BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Monday, April 30, 2012

M.K. Davis Releases HD Version of White Bigfoot Creek Walker Tape, Now Shows Muscle Definition


You gotta hand it to M.K. Davis for releasing the white Bigfoot videos on YouTube. He's always one step ahead of critics who claim everything in his videos is a dude on a bicycle. The bicycle suggestion is nothing compared to these other claims we heard:

  • Bald guy with a white dress suit
  • A white horse
  • White Bigfoot on a bicycle
  • A person on all-fours getting back up on on two
  • An alien
  • CGI
  • A creature from the Hulk movie
  • Rick Dyer getting away on a white horse after pulling on hoax on Damian Bravo and Tim Fasano in the Florida swamp (OK, we just made that one up)

These latest videos are supposed to be HD versions of the "Creek Walker" Bigfoot video. M.K. Davis believes these new clips clearly shows the "muscle definition" on the subject. Watch below:

"Creek walker muscle definition and slow motion":



"Creek walker step by step oscillating":

117 comments:

  1. I am all for MK doing something nobody else has seen. But it looks like HD means we went from 80i to 120p

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe you are average aren't you, the film was from 1997 VHS before HD, ok

      Delete
    2. Average Joe, I think it is impressive, but lacks the resolution necessary to make a positive identification. It is not, after all, a Jane Goodall shot. The images shown are well beyond the focus area of the camera.

      It would be more impressive if it were followed up by showing any trail signs left and a description of the area, including food sources and access to water.

      It would be more impressive if it gave the type of camera and details on the rationale for camera placement.

      It would be more impressive if an untouched version were played through several times and THEN details mentioned, if at all.

      Unfortunately, this is a lot like the fish that got away, only with moving blurs. It is not distinct, but it is a worthy effort and in the direction that researchers need to go.

      This is not a

      Delete
    3. So, why wouldn't you show this version first? Must be I'm too stupid to understand how these things work.
      Step1: release Blobsquatch
      Step2: release slightly less Blobsquatch
      Step3: take over the world

      Delete
    4. Anon 3:03 The title was " MK releases HD version". My opinion was I didnt see anything as a scientist that would lead me to use the term "HD"

      Delete
  2. Awesome. I'd like to see the rest of this. The HD makes a great difference. I'd like to ask any of you who have seen one of these creatures if the figure in the video moves like the BF you guys saw.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I seen one near Mount Shasta. I swear to my savior it was at least 15 feet tall -- so tall I thought to myself, "That don't even look like it belongs on this planet." But there it was: half-man but mostly ape-like and taller than the low branches of the Shasta Pines. My girl seen it too and she was speechless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 15 feet tall. What B.S.

      Delete
    2. I don't think Phil realizes just how bloody tall fifteen feet really is. . . .

      That means the creatures eyes are about hip level when you are standing on the second floor of your house.

      Delete
  4. It's the ghost of Wacko Jacko.

    ReplyDelete
  5. M. K. Just. Let. The...
    ...Sequence. Play...
    ...Through. Once. Before...
    ...You. Stop. It...
    ...So. We. Get. A...
    ...Point. Of...
    ...Reference. Thanks!
    Good stuff, though! I hope to see more from this series.
    David from the PAC/NW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You couldn't have expressed that better, lol.

      Delete
    2. haha its true he never lets you just watch the video without readjusting the camera and replaying it

      Delete
    3. Take a lesson from FB/FB:

      1. Short description at start
      2. Full play through of video
      3. Breakdown and analysis
      4. Drink a coke and burp a lot


      R

      ps- skip number 4

      Delete
  6. Thus guy edits the videos like he's purposefully trying to obscure whatever is on the tape. Starting, stopping, highlighting a blurry frame, etc... Almost like he doesn't want to give the viewer a clear picture of what we're seeing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I thought the same thing. Because if you don't do this, it looks like a guy on a bicycle.

      Delete
    2. Yep. His bid for credibility is having the opposite effect.

