I really Admire MK Davis

[Tom Shirley]

Everyone needs to listen to MK's radio show from 4/15/08. Click on the player below to listen to the archive. You will need to also be able to look at the Patty pictures that are on the IFrame page below when MK refers you to look at them, just scroll down. MK explains in detail why Patty is no North American ape.

http://66.49.193.35/Bigfoot_Central_2008-04-15.mp3

Long Live the TRUE LEGACY of Roger Patterson

http://www.artistfirst.com/bigfoot2008.html

Tom S. http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c147/jbrowning/chewy.gif

[Lawrence Leavell]

MK Davis presented his photographic analysis of the PG footage at the Ohio conference. What the analysis clearly reveals is that Patty was filmed while being shot in the right leg.

The implications of this information are several:

1. There was certainly no one wearing a gorilla suit, else they would have required some intense medical attention. This minor fact would certainly have been included in their tales of faking the film.

2. Either Gimlin or someone else, and that someone has never admitted being at that location at that time, fired the shot. Patterson was busy at that same moment using the Kodak 16mm film video camera, which fact clearly excludes Patterson as the shooter.

3. Some frames of the film were airbrushed, for what purpose and what information this act was intended to disguise is yet to be determined.

So, it seems that what we have been told all of these years is quite obviously a carefully constructed false cover story. It seems quite appropriate, now that we all know we have been deceived, that the Bigfoot research community press for the real story.

We can also certainly expect the illegitimate and lying bunch of cover-up artists and fraudsters hiding within our midst, disguised as serious Bigfoot researchers, to do their very best to obfuscate and misdirect this work, starting with efforts designed to discredit MK Davis, in their ever continuing effort to hide the truth from those of us who are truly seeking this end. No doubt, their efforts have probably already begun.

Now may be our very best opportunity to listen and read very carefully about who says what, which characters try to hide these revelations, who presses for the truth, and then use this knowledge to identify and expose the real fraudsters who have bedeviled us for all these many years with their nonsense trash talk. Now, we will learn that these are the actual unsavory individuals, the real liars and fraudsters hiding among us, who have been doing their utmost for years to discredit and misdirect serious research.

We should not miss this golden opportunity.

[Henry.May08]

Here is an editorial I wrote on my blog which is a bit of follow-up to Lawrence's post: Editorial: Is Loren Coleman perhaps a bit too biased?

For the past two days, since I returned from the Ohio Bigfoot Conference, I have learned that attempting to post on a certain forum/blog is really tough because I am sticking up for M.K. Davis and giving him the benefit of the doubt on his findings on the Patterson/Gimlin Movie. I might as well call out who has been giving me the most trouble, and that is Loren Coleman. He seems to be not allowing me to post on Cryptomundo in defense of M.K., and seems to be allowing his pack of wolves to ravage M.K. I ask everyone, is this fair? Is this good journalism? Or is it just sensationalism and resistance to new ideas and clinging to old and outdated ideas? Loren has been redirecting all of his "objective journalism" into personal attacks on M.K. rather than analyzing what the man has and has found on the film. M.K. is only the messenger, not the message, yet Loren wants to make him the message and continue to stage personal attacks (or allow others to do so), and I am wondering if Loren is perhaps one of the fraudsters and liars who has been hindering our work for years and especially those who have done pioneering studies and work into Bigfoot research and also into the P/G Movie. It seems that Loren is quite resistant to new ideas that might rock the boat, so to speak, and shatter his (and others') ideas about what Bigfoot is or is not. Loren seems to be acting very dishonestly right now, and it is no wonder a lot of the Bigfoot Community does not like him, therefore it should be no wonder. I used to like Loren, but lately I am not a fan. If this offends Loren, well, tough, he brought it on himself. And if he chooses to flame me along with M.K., then it demonstrates his clear bias. So I would say that yes, Loren seems to be a bit too biased.

[Duke0002]

Thank you Tom S, Lawrence, and Henry for this information. MK's presentation at the Ohio Conference was, to put it mildly, enlightening.

Hopefully new ideas will be allowed to do their work and lead to conclusions that may reveal some new truths.

