M K Davis asks the question "When was the Patterson film taken and who took it"?
When was the Patterson film taken and who took it? According to M.K. Davis, while the creature in the Patterson film is indisputably real, there remains uncertainties about the film's origin and what led up to it. Watch this awesome video:
First
ReplyDeleteMMC
No more high noon shoot outs? That's too bad
DeleteWay to first MMC!
DeleteThank Chick
DeleteBeen reading some promising articles on migraines. Can't link any right now. Try google news
XX
BFF
MMC
Matt onit!
ReplyDeleteWhat IS problematic is MK trying to tell the date of the year of his Patty photo, by comparing shadows WHEN HE COMPLETELY DISCOUNTS THE VARIATION OF SHADOW LENGTH WITH THE TIME OF THE DAY. He specifically failed to mention the time of day when his own photo was taken. And then he failed to prove either the time of day or the date say having a large clock and calendar dangling from his backpack that we could read. So his own comparison photo is worthless for his ensuing arguments.
ReplyDeleteWhat is further problematic, is whether MK clicked the color enhancement option on his sophisticated video editing software, in order to turn the reds, even redder. Are we to trust MK for not clicking on that option? I have never seen a fall photograph with that much red because there always seem to be other fall colors mixed in, like yellows and oranges. There are no other colors mixed into the red areas. Furthermore, MK has a previous history of contaminating evidence by artificially changing the colors on isolated regions in photos. Since MK appears to be using the obviously color enhanced/(contaminated evidence) photo to then tell us what date the photo was taken on, we then can suspect that MK is not being truthful since he appears to have manipulated the colors on the photo. When MK is not being truthful once, when are we to suspect that he started being truthful?
That front part of the film is B roll. Nobody cares about the front part of the film. So there is no point in trying to use it to insinuate that somebody other than MK, is not being truthful.
The film was shot in 1967. When was Gimlin interviewed? MK did not tell us that information. The lapse of over 40 years has a way of causing a person's mind to not be able to instantaneously remember the finer details. Yet that is what MK is hanging his hat on in order to insinuate that Bob Gimlin is lieing. I guess that is a good reason why Bob Gimlin does not talk to MK anymore.
MK once claimed that he was 5'-9" or 5'-10" on BE when talking about the fence climber Bigfoot that was a hoaxed video, that he claimed was real. I have stood next to MK when he was wearing his elevator shoes and I was 2 or 3" taller than him, and I am 5'-10". The elevator shoes had about a 2" heel. That would put MK's real height at 5'-4" to 5'-5". MK's inability to come to grips with the reality of his own stature, is a symptom of other problems. Problems like an obsession with misrepresenting events surrounding a 40+ year old film, in order to regain lost stature.
excellent points raised
Deletenot knowing the exact details of why people mistrust MK,to read your revelations, is eye opening.It then puts a whole different light on what MK is saying about Gimlin IE he is lying
I don't believe in Bigfoot.ive never seen one or seen film/picture of one that makes me say "that's a creature"!
I want too, hence im here, but if p/g film is what you bleevers are hanging your hat on, I have a huge issue with that
that's not evidence. We cant tell from a minute of grainy jumpy [even when stabilized it too far away and bad quality] film this is a bigfoot
the rest we see are all the same but in lesser detail
so what is it that makes people "knowers" if they have never seen a bigfoot stand out in the open?
bobo. Rev Jeff [accepted telling the truth footers] etc encounters are all silhouettes and noises. Not a 8/8ft 800pd bipedal creature standing in front of them
why is there no half decent film?
why no satellite pics like we se of \\african animals?
where is p/g 2 . 3 4. 5 etc...[bluff creek was an exceptional circumstance]. don't buy it! if a bigfoot walks out in front on humans 1 time notionalty[sp] there is no reason why it wouldn't do it again!???
the ones that have would surely not be so lucky as to only do it in front of the 5% who don't have a cell hone . most hikers I see have cameras etc..so there would have been something of quality over the 50years proceeding that. surely common sense tells us that
for people to say BF know what cameras are, trail cams etc...is convenient and lacks credibility as its a guess
Im not asking for a body to believe just a few pics and 1 or 2 films of bigfoot
ps
thanks for decent comment id given up on them here
thanks
Bigfoot cannot be proven on the internet. You can only find the proof by going by yourself, at night, into a real spooky woods that is way out of the beaten track. Those Bigfoot make more noise than the ones who live real close to you. You best go after the ones that make a lot of noise, in order to find the proof that you seek, young grasshoppa. And then you listen real closely.
DeleteYou make the same errors so many others make, examining contextual questions rather than the actual evidence--the film. For over 45 years this film has been scrutinized and EVERY analysis points towards authenticity. Davis clearly shows muscle and tendon movement which would NEVER be visible under a costume. He also shows, along with Munns and others, definitive other reasons this CANNOT be a costume--no visible seams anywhere and a mottled, uneven hairiness no costume would ever possess. The absence of other firm photographic or film evidence means nothing. Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. Biologists KNOW there's several hundred cougar in the Sierras--go try to get a picture of one. Or a wolverine. Or a Marten. Sasquatch is likely more intelligent, rarer, and more elusive than these creatures. It took SIXTY years for professionals to discover a live Giant Panda and they generally KNEW where to look! Was it hiding? No. This black and white creature that's dumb and slow and stands out like a sore thumb in its environment was just living its life. Now contrast that with the strictly amateur undertakings to prove the existence of Sasquatch. So you see, using context can cut both ways but it cannot be used as a conclusive argument, nor can lack of firm data.
DeleteYou make the same errors so many others make, examining contextual questions rather than the actual evidence--the film. For over 45 years this film has been scrutinized and EVERY analysis points towards authenticity. Davis clearly shows muscle and tendon movement which would NEVER be visible under a costume. He also shows, along with Munns and others, definitive other reasons this CANNOT be a costume--no visible seams anywhere and a mottled, uneven hairiness no costume would ever possess. The absence of other firm photographic or film evidence means nothing. Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. Biologists KNOW there's several hundred cougar in the Sierras--go try to get a picture of one. Or a wolverine. Or a Marten. Sasquatch is likely more intelligent, rarer, and more elusive than these creatures. It took SIXTY years for professionals to discover a live Giant Panda and they generally KNEW where to look! Was it hiding? No. This black and white creature that's dumb and slow and stands out like a sore thumb in its environment was just living its life. Now contrast that with the strictly amateur undertakings to prove the existence of Sasquatch. So you see, using context can cut both ways but it cannot be used as a conclusive argument, nor can lack of firm data.
DeleteMK Davis is a completely idiotic loon with a computer.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard anyone as completely full of shit and irresponsible with slandering others as this pos. all based on tweaking some color settings on some really old grainy photos.
^Yup.
DeleteWhy is it problematic? Gimlin and Patterson are liars and they hoaxed the whole thing. Case closed!
ReplyDelete100% WRONG!!!!
DeleteNo, he's 100% correct.
DeleteNo one has been able to prove its a hoax all these know it alls. Know nothing .Bill Munns knows the film better then anyone he knows its real . Enough said case closed
DeleteBut, Bill Munns started with his conclusion. Then he found all the facts to make it work. His qualifications? B list Hollywood effects artist. You'll have to forgive those of us who aren't convinced. How about a specimen? That would be pretty hard to dispute.
DeleteCause it sounds like you're picking on Bob Gimlin
ReplyDeleteMK Davis is completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteMK Davis, is a close friend, confidant and associate. He is professional, cool, calm and collected in his analysis, and field work. His integrity is impeccable, I am proud to call him...my friend.
ReplyDeleteHe has been a guest in my home, he does not wear elevator shoes.
The commentary of this blog has devolved into an anonymous cesspool of character assassination, and prevarication. MK Davis, has more character in his nail clippings than the totality of the anonymous trolls hiding here.
MK's work on the videos from the East Texas site, was done at my request on behalf of Dr. Melba Ketchum's DNA study.
MK's subsequent work and youtube videos from the East Texas site, were in recognition of the heretofore unrecognized researchers who made those incredible audio/video recordings, and were vilified for their splendid efforts and contribution to the compendium of Sasquatchery. With the landowner and researcher's permission he shared those audio/videos with Sasquatchery, while protecting the researcher's identities and intellectual property rights.
William...you are wrong and your Honobia show was an embellished compilation of nonsense. I investigated that incident, and interviewed the principals on site, at Thom Powell's request...sir.
Mike Brookreson and I made blog posts on Sharon Day's blog. Tuesday, we proposed a new strategy for recognition.
live and let live...
Steve Summar
http://www.ghosthuntingtheories.com/2014/04/earth-day-message-sos-save-our-sasquatch.html
DeleteMK shared the same Texax hoaxed videos, that Kewaunee Lapseritis used to share with audiences, until he figured out that those videos were a hoax. The fence climber video, is one example.
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/09/mk-davis-releases-video-of-bigfoot.html
You say MK has been a guest in your home and he does not wear elevator shoes. You should note above that nobody attacked MK's personality. They only attached his evidence contamination techniques that he believes to be sound science. But for those manipulations, he would have no basis for his implied attack on Bob Gimlin. So his techniques are not sound.
DeleteSo how tall or short is MK Davis? You seem to be covering for him. Please also reference the East Texas video so we can judge for ourselves whether MK was sufficiently motivated to hoax any part of the video with either color or contract manipulation.
Steven Streufert: Why do you insist on hiding behind anonymity while making scurrilous ad hominem attacks against Davis. You say you are only discussing evidence though you repeatedly accuse Avis of hoaxing and serious breaches of morality as opposed to the errors of knowledge they appear to be. Present your evidence Davis has maliciously intended to decieve. You cannot and look like a fool making such allegations without firm evidence.
