Merry Abominable Christmas! Plus... AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVID PAULIDES OF NABS; More on BLUFF CREEK MASSACRE THEORY, TIMELINE ISSUES

MERRY ABOMINABLE SNOW SEASON TO ALL!!!

(Is that PC enough?)

Perhaps you remember this cool Abominable Snow Monster of the North, from the 1964 Rankin/Bass stop-motion animated TV special  production, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." This was probably our own first exposure to hairy cryptid hominoids, predating our first viewing of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Plus, you've just got to love the Island of Misfit Toys!

And now, Squatchploitation continues to new, Himalayan pinnacles! View Jack Link's company's TWELVE DAYS OF SQUATCHMAS animation and song. We here at Bigfoot Books do promote, however, a mainly vegetarian diet. We're not sure that Bigfoot would want to eat beef jerky, given that it is loaded with nitrates and is most likely made out of disgusting byproduct parts from carcasses and may contain harmful prions that would cause Mad Sasquatch Disease.

NEWS FLASH: This week we knocked off an appreciative email to Daniel Perez regarding his latest issue of BIGFOOT TIMES, and now he's posted it on his blog. READ IT HERE, or go and bookmark BIGFOOTTIMES.NET now. We mainly talk about the PGF in the letter to the editor. Go and subscribe to BF TIMES, it will do you some good, for sure. This month Daniel announced the very well-deserved selection of BILL MUNNS as "BIGFOOTER OF THE YEAR." It is our feeling that we now have the data and historical perspective to do a full re-evaluation of both the film's Bigfoot subject AND the timeline issues. To us Bigfooters this should be of singular importance: that we put the puzzle pieces together and throw out the ones that obviously don't fit. What remains is the truth of the matter, all "Bluff Creek Massacres" be damned (unless, MK and Dave, you can actually PROVE that thing!).

Check out Munns' CREATURE GALLERY. And the essential site for new data on the Patterson-Gimlin Film, THE MUNNS REPORT.

WHY DOES DAVE PAULIDES HATE US??? Our Recent Experiences with Mr. NABS.

Anyway, it looks like we have stepped into the middle of a major bigfooting shitstorm. We'd interviewed David Paulides earlier, hoping to get him to open up on some of the more controversial issues he has raised or that surround his attitude and public behavior and written statements. However, he declared he'd only talk about non-controversial things. So, we talked a lot about Ray Crowe and the Track Record product that NABS has recently released. However, at the end of that blog we placed a small "Coming Soon" slug about an interview with his arch-rival, Daniel Perez. Dave became angry. "Disappointed" was how he put it, bluntly. And for what? Just for interviewing Mr. Perez, and not being "loyal" to Mr. Paulides. Apparently, Dave does not understand the concept of objective and investigative journalism.

As soon as the Perez article was published he seemed to flip his wig. He thinks we are Perez' spy or something, as we'd sent a question Dave had asked us on to Daniel, as Dave was questioning Daniel's sources in regard to an issue of the P-G Film timeline. This is NORMAL in any field of inquiry... to INQUIRE. But just because we sent that question to Daniel, and Daniel replied back to BOTH Dave and us, now Paulides thinks that we were forwarding his emails to Perez. Perhaps Dave, using his awsome "investigative abilities and training" could have looked at the email more closely and seen that it was not US who sent any preceding material to Perez, but rather it was Daniel who chose to add Paulides' email to the reply list. Instead, he got it all wrongly, like he does often enough in his two books. Read more closely, Dave.

Now, in Paulides' book, we are "disloyal, a backstabber, dishonest, not to be counted on," etc. So, we may as well write what follows. He even rudely implied that we might not pay him for products he'd sent for the store. He accuses US of ignoring facts and not doing research when, in fact, it is HE who won't read our email, who won't consider any of the information included below. He'd rather think he is the first to interview Al Hodgson, or the first to read the 1992 Green-Gimlin interview. Sorry Dave, you're a late-comer to this party (so are we). All this despite the obviously discoverable fact that it is his own misunderstanding and hot-headed emotional reaction that has led him to this point, he has cut off all communications with us and vows to never do another interview with anyone ever again. “NABS,” his "group," even had a special "meeting" the next day with humble us as Issue #1 on the agenda, and they are now establishing a no-interview, no media policy. Dave seems to like to do things this way. Perhaps it gives him that grand feeling of power that he misses getting from law enforcement?

Well, NABS, good riddance, we suppose. With an attitude like that who really WANTS to hear from you, anyway? But it is incredibly rude to just cut off communications like that, after unjust recriminations to boot. Dave, you should be glad that I did NOT write the kind of fairly critical review of your two books that I WOULD have written had I not been interacting with you via email and in a business relationship. Perhaps now I will go back and write those. Believe me, I liked those books in great part, but they are not, um... PERFECT. Not at all. Some of the factual and grammatical errors are, frankly, embarrassing.

It is sad, Dave. Look, who defended you in every case we could, against constant criticism from others around in the bigfooting community? Who promoted constantly and sold your books, not to mention maps, patches and stickers, in our shop? Who gave you a full blog entry to say whatever you wanted and to promote your product, The Track Record? Who edited your grammatical and spelling errors out of that interview so that you would look better in it? Who got this product set up on Amazon.com for sales there, and designed a nice product listing page for you? Who has an ad flier in his window promoting your new book and a large sticker promoting your organization? Who also got your book placed in the stock of the most popular bookstores in Humboldt County based solely upon our recommendation? Who still has promotional links on our blog for your website? That was US, Dave, WE at Bigfoot Books did that for YOU. Now, Dave, who is backstabbing whom? Who is being disloyal? It certainly is not us! It is you who, in apparent paranoia, is doing it to us. And we've heard repeatedly about how you have done this kind of things to other bigfoot researchers. Cut enough bridges, Dave, and who will eventually be left on your "side"? NO ONE.

We first encountered Dave, we are certain, when a man whom we later recognized from the author photo on his book came in to our shop here in Willow Creek, sometime in 2007. His first book had not come out yet, and no one knew whom he was at that point. He didn't announce to us that he was a "professional" Bigfoot researcher, but rather played the part of the tourist and tried to pick our brain for information. We'd asked him what his interest in Bigfoot was, as he seemed curious about ours, and the subject in general. He said he was just looking into some things, now that he'd retired from being a police officer, that he'd always been interested in but didn't have the time to explore. He played naive, as if it was casual interest, and he'd just begun to think more seriously about it. Actually, it seemed to us, he was trying to hide his identity, using his supposedly awesome interrogative and investigative skills. The professional thing to do, when encountering a colleague in any given field, is to INTRODUCE yourself and your projects and area of interest. Rather, we were left later with a sour feeling, especially as many of our ideas for our own research projects then seemed mysteriously to turn up in Paulides book. Now, we're not saying that he stole them, necessarily; but it just doesn't ring with collegiality and openness of discourse that should exist in any growing, collaborative field of knowledge. Rather, it seemed the behavior of a spy, a snooper, especially as, when we later came into contact with him to sell his products, he never once let on that he had met us nor been in our shop before. Beyond sneaky, this seems almost duplicitous to us. It's just  plain odd.

He's alienated a lot of others, including numerous folks we know personally. Here's what BIGFOOT FIELD REPORTER, Sharon Lee, had to say about Dave's behavior at this year's BIGFOOT DISCOVERY DAYS:

"Finally, the most difficult presentation to sit through was that of David Paulides. Now, I am pretty new to this world of bigfoot research, 6 years. I have not had time to read every book written on bigfoots because almost EVERYONE has written a book. So, I had no idea who this Paulides guy was, but I guess I should have! In his words, he is the best researcher. His organization is the best. He doesn't consider individual people researchers. He insulted Michael Rugg, the host of the event, by telling Mike that he was not a researcher, but just a museum curator. He then went on to talk about what a bad rap he gets, and how no other organizations will step forward to work with him. Gee, I wonder why? This guy had no shortage of arrogance! I felt really badly for Mike Rugg. He has dedicated his life to bigfoot research and to be insulted at his own event that Paulides was invited to, was so disrespectful."

Image: Bigfooter Elders at the 2003 Willow Creek International Bigfoot Symposium, including Bob Gimlin (in hat), Al Hodgson, and John Green (in back, hidden).

In a public comment Believe It Tour's Brad Pennock reported, "Yeah, David Paulides talked a lot about how the Patterson/Gimlin story details didn't add up, but then emphatically stated he believes the Bigfoot in their movie is real. WTF?" This goes along the lines of what Paulides has been  promoting non-publicly, using an email rumor campaign: the "BLUFF CREEK MASSACRE THEORY." Yes, Dave claims that he came up with the very same theory that MK Davis propounded earlier, but to have found it independently, in some archival materials and film found in the Western Bigfoot Society/Ray Crowe archives that NABS  had purchased. The rumor campaign? Much like MK's tactics, it was conducted within the Bigfoot researcher community, and began to spread out like a virus. There was nothing really new here--we'd heard all of it before from MK either personally or over the WWW. However, as outed and published on CRYPTOMUNDO by Loren Coleman, and then in the BIGFOOT TIMES by Daniel Perez, there was apparently something more sinister going on here, something more like defamation, and it was aimed at the most respected names in the Bigfoot field.

Daniel Perez and Loren Coleman both published and quoted Paulides as writing (yes, we got a variant of these odd emails from him, too),

"I actually got my hands on a fairly old copy of the PG film, full framed with segments on it nobody has seen. It is in the experts hands and many of our impressions of what actually occurred is playing out. I actually believe that John Green and Gimlin are harboring a very, very dark secret, really."

The "Secret"? It is a theory that claims John Green, Bob Gimlin, Rene Dahinden, Roger Patterson and Bob Titmus participated in the slaughter of a Sasquatch family, and that the clip known as the PGF is just a small piece of the killing action. In stating or at least implying things like this, Paulides is not only scandalizing the names of these two elder statesmen of Bigfooting, but he is also besmirching the honorable memory of nearly all the late greats, who aren't around anymore to defend themselves against such outrages: Patterson, Dahinden, and Titmus. He is not just dragging their names in the dirt, but more: he is accusing them of MURDER. If you buy into Dave Paulides' notion that Bigfoot is fully HUMAN, then what else can we call the slaughter of a whole family of them in Bluff Creek? This is serious shit, and ex-cop Dave should KNOW BETTER.

Dig even deeper into this crazy "Massacre" theory if you'd like. The best place to start is probably where it ends, really--the page on Cryptomundo.com where JOHN GREEN GIVES HIS RESPONSES to Paulides' accusations and MK's ideas. There are handy links in this article which will take you back into the story.
Or read MASSACRE MANIA CONTINUES for more info and graphics on the MKD theory.
AND READ THIS NOW: The Massacre at Bluff Creek; Bill Miller debunks the massacre with the help of John Green's original film, found on the West Coast Sasquatch Reasearch site. But be careful: it's through the looking glass in there!

"The more I try to explain the stranger it seems that anyone could think this stuff up, let alone actually go public with it, let alone have anyone else believe it." -- John Green, August 24, 2009

Linda Martin, on BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS, had some interesting points to make in her entry, David Paulides Responds to the Bigfoot Massacre Issue. She, too, has told me she has been CUT OFF from Dave's holy communication. Oh well, Linda!

And this, perhaps the real source of Paulides' anger, is what Daniel Perez had to say re. the misguided "Massacre" theory in his September 2009 issue of BIGFOOT TIMES: "M.K. Davis, sorry to say, has already lost all credibility and now David Paulides isn't very far behind." Then Perez quotes John Green from a September 5th statement: "Can you believe that Paulides could actually have been involved in criminal investigations with serious consequences? The mind boggles. I don't understand these people, but I don't think it's likely Paulides will now be taken seriously by legitimate researchers."

And then a reader of our blog, asking for total anonymity, sent us the following statement:
"I'm guessing Paulides hates or is hated by a lot of people. His writing and research are awful and he's got incredibly thin skin, even for the Bigfoot community. It's scary to think this guy was a cop. I wouldn't trust him to investigate my missing newspaper."

Dave, if you've gone and shot yourself in the foot, you shouldn't blame it on others.

Images: Both from the 2007 Willow Creek PGF Celebration, by Steven Streufert. Above, the Bigfoot swag table including Roger Patterson's book and bust of Bigfoot statues (one of these is now in our possession!); Below, Bigfoot footprint tracks provided by Cliff Barackman, including some of the PGF Patty.

Be sure to check out NABS/Dave's "Blog #67 Professional Investigations" found by scrolling down on the NABS BLOG page. Here, among other things, Dave finally admits (after many earlier claims) that he was not the first to utilize affidavits in Bigfoot research. Nope, it was John Green. Here Dave makes the most hypocritical statement we can imagine. Talking about OTHER researchers he ends up simply describing himself: "...the world of Bigfoot is one of the most dysfunctional arenas in any spectrum imaginable. It’s a place where many can’t work together, most don’t have friends, a majority of research “groups” are a group of one and almost all have an ego the size of Texas." Mr. Paulides, if you want us to believe you, stop being so secretive, so combative, so arrogant, so presumptuous and... show us these "Experts" already? Who ARE they? Are they even there? What are their credentials? Is NABS really just Paulides and Pratt with some financial backers and a lot of hot air, or can we really believe in the credibility of your evidence and methodology? It is hard to believe in its value if it is hidden behind what seems like the smoke, mirrors and stage curtains normally used by magicians and charlatans and snake oil salesmen. Come out into the open Dave, share the world with other researchers and thinkers in the field, don't be something like a paranoid recluse. But you're going to have to play nice....

What follows is the discourse from after our own fiasco with Dave, with data following that was originally meant to be published as a brief interchange here on this blog, with our open letter to Paulides, and pieces of our discussion that we can publish--our own words and synopsis of his--without asking his permission.

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

AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVE PAULIDES OF NABS:

13 November 2009

Willow Creek, CA  (Revised slightly Dec. 23, 2009)

Dave,

I wish you would not be so angry. About what? I did not forward your mail to Daniel. I simply asked him a question you had raised about the mailing/sending of the PGF. This is NORMAL in an inquiry, to ask questions, to debate and mutually consider evidence.

I cannot help it if you and Daniel Perez are enemies. I do not deserve to be treated the way you are treating me, simply because I interviewed him. Your reaction is really rather extreme, and if you asked me, unworthy of a researcher and author of the stature you want to be.

If you would take a step back from your knee-jerk emotional reaction you would see that I never took sides between the two of you, and simply asked both of you about your ideas and opinions. I had no obligation to defend your work after Perez’ comments, but if you’d look you would see that I DID defend you in the interview. I am not responsible for Daniel’s views. I gave you the right of rebuttal, which you refused, to your own detriment, I think.

If you asked me, I would say that your attitude does NOT further the cause, nor does it make you look good in the bigfooting community. We are all in this endeavor together, and trying to be secretive, combative, alienating others, displaying arrogance, and not being open with research results surely will not help us find Bigfoot and the truth any time sooner.

Here is an option, one I consider much more amenable and mature:
We should just drop the anger and the argument, carry on like before with the things we do.

Look:
* I never acted as a "spy" for Perez.
* I never tried to set you up or betray you.
* I never sought to take sides with you or him.
* I acted in good faith in wanting to know what you and he think.

So far in my interviews I have chosen subjects I am in touch with. I bought a bunch of books from Buhs, so I asked if I could interview him. You and Daniel both were writing to me so I figured it would be cool to interview both of you. MK Davis and Bobbie Short both commented on my blog, so I figured I'd interview them. I am talking to Matt Moneymaker lately a bit, and have asked him, too. There is NO CONSPIRACY in these matters, save my own intellectual curiosity and desire to get to the bottom of things, to the truth. You should not take offense to that.

This:
The only thing I really ever said to Perez about you was that I thought the "massacre" theory was kind of crazy, back when MK was spreading it around; and I asked him why he thought you'd gotten involved with it. I admit, I was and am truly puzzled about that; but you would not answer those kind of questions. If you close doors then I am forced to inquire with other researchers, books, or internet sites. Do you want to have your say or not? Other than that I didn't go divulging private words to him. You asked about his sources on an issue, and I asked him about them. Where's the crime, Dave?

I mean you no harm. I do not want to be your enemy. I'm glad you're out there doing your research, and am open-minded to all your other ideas and theories. I enjoyed your books. I promote(d) them and your organization every chance I have (had). I have been ON YOUR SIDE all along, in these regards.

I believe:
You have misunderstood me, and reacted to something that was not even a problem at all, save in your own mind.
To see threats that are not there, to act out against them, this is what is called "paranoia."

If I have done you any harm tell me what I've done and I will apologize if it was really wrong.
Really.
Don't make more out of this than is there.
I sent an email to Daniel to ask him about the Murray Field issue, no more.
I DID say in there that I agreed with him that there is a basic PGF timeline that makes sense, and that if you remove certain inconsistently remembered or reported things then it is more clear. I DID NOT MALIGN YOU TO HIM. What exactly do you think I said that was a slight against you? Or are you imagining what I MIGHT have said? Is your imagination running away with you? Well, I didn't say it.

Yes, OK, this is just my opinion. I do not think that they took the Bald Hills route. That is not to say anything bad about YOU. Can we not disagree about certain things??? To discuss ideas and conduct a serious study of anything requires that we not take things personally.

Really, I am not trying to take sides on this just to get web hits, as you imply. Why would I need web hits? I don't make a cent on doing this, you know. What I really want to know is: WHAT IS THE TRUTH? The truth about the PGF timeline. THAT is what I care about. YES, I have read the Green-Gimlin interview you mention, a number of times. I agree, there are problems with the time statements Bob makes. I am VERY CURIOUS as to why so many differing statements were made by various people. But that DOESN'T mean that P. and G. or Al Hodgson were... LIARS!

Read this one, then, yourself: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm
by Christopher Murphy

I have another email where I have compiled all of this stuff [ed. note--see this below] I've been noting about the timeline, which I am going to send to you. In there I am making honest analysis and questioning things. I do sincerely hope that you will read it. This is some kind of toxic issue. Every time I try to talk about it a whole lot of people get pissed off to high heaven.

I do NOT sit around with Daniel Perez joking about you. BELIEVE me, OK? I do not want to alienate you. That is absolutely NOT my intention. In my opinion I have done you NO wrong, okay? Please tell me, why are you so angry at ME? I think you are getting angry where no anger is due. I am NOT backstabbing you.

If I have done some actual harm, please: PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. At least try to make sense.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books
*********************************************

What follows is an interchange that was going on right before Paulides “banned” us from his sacred presence. We have taken out Dave’s actual words, as he does not want us to publish them. We have, instead, given a brief paraphrase of them for context only. His statements are summarized under “YOU” below. Make of this what you will--it is a fragment of a sadly aborted discourse, and we hate to just waste the material. Our words are in capitals, only because we wanted to intersperse our words into his email as a mode of reply--we DON’T mean to be yelling by using this mode, we just don't want to retype it and remove it from its original context.

Image: The winding, often confused road Bigfooting usually takes. A sign on Bigfoot Towing, in Happy Camp, CA.

*********************************************
Dave: Here is what I have to say about what you said about the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film and Timeline, in your first email, before you became enraged, interspersed in CAPITALS:

BIGFOOT BOOKS: DAVE, THERE IS ILLOGIC, INCONSISTENCY, AND INCOMPLETE CONSIDERATION IN MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAY IN YOUR EMAIL.

YOU: Dave too literally assumes that we have to believe Gimlin or not, totally missing that there is ambiguity in memory, and he may not have paid ultra-close attention to ALL details of that day. Questions Perez sources, which is what we asked Daniel about. Questions issue of bringing film to airport.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: ALL GIMLIN IS SAYING, IN MY VIEW, IS THAT THEY WENT TO TOWN TO *DELIVER* THE FILM. TO SAY "MAIL" COULD EASILY MEAN, "PUT IT ON A PLANE." ESPECIALLY AS HE SAYS HE DOESN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE THEY WENT. YOU CAN'T BE TOO LITERAL OR NITPICKY IN INTERPRETING ORAL STORIES. IT IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE, HOWEVER MANY AFFIDAVITS YOU GET SIGNED. YOU KNOW WELL, WITNESS REPORTS DIFFER WIDELY.

YOU: Dave questions how P. and G. could have gotten casts, etc. when it was raining so hard that night. Totally not getting that it only rained later, in the early morning. Dave seems not to have really absorbed the primary sources on these matters.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: THEY HAD GOTTEN THE CASTS OUT, TWO OF THEM, THAT AFTERNOON. GIMLIN COVERED UP THE PRINTS BEFORE THE RAIN GOT THAT HARD. IT WAS A DELUGE AS HE RETURNED TO CAMP, SPRINKLING OR JUST STARTING TO RAIN AS HE LEFT, AS ROGER CONTINUED TO SLEEP. THE RAIN CAN CAUSE MUDSLIDES ON BLUFF CREEK ROADS, ESPECIALLY THE MUD ONES, WITHOUT EVEN BEING THAT BAD. THE ROAD CAN HAVE PROBLEMS WHILE THE FILM SITE SANDBAR DOES NOT, SEE? THE CREEK WOULD HAVE STAYED IN ITS BANKS IN A NORMAL RAIN, ONLY A REAL 100-YEAR TYPE FLOOD WOULD INUNDATE THE ENTIRE SANDBAR.