[Regina]

I am seriously missing parts about MK Davis!! What happened? Patty was shot in the leg?? How did he figure that out? Oh my God... can someone please tell me what's going on? Can someone direct me to his research on this?

Thanks!

Regina

[steve a]

well now, lets see, i saw the frames and all the evidence mk davis , showed at the ohio conference, and the truth in the pudding so to speak, i saw the blood pit, the entrenchment, and the leg, now the question is who fired the shot, gimblin was carrying a 30.6, and he said he had it pointed at the creature at all times, to cover them selves in case it turned on them, patterson was to busy getting up from the horse, and running after the female bigfoot, so who does that leave?, hmmmmm lies after all this time, the film is genuine after all, but the reason they stayed in the area so long, was to hide blood evidence, they said it was ten miles from the nearest road, but yet there was a road one mile to the north of them, mk davis cleared alot up for us, but the big question is, who are the researchers covering this up, i wont name names at this time, but in the long run , things will come out,

[joep]

Folks, I do admire MK Davis's work. The lump on Patty's right thight is a hernia for all I know.

AS for Loren Coleman. I hope never to meet him cause I do not want to point to his shiny shoes and say "What Poop did you steps in?"

[Lawrence Leavell]

What MK Davis did was look much more closely at high resolution transparencies of several frames. One of those frames was snapped at just the moment Patty was shot in the right leg. Immediately after this, the lump appeared above the location where she was shot.
We can now expect the usual liars and fraudsters to do their utmost to attack the messenger, MK Davis, and whatever OTHER techniques they can think to employ, legitimate or otherwise, to suppress, claim as hoax, or discount this information. Why they will choose to do so seems rather obvious.
What I will do now listen very carefully to who says what and make a list of who is a liar or fraudster and who is not for future reference. They will attack MK Davis and, in this process, fully expose themselves.
Draw your own conclusions as to who or what these fraudsters are beholden to. In any case, it seems quite clear that it certainly is not the truth. MK Davis should get a medal for he will certainly receive undo criticism for his honorable and hard effort to expose the true story behind this film.

[Henry.May08]

What MK Davis did was look much more closely at high resolution transparencies of several frames. One of those frames was snapped at just the moment Patty was shot in the right leg. Immediately after this, the lump appeared above the location where she was shot.
We can now expect the usual liars and fraudsters to do their utmost to attack the messenger, MK Davis, and whatever OTHER techniques they can think to employ, legitimate or otherwise, to suppress, claim as hoax, or discount this information. Why they will choose to do so seems rather obvious.
What I will do now listen very carefully to who says what and make a list of who is a liar or fraudster and who is not for future reference. They will attack MK Davis and, in this process, fully expose themselves.
Draw your own conclusions as to who or what these fraudsters are beholden to. In any case, it seems quite clear that it certainly is not the truth. MK Davis should get a medal for he will certainly receive undo criticism for his honorable and hard effort to expose the true story behind this film.


(yes) AMEN, Lawrence!!!!!! Couldn't have put it better myself.

[AllSmiles]

Me, well, I am still trying to wrap my mind around the whole new development. I'm trying to keep an open mind and see how things unfold. I guess the only way to find out what really happened is if we can hear Patty's side of the story. Good points on everyone's input.

[Henry.May08]

The past year-and-a-half, I did struggle a lot with M.K.'s findings, even though he is a friend. I was having trouble wrapping my mind around a lot of the information coming out because i was still basically in the "Big dumb ape" camp and kind of agreed with others saying that M.K. was overreaching. Well, all of that has changed since the presentation this weekend. I am fully behind M.K. and his work, and do not think he is overreaching or manipulating or creating things out of thin air. M.K. is not the kind of person to manipulate things or see things that are not there,it is just that a lot of the versions of the film seen on documentaries and even still photos are the things that ARE manipulated, so THEY are the ones manipulating things, NOT M.K. Their whole objective is to perpetuate the "Big dumb ape" theory so much that they do not want the public to see what is so blatantly obvious. The anti-human-of-sorts crowd is doing everything in its power to make sure that the public has the perception of Sasquatch in general and "Patty" in specifics that this is a Big dumb ape, and M.K. and others are fighting against that. It is admittedly an uphill battle, one which M.K. was seriously considering giving up a year-and-a-half ago, but ultimately it will all be worth it when the final proof is brought in.

