M.K. Davis Says Not To Dismiss Melissa Hovey's Bigfoot Photo, Even If A Movie Guy Tells You It's A Photo Of His Creature


M.K. Davis has been researching the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film for the last 14 years. Davis announced last December that he was quitting the scene and was looking for something else to do with his time.

And then the Melissa Hovey photo surfaced...

In the video below, Davis examines the Bigfoot photo released by Melissa last Thursday. Unlike others, he's not so quick to dismiss it. He says that if the photo is real, it could provide important clues about the creature.

Davis says to beware of Special FX experts who claim the photo is of their creature. He talks about the "John Chambers effect" where John Chambers, a make-up artist who created the masks for Planet of the Apes, was thought to be the person responsible for the Patterson-Gimlin suit. Chambers never objected this theory and it led many to believe that he was the person who made the suit.

According to Davis, Chambers later admitted years later that he had nothing to do with the Patterson-Gimlin film. Davis quotes Chambers an interview: "When they said it was me, I didn't object because it was good for my career."

Comments

  1. MK Davis really ?

    Like this guy has any credibility after his absurd fantasy based analysis of the PG film ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although I see red flags, I have yet to dismiss the Hovy photo.

    The movie guys say that the hair is a weave but if you blow it up you can clearly see single hairs going directly into the "skin". Is this something they also do? Maybe, maybe not.

    While I'm not convinced that it's real and it likely isn't, I am not going to call it a hoax just yet.

    Scott McMan
    Ghosttheory.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anyone remember those "paint your bald spot" commercials?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, spray paint hair! Thought it was funny when I was a kid, now I could probably use some.

      Delete
  4. One thing I agree with that Mr. Davis says is that claims by special effects professionals and movie makers need to be held to the same standard of evidence as any claim by a bigfoot witness. There is plenty of untoward motivation to claim responsibility for production of suit. For instance, how many people do you think are now out there renting or buying the movie "Clawed" to see if it is the same suit (doesn't look the same to me by the way)? All publicity is good publicity.

    I still am undecided about this image, although I admit to growing more intrigued rather than less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched the film in it's entirety the day after the photo came out and at no time did it show the Bigfoot in a full back view. In fact, not one still from that movie could prove anything.

      Scott McMan
      Ghosttheory.com

      Delete
    2. Exactly. But, most people will still use the film as "proof" of a hoax. Reverse the roles and have proof that the video is real and the very same people would dismiss it entirely as a hoax.

      Basically, what ever fits their needs to snort and squeal hoax.

      Delete
  5. the patterson film was debunked the first time anyone saw it, because its a guy in a suit, yes its right there in the film, a guy walking along in a suit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your right. The suit the creature was born with.

      Chuck

      Delete
    2. Who debunked it? Where is the legitimate study that debunks? Countless studies indicate that the PG creature is authentic or at worst, "The greatest hoax ever orchestrated"
      but your hoax and falsehoods that you are presenting as facts now are not so easily verified. (Other than by people such as yourself who have long winded opinions w/o any scientific background to prove your wind.)

      Delete
  6. The people who make up Bigfootery are gullible , silly fools. anything that MK Davis has to say is worthless tripe. as the man is pretty much a lunatic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Funny how he says this fits with the fact that BF turn their back to light, because I am also wondering if they stand still when they see it. If the BF turns his back to the camera and this is an old 35mm game camera, why there not a blur in the picture? Why don't we get the motion of that back turning?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is a very interesting photo, I ran it through a similar process but focused more on what the subject may have been looking at. I think I see a building, possibly a house with a window partially visible. Looks like a porch or deck area with a railing or steps. That would go along with the "origin story" of this photo, and would explain why the photographer cropped it the way they did and why they wish to remain anonymous assuming it is a photo of a Sasquatch. Which I am not much past 50/50 on as of now. Great to see people are keeping a open mind untill more info is available.

    peace, Monkey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this guy was having a BF coming close to a house/building and this was a multi-camera trap, why not just release the photos looking away from the buildings?

      Delete
    2. the story was the photographer had on-going activity on his/her property. Said person placed one or more cam traps and captured a "serries" of photos. I think I remember the number 7. The photographer reained anonymous out of concern for the creatures safety and protection of their property and sanity.

      This is according to Melissa H. I am not convinced either way yet.

