I don't know if this has been posted yet or discussed but ... wow... I don't know. Is he going to talk about this in Arcata?

http://cryptovideography.com/images/

You have to read the captions on the GIF images to see what he is trying to show.

This is an embarassing display of someone who is just totally out of their depth.

http://www.atlatl.com/

MK and I will be debating this very issue tonight on the new radio blog show "Let's Talk Bigfoot", hosted by Melissa Hovey and Teresa Hall. It starts at 7:00pm PST and 9:00pm Central.

Most of his files are way too large for me to download, at least quickly. I did download one...braidshakeanimation.gif, and my first impression was "What the hell is he trying to show?" If he believes background clutter is hair braids flying in the wind, his imagination (or mine) is going wild. I see that as simply background image. I'll bet (without looking) that her "braids" detach from her head and stay with the background as the frames progress. There is a mixing of dyes, inks, or whatever on the film as I pointed out in an earlier thread showing how the dyes mix at the supposed "thigh hernia" and I beleive that is what is happening here. The dye mixing anomaly is evident all over that film.

I can't think of any bigfoot report where they wore clothing or carried some kind of technological artifact. There must be one, I just can't think of any. They might wood knock report, but I don't even hear many stories of them carying sticks around, much less arrows. Why would this naked figure be carying an arrow through the woods, or wearing braiding hair. It's totally inconsistent with everything else. Wouldn't Roger Patterson have reported the arrows or the braids? Would an 800 pound Indian be covered with hair and have a sagital crest from headboarding?

"Braid with bone clasp"???


For once, I'm at a loss for words.

I wouldn't think so. And if they are cleaver enough to use headboarding, braiding, and a bone clasp, that they would also have villages, clothes, fire, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, an 800 pound Indian could have whatever they wanted...

If he had said she was carrying a crack pipe I would be more inclined to think he would know something about that.

Ok, I have held off on commenting on this, seeing as how M.K. is my friend and all, and a few months ago I was caught up in this whole controversy over at Cryptomundo. I do not know what M.K. is thinking these days; up until recently his work has been pretty good (with a few exceptions), but he is really seeing things that aren't there now. Someone should tell him, "O.K. you proved the film is real, stop while you're ahead" but no, he kept going. He made this his "White Whale," and now his reputation is suffering because of it. M.K. should've let the film go after he proved it to be real and moved on to other pieces of footage. He has looked at other pieces of footage, such as the Freeman and Memorial Day Footages (he borrowed my copy of "LMS" to research those) and came to the conclusion that they are hoaxes. He based that on dyes and things like that he saw in the supposed fur. For me, the jury is still out on those two pieces of footage, but I am 95% on the P/G Movie. I think it is unfortunate that M.K. did not quit while he was ahead. He is my friend, yes, but I do disagree with his latest theories, which he understands completely. He's a nice guy, but he is overreaching with this one.

In the animation http://cryptovideography.com/images/others...ngfiledelay.gif , there does seem to be a stick in her left hand. Since I don't know how he manipulated the frames, it is hard to know how likely that is. Even if true, I don't see how you get from stick to atlatl (spear throwing stick), if that is what he is implying. Chimps uses sticks to dig for termites and pick up all sorts of items to throw. I don't see how that is even evidence of technology, again assuming that he is implying that. Hopefully I am just confused.

So is MK saving the caber toss discovery to make a huge splash at the meeting?

Click to view attachment

Wait, is that a kilt Patty's wearing? No, only men wear kilts...

Let me enlighten you!

Hmmm.... eye sepsis, a carried stone, a stick, potential wounds, a bone clasp.... If I looked hard enough, I could probably find an I-pod, a pistol, and Blackberry.

Patty has become the crypto equivalent of the Rorschach inkblot test. It's less about what the image is and more about the psychology of who is seeing the images.

Slippery slope, meet M.K.

M.K., meet slippery slope.

It's all down hill from here...

Listening now. Thanks for the headsup!

Well, you have to admit, the braid is certainly clearly visible.

Clear as mud.

Film particles, glitches, dust, who knows?

Does M.K. Davis have a published curriculum vitae? I'm really, really curious as to what background he has.

Just heard his presentation on a net-cast. I see a possible stick, but can't wrap my mind around where M.K. is coming from. It's way too far out there for me to envision head-boards, dreadlocks and all the rest. If they were that advanced, why aren't they using fire and leaving remnants of villages etc.? Human? Doubtful IMO.

Oops, sorry Kathy. I made my comment before reading yours! My bad.

That net-cast was fun to listen to. I thought MK and Harry Man both did a fine job. I was glad to hear that MK was not assuming that it was necessarily any of things implied by the names of his files. He just used the name as something that he would remember later. It was also kind of nice to hear that a paleontologist thought it was likely heidelbergensis. It makes the erectus theory seem much less extreme. Perhaps the paleontologist was comparing the size of Patty to the size of the African heidelbergensis dubbed Goliath by National Geographic. According to them, they were our most recent ancestor about 300,000 years ago if I remember correctly.

Rather than assuming that reshaping the head was done on purpose, it might make more sense that the shape of the head was naturally modified somewhat over time by selection. The fact that many people purposely do that to increase what they consider attractive adds weight to the idea that the form could be natural. I recall hearing a while back that the many of the Pharaohs were thought to have used something to reshape their heads. Further investigation showed that the skulls were actually in the range of normal human heads and it was thought by the scientist involved to most likely be just be a family trait.

The past several weeks have been most enlightening. My first encounter with the MK Davis gif was a revelation and being able to see some of the PFG without the camera shake is a godsend and MK deserves a lot of credit for making it. Clearly he's spent hundreds of hours with PGF and as his name has come up its been interesting seeing how his obsession has evolved. Its seems a disappointment that one so talented would later come up with some of the observations and conclusions he seems to have made. Its a classic case of getting too close to something that after coaxing out a huge amount of valid information the obsession is such that the observer then needed to extract and present claims that are hardly valid or rationally defendable. Is MK Davis still credable?

What 'claims' specifically are you talking about?

Seems MK Davis has found lots of unusual artifacts such as some old gunshot wounds on Patty's back (3 I believe. I did read where MK is saying that he's concluded that Patty is human and is promising to present his proof soon. It's starting to seem as if MK has an agenda brewing.

The last three posts were merged from another thread.

He uses the term loosely. He said some kind of human as in prehistoric hominid. The guy enhances photos and is not a paleontologist. I would cut him a some slack on his use of the term human as he isn't the only one to use it in that fashion.

When exactly is the term 'human' first used on the evolutionary scale (tree? line?)? Who was the first 'human'? Also, I've heard the term 'modern humans'...is that opposed to something like 'ancient humans'? I'm asking because I don't know.

The Albert Ostman account comes to mind. But it certainly isn't the norm.

Mankind after Cro-Magnon is generally considered "Modern Man." Cro-Magnon man extends back about 40-60 thousand years ago. The first "human" or hominid elements in the fossil record go back to approx 5-6 million BC.

I hold a degree in cultural anthropology, but I am not a practicing Anthropologist currently. I'm sure some of the more involved Anthropologists on the BFF can fill in with more details, but that gets us in the ballpark.

I only use the term human to describe modern humans that have fossils dated to about 195,000 years. If there was a way to be certain that proposed ancestors such as heidelbergensis were our direct ancestor and not just a close relative, I might be inclined to extend that a few hundred thousand years. It is an open question, because DNA only exists for Neanderthals. Most think Neanderthals were 500,000 years removed, based on DNA, and most don't think they are exactly human. I would be reluctant to extend the title of "human" to heidelbergensis so that leaves only modern humans. Human means different things to different people and it isn't exactly certain how human they really were 200,000 years ago.

I'm having a challenge locating the good majority of Mr. Davis' work online. I might have overlooked some things that are here on the BFF, but I did find some on searchingforbigfoot.com, yet the content seemed sparse. Is there a link that has the greatest concentration of information he's put out that's up to date? Thanks all. (The links on this thread point to offline content.)

hey everyone it seems every week im hearing new thearys from mk & others about the filmfootage interesting waaayy out there indeed. updates as they continue.... bill

I would also be interested in seeing all of M.K.'s enhancements. He has done an extraordinary amount of valuable work with the PGF. Much of his work has simply brought up questions that he would like answered. He isn't necessarily stating some of his findings as facts, but wants to bring them to light for consideration and scrutiny, just in a respectful manner. I don't think rediculing him serves any good purpose, and it only makes him reluctant to share any other thoughts and findings he has.

I only saw them a couple of times, but he did show my husband and I, in person, enhancements of several frames that I believe really do deserve more looking into and by many people. I know for sure that I want to study them some more.

Does anybody know where to see more of his work on the PGF? I've seen some of the stabilizations on YouTube, and I saw a frame on another thread that shows actual toes visible from the bottom of her foot as she walks away.

It was in the first frame of this blink animation where her toes are so obvious. (The blue arrows have nothing to do with the toes. They are for something else that Mr. Davis was referencing.)



A closer look:

Some working links as of today:

http://www.geocities.com/primateer/mkanima...l?1063681942203
http://www.geocities.com/primateer/mkpgful...l?1065199048781
http://www.geocities.com/primateer/mkfemor...l?1063902704500
http://www.geocities.com/mkd55bigfoot/arme...l?1079623542921
http://www.geocities.com/mkd1955bigfoot/pg...l?1080792108687
http://www.geocities.com/mkd55bigfoot/hole...l?1071546205187

Killer links Hopeful, thanks!!

Thanks, wickie. I've been wanting to try and research as much of M.K.'s work as possible. This thread spurred me along a little.

another link:
http://www.geocities.com/mkd1955bigfoot/sh...l?1081878711296

Hi

I have been watching that film since i was a kid when it came out much like a lot of folks, Even with all the enhancements and stills blown up, All the work done by everyone, The witnesses statements, The statements of those who were not there but swear they knew what went on,
Listening to the folks that claim to be in the suit, Hearing the arguments of those who claim it was not a suit, The tons of info i have read and the quadrillion pixels i have viewed, I still see the same thing after all these yrs, Cause to me there is nothing that can be done to change what happened that day so long ago

Peace
Tim

hey redrat yes i totaly agree with your above reply indeed. thanks bill

Don't just look at the feet! Look at the hands too! It seems to show Patty's fingers flexing which is an issue often hotly debated.

I agree Crow Logic. Several of the links show muscle movement as well.

In keeping with DDA's initial topic, a lot of MK's work is very important analysis, while other thoughts of his may certainly be imagination. Nobody can be right 100% of the time. I would certainly not blindly buy into anything anybody says until I've looked at the evidence for myself enough times to satisfy my own mind.

As far as a braid with a bone clasp goes, I see something that looks like a braid with a clasp. BUT the real possibility remains that it could very well be an artifact on the film. I don't know. I haven't studied it myself enough to determine which is which. I don't have access to the film and I don't have the skills or equipment to study it the way MK has. Therefore, I do not dare make the statement that he is wrong. He might be, and he might be right. As unlikely as a braid with a clasp may be, I wouldn't say it was outside the realm of possibility.

Albeit controversial, I haven't heard him say anything that, IMO, is outside the realm of possibility. He has done so much more that simply stare at frames for 11 years. He has met and interviewed several people involved with the film including Patricia Patterson, widow of the late Roger Patterson, at her home. He has been to the film site at Bluff Creek. He has taken soil samples and had them analyzed, etc...

Yes, he may be obsessed with the film, but that doesn't make him wrong about it (nor does it make him right.) It just means that he has more information about it than most people, and with that comes more pondering and theorizing and searching for something that makes sense to him out of what he sees on the film. This is bound to lead to some ideas that may seem totally ridiculous, but I still think those ideas deserve some serious consideration before being tossed aside.

Who knows? It isn't impossible that he could be on to something, at least regarding some of his work, so I enjoy looking at it with an open mind.

I know MK has taken a lot of heat,but he has done some outstanding work on this and I think he deserves a little more positive recognition for his dedication and work that he has done with this film. He is still providing new data now once per month on Bigfoot Central which airs at 8pm on the first Tuesday of every month(at least thats the plan). He usually has several new animations to show and talk about..including some of the latest work that he has done featuring the hand of Patty and what she may be holding. I just find it interesting. I know some want to forget about the film,but if we can find more info..why not check it out? I personally am glad that we have someone dedicating themselves to finding all they can about this film. Take care everyone.

Personally - I think that MK Davis has done a lot of harm with his bizarre imagination and exceptionally silly conjectures.
The sooner he is ignored - the better - IMHO.

Rock, a wise man once said:


That's all Mr. Davis is trying to do. He isn't trying to hoodwink anyone, only investigate to his best ability what may be the best piece of evidence in existence. Why not try to help rather than ignore? Weed through what we deem to be imagination and focus on what could possibly be actual proof that the subject is a real live creature. I feel like he is simply using the "brainstorming" technique in which people bring to the table their ideas for discussion no matter how bizarre they may be. Granted some of his ideas are certainly "out there", but some are not, and the ones that are not deserve more investigation by people who are serious investigators. Some of his ideas don't pass the true validity test, but some do. The ones that do could push this whole quest across the line, but he can't do it all by himself. He needs intelligent people like you and many others here to seriously investigate and take action.

The film makes this report the epitome of bigfoot reports. If any report deserves the thorough investigation in the way you suggested on Nov 15, this one does. He is asking us to take a good hard look at what the evidence shows and ask the tough questions. That's what needs to be done, only in a respectful manner.


I agree, Squatchfoot. Thanks for the info about his regularly being on Bigfoot Central. I find it very interesting as well.

Sorry - but fantasies based on imagination are not useful research tools. IMHO.
Massacre? Pools of blood? Backhoes? Bullet wounds? That is not brainstorming - that is hallucinating.
He has gone too far down the "Anything for DVD sales and attention" trail for my tastes.

One can see anything in a still from a blurry, grainy film that has been copied who knows how many times. The film is useless - that is why there are so many opinions on what it shows or does not show.

If you think that what you see is always what is real in that film - then you need to see this page. http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_SpatFreqC...ites/index.html

Nobody has said that they believe everything they see on the film is real. The images on your link are even less real.

From your link:
They were intentionally computer generated and processed to produce that interesting effect. I hope you aren't trying to make me think that the same effect can be found on an ordinary piece of film. And I certainly hope that you don't actually believe that yourself! I don't think you do. But what worries me is that you practically mock Mr. Davis and other people for believing some of what they see on the film, and then you turn around and use *this* to make your point? In your own words, "Wow, just wow." Are you trying to insult or simply didn't realize the irony? If you were just trying to insult, then I can still take some stock in many of the things you say, while weeding out the abrasive, insulting tone.

The PGF isn't a hybrid blend of computer generated images, and it isn't as bad quality as most people think. Regarding the quality of the film itself, I will take the word of an astro-photographer (even if of amateur status) who has held the film in their hands over LE who has only read about it.

By mentioning his thoughts on the possible massacre, pool of blood, bullet wounds, etc... you highlight my point when I suggest we try to weed through what we think may be imagination (or hallucination.) (And, IMO, even these things aren't outside the realm of possibility - stranger things have happened in this world.) It's possible and even probable that most people will be wrong in some of their conjecturs no matter what the subject, and that in no way means that they are wrong in all of them or that all of their work has no value. It's the same principle I use to weed through your and LT's posts. Both of you seem to be highly intelligent with much to offer, but jeez a great percentage of what you say, IMO, is intended to push buttons to get reactions for your own amusement. Yet that doesn't mean that some of what you have to say is not important, so I read it all on the good chance that I may glean some helpful information.

But please consider for a moment, IF the film could positively show that Patty was actually being shot during the filming, then wouldn't that lend credence to the claim that she isn't just a guy in a suit? To be clear, I am in NO WAY claiming that the film shows this, but I am posing a sincere question to you and others because I value your knowledge base. And then wouldn't that in turn be the proof we've been looking for? And then wouldn't that in turn lead to protection laws being passed?

The computer generated images were made to produce facsimilies of things seen in the real world that change as sharpness or blurriness increases.
There is no trickery involved. Film artists use this effect all the time. Leaves blowing in the wind become what looks like ocean waves when framed against a blue sky and then purposely blurred.

The faces and the effects on them are real and the changes in them are produced by only changing the focus.

The effects of blurred or grainy film can produce those exact same types of optical illusions.
If one chooses to ignore this fact when looking at old grainy and out of focus film - then they are ignoring the realities of optical illusions - not to mention film artifacts and normal error/distortion from lenses and the copying process.

Sorry - looking deeply into the PGF is an exercise not unlike the famous Rorshach tests. IMHO.