[southernbigfooter]

I've seen MK's work on 2 seperate occasions and I for one and getting there on believing that Patty is more than just a BIG DUMB APE. All these things are extremly smart and are somewhere between Chimps and us in overall intelligence. The Braid in the hair, the ponytail, that stick in her left hand.things like that are just beyond somthing thats JUST AN APE. Course what we have in the south IN MY OPINION are something totally different. THese down here are smart but have more of a wild animal in them as they can be downright vicious in nature. MK has really opened my eyes on what they have up that way. I'm not sure what all he let out in Ohio but I know what he showed us and what discoveries that we made the last time. He hadn't even noticed a couple things and when we saw those couple things you could see that some things clicked in his mind. He told us not to say anything to anyone about that so I haven't and won't. Thats his baby there, the patterson-gimlin film and he can release things as he sees fit. I'm just glad he's doing what he's doing as it seems like mainstream america doesn't want to hear alot of it., As far as Lorens site and the bashing of MK, they can kiss my rearend on that and Henry, good job in trying to defend a friend

[stillwaters]

I am having trouble finding the pics that MK was discussing. I looked for them while I was listening to the archived show. Could you help me with this?

I'm so sorry MK is having to deal with a lot of negitive people. You would think that people that follow the Sasquatch idea would be more open minded
stillwaters

[Tom Shirley]

I am having trouble finding the pics that MK was discussing. I looked for them while I was listening to the archived show. Could you help me with this?

I'm so sorry MK is having to deal with a lot of negitive people. You would think that people that follow the Sasquatch idea would be more open minded
stillwaters

The images are no longer shown on the Artistfirst.com page. I was hoping that they would remain for a longer period of time. I will find out if they are shown else where and let you know Stillwaters. I have taken a few pics of the screen at the Ohio Conference while MK was giving his speech. I will ask if it would be OK for me to post them also.

Tom S.

[Regina]

Tom, can you highlight exactly what each conclusions was that MK drew about the pictures for those of us who were not able to attend?

Thanks!

Regina

[Sensitive]

I was there and here is my perspective on MK's work:

(This is Shboom2, y'all - I'm "Sensitive" here.)

First of all, MK has moved well beyond focusing on a few select images, as the BF community has been prone to do. He has instead looked closely at sequences of images, frame by frame, to see the clues in motion. Stills from the film can only tell part of the story ... the motion reveals much more information.

For example, we have all seen the picture showing the "hernia" on Patty's leg. However, we have not looked at the frames to either side of it. In slow motion, it is clear that a flap of skin flies up and then flops back down. The still pic we are used to seeing is in the middle of this, so it appears to be a bump on her leg. After this flap of skin comes back down, we see an obvious hole in her leg, with the hair blown away from around it. It has the distinct appearance of a bullet wound. In fact, when MK showed this evidence at the conference, he didn't say what he thought it was ... he allowed the audience to draw its own conclusions. And after a moment of silence, someone did indeed call out, "So who do you think took a shot at her?" It was obvious what we had seen. The hole wasn't there, and then suddenly, it was.

Remember that the film moves at 18 frames per second. MK's work allows us to see what goes by too quickly for us to see at normal speed.

The ponytail was also very obvious, and moves as she walks. He identified two places in which it is secured, and in the images he was using from the Noll catalog of P/G images, it was much clearer than any of the film images I've ever seen before.

The braid is on the right side of her head, and it swings out as she turns her head. Again, this happens so fast that you don't notice it at normal speed, but in slow motion, it's obvious. Zooming in on it, he found a distinctive herringbone pattern to it. If you look at the classic view of her looking back at the camera, you'll see a blurry line coming down from her head across her right cheek - that is the braid. But again, we are used to seeing versions of the film several generations removed, so you're not going to see the detail that he achieved with the images he used.

As far as the breasts go, he removed the data representing the reflective surface of the hair, leaving only the reflective surface of the skin. What was left behind clearly showed nipples. This, plus amazing detail of her muscles moving, was what he referred to as more proof that it's not a suit.

