Release One     Foundation Material     Camera Material     Model Data    Texture Maps     Conclusion
Conclusion
 
I have created a digital Bluff Creek Site Model which consistently matches multiple images from the PG Film. So it is my contention that this model is an accurate representation of the site, and can be applied to further research on the film. Further, it is my conclusion that the lens Roger Patterson had on his camera that day was a 15mm lens, not the generally presumed 25mm lens. I conclude this because seven different views of the site model, seen through this lens specification, match the site objects and proportions exceptionally well. Finally, I conclude that the identified camera positions in the site model are sufficiently accurate in terms of replicating Roger's camera positions during the filming as to allow researchers to use those camera positions as part of the subject height calculation formula (which requires the camera position as one component of the formula).
 
Good science requires that for any claim, the data and resources should be made available to other researchers so they may test the data and replicate the experiments or analysis. I have provided all the data necessary for other researchers to do this. And I welcome the efforts of others to review this data and contribute to this study.
 
But good science requires that we consider all the points of view and remain open to alternate conclusions. Is it possible for a different lens focal length and different site object positions to yield as good a result as I have presented herein? Every test on the 25mm lens specification I conducted for two months failed to solve even remotely as well as this model solved with the 15mm lens specification. But if there are any researchers who feel that the 25mm lens is still an option or the correct answer, I invite said researchers to use these resources to build a model and fill out the
data sheet I have included here with their data as to object locations, camera locations, and camera horizontal angle of view. I will be pleased to test any alternatives and publish any model submitted as a rebuttal to my model.
 
There is another issue which I must address, in anticipation of the response from others researching this film. That issue is the question of integrating other data from the film analysis to see how it may integrate with, or conflict with, this site model and the lens determination. The various studies of the subject trackway are one such issue I have already discussed at length with another researcher. So I must state that data from other aspects of research, especially data not seen in this film and thus not used in any way to determine this model or the lens focal length, do not prove this model wrong, if they simply conflict with this data. Any proof this model is wrong, or that the lens focal length is wrong, should derive from this model data or general optical sciences and photogrammetry principles, and said proof must show an alternative model and lens specification which works as well, or produces a superior match in all views, to negate the conclusive results herein.
 
Simply put, if anyone should offer the criticism that this site model or the lens determination is wrong, please show me a site model and lens specification which is more right, as your rebuttal to my conclusion. You may simply submit a filled in data sheet with your specified coordinates for all objects and cameras (a blank version of the datasheet is included on this website for your convenience), as a rebuttal and it will be tested. Then it will be graded as to number of object matches, as shown HERE.
 
Furthermore, I will welcome other researchers who have a capability of building and testing 3D models, and who will not only be willing to test my model herein, but test any proposed alternate models as well, so any evaluation of competing model specifications can be evaluated by several people, not just myself alone.
 
I will also welcome any "fine tuning" of my model specifications, if any other researchers find it to be substantially correct but not "perfect" and they can advise me on adjustments of coordinates to make it more perfect. Ultimately, the goal is to accomplish a digital model that all researchers can use and rely upon for their analysis of other film issues and studies. That one digital model, with coordinates for objects and camera positions, will be a major step toward resolving the many contentious issues of this film.
 
So, if this model of mine stands the test of peer review and independent analysis by others, then issues of how this model integrates with (or conflicts with) other film research material, can be studied.
 
 
                                  Information on the Next Phase of this Report
 
 
For discussion of this report, in a forum environment that I participate in, see my Links page,
item #3, or go HERE.
 
Website Index         Overview Navigation Page