he was intending to use the camera.
Since there is no documentation of any person or business entity having supplied Patterson with a 15mm lens the stated standard 25mm lens seems an extremely difficult detail to dispose of.
This is a very good observation ..
I would think some of the other footage, like the casting clip, and the " holding the casts in from of the tree " clip , could be plugged into a model where
the distance from the camera is estimated, and the difference between a 15mm and 25mm lens be extrapolated to see what yields a more realistic height for Patterson, or for the length of the cast..
QUOTE(Drew @ May 19 2009, 01:21 PM)
Right- So popping in 15 mm for the lens, the calculations somehow would have to put the foot in the frame at 14.5" +/- .5" right?, to match the casts.
Also- Bill, would you have presented your project at the Gimlin roundup, if you had known that anyone who questioned the PGF footage's authenticity would be refused entry?
Also- Bill, would you have presented your project at the Gimlin roundup, if you had known that anyone who questioned the PGF footage's authenticity would be refused entry?
http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_023.htm
Page titled 'Other Height Analysis Methods and Concerns of their Lack of Accuracy'
QUOTE(Apeman @ May 19 2009, 09:23 AM)
I've never been convinced of this. According to Murphy's book, the actual tracks measured "about 14.5" but the casts range from 14 - 15" so, in my opinion, the actual exact track (or foot for those of us willing to make that logical leap) size remains unknown but is at best 14.5" +/- 0.5".
Four things come to mind:
1. Un-calibrated measuring equipment. I have seen two identical tape measures laid out side by side and at 12" show a difference of 1/8".
2. Use of Plaster of Paris which can shrink when curing if too much water is used, and to a greater extent then deemed possible by the unacquainted. Drying in the hot california sun, on a hot surface like that creek bed could have increased shrinkage as well. There may also have been some mineral content in the water they used that affected the castings.
3. The foot of the maker slipped on entry or egress from the surface making some of the tracks longer, but never shorter.
4. The foot, when stepped on, would flatten out, making a track or trace that much bigger then when raised off the ground for the camera to see.
Obviously, we can't use the foot as a ruler, because it doesn't produce the desired height... 
So, let me see if I can get my mind around this. If Patterson was using a 15mm lens then the subject is proportionately too large to be a human in a suit, thus lending more credibility to it being a real bigfoot animal. If Patterson were using the assumed 25mm lens then he shot film of the just as elusive Ewok, or a "little person" in a suit. 
It sure is fun and entertaining to hangout here.
It sure is fun and entertaining to hangout here.
Granted, I haven't fully studied Bill's work yet (and commend what I have so far) but I find it hard to believe that the full frame image from the camera used a 15mm lens since the 25mm is a normal for that film format and the image shows no distortions around the edges such as these...
The lake picture gives you a little sense in the distances involved with the benches on the other side. You can easily see distortions of objects near the edges of the frames in these other images and I will let people read for themselves about what lens and film format did which. A normal lens on 35mm film equals a normal lens in any format. It is a lens that produces the closest image quality that the human eye would see in the same circumstances. The 25mm is the normal lens for that cameras 16mm film. No distortion on the edges and no vignetting. I would like to see Bill produce full frame 15 and 25mm images so that they can be compared.
The lake picture gives you a little sense in the distances involved with the benches on the other side. You can easily see distortions of objects near the edges of the frames in these other images and I will let people read for themselves about what lens and film format did which. A normal lens on 35mm film equals a normal lens in any format. It is a lens that produces the closest image quality that the human eye would see in the same circumstances. The 25mm is the normal lens for that cameras 16mm film. No distortion on the edges and no vignetting. I would like to see Bill produce full frame 15 and 25mm images so that they can be compared.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ May 19 2009, 06:31 PM)
I would like to see Bill produce full frame 15 and 25mm images so that they can be compared.
Is this what you're talking about?
I am sorry but if Bill thinks that is a full frame from the PG film he is wrong. That is a cropped image.
The side by side comparison is also too different in surrounding features and heavily cropped as well so distortion is not evident.
The side by side comparison is also too different in surrounding features and heavily cropped as well so distortion is not evident.
QUOTE(oregonfooter @ May 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
Is this what you're talking about?
If I'm not mistaken, this the the full frame image #352 of Patty.
Click to view attachment
RayG
The one Bill shows is the same as that one, if not even a bit fuller.
The one Bill shows is #350, not #352(I think that's why it looks fuller). It looks like a full frame image to me, but I'm not an expert on that stuff.
When you overlay the two supposed full 15mm frames, the subjects do not appear to be the same distance from the camera ..
Click to view attachment
The subject in the PGF is closer to the camera - compared to the 102 feet used for the test film ..
This does not yield the 7' 4", as claimed ..
Click to view attachment
The subject in the PGF is closer to the camera - compared to the 102 feet used for the test film ..
This does not yield the 7' 4", as claimed ..
QUOTE(RayG @ May 19 2009, 08:31 PM)
n
No it is not full frame> Review old books that do show the full frame.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ May 19 2009, 09:19 PM)
n
No it is not full frame> Review old books that do show the full frame.
