Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Patterson Film Creature Reveals Ear


MK Davis shows us a clear look at the natural ear of the sasquatch, as it appears in the Patterson film.

20 comments:

  1. GAY PICKUP SITE

    KEEP CHILDREN AWAY

    ReplyDelete
  2. The ear was photo-shopped onto the still. This is an old trick of MK (the fraud) Davis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is remarkable how bigfoot has an ear where its ass ought to be.

      Delete
  3. Still to this day the video stands. unless someone can recreate it anyone out there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a video, it's a film moron.

      Delete
    2. It was a video, Stuey. Only movie studios could afford film in the 1970s. Amatuers shot on video. Hope this helps.

      Delete
    3. Screen shot from the nursery camera:

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-im6QsNYqKfY/T2uqe9TL-YI/AAAAAAAAAWE/0uxa928djwY/s1600/Adult_Baby3.jpg

      Delete
    4. Um hey genius, it's called the PGF -- the F stands for "FILM"!!!

      Delete
    5. So a grapefruit is a grape? People use video and film interchangeably. Your embarressing yourself. I'll humor you, the PGV, how's that, skeptard?

      Delete
    6. 2;37 wrong again...t`was the 60`s when the FILM was taken.

      However,there was No such thing as "video" in the 60`s OR 70`s...much like bigfoot...although that extends to any decade you care to come up with.

      Delete
    7. 2:37 is wrong about the year and PGF was shot on film but video has been around pre-1960s. Digital video and movie quality video are recent though....and bigfoot is not real.

      Delete
  4. It never ceases to amaze me how MK Davis can conjure this stuff up from that grainy film. He is however, unfailingly polite by always thanking us for our time. I would suggest he next concentrate on Patty's butt-cheeks (or lack of). Just a guess but I think that line of inquiry would go very well here at this site - LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Mr Curious. How are you?

      Speaking for myself as a someone who's convinced by the evidence, personally I check in here every now and then (these days) because I'm fascinated as to why people continue to disbelieve in Bigfoot's existence when they follow a subject to the point of obsession, that has documented footprints (and other evidence), and eyewitness reports on a weekly basis for the past 50 years? I would argue that the youtube researchers Haints listed in a previous comment section, are the product of people having more confidence to come forward. What were widely perceived to be protective sightings reports databases no longer do justice for the lengthy and habituated encounters people are having. Whilst such lengthy reports are now easier to divulge due to a wider community being open to such encounters. Most of the encounters these channels divulge are in fact pretty obvious, in respect of what a hominin would need to do to stay alive (stealing deer from a hunter is opportunistic). The same people denying these encounters, would no doubt demand them for credibility if they didn't exist to substantiate the physical evidence. I would also argue that video after video showing "pretty much nothing" on this blog, is the result of shoddy article finding. The troll brought this site down... It's that simple.

      MK already did a great job on Patty's buttocks. And the big backside is widely reported as an anatomical trait.

      Hope you are well.

      Delete
    2. "I would also argue that video after video showing "pretty much nothing" on this blog, is the result of shoddy article finding."

      Shoddy article finding? Say what? This site is a deliberate attempt to undermine Bigfoot, and Bigfoot researchers, it's a total mockery!
      Dodson is the poster child here, and he's the biggest joke of all the researchers, total waste of people's time. And then you have Shaw, who posts everything BUT Bigfoot evidence, and you say "Good Job?"
      How is he doing a good job Iktomi? How? And you complain about Shoddy article finding?

      Delete
    3. MK diagnosed internal hemorrhoids on Patty, from a distance of at least 75 yards away, on a 5th generation P-G film, and 48 years after the fact. It was a masterpiece in deception and delusion.

      Delete
  5. Hey mate, would you fancy conducting an "in depth" study of the area between my butt cheeks ?

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to think your comments are funny or something. They are vile and disgusting! God says that you will be accountable for EVERY WORD that comes out of your mouth. All fun and games until you're standing before God, and have to give an account of what you said.

      Delete
  6. The evidence that MK photo-shopped an ear onto the head is because, he goes through a series of enlargements and on not a single one prior to the last one, is an ear even vaguely apparent. Then, after saying a few sacred words, on the very last enlargement, an obviously fake ear is drawn onto the still photo. Since MK fails to spill his guts as to which method he used, (cough, cough, photo-shop, photo-shop, cough), that would make him a fraud.

    ReplyDelete