Petty Dictators Rule the BFF! BIGFOOT'S BLOG Manages to Annoy the Hell out of the Bigfoot Forums and We Get Banned!

BIGFOOT'S BLOG NEWS FLASH!
Ha ha ha! Bigfoot Forums, We Don't Need You!

NOTE: This blog entry is a bit of a collage. We compiled it as it was happening, and now feel it better to just leave it as it is. Be sure to read below for the newer UPDATES, and especially the fine and interesting COMMENTS at the very end.  Also, see below for two NEWS items.
WARNING: This page contains SATIRICAL elements and exaggeration, all in the name of fun. THANK YOU BFF FOR THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF HITS ON THIS BLOG EVER! Three Times the Normal Rate. APPARENTLY MANY OUT THERE SHARE OUR FEELINGS ABOUT YOUR SITE!

The BFF is a Petty Oligarchical Dictatorship! 

"Time for bigfoot to come down and kick some serious butt. Politics has no place in Sasquatchland." --blog reader, Dave Short

What happened? Find out by investigating the links and emails below. Briefly:
* We posted links to our blog on the Forums, thinking this was a nice thing to do, to share.
* We were attacked by supporters of Bob Hieronimus, and then by some anonymous coward named BlackDog, and others.
* These attacks were off-topic, pointless, personal, and supported by Forum administrators.
* We were accused of being on the Forums solely to pimp books, a total untruth and insult--we were on there because of a love of Bigfoot and Bigfooting. In fact, that is the reason we opened our store in Willow Creek: it is Bigfoot Bait.
* We were accused by cronies of doing things we did not do, words like "a**hole" were tossed about by others; and who got a "warning"? We did. And for no reason at all.
* We did not kiss the butt of the Administrator... SHOCK resounded on the thread. How could you dare to do such a thing, was the implication.
* We blogged about it, calling them all TROLLS on our blog. We kept posting our links on the Forum, figuring it would eventually get noticed, but also figuring this was our right of free speech, and that we were not doing any of this ON the BFF.
* We commented again that the discourse on the BFF is often a "nutty furor" or "insane discussion." This got noticed. The Dogs, BlackDog, Red Wolf, and this "Teresa" came after us. We had said NONE of this on the BFF. This was done on our blog. Most annoying for the BFF, we mentioned another forum and said it was better: The Search for Bigfoot Forum.
* Another discussion ensued on the BFF, and we politely answered a few questions, made a light-hearted joke, and then suddenly...
* We were summarily suspended and then banned, with no warning, and after doing nothing out of bounds on the actual Forums. This was a clear case of thin-skinned egos getting hurt, and a dictatorial backlash from a small clique of controlling maniacs who are profoundly undemocratic and despotic in their actions on the Forums, suppressing free debate whilst allowing their ring-kissing cronies to get away with everything short of rhetorical murder.
* It was all too clear that this was about control and revenge and ego-defense. It had nothing to do with fair and free discussion of the Bigfoot topic. It was based on pre-existing grudges and apparent psychotic personal problems of people who had nothing better to do than try to harass us and get us banned from the site.
* We went along with it; yes, we taunted them, AFTER we had been harassed. It was fun. But ultimately, it demonstrated their pettiness. We did not call them out until after they had proven their unfairness. By then it was a forgone conclusion that we'd eventually annoy them, so we just kept on doing what we do.

We never said "they" were crazy. We said the "furor" was "nutty," and that particular discussion "insane."

There is a VERY large difference. They just do not see it, petty egotists that they are.

On our blog we spoke of how nasty they were over ENOCH on BFF. We called it a nutty furor. Then we said that things were more civil on the SEARCH FOR BIGFOOT FORUM. The BFF just can't handle the truth, it would seem. Banned for something we said on our blog, NOT on the Forums? That is truly insane! Sick! And they have the nerve to call us a hypocrite? Unbelievable. They are enemies of free speech, free discussion, and free inquiry. Profoundly undemocratic. A site ruled by petty, favoritistic, ignoramous dictators and trolls.

WE URGE ALL SANE BIGFOOT ENTHUSIASTS AND RESEARCHERS TO BOYCOTT THE BFF. THERE ARE PLENTY OF BETTER FORUMS OUT THERE. Read onward....

Read about it here:
HOW TO GET BANNED FROM THE BIGFOOT FORUMS! I DID!

NOTE: this topic thread has been made MEMBERS ONLY on THE SEARCH FOR BIGFOOT FORUM. To read it you will need to sign up. And sign up you should! This is what we like to call "The Sane BF Forum," and is vastly superior in its discourse than the BFF.

In the name of Free Speech, Sanity, and Free Thought and Inquiry in the field of Bigfooting we call upon all of you to spread the word and BOYCOTT this once great but now sadly fallen and tarnished web site. It is ruled by petty tyrants and their henchmen promoted by favoritism. It demonstrates all that is bad and negative and unproductive in the Bigfooting field and the discourse of these times.

THIS BLOG FIGHTS FASCISM!!! AND ALL FORMS OF TYRANNY!

Here is the link that got us banned. What did we do? Let us know what you think; and by all means let the BFF know, too.
BIGFOOT FORUMS TOPIC THREAD 29957

And see what we said that so infuriated their fragile egos, in the part near the top where we are discussing ENOCH: Oregon Sasquatch Symposium 2010, Day One.

Here is where we talked about the "Troll Attack" upon us:
"ARGUING WITH NASTIES ON THE BFF
Going Hunting for Bigfoot, Finding TROLLS Instead!"

Here is the FIRST thread, where we were attacked by the doggies and the dictators. Crazy!
BIGFOOT FORUMS, TOPIC THREAD 29638

FIGHT CENSORSHIP! OPPOSE THE RULE OF UNREASON!

Melissa Hovey just blogged about us and this situation on her SEARCH FOR BIGFOOT BLOG.
Read: New Article at "Bigfoot's Blog"


And now, July 2nd, there is an UPDATE:
HOW DEEP DOES THE DENIAL GO? 
You've GOT to read the last one! Amazing! The view from a one-time insider who knows what's up.

Read the COMMENTS, below this blog entry (you may have to click the comments link at bottom to view them). Or better yet, leave one of your own!

Additional Information:
Since we seem to be distracted by Bigfoot reports in the shop here today, here is an email we sent out this morning explaining this situation somewhat. Enjoy!

Ha ha! Funny, eh?

The Search for Bigfoot Forum link is now MEMBERS ONLY (so that people can actually talk and avoid harassment). You should sign up with them, then you can participate or view it.

I will tell the story on my blog, further, but the gist of it is this:

* There is a group of petty dictators who rule the place
* Posting rules and norms of decorum don't apply to them
* They can say what they want due to "seniority" and whom they know
* They were allowed to attack and insult me, but I was not allowed to defend myself or my positions
* I was accused of being on the BFF only to "peddle my wares," when in fact it is demonstrable that I have not made a single red cent there
* They refuse to recognize that I am primarily a scholar in the Bigfoot field when on there, nor do they see the contributions I make on my blog, which I share freely with all
* It is their own damnable loss not to have my stuff on there

After the first offense they made against me, with no provocation, I was kind of stunned. I'd heard the rumors of these vicious tendencies on the BFF, and how the "regime change" there recently had left the place much worse off for wear. But I had no idea this kind of official bias and favoritism was allowed. I commented on that on my blog, calling them "Trolls." That is what they are. Only, they are Trolls in control of the venue, not the lurking kind. Note: I did NOT really come out and do this on the BFF, but I did make a little joke: "When out Bigfoot Hunting, watch out for Trolls." Pretty harmless, I think.