No it is not full frame> Review old books that do show the full frame.
Wish my library was with me but even this one has more than what Bill worked with.
The second full frame 352 is wider than the first one. However the first one is taller. It may not be possible to determine a true accurately proportioned full frame. Without the camera master this is never going to be solved.
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ May 19 2009, 09:51 PM)
Wish my library was with me but even this one has more than what Bill worked with.
I don't think so. His full frame here appears fuller than what you just posted, right? He discusses this issue here.
QUOTE
Black Border on Film Frames
The image frames from the film which are used to test the 3D model have a black border around them. This is because true full frame versions of the film are almost non-existent for general research purposes. I had to go to John Green's location with a portable scanning device to make these frames and they are a copy of a film version which was printed on an optical printer, the same time the more commonly seen zoomed in version was done, the F352 freeze frame segment, and the slow motion segment (all done on an optical printer, not a contact printer). But an optical printer acts like a projector, and the requires an intermittant shutter and pulldown movement, and on the copy film stock side, there is a film gate with an aperture opening, like a camera. This aperture on the copying side masked off a small portion of the true full frame, reducing the visible frame to about 96% of true full frame.
The following image (below) shows a true "full frame" and the redish border is what was missing from the scan's of John Green's full frame copy that I scanned. So this missing section was added with the black border around the frames I used.
A contact print, by comparison, just puts the copy film stock on a roller, puts the source film on top of it, and shines a light through them both as they roll continuously through the printer. You get true full frame with such a copy process.
The result of using the optical printer is that even the "full frame" version I scanned is actually only about 96% of true full frame, compared to some still frame prints that are true full frame, so the black border reconstructs the true full frame size in relation to the image, necessary for a photogrammetry analysis.
The image frames from the film which are used to test the 3D model have a black border around them. This is because true full frame versions of the film are almost non-existent for general research purposes. I had to go to John Green's location with a portable scanning device to make these frames and they are a copy of a film version which was printed on an optical printer, the same time the more commonly seen zoomed in version was done, the F352 freeze frame segment, and the slow motion segment (all done on an optical printer, not a contact printer). But an optical printer acts like a projector, and the requires an intermittant shutter and pulldown movement, and on the copy film stock side, there is a film gate with an aperture opening, like a camera. This aperture on the copying side masked off a small portion of the true full frame, reducing the visible frame to about 96% of true full frame.
The following image (below) shows a true "full frame" and the redish border is what was missing from the scan's of John Green's full frame copy that I scanned. So this missing section was added with the black border around the frames I used.
A contact print, by comparison, just puts the copy film stock on a roller, puts the source film on top of it, and shines a light through them both as they roll continuously through the printer. You get true full frame with such a copy process.
The result of using the optical printer is that even the "full frame" version I scanned is actually only about 96% of true full frame, compared to some still frame prints that are true full frame, so the black border reconstructs the true full frame size in relation to the image, necessary for a photogrammetry analysis.
I'd like to hear Gigantofootecus' response to the Munns report. He is the house photogrammeritishnitz guy right? What is your reaction to the 15mm lens idea, and do you have any objections to the methods used here?
I just started reading John Green's "The Best of Sasquatch Bigfoot" last night and the the first thing that caught my eye was the statement (page 5) "in 1967 a man named Patterson took a 16mm movie of the creature" (paraphrasing). Where did Green get 16mm if the police report claimed 25mm? Is it possible the police report was in error? Seems like the difference between Bill's measurements based on 15mm vs 16mm would be relatively minor.
Or is this a 16mm camera and the 25mm vs 15mm lens is in question? Can anyone explain? (Camera novice here 
QUOTE(Hogsback @ May 20 2009, 06:50 AM)
Or is this a 16mm camera and the 25mm vs 15mm lens is in question? Can anyone explain? (Camera novice here
That's correct.
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ May 19 2009, 11:55 PM)
When you overlay the two supposed full 15mm frames, the subjects do not appear to be the same distance from the camera ..
Click to view attachment
The subject in the PGF is closer to the camera - compared to the 102 feet used for the test film ..
This does not yield the 7' 4", as claimed ..
Click to view attachment
The subject in the PGF is closer to the camera - compared to the 102 feet used for the test film ..
This does not yield the 7' 4", as claimed ..
Is the picture on the right, an optical illusion or parlor trick? See Ponzo's illusion.
QUOTE(Gigantopithecus canadensis @ May 20 2009, 06:54 AM)
That's correct.
Additional clarification: 16 mm refers to the film/camera size (think 35 mm like traditional camera film), 15 or 25 mm refers to the lens focal length (think zoom lens like 28-200, etc.).
I'm not following Ray and Greg on what you are talking about?