He also showed us transparencies made from the original by Roger Patterson himself, given to him by Mrs. Patterson. Mrs. P told MK that Roger never gave anyone better than THIRD generation copies of the film. You lose detail with each generation ... we are used to seeing images several generations old. The Noll catalog is supposed to be early generation, but I don't know what level. At any rate, MK was able to look at these few transparencies of Roger Patterson's (remember - only first generation copy) and made a shocking discovery ... in the classic shot of Patty looking back at the camera, Patty's face is very different. Her mouth is open and her overlapping, buck teeth are clearly visible. She also seems to have her hands fisted up because you don't see fingers. So at some point, someone closed her mouth and widened it, and air-brushed over a tiny bit of film debris that was on the original image. On top of this, her skin was lighter. While her face was still a bit dark, the rest of her skin shone through her fur much lighter. At some point, she was darkened. MK pinned down when this happened, and showed an image clearly outlining the masking done around Patty's body ... and an audience member called out the name of the person who had done that work when still prints were made from the film. That name was new information to MK, but it confirmed that the skin was darkened on purpose. This same man must have added the fingers, as this particular image was the first to show fingers. This does beg the question of WHY someone would edit Patty's appearance.

As far as the pool of red fluid goes ... you know the part where Roger falls down? In that sequence is a flash of red color. MK wondered where that color came from and he looked at that sequence frame by frame and found a clear shot of this pool. Patty's legs are only seen from the knees down at the top edge of the frame. Once he steadies himself, Roger is shooting over the top of a soil berm on the opposite side of the pool and it seems that he might have been standing in it. Anyway, in this one shot with the pool in the foreground, you can see that it has a square corner, and the tooth marks of some sort of heavy equipment can be seen along the edge opposite of where Roger is. The pool is filled with a red liquid. You can even see where it has been splashed up on the dirt and rocks along the opposite side. There were several alternative explanations offered for its color, none of which seemed to work.

All of which makes one wonder what really happened that day. I don't know that we'll ever really know.

I am a photographer myself, and I was very impressed with MK's work. I followed the technical aspects of what he said, and I found the images themselves very convincing. I was fortunate enough to see more in a private session he had with a small group later that night, and what I saw then only convinced me more that something very fishy happened that day.

As for the criticism MK is getting from people on the Web who weren't even there, I say this ... unless you have seen the evidence yourself, you have no room to talk. Yes, it's shocking and it changes our view of the film (I was personally very upset by what I saw -- my heart goes out to Patty), but we should never be afraid of new information just because it challenges preconceived notions.

JMHO, of course.

[Henry.May08]

I was there and here is my perspective on MK's work:

(This is Shboom2, y'all - I'm "Sensitive" here.)

First of all, MK has moved well beyond focusing on a few select images, as the BF community has been prone to do. He has instead looked closely at sequences of images, frame by frame, to see the clues in motion. Stills from the film can only tell part of the story ... the motion reveals much more information.

For example, we have all seen the picture showing the "hernia" on Patty's leg. However, we have not looked at the frames to either side of it. In slow motion, it is clear that a flap of skin flies up and then flops back down. The still pic we are used to seeing is in the middle of this, so it appears to be a bump on her leg. After this flap of skin comes back down, we see an obvious hole in her leg, with the hair blown away from around it. It has the distinct appearance of a bullet wound. In fact, when MK showed this evidence at the conference, he didn't say what he thought it was ... he allowed the audience to draw its own conclusions. And after a moment of silence, someone did indeed call out, "So who do you think took a shot at her?" It was obvious what we had seen. The hole wasn't there, and then suddenly, it was.

Remember that the film moves at 18 frames per second. MK's work allows us to see what goes by too quickly for us to see at normal speed.

The ponytail was also very obvious, and moves as she walks. He identified two places in which it is secured, and in the images he was using from the Noll catalog of P/G images, it was much clearer than any of the film images I've ever seen before.