DeleteWow. That's all I can say. You want to come on here and get that personal but you can't put your name on it. What kind of chickenshit cites his shoe size or height but won't put his name on a hatchet piece. At least Will Jevning, whose program with Woody and Wes I enjoy, had the cojones to disagree with the man without being personally insulting. It's one thing to offer constructive critical commentary about content. It's quite another to commit shades of character Assasination. I've been in the field with MK and two twenty plus year footers. He showed us all a thing or two about how a subject conceals footprints that was a lesson to us all. And finally you, the fake skeptic uber troll idiot above who uses the same tired Schtick to exploit Footers against each other. If I could pay you to stop insulting everyone's intelligence with your lame as excuses as to why you troll here this world would be a better place. As it is,
ReplyDeleteEvery time you type we all suffer from your vapid ignorance.
ReplyDeleteCan you say with a straight face, that the MK Davis picture at the top of this page with all of the reds in it, is a genuine unenhanced photo and is representative of an actual nature scene?
DeleteI didn't think so. Quit your whinning.
I often ask anonymous trolls one simple question. What is your contribution to this field? You don't have to reveal your identity to answer that. You can say. I'm dumb ass 822 and I once knitted a sweater with a Bigfoot and although I'm a skeptic I come here every day to lower IQs and hide in cowardice. I guess what I'm saying is to be a true critic shouldn't you have some basis for your analysis? Some comparative accomplishment or achievement that qualifies you to make such outrageous and asinine commentary. I like goldfish. Let me tell you how to run your Tuna Boat. In other words without either naming yourself or at least one accomplishment that lends credibility to your opinion you might as well be a dry popcorn fart in a stiff wind. At least then you might be moderately entertaining.
ReplyDeleteYou are a newbee here, Mike. So you get a free pass this time with your outburst. You apparently are not current in MK's record at isolating portions of a photograph and then turning that portion red so that he can claim that it is BLOOD! He justifies this by claiming that it is the same techniques that astronomers use to study the stars. They look at the entire photograph with different wavelengths. MK isolates areas that he was to develop evidence that Bob Gimlin is lieing, and then manipulates either the color or the contrast in order to contaminate the evidence, but to seemingly support his argument. BIG DIFFERENCE.
DeleteMK claims that his color manipulation techniques are a substitute for CSI tests for blood. If they are valid tests then why hasn't he patented them? If you can't figure that out then I can't explain it to you either.
For all we know, MK is playing everyone here. He may well know that his techniques are a crock. He may well know that he is going to get criticized for it. Yet, he keeps coming back with more attacks on Bob Gimlin, as if nobody ever told him exactly how his techniques are quite flawed. MK does not care that his science does not hold up. After all, he is not a scientist so he has no reputation to uphold.
Ask MK about that fresh bullet wound on Patty's leg that occured as the film was being shot. Yet Patty failed to change the pace of her exit and failed to limp. Ask MK about paddleboarding, the bloody hand print on the log to prove a massacre took place, the bigfoot hide, the third tit on Patty, etc., etc. This stuff is so far out, that you cannot make this stuff up. But MK can and he does. Give him the Zepruder film and see how many marksman that he can pick out of the shadows.
ReplyDeleteHere is a summary of a handful of MK's pre-massacre delusions.
Deletehttp://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.com/2009/08/delusions-of-mk-davis.html
The author notes that MK seeks to impugn the reputation of persons who are no longer alive to defend themselves.
Here is a rebuttal to some of the mislabeled photos that MK Davis put out there.
http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/massacre-mess/
In all probability, these suspicious repeated attempts by MK Davis to manipulate photographs with color and/or contrast enhancement, is part of a larger scheme, IMO. The most likely larger scheme would be simply to develop a record on the internet that lasts forever, that can be referenced by say, the JREF paid scoftics, or by the cryptozoology.com paid scoftics, or by DoubtIt. One of their standard attacks on the P-G film could then simply be to claim MK Davis's attacks on P-G film story are factual and accurate. And how many naive minds do you think they could convince just by citing MK Davis's work? After all, he first established a valid reputation for stabilizing the P-G video. Based on that initial reputation, the paid scoftics could then seek to legitimize all his other work including both the "massacre theory", and now the "supposed inaccuracy of the time that portions of the P-G film were shot", making Gimlin a liar.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, although MK Davis may appear to repeatedly test the bounds of how sane people act, despite person injury laws against libel, this all may simply be the mission that he has been assigned and his performance is all simply acting.
Here is MK Davis diagnosing HEMORRHOIDS ON PATTY, with the camera 150 feet away, and MK standing 46 years into the future! This stuff is so far out there that you just cannot make this stuff up.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj32PfDh6J0