-A
Has Bill or anyone else given due consideration to MK Davis' thesis that the Patterson/ Gimlin film is an amalgam of sections from more than one camera/ filming episode? Perhaps we should. It obviously has a bearing on any discussion of lenses in relation to scales and sizes. MK provides evidence worth consideration that the film is spliced, and that perhaps two other cameras in addition to Patterson's were recording the subject. Please don't get sidetracked into MK's other theories-- however speculative they may be, his material on cameras and the editing together of distinguishably different image sequences is pertinent to Bill's investigation and worth reviewing for it's relevance.
Another thing that might be worth inverstigating:
The camera was rented, and the receipt says it had a 25mm lens on it. Could it be possible that the camera shop had several of these cameras to rent, some with 15mm lenses and some with 25mm lenses? And if so, could there have been an error in the paperwork?
The camera was rented, and the receipt says it had a 25mm lens on it. Could it be possible that the camera shop had several of these cameras to rent, some with 15mm lenses and some with 25mm lenses? And if so, could there have been an error in the paperwork?
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ May 20 2009, 12:19 AM)
n
No it is not full frame> Review old books that do show the full frame.
No it is not full frame> Review old books that do show the full frame.
Thanks Rick, I stand corrected.
QUOTE(Apeman @ May 20 2009, 03:59 PM)
I'm not following Ray and Greg on what you are talking about?
-A
-A
Can only speak for myself, but I'm wondering aloud why Bill did his analysis on a subject of unknown height (Patty), when he could have based his analysis on a subject of known height (McClarin). If he punches in the numbers, using whichever lens focal length he wishes, and gets back results nearest to the correct height of McClarin, then those results should help narrow down which lens focal length was used for Patty.
Not sure if that's making any sense or not, but by using the Patterson film, Bill is starting with three unknowns -- the height of the film subject, the distance from the camera. and the lens focal length.
If he uses Green's film, and Green accurately measured the height of McClarin, then Bill has an important piece of data --McClarin's height-- even if he doesn't have the lens focal length or distance to camera info. In other words, Bill would only have two unknowns and not three.
RayG
very possible it had a different lens, also when im in the field , I always carry more than one lens , you need different lenses to shoot different things....
its possible if he was doing scenic backdrops he was using a wider angle lens then the 25mm.......bill might actually be on to something here, but it really needs more work to really be fruitful.....like in a re-shoot at the exact location with a surveyor and accurate measuring tape, dont know if this is possible, but it would be worth a try.....
its possible if he was doing scenic backdrops he was using a wider angle lens then the 25mm.......bill might actually be on to something here, but it really needs more work to really be fruitful.....like in a re-shoot at the exact location with a surveyor and accurate measuring tape, dont know if this is possible, but it would be worth a try.....
Can anyone explain what the benefit of a 15mm lens vs a 25 mm lens would have been on this type of camera-if any?
In layman's terms, please.
In layman's terms, please.
A 15mm lens vs a 25mm lens will get more of the scene in the photo - it gives the illusion of a greater distance from the subject thus allowing for more of surrounding objects to be seen in the resultant image. Essentially the opposite of what a zoom lens does.
If Patterson had a 100mm lens instead (I have no idea if the camera utilized such a size, it probably did not) or something that was more like a zoom lens we probably would not be having this discussion right now.
But of course if it is a hoax you don't want to show too much detail... sorry if I digress..
If Patterson had a 100mm lens instead (I have no idea if the camera utilized such a size, it probably did not) or something that was more like a zoom lens we probably would not be having this discussion right now.
But of course if it is a hoax you don't want to show too much detail... sorry if I digress..
QUOTE(Apeman @ May 20 2009, 03:59 PM)
....
I'm not following Ray and Greg on what you are talking about?
-A
I think Ray pretty much covered it..I'm not following Ray and Greg on what you are talking about?
-A
Munns has assumed a distance of 102 feet for the subject to camera distance in the PGF, and discovered he can make his model fit a 15mm lens,
yielding a height of 7' 4" for the subject ..
With McClarin's known height, and Green's camera information ( lens and distance ), Munns should be able to plug McClarin into his model and
see how things scale, compared to the PGF ...
We can see in the overlay I made, that the distance to the camera in the PGF frame and his test frame do not match .
How much are the other figures off ?
Munns uses Dahinden's measurements for the film site, but the path Munns mapped out for the subject, is significantly different from the path Dahinden mapped out ..
Munns seems to be using data that supports his conclusion, and discarding data that doesn't...
QUOTE(RayG @ May 20 2009, 07:19 PM)
...If he uses Green's film, and Green accurately measured the height of McClarin, then Bill has an important piece of data --McClarin's height-- even if he doesn't have the lens focal length or distance to camera info. In other words, Bill would only have two unknowns and not three.
RayG
RayG
And if he tests both the 15mm and the 25mm lenses using a known height, then he would be able to determine the exact distance that Patty was from the camera depending on which lens/distance combinations give the correct height of McClarin.
(I don't think I worded it in a very clear manner, but it's late and I'm going to bed.
Hopefully somebody will make sense of it.)
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ May 20 2009, 06:11 PM)
We can see in the overlay I made, that the distance to the camera in the PGF frame and his test frame do not match .
How can we see that?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.