The braid is on the left side of her head, and it swings out as she turns her head. Again, this happens so fast that you don't notice it at normal speed, but in slow motion, it's obvious. Zooming in on it, he found a distinctive herringbone pattern to it. If you look at the classic view of her looking back at the camera, you'll see a blurry line coming down from her head across her cheek - that is the braid. But again, we are used to seeing versions of the film several generations removed, so you're not going to see the detail that he achieved with the images he used.

As far as the breasts go, he removed the data representing the reflective surface of the hair, leaving only the reflective surface of the skin. What was left behind clearly showed nipples. This, plus amazing detail of her muscles moving, was what he referred to as more proof that it's not a suit.

He also showed us transparencies made from the original by Roger Patterson himself, given to him by Mrs. Patterson. Mrs. P told MK that Roger never gave anyone better than THIRD generation copies of the film. You lose detail with each generation ... we are used to seeing images several generations old. The Noll catalog is supposed to be early generation, but I don't know what level. At any rate, MK was able to look at these few transparencies of Roger Patterson's (remember - only first generation copy) and made a shocking discovery ... in the classic shot of Patty looking back at the camera, Patty's face is very different. Her mouth is open and her overlapping, buck teeth are clearly visible. She also seems to have her hands fisted up because you don't see fingers. So at some point, someone closed her mouth and widened it, and air-brushed over a tiny bit of film debris that was on the original image. On top of this, her skin was lighter. While her face was still a bit dark, the rest of her skin shone through her fur much lighter. At some point, she was darkened. MK pinned down when this happened, and showed an image clearly outlining the masking done around Patty's body ... and an audience member called out the name of the person who had done that work when still prints were made from the film. That name was new information to MK, but it confirmed that the skin was darkened on purpose. This same man must have added the fingers, as this particular image was the first to show fingers. This does beg the question of WHY someone would edit Patty's appearance.

As far as the pool of red fluid goes ... you know the part where Roger falls down? In that sequence is a flash of red color. MK wondered where that color came from and he looked at that sequence frame by frame and found a clear shot of this pool. Patty's legs are only seen from the knees down at the top edge of the frame. Once he steadies himself, Roger is shooting over the top of a soil berm on the opposite side of the pool and it seems that he might have been standing in it. Anyway, in this one shot with the pool in the foreground, you can see that it has a square corner, and the tooth marks of some sort of heavy equipment can be seen along the edge opposite of where Roger is. The pool is filled with a red liquid. You can even see where it has been splashed up on the dirt and rocks along the opposite side. There were several alternative explanations offered for its color, none of which seemed to work.

All of which makes one wonder what really happened that day. I don't know that we'll ever really know.

I am a photographer myself, and I was very impressed with MK's work. I followed the technical aspects of what he said, and I found the images themselves very convincing. I was fortunate enough to see more in a private session he had with a small group later that night, and what I saw then only convinced me more that something very fishy happened that day.

As for the criticism MK is getting from people on the Web who weren't even there, I say this ... unless you have seen the evidence yourself, you have no room to talk. Yes, it's shocking and it changes our view of the film (I was personally very upset by what I saw -- my heart goes out to Patty), but we should never be afraid of new information just because it challenges preconceived notions.

JMHO, of course.

(*(:*) (*(:*) (*(:*) EXCELLENT observations, ShBoom!!!!!!

[Tom Shirley]

Tom, can you highlight exactly what each conclusions was that MK drew about the pictures for those of us who were not able to attend?

Thanks!

Regina

I am going to add a few pics here that I took at the Conference. The battery on the camera did not last long enough for the whole speech so I am limited to what I did get. I will show the pony tail images here. I want to Thank MK for sharing his new findings with us all and for allowing me to show these images.
1) M.K. Davis 2) 2 ties making pony tail 3) marks showing herringbone braid on right side 4) top knot
156 157 158159

[Tom Shirley]

I was there and here is my perspective on MK's work:

(This is Shboom2, y'all - I'm "Sensitive" here.)



Howdy Ms Shboom, http://board.freeones.com/images/smilies/hatsoff.gif

Thank You very much for adding your perspective of MK's progressing work with the Patty film. You are at the same conclusions that I have came to while viewing the images that MK had shown at the Conference. I did not get to view the extra private session as you did, but I do know what I saw during his speech. I am so happy that Mrs. Patterson has released the original transparencies to MK so that he can finally get some closing for the questions that has occupied his thoughts of the film for these years.