On my blog, just recently, I was writing about Autumn Williams' new book, ENOCH. I defended her against what I called the "nutty furor" and spoke of what I called an "insane discussion" thread going on there. In my latest posting re. my new blog post, a couple of questions came up. I answered those politely. Then this nasty "BlackDog," who had harassed me the last time, came back and took offense at what I'd said about the Forum ON MY BLOG. BDog also seemed to resent that I referred there to a better discussion going on over at the SFBF Forum. They hate the fact that someone has started their own forum, and a better one.

I did not say anything nasty there. I only said, no, I will not go there, and BlackDog, stop barking and nipping at my heels. So, it is clear, I think, that I was banned from the Forum not because of violating any rules, but just because I exercised my right to say what I like on MY OWN VENUE! This is simply and purely... CENSORSHIP. What caused the initial attacks is a bit mysterious; but I have it on good word that there were reasons of bias pre-existing due to what I had written on my blog about David Paulides and MK Davis.

Of course, I knew what I was doing. I was angry and amused with the first instance, so I blogged about it. Then I very consciously mentioned them on my next posting and pointed out the insanity that goes on over there sometimes. Then I posted the links to this post on their Forum. I figured they would notice it, and it would probably piss off the thin-skinned ones there. I did not figure on getting BANNED FOR LIFE simply for blogging as I like. That was a little unexpected, but still quite amusing.

I know how to choose my allies; all the other ones wallowing in ignorance and stupid petty domains of iniquity can really just f-off.

Perhaps you could start a thread on the BFF talking about what happened? Or leave comments on my blog posting or on the SFBF Forum? That would be nice. I have declared all-out war on the Bigfoot Forums, and they will surely regret it.

Bye for now,
Steve

Bigfoot Books

Here is another email, sent last night:

The funny thing is they can't even read!

I posted this to share my blog. A couple did not even get what I very clearly said. I clarified, politely. A further unnecessary question was asked, and I clarified that. Someone took offense to what I said on my blog about "insane furor" going after you on the Forums. I never said anyone on BFF in particular was crazy; I just tried to point out that SOME of it shows a tendency in that direction. And, I did not even say that on their Forum! Ha ha.

So maybe I am being suspended for exercising my free speech rights on my very own venue? BlackDog, who attacked last time, came at me again with the same accusations of profiteering and self-promotion, basically insulting, and issues I'd already addressed on the other thread. I said they should stop nipping at me. That's all! I guess BDog can do it, but I can't even jokingly say I don't want to go there with that argument. Huh?

BDog is out to get me banned, and is free to insult.
RedWolf completely misinterprets me and then suspends me for simply replying to what others have insinuated and implied.

This is too much like Animal Farm for me!
It was a setup, but just too funny to resist.
Was I not polite in what I said?

Obviously, they want to silence or scare me into censoring my blog voice, not just what I say on BFF. Do their posting rules also apply to what I sing in the shower?

Oink oink! Little do they know I have other means of speaking out, and getting revenge if I must.

We don't need no Big Foot Forums.
We don't need no thought control.

s.

And here's another email, sent just this afternoon:

Hey, thanks! It's always nice to find support among the nasty insanity.

I'd always kept my distance from the BFF in the past for the same kind of reasons--flame wars are just such a waste of time. Now, it would seem, the administrators themselves are the nasty trolls. For whatever reason, and very small reason at best, they decided I had a bad attitude. This is basically because I speak with conviction and can write and think better than most of them. It is also, mainly, because I was misunderstood, and then would not kiss the ring of Mistress "Teresa."

I'd always thought that "A Forum" was supposed to be an open area of discussion, not a domain for personal vendetta, but it is obvious that this is exactly what the BFF has become. A few people on there, a few of whom were angry with me over work I had done on the MK Davis and Paulides cases, were all it took to get me attacked. Why? Because of anything I had said at that point? No. Just because of crony connections and favoritism, and prior grudges. I commented upon that satirically on my blog, and they just couldn't handle it. They obviously wanted to get me run off the forums and, for fun, I played them in that direction.

Many have already told me that it is a badge of honor to get booted from the BFF. That is one badge I will wear proudly. I can happily go to the Search for Bigfoot Forum, and clearly wouldn't benefit from any further association with BFF madness, anyway. I now advocate a wide-scale boycott of the site. Let the trolls and the skoftic snarkers have it. They deserve what it has become.

Best to you,

Steve

Bigfoot Books


ONE LAST THING, FOUND IN OUR "SENT" BOX: OUR MESSAGE TO THE TYRANT'S HENCHWOMAN, "REDWOLF" (Just a Sampling of What You May Find on the BFF Thread)

Redwolf, this is so plainly laughable. I have addressed some of these things already, and I did so in a civil way. I should really not even deign to respond, but so long as this inanity is out there I suppose I must.

1. I did not join BFF to sell books, but have never tried to hide the fact that that is my business. I don't hide behind an anonymous profile image, and my full contact information and photo of me are on there. I use BF Books, the shop, as a means of making contact with people in the Bigfooting world and on the Bigfoot topic. I never expected to make a lot of money off a bookshop in a tiny town like Willow Creek. I needed an office for my online book business, and having the shop was about as expensive as renting an office room, so why not? My book business is mainly in scholarly and antiquarian books, and has nothing to do with Bigfoot (save for the odd rare and out of print Bigfoot book). I hence do not expect to have any sales at all in that realm from my appearance on the BFF. Rather, I joined the BFF out of personal interest in the Bigfoot topic. Having a public identity in this way brings in sightings reports and Bigfoot enthusiasts, which I like, and is the main reason I continue to run the shop, even though the shop really only pays for itself, no more. Any Bigfoot items I sell don't come close to the amount I reinvest into obtaining stock on that topic. And, really, I only obtain that stock to stimulate discussion and to make people happy when they come here to find out about Bigfoot. In this I find myself in a position much like Al Hodgson. Al has even commented to me on this. He ran a store in town here, but found that it was also a contact spot for Bigfooting. Hence, even though he was not really that interested in Bigfoot at first, he found himself playing a significant role in the history of the study of the phenomenon. Now, I don't say I am as important as Al or anything, so stop the slander mill there, please. Simply put: I am on BFF to study Bigfoot, and to promote my blog. I don't hide my business, as that is a part of what I do; but it is not primary or even close to a significant part of the reason I am on this Forum. Total sales in Bigfoot this week: $26.45. And that is gross, not net profit. So, you can see, I am not here nor in my shop trying to make money off of Bigfoot. My major seller this week was actually Romance novels. So, shouldn't I be on the Romance Fiction Forum if I am so greedy? It would be nice if rather than harping on this accusation that I am only in it for the money, perhaps some of you could actually read the blog and comment on that. So far only Bipedalist has done that. (Red Wolf: I see you have edited out your "ass kissing" accusation against him, just because he actually read my blog and commented on the subject matter--what courage you show!)

2. I never talked "smack" to Teresa. She pointed out that I had "Bookseller" after my name, and that I had a web link in my signature. Fair enough, as at least she put a "smiley" after it. But before she spoke there were MasterBarber and Parnassus somewhat slanderously commenting in that way, basically trying to discount my research and accuse me of being here only for the money. THAT is what I was responding to. I can only conclude that some of you are not very good at reading, as I have been nothing but rational and sensible in what I've said here so far. And Blackdog, I didn't go after you; I just lumped you in with the Bob Heironimus part of the thread talk because you had gotten involved after MasterBarber's non-sequitur about Bob H., and then you got Kitikaze involved. I don't mind talking about Bob H., but that is not my agenda, as it seems to be with others. Actually, it is a good idea to interview Bob H., and I'd do so if the opportunity presented itself in the right way. I never tried to shut down any discussion, nor to insult anyone. Rather, what happened is that several of you on here came after me with NO PROVOCATION nor reason, and totally off topic, to attack my supposed profit motives. It would be nice if some of you, before attacking, would actually read my blog to see that I do not really even try to promote book sales on there. All I talk about is Bigfoot Research that I and others do, or the area around here, or the history of the topic.

Also, to imply that every post I make here should be made in fear and trembling about what some "elder" or administrator might think or do against me is just plainly ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, and against the spirit of free expression and open discourse. I am not slandering anyone here, but somehow I seem to be under attack. If I defend myself and my position it is only my right and I would add my duty to do so. This is not some top-down, fascistic domain, is it? As far as I can tell I am not violating any posting guidelines or ethics, and am only sincerely interested in the topic at hand. I have tried to respond positively, despite somewhat vicious implications from others that were totally uncalled for, in my opinion. I will say what I think is right, and true, and I will stick with it. Yes, I am interested in "the truth," MasterBarber; but I don't appreciate your sarcastic tone and implication that I am only interested in the truth that I prefer to see. Think what you like. I will think what I think. I will do whatever interview I feel fit to do, or write on topics that seem pertinent to me at the time. If I don't interview Bob H., so be it; it means nothing. There was an implication made earlier that those who don't care to listen to Bob Heironimus must be PG "fanatics," crazy Bigfoot Film believers. This isn't very fruitful, either. There are ample non-fanatical reasons why a sane and serious person might question Greg Long's book and Bob H.'s statements. So far as I am concerned, I have alread read all 500 pages or whatever it is of Long's book and paid special attention to what Bob H. has said. It does not convince me. Enough said. Think what you will. That is fine. I just disagree. OK? Please show me even one, single ethical violation I have made in this discussion. There are, to my eye, none. Someone said I was behaving self-righteously--I just DON'T see that. If I speak in a way that makes you feel insecure, sorry. That is not my intention.

3. "Stroke egos"? NO, but really, to me, Bipedalist clearly stands out in this discussion as the rational one. He actually wanted to discuss something having to do with the blog topic that is the reason this thread was created. And he is polite, rational, sane, not coming after me with slander, not going off on some pet topic. Just entering in a sensible way toward a real discussion. Kudos to him! He doesn't have to agree with me. It's fine, we can discuss. But really, what does my profession or Bob Heironimus have to do with anything? I am honored to have Bipedalist as a reader. I don't kiss his butt, and he doesn't kiss mine. We are just both interested in Bigfoot and talking about it. Isn't that really what this Forum is for?

4. Long standing members, or not, acting like an attack dog for no reason is kind of leaning in the trollish direction, isn't it? After all, Trolls are known to stake out their turf, under bridges or wherever, and to LURK there. Maybe this is what is going on? I don't know. All I know is that I was just ambling along doing my own thing, and then some crazy trolls seemed to jump out of nowhere and attack me for no reason.

"Off to a running start"? Hmmm. I have been using the BFF since 2006. I have had other identities before my current one, once I actually signed up. I don't really post here, save for putting up my blog information, for just such a reason as one can readily see in this thread: stick your head out and say something, and then the looniness starts. I like the BFF. It has fabulous information and good people on it. I'm glad it is here and that I can participate. But this kind of attack for no reason is what many had warned me about before I even became a member. Flame wars and trollish attacks don't benefit anyone. It is frankly a waste of time.

I truly appreciate all points of view, and am willing to study and write about any of them that make sense or need to be challenged. This is just what the intellectual endeavor is about; it shouldn't be about personal attacks and egotistical battles. I humbly submit my blog entries to the world. Read them or not. But try to see clearly, to see the Bigfoot in the forest and the forest for the trees, not just your own reflected image.

Perhaps some of you in this discussion could come clean? Tell me: are you friends of Jim Lansdale or MK Davis? Maybe David Paulides? Is THIS why you are coming after me?

Best to all of you, regardless of where you might have fallen into this ridiculous discussion. Let's please move on to better things. I have a new post up with a new thread for it on Bigfoot Forums. Go check it out! It's fun, it's free, it's informative, it's for you and in the honor of our friend the Sasquatch.
Steve BF's BLOG, BF BOOKS, BF COUNTRY, USA

quote name='Redwolf' date='May 29 2010, 08:58 AM' post='598941'
Let's see,
1. Join a BF forum to sell books but deny that is your goal
2. Talk smack to the forum administrator who is letting you stay out of the goodness of her heart
3. Stroke egos of those who suck up to you
4. Accuse long-standing members of being trolls
Woo Hoo! Sounds like you are off to a running start here at the BFF. Welcome!

SECOND ONE: Yes, Bipedalist, THANK YOU!

I will take kudos from John Green, Bill Miller, Thomas Steenburg, Kathy Moskowitz Strain, Joshua Blu Buhs, Daniel Perez, Cliff Barackman, Michael Rugg, James Bobo Fay, and so many others over the silly comments by anonymous sniping trollish amateurs any day!

Now, re. the encounter concept.... I am working on my Part Two now. It will appear sometime in early June. I am talking about all forms of "contact," from the eyeball-to-eyeball sighting to the psychic, from blobsquatches to the PG Film. What IS an encounter, when our imagination is involved? When ambiguity of origin and perceptual biases are present? When anything that goes bump in the night COULD be a Sasquatch? How do we know? It is intriguing that even the closest Class A sightings can still describe a very different creature, from encounter to encounter. Why IS that? How much of it is Bigfoot, a real flesh and blood creature, and how much of it is the "Bigfoot" that lives within our minds? I will be exploring these questions.

Your input is surely appreciated, as would be any sensible and sane such discourse within this discussion thread. THIS is the discussion I was hoping to have on here. Not something about Bob H. and capitalist booksellers. Thank you for seeing that and responding! Damn, what a relief that is!  Best, Steve

****************************************

NEWS, BRIEFLY:

Autumn Williams has just blogged on her OREGON BIGFOOT BLOG about the recent controversy over the cover art for her book, ENOCH. No, folks, it was not copied from an Alton Higgins drawing. Answer? NO, it was NOT plagiarized. READ IT HERE...

THE FACE OF ENOCH.

****************************************

TRIBE OF HIRSUTE, BIG-FOOTED MUSICIANS DISCOVERED?

Here's one for NABS and David Paulides! Proof that Bigfoot are human, and that they can play hillbilly folk tunes. Come see them play in Arcata, CA. Details:

The Jefferson State Old Time Revue

Start Time: Saturday, July 3, 2010 at 4:00pm
End Time: Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 12:00am
Location: The Arcata Playhouse
Street: 1251 9th Street
City/Town: Arcata, CA
Description.An all day old time Musical/Foodical/Cryptozoological extravaganza! Featuring: The Vintner's Daughters, Hellbound Glory,
The Blackberry Bushes, Striped Pig Sting Band, The Blair St. Mugwumps and Pokey LaFarge & The South City 3!
Food on site by Luke's Joint and Nite Pie. Beer by Redwood Curtain Brewing Company
All ages, beer and wine w/ID. $10 adv/ $13@ the door,
Tickets available at MISSING LINK RECORDS 819 J ST Arcata.
Daisy Drygoods 959 H ST Arcata and Luke's Joint On The Arcata Plaza.

****************************************

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

What left me for to say? Hu-man friend say it all. He say he angry, but I see him now and he be laughing. Bigfoot Forum? What it have do with ME? It nothing but hu-man dumbness all over again. Me smash!

****************************************

This blog is copyright 2010 by Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Images in this blog post are used as SATIRE, and are presented for SATIRICAL AND HUMOROUS PURPOSES ONLY. No claims of actual fascism or communism are really being made here! The views herein are solely those of the mysterious source of these writings, and have no actual connection with any group, like the BFRO or the Search For Bigfoot Forum, that we are in any way affiliated with, and should not at all be considered as representative of those groups and their founders or members. We are our own voice, howling in the wilderness of free speech, and want to keep it that way, and want you to know it. Images and text may be quoted and borrowed with citation, acknowledgment, and a link to this blog, along with gifts of beer and fine tobacco. Thanks in advance!

Bigfoot Books Blogger to appear on BlogTalk Radio show, SquatchDetective

"Steve Kulls discusses the hot topics in the Bigfoot world with tonight's guest Willow Creek resident and blogger Steven Streufert."

COMING UP THIS WEEK, OR LATER ON STREAMING ARCHIVE...

Yours truly, the Bigfoot Books blogger, will theorize about the epistemology of cryptozoological hominology, live to the known universe.... Eeek! This show streams live online, or via permanent archive, available through the link below. If you miss it live you can always listen later.

SquatchDetective Radio 1/20/2010 - SquatchD Radio on Blog Talk Radio...

that's Wednesday, this week, at 7:00 Pacific Time, 10:00 Eastern Time.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/squatchdetective/2010/01/21/squatchdetective-radio-1

Mr. Steve Kulls, the host, now residing in Albany, New York, is a long-time Bigfoot investigator. He is a former private investigator, hence his nickname, Squatch Detective. His web site, SquatchDetective.com, has some interesting material and is growing by the day. Kulls has done good work, including his devastating exposure of Tom Biscardi's Searching for Bigfoot, Inc. Business Plan and the actions surrounding the Georgia Bigfoot Body Hoax of 2008.

We blogged about this last week, so check it out HERE, or at... http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/anatomy-of-bigfoot-hoax-biscardi-tells.html. You'll find the links to his report on The Hoax and Biscardi are conveniently placed there for you. To delve into it more deeply, check out Kull's other site, BISCARDI EXPOSED You won't believe how deep it goes into the mire!

Check out BlogTalk Radio in general. It is a fabulous resource for Bigfoot/Sasquatch, with a whole bunch of shows covering the topic. Just search for "Bigfoot," and then refine it to "On Demand" to see all the shows that have been on recently. Our favorites, besides SquatchD, are SasquatchWatch, Campfire Shadows, Bigfoot Busters, The Grey Area, The Sasquatch Experience, Bigfoot Quest, The Bigfoot Mystery, Bigfoot TruthNLies, and then there are many, many others. It's scary--sometimes we don't even have time to listen to the Art Bell/Coast-to-Coast AM Show!!! BlogTalk is, also, a great source for just about any topic, including UFOs, Reptilian Aliens, The Illuminati, Global Conspiracy Theory, or just Cooking, or whatever floats your boat.

**********************************************************

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

Me no angry now, me no like cold rain, so me sleep winter in secret cave on hill behind book store. Me might come out to talk on radio show, hopefully talk angry word, make hu-man FCC very mad at me for saying all seven bad word you no say on radio. Ha!

**********************************************************

This blog copyright 2009 Steven Streufert and Bigfoot Books Intergalactic; but then, who really cares, anyway, these days?

PART TWO: M. K. DAVIS Interview and Discussion with BIGFOOT BOOKS

INTERVIEW BETWEEN M.K. DAVIS AND BIGFOOT BOOKS’ STEVEN STREUFERT, CONTINUATION AND... ABRUPT CONCLUSION.

NOTE: THIS IS PART TWO OF THE INTERVIEW. View PART ONE HERE first if you have not yet read it.

Bigfoot researcher and Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF) expert, Marlon Keith Davis commented on our recent blog entry on the Port Orford Cedars in the Bluff Creek, CA area, and that contact has led to this interview. It was started November 10th and completed December 18th, 2009. It was done via email exchange. You'll find that the ending is a little abrupt, and I suppose the reasons are obvious. Oh well, despite this, MK has been an absolute gentleman the whole way through. Thanks for that, MK!

Images, most courtesy of MK Davis, from the Patterson-Gimlin film. To left above, what MK sees as the bangs of Patty; below, the topknot. CLICK TO ENLARGE and view all of these images independently.

NEWS: BIGFOOT'S BLOG APPEARED RECENTLY ON BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS.ORG, regarding the first part of our MK Davis Interview and Discussion. Check out this cool Happy Camp-centered blog, written by a very cool lady, Linda Martin. Bobbie Short, of BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS also included us and a link again in her fine monly newsletter. You MUST sign up for it if you want to be in the know. Thanks you two!

NOTE: We are inviting comments and rebuttals to this and the previous MK Interview blog entries. Please feel free to CONTACT US by email, or COMMENT directly below this entry. But please, keep it free of slander and hate speech, OK? We'll perhaps be publishing this in the very near future if the responses are interesting enough.
********************************************************************************

AFTER THE THANKSGIVING BREAK M.K. DAVIS RESUMED ON THE ISSUE OF CULTURAL AND “HUMAN” FEATURES HE SEES IN THE FILM. Here it is: PART TWO....

MK DAVIS (continuing): I mentioned that the ear had been hidden by hair until the wind appeared to blow some of the hair out from over the ear and expose it to the camera for a frame or two. I was able to get a good look at the ear, but I was also able to get a good assessment of the level of hair coverage that it took to cover the ear. I was able to use filtration to boost the level of contrast on the film and reveal quite a bit about the hair. I could see that there was quite a bit of hair on the side of the head and that it was surprisingly long. Long enough to cover the ear and then some. With this same contrast boost, I could see that there appeared to be some type of rudimentary styling of the hair, i.e., that it appeared to be pulled back into a top knot of sorts and then flow down the back in bundle that looks a lot like a ponytail. Not a ponytail that has "all" the hair bound up, but one that has only a part of the head hair bundled back, leaving the side hair still flowing loosely. This arrangement became even more apparent when I was able to examine the transparencies made from the original film. The moving file "Topknotsidehairblowingsmaller" is a filtered file that shows the side hair moving in the wind. [Ed. Note: some of the files MK sent were animated, so we attempted screen captures which are postable on this blog and that hopefully reveal some of the details MK is talking about here.]