      Delete
    3. Must be an invisible bike then, funny nobody can see this famous bike isn't it.

      Delete
  7. LET THE GOD DAMN TAPE PLAY. Jeez, I would love to see it just once play through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1

      again for emphasis:

      LET THE FUCKING TAPE PLAY ALL THE WAY THROUGH - DIRECT UPLOAD, NO COMMENT, NO STILLS!

      these are the most aggravating videos to watch, I'll take SWP's giggling and FB/FB's constant burping and stammering over MK's style ANY DAY OF THE FUCKING WEEK.

      When he watches a movie with his family, does he constantly pause the film to talk???

      He obviously wants people to see this, but then ANNOYINGLY, does not let us see it at the original quality and speed uninterrupted - NOT EVEN ONCE.

      GODDAMN IT.

      R

      Delete
    2. I think M.K.'s style is well-suited to those who are already familiar with a given video. His work in stabilization and color-separation on the Patterson film really gave me a new appreciation of the subject. Great muscle tone exposure and details such as bare spots on the upper legs caused by walking with arms swinging. Even the head hair revealed a controversial detail or two. M.K's one of the hardest working guys in the field. I've never spoken to or contacted him personally but his videos are among my absolute faves!

      Delete
  8. This hd version only helps with the Peron on a bike theory. Leg movement is nothing more than a peddling movement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is a person peddling a bike it must be one of those invisible ones, because I'm not seeing it. Got any other ideas?

      Delete
    2. Peddling what? A unicycle? Look at the arms? I've never seen anyone ride a bike that long, on that kind of terrain without even touching the handlebars. The theory of it being a person walking is far more believable. In my personal opinion though, the film like most bigfoot video is inconclusive. I have no idea what I'm looking at except for the fact that is clearly bipedal.

      Delete
    3. This is not the same video that they claimed was a man on a bicycle or a four legged animal. That one had a distinct form of a cow in the foreground.

      Delete
    4. Yes, it is the bike video. Go back and see both again.

      Delete
  9. You can't get an HD video from VHS on extended play. Does any actual thought go into these headlines?

    ReplyDelete
  10. HD display of bad source resolution = bad source resolution. There is nothing magical here, the quality is only as good as the source. Actually I'm less convinced now as head looks more human and it is even easier to see that there is a defined black object (backpack) on the subject's back. He never once addressed what that object could be. That to me makes subject of human origin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That black "object" is actually a bleed from the camera light sensor. You get the same thing in the form of starring from low quality CCD cameras taking images of bright objects. I think the white is overloading the sensor and the adjacent pixels are becoming black.

      Delete
  11. Or could be a child on its back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be anything on its back. Some people just like to believe if it is black and on its back it HAS to be a backpack. Skeptics will go out of their way to be cynical. A true skeptic should keep an open mind. The skeptics on here have a very narrow world view unfortunately. Good idea though on the child possibility!

      Delete
    2. Exactly - it could be a child OR a backpack. The film quality makes it impossible to tell and we the viewers are left to fill in the blank. Given that the subject is in broad daylight at that time, we shouldn't have to speculate. If the media source allows pareidolia to *complete* the image, it is not a source of evidence.

      Delete
    3. To Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:13:00 AM PDT - I posted above re: backpack. You know the other annoying trait on this blog - that people interpret posts verbatim and don't try to understand what a poster is saying. Let's read through it together:
      "Actually I'm less convinced now..."
      This means I've had a change in position - I was MORE convinced before this HD treatment.

      "...it is even easier to see that there is a defined black object (backpack) on the subject's back. He never once addressed what that object could be."
      Other posters have speculated it was a backpack before. And MK has not addressed this - just focusing on the unusual gait. Review his films and if I missed it, point it out and I'll apologize.

      I didn't see that it was a backpack before - I didn't think there was enough evidence to say what it was and gave the benefit of the doubt that it might be a shadow or artifact of on the videotape. This new video makes me think it's an attached object, not an artifact, or even another organic object like a child which I did consider. I now think the object looks like a backpack. That's my opinion, but you do know that opinion is not fact right? So I could be wrong and so could the poster who thinks it might be a child. Because despite being a broad daylight scene, we are STILL having to speculate what it is and if there is room for pareidolia, it's not a good source of evidence.

      But feel free to jump to conclusions about the poster like the *good* open-minded skeptic you obviously are. Because I've had an encounter and I know they exist. We don't need to prove species existence to believers, we need to deliver indisputable evidence to non-believers. This isn't it.

      And I'm not just speaking through my ass - I'm a graphics designer and I've spent thousands of hours looking at still images and video. I'm good at spotting manipulated media. This isn't manipulated, it's just not a good media source.

      Delete
    4. Totally agree with above, its MUCH easier to accept this is a Bigfoot with a child on back than just a guy with a backpack.

      Delete
    5. That black "object" is actually a bleed from the camera light sensor. You get the same thing in the form of starring from low quality CCD cameras taking images of bright objects. I think the white is overloading the sensor and the adjacent pixels are becoming black.

      Delete
    6. I though that might be possible too, but it is not consistently present and not present in brighter areas. And the media source isn't digital, it's VHS tape. I thought this info was posted here once but also found it on BigfootLunchClub: http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/04/four-year-white-bigfoot-project-50-vhs.html

      "We learned the tapings were part of a four-year project producing over 50 six-hour VHS tapes (that's 300 hours). MK has had them for about six months and has digitally transferred the VHS tapes himself."

      All we know about the camera is that it was unmanned and continuously running, not the type of camera used.

      In the videos MK posts, he's filming the images from his monitor rather than showing us the source directly. So essentially we are seeing an mp4 of a digital copy of a VHS source. Can this scenario generate pixellation in the viewed copy?

      While he never addressed it in the videos, I did find this comment exchange on his YT site for that original video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJw4Wnvbl3Y):
      "What is that dark pixelation on its back? Excellent videos and break downs by the way. Thanks for sharing! :)" (7cybersandy 2 weeks ago)

      "You know...I have no idea." (Greenwave2010fb in reply to 7cybersandy 2 weeks ago)
      Greenwave2010fb = M.K. Davis

      He doesn't know what it is either. So as I stated originally, the film quality makes it impossible to tell and we the viewers are left to fill in the blank. It could be a sasquatch with a child, it could be a man with a backpack, it could be film distortion or artifacts introduced in the process. What it is not is indisputable evidence.

      Delete
    7. I stand corrected, I totally agree with you on every point. I truly apologize for lumping you in with the the narrow minded posters Ive seen on here.

      I am not a skeptic and have had an encounter myself so I know they exist. That being said there is also a lot of BF hoaxing going on these days and it gets tiresome trying to separate the real from the fake. In my personal opinion these videos are probably the real deal. I do try to keep an open mind and again sorry that I misunderstood your first post. :)

      7cybersandy

      Delete
    8. Post above is from Anonymous May 1, 2012 12:13 AM

      Delete
  12. Too frustrating to watch. Just play I through once. Also, he needs to upload the video directly rather than recording it off the screen.

    Shaun, UK

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is the bigfoot if you want it to be as much as it is a guy in a costume if you want to see that too. HD is a misleading title as per above comments. It's way too blurred to make anything substantial out. I appreciate MK for releasing it and applaud his efforts, but in my humble opinion, this video is not a bigfoot...Unless there's more footage, much clearer footage yet to be released. Perhaps of it coming up and licking the trailcam.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What a bunch of garbage. Attention everyone! If it were legit and your own footage, would you release the best version possible initially? ... Or some crappy degraded black and white vhs crap version? As an editor, its overtly clear as others have pointed out that whoever is spending their hours cutting/ looping / etc this stuff is quite purposefully and protectively trying to only let you see it well in certain moments. I swear a split second before it disappears its a man in a heavy light bluish coat, you can readily see the difference between his face and the coat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Benny Hill anyone...just missing the saxaphone??

    ReplyDelete
  16. I may be wrong, but this is not his footage, is it? Didn't someone else send this to him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the guy who filmed another guy walking in the woods

      Delete
    2. Correct Tzieth. This is footage that was already debunked in 2006. MK is not divulging his source, but it's either old DVDs that made the rounds years ago or the original hoaxer making another pass with it.

      Delete
    3. Debunked? lol Good one.

      Delete
    4. Yeah lol. He almost got away with it, lol huh?

      http://www.network54.com/Forum/23217/message/1161998332/More+about+the+hoaxed+video

      Delete
  17. What's the black strip going down the front? It looks as though it's a human with a long white coat on (open in the front). Does anyone esle see this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? I won't even begin to attempt to say this is a real sasquatch, but it amazes me how skeptics make us the funniest things or imaging seeing things that are not even remotely similar to what is in the video.

      If this is a hoax, it is a person in a abomonible snowman suit. Not a white coat, a person on a bicycle, etc.

      Delete
    2. Close, but in the original debunking in 2006, it was surmised to be a particular white ghillie suit from the Cabela's catalog.

      Delete
    3. Yes, that's exactly what this is. Finally, someone else who has an IQ above room temperature around here. The guy is wearing a dark shirt under the jacket, which is either unbuttoned or unzipped. That's why you see the dark shirt in the front, because the jacket is unbuttoned or unzipped. How people can't see this is AMAZING to me. There's absolutely NOTHING to see here EXCEPT for a guy wearing a dark shirt under an unbottoned or unzipped jacket. Every damn blurry piece of film or video isn't AUTOMATICALLY Bigfoot people. Get a damn grip and use some NOT SO common sense. Good Lord!

      Delete
  18. If that is a person,thats one big son of a bitch.I do see the black object on its back after reading replies.Interesting,but if that is a bigfoot that has to be a juvenile getting a free ride on dad or mom.I can also say it could be a fat dude exercising with a bucket of KFC in his backpack for his after hike break. matt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you look at :21 and :29 there is a black strip down the front of the image, not the back. It also looks as though you can't see the hands from that point on (if it were to be wearing a jacket).

      Delete
  19. Where is the rest of the video?

    ReplyDelete
  20. is this the video of the baby on bigfoots back from saturdays post?

    ReplyDelete
  21. He's always one step ahead of critics? Really? It's more like one step behind. Why wouldn't you show the best footage first?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because they know it is pointless. What ever is shown, people make up silly comments like, "it is a person on a bicycle" blah, blah.

      What I see is a large biped that resembles what the average eye witness calls a sasquatch. The only difference is that it is a greyish/white color with some black rather than the standard brown color that most people report.

      I ain't saying this is the real deal, but is sure as heck isn't a horse, a bicyclist, or all the other silly, foolish claims that the hard-core skeptics are wealky claiming.

      Delete
  22. If it was played without continually starting and stopping the footage, it would look like a guy on a bicycle because that's what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have watched this video several times and "for the life of me" I can't see a person on a bicycle. Help me out here. Explain how you and other people are seeing this. I am not being sarcastic,but I may be overlooking the obvious here.

      Delete
    2. Around the midpoint of the vid you see forward motion with non-moving arms positioned as if one was holding handle bars; in the same frames you see high-stepping or pedaling motion. Its one of those things that once you see it it hard to un-see.

      Delete
    3. An invisible bicycle then because it's just, well, invisible.

      Delete
    4. I didnt say you could see the bike. I just tried to explain why people think its a guy on a bike. If you could see the bike, I doubt the video would have been posted.

      Delete
  23. Since when does bigfoot wear an unzipped jacket?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXACTLY! How people cannot see this is truly amazing to me. The guy is wearing a dark colored shirt and a jacket of which is either unbuttoned OR unzipped. That's why you see the dark strip running down the center of the person, because its a shirt under an unbuttoned or unzipped shirt. Use some not so common sense people. Every damn piece or footage or film isn't Bigfoot. Stop grasping at straws. Its pathetic.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps, but some is.

      Delete
    3. I agree. Man, this is so a guy with an unzipped jacket. I might be insulted if I was the guy in the jacket that they're trying to turn into bigfoot.

      Instead of his wife saying to him, " Does this dress make me look fat," he says to his wife, "Does this jacket make me look like bigfoot."

      Delete
  24. I think the black toward the front MIGHT be shading from the definition of the body. (Regardless of whether it is a jacket or fur)

    Check out other "home" videos of this quality and you will see a few instances of this.

    Archer1

    ReplyDelete
  25. I find MK Davis' attempt to re-name this thing "Creek Walker" rather amusing, but I suppose it's an improvement on "White Bigfoot".

    ReplyDelete
  26. For any of you who are or are not familiar with MK Davis' work.

    He never claims that anything is anything. He takes images, other people give him and uses what software and knowledge he has to analyze those images. He did not make this video or any of the images he presents. His comments are based upon what he sees in his analysis and his best conjecture of that analysis.

    If the image is purported to be a Sasquatch, then he makes the assumption that it is. His objective is not to convince anyone that the image is what it is purported to be. He is simply showing the public what was shown to him and what he did to analyze those images.

    All of you guys that scream at MK for being a hoaxer or worse, should learn more about him and get things back into perspective.

    I'm surprised he does anything with Bigfoot images after the flack he took with the P/G film analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Trolls aren't living in the real world, let's always remember that fact.

      Delete
    2. Its ok to give an opinion on what is in the vid. Its fair to constructively criticize how the analyses is presented. Its unfair to call the man a hoaxer without any evidence.

      Delete
  27. M.K. Davis is the featured guest Wednesday night on Alex "MidnightWalkers" blogtalk radio show (9:00 pm EDT). A list of questions posted here pre-show might be helpful in case the phone lines jam...

    1. Why can't we see the film clips in their entirety without editing, enhancements, or discussion?

    2. How did you acquire this footage?

    3. Have you personally visited this property?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does one convert SLP VHS recordings to HD?

      Delete
    2. When does he intend to show us the better still photos he claims to have?

      Delete
  28. Its a stormtrooper without his helmet on chasing ewoks. that head is reeeaaalllyyy small and very very round. it looks out of place compared to the rest of the body.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It is just too pixelated. Not blaming anyone. It is what it is. As it moves, parts of the subject pop in and out and become either invisible or exagerated in size. If I had to guess, due to the gliding motion, particularly as the subect gets closer, I would go with a guy on a bike.

    To those asking where the "invisible bike" is, as I said, things pop in and out. From that angle, all that would be visible would be the thin handle bars and front tire, both of which could be easily obscured by the poor quality of the image.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 'Creek Walker' Adds To Bigfoot Cryptoterrestrial Argument

    http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2012/05/creek-walker-adds-to-bigfoot.html

    It is my belief that the genre of Bigfoot and unknown hominids are, in fact, cryptoterrestrial / interdimensional and not natural creatures...and possible from another dimension or time. These images are remarkable and add proof that the Bigfoot community needs to start thinking 'outside the box' as to the real origin of these creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  31. For any of you who are or are not familiar with MK Davis' work.

    He never claims that anything is anything. He takes images, other people give him and uses what software and knowledge he has to analyze those images. He did not make this video or any of the images he presents. His comments are based upon what he sees in his analysis and his best conjecture of that analysis.

    If the image is purported to be a Sasquatch, then he makes the assumption that it is. His objective is not to convince anyone that the image is what it is purported to be. He is simply showing the public what was shown to him and what he did to analyze those images.

    All of you guys that scream at MK for being a hoaxer or worse, should learn more about him and get things back into perspective.

    I'm surprised he does anything with Bigfoot images after the flack he took with the P/G film analysis.

    I'm posting this again because I see that I incorrectly posted as an Anonymous post. That was a mistake

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't it just be easier for MK to put that disclosure at the beginning of his clips? Why doesn't HE make it absolutely clear these are not his personal films? He is indeed appearing to be a *potential* hoaxer.

      Delete
    2. He actually did just that when he posted the first round of this thing. By the way. The word you're attempting to use is disclaimer. Not disclosure.

      I have said it before. The 6th grade level of thinking and 3rd grade attention span some of you kids have is astounding.

      Try to cool your emotions. Gather a little background information. Read and listen concisely.

      Then think and comment logically and even critically if you you feel it's warranted. But like your mother told you, or should have told you at some point before now.

      When you open your mouth. You create a hole that you may, yourself fall into.

      So. Speak only when you've got a clear valid point. It's not required that you agree with everything or anything.
      It is required that you think through everything before you say it. Before you open your mouth and walk blindly into that abysmal hole you've created.

      Delete
    3. Get the fk over yourself, Bamburg. What a pompous boor you can be. Disclaimer, disclosure... only you in your rarefied state of brilliance could understand my meaning.

      Now I shall dumb it down to as few words as possible for you: MK is moron to leave ANY possibility a viewer may question his role with these film clips. If ANYBODY suspects he may be hoaxing, the fault lies squarely with him. He shouldn't require defense from creeps like you.

      Delete
    4. One more thing so you won't need to roll out your standard boring, pointless, and worthless drivel: "Anons have no standing...blah blah blah..." My name is Abraham Lincoln.

      Delete
  32. M.K. Davis sees STUFF in pixelated images.
    His work is crap!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your momma likes my work in the bedroom.

      Delete
  33. It amazes me that people can't see that this is a person wearing some sort of jacket. You can clearly see the dark colored shirt he's wearing under the jacket. The jacket appears to be unbuttoned or unzipped and that's why you can see the dark shirt. Good lord people. I myself believe in Sasquatch but every damn video posted is Bigfoot. This is so obviously a person wearing a dark shirt under a jacket and I can't believe that people can't see that. Well, actually, I guess that's par for the course in this field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you even talking about? If you read carefully, you'll see that most people actually doubt it's a Bigfoot and practically no one here guesses it's a definite Bigfoot. The most amazing thing here is, that people like you are so busy putting it down and saying everyone's seeing a Bigfoot when the opposite is true. Hmmm.

      Delete
    2. If you read carefully, you'll see that what I was getting at is that (besides me) there's been like two people here who have correctly identified this guy in a dark shirt wearing an unbuttoned or unzipped jacket. 3 people out of close to 80 posts. Yes, I'm amazed by that FACT and I will post that I'm amazed at that fact. Whether they have concerns about the video doesn't matter to me. Its the aforementioned that I find amazing.

      Delete
    3. Then you might find it even more amazing that the "jacket" theory was hashed out in the previous post of this film clip.

      Delete
    4. Hashed out? LMFAO. This is undeniable PROOF of a man with a dark shirt on under an unbuttoned/unzipped jacket. Hashed out by fruit-cakes, maybe.

      Delete
    5. The point was, quit fn patting yourself on the back for some fresh discovery that wasn't.

      Delete
    6. Of course it was a fresh discovery. If it weren't, then there wouldn't be numerous videos trying to persuade people that its "a foot". Sorry your butts hurt from buying this garbage. Maybe i'll hang around and crush your dreams more often.

      Delete
  34. The lower leg movement, legs swinging out especially at the knee and the position of the body in a low croutch the whole time makes it tough to believe a person in a suit or coat or whatever is the answer and I believe this is MK's point. Watching this thing move, walk in this position, posture or whatever it's in, makes it tough to believe it's a human. The black "object" on the back is pixel overload and not a real object.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the black object is a dark shirt he's wearing under an unbuttoned or unzipped jacket. The movement is easily identified as a decent sized man running and stumbling downhill while wearing a dark colored shirt under a jacket that is either unbutton or unzipped. Its so obvious that its comical that people can't see that.

      Delete
    2. Stop trolling. Most here are skeptical of it being a Bigfoot, so you're only revealing your own agenda here.

      Delete
    3. LMAO, facts equal trolling? I would call you dumb but even dummies can come up with a better rebuttal than "trolling". The point is: everyone who has watched this should be able to figure out that it is a guy wearing a dark shirt under an unbuttoned or unzipped jacket. Look above, there's only 2 people besides me that have figured it out. If crap like this continues to be posted without people calling a spade a spade then we will continue to get "garbage" like this. All that does is pollute the entire field with comical errors. It lends credence to those who think people involved in this field are whack-jobs. People need (and must) call this crap out for what it is, then, hopefully, at some point, the field can be looked upon with sincere credibility from mainstream science. You can continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of the situation but "I" will continue to call a spade a spade and weed out the bullshit*t. If that's what you call an "agenda", then you are "clueless" and are doing NOTHING to help the field. Again, you just go on trying to make people hush. I'll do what is RIGHT in every sense of the word.

      Delete
    4. Anon 12:50 PM It is the only way they have to cope with hard questions or fact. The same thing happened to me a couple of nights ago.

      Delete
  35. show the full clip unedited in full resolution or GTFO

    ReplyDelete
  36. Its someone on a bmx bike riding down the edge of a dried up creek bed andip the other side

    ReplyDelete
  37. I would rather see the video in it's entirety and uninterrupted.
    Stop pausing and starting, stop with the arrows and filters, just let me see it on my own first.
    Let me make my own observations first, then you can tell me what you think it is.
    M.K. should take lessons from Tom at TheCryptoCrew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if he did that, it would look like a guy on a bicycle wearing an unzipped jacket.

      Delete
    2. From the very start of all of this, I thought it was a guy wearing an unzipped jacket. I don't see any bicycle though.
      The poor resolution video coupled with recording the monitor with a video camera makes it impossible to determine anything.
      I appreciate that Mr. Davis is sharing with everyone, but I feel like I'm being fed table scraps instead of the "meat and potatoes".

      Delete
    3. You and I agree on this. I do NOT see a bicycle. If you want to view the unedited clip of this scene go to YouTube and search for: "MK Davis discusses the creek walker video and the unusual walk". When there, fast forward to the 5:16 mark, that's when the unedited/unenhanced version will begin. Its BLATANTLY obvious as to what this is. I CANNOT believe this video is getting any attention

      Delete
  38. Man, this is so a guy with an unzipped jacket. I might be insulted if I was the guy in the jacket that they're trying to turn into bigfoot.

    Instead of his wife saying to him, "Does this dress make me look fat," he says to his wife, "Does this jacket make me look like bigfoot?"

    ReplyDelete
  39. It shows this researcher is not legit which then puts the pgf to bed for me: hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  40. it a...looka....lika man

    ReplyDelete
  41. if u look closely u can see that its seating on a roller chair just rolling out nd about its business :-D

    ReplyDelete
  42. Doesn't look like Bigfoot, looks like the Michelin Man.

    ReplyDelete
  43. All of these clips is someone on a bike....explains acceleration in first clip and glide down hill....white coat and dark mountain bike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you're right but it looks to me as if the subject partially slides down inclines. It even seemed to the untrained eye that the upper body made a quick balance shift so as to keep from falling. Just my 2 cents, though...

      Delete
  44. It's sad that this is what this website has turned into...

    ReplyDelete
  45. I visiteԁ multiple ѕiteѕ howeveг the audio featuгe for auԁіo
    ѕongs exiѕting at this web sitе is gеnuinely supегb.


    mу web-ѕіtе: Click Through The Next Document

    ReplyDelete
  46. What's up i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i read this piece of writing i thought i could also create comment due to this sensible paragraph.

    My homepage summer internship

    ReplyDelete