YOU: Dave thinks it unbelievable that Gimlin went back to the film site (2- 2.5 miles on a dirt logging road with the sun beginning to lighten the sky) that night, in the rain, and that he should have been too afraid to do it with Bigfoots running around. (We think Bob was tougher than that, for sure.)

BIGFOOT BOOKS: HE DIDN'T WALK, HE RODE THE HORSE. AND THAT 2 MILES OR SO WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER WITH THE WELL-LEVELED LOGGING ROAD THERE AT THE TIME. HE HAD THE CASTS ALREADY. THE ONES YOU KNOW OF, THE TEN, WERE CAST BY BOB TITMUS, 9-10 DAYS LATER. BECAUSE BOB HAD COVERED THEM UP WITH TREE BARK THEY STILL HELD FORM TO BE CAST LATER. AND RE. THE THREAT OF "BIPEDS," WELL, MAYBE HE FIGURED SHE OR THEY HAD LEFT THE AREA. AND FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND HEARD OF GIMLIN... YES, HE DOES INDEED HAVE NERVES OF STEEL. HE'S A TOUGH GUY, AND BRAVE, AND NOT A LIAR, EITHER.

YOU: Dave thinks they were at Hodgson’s between 8:00 or 9:00, when they were there around 6:15; chooses to believe the Hodgson version of the story of them coming by after sending off the film, even though that is absolutely impossible within the given time frame, even that given by Al himself (Al says they came by earlier, a little after 6:00) and is contradicted by Gimlin’s own account. Dave also believes in the Bald Hills Route story, by the way, even though that is even more impossible.

Image: The great Al Hodgson, still alive and kickin', presents in front of Patty at the 2007 Willow Creek PGF Anniversary gathering. Photo by Steven Streufert.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: NO, AS THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE MADE IT TO *ANY* POST OFFICE BEFORE CLOSING TIME, AND THE WILLOW CREEK POST WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS GOOD. THE *ONLY* REASON TO GO TO EUREKA WAS FOR A SPECIAL AIR DELIVERY FROM THE AIRPORT OR WHATEVER COURIER WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR OFF-HOURS SERVICE. SEE? NO REASON TO GO TO THE EKA POST OFFICE. NO RUSH TO GET THERE BEFORE GOING TO AL'S IF ROGER KNEW OF A WAY TO HAVE IT SENT BY PRIVATE PLANE OR AIR COURIER SERVICE. WHICH STORY DO YOU WANT? DID THEY GO TO THE POST OFFICE OR NOT? DID THEY MAKE IT TO AL'S SHORTLY AFTER THE 6:00 HOUR OR NOT? WHATEVER HOUR, THE POST OFFICES WERE CLOSED, AND THEY COULD NOT HAVE EVEN MADE IT TO THE LOCAL WCK ONE ON TIME. SO WHY EVEN MENTION 9:00??? IT IS AN OBVIOUS MIS-STATEMENT. AL SAYS SIX OR SO--DO YOU BELIEVE HIM OR NOT??? IF YOU BELIEVE HIM THEN THEY WENT RIGHT TO HIS STORE.

YOU: Dave says, after believing absolutely self-contradictory things, that this somehow proves that the film was taken on another day. This is not logically consistent, however. And that it rained later has nothing really to do with anything. But as Dave can’t get the facts straight he comes up with an even more implausible and non-parsimonious theory of what happened. The timeline is NOT impossible, we argue, if you take out the obviously incorrect statements.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: RE. THE 8 0R 9:00 TIME, WELL, MAYBE BOB JUST MADE A WRONG ESTIMATE OF THAT, AS IT ONLY WOULD TAKE ABOUT TWO HOURS FROM THE FILM SITE TO WILLOW CREEK, HENCE A 6:00 ARRIVAL PLUS OR MINUS MAKES COMPLETE SENSE, AND AGREES WITH AL HODGSON'S STATEMENTS. GOING TO THE AIRPORT OR WHEREVER AFTER THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE, TOO. RULE OUT BALD HILLS, RULE OUT EUREKA FIRST, AND LO, IT ALL ADS UP PERFECTLY. DANIEL PEREZ HAS DISPROVED THE SHOWER STORY--THEY MAY HAVE STOPPED THERE THE DAY AFTER, ON THE WAY HOME, APPARENTLY, BUT NOT THE SAME DAY.

Image: Willow Creek Museum's Bigfoot Collection exhibit of some Bigfoot history, this one covering the 1958 Jerry Crew track finds from Bluff Creek.

YOU: Dave argues that we gave Daniel the softball treatment in our interview. Au contraire! That we should have been defending HIS Hoopa Project and Tribal Bigfoot, as if that were our obligation somehow, as if that had much of anything to do with the fact that Daniel was just expressing HIS opinion. He then denigrates and questions Daniel’s investigative talents.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: SORRY, BUT WHAT AMMO NOW DID YOU GIVE ME? BEFORE THE INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL? HARDLY ANYTHING. WE BARELY TALKED ABOUT ANY OF THIS, AND THE THINGS YOU SENT TO ME WERE *AFTER* THE INTERVIEW WAS COMPLETED. BESIDES, IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DEFEND YOUR BOOK, IN AN INTERVIEW WITH A RIVAL RESEARCHER, BUT RATHER JUST TO ASK THE INTERVIEWED SUBJECT WHAT HE/SHE MAY THINK. IT IS YOUR JOB TO DEFEND YOUR OWN POSITION, AND I HAVE FREELY OFFERED THIS TO YOU. YOU SEEM ADAMANT TO REJECT THAT BASED UPON SOME FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT MY MOTIVES. YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG.

DAVE,  I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE IT, BUT THERE ARE A CLEAR MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE BIGFOOTING WORLD WHO HAVE FOUND REASON NOT TO LIKE YOU OR TO RESPECT YOUR RESEARCH. I MEAN, LIKE THE IMPRESSION YOU MADE IN FELTON THIS YEAR--JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE--A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE FELT GRAVELY INSULTED BY YOUR STATEMENTS, INCLUDING THE ORGANIZER, MICHAEL RUGG. I WASN'T THERE, SO I CAN'T REALLY COMMENT COMPLETELY; HOWEVER, I WISH YOU KNEW HOW DAMN MANY TIMES I'VE DEFENDED YOU AND YOUR WORK FROM CRITICISMS. ALMOST UNIFORMLY BIGFOOTERS HAVE TOLD ME BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU, THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE, OR FOUND YOUR WORK LACKING IN SOME REGARD. I, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU DID GOOD WORK AND SEEMED LIKE A GOOD GUY. I HAVE BEEN ALMOST ALONE IN DOING SO, AND HAVE HAD TO DO SO IN ALMOST EVERY CASE YOUR NAME HAS COME UP. BUT LOOK, I AM NOT AGAINST YOU. I WOULD CONTINUE TO DEFEND YOU, SAVE IN THE CASE THAT YOU TAKE A BAD ATTITUDE IN RESPONDING TO ME, IF YOU LEAVE THE NASTY THINGS YOU JUST SAID ABOUT ME, OR IMPLIED, STANDING AS THEY ARE. IF THAT IS THE KIND OF PERSON YOU ARE THEN I WOULD BE FORCED TO ADMIT IT AND AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHERS. I SINCERELY *HOPE* THAT IS *NOT* THE CASE, DAVE.

BEST,

STEVE, BIGFOOT BOOKS

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

OK FOLKS, MAKE OF THE ABOVE RELATIONS AND FRAGMENTS WHAT YOU WILL.

Think of Mr. Paulides as you like--these are just our own current views and experiences. We exercise our First Amendment right to FREE SPEECH in doing so, but in no way wish to claim that you should believe as we do. We are open to a change in attitude in Dave, but somehow feel we should not expect it. We do hope that solipsism and egotism don't cloud his mind forever, and he can get on with the more serious topics wherein he may just contribute something worthy to the field of Bigfoot research. Hoopa Project and Tribal Bigfoot were pretty darn fascinating books. Let's hope he does come around!

Image: The Heat Miser is all fired-up over this! From "The Year Without a Santa Claus," another fine Rankin/Bass stop-motion Christmas treasure.

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

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS:

Me hibernate!!! Get out my cave, hu-man! Me break scrawny hu-man neck. ZZZZ. GRRR. ZZZZ.

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

All words in this blog entry are just the opinons of Bigfoot Books. DISCLAIMER: You might want to investigate the issues and form your own opinions before coming to any conclusions about the subject matter discussed. These are just our personal experiences and views, and are in no way meant to be construed as absolute statements of fact and truth.
Copyright 2009, Bigfoot Books Intergalactic.

Image: One of Shipton's 1950s Yeti snow prints.

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

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.