      BUT if I had 7 photos I took that I knew were of a flesh and blood squatch, I would release the worst one first, see how it was received, let people get used to it, then sell the others after the dna study drops or concrete proof of existence comes about. A photo is worthless untill they are accepted by science as a species, after that a photo like this from the front is $$$, like nat geo cover shot $$$

      Delete
    3. The reason you give works just as well for a hoax. Put one out there that can't really be decided either way, get people on board, hear arguments against, then put out new info and new pics that are hard to disprove.

      If I had the photos, I would personally copyright them and then release them to the world all at once. They could take it or leave it as real because I would know. I would also be visiting professors at my univeristy and others to begin to formulate plans to collect video and biological evidence (i.e. how to trap one)

      Delete
    4. I see several aliens, Budha, and Dale Earnhardt in the photo eating a banana split. Not to mention the loch-ness monster wearing a saddle and allowing children to ride her for a quarter.

      Delete
  9. Thankfully it's only a few crazies left that think the Patterson film's fake, it's already been proven no hoax. Besides, it's odd that Chambers would say it's good for business and he's good but not that good, while other make-up names call it bad. So which is it, I thought Chambers was their God now suddenly he knows nothing. LOL Whatever happens with this photo, who can tell. One thing's for sure though, if it's fake it's great and whoever made it probably could've avoided much suspicion by not showing the ear. Imagine the photo with hair cowering the ear, many would look differently at it just for that alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Call me crazy but the Patterson film is a hoax. The burden of proof is on you the sane people. There might be many people who claim to have created the suit but one is correct or Patterson himself. Until your produce some evidence it is and will remain a hoax.

      Delete
  10. It should be easy enough to prove this is from the "Clawed" movie, if this is a still from the film there must be others showing the same foliage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. its not a still from the film..its a pic of the suit used in the film sold on ebay for around 6k in 2006..

      Delete
  11. Davis is a total loon and should not be heeded in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I find the video interesting because I'm not that proficient with photo editing.
    I highly doubt this photo is the suit from Clawed. Do we even know if it was really Karl making those posts? It's very easy to fabricate a name and add a link using Blogger, so it could have been anyone making the claim.
    The Clawed suit looks nothing like this in my personal opinion.
    I do have a bit of a problem with Mr. Davis saying the Bigfoot turned it's back to the flash. It's dark out and the flash would go off once the motion sensor is tripped.
    Another commenter asked why there is no blur. The being could have been walking slowly, or shutter speed is a factor, or both.
    I know with my old 35mm camera the shutter speed has to be set at 1/125 second in order to sync with the flash. Perhaps this particular set up is more advanced.
    I was looking for matches to this photo and came across an old article. The article was talking about a person who had to wear a baby Bigfoot costume in a movie. The person went on to say that the costume was basically a nylon suit with individual hairs sewn on. The costume is not great in portraying a Bigfoot, but it does show the sparse hair and "skin".
    I honestly don't know what to make of the photo. There simply isn't even to go on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's nothing in this photo that could not be done by a makeup/suit artist for a movie costume or prop, but that alone does not prove it's a fake. Unless more info or pictures are forthcoming, however, we can never hold this photo up as any kind of solid evidence for anything. It is just an intriguing "maybe."

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's not the Clawed suit because the anatomy is all wrong for that. This suit appears to have very large traps that give it the appearance of having no neck, quite opposite of the Clawed suit. Having said that doesn't mean it's not a suit. The hair on the Clawed suit is very similar to this one in many ways. Also, there are techniques that FX guys use to insert several strands of hair at once into a latex suit that can create this sort of look.

    LMAO...I wanna see this video he is talking about of a sasquatch turning its back to the light. I mean, wouldn't this be a little better evidence than this.

    For some reason this just screams werewolf costume to me. I was thinking of John Talbot from The Wolfman. It's not the same but in a way resembles it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares if its clawed, the wolfman, or teen wolf. Its a latex costume or bust. We've been hoaxed again, thank you Missy Hovey!

      Delete
    2. yes it is the clawed suit 100%

      Delete
  15. Mk has no credibility in my eyes but i agree with him here as ive yet to dismiss this photo based on what i see with my own eyes and only a blind idiot would think the clawed costume is a match.... It amazes me that people dont think industry people arent biased and extremely motivated by PR. Other then the lack of backstory, no one has come close t o actually debunking this photo yet.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm wondering how the creature could survive winter with hair like that ? It would freeze to death...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not if it lives in SE Texas. Pic is real. Sasquatch are real. People lie, DNA doesn't.