The [...] raw image and enhanced comparison shows the smaller ponytail arrangement. The file called "hair swing filtered" shows the moment that the hair blew away from over the ear, and exposed the ear to the camera. I know that your blog does not support animated files, but in order for your readers to appreciate what I'm talking about, they need to see them in motion. In the file "nohairheadhairaftertree2" [see screen capture] the hair arrangement can be seen. Most of the copies of the film are very low contrast, in other words, levels of color and tone, are difficult to discern, and the lines of demarcation between them are indistinct. The better images, however, allow much more to be seen and determined.

There is a rule of thumb, in astro-photography, that applies to this film very well. The rule is: "If you can improve the resolution of an image 1%, then you will likely see ten new things in the image." This has proven to be very true, when working with the Patterson film. When the quality of the raw image is at, or very near the original, then the data that it yields increases exponentially. If the subject has long head hair, as the film seems to indicate, then that is consistent with human, as there are no examples of simians possessing such hair. If that hair is pulled back into an arrangement, no matter how rudimentary, then that is an indication of culture, along with a host of other things as well. The film itself is good enough in its original form, to tell its own story, and does not need to be filtered through the testimony of others.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: And the hand print...?

MK DAVIS: The hand on the log in the famous frame 352 is very enigmatic indeed. It only becomes apparent as to what it is in the very best images from the film. It was this hand that drew my attention to the log in the first place; and when a proper insepection is done to the log and its surroundings, using the very best imagery, then some basic facts begin to emerge that could be used to explain the activity surrounding the log.

Images: MK points out these details: the moved log's former depression, next to this the presumed tire tracks.

First of all, upon examination, it became apparent that the log itself had been very recently moved from one position to another. In the film, behind the log, is the imprint of it, in the softer, wetter, and darker sand. It looked as if it had just been pushed or shoved out of its first position by something powerful. This was really an "eyebrow" raiser for me. I went back and searched through my archive of images and indeed, this imprint was found in many of the clearer images. When the ground behind the log was closely examined, to my surprise, there was what appeared to be the imprint of the tire of some large piece of equipment.  [See images]

I was puzzled about the presence of this impression and how the log appeared to have been moved, when the log is clearly too large for a human to move by himself, and probably a Sasquatch, too. I decided to look outside the film for some evidence or indication that some equipment had been actively present in the area, that might explain this. I am aware, from my visits to the film site, that this particular type of sand, holds impressions for a very long time. I knew that there were photos taken by later visitors to the area that might prove useful.
I found a very good wide angle photo of the area, taken from "above" the filmsite by climbing up the bluffs, overlooking the sand bar. This photo can be referenced in Chris Murphy's "Meet the Sasquatch," by Hancock House. In that aerial photo, taken at quite a later date, is the remains of that very same impression, with its full length being much more apparent from above.

Using filtration, I was able to boost the contrast enough to clearly delineate the impression. It meandered across the sand bar in a figure S crook and went straight into the log at exactly where I first noticed it in the Patterson film. Not only was that singular impression noticeable, but there were many more following the exact route, all ending on a rectangular shaped area of much darker sand. Since I was aware that the sand became much darker when it is moist, then this rectangular area was more moist than its surroundings. This was probably due, in my opinion, to different compaction characteristics of sand that has been disturbed.

So...here I had, in the Patterson film, a heavy log, with a hand print on it, that had been moved out of place by something leaving a track that was linear, and encompassed the majority of the sand bar as seen from above, and a rectangular area of uncompacted sand. Note: the photo from "Meet the Sasquatch" has a red rectangle on it to denote the position of Patterson. This is not the rectangle that I am referring to. It is the larger rectangle that is naturally on the sand bar. [See the Filmsite images to left.] This was when it first became obvious to me that equipment had been used at the site and from the looks of it, not too long, in time, from the filming.

Images: The PGF site as seen from the dirt access road just to the south. The color one was taken in 1971 by Rene Dahinden, so far as we know--Murphy credits it to him.

My first impressions, upon discovering the equipment tracks on the sand, were that some logging or mining operation might have been going on there, and that the hand print might actually be related to that activity. I was very surprised when Bob Gimlin told me that there was no way that any equipment could have gotten, or could be gotten, in there to the filmsite. He told me that the only way to get any kind of equipment in there would be to fly it in with a helicopter. This left me with a lot of facts about the filmsite that are unexplained, were that to be true. I was to find out later that this was not the case, and in fact, there were good roads in there, where large trucks and equipment could indeed be brought in to that sand bar at that time. A later examination of transparencies that contained that area in front of the log was to reveal the probable reasons for the hand print itself.

In most of the "copies" of the Patterson film, the sand bar itself has had its details washed out through the copying process, but with the transparencies that were taken from the original film, the subtle tones of the sandbar reveal the slightly divergent tones of a barefoot track in front of the log. There along with the barefoot track is what appears to be a paw print. My feelings right now are that the barefoot prints and the handprint may very well be connected. The hand print is either from a Sasquatch, or a person. If it is from a Sasquatch, it would be significant. If that turns out to be the case then what we are looking at on the log may be the hand outline of a Sasquatch. Another first for the Patterson film, but with more questions to answer at the same time. If the hand print is [from] a person, it is still significant, as to the level of activity that had been going on there preceding the film. Interesting...isn't it?

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Well, MK, I'm starting to feel a bit like Dr. Watson here. I can see you're Sherlocking on the trail of something here. Maybe I should just get out of the way and let you lay out the clues and their meanings for us? Or maybe I'd better question a few things...?

Let me first just kind of put the "human" issue to rest. I'd say that it is obvious that the Sasquatch is not really quite like us nor the apes. Surely, it is not as close to us as the Neanderthals were. I'm reading a novel now, BROTHER ESAU, about the capture of a Bigfoot-type creature, where one character says, "In a sense this... creature... that you keep... is a man. Or if not a man, a brother." I'd think that this kind of view would come closest to explaining, say, the Native American view of the entity. It is closer to us than the other animals; but then, all the other animals are kindred of a kind, each with a special spiritual force and relation to mankind. In that they are so like us in form and apparent intelligence, and in many ways better adapted, these beings take on a certain special meaning and relation. This, too, would do a lot to explain the mystery of the appeal of the Bigfoot to today's modern-cultured people.

Re. the topknot and all of that: I'm not too convinced yet. I see what you're talking about, but it seems to me that these things are just too fleeting and vague down below the true resolution of the film to be exactly determined. I'd think a braid and styled bangs would be more obvious throughout the film, too, not just in those few frames we've looked at here. And besides, even if those were aesthetic grooming, it would not prove that they are exactly human--there are many animals that show incredible ingenuity and creativity, even if it is instinctual. Think of the bower birds, for instance.

Images: above, US Forest Service map of the Bluff Creek and Lonesome Ridge area, film site right near the middle; below, the author of this blog investigates Bluff Creek just past the PGF site, photo gratefully borrowed from Mike Esordi--read the Believe It Tour blog..