I know that his new findings with the original transparencies are going to stay in our thoughts and worries of what the real truth of that day was, but hopefully this will grab folks attention of the need for Protection Laws and of how unfair that our type of people are. :(

Tom S.

[steve a]

Shboom, Thanks For A Great Post, I Took A Lot Of The Pictures, As You Know, You Was Sitting Two Seats From Me, I Will Have Tom Go Thru Those Pictures I Took, And Added Them Here If He Wants, , But I Was Wondering If I Could Use Your Post On My Group With Your Permission , And Only With Your Permission, It Is Very Informative, And Have It Edited By You For Protection For You, Thanks Again For A Great Post, And Observation Yours Steve Abney,

[Duke0002]

Sensitive, Thanks much for your observations of MK's presentation. Appreciate it being put down in text form.

-Duke

[Sensitive]

Steve, please feel free to use my post. Just please only use "Sensitive" or "Shboom2" as I don't want to have my real name floating around. Thanks!

Tom - I'm glad your pics turned out as well as they did. I would like to add for those folks looking at them that in the ponytail shot, Patty is facing away from the camera and the ponytail trails down the back of her head and neck and onto her back. I thought that might help add some perspective.

[Sensitive]

FYi - I re-read my post and noticed that I had mistakenly put the braid on Patty's left, but it is really on her "other left." LOL I have edited my original to reflect that it is on Patty's right. I apologize for any confusion.

[AllSmiles]

Shboom/Sensitive....very well put.

[joep]

Folks, From the start of this newer findings MK Davis put out. I went out to find all information about those findings MK Davis put out. As for me I can say it is baloney. I am sorry it is me I can't see what MK thought up is the way it happens. I got the Patty video. Thru out the video Patty coolly distanced herself from those two cowboys(if I may call them that)and till the end of film while she walk into the distance forest.

Sorry it is my take on what I don't think happens.One thing for me to say MK Davis is GCBRO( Pro-Kill). His story still stuck in first gear and does not mesh gear with rest of film.

[Sensitive]

Joep - you cannot see what we saw at the conference because you probably lack the software to play the film frame by frame, slow motion, zoomed in. The proof is in the video, but the vast majority of us simply lack the tools to see what happens too fast for the naked eye. This won't convince you, of course, but it is the explanation for why you cannot see what MK has found.

[steve a]

The Foot Shot Was Seen As A Flash Was Seen Coming Out Of Her Side, This Is A Bullet Exit Wound, The Second Shot Was At Her Head As She Ducked It,

[Tom Shirley]

Folks, From the start of this newer findings MK Davis put out. I went out to find all information about those findings MK Davis put out. As for me I can say it is baloney. I am sorry it is me I can't see what MK thought up is the way it happens. I got the Patty video. Thru out the video Patty coolly distanced herself from those two cowboys(if I may call them that)and till the end of film while she walk into the distance forest.

Sorry it is my take on what I don't think happens.One thing for me to say MK Davis is GCBRO( Pro-Kill). His story still stuck in first gear and does not mesh gear with rest of film.

Hi Rodney,

The first thing that I should mention is that MK has recently acquired transparencies from Mrs. Patterson that Roger made from the original master film. The film that we have all been shown all these years has been 2nd and 3rd generation copies. These copies do not show the quality images as the Master copy does. MK has also found something with the 2nd and 3rd generation copies that is bugging him quite a bit. Some frames do not match very well to the Master copy. MK mentioned that someone air brushing the first copy could be to blame for the inconsistencies to the Master with certain frames of the film. He had also found something else very strange with the copies, the mark on the film where it would show the producer of the copied film, has been hole punched out, like someone did not want to be found.

Now about MK being with the GCBRO does not make him a (Pro Kill). I do not see MK having any thought of killing one of the Forest Friends. I was sitting right next to the laptop that he was using for his speech of his new findings with the Patty film. There was sincere sadness in his eyes while he was giving us the new details. I could feel his grief.

