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.

BIGFOOT LIVES? Biscardi's Blight on Bigfooting, Plus ABOMINABLE and SASQUATCH MOUNTAIN. Three BIgfoot Films Considered. The Release of BIGFOOT'S REFLECTION on DVD

FILM REVIEW---NOTE: what follows are the opinions of the author. They are based upon impressions of the movie reviewed and/or oral accounts and internet research that may in fact be based upon hearsay. Though we DOUBT it is wrong. Having never met Mr. Biscardi, we cannot make any final conclusions here. That is up to the reader and the viewer.

NOW, for those with the curiosity, but also the great unwillingness to put money into the coffers of one whom many regard as an irremediable con-man, huckster and bigfooting charlatan, Tom Biscardi's recent film, BIGFOOT LIVES, is now available for free viewing for members on Netflix. Click HERE to watch it on  your computer, if you are signed up. We know, maybe he'll make a very small royalty on this online streaming version, but we doubt it will amount to much. The film is worth viewing, if only to see the flawed methodology and exploitative nature of presentation, or if you are a Bigfoot completist like we are. You may buy it if you like through the title link above--just being fair, Tom!

Image: Official product image from Amazon.com... "Best Director" and "Best Documentary"? In WHAT film festival was that, Tom??? OMG.

Now, I don't know the man personally, so who am I to talk? He does seem to have a lot of friends, just not in the serious domain of well-regarded and serious Bigfoot researchers. The first step in any con is the warm handshake, the building of social confidences. Well, what I can tell you about is the kind of thing I've heard from just about every person this man and his past GABRO and current SEARCHING FOR BIGFOOT groups have dealt with over the many years he's been in bigfooting, plus the ridiculous things I've seen from him in the media, the horrid own-horn-tooting quality of his online radio show (complete with constant Bozo horn sound effects every five minutes or so)... and, of course, this terrible DVD he's released.

"There's a sucker born every minute." - P. T. Barnum
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." - H. L. Mencken

Well, OK, it isn't really ALL bad. There are undoubtedly some honest witnesses in there, with real stories of encounters with the big, stinky bipeds. However, these folks should look out! What we see in this film is NOT Bigfoot, but rather constant Biscardi. From all appearances this man seems to be a classic con artist, one who makes friends to use and exploit, and then discard them. Just ask around Happy Camp, CA, as we have, and you will see the wreckage he left behind there, a bad attitude towards Bigfoot researchers that has surely hampered the reporting of sightings and the formal discovery of the species. We'll just quote the Wikipedia article on Biscardi and the "Happy Camp Fiasco" here:

"2005 hoax: On July 14, 2005, Biscardi appeared on the radio program Coast to Coast AM and claimed he was "98% sure" his group would be able to capture a Bigfoot near Happy Camp, California. On August 19, he returned to say he knew of the location of a captured Bigfoot specimen, and that he would air footage of the creature through a $14 web-cam service. However, on the day the footage was to be distributed, Biscardi claimed he was "hoodwinked" by a woman in Stagecoach, Nevada, and that the specimen did not exist. Coast to Coast AM host George Noory demanded that Biscardi refund the money to people who had paid for the web-cam subscription. Biscardi then offered a refund on his website to those who had subscribed for the service after August 19."

Rumor around Willow Creek has it that Biscardi was from the start in collusion with a couple of good-old-boys who were making faked footprints up there in Happy Camp to draw attention to their town. We don't know if this is true, but we'd believe it. Upon arrival in the area Biscardi immediately began stirring up a media circus, as he seems to do everywhere he goes (television is the real goal of his hunt, we think). From there it just got worse with every step, and many were left behind feeling betrayed or ripped off. The segment on nationally syndicated and globally streamed C2C AM (The "Art Bell" Show) was one of the most outrageous this writer has EVER heard, on any radio show, and that is after listening to the C2C show since 1989. Among all the myriad weird guests on there over the years we've never heard one so excoriated, so discredited by the host, so caught up in lies and a public scam live on the air. And a number of these show guests have actually been thrown off the air over the years. Loren Coleman's THE CRYPTOZOOLOGIST has a great summary of the event in their article, "Coast to Coast AM Keeps Biscardi on Track" and there is a good update HERE on CRYPTOMUNDO.COM.

One Happy Camp Bigfoot blogger won't even mention Biscardi's name on her site, http://bigfootsightings.org/

But she did indirectly imply things about her experiences with the guy and the storm of BS he stirred up. Like something out of Harry Potter, she refers to him as "“he whose name will not appear in my blog,”

Every Bigfoot aficionado and investigator has been hurt by his antics, as the subject looks more ridiculous the more attention Biscardi gets. For every step forward in the battle for legitimization and public acceptance of the subject, media hound Biscardi seems to take three steps toward making it look absurd, uncultured, ignorant and foolish to believe that such a creature exists. One almost cringes to see him in action with such exploitation, knowing full well how negative the impact will be upon one's own bigfooting activities and research. One bombastic buffoon, one clown, one crook in the mix, one seen so publicly, can discredit a whole field of endeavor. Serious bigfooters should not underestimate this impact. Biscardi's show is one of the top-rated among the thousands on the online BlogTalk Radio podcast network. If you hear about Bigfoot on the major news channels it is likely to be another Biscardi confabulation. This is how the general public gets to see Bigfoot: through bogus bullshit, hype and deception. When the Bigfoot "body" was announced from Georgia the whole serious bigfooting world groaned in disgust when they heard who was involved in the "discovery."

Images: two photos in the press conference release packet for the Georgia Gorilla hoax presentation. Above, Biscardi with the "good old boy" hoaxers (his allies?). Below, the Halloween costume stuffed with animal parts, guts tossed on top, on ice.

Do you remember the Georgia Gorilla Hoax that Biscardi was a part of, and almost certainly originated and encouraged? (Read about it HERE on Squatchopedia if not, or the official Searching for Bigfoot press release HERE.) Well that was not the start of it. Biscardi's bigfooting pedigree goes directly back to the notorious old-time hoaxer and trickster, Ivan Marx. Marx' "The Legend of Bigfoot" (1976) (also viewable on Netflix for free HERE, or on YouTube HERE) is an assemblage of natural historical "documentary" and confabulation, a bunch of made up stories and faked sighting footage showing his wife prancing and stumbling around in a field pretending to be the Bossburg Cripplefoot. This film was made simply to exploit the interest in Bigfoot after the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot. The "Bigfoot" footage in this feature is, in the words of anthropologist Jeff Meldrum, "a transparent hoax." And yet, to this day, Tom Biscardi claims that the ape-suited subject of the film was a 7-8 foot tall Sasquatch and was horrifying as it charged them. He tells the story with fake trembling in his voice and feigned excitement. Give me a break, please, Tom. There is perhaps no more ridiculous Bigfoot hoax film than that one! Biscardi wants so badly to be known to have seen the beast, to be known as the "#1 Bigfoot Hunter in the Nation," that even something obviously untrue is better than nothing. All publicity is good publicity, I guess, when you're operating on this level. If he can't FIND Bigfoot, he'll INVENT it. But you've got to ask, Would you buy even a used car from this man?

We've heard some who've encountered him say they think Tom is just "gullible," that he is overly enthusiastic and believes people's stories too easily. But when viewing a film like "BIGFOOT LIVES" or "NOT YOUR TYPICAL BIGFOOT MOVIE" after the Georgia Gorilla and Happy Camp fiascoes one cannot help but see it the other way around. The cynical, calculating modus operandi, by all appearances and as seen in his own movie, is to go around building confidences in folks who want attention, who want to escape the small town mundanity of their lives, who are perhaps eager for monetary gain, and to USE them. The latter movie shows full evidence of this, where Biscardi is show cultivating a relationship, using it for what it's worth, and then abandoning the poor fellows. Tom got his movie footage, seen in HIS movie, but he left Dallas Gilbert and his poor friend standing around waiting at an abandoned appointment.

So, what IS in this movie? It's a lot of footage of Tom, Java Bob and crew driving around on interstate highways in their big, fancy "Searching for Bigfoot" gas guzzlers. It's basically that and Mr. Biscardi shmoozing with witnesses and potential Biscardi-cult members, or Biscardi taking credit for all the advancements in Bigfooting, or Biscardi propounding his own brand of feel-good philosophy, or Biscardi stomping around in the woods at night claiming to see things that just obviously are not there, or Biscardi just plain making shit up and wrongly interpreting evidence.

First there are a whole lot of suspicious-looking footprint finds. Like: one or two (it was not made clear) prints found in the middle of a muddy marsh bog in Paris, Texas. Tom, where is the TRACKWAY? Did Bigfoot just appear from the fifth dimension to make one footprint in a bog? How did that one print GET there? No attempt is made to show these things, rendering this part of the documentary useless, save if one wants to watch them make a plaster cast of something that sure looks like a faked plant (search Biscardi's van and I'll bet you'll find his footprint stomping mold right there under the passenger seat!).

Image: the commercial product used in the faking of the "Bigfoot Corpse."

Then they head to Deer River, Minnesota, where they see a bunch of very fake looking footprint casts. Biscardi finds a white hair superficially attached to the cement-like casting material. Suspiciously, this looks exactly like one of Java Bob's whitened beard hairs, in both length and color. A big show is made of boiling a Leatherman's pliers to remove the hair when it could probably have just been knocked off the cast with a pencil tip, and then while putting it into an envelope they take no care at all not to touch the inside of the envelope and hence contaminate it with human DNA. After all this show we don't get any presentation of the results of the DNA testing. Want to guess why? Clearly, this was Java Bob's or some other human's hair, not Bigfoot's.

Then we get to see the aforementioned Wayne and his friend Dallas in Ohio. Their method? Set up cameras on parts of the forest, take random footage, and then go home and try to find blobsquatches in the images. Very scientific, guys. Very imaginative. Bigfoot? No. This finding of shadows and phantoms not being enough, they present a blurry white thing that, um, could be Bigfoot. Or it could have been a littered grocery sack blowing in the wind! After this a known hoaxed photo of a man in an ape suit is presented. Great evidence!

Then we move on to a hand in formaldehyde, supposedly found in a public trash dump. It looks just about the size of a human hand... or maybe an animal paw. The DNA results, totally ineffectual for a piece of a body sitting god knows how long in preservative chemicals, were presented verbally in the film as "unknown, non-human, not a known primate." A little further research we did and proper wording reveal the real result: "inconclusive, due to degradation." This approach that seeks to bend the words of a lab report is seen again in the testing of some hair found by a Native American cop in Arizona. One of his samples was shown to be synthetic. The other, as seen in Biscardi's reaction where he interprets it: "Here it comes again, one more time," meaning that he thinks it is "non-human, unknown primate." But, IN FACT, the camera pans right onto the actual lab report, and the viewer can read it. There, before the viewers' very eyes, is the actual laboratory conclusion: "non-human, animal origin"!!! What does this mean, folks? That the hair came from... AN ANIMAL. Well, duh! But that is NOT proof that they came from a Bigfoot. It doesn't prove anything save for the fact that Biscardi couldn't give a damn for the truth, or that perhaps he can't even read. This clearly shows the non-scientific and obviously dishonest or delusional nature of the Searching for Bigfoot methodology.

Image: The fakest BF photo this side of blobsquatches in a LONG time. Sourced from: http://www.webjam.com/biscardi_exposed, where they say this about the photographer, "a local reporter confronted a local costumer and identified Mobius as buying a gorilla suit a few days before the media cabal. But Biscardi, as usual avoids the boring true story and heads right for the sensationalism...".

From there we get to hear mysterious music playing as Biscardi walks around in some fields. He knocks a stick against a tree, and then superimposed audio that could have come from anywhere is spliced in, as if it were Bigfoot's response to Tom. Then we see the fakest looking Halloween costumed "Bigfoot" ever, standing next to a golf cart. We see a leg with some meat hanging off of it that was dug up by a dog. It could be from any animal, but being only a couple of feet long I am not sure why they seem to think it came from a Bigfoot.  At the end we see an excavation of a human body in the woods in what looks decidedly like grave-robbing of a Native American. Biscardi steps in and with no evidence at all of his claims states that the bones are from about 500 BC. How did you "know" this, Tom? They measure the grave-scattered bones and conclude that it could not be human because the thing is about seven feet tall. Um, damn, I'd better just stop here. In short, there is not one single piece of evidence in this video that even comes close to being convincing.

Far from revealing that "Bigfoot Lives," this mock-you-mentary clearly shows that it certainly exists in Biscardi's mind, and it is there in the interests of his pocketbook and ego. With all of that expensive technological gear and rhetorical hoopla you'd think they could have gotten at least a decent thermal image of the Creature, or maybe at least a piece of scat or something that could be honestly tested. Instead, the viewer is left feeling, in the end, like a big Bigfoot turd has just been dropped on his or her head. Biscardi should at least not go around claiming that he's the inventor of concepts like Bigfoot migration. That idea is as old as the hills, and credit for it should probably go to John Green, we'd say. He even claims he is the first to say that Bigfoot is nocturnal. Oh, please, come on. Tom! Can't you find a job at a casino or something? Leave Bigfoot Alone. Where is the BFRO when you need them most?

An AMAZING website exists to analyze (I should say DEBUNK) Biscardi and his so-called evidence and highly questionable methods. It also includes his "Bigfoot Business Plan" fully documented. Go there now: http://www.webjam.com/biscardi_exposed.

Curious about Biscardi's point of view? Want to see some really bad faked Photoshop Bigfoot photos and Blobsquatches? Go HERE, to the Searching for Bigfoot site, if you dare. Go ahead, listen to Bozo toot his own horn on the Bigfoot Live Radio Show on BlogTalkRadio.

If YOU or someone you know has had an encounter with Tom Biscardi we invite you to leave COMMENTS, below. All comments, pro and con, will be tolerated and approved by this bLog, save for those that are demonstrable Spam.

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

NEWS FLASH---ANNOUNCEMENT: Just out is a new documentary called  BIGFOOT'S REFLECTION. This one features good, solid, reasonable researchers, in distinct contrast to the other one we've just covered. Featured bigfooters are John Bindernagal, Robert Pyle, John Green, Bill Miller, John Kirk, Thomas Steenburg, Richard Noll and Mel Skahan. Check out the trailer HERE on the Bunbury Films site. They're sending a review copy to us here at BIGFOOT BOOKS, so expect more detailed coverage on this blog soon. If it's really good we'll be carrying here in the Bigfoot Books shop in Willow Creek.

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

MORE BIGFOOT FILMS:

In great distinction to the really bad  fictional Sasquatch films reviewed previously HERE on this blog, we're pleased to announce that there are a couple of good ones out there. Bigfoot films are in a genre unto themselves, but the following two are clever genre-benders, featuring not only two quite good Bigfoot-suited monsters (going beyond the usual cheap gorilla costumes), and introducing intriguing pastiches and borrowings from other horror films. These both demonstrate meta-critical positions of self-aware bad genre film-making, transcending the bad with good production values and humorous in-jokes. And, of course, there is always the need to compete with all the other Bigfoot films from the past, to beat them in the savagery and gore departments, all whilst using the usual arm-through-the-window, shadow-across-the-wall tropes so familiar to slasher flick fans.

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

ABOMINABLE (2006), directed and written by Ryan Schifrin, stars a very competent Matt McCoy as a paralyzed guy returning from a mental hospital in an attempt to recover from the death of his wife in a climbing accident on the mountain behind his remote, forest-surrounded house. Next door, the same day he arrives, the usual clichéd hot babe co-eds show up for a pre-wedding bachelorette party. It gets juicy fast.

Needless to say, it isn't just the recovering protagonist who is annoyed with their loud hip-hop music, valley girl chatter, and pot smoking. No, there is also the real resident of this area--Bigfoot--and boy is he pissed. And he's hungry for hot human blood. Why Bigfoot likes to eat young co-eds is still not explained by this film. But hey, they must be tasty or something. Or maybe it was the rap music? Bigfoot really, really hates car horns honking here, too.

In a scenario right out of Hitchcock's Rear Window, the man who is trapped in his wheelchair on the second story with his annoying orderly witnesses a young woman attacked and dragged into the woods. Her compatriots do not even notice. The man cannot communicate because the phone line is down. Then he sees Sasquatch playing peeping Tom from the forest's edge as a young woman takes a shower. From there things only get worse, and in the most ghastly and gory ways. If you like gruesomeness you will love this film.

And to be fair to both genders--though we don't want even to begin to spoil the hideous fun for you--we do have to say that at one point the obnoxious mental hospital male nurse hurls a large axe into Bigfoot's back, and he is subsequently given the high honor of having the entire front part of his face and head bitten off in graphic detail, from upper mouth to upper forehead. Lovely!

Images: Poster and titles screen, the latter being footprints in the snow left after two horses were slaughtered outside a rural cabin, and then the dog was smooshed. Next: Bigfoot hates cars! Next: Bigfoot in Love, or something like that. Next: the inimitable Squatcher, Lance Henricksen. Next, more savagery, plus Eyes in the Dark.

The Bigfoot in this film is a strikingly believable one, standing at around seven and a half feet tall, but not a totally stereotypical one. It's visage is truly interesting and disturbing, its eye and facial movements in particular, done with electric servos, are convincingly done. This sure beats the CGI crap seen in SASQUATCH HUNTERS. That's part of the reason this is a good film--it eschews the newfangled and sticks with the tried and true modes of the genre.The creature moving around in the dark, as well as killing in the light, moves and behaves like one would think a living Bigfoot should, and it's convincing enough to be both cool for a Bigfoot believer and scary for all.

Lance Henricksen, whose post-MILLENNIUM career is rapidly becoming defined by Sasquatch Slasher films, makes a fine cameo appearance as a Bigfoot hunter who enters a cave pursuing the beast, and is promptly shredded. What IS it about Henricksen and Bigfoot? He's been in like four of these now!

We won't try to spoil the ending, save with the picture below, which shows that skeptical, scoffing sheriffs should never let themselves appear in a Sasquatch movie. Bigfoot gets the last say here, and I'm all for that. Plus the good guy and one of the co-eds escape alive, and the promise of a seriously age-disparate love affair is vaguely suggested.

This film was shot in the mountains around Idylwild, CA, in the San Jacinto Mountains, a pretty good piece of Sasquatch habitat. And if you liked Scream or Friday the 13th and all the rest of them, and also have a liking for the Nature-Strikes-Back film, then this one is for you.

Watch the film on YouTube HERE, though it won't be as cool as on the bigger screen. Or if the legal guys take that one down, view the cool official trailer HERE.

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

SASQUATCH MOUNTAIN (2006) stars Lance Henriksen again as a stone-tough and gritty, yet sensitive, ex-Nam vet whose wife was run down and killed by a car in an accident caused by a Sasquatch crossing the road. But by the end of the film he is the one who prevails, reaching some kind of peace with himself while bonding with the dying, bullet-riddled Sasquatch. Written by and co-starring the clever Michael Worth, this film incorporates all the old horror themes and combines them with the escaping bank robber trope. Some funny Tarrantino-esque criminal slapstick occurs, even a "Mexican standoff."

The bank robbers escape into the woods, pursued by some Sheriffs and a good-old boy Nam vet posse. A young woman escaping an abusive relationship is just passing through the area, but gets caught up in the action, ironically, as a hostage. This role is well played by the ever-bosomous Cerina Vincent. The bad guys are an amusingly motley crew of characters, including a very-Kill-Bill tough-ass Asian woman who gets in some intense girl-on-girl fighting action with the main star. Cameo roles among the goofy posse are classic, including one from Ron Howard's father, Rance Howard.

This film operates around the usual pissed-off Sasquatch theme. Here, an old man had been feeding a Bigfoot family for years from his remote ranch. His mummified, long-dead corpse is found. Then some bloody afterbirth is found. Apparently, Bigfoot is a newly-become daddy. He's mad, and he's hungry; and true to the formula limbs and blood do fly. In the end, the death howls of the Bigfoot are answered from the deep woods by a more feminine response, and then the howling crying of a Sasquatch baby. A tragic end. Tragic, too, though probably just, is the fact that they bury the Bigfoot out in the woods, and tell the world that it was a bear that killed all of those folks. The message again: Respect the Big Guy.

This film was made in the forested mountains of northern Arizona, and the habitat appears to be acceptable for a Bigfoot, if a whole lot harder for a human, to survive in. Watch the trailer for SASQUATCH MOUNTAIN on YouTube HERE.

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

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!: Me let hu-man be angry this week. Me leave fake toenail for Biscardi Tom to find. Ha ha!!! ME not mad at him, he is good fun, me play joke, me like it when hu-man look like stupid naked ape. Me trick or treat in hu-man suit costume, me leave big bag of burning Bigfoot poop on Biscardi house doormat. Me take his Hummer truck, drive over his grass yard. If I a joke in hu-man television, no one ever, ever find me!
***********************************************************

All images are public product images, or used for promotional purposes,  part of an official press release, or in one case sourced from another internet site. Text copyright 2009, Bigfoot Books, and may be quoted or used with full citation including a link to this blog. Thanks!

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

COMING SOON! The M.K. DAVIS INTERVIEW is about halfway done. Look for it, hopefully next week!