      Delete
    2. DNA doesn't? Have you seen the DNA results from any test? Or...have you just heard about the results from people?

      This pic is fake. And Anon 1, you are right. It would freeze to death. I have brought the issue up about the hair before. What other animal out there in southern states or warm climates produces hair like this? None. Bears in warm climates are covered in hair just like bears in cold climates. They do not look like they have mange simply because they are in a warmer climate. Primates are the same way. Most primates are found in warm climates and their hair is uniform and covers their entire body with the exception of the face, palms and chest in some species. The thing in this pic can be replicated by any decent FX guy.

      You people need to watch a few behind the scenes clips from some werewolf movies or better yet browse the net and see what hobbyists are doing when it comes to costume creation. It's like you people live in this one little world and are willing to jump onto and give credit to anything. This is why people do not take us seriously.

      Delete
    3. When you refer to "you people" and that we should watch more "behind the scenes clips from more werewolf movies." You are assuming that either A. Hollywood makeup artists have created this highly expensive costume to hoax a bigfoot photo, or B. this is a photo from a horror movie.

      A. Is not plausible. First why would they? Second, who has the money to support this hoax? Third, Why would professional makeup effects artists attempt to do something so juvenile w/o taking credit for it in order to advertise for an upcoming horror movie, etc. (They would not do this. Not feasible.)

      B. If this is a clip from a movie that is in existence..where is the movie. Produce it. Provide the evidence for the jury to see. This may very well be from a movie scene, but as of now-no movie clip has been located that shows this footage.

      Delete
    4. Animals in the wild, ex. bear, deer, coyote, etc. shed their fur yearly. (Twice to be exact.) When animals shed from summer to winter coats, or from winter to summer, they look as if they have mange. Many even look sickly; as if they are ready to die.

      They survive just fine.

      You are applying human logic to an animals environment. Animals adapt to their surroundings. Shedding furs is one way they adapt to survive.

      Delete
  17. MK makes some damn good points, I agree with him that still photography will nmever prove anything theses days but a series of still animated may help.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Soon as he said "alledged game cam" showed hes not paying attention.ML explained it was NOT a game cam last week.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is the same guy who sees shootouts and massacres blood baths etc. in the PG Film. MK lost credibility a LONG time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I find the use of a photo taken by some one else offensive. I think anyone that doesn't point that out when they comment is also being disrespectful to the rightful owner.

    I asked on my show for Melissa Hovey to come on and explain her side of the story, but I want to ask her the tough questions first. If she broke copyright laws, I don't think there's any more to discuss.

    http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

    Do you?

    I think we should call it the photo Melissa Hovey Stole...

    What right does she have to garner the attention she has over this photo...

    If it was a real photo did she steal the thunder from it's possible release? YUP, she did!

    ReplyDelete
  21. If it's fake and she was being tested, did she fail the test? Yup, she certainly did!

    Better hope this wasn't a test because the person wanted to show her something real next, because she just blew that...

    I'm really disappointed in the APS and it's other members. Does Billy stand by his name being associated with plagiarism? How about the others on the site? What if this photo is from Karl, and he set her up? Isn't he making a movie on the NY Baby Video, and who is it that is involved with that video? Oh yeah I remember... Gee is he also on the APS site? Yeah I think he is??? Wow! Interesting, isn't it... Also I just watched Clawed I didn't see the creatures back, but the hair and rest of the body is certainly closer enough to the photo. It's not off by anything that couldn't be adjusted in Windows Live...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hate to say it but judging from the hair color it seems that this creature should make it's habitat in a snowy region which would probably be quite cold also. The sparatic hair covering on this animal would not at all act as any insulation thus rendering very ineffective. This doesn't make much sense to me and I would presume that this photo is therefore a fake.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I hate to be skeptical about evidence because I absolutely believe in Sasquatch. But what I can't get my head around is why a game camera would be pointed this high off the ground directly at the bush in the background.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Exceptional post however I was wanting to know if you
    could write a litte more on this subject? I'd be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Bless you!

    Also visit my web blog website link building services

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia