The idea that we’ve been lied to about the origin of the “Patty” film seems far-fetched.
None of us are willing to believe that our “heroes” of Bigfootery could have been involved in a huge cover-up story for some nefarious deeds in the forest.
Easier to just forget it, laugh, or whatever you do best.
This week MK Davis visited JavaBob and his wife, Vikki, here in Happy Camp. He was on his way to Bluff Creek with fellow Bigfoot researchers and life-adventurers Ken Gibbons and Don Monroe.
Since I’m JavaBob’s neighbor I had the opportunity to meet these visiting men and listen to their stories and theories. We even participated in a long “round table” recorded discussion that included JavaBob and myself.
[Note: Mostly the men talked. I have a tendency to become very quiet in groups.]A highlight of our meeting was the opportunity to see MK Davis’ video collection, including those videos he believes indicate a Bigfoot “massacre” situation at Bluff Creek.
You may recall I saw the YouTube videos of the “massacre theory” back in August 2009 and was quick to condemn this new and terrible theory.
Well, MK Davis hasn’t dropped it, and at some point is likely to make more of his findings public.
What I noticed about MK Davis is that he’s a quiet, soft-spoken man very set in his belief and dedicated to his work.
He is one of the best video analysts in the Bigfoot research field, if not THE best.
He is meticulous and focuses on details.
He appears to be professional and intellectual in every way.
He was able to show me a few things that caught my attention enough to think that maybe his massacre theory has some merit.
The first thing was a dog’s paw print in the Patterson-Gimlin film. What was that doing there? He refers to it as the bloody paw print.
The second was the reflection of the face of the dog, “White Lady,” when she leans forward to sniff at what MK Davis believes is a partially buried Bigfoot corpse. There was something black, something red, and a small pool of water. The reflection was what got to me.
Back in 2009 when I first saw this video I thought the black and red on the ground could have been camping equipment.
I no longer believe that because (1) the dog’s handler obviously was letting the dog sniff at something, and (2) the reflection of the dog’s movement was in water.
Why would a dog handler have a dog sniff at a wet backpack? That makes no sense, but MK Davis’ theory that the dog was sniffing at a dead Sasquatch’s remains makes more sense if that dog is being used to locate more Sasquatches.
The third thing MK Davis talked about that made me pause and wonder was the logistics of getting Patty on film. Why was she sitting out in the open when they came around the bend and saw her? Surely she heard them coming through the woods. Was she allowing herself to be seen because she was mourning over a dead child or other relative? That is MK Davis’ belief.
On the other hand, if murdering white guys were killing her family, wouldn’t Patty have run for cover rather than sit out in the open and mourn? When she was seen, wouldn’t she run to the nearest forested area rather than walk solidly to the far-end of the gravel bar?
There’s no doubt Sasquatches can run, and they are fast. Why wouldn’t she run from people attacking her?
A couple other things MK Davis showed us startled me.
He had a video that shows a possible bullet entering Patty’s leg. One moment a section of her leg is covered with hair, and the next moment there’s a circle. I know this has been mentioned on the web before… but I never saw the video analysis until now.Here’s another thing I wasn’t aware of until now. He has a video of her mouth showing that the photo has been changed. Why didn’t I realize this before? The original film (a first generation copy he got from Patricia Patterson) shows her having a small red mouth, and the well-known photo of her displayed in the Willow Creek museum has been altered with long, thin lips, perhaps thought to be more attractive, or less human.
What’s going on here?
Why was the photo altered?
Was someone shooting at Patty?
Why would someone do that?
According to MK Davis, the motivation was that a company was losing logging workers because of the presence of “Bigfoot” forest people near their job sites. They may have paid people to come into the forest to eliminate the threat.
As far-fetched and unpleasant as this all sounds to us, we need to prepare for hearing more about it, because MK Davis was at Bluff Creek this week doing more research to prove his massacre theory.
This isn’t going away.
I was surprised at the details of the film on MK Davis’ computer. It is much clearer than what we’ve seen on YouTube videos. MK Davis is a talented film analyst.
This video shows what kind of analysis MK Davis is capable of and it clearly shows that Patty was a real Bigfoot.
Where the massacre theory fails to attract believers is with personalities. Bigfoot researchers on the whole love and admire some of the principle people who may have been involved with the massacre if it actually took place.
People like John Green and Bob Gimlin have reached hero-worship status in the Bigfoot research community.
Also, we’re not ready to see our paradigm shift to the extent of thinking the PG film story was a cover-up. We want to cling to the happy story of two Bigfoot researchers with a movie camera getting lucky at Bluff Creek.
I admire MK Davis’ tenacity in the face of ridicule and his determination to unearth the truth. If anyone can do it, he can. Whatever else you want to say about him, remember his video-analysis ability and extended-time attention to minute detail far-exceeds what most of us are capable of.
Meanwhile the new film by Tom Biscardi and crew is about yet another theory regarding the Patterson-Gimlin film.
Biscardi’s film attempts to disprove that the film was of a real Bigfoot.
He believes now that it was a costume, based on interviews with Bob Hieronimus and others who knew Patterson and Gimlin at the time.
The fact was that a costume was used for a separate Bigfoot movie, which was fictionalized.
From what I’ve seen on MK Davis’ computer with his first generation videos of the film, with some stop-action videos and others that are enhanced, there is no doubt whatsoever that Patty was a real Bigfoot. A forest creature. Probably a cousin to human beings.
I believe that once again Tom Biscardi was hoaxed by the hoaxters.
It happened in Stagecoach Nevada.
It happened in Georgia.
It is happening again, as I see it.
My honest opinion of Tom Biscardi is that he is gullible.
And then, being an attention-seeking promoter, he acts on his misperceptions in huge and embarrassing ways.
The trailer for Biscardi’s new movie:
In the past I said that I wouldn’t mention Biscardi’s name on my blog, but I’m getting over it and am planning to restore the lost original archives of this blog from 2005. The site crashed in early 2007 and I never put the former posts back until now. It is a big job; still in progress.
Recently Phil Poling of Team Tazer and the Snohomish Sasquatch YouTube channel had some harsh words to say about people who are still investigating the Patterson-Gimlin film. He says,
“It’s been 40 years of examination, and bickering back and forth, and we’re not one step closer to a solution than the day it was shot. Don’t you all think it is time to put the damn thing in a can, stick it in a drawer, and forget about it?”
Forget that it is the best Bigfoot movie we’ve ever seen… is it time to find something new? Time to go squatching?
This is one of the most analyzed films in history, and the entire truth is still not known to all.
There’s no agreement and researchers can’t even agree to disagree because it is an emotionally-charged issue. Can we get past that?
I have a new theory… that if all Bigfoot researchers were mature enough to respect all the others and appreciate their specialties, we could work together to find the solution to our quest to understand Sasquatch.
This is something like building the tower of Babel. The workers on that project all developed different languages and were prevented from continuing on.
Will Bigfoot research be the same?
Can we for once communicate on the common-ground of mutual respect and come together to share our findings, theories and opinions?
What would that take?
After all, we’re only human.
Is the original story correct?
Should all other theories be trashed?
Should a massacre theory never be mentioned again?
Is Biscardi being hoaxed?
Is Phil Poling onto something?