BIGFOOT'S BLOG
Late April 2014 EditionOH BOTHER, MK Davis is back at it again. As if we didn't already know this, MK....
The question, "When was the Patterson film taken and who took it?"
Thank you for wasting 16 minutes of our time, MK. This video again clearly demonstrates only his faulty thinking and conspiratorial theoretical leaps.
Here is a recently-emerged frame from the film with the truest-to-life colors I've ever seen:
Here is a recently-emerged frame from the film with the truest-to-life colors I've ever seen:
 |
| The true colors of the plants, trees and sand on the Bluff Creek sandbar. |
* Those patches of trees with the red leaves are vine maples, and still grow on those same spots today, turning red in mid to late October or early November.
* The color red is shown by MK from two separate copies of the film. Color balances differ. The "dead foliage" in his scanned image from Patricia shows the red vine maples shifted to brownish or orangish red. The other colors such as yellow show fading too. The vivid reds and yellows of the maples are distinct features of that very spot today, and the vine maples never turn red before October (in my 12 years of observation up there and also in the long memories of older locals in this area I've asked).
* The 1964 Flood did not get up that high and kill those trees. It killed those alders down on the sandbar that the flood created but left the trees at the back and up the banked hill there alone. This evidence exists still today all up and down the creek. The green trees seen in the PGF are Douglas fir mostly old growth, with some understory shrubs like Oregon grape and rhododendron and azalea. Alders grow down on the sandbar, but were mostly washed away by the historic flood.
* Bill Munns has a complete copy of the first roll of film and had shown that it is contiguous, with natural camera stops between scenes, is unedited, and was clearly shot at the same time of year as the Bigfoot part. The horseback scene was shot in the shadows of the canyon downstream and thus there was a big difference in exposure between there and the fully exposed sandbar where the Bigfoot appears. This accounts for color differences.
* In the questioning of Gimlin the guy asks who was carrying the camera when they rode out that day. Gimlin obviously meant that Roger was carrying the camera and filming things. This was because Gimlin was not a camera guy. Easy explanation: Then Roger wanted footage of himself. So he asked Bob to film him, needing only to say, Bob, just flick this switch here and hold it steady. Both accounts can exist without contradiction. This does not indicate a lie on Gimlin's part, but just a differing interpretation of the intent of the two questions.
* The film was shot in 1967, October 20th, at shortly after noon (approximately 1:00 p.m., but unverified by a watch at the time). At this time of day that shadow length is totally natural at that time of year. As stated above, MK offers no time of day nor date on the year for his comparison photo, and he certainly wasn't standing on the correct film site besides.
 |
| The Big Tree in June 2012, surrounded by green-stage vine maples. |
In other words.... MK is a fool playing goofy games on a computer. He can't even locate the correct film site, heading downstream to no man's land. The guy is lost in the woods and dreaming paranoid fantasies of massacres and flowing bloody streams with Bigfoot corpses piled high. Absurd.
The matter is settled and obvious, yet MK persists on his obfuscation and deliberate confusion of simple issues in order to advance his imaginary conspiracy theory and to gain attention and special fame.
There are many things still to be known about the PGF, but they are not to be found using delusional imagination.
His colors are being observed in somewhat degraded images from film copies. The natural colors are shifted somewhat. After that he intentionally manipulated cookies trying to show blood where there was none. Absurd.
 |
| A crop of that frame from the film. |
 |
| The contiguous and unspliced scenes from the roll of film Patterson shot (with some help from Gimlin). Bill Munns states that these are natural camera transitions. Note how the reds are more prominent in the third scene, which is shot in a shadowy canyon. |
 |
| MK Davis' scan take from Patricia Patterson's transparency. Note the degradation of reds, yellows and browns. |
 |
| A photo from Tony Healy in 1978, showing the colors of foliage on the site, the vine maples not yet turned red. |
 |
| Me just downstream from the site in August. This is what the foliage looks like that time of year. Behind me are alders, vine maples, broadleaf maples, Douglas fir, and rhododendrons and ferns. |
More Fun MK Errors... |
| MK's incorrect view of the PGF site perspective. |
 |
| Perspective corrected by me and confirmed as accurate by Bill Munns and our site survey. |
MK believes a story handed down from great ur-hoaxer, IVAN MARX. More Massacre Madness...
Hey SS, why do you keep trying to write yourself in to Bigfoot history, thinking you have located the P&G film site? All the information you have gathered though commendable, is very biased and subjective. Anyone can get the same qualified individuals, do the same research and apply their own biased and subjective findings and confirm an alternate site location. There is only one true P&G film site location and it is pretty much confirmed by the individual who not only drove in to the site but also walked in to the site from Bluff Creek Bridge over the course of a few years of the P&G film being made. He also had witnesses with him, one of whom lives in the Willow Creek area.
ReplyDeleteThe actual P&G film site location is approx 2 miles upstream from Bluff Creek Bridge and not the location where you claim, which is approx another 1/2 - 3/4 of a mile upstream. Cliff Barackman's estimated location was closer to the actual site. Note; this is not the “MK Davis site” as you have claimed, he was told of this location as he has said.
Peter Byrne is the only remaining living unbiased researcher who was there at the time (not counting John Green for obvious reasons), and who has provided verified documentation that the site is approx 2 miles from Bluff Creek Bridge. He took pictures with Al Hodgson’s son standing at the site with a large measuring stick with Al Hodgson there and also later with Rene Dahinden, you even posted the pictures on your blog! And yet you and the individuals that support your findings have blatantly omitted these facts in your gathered information. How then can your research be considered factual and true?
And coincidentally Peter Byrne’s documentation can be backed up by a hand drawn map that was given to Roger Patterson telling him where to go prior to him and Bob Gimlin getting the female Sasquatch on film. Only a select few individuals were given a copy of that hand drawn map which outlines the site area and clearly negates your data. If you persist in trying to convince the Bigfoot community and the general public at large that you have located the actual site, you and your supporters will be very disappointed as will those that believe your diluted information. When the evidence is brought forth and presented, it will discredit your findings.
Also, don't you have anything better to do than to keep trying to discredit and defame MK Davis and others? Who cares if his research is controversial, people can figure it out for themselves, and your seemingly personal vendetta only makes you look more out of control than him since he doesn’t do the same to you. Your recent copied posts about him clearly could land you in court if he so chooses and you could be found guilty of falsities and defamation of character and have to pay restitution. This guy is thoroughly imbedded in your brain.
Get back to your roots when you first began blogging, not attacking people; defaming their character, nor claim information that was biased and subjective. Go back to being happy at being into Bigfooting, reporting unbiased information instead of the individual you have become.
Finally, regarding your “Rights and Fair Use” also your “Terms and Conditions Policy”; legally when posting or quoting Articles from the Declaration of Human Rights and or Titles/Sections of the U.S.C. and or US Copyright Laws, it should be known that a person can be held liable for not posting them in their entirety and or only posting/applying what they think will nullify them from any responsibility or liabilities for what they post on their blog.
FBF
Wow, the above comment is so chock full of complete and total BS that you've just earned yourself a full blog entry as a response. All of the above can easily be refuted. Suffice it to say that your rumor and conjecture are better than mathematics and the word of someone like Bob Gimlin? OK, yeah, right.
DeleteI suppose total mathematical proof and site object correlation isn't good enough for you? You'd rather believe a fantasy? OK, but look here first...
Deletehttp://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/pgf-bigfoot-film-site-mathematically.html
Cliff Barackman's estimated location, as you put it, IS the site. Cliff heard of the location from Bobo, who was there in 2003 when Bob was there and Bob was at that time not sure at first but then settled on the site we know for the first sighting spot after he saw the bowling alley and backtracked. Cliff visited Perez and saw the map that Dahinden had marked. Daniel at that time couldn't locate the spot on the ground. Even then, Cliff and Bob both seemed to think that Patty walked down in the current creekbed. We proved that the actual trackway location was located back behind the current creekbed, up on the sandbar, behind where Bobo walked in the Finding Bigfoot recreation. This has been totally confirmed, and verified by the likes of Bill Munns on site.
DeleteDid you actually look far enough to find that I INTERVIEWED Peter Byrne? Well, he provided us detailed information. We went to the exact location he indicated. There is NO film site there, no remaining artifacts or trees from the time, nothing at all. He just does not remember correctly. And back in the day he obviously did not have accurate means to gauge the distance to the site when walking from the bridge over Bluff Creek or Notice Creek.
DeleteLOOK HERE:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/search?q=peter+byrne+interview
or HERE:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/brief-conversations-regarding-bluff.html
FBF, whomever you are, you are wrong. There is no "personal vendetta" with MK Davis. These are issues of HISTORY and FACT, and he is WRONG, and he is wrong CONSTANTLY. What can I say. See above. I don't care about HIM, but I will address his assertions when he makes them, as he has obfuscated and confused the history of Bluff Creek now for six years since he first started spewing out "Masacre" nonsense in 2008 at the Ohio Bigfoot Conference. He HAS talked about us, but that isn't the issue. The issue is WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. Sorry you can't see that this is not an ad hominem or straw man issue.
Deleteanalyse the footage for what it is, without prejudice. criticising rp is not criticising the film. personally, i cannot see a man in a monkey suit, i see detail & anatomy that is natural, muscle groups that move collectively appropriate to the locomotion of the subject. i see a complex, structured anatomy that could not be conceived of in a suit. surely, a convincing replica of this footage would have been manufactured by now? if two uneducated geezers without a penny to their name & no resources could manage to orchestrate a poorly funded hoax so convincingly, there would be reconstructions that would shame it into obscurity. to suggest that PG would have studied anthropology & anatomy to a level that was advanced enough for him to add muscle groups, skeletal detail, body hair coverage, lifelike breasts that could shame any plastic surgeon but slip up by by ignorantly adding a sagittal crest to his female masterpiece? Design of the suit would mean that every tiny detail is deliberate & with purpose even down to the hernia bulge in the quadricep. not in my imagining
DeleteYou speak of a "hand drawn map that was given to Roger Patterson telling him where to go prior to him and Bob Gimlin getting the female Sasquatch on film." Now really, HOW COULD A MAP DRAWN *BEFORE* THE FILM WAS SHOT ACCURATELY SHOW THE FILM SITE? Before??? No, really. You need a map drawn AFTER the film was shot to document where the film was shot. We have a map like that. It bears the mark of Rene Dahinden, who was the most constant and accurate researcher of the film site and the film issues from the early 1970s until the 1990s. Peter Byrne only went there a few times, WITH Rene. Then he seems to have lost track of the site, as did John Green, Bob Titmus, and Al Hodgson. People like MK Davis, and Bobbie Short never even had a clue as to the correct location. Sorry, that is the truth, and we have *proven* it.
ReplyDeleteI was less than 12 inches from one of these creatures. Wrote a short book about it. "Night of the Yeti" on Amazon
ReplyDeleteI am so confussed why anyone would defend Davis? The man makes personal attacks on folks he know are dead. He shows on his videos manipulating the colors to fit his story. He does not even have a 20th generation of the film. He has some copy of a copy of copy of a copy. He offers NO proof of a shooting (other than manipulation and speculation ). He using tabloid magazines as references. He makes wild statements "this guy said" but gives no names or evidence supporting it saying "oh I can't tell their name" . If there was a trial today based on M.K. Davis it would be thrown out in 5 minutes. Hearsay is not evidence. Well a guy told me is not evidence. M.k. Davis needs to be exposed. Why you may ask? Because if you do not stop the poison fast enough it gets through the whole body. Thus if people continue to lend gravitas to his wild claims, it will dig in and become cannon.
ReplyDelete