There has been certain issues with the film that has bugged him for a long time, that he just could not figure out without having these new Master transparencies. This is what has drove him for so long working on this film, he needed answers. These new discoveries that he found looked very legitimate to me especially the way he showed the frames from the 2nd or 3rd generation copies compared to the Master transparencies.

You could see fingers in one frame from one, but there were no fingers for the same frame in the other. You could see buck teeth and her mouth open in another frame, but the same frame from the copy, the mouth was painted where you could not see her buck teeth. Her mouth even looked lower on her face than on the Master frame.

Her skin color had even been changed.

Enough from me for now.

Tom S.

[Sensitive]

I want to clarify what Tom has said. According to what Mrs. P told MK, Roger never gave anyone better than third generation copies. So the best out there is third generation. I must assume that the best the Noll catalog of images, which MK used, can only be third generation at the best. However, WE are all used to seeing copies that are SEVERAL generations removed. The transparencies that MK obtained from Mrs. P. are first generation, and were made by Roger himself. So, MK was dealing with the best available images, and certainly better than anything available on the Web.

Comparing the clarity of what we saw in Ohio to the various blurry versions on the Web, it's no wonder so many people think it's all fake.

[stillwaters]

I am liking this discussion. And that my friend, JoeP can express his opinion without getting negitive feedback from the rest of the forum.

An open mind, and a wait and see attitude is what is needed.

Stillwaters

[Tom Shirley]

Tonights show starts in 28 minutes, you can view the comparison images there, here is the link. > http://www.artistfirst.com/bigfoot2008.html

Tom S.

[Sensitive]

I was amazed and intrigued when the Canadian researcher interviewed on the Bigfoot Talk with Darin BTR show last night indicated that he regularly sees pony tails and braids on the female BF in his area. And he clearly had never heard of MK Davis and sounded surprised at the hosts' reactions.

[Tom Shirley]

I was surprised also Sensitive that someone else has noticed this. I have never seen this myself, but Jan has told me many things that the females do to fancy them self up.

Every time I hear something from another area of their intelligence and likeness, it pushes me more to help the FFs.

Tom S.

[Jan]

I heard and listened to about enough of the bologna going on over this nonsense on all the forums and talk shows. I'm a little more than fed up with this crap. Sorry, but I may end up banned from my own damn forum here. But the lady is here and has both barrels loaded and is fixing to let fly with the bullets. So I suggest if you don't like what I have to say you cover your eyes or go crawl back under that rock you crawled out from under..

What M. K. presented at the conference was just film footage and his findings of Patty having a braided pony tail, of her leg having a wound there above the right knee cap, that we all took for a hernia to begin with. Also that on one of the generation copies used By M. K. that Patty's front teeth show in a few of the frames.

Someone in the audience jumped up and shouted "Oh My God Patty was shot in the leg". Then someone said Bob had to do it. M. K. told everyone there, that there were other people in the area at the time logging and researching. That is evident from the downed trees in the footage, they are cut with chain saws and also the drag cable.

Then in the bottom corner of a few of the frames, that if my understanding is correct, were not released until Mrs. Patterson gave these to M. K. to analyze, there is plainly a pit with what looks to be blood and possible body parts in it. I saw these frames along with everyone there at the conference.

M. K. did not insinuate anyone doing anything. All he wanted to do was to bring some recognition to the fact that Patterson did something no other person has been able to do in over 40 years, and that was to get footage on film of a Sasquatch. Regardless of what may have, or may not have happened all those years ago out there Roger kept his head about him and continued to film.

As far as I know Mrs. Patterson still doesn't have legal rights to the original film footage and M. K. I assume and understand it is trying to help her obtain it for herself and possibly Bob Gimlin. I do not see anything wrong with that. Poor old Roger died a broke man. Why should his wife and Bob Gimlin not have some of the money off the usage of this film after all these years?

Had it not been for the film company and then Other's having claimed copyrights to the film footage that was not rightfully theirs to claim, Roger and Bob would have been able to perhaps had some income for their hard won efforts and been able to sit back and enjoy life a bit.

But that was not the case, both men have been ran through the grind mill and made out to be all kinds of bad things through the ages. You have that man Heironimus or whatever his darn name is, claiming he was the man in the monkey suit. That is total bologna if I ever heard it. Patty is real, and here is what makes her real being presented by M. K. Davis at his finest work and expertise.

The jerks in this field do not wish to look at Patty as real or even as possibly something other than a big dumb ape incapable of feelings, emotions or intelligence. That is where the problem lies, with people like these that like to keep us all in a uproar and fussing with one another over something that happened over 40 years ago. Everyone needs to stop beating the dead horse's bones, the damn thing decayed over twenty years ago. Sorry for the curse but sometimes it is needed for emphases.

I have stayed out of this mess as best I could, but I think it is time I put my two cents in for the record. NO ONE should point the finger at anyone unless they were there 40 years ago and actually witnessed what happened. NO ONE should insinuate M. K. Davis said or did anything, especially if they didn't even attend the conference, or were to busy running their traps to listen to what he actually did have to say. M. K. did not alter the footage of the film, all he did was to enhance it so we could all see it clearer. What is there, is there.

In my opinion should M. K. Davis choose to leave the hate filled Bigfoot community I can't blame him after all this ridicule. But I will say this, if he leaves we are going to loose one of the best men in this field for analyzing photos and film footage. I don't know of anyone more dedicated in their work than what M. K. has been over the last ten years. It takes a lot of heart, blood, sweat and tears to do the things M. K. Davis has. I for one will sincerely miss him should he choose to leave this field.

Yours,
Jan

[steve a]

janice carter, is on the target, here folks, i was there at the conference, and every thing jan said is absolutly true,good going jan,

[Tom Shirley]

I have more images that MK has worked on in the Gallery. Look for the album Titled "Work that MK Davis has performed on the Patty film." http://www.bigfootreferenceguide.com/Gallery/main.php

Just a heads up for yall.

Tom S.

[pattymac]

Its a shame that this man is hounded like this. One day when the truth comes out he can sit back and laugh at these jokers.
I can think of several people that I have met that had the ape mind set. I told them repeatedly until you study what the elders have shared you will never know them. Some of those same people are now very vocal about what the NA have to say about them being the ancient ones. Funny how a little knowledge in an open mind works.
I wish the very best of blessings to M.K. Davis and hope he can achieve some peace in his life.

[Tom Shirley]

M.K. Davis was on the Blog Talk Radio Show Campfire_ Shadows 5/13/09. You can listen to another great interview with MK here. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Campfire_Shadows/2009/05/14/TBA

[Babydoll]

Jan, you have always maintained the the forest friends in the pacific northwest were heavier and looked a little different from the foots in Tennessee. You told me years ago that you felt the patterson film was genuine. I have doubts myself, but I am not an expert and have not viewed the film in detail.

[Henry.May08]

OK, looking back over the last two years, I have to say that I admire M.K.'s early work on the film, but this recent series of interpretations re: the so-called "Massacre theory" is a bit for me to swallow. I have met Bob Gimlin 3 times, and cannot conceive of him having participated in any sort of shooting or in any cover-up of such. I admire M.K.'s work up until this whole shooting controversy came up, but the way I see it, if a shooting had occurred at that time, we would not even be discussing Sasquatch on the Internet or anywhere. We would have had the proof since 1967. M.K. and I fell out over this whole controversy, and I feel about 95% to blame for that for my attitude towards him after I rejected him out of hand instead of separating the theory from the man. That is my fault, and I will make an attempt to make things right with M.K. if I can. If I cannot reconcile with him, that is fine too, but I would like to make the attempt. i certainly disagree that there was a shooting at Bluff Creek in 1967, but I should have just agreed to disagree with M.K. and left it there instead of letting it fester and getting into a personality battle with him. A lot of folks in the so-called "Bigfoot Community" (including myself, unfortunately) turned on him like a rabid dog when he made these claims, and I for one should not have done so. I cannot speak for any of the others who have attacked M.K., but I can speak for myself. I was wrong to turn it into a personality battle, and who knows, I may pay for it ultimately, but I regret it now. Anyway, that is just my two cents.