In what you've said about the film site, I would agree about the roads. There were indeed logging roads, bulldozed dirt things, but accessible to a tractor at least, and one in particular right along the south and east bank of Bluff Creek. Parts of this old road are still slightly apparent even now right downstream from the film site. I don't know why Bob Gimlin would have said that to you, as I would swear he's mentioned the roads in interviews before on more than one occasion. Perhaps that was just his memory of the site? I'd doubt he'd lie about something like that. One can even see him riding with the horses up that road on the Patterson film reel, in brief scenic shots they took that day just before they saw the creature and filmed it. There were active logging and access road construction areas throughout the Bluff Creek area back then--one can even see the sawed off stumps of logged trees in the PGF, right behind Patty. I'm not sure what the issue is, though. MK, can you tell us?

It does seem clear from what you show that the film's famous frontal log was moved. But why? What if it was moved by whomever it was who was sawing trees to make those stumps you see in the background, and then hauling the logs away?

I've been on the film site many times. Even to this day there are damp areas and boggy little ponds up on the sand bar where the creek water and springs have caused saturation. That is exactly what those dark areas of gravel/sand appear to me to be. What are you thinking they are? And if that seeming hand print and foot and paw prints are what they seem, how can we presume they are connected in any way with the film of a Bigfoot? What does it mean, MK? Also, that rectangle you speak of is readily visible in the film site photos taken a few years later, but is it there in the original P-G Film itself?

Interesting? YES, you bet! Looking at the film this close-up is just amazing. Would that the whole world could have access to the highest quality version of this film! It would make such a huge difference in convincing people, wouldn't it? Not everyone has as much access to MK Davis' version as they do to The Discovery or History Channels or whatever.

Image: USGS Lonesome Ridge map, containing Bluff Creek. The PGF site is in grid 10, just below the long North-South line of creek below the word "BLUFF." CLICK TO ENLARGE.

MK DAVIS: I'd like to address the resolution issues here if I may. As you can see in some of the transparency images that I sent you, the resolution of those particular images are splendid and are far greater than most of what anyone has seen in the public copies of the film. This has been one of the conundrums that has puzzled me for a long time, i.e. why is there so much disparity in the quality of the many images from the film?. These transparencies are "flat field" images, and are sharp, "edge to edge". This means that it is highly unlikely that these images were created with a Kodak K-100 equipped with a 25mm lens. "Flat field" lenses are designed to be used in portrait photography, or landscape photography. Whatever camera took this, had a different lens than what we have been told that Patterson was using. 

Here is what Bruce Bonney had to say about the prints that he made from these transparencies: " The maximum limit of anatomical resolution in the three sharpest cibachrome prints, is about one centimeter, meaning that details of the creature's body larger than one square centimeter in area are visible in the prints and are capable of basic identification. Items as small as a marble or grape can be identified". I am in agreement with Mr. Bonney's assesment. The popular paper that was circulating for a number of years dealing with the film resolution, was based upon errant information supplied to Kodak, and does not represent the film, especially the transparencies. Resolution that is smaller than a marble or grape, should and does include extended features such at that of the hair. The major impediment to anlysis in this film is getting images from the original film. With the original film, there are more contrast issues than actual angular resolution issues. There are also lensing defects that can be largely corrected, which I have painstakingly done, such as correcting the chromatic abberration in the images, by using filtration to remove unfocused colors.

The ear is completely obscured by hair, until, for a few brief seconds, the wind blows the hair out from over the ear. The hair is long enough to cover the ear. In the frames that have good detail of the ear, the hair can be seen to be resting over the ear and onto the cheek. It is terminated in a linear tip that is linear for about three to four inches. This is certainly a larger object than a marble or a grape. It is either a braid, or a dread lock, in my opinion. There are no examples of simians with long enough hair to cover the ear and blow in the wind in the manner seen in the film. Could this be a human from long ago? Patterson was of the opinion that it was. I'm only going by what is on the film. I see no simian anywhere in the film.

Images: More from MK's enhancements, above. Below, screen captures from an animation displaying a hair lock. CLICK TO ENLARGE.

MK DAVIS... CONTINUES (after a break of some days): While the film itself is of good enough quality to vouch for its own self, the story behind the filming lacks much to be desired. When I say, much to be desired, I mean that it is not backed up by the film or the known facts about the film. The famous timeline for getting the film developed, and how it was impossible to get it done in that amount of time, has been well documented, but there are other pertinent things as well. When these things are taken into account, I believe that it may be possible that there may indeed be an attempt at rewriting history here about the film. It is clear that the film is a documentary film and not a hoax or a piece of fiction. The principles involved in the production of such an important piece of documentation, do not reserve the right to change it or explain it in such a way as to compromise its integrity.

The bad versions of the film, along with inadequate explanations of it, have sent many down a long, unfruitful road, paved with disinformation, and that mostly doubles back upon itself. The film, in its most pristine form, is a film of enlightenment, that pokes and prods at latent memories in all of us, and for such a brief moment, we are connected with the past. It is a film for the ages. Some have said that I have put myself out on a limb, by taking on this project, but I beg to differ. I am not out on a limb as some suppose, but rather... I am out on Frazer's Golden Bough.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: I'd asked you about the footprints, handprints, etc....? Love the Golden Bough reference! More on that later.

MK DAVIS: The hand print is enigmatic at best, but there are some things that can be determined about it. Presumably, it is not Patterson's nor Gimlin's as they were approaching as he was filming, as the story goes. It is inconceivable to me that this hand print went unnoticed by the two men, as it is in plain sight, and it is not small. The area on the log, under the fingertips of the print, has been smeared in an arc. This would require a "twisting" motion of the hand, with pressure on the fingertips. What I see here is a very short visit by the owner of the hand, who twisted the hand when the subject continued by and the hand still on the log. The final move was a shove off. At that point, the entire length of the fingers made contact and printed on the log what we see there. The medium for the print could have been sand, but after studying it, I now think not. I know that there was moisture involved to make it stick so well to the log.

What I see here is a powdery medium that is highly reflective and pasty when moistened. I was puzzled by this, and decided to go back to the film to see if I could find any evidence of anything there that might have comprised this media. It was in the aerial photo that I found what I think might be the source for the media in the hand print. On the upper end of the rectangle of uncompacted and disturbed sand is the remains or residue of a white substance that remained even after quite a long time. The photo being taken from the high place above the filmstite makes the residue even more conspicuous.

 

BIGFOOT BOOKS: But what IS this powder, if not just drier or differently grained sand? And what is the meaning of a handprint, if it is not just a coincidentally shaped residue of river wash sand/mud or bark remains?

 

MK DAVIS: I think that the print is genuinely that of a hand. Who was present, that had hands? Two men and a Sasquatch for sure. Is the media of the print from those white spots? I can't say for sure, but it is a possibility. It is close by the print location. The film will give me no more information on it. I have to move on.

 

BIGFOOT BOOKS:  Yes, I do agree that the film can only say and show so much. What you point out in it, though, is a lot more than the usual ape-man or man-in-a-suit approach. Where, to what points, are you "moving on" from there, as you say? What other information IS there?

I'll address the timeline later, after you've finished making your full case.
And have you noted the recent work of Bill Munns on the P-G Film?

MK DAVIS: We (humans) are the drivers of this planet. We are in the drivers seat. We have spread out and over this planet like no other species, but often times, we are guilty of speeding. We drive by too fast to see where we are in relation to the other species that share the planet with us. Perhaps there are other members of the human family that have yet to join us in our fast car. They won't get on... and we won't slow down. So...we don't see anything but an occasional glimpse, or perhaps a blurry photo of a people that seem to be more akin to the animals than us, wearing nothing but the night sky around their shoulders. A second look, and they are gone. They're not going to go with us. They have bought a ticket to nowhere. When I look at the Patterson film, no matter how many times that I have, I look at it with ambivalence. I wonder..." where is she going?" Do I really want to know?

BIGFOOT BOOKS: MK, were you continuing with your answer to this part, or are you done?

Your answer is intriguing, for sure, and I want to address it further; but it left some of my previous questions unanswered.

Images: from Wikipedia and public domain.

MK DAVIS: I've been burning the midnight oil lately, standing in for other fellow employees who have taken off for the holidays. I'll get a break soon and resume.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: OK, I will just respond to what you've said previously without adding a bunch of new questions, and you can answer my questions along the lines you were heading. I hope you don't mind if I push things a  bit here?

Anyway, perhaps it is time to lay some cards on the table? If this is just stuff you won't talk about at the moment, fine; but maybe you could tie up some of these loose ends for the readers? I mean, you're getting at things here, hinting, but not quite explaining them.  What is the reader of this interview to make of handprints, strange powder, rectangles on the film site, etc.? Your human-Bigfoot theories are much more clear. From those I get a lot of sense, and you've moved me more in that direction than I was before (though I still feel they are a different species, just like coyotes differ from wolves). But so far this latest stuff cries out for an explanation. The sense of mystery you get from the film is palpable. I believe you are sincere. The Golden Bough of earlier humanity you speak of rings poetically, connecting us perhaps more closely to the Sasquatch and our own natural human evolutionary past, taking us away temporarily from the cultural fixations of our current human predicament. But what of these other things?

When you and I spoke for about three hours on the phone, back in June 2009, you were quite open about your theories, sending me a lot of photos and animations, and you mentioned a bunch of bloody, gory things that perhaps now you'd rather not get into. But I heard you the other night being interviewed on an online BlogTalk Radio show (Bigfoot Busters, click HERE), and you kept saying that you "couldn't get into those things right now." This seems a drastic change to me--what happened in the interim time? You spoke also of working with others on this theory and research. Who are these folks? Jim Lansdale? Dave Paulides? What is this research about, where is it heading, and why?

Regarding things seen in the film: I'm just not sure at all, in my humble opinion, that the film tells that much of a story beyond the creature in it. Granted, you have better images than I can see on my TV videos and YouTube. But, it seems to me that you are adding a bunch of stuff up that may not even be related. I mean, a handprint, which may not even really be a handprint, one dog pawprint without any others around it, things that look like humanoid footprints but may be months old, moved logs, one tire track without any others around, a pool and wet sand at the start of the film that just look like normal creekside stuff to me--these don't really necessarily fit together, to my mind. It is like a bunch of dots on a page--you can connect them in any way you like, but that doesn't mean that the "picture" they make is a real one.

What I do feel needs to be addressed here, even if you don't want to get into the larger theory, is the issue of the film's making and timeline. You spoke on the radio show of it, and said that others knew the details better than you. Well, I am not the expert as, say, Daniel Perez is, but I can say that there seem to be a few wrong assumptions you're holding on to. Perhaps we could delve into that a bit more? And what of that other film you were talking about back in June, showing Green and others in the Bluff Creek area with the white Alsatian tracking dog?

From all that we know in the recorded history of this period, August to October of 1967, it seems pretty clear what--basically--happened. Granted, there are discrepancies in the tellings, things that seem to contradict. But I'd first adhere to parsimony in viewing these. Remember, even a book like the Bible is fraught with self-contradiction; but that doesn't mean that what it is talking about is a lie, or isn't basically true. One needs to approach the text, as it were, try to see through to what is really in there. Using Occam's Razor we can try to see the simplest things first, and try to see if they make sense that way. Later retellings, still going on to this day in seemingly EVERY book on Bigfoot that comes out, only seem to complicate the issues, as do most new theories. What if it is just as simple as Gimlin tells it in his 1992 interview with John Green?

Here, the basics of the Gimlin timeline:

* They filmed it around 1:30, or a bit earlier, tracked the creature a bit, made and removed track casts, etc.

* Left the Louse Camp area around 3:30 or 4:00.

* It was starting to get dark (assume no daylight savings time)

* They drove into town and saw Al Hodgson, apparently shortly after 6:15

* Assuming two hours from film site to town (Willow Creek!) this makes sense.

* They then drove the film into Eureka (no post offices open after 5:00--if so, they could have just mailed it in WCK)

* "Mailed" it means sending it--in this case it had to be by plane, but Gimlin says he doesn't really remember. Murray Field, outside EKA? ALL POST OFFICES WERE CLOSED, so it doesn't matter what the nit-picky semantic interpretation is of what Bob says are here.

* They returned to the mountains and drove back to Louse Camp area after talking to Eureka newspaper, etc.

* Talked, slept a bit, then rain starts lightly; Patterson shrugs it off and goes back to sleep, but Bob rides up to the film site (2.5 miles), he covers a number of tracks with bark to preserve them; early morning hours now

* Gimlin returns to camp; full rain now; they barely escape the full creek and muddy flooded roads.

Christopher Murphy tells it this way:
"Leaving their horses tethered at their campsite, the two men started out in their truck for a local airport, probably Murray Field in Arcata. On their way, they stopped at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek to talk to their friend, Al Hodgson. As it was after 6:00 p.m., however, the store was closed. Patterson therefore telephoned Hodgson at his home. Hodgson and other friends, including Syl McCoy, thereupon met with Patterson and Gimlin, presumably at Hodgson's store."

So Murhpy's timeline: Film Site-->Willow Creek route-->
see Al H.--->to airport

There is NO way they would take the Bald Hills to see Al H. FIRST!

 

Now, MK, I've tested this basic outline, and it COULD be done. That is, if they didn't go over Bald Hills Road. I believe that one is just a mis-statement or misunderstanding between Patterson and Hodgson. I've tested that route (after all, I live in the area) after reading Daniel Perez' accounts, and found it to be impossible. Also, it is non-parsimonious. There is NO reason they would go that way. They weren't idiots. Patterson had been in the area before and knew the roads. It seems clear, too, that they were not rushing to a post office. Obviously, Roger must have known of a way to send a parcel by air to Washington. See? Take out inconsistencies which obviously cannot all be true, and the timeline makes complete sense. That is what Sherlock Holmes would do. What remains is the truth.

You are probably right, being the expert on such things here, that there would have been difficulty in processing the specialized Kodachrome film that quickly. But then, Roger DID rent that camera earlier and took a bunch of footage up in Yakima for his documentary project. Perhaps, just maybe, he may have known someone in the Yakima-to-Seattle area who knew how to do the Kodak developing process? Not all patented methods are kept utterly secret, you know. Right? Anyway, I'd agree about one thing--it is a real mess, all of these recountings of the events. I can only say that  perhaps it can be blamed on two basic things: human memory and story telling are not perfect, witnesses vary widely in their reports, stories change with the telling over time; also, perhaps they were just excited after filming the thing, and maybe didn't keep very good track of the timing of the thing (did they even wear watches?), or mis-stated some things along the way out of pure adrenaline-fuelled distraction? I mean, how clear would your mind be if YOU were the one who'd just filmed a creature such as that, basically proving its existence (they'd have thought) for the first time?

And, regarding that other film you spoke of in June--that is WELL KNOWN as coming from the late August to early September expedition that Rene Dahinden and John Green did. The earliest recounting of Patterson and Gimlin's presence in Bluff Creek before the filming places them there after they left Yakima on October 1st. They were in the Mt. St. Helens area when the Blue Creek Mountain tracks were found. Roger found out about this from his wife upon returning to Yakima. Meanwhile, Green and Dahinden had returned home to Canada, taking the white tracking dog with them. Titmus was up in Canada, and did not get to the film site until nine days later. Patterson and Gimlin prepared for another trip during September and didn't arrive until October (though the times of their arrival vary in the telling in the various books, we know they weren't there earlier). Dahinden was in San Francisco when the film was made, talking to the press about the Blue Creek Mountain tracks. So, unless you think ALL of those guys are life-long liars (and WHY would they lie?), and that basically EVERY book and article and documentary ever written or made on Bigfoot is wrong, then Green, Titmus and Dahinden were NOT in the same places at the same times as Patterson and Gimlin until the film's first showing, back in Yakima, WA, on Sunday the 22nd of October, 1967.

I hope we can talk about some of these things, and that I'm not alienating you by bringing them up. I still have a bunch of questions on the film site, its location, your work on the Redwoods film, your thoughts on the Freeman and other footage, and surely many more things that could come up. I hope you can hang in here with me, and have the time to respond.

Images: Above, the cover of ARGOSY Feb. 1968; following, historical Bigfooters:John Green with White Lady on Blue Creek Mountain; Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson with their tracks; the Lyle Laverty photo from the PG film site; Bob Titmus with his casts; Roger Patterson Bigfoot drawing from his book; one of the Blue Creek Mountain footprints; Rene Dahinden with the Willow Creek statue. Below, yours truly at middle just downstream from the film site on Bluff Creek, taken by Brad Pennock (see link below).

MK DAVIS: There is currently an independent party, or parties that are going to consider the film, based upon some of my findings. This is not someone that I'm familiar with. It was arranged for by a third party. I feel that this should be completed first. You have asked some very good questions, and I will answer some of them here, but I may not all of them due to the aforementioned investigation. I'll respond tomorrow, if you don't mind, I'll have some time then.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Is this third party associated with NABS and Paulides? That's another thing I want to ask you about as, recently, Dave was talking about some of your earlier theories as if he'd discovered them independently, in a film and materials he got from the Ray Crowe archives.

MK DAVIS: Hey Steve. I thank you for your inquiries. From this point on, I don't think that it would be prudent for me to publicly discuss any more. This should move outside the Bigfoot arena where it belongs. I would like to say before closing, and I say this emphatically...I did not utter in any way, the word "massacre". That did not come from me AT ALL. The conference in Ohio was duly recorded and is available. I encourage anyone to get a copy and listen for themselves. At the private gathering later that night, I discussed possiblities, with some seasoned researchers, which I almost always try and do. I learn a lot that way. No one is required to agree with me. I did not say that word there either. It was coined by people that were not in attendance and these same ones continue to fan the flames. Thanks for everything. M.K.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: OK, MK, I understand. I suppose this stuff is all just too hot to touch these days. If you have any further comments on the other things I raised do let me know. I'm publishing what we have now for my more-or-less weekly posting. I can add any last words you might wish to add. We could always do a Part Three which I'd promise would have nothing to do with any "Massacre" issues. I'm told that Henry May was the one who came up with that term. I'd been advised by others not to call it that with you, but heck, I don't know what else to call it, really. It's a strange theory, in my opinion, but I guess anything could be possible. I mean, we are talking about Bigfoot here. Thanks for your time--I know it is in short supply these days.

By the way, I've received already several comments and rebuttals to the Part One we did. I am thinking of publishing them in my next blog post. If you'd like to reply, rebut, or issue your own comments I'd be completely willing to let you reply. I'd even send you the various opinions of others (anonymously) if you'd like to view them before composing your. In any case, I do look forward to hearing what the results of this investigation you and the third party are doing turn out to be; even though, to me, there seems to be very scant evidence indeed to prove such things as you've implied. All the best to you! Steve

Image at left: An example of the stuff that MKD sent to the author of this blog back in June. Here the image is borrowed from Bigfootsightings.org. Make of it what you like. I don't see  blood, I see mud.

******************************************************************

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

Me say last week what me what say this one. All week same to me, Bigfoot no care but if it cold or hot. Go see last blog. Me still mad at NABS Dave. He still think he more cool than me, not answer any email. He wrong, just because he wear cop sunglass and mustache. Me fur all over. Me no need shades to be cool, hu-man. Me dump him from my fACEbOOK page. No want police snoop on my life. He He He! Ha!

******************************************************************

OTHER FILM SITE PHOTOS. These were taken in the years shortly following 1967. The first is by John Green, featuring Jim McClarin, the second is by Peter Byrne, and the third is by Rene Dahinden. They show, at least, that the actual location of the site was (and is) WELL KNOWN.

Images, historical--sourced from the Munns Report site (see link below). As always, CLICK TO ENLARGE.

RELATED LINKS:

If you are wondering what MK and I are talking about here the basic answers can easily be found through the links below, or in our previous part of the interview. Check it out. The Truth Is Out There!

Christopher Murphy's History of the PGF HERE on Bigfoot Encounters.

MK Davis PGF stabilization links found on Bigfoot Encounters. These are animations showing details not available in this blog.

THE MUNNS REPORT is a great study of the film using professional and reliable optics done by Bill Munns. It's also a great resource for its digital film site modeling. Look around in the Table of Contents and Index.

Bigfoot Encounters has a great page on the REDWOODS FILM, mentioned by MK above.

Blogtalk Radio show THE GREY AREA had researcher Bill Miller on, talking about the theories of MK Davis. For a critical view on the "Bigfoot Massacre" theory listen HERE.

LARRY BATTSON'S WILD on Blogtalk had a very interesting show with both JOHN GREEN and BOB GIMLIN interviewed regarding certain current controversies regarding the PGF. LISTEN ONLINE HERE.

BIGFOOT'S BLOG on BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS.ORG, regarding the first part of our MK Davis Interview and Discussion:
http://bigfootsightings.org/2009/12/04/m-k-davis-have-you-seen-the-new-interview/

BIGFOOT BUSTERS show on BlogTalkRadio, featuring MK Davis Interviewed on Dec. 11, 2009.

SQUATCHOPEDIA's Patterson-Gimlin Film Timeline of Key Events.

BELIEVE IT TOUR's page for their PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM SITE PANORAMA image. Actually, that is me in the image, but I think the actual film site starts upstream just a tiny bit from where the photo was taken.

********************************************************************
Text contents of the blog are copyright Steven Streufert, Bigfoot Books, 2009, save where otherwise credited or quoted. MK's words are his own. Please notify us for permission, but quote freely with citation, and post a link to this blog on your site if you'd be so kind.