Man who spotted gunshot wound and ponytail on Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot quits website
Patterson-Gimlin film expert M. K. Davis (Marlon Keith Davis) is starting a new chapter in his life. It looks like Henry May's rant demanding an apology may have gotten to him when he wrote his last and final post this morning:
The Davis Report - A New Beginning
Posted on December 19, 2011
It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to go in new directions. My health is declining. I have a few projects to finish I hope…before “I” am finished. I hope that this site and this blog meant something to you. To all the nearly 30,000 people who have visited, please know that you are important to me and your interest in my work is greatly appreciated. I have protected my sources, and I have done right by them and by you. I leave with a clean conscience. I’ll continue with the Bigfoot Central show as long as Don Monroe wants and artistfirst will have me. I thank you one and all. M.K.Davis
M.K. Davis is best known for coming up with wild theories about the Patterson-Gimlin footage. One of his memorable quotes was regarding a special rule he applied to the film:
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.
Apparently, this rule served him well.
According to Squatchopedia.com, Marlon Keith Davis (b. 1955 in Canton, Mississippi) is an amateur astronomer who used off-the-shelf software packages to enhance the Patterson-Gimlin film (PGF).
Davis began his research into the PGF after seeing a copy of Frame 352 (the most famous frame of the film) in a photo by Bruce Bonney sometime in 1997; he decided he could use his skills with astro-photography and off-the-shelf software to perhaps clarify the film.
As time progressed Davis made claims of seeing various items in the film, including scars, bullet holes, braids and clasps in the hair, tumors, a stick in the left hand of "Patty" and other anomalies on the creature itself.
Gunshot wound
During an informal talk at a Bigfoot conference in Ohio, M.K. Davis suggested a theory that the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot creature was shot in the thigh. According to The Blogsquatcher's comment on Cryptomundo.com, M.K. Davis didn't try to dissuade the conversation regarding the hernia/gunshot wound theory:
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Perhaps the words, “Patty was shot” were never uttered, but people who attended his informal talk came away with the impression that that is what he meant. He is said to have shown “the shockwave that went through her body” at the moment in question. He showed, immediately following the hernia/gunshot wound frames, that Patty “stumbles,” and he showed frames that he claimed exhibited bloodstains on her heel and in her footprints. He discussed how Patty “came down on her leg differently” after the hernia/gunshot wound frames. He then showed where she later trips, and at another point claims that she fell down. All of this is clearly intended to build the circumstantial case that Patty was shot.
In fact, Davis claimed that she was shot at again, and showed where her hair moves and she bobs her head in “reaction” to the bullet just missing her.
It’s clear that Davis meant to make a case that Patty had been shot, and my correspondents did not understand this case to be provisional in any way. So while he may be accurate that he never said the words “Patty was shot” or something like them, he did mean to “propose this theory” as you asked in your question. You may have noticed he doesn’t deny it, but he seems to be saying something along the lines of, “when you are brainstorming, you throw a lot of mud against the wall and see what sticks.” But the attendees that I’ve talked to didn’t hear the theory as provisional. They took it as a well developed theory offered as an explanation of the facts. In fact, Davis was so persuasive that my correspondents believed it.
As far as the bullets and the evidence for them go, I have to be agnostic because I haven’t seen the evidence that others have seen. But I have noted on my blog the deficiencies in the “conspiracy theory” narrative, and those defects can’t fill me with confidence that Davis’ theories are correct. If Davis has proof of his theory, he ought to release it to his peers so that it can be reviewed, and we can stop talking all around the fringe.
- The Blogsquatcher
Ponytail
In an interview article between M.K. Davis and Bigfoot Books' Steven Sterufert, Davis talked about the presentation he made at the conference regarding the free-swinging, flowing hair from the top of Patty’s head, almost like a topknot.
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.
Most of what is being seen in the PG film is by staring way to long at a picture until things start to appear that normally aren't there. Take any photograph, stare at it for hours and you can convince youself that you are seeing all sorts of things.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at the PG film, I see the same thing over and over. Other people seem to see blood, zippers, a football helmet, ponytails, other creatures in the background, etc.
Maybe if we look hard enough, Jimmy Hoffa could be spotted hunched over in the bushes. When the rifle shots starts to ring out, you can clearly see Hoffa hit the ground from a gunshot wound.
The only thing that this video shows (in my observations anyway) is a large creature getting the h#@l out of Dodge when two cowboys ride up and startle it unexpectedly. This creature closely resembles what so many people describe as bigfoot. That is all I see.
No hoax. No costume. A real, living, breathing creature.
Marlon is a good a decent man and like many he saw something and tried to prove it, maybe time will bare him out as right, I hope so.
ReplyDeleteIf patty was shot in the leg, she would have
ReplyDeletereacted to a greater degree than in the film.
bob had a 30-06, a devastating round, capable of killing any animal.
If shot in the leg with an 06'
the leg would of had massive damage and you would see a large spray pattern where the bullet exited
the leg.
Do some research about the history of Roger Patterson before he shot the October 1967 footage, and you will likely come to the conclusion that Patterson hoaxed the footage.
ReplyDeleteM K Davis did some really good early work, then took a walk on the wild side. Bill Munns is not seeing any of the shooting conspiracy, and he has an original copy from Patricia Patterson. If you have to believe some one then look to Bob Gimlin.
ReplyDeleteChuck in Ohio
Nonsense...
ReplyDeleteI am proud to work with MK, I consider him a trusted friend, Sasquatchery is diminished by his departure. Anyone who has been in the field with MK can attest to his courage and character.
There is no statute of limitations on homicide...
live and let live...
Steve Summar
No offense intended but this guy simply rode the train for all it is worth. At the time he analyzed the video he used new technology not yet mastered by others. Now years later when others can do the same analysis he left.
ReplyDeleteThe guy is and was a businessman- nothing wrong with that- and he sold- and very well I might add- a theory that can't be proven false but only had about a 5% chance of being true. He did not lie but came up with a theory that people bought because nobody could prove it was not true.
A good comparison is Jim Lebus. Is he a nut? or a guy who has invented a number of things and parlayed that into an appearance on the History channel airing nationally. The History channel has done more quality Bigfoot programming than anyone- they would not have done this if people did not watch. LeBus came up with the whole Bigfoot thing because he knew that would grab peoples attention and they would remember him. Why would he start talking about an event that happened a while ago-right before a TV special that deals with the elements of the same topic.
The same holds true for Smega. All these people are now talking about him. If he did not want attention why talk so much?
We know very little about these creatures and cant prove they do not exist- which means that even outlandish theories and stories can't be discounted but in this case actually studied further on the chance they are true leaving the person at the center with alot of notoriety.
Well, commonsense would tell us that a creature that massive, with the need for massive thigh muscles to walk, if it had been shot in the thigh with that much damage would not be walking so smoothly. In fact, its muscles would have atrophied a great deal during a recovery period and that leg would be proportionally smaller. I had my Achilles reattached 3 years ago and the right leg is still weaker and more slender than the left.
ReplyDeleteDavis gazed too deeply into the P/G film and came up with blood-drenched nonsense. I stare at the same spot and see Bob Heironimus' car keys bulging under the suit. This field needs to stop treating 60 seconds at Bluff Creek as a holy relic and get on with authentic investigation. Bigfoot is real and the P/G film isn't. Read Long's (poorly written but truthful) book and check the public record. Roger Patterson was an irresponsible, multi-talented artist and not the simple cowpoke the mythology portrays him to be. I admire his cleverness, but clearly recognize his human foibles...
ReplyDeleteThere is no way anyone in a suit could move like that without seeing wrinkles everywhere. One will be found soon.
DeleteThe photo is one of the most detailed images seen of the creature and IF it is a hoax it needs explaining as to how it could have been pulled off as the National Geographic episode lends support to the idea that this is a real creature. The facial features really stand out and the look back expression is one of surprise, wariness.
ReplyDeletenew anonymous
I have to wonder why a hoaxer would go to the trouble of adding breasts as I don't know of any gorilla suit at the time that called for breasts.
ReplyDeletenew anonymous
Because it would make it more believable. After all, you are sitting here wondering why he would do that AND that's exactly what he was going for. It is a matter of record that he also had drawn a female Sasquatch prior to hoaxing this footage.
DeleteOr any cowboys at that time in America who would wear a suit with breAsts lol
DeleteA smart hoaxer would go to the trouble of adding breasts because that would make it all the more novel and "authentic". Patterson added the breasts to the suit as he was very familiar with both the Roe and Ostman cases and includes TWO images of female sasquatch with breasts in his book-- published the year before his footage was shot. He modified the head-- an easy task for a sculptor and leatherworker (he was both)-- and other aspects of the suit as well. He was a hell of a lot more ambitious and creative than modern hoaxers who constantly use "off the rack" suits in their vids. I give credit where it's due, but blind belief is on the side of P/G true believers. Once again, the P/G film being a hoax doesn't preclude the reality of bigfoot. I should know, because I've been within 30 feet of one in daylight and it's proportions were NOT what is portrayed in that footage. Patty's arms do NOT reach down past her knees. She DOES turn her head without turning her body. "She" does these things because the man in the suit can. Simply apply what's been described about bigfoot to the P/G film and you will see...
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion of the National Geographic analysis? What errors have they made in the detailed examination? The detailed muscle movement in the legs etc. and the gait over rough ground would not be easy to replicate. Who was in the suit? Silence all of these years? Most of the "evidence" since then on film is clearly hoaxed. The world awaits the DNA.....
ReplyDeleteWhy do I suspect nothing will be resolved?
new anonymous
I think the National Geographic analysis(which is technically not Nat Geo's but the producer of the show's) and other presentations are examples of OVER-analysis. Detailed muscle movement: A tight, well-constructed suit over a stout man. Rough ground: A couple hundred feet on a sand bar. Silence: The same as Mr. Gimlin's near 30-year stretch. The two Bobs are neighbors, it's a small town, and nearly everybody was financially screwed by Roger Patterson. Patterson was also a dying man, and no one wanted to criticize or cut off income to his family. As for comments about Patty's expression of surprise: What expression? It never changes (what people interpret as change appears to me as grain and pixelation) and that one look back is all we ever see of a face. Her buttocks do not seem to move in locomotion. I actually admire Patterson's cleverness and I know he was a believer in bigfoot-- he just needed the footage when he needed it for his business plans-- and he kept looking for them. I think Bob Gimlin's a nice man who's been placed in a difficult spot and does the best he can to deal with things. But it's time to stop hanging so much on what can never be defined and look in other directions for "proof". I eventually had to measure the problems I had with the P/G footage against what I know about human behavior AND what is in the public record and reported by friends and relatives of Patterson and do the math...
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing is crazy. There is no ponytail in Patty's hair. There is no stick in her left hand. There is no bullet wound in her leg. She was not getting shot and shot at as she was running across the stream bed.
ReplyDeleteMK Davis went off the deep end like so many Bigfooters.
I am sorry to hear of his health problems though.
Robert
ReplyDeleteThe deep end is where the prime real estate is. The most outlandish claims are the ones that get the most attention and make the most money. If Bigfoot is proven and then he is wrong- well he got the attention and Bigfoot is real so he is not nuts... just a guy who made a mistake but became will known for it- which is why he would be one of the top guys to cash in on the discovery.
There are people who go out every weekend and have made casts, taken pictures, found hair, scat and bones- (Still dont understand why people maintain no bones). Meldrum holds up their casts and samples tested on tv come from them without anyone knowing. People who do the best work dont get the recognition- many times they do not want it because they do not want people to know they go out searching for Bigfoot or dont ask for it and just want their samples tested.
The guys who appear off the deep end are the ones that often become the most well known and this is not coincidence.
Go back to 1997- if the film is not debunked by new technology, assuming the creature is real and the technology advances would aid in proving this would not be foolish.- it would be wise to assume we would have proof around this time. This would be a big surprise to many and would be huge and possibly change the world. Alot of people saw it this way and did alot of things to get in on the ground floor so as to cash in.
They are genuine in their efforts and honest in terms of not creating evidence... but they add "pizzaz" to their reputations by coming up with theories like this.... a wacky interpretation of well known evidence. Just like the Queen covered up Jack the Ripper's identity.
Dr. Jeff Meldrum is a pioneer I have nothing but respect for- but he will likely be given alot of credit when the proof is found and few doctors ever have the chance to be associated with a scientific find like that. I do think its clear to everyone that any retaliation he now may feel will be regarded as well worth it in the future.
His video work is pretty amazing.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the original PG film?
Has the original been shown ever to the public?
Re the original film watch the Nat Geo special...it is held by the wife of Patterson (if I recall correctly) and a very good original copy was examined in detail.
ReplyDeletenew anonymous
To anyone who says the patterson film is a "suite", prove it. It cannot be proven a fake anymore then it can be proven a real livig animal.
ReplyDeleteIf Patterson did make the suit then it seems to me a waste of talent to use it to hoax a bigfoot video.
Wouldnt it have been more lucrative to show hollywood the suit you made, to showcase your talent for a job, and that no one has come close to making something like it.
Personaly id take a career in the special effects industry over trying to sell my bigfoot footage any day.
The burden of prrof is on those who accept this as genuine. It's never been proven real.
DeleteNot at all, the burden of proof is on both side of the fence. That's for this reason that justice is symbolized by the "balance".
Deleteto new anonymous
ReplyDeleteWatch again- it was an original copy. I actually spoke with Dr. Meldrum about this. I dont know if there is an original negative like with a photo but nobody has examined the film in the camera on that day at Bluff Creek. Patterson sent copies around and was in National Wildlife. They examined an original copy he made soon after shooting it.
Original "copy" is the correct term as I believe the 16mm Patterson shot with was a reversal stock, meaning no actual negative was produced.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think "Waste of talent" sums up a lot about Roger's life, unfortunately.
Ok so if I want to cash in after BF is discovered, I am supposed to act like MK Davis and say a bunch of weird crazy off the wall stuff, get famous for being an insane person, and then when BF gets discovered, I cash in big and make lots of $$.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a plan.
Isn't capitalism wonderful?
It's better than communism/socialism, fact.
DeleteLOL Think about it Robert, according to some people
ReplyDeleteyou already fit the profile you described...;)
I think MK Davis is a nice man. I am so sorry to hear of his deteriorating health. May God be with him and his family.
Wow all these jackass's sound like Obama. Bash the guy that was here before you and preach about how your gonna do it better or prove how wrong they were and you ain't done SHIT in 43 years. So drop it and let's move on. Not to speak ill of the dead, but even if Patterson was half the things people are claiming your still unable to prove the film real or a hoax. We just don't have the technology (yet) of proving any of the claims. Also if anyone had any proof of it being a hoax they would have put it out there so they could be the ones to bust Patterson. I'm not talking about this blurred crap that could be anything or nothing at all. But actually hard evidence. There isn't any or it would have been released. Jealousy is a stinky cologne.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that we have finally run MK off from that bizarre theory. He called in and confronted me on Blog Talk Bigfoot Tonight last night, and an hour later he had resigned from the field. I think Henry May's denunciation videos of last week really got to MK. BUT, don't forget, MK will persist on his Artist First Bigfoot Central show. Has the massacre been massacred? We shall see.
ReplyDeleteDespite my conceptual wars with MK, I've always still liked him, and found him to be a gentleman in conversation. This is the central paradox of the man. I wish him the best in health, into the future, and luck in any non-PGF endeavors he may pursue.
Bigfoot Books
Willow Creek
This is to the few posters who like to interject profanity and what I call cuss words in their comments.
ReplyDeleteDo you realize how it looks to post like that and it does nothing to enhance Shawn's site here? Is it that hard to be considerate of the other posters and readers here?
Is it really that hard to come up with just a little more acceptable vocabulary?
It's perfectly acceptable to me. That's just like, your opinion, man.
DeleteThats shit now FUCK OFF puritin
DeleteI find it amusing to hear people say that the creature depicted in the video by P/G is a man is a monkey suit. Even by todays Hollywood standards, the thing looks real.
ReplyDeleteJust last night I watched a 1971 movie about one of the Planet of the Apes movies. In no way do those "state of the art" costumes of the day look remotely as realistic as the P/G footage. The costumes created for the Planet of the Apes movies were the best available at the time. If Patterson and Gimlin hoaxed the incident, they were light years ahead of Hollywood best costume and makeup artists.
So, what do we believe? P/G were simple minded scheming cowboys looking to make a buck by creating a hoax (That would have taken a team of genius'minds to pull off) or do we acknowledge that the film is authentic. Which theory makes better common sense?
By the way,we are still debating the authenticity of the film some 42 years later. That fact alone leans toward authentic.
He was a known con-man. People underestimate the abilities of con-men. Crucial mistake.
DeleteRoger Patterson wasn't a "simple-minded scheming cowboy" by any stretch of the imagination. Read Greg Long's much-vilified book and check the public record. And then read Patterson's own book, complete with a chance to sign up-- and send in those checks and money orders-- for his Bigfoot Club.
ReplyDeleteThere are no full-body "costumes" used in the Planet of the Apes films (except for a brief and hilarious sauna bath scene in "Beneath")-- only facial appliances and added hair to hands, feet etc.
The makeup FX community circa 1967 in Los Angeles was pretty much limited to John Chambers, Bill Tuttle and a handful of other professionals. The old fables about Chambers' involvement in the P/G footage are false. I know because I spoke to him about it. The main reason most FX artists (I can think of one who was actually interviewed about P/G and that was the late Stan Winston, who was more than a little full of... well... himself, shall we say) proclaim the P/G suit as beyond their capabilities is because it makes good fodder for TV shows. Rick Baker, who created the suits for Gorillas in the Mist among other films still thinks it's Chambers(!)
The best FX man of the era specializing in ape designs was an Englishman, Stuart Freeborn, who did the man-apes for 2001: A Space Odyssey. He used mechanically-assisted masks that brought a wide range of motion to the characters-- something "Patty" doesn't do in the least, since her facial expression never changes-- and that was in 1968. To say it was beyond the capabilities of FX artists or that it would take an army is just repeating fables passed round and round this community.
I believe Roger modified an existing ape suit, using his considerable talents to make it match descriptions given by Roe and others. I know for a fact that Patterson was a bigfoot believer and wanted to create a business based on it. I don't believe he ever saw or filmed an authentic bigfoot, however.
Bigfoot IS real. I've seen one, and I could make a list as long as my arm of the differences, both physical and locomotive, between what I saw and what's portrayed in the P/G film.
I don't put down people for believing in the footage-- it's pretty damn good-- but my own experience and "common sense" inform my opinion.
This is addressing the previously posted anonymous post about a smart hoaxer definitely using breasts on the BF to make it more real. No one in 1967 had any foresight to have attempted this. They could barely pull off "planet of the ape" type stuff back then just cause the technology was not there. Secondly, if it was today i could see someone doing this to try to add to the "look" of the creature, but no one would make their creature look back at the camera if part of a hoax. You would never want to turn and look at the camera. Just my own personal opinion again on the "breasts thing"----the IQ's back in 1967 weren't that good. You gotta realize who you were dealing with. If it was now----i could believe it.
ReplyDeleteNo one had the forsesight to have attempted this, you say?
DeleteWell that's funny, because Patterson had drawn a female Sasqautch complete with the exact saggy tits that we see on the costume in the footage.
makes more sense that they were out there to shoot a bigfoot (while filming it) then just being far out in the woods just to shoot some film of a bigfoot (with a really shitty camera by the way).
ReplyDeleteHOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS!!! http://andyssensuousworld.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteThat is definitely looks like a shot taken and a wound. It makes sense now how people involved would want to discredit the whole story. To protect themselves if there is truth to the Sasquatch being human as opposed to a monster of the forest. They shot at an creatue that may be close to the human species. You can see a change in walk after that bullet entered the thigh. A normal human would fall to the ground. But a stronger creature in fear of their life would act as on the film. Similar to a zebracaught by a lion, they put up a strong fight... Much more than a typical human I would imagine (we are pretty weak physically a we could barely tolerate a flu shot).
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a chance this is fraud and maybe we can say it's his car keys. But if it is not a fraud, then this was a female; a rape of a species. It would be a shame and no wonder as to why they hide or kidnap us as some believe.
No what they are actually looking at are film artifacts and anomalies that are common in aged celluloid film such as that. Those things have to be cleaned out, whether it's dirt, hair dust particles aging chemical interactions in the celluloid itself. It takes a film restoration technician versed in preserving and restoring aged celluloid to properly access anything. All of the bulging leg muscles, pony tails, moving mouths and moving fingers.... All of those things are film artifacts and any real professional versed in celluloid restoration would tell you that. So much for Davis and Munns and their theories. Just a guy in a suit on a badly deteriorating piece of celluloid that has dirt and dust and bad quality throughout it that's only Aided the legend. The film was poor to begin with and that the original is nowhere to be found is a problem but an expose of the hoax because the original film most assuredly contains alternate takes etc
ReplyDeleteI completely debunk the entire film in my article The Mr Dark Bigfoot Report Sasquatch Ground Zero
ReplyDeleteAll of the talk about moving muscles are based on nothing but wrinkles in the costume1
ReplyDeleteAs much as would like to think this film is a hoax...as i did when it first appeared in 1967...my interest in it over the last 4 or 5 years..and the work done by Bill Munns and the stabilization.by M.K.Davis and others..shows that this creature is 100% authentic...when you study the looped stabilized film..when Patty is at least 6 inches large in the screen.. it's so apparent that the outside anatomy is intergrated as a whole with this creature.....the muscles when her legs hit the ground can be seen behaving in such a way that no costume can ever duplicate...the raised hair on the back of her neck..is showing her excited state she is in...just as in so many other living mammals...the loss of hair on the outside of her breasts from friction from rubbing against her arms over the years..and other areas also..that would only be seen on an authentic living creature..the creature
ReplyDeletebody moves as one... the exterior flesh is part of..the creature..not outside of somebody in a gorilla suite... every time a person is inside a costume..that very scenario of being in one exposes the fraud Everytime..it's a dead giveaway.....as much as would like to say this is hoax..the evidence of that moving creature.. can only be explained as a true living creature..there are so many aspects of this creature that can't be explained away..the tumor or hernia moving in perfect motion in the thigh..the breasts moving just as they should...these aspects are real..they can't be nor would be incorporated into a big foot costume...to use personal attacks on Patterson personality to explain why this creature is a man in a costume..is ludicrous...Bob H..and Phillip Morris..never produced a gorilla suite that resembles anything close to Patty.. because they can't..and if they could they would of years ago..This film doesn't prove what that creature is..though it does 100% prove it's certainly isn't a person in a gorilla suite or any other kind of costume...