Cryptomundo » Bigfoot Massacre: The Theory

Bigfoot Massacre: The Theory

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 22nd, 2008

In terms of commentary, this statement issues exclusively from the filmmaker who worked with M. K. Davis.

No editing, additions, or deletions have been made to this document by Cryptomundo. The opinions expressed in this statement are those of Mr. Johnsen alone, who retains copyright. The comments and opinions are not those of Loren Coleman or any associate of Cryptomundo.

For the record:

Before anyone goes any further with this let me say that you must read all of it. So, if you cannot do so now, please do so before making comments. That is all I ask.

I retired in 2005 after thirty years in photography and videography to make documentary films. My association with the cryptid world was by pure chance. I met M.K. Davis while at what turned out to be Chester Moore Jr.’s last Crypto Conference in Conroe, Texas in June 2005 after a location scouting trip to Maydelle, Texas.

I had seen Davis’s full frame stabilized animations of the PG film and, frankly, was more interested in the software and methods he used in that stabilization than the PG film which at the time I considered a fake. I had corresponded a few times with him and was eager to speak with him in person. He had a nearly full size poster of Patty up at the conference and I was impressed by the detail visible in the work. He still takes that poster all over the country and collects signatures on it.

I stood in front of his computer…his full size computer (he carried that around with him to conferences as he did not own a laptop at the time) and watched in awe as he demonstrated the animation plus some basic revelations the film had to offer. All in all I knew then that this was an intelligent, dedicated individual and he agreed to participate in the documentary that was later named Keeping the Watch.

As I was still in the early stages of researching my film and in the midst of a commitment I had made to my family to take care of my newly born grandson for a year, it wasn’t until the Spring of 2006 that the wheels of my Jeep began to roll on the actual filming of Keeping the Watch.

During that first trip I traveled from Florida to New York State, through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas and into Mississippi where I sat down to interview Davis for the first time. He was cordial and took me through his analysis of the film and his conclusion that it was indeed a real creature…not a man in a suit. Although I could detect something in his demeanor that told me he wasn’t sharing all he knew, I gratefully accepted what he had given me and hit the road for Florida, to spend the summer in the editing room.

Because it had been the moderator of a message board, now unfortunately deceased, that had given me my first contacts in this area of Bigfooting, I found out that message boards could help me keep my ear to the breaking news in my chosen subject area so I watched several. In the fall of 2006 I came across some posts that both excited me and sent shivers up my spine.

Davis had declared the Patterson Creature “human”. I knew then what he had kept to himself during our interview. But, in a very short span of time, Davis was being slapped with the moniker “racist” and being called everything but a human himself for releasing what amounted to a theory.

I jumped in to defend him and found myself instantly lumped in with him in all the derogatory word play. To add to that, the material being circulated on the internet at the time was terribly degraded due to the destructive nature of some transmission artifacts, as well as, depending on individual machines, localized viewing problems. My suggested solution for this was to work with Davis to put his theory on a DVD. The DVD format of 720 x 480 pixels would level the playing field of resolution, offering everyone the chance to see it in the same manner. FAIR…or so I thought.

Within hours of announcing my plan to work with Davis I found myself being accused of profiteering. It was assumed that I was just in it for the money. Money? What money? There IS no money to be made. My motivation was to help a man I considered a friend, and to gain more practice at the craft I had selected. Documentary film is much different that the corporate or event world and I wanted more opportunity at honing my craft. My wife and I are not wealthy, but sound investing and her job as a highly paid medical professional meant that the funds were there, so I didn’t worry about the money…something that some folks still refuse to believe.

So, I packed up my gear and made my way back to Mississippi near Yazoo City to work on the piece with Davis. In the course of making “Spotlight on the Patterson Gimlin Film” I made no less that four trips to M.K.’s as I needed to view, select and burn the materials to CD and DVD I needed for the production. As I stated before, web transmission wouldn’t cut it for most of the evidence.

During the time we worked on it, Davis and Patricia Patterson, Roger’s widow, reached a deal to transfer all of Davis’s rights to his work to Patterson and her heirs. He also later gave Patricia Patterson all of the meager proceeds he made from the sale of this project, keeping none for himself. The move to transfer the rights was his reaction to my findings of the true nature of the copyright status of the PG film, (that subject is a whole other film) and Davis was concerned that Mrs. Patterson would eventually end up with nothing.

So, you can see, Davis is a much bigger man than he was being accused of. And, lest you think I was a moocher in all of this, once the rights had been transferred to Patterson, I paid her well for a license to use those rights.

There were many delays in the production of this work. Apart from the constraints on Davis’s time due to work and family obligations, it seemed that every time we thought we had it in the can, there would be something else that needed to be included. The pony tail was one of those items. His first depiction of the braid was, in my opinion, weak although factual.

The subsequent revelation of the braid and pony tail was, to me, mind boggling and served to impress even a hardened skeptic I regularly bounced things off of in the course of making the film. That and the stick or implement she appears to be holding and drops seem to be an indication that she was influenced by a culture of her peers too advanced to be one of apes, allowing for only one conclusion. So, we finally decided that we had enough to go to editing.

Let me digress a moment to say that Davis was prompted into making his “human” announcement by some extenuating circumstances. Jeff Meldrum had asked him for some animations. Meldrum subsequently used those animations in a presentation at Stanford University.

M.K. became afraid that he had just given Meldrum the tools he needed to claim credit for the fact that Patty was human, so Davis, preemptively, made the announcement. Davis at least wanted the credit for the work he did and the conclusion he had reached. So, you see, there is substantially more than meets the eye on all of this.

Spotlight on the Patterson Gimlin Film sold poorly, as I suspected. Davis and I shared the opinion that most researchers, especially the long term ones, had bought into the theory that Patty was a relic ape, perhaps a throwback to Gigantopithecus blacki. Davis’s assessment was, “we killed their ape” so we were now on the s__t list. People came out of the woodwork, including EB, to discredit the film. Well, I figured, at least it is making the rounds.

Davis and I continued corresponding. Then one night he called me late to announce a new finding. I sat at my computer as he forwarded me a still from the movie. What I saw was very interesting. It showed Patty as she was leaving what appeared to be a darkened pool of water. As I looked it over I could tell that whatever was causing the apparent coloration was confined to the water alone and wasn’t the dissolving of shore material or caused by an overlaid shadow.

Davis, myself and Scott Marlowe had almost simultaneously come to the conclusion that there had been much more than met the eye going on in the film. There was the nagging “hernia” that seemed evident on Patty’s thigh. There was also evidence of a red stain on one of her feet and some reddish tracks she left in her path. This led all of us to the conclusion that she had been shot. It is common knowledge that Gimlin sold the rifle, a 30-06, some time shortly after the encounter, and has expressed some signs of remorse telling M.K. that (paraphrased) “If I had it to do over again I would have put the gun down and tried to talk to her”.

One doesn’t attempt to talk to an ape. To further corroborate the evidence that the hernia was an exit wound, Patty appears at one point to stumble, nearly lose her balance and regain a somewhat altered gait just prior to the appearance of the leg injury. But, the evidence of possible blood in a pool of water didn’t fit with the scenario that she might have been cleansing the wound, as this occurred in the film prior to the alleged shooting.

Around this time in the history of all of this, M.K. had become extremely discouraged at the outcome of all of his past years of research. At the time I had approached M.K. to film the segment for Keeping the Watch another “filmmaker”, Pat Holdbrook, also was courting him into a role in what was supposed to be a feature film starring M.K. as an attorney defending the reality of Patty as a living creature, not a man in a suit, in court.

However, Holdbrook’s effort sputtered and fell, leaving both M.K. and Patricia Patterson without the payments and royalties he (Holdbrook) had promised. I hold no animosity towards Holdbrook, feature films are hard to organize and produce. Sometimes they fly, sometimes they don’t. But, none the less, Davis was feeling dumped on, with some justification, so when I asked him what was eating him (he hadn’t called in weeks and answered my emails in simple sentences) he erupted to say he was tired of being taken advantage of.

Neither I or Holdbrook had made him any money, and with all the other problems he was having with the so called “bigfoot community” he was hanging it up once and for all. I reminded him that we had discussed the probability that the “human” revelation on our DVD would not make anyone any money and he backed off a bit but was still adamant about quitting research altogether. So, I said, out of respect for him, I would pull the film from sales venues, which I did. It was, after all, costing me far more in promotion than it would ever make me in revenue. I did feel slighted in all of this. After all, I had been there for M.K. and even offered to bankroll any effort he chose to make in suing or taking any other legal efforts to silence his critics. To be lumped into the barrel of reasons he was leaving bigfoot research was offensive to me and I made him aware of my feelings.

Prior to this action, M.K., Scott Marlowe, I and a few others had been planning a trip out to the Patterson film site and a possible visit with Gimlin to further investigate the now expanded theory of possible violence at Bluff Creek. But with M.K.’s announcement that he was giving up his quest, I felt that the trip was off the agenda. Yet, no more than a month after that exchange, I learned that M.K. had not only attended and spoken at a conference in California, but had also met with Patterson and Gimlin. I was livid as was Scott. We had been duped, it seemed, into believing we were going to function as a team when it came to the verification, and M.K. was now acting on his own.

According my direct conversation with M.K., the meeting with Patterson yielded new, 4×5 inch copies of certain frame transparencies that included the pool of reddish water. These had to have been made for good reason, in my opinion. Apparently, Patterson had been looking to see what, if any detail showed up in those frames, which, again in my opinion, was supportive of the newest theory Davis had formed.

The theory:

According to the theory, the Patterson Gimlin Film, as we know it, wasn’t made on the first visit to the site. There had been another one, possibly one to several days before. On that visit, Davis theorized that Patterson and Gimlin (possibly others) had surprised a group of Patty’s clan and that the clan summarily attacked them, unprovoked. What ensued was not a massacre as it is generally thought that a massacre is a vindictive action by one group or individual against another group. His theory suggests that, if Patterson and Gimlin had not shot and killed their attackers, they themselves would have been killed…a real possibility. Self defense. But when they got up close to the bodies, they realized what they had shot were, in fact, more human like than ape like. So, the decision was to bury the bodies. It was verified by individuals that M.K. had interviewed over the years that Roger Patterson had obtained a backhoe to extricate his truck from the sand and mire of the service road leading to the site. Yet, pictures of Patterson’s vehicle show a two or three ton flatbed, outweighing a backhoe by many times. And, Patterson’s brother in law (unsure of which side of the family) allegedly owned a paving business, so he would have had access to the backhoe without rental records. I first suggested, after hearing of Patterson’s comment about the backhoe, that he and Gimlin might have killed Patty and buried her. But, after finding the evidence of the reddish water Davis took it one step further.

So, after Patterson and Gimlin had done the deed, and realized that something wasn’t kosher, they obtained the backhoe, buried the bodies and left the scene. But, in an effort to either actually capture one on film, or check the status of the alleged burial site, Patterson and Gimlin returned to Bluff Creek. Davis theorizes that what they found was Patty, bent over the burial site, trying to dig up the bodies. The ground is only so deep at the creek, allowing ground water to seep into any excavation made. So, it fits the theory that, if such an excavation was made, having been disturbed by Patty’s digging, the resulting water in the excavation would be colored by the blood coming from whatever was buried there. After being attacked by the group previously it is theorized that whoever was with Patterson that day was with him the day of the attack and opened fire on Patty, scaring her from the water and wounding her in the thigh as she fled. Let me point out that there may have been more individuals with Patterson than just Gimlin, but conjecture as to who will just lead us all down that same old path of uncertainty and speculation, one that I personally have had my fill of.

When Davis met with Gimlin, and ran this scenario by him, the only question, (according to my conversation with M.K.) that Gimlin asked was (paraphrased) ‘what did the picture of the pool show?’ He never confirmed or denied anything Davis said, but sat with his head down, looking at the floor.

Now, there could be a plethora of explanations for the discoloration of water at the film site. First, the area is one of tectonic activity, the ground itself is warm is some places according to M.K. and seepage from deposits surely occur and may contain iron or copper or any number of minerals responsible for the coloration. Also, the site was used as what was referred to as a loggers landing area. That meant the loggers used it as a waypoint for operations involving the movement and transportation of logs out of the forest. This fluid might have been fire resistant hydraulic fluid, which was red at that time, and or transmission fluid from machinery or vehicles used in the area. And, if such a vehicle had been stuck in the creek bed, the loggers would have surely done some digging to free it. They weren’t too particular in those days as to how they treated the environment. Testimony to that is the fact that Davis found the very piece of cable seen in a photo taken a month after the PG film after loggers had been in the area cleaning out stragglers that had escaped their initial cuttings and fallen into the canyon where the creek runs.

The thing that disappoints me is that M.K. went public with this when it should have been approached with forensic caution, doing some excavating at the film site and checking and rechecking the facts. M.K. admits to finding a bone fragment in the creek, but left it there. The fact that a bone fragment was found is in itself no indicator of his theory as annual spring runoff washes all kinds of things into the creek bed each year, but it would have been a place to start.

In conclusion, I will say that it is my opinion that anyone involved with the shooting of a possible human being and concealment of the fact needs to be held criminally responsible. I feel that Davis’s tribute to Patterson, although tugging at the heart strings, is misplaced sympathy. If the events at Bluff Creek were as Davis theorizes or anything close to them, whether or not Patterson was a trigger man doesn’t matter to a thing. He still was a part of the cover up.

This revelation may or may not prompt a flood of people to the site, I can assure you that I have no plans to go. I have other fish to fry and this has taken its toll on me as well. If something like this happened, then I hope those responsible are made to own up to it. If not, then I hope Davis or someone uncovers the eventual truth. Until that time all we still have is speculation…a he said she said situation that, until proper work to verify is completed, will be nothing more than an urban legend.
Sincerely,
John L. Johnsen
Grendel Films

This document is Copyright 2008 - John L. Johnsen, with a request and requirement from him that any reposting, quoting, or other use of this material be made only upon the obtaining of the expressed consent of John L. Johnsen, beyond the employment of a small portion, a phrase, or a paragraph, which may fall under and constitute usage within the Doctrine of Fair Use in the current copyright laws of the United States of America.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Breaking News, Conspiracies, CryptoZoo News, Cryptomundo Exclusive, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Expedition Reports, Eyewitness Accounts, Folklore, Forensic Science, Men in Cryptozoology, Sasquatch, Year In Review. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

66 Responses to “Bigfoot Massacre: The Theory”

PhilsterUK responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 am
I don’t know about all that. I would be VERY impressed by any procedure that could drag that kind of detail out of such old film footage, but am open to the possibility that trying might distort colors or grains of image. On the film I’ve seen what I believe to be muscle movement on the thigh perhaps at great magnification this could appear to be a wound warping the black/brown into a reddish color. I think we are going over this footage with so many techniques that we are bound to find various details that may or may not be a result of over ‘improving’ an old poor quality section of footage.

I am by no means an expert but none the less have this opinion.
jayman responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
Pure speculation.
E-ton responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 am
For a generation we’ve debated the merits of the Patterson film and it may or may not show. Does it or does it not capture the best view we have of an unknown creature? That is difficult enough to answer.

We are now beginning to debate points that cannot be determined with any accuracy from the film and are backed up by absolutely no other evidence. And in my opinion border on the ridiculous.

I hope we can avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
size 13 responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
After reading this, it is understood why people see the crypto world ridiculous, flights of fancy, unrealistic. Mr.Davis can deduce all this by looking at this film? Even I am not so gullible as to believe most of what he says. Enhance this film enough and you will see Mr. Loren Coleman in the background, there he is behind that tree, no over there. Look hard enough and you can see the Otter. Where’s Waldo when ya need him?
bill green responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
these 2 new articles about the bluff creek p/g sasquatch filmfootage conterversay is very interesting but i have feeling i will see more opinions about it soon. thanks bill green
Ole Bub responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Good morning Cryptos…

An interesting read…

Native American folklore consistently refers to squatch as an “Ancient Peoples” or a primitive tribe. The wisdom of NA elders is simple and elegant…”leave them alone”.

Imagine a life time of heartache, the controversy, guilt, misery and legal liability, of baggin a “voucher specimen” would bring. I suspect Bob Gimlin could attest to that. There are no winners in this very sad commentary…JMHO

Though we have never met…Mr. Johnson and I have some common friends…those friends speak highly of him.

live and let live….

ole bub and the dawgs
cmgrace responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
I have to agree the theory that there was a Bigfoot massacre seems ridiculous, especially with such little evidence. Whether or not BF is more human than ape I cannot say. But it seems the more “analyzing” they do to the film footage the more outlandish the findings become.
khiatt responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
This is completely ridiculous. I can’t even follow the logic which would lead Mr. Davis to develop such a theory. A possible herniated bulge in a thigh muscle must be an exit wound from A 30.06 rifle which means two cowboys shot and killed her family who attacked them a few days earlier and buried them in the sandbar along the creek???

Didn’t others return to the film site shortly afterwards? I recall no mention of blood found at the scene, let alone the disturbance and tire tracks a backhoe would make in that natural environment. If all of said evidence were covered up with a backhoe, then why did the large tracks in the sandbar remain?

By this logic, I could theorize that shortly before the film footage, the creature just stolen a brand new 1967 Mustang Shelby GT 350 from the showroom floor of the Ford dealership in Crescent City crashed it into the creek, ditched and was running away.

There’s no credibility left here. I’m done with this one.
Briar_rabitt responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
MK Davis is coming around to the Inescapable conclusion: Only Mr. Bob Gimlin and a qualified polygraph technician have the answers to the truth.Why would’nt Mr. Gimlin want to put the speculations to rest?
John A. Lutz responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
The Patterson Bluff Creek film has been one of speculation since it was originnally filmed. But the idea of that creature & others being shot or killed sound to me to be hogwash.

In 1980, Canadian Sasquatch researcher Rene Dahinden visited us in Baltimore & presented a private showing of the Patterson Film at Maryland State Police Headquarters for its top officials. Using high-tech procedures, each frame of the creature was carefully viewed by crime lab unit specialists. At NO time was blood or other body fluid evident or visible.

That showing fully convinced all present the Sasquatch/Bigfoot creature sightings were of a 100% real flesh & blood creature & NOT of a person walking around in a monkey suit.
Alivegarden responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
This reminds of the “Bugs” incident on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell a few years back. Evidently there are Bigfoot massacres dotting the landscpae, but conveniently, the killers are all gripped with the pians of conscience and decide to bury their kills fearing the wrath of the law. Nevermind that it absurde to assume you can be prosecuted for killing a creature that technically does not exist. As for Mr. Davis and this claim: I’ll wait for the proof, but I won’t hold my breath.
DWA responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
Well, I read it, all of it, knowing it would be a waste of my time.

Bin-go.

I have never seen such sheer trash dredged up from a single tiny clip of 40-year old film. Spurious film artifacts are one thing (the “bell,” the “topknot,” the “bullet wound”). The spurious mental artifacts they generate in certain minds are entirely another.

Neither Davis nor Johnsen have a shred of technical qualification in the only two subjects of interest here: hominology and primatology. (OK, and their related biological branches.)

I have more than once railed here about the silliness of “Photoshop experts.” Here it is, again, taken beyond its logical extreme.

Ridiculous.
gridbug responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Okay, IF this scenario is as Davis hypothesizes, wouldn’t Patty run like hell when Patterson and Gimlin showed up on the day the footage was taken? Especially if she was tending to the bodies of her murdered companions, I’d think the mere sight of the killers would either throw her into a blind rage, or send her running full tilt for safety, not just briskly loping toward the tree line.

Frankly, I’m more intrigued by the “injured bigfoot recovered by forest fire crew” story from a few years back.

The truth is out there. Now all we gots ta do is get it in here.
Craig York responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I have seen M.K. Davis speak twice, both times at
the Southern Crypto Conference and I remember
him mentioning ‘bullet wounds’ in one of his
presentations, so this latest ‘revelation’ isn’t
much of a leap beyond that.
I can’t speak for the man’s sincerity, but I came
away from the first lecture shaking my head, and by
the second, I was convinced there was no substance
to his assertions. He is seeing things in this film that
simply are not there, and is building a complete
fantasy on top of that.
If the 1980 viewing that Mr. Lutz mentions above
produced no reports of bullet holes, sticks, or braids,
if no-one else in the forty year history of this
peculiar piece of footage has seen this things,
why should we now believe Davis when he insists
these things are there?
Artist responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Forty years ago, fantasies like this would have been available only to a small group of enthusiasts and professionals having access to certain subscription newsletters and fringe magazines, and would have died aborning, due to their deservedly limited exposure and appeal.

I remember seeing the PG film only once on TV, after which it disappeared from the eyes of the general public…

…until now, that is.

Now, with the advent of the computer and the universally beckoning Internet, ANY disjointed, inane, crackpot tale, whether piggybacking on some tiny bit of tangible “evidence” or built entirely out of cryptoplasm (to coin a term!), can become a part of any mystery one chooses to infect, simply by posting its preposterous paragraphs onto any Site willing to accept them.

There they lie, quivering in lurid anticipation of some innocent reader’s decision to copy their provocative pronouncements onto yet another Site, from whence it proliferates like kudzu, interesting to observe but containing no actual useful value, and confusing the already cluttered environment.

Ah, Progress.
MattBille responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Davis may be completely sincere, but it’s breathtaking what a complex scenario he’s theorizing based on the film clip and non-evidence like Gimlin allegedly looking at the floor. It’s impossible for me to take this “massacre” scenario seriously even if you start from the assumption the filmed creature is real and not a suit.
Kimble responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I shot the Sasquatch, but I did not shoot the lone Patty.
I shot the Sasquatch, but I did not shoot the lone Patty.

All around the forums
MK’s sayin’ Gimlin shot off a round
He says Gilmin is guilty,
For the killin’ of Patty’s family
For the life of her family

But I say-ay-ay-ay

I shot the Sasquatch, but I swear it was in self-defese
I shot the Sasquatch, kill/no-kill it may be a capital offense

MK went to Gimlin in private
Johnsen thought he wasn’t out of town
When MK told Bob of the bloody puddle
Gimlin hung his head on down
His eyes were cast to the ground

I say-ay-ay

I shot the Sasquatch, but I did not shoot the lone Patty.
I shot the Sasquatch, but I did not shoot the lone Patty.
whiteriverfisherman responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I am not saying I buy this theory, but if anything even remotely close to that scenario happened it is indeed a gut wrenching and extremely sad thing to ponder. Not just for poor shot up Patty and the rest of her family, perhaps even young ones, but to be the one or ones that (in theory) shot and killed what they thought were apes. Apes that turned out to be something so many others have described as too human like to consider firing upon, a Sasquatch. The amount of guilt felt by those who did the theorized horrible deed would be horrific. This posting has made me wonder once again how many of these creatures have been killed out of ignorance and then covered up because of fears of prosecution.

Just a horrible thing to consider in my opinion and I really do hope this theory or any speculation from it is just that, a theory.
red_pill_junkie responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Patterson went to Bluff Creek in search of economic profit, that’s the whole reason behind the P-G film: the man wanted to shoot a film about Sasquatch, and he even managed to capture something he did not anticipate: the creature itself.

Now, if this guy had had the unique opportunity of being in posession of the Holy Grail of Bigfootry: a dead body—and not only one, but several as this hypothesis posits—don’t you think he would have attempted to profit from that? He would have turned to be one of the most famous persons in the whole world! A living legend that overturned all the scientific establishment and forced all history books to be re-written! Even if the creatures happened to be more human-like than ape-like, it wouldn’t have been the first time a man alleges man-slaughter on account of self-defense; any judge would have pardoned him.

At the very least he would have kept a lump of hair.

I also look at the P-G film itself, and I don’t perceive fear or any frantic movements from the creature; only caution and even a certain weariness, so it leaves the scene with determined movements, but certainly not in a haste. Because frankly, if that’s the top speed a Bigfoot can manage, then we should have captured one of these guys A LONG TIME AGO.

So, I’m skeptic of this scenario.
red_pill_junkie responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Kimble, LOL. You should record that
timbo1818 responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Wow. Why bury the bodies?

If as the theory states, they were attacked then it would be a clear case of self defense?

It would make no sense to bury the bodies if they had been attacked. It would make the discovery even more incredible/sensational had they been attacked.

Indeed a fairytale.
mythusmage responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Mr. Davis has never suffered a serious injury in his life. A month back I suffered a pair of minor injuries, both to my right foot. I had pain until just a few days ago. Mobility was substantially affected.

Patty is moving along right smartly in that film. Her muscle hernia is a long healed wound, and it doesn’t bother her. It also doesn’t look a damn thing like an exit wound. You’ve seen an exit wound, especially from a large caliber rifle shot, it don’t look like that. She had a muscle hernia, most likely from extreme exertion.

Davis’ unsupported speculation will end up as well regarded as another’s finding multiple sasquatches in the P/G Film, all cleverly hidden, where they were teleporting from tree to bush to fallen log.
SOCALcryptid responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Show me the evidence. Better yet show all of us cryptomundians the evidence that supports this theory. Again I ask, Show us the stills, film enhancements, etc. that backs up this theory. Until then how are we supposed to take any of this seriously.

Pony tail, Just talk, nothing to support this.
Bangs, Just talk, nothing to support this.
Baby sas, just talk, nothing to support this.
Big daddy sas behind a tree, just talk nothing to support this.
Now a shooting or shootings, once again just talk nothing to support this.

I would be worried about my creditability also if I had no proof to back up these claims. I did see something fall from Patty’s right hand in the enhancement above. In a earlier blog it was said to come from the left hand though. OOPS, another mistake.

Like DWA says, SHEESH
graybear responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Okay, I read the whole thing and now have only one question: When is M.K. going to digitize the Zapruder film and tell us all about what Lee Harvey Oswald did the day before he assassinated JFK?
john green responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
While all of this is complete nonsense, it is interesting as an example of how far from reality it is possible to get by treating a series of speculations as if they were facts.

John Green
Rangoon responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I think Mr. Green sums things up nicely!
wayne responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I just find the whole thing pretty weird, i mean you shoot at an animal and it runs away very fast it doesn’t hang around walking at a normal pace taking a look back.Or if as MK says it is human than i’m sure i wouldn’t react that way if my entire family had been slaughtered. I just can’t understand why anyone would want a story like this to circulate. It just gets me thinking that if this latest report is true, then i’m sorry but i’m beginnig to doubt some of MK’s other research as well and i find that a shame.
mrbf2006 responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I overheard a conversation at the Ohio Bigfoot Conference about the alleged massacre at Bluff Creek during the filming of “Patty,” (key word: alleged). Allegedly, a hunting party was there with Patterson and Gimlin taking potshots at “Patty” (again, allegedly), but I never heard names of any individuals who allegedly took those potshots. Some parties on other blogs alleged that the rumor is that Gimlin allegedly shot “Patty” in the leg twice, thus the “hernia.” The truth is, no one implied Gimlin in anything. For all we know (if this massacre story is true) Gimlin is an innocent party in this. If a massacre took place, then Gimlin is in a position to tell us what really happened, but this is only if the story is true. Unless someone comes forward and actually confirms this story, it is still speculation at this point and rumor and hearsay, and should be taken as such.
PhotoExpert responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I did read your post in it’s entirety Mr. Johnsen, as you had requested.

I appreciate your frankness and candor from your perspective when making your post here. But it appears your perspective is from the frame of reference of a theory based on extrapolations. I will be diplomatic in my response to your post as best as I am capable of doing. But your post has many flaws. I will point out some of them here for you to consider.

I have seen a few posts from people in the BF community that say that M. K. Davis is a “good guy”. I will give you that. Someone may be a good guy but it does not mean that they have made big mistakes. Those mistakes may be intentional or unintentional. It does not matter, good intentions do not always equal good results. Wouldn’t you agree?

I mean, you seemed to be upset that Davis met with Patterson and Gimlin unbeknownst to you and other individuals. You thought you were part of the team, correct? So was Davis and his meeting an intentional act? If so, that would sure be an argument for the ethics of Mr. Davis. It would mean he went behind your back and did not tell you. I would certainly call that an ethics breach. And you, yourself, said that you found yourself defending Davis initially. From the view of the BigFoot community, that puts you in his camp, at least initially. And then you thought you were working with him as part of a team. So that means to some degree, you were buying into his theories or you would have separated yourself from him or the theories. Am I correct?

In your post, you keep mentioning that the BF community were constantly berating or accusing you and Mr. Davis of having a money making agenda or profit in mind. The fact that you said Mr. Davis was disappointed in the sales of the DVD tells me that money was indeed at least an issue or factor for him personally. You stated that you were not in it for the money. I believe you on that account because of your explanation. I suspect Davis was motivated by money and hence the perpetuation of his theories. I do not believe this to be the case with you. However, I never really accused either of you two of being profiteers. Although I did speculate in former posts that there was an agenda by both of you in marketing the DVD and the theories being presented. But money was not the motivating factor or chief motivating factor in my opinion. People are driven by other things other than money. Power, recognition, or fame can be very strong motivating factors for people as well.

So although money may not have been the chief motivating factor for you and I never said it was, I believe that other factors could have taken a higher priority over financial gain or profiteering. And although Loren may know who I am and my client list, you do not, let’s just say I have been successful in the “image business”. Almost always, my photographers will opt for a photo credit over monetary compensation on certain photographic shoots. They take the photo credit in lieu of monetary compensation because of the fame, notoriety, recognition or perceived power that it brings to their name. So perhaps this is the driving factor behind Mr. Davis and possibly you. So I believe your defensive position when you state money was not a motivating factor. How can I put this diplomatically, I do not necessarily believe that other factors were not an influence. There I said itl

With that being said, one thing is for sure, and that is the PG Footage is what it is. What Davis has done in coming up with the shooting of BigFoot theory is exactly what he has done with PG Footage. He has taken some evidence, manipulated or changed it from it’s original state, and read into it more than was there. In the case of the film, he manipulated it to the point where “artifacts” were interpreted for a stick or braids, or caucasoid features. He has taken discolored water, interpreted a man looking down at the floor as a sign of complicity that BigFoot was shot. That would be an “artifact” in this theory. Are you kidding me? A guy looking at the ground and neither comfirming or denying the questions asked by Davis and Davis takes that as agreeing with his theory? You are kidding me! But the joke is on Davis and perhaps unfortunately on you now. Because when objective people evaluate this, just like his film interpretation, it is full of flaws. And uniquely, unlike some others posting here, I can say that with authority from the perspective of an expert. My testimony as a photographic and image expert has been used in courts of law. So this is not just a naive comment by an amature reader at the Cryptomundo site. This is a comment by a real expert refuting the other “so called experts” that were referred to in your post that gave any kind of credence to this blood in the water analysis. To do otherwise is not prudent and just subjective and ridiculous. It would not hold up in a court of law. It insults my intelligence as it insults the average layman here reading this nonsense. I take issue with that. Challenge me if you disagree, and I will try to explain years of study in optical physics as to why it most likely is anything else but BF blood.

I am making no negative assertions about the your character or the character of Mr. Davis. But I will put these so called theories to task.

The blood theory is just reaching for straws. I believe it was Confucius that said, “Even a drowning man will grab the edge of sword to save himself”. Another saying that might apply to your vantage point, even though it may have been unintentional involvement is: Oh what a tangle web we weave….

All of this is nothing more than pure conjecture. Not of it is scientific in basis. And that is where I have the problem. Blood? Come on! Were other alternatives REALLY considered? What about tannin leaking into the soil? You did mention artificial lubricants, so at least you considered that possibility. But other possibilities could be the diffraction of light through substances in the water and the water itself, giving off a “reddish color”. There could have been color degredation in the manipulation of the original. There are many possibilities that would hold more credence than BF blood in the water. This would be at the bottom of my logical list. And since it is, as a “thinking man” and “seeker of truth”, I would find this theory highly suspect and as having alterior motives. If not for money, then perhaps one of the other alternatives I previously mentioned. Which one?

The ethics of the situation you find yourself in is not anyone’s fault but your own. It may be that your culpability in this scenario is minor. Your only mistake may have been a judgement in error. You may have trusted someone more than you should have and in turn, bit off a bit more than you bargained for. But once you step in the mud, that is the easy part. The harder part is getting out of the mud. But if you go deeper into the mud as your path out of the mud, you may get stuck. It is harder to get out and you struggle with that as you try to free yourself from your unintentional mistake.

I give you credit though. It takes a big man to step up and say what really transpired. Although you did that, to the readers here at Cryptomundo, it still appears as if you are still being a bit defensive of Mr. Davis and I have to ask myself the question, WHY? Maybe it is because of loyalties you have to Davis. Maybe it is because you might also think the theory is possible. Or maybe you just agree with him and still have a hidden agenda in not seeking money but something other. If your post was an attempt to tell your side truthfully, I applaud you. But I have this gut feeling that you are not totally convinced of your own sincerity here. Objectively, you still seem a bit defensive. But maybe that is due to conditioning of having defended similar theories for so long and this is just residual behavior from that.

The one problem I do have is that Davis is implying that Gimlin may have agreed with his theory as some kind of factual data in announcing his theory. That I am not buying. Hmm, who do I believe? Mr. Davis or Mr. Gimlin? Well, Gimlin was there and Davis was not. Mr. Gimlin has proven himself to be a man of ethics. And keeping with my promise of being diplomatic, I will not comment on Mr. Davis and his ethics. But I will say, I would choose Bob Gimlin’s take on what happened over Mr. Davis’ take given the data at hand.

I believe this blood theory or shooting theory to be nothing but the type of conjecture that brings life to urban legends. My comic robotic theory of BF holds more credibility than this and the other theories of Mr. Davis. Maybe I’ll start my own new urban legend theory today. At the end of the PG Footage, we lose sight of the female BF and the video goes blank. I believe a UFO teleported the BF to a waiting mothership. Afterall, we no longer see the BF on film. And there were UFO sighting during that time in that area. And the film does go blank. If I said that to Bob Gimlin, he may still be looking at the ground as he did when Mr. Davis met with him. But he may be looking at the ground in total disbelief of this idiotic theory and say nothing. That does not mean he agreed with me. But Davis’ take in the same scenario would be that Gimlin agreed with him. So you see, this theory is just incredulous. Prove it! The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

Anyway, thanks for sharing and posting Mr. Johnsen. But this theory is just absurd. My justification in saying that is for the many reasons I listed above. And I hope you appreciate that I did it without name calling and did so using diplomacy. Your response in kind, is welcome!

DWA–I totally agree with your post in it’s entirety. Well said. And I would be there by your side taking issue with these so called PhotoShop Experts as well. Great post!

Kimble–Loved your take on the “I Shot the Sheriff” parody. Nice job!
AlbertaSasquatch responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Geez, a guy goes squatching/camping for a week and look at the stuff he misses. Wow this has been an exciting week in bigfootology. I think everyone is being a little hard on MK. His theory might be pipedreams but he has done some incredible work with that film. Really, only Patterson and Gimlin can tell us what really happened at Bluff creek and since one of them is gone that leaves one person. Mr. Gimlin.

So Mr. Gimlin, could you please address this new theory as it seems to accuse you of manslaughter? Tell us one last time that what you have said happened at bluff creek for the last forty years is really the truth. I know we have been saying that for forty years but please one more time. If all of the bigfoot/sasquatch community could see you look us all in the eye and tell us that MK is grabbing at straws and that the story you have been telling us for the past forty years is the truth, Patty was real, Heironimus wants to be famous, Chambers wasn’t good enough to make a costume like that, and now that no sasquatches were harmed in the making of this film I think all of this talk would die. Or maybe you could take a lie detector test and that should be plenty of proof for everyone including MK, or have you already? By the way Bob, did you see Patty’s braids or ponytail? Also John Green, you are one of my heroes. I’m glad to see you are keeping up on all this new hooplah. I don’t know, just my two cents.
DWA responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
EX-cellent.

So we all sit here with our fingers up our noses over, basically, nothing but a major attention grab, and what’s Kimble Marley-Clapton doing? Scoring the recording contract. I HATE when that happens.

MK Davis clearly has a lot of talent. Why is he misapplying it like this?

PhotoExpert: Thanks for your comment. You may be sure that if anybody alleges *moi* caused the exit wound on any alleged film, I will be faxing you and NOT MK.

SOCALcryptid: as to SHEESH, on this one make mine a double!
infoman responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Long time reader but infrequent poster.

First off thanks and kudos to Loren and Craig for helping to put a positive spin on crytpozoology, we need all the help we can get.

Second, thanks to Mr. Johnsen for his post. I think it clearly conveys a dizzyingly confusing situation fairly. Based on your posts on the subject to date I take you at your word sir that you are not ‘in it for the money’ and wish you well.

FWIW, I myself am firmly in the ‘not-human’ camp. I have not seen a Saquatch but I did find and record a short trackway of 15 inch prints in the mountains above Durango CO about five years ago with my family, and I had that wierd ‘being watched’ sensation, just minutes before we found the trackway.

The P-G film was my first introduction to Sasquatch, followed by MoMo, Legend of Boggy Creek, and a host of others like most. I have been a very amateur cryptozoologist since my childhood in the early 70’s.

‘Patty’ occupies a special place as being the best photographic evidence we have ’sort of’ publicly available.

I have always been impressed by M.K. Davis’ stabilization efforts, and feel they have been beneficial to our collective efforts to understand and observe what was captured and I think they have helped improve the value of the P-G film.

I was rather dismayed over the hubub and namecalling about the ‘digger’ indian thing.

With that said, I can understand, or at least sympathize with this recent theory and the rush to ‘beat’ what someone might consider a competitor - it stems from ‘paranoia’ which appears to be unfortunately well distributed and equally justified within cryptozoology.

I believe Dr. Meldrum to be a pretty stand up guy based on what I have seen of him in the public eye, he has taken more than a little heat for being professionally interested in Sasquatch, perhaps to his detriment as an instructor. I personally can’t see him not crediting anyone and everyone when and if he makes any announcement about this subject - but I can also understand where M.K. appears to be coming from.

What I find interesting in the new theory is that it sounds like too much new information to just be fabrication, and I think it has little, if anything to do with the film itself beyond perhaps initiating a new question about the circumstances of the film itself.

Although Roger Patterson has been dead for some time, his wife is still available, she and M.K. have developed it seems a pretty good relationship and it could be that she has shared something with him that Roger shared with her. Maybe not.

But how else do you get from one possibly injured individual to the death of perhaps several, and then a ‘cover-up’? Earlier comments from Scott Marlowe and Mr. Johnsen indicate there has been some development occurring for sometime at least insofar as the ‘new’ evidence from the slides - efforts they were involved in, in some capacity.

If it turns out that this new theory is based in fact and they were human or sub-human, I could see perhaps burying them and leaving forever, but not then the release of the film itself. As a result of the film, Bluff Creek has been thoroughly examined from shortly after the film to the present day (I hope to go there myself some day).

If you had killed some people or near-people would you release a film and identify the scene of the crime?

If they were not human or sub-human, and we are to believe Patterson’s goal was to make money from the event, then a body would make way more than the film ever did.

If Bob Gimlin maintains he did not shoot Patty that is good enough for me and the hernia seen in the film is incompatible as an exit wound for a large caliber rifle (entry perhaps?).

I have not met Mr. Gimlin but have seen him interviewed a number of times as well - his public persona is one of a steadfast and honorable guy. As the only surviving witness to the events that day we must place significant weight in what he says.

However the statement attributed to him, apparently by Davis, about ‘putting the gun down and talking to her’ admittedly adds a new spin in and of itself - but given the spotlight Mr. Gimlin has endured for 40 years now, I can surely understand a desire to have gotten more proof rather than providing cover.

In the end, it continues to not make sense.

Hieronymous (sp) can not produce the suit, we still don’t have better photographic evidence (but lots of YouTube hoaxes), the sightings database continues to grow, but we still don’t know what it was that was captured on that film 40 years ago.

I think the most unfortunate aspect of crytpozoology is that because many of us are amateurs, and many are driven by a deep desire to make sense of a personal experience, the normal professionalism afforded those of differing opinions is oft missing and we do seem also to garner more than a fair share of folks with personal issues, e.g., Carter Farm.

I for one would like to see this theory expounded on and backed up or disproved and left behind. Being that it is a theory we simply have to remember that Scientific Method allows for theories - theories are how we learn, by proving or disproving them.

Like most I suspect, I would like to see more from the original or 1st gen copies of the P-G film. And of course, I would like to know what was on the film, but my biggest hope is we can maintain a sense of decorum and basic respect and argue the details or elements of the theory, not the personalities involved.
cryptidsrus responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I’m coming late to this and my opinion doesn’t mean much, of course, but here it goes…

I’ll say what I said to Nick Redfern over at his Cryptozoology blog—I don’t know what to make of this. This is so weird it belongs in “Paranoia” magazine!!!

I’ll take his advice…wait and see.
Since this so weird and bizarre it may just be partially “true” or partially “false.” It may even have “elements” of truth. Let’s wait for more information to come out. “Let’s see how this playsa out” seems like the best course. I don’t know if Loren would agree to that but that is just my opinion.
Gimlin’s supposed response to the situation is very weird, though. He looked down at the floor? “Didn’t confirm nor deny?”
Somebody needs to contact Gimlin directly and get his side of the story.
I know he is considered an honorable man, but my motto is “trust but verify.”

Weirder things have happened in this world. Just because it sounds out there does not mean it is not outside the paradigm of believable reality.

I do agree that Davis needs to be questioned as to how he arrived at those conclusions from a few frames of films. We need more “proof.”

Again, I’m not saying I believe this, just that we need to “wait and see.”

Overall, this is is bizarre…

Just my two cents.
cryptidsrus responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
AlbertaSasquatch:

Good post. I agree Gimlin needs to do this directly. Let’s end this once and for all. Davis as well needs to be questioned directly.

Lie detectors? I would not rule it out.
I must say that if this is at least partially true, Davis must be given a genius grant for coming up with this from scant information. Darn.
jamesrav responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Beginning to devolve into a Jon-Erik Beckjord type situation. I think Mr. Davis has simply put in too much time into this, can’t ‘leave’ it, so must construct wilder and wilder scenarios to keep his own interest. I hope Mr. Johnson simply has mis-construed Mr. Davis’ opinions.
red_pill_junkie responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
M.K. Davis is in serious jeopardy of becoming the Richard Hoagland of Cryptozoology
bigbobo responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Many people will not accept the possibility that a north american primate still exists. I know they do, I have seen one! And I am studying some very interesting evidence in northern Ontario. I don’t have to debate if sasquatch is real, I believe my eyes. If they did kill them then it was a waste of life! We as researchers, could have had proof a long time ago. I think as was said before, that we are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
infoman responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

M.K.’s stabilization work has added to what we have to work with for sure.

What is being suggested now does not, to me, appaear to be able to be derived from any amount of the film we know.

The question in my mind is does this new theory come from information that Mrs. Patterson has shared with Davis - perhaps information Roger shared with her before he passed away? If not her, someone else?

It is unfortunate that paranoia, real or imagined, about being scooped by Dr. Meldrum or anyone would lead M.K. who has given us real value over the years, to put all that at risk with a hurried and unsupported (possibly unsupportable) theory.

Hopefully, M.K. is prepared to defend this latest theory and is able to understand the frustration being vented here.

I would hope that we can focus on the theory, not the personalities, and keep the discussion technical/logical and not personal. So many of us interested in this subject do so because of a personal experience it can be hard to remain grounded.

Is Patty an ape or relic human - I don’t know - my only experience is finding a short trackway of 15″ prints in Colorado in 2003 and having that eerie ‘being watched’ experience just before we found the trackway.

What I do know is that this latest theory needs to be evaluated as dispassionately and impersonally as possible - M.K. deserves that respect, but we deserve to have the info he has used to develop this. Does it come from a discussion with someone or is it pure speculation?

Sasquatch and cryptozoology in general is never going to be about money - it is about discovery. On that note I would like to commend John Johnsen for his original post, it was fair and I think in conjunction with his other posts paints him to be a stand up guy who is not in it for the money.

M.K., please help us to understand your theory by sharing how you got there.
Rob Swiatek responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
red_pill_junkie is onto something. Hoagland and company–including a physicist friend of mine–not only discerned a face and city on Mars, but conjured up the race that created them and its origin in another star system. I see the same overwrought mentality at work here, producing a Louis L’Amour novel from a few curves and shadows.
imandos responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Does anybody else find it odd that ” M.K. admits to finding a bone fragment in the creek, but left it there”. Do Cryptozoologists leave unknown bone fragments that they think belong to Cryptids where they find them often? This could explain why we have cryptids. Nobody keeps the evidence that they exist. Seriously, if for no other (and there are too many to count here) reasons, this makes me believe this is all B.S..

Best
cryptoreader responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
While I have never commented here before, I have been a long time reader of Cryptomundo. This incident that M.K. is alleging happened, that Patty’s family was massacred is intriguing. If this situation is true, then this is more than just a case for science and cryptozoology.

As Whiteriverfisherman says, this is murder, or manslaughter, at the least. Even though it has been so long since this is alleged to have happened, there should be a way of possibly varifying this from another angle. From a forensic point of view, there is the possibility of evidence left at the scene of the burial. There is a possibility that not all of the bodies, if they were to actually exist, would be decomposed completely, would they? This would actually be a homicide investigation if what M.K. alleges is true.

And while polygraphs not really admissable in court, they can be useful in helping narrow down or rule out subjects. I would think that from a forensic aspect, this could be cleared up more.

Also, if an animal has been shot at, that animal remembers it. I tend to doubt, as Wayne and others mention, that if Patty’s family had been shot at, that she would be walking away in such a calm mode. I would think she would be in a panic. Human or animal, if you see someone that has shot at you before, you are not likely to walk calmly away from them.
cryptoreader responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Oh, and by the way, Kimble, I love your version of “I shot the Sheriff”.
Gary the Cat responds: May 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I think these chaps are the Jim Garrisons of Bigfoot.
Can’t wait for Oliver Stone’s movie showing the cover-up went right the way up to the White House.
“Back and to the left, back and to the left”!
How on earth can someone come up with such a theory based on a 40 year old grainy jumpy bit of film?
Perhaps if you look closely you can see Nessie diving into the creek, and the UFO waiting in the woods to whisk Patty away?
Ceroill responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 am
One of the things that makes me rather suspicious of the gunshot idea is the fact that Patty just keeps walking. I’m sorry, I don’t care if you’re 8 feet tall. A 30 caliber rifle slug going through your thigh is going to have more of an effect on you than that. There would, at very least, be a vastly more obvious pause and limp. More likely Patty would be going down from the damage to that leg. Now I’m hardly a firearms or ballistics expert, but I believe I have that about right. Anyone able to correct me on this?
Tamarack responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 5:07 am
First of all I’d like to mention that Mr. Davis was careful to mention at the Ohio Conference that he is an “observer” and not a film analyst.

Second of all I’d like to mention that he also announced his “quitting” once again. (he has announced it several times before, one of those times being mentioned in Mr. Johnson’s message.

Apparently Mr. Davis is unaware of how damaging this kind of ludicrous speculation can be, and neither, apparently, does he care.

I’ve kept quiet about some of his past “discoveries” because they were rather benign, but not this one.

I was at the 2005 Bigfoot Symposium in Seattle where John Green was scheduled to speak but was unable to make it due to a flu. John did however do a telephone presentation and among many other things that he talked about he did mention that he felt that “things” were being seen in the Patterson/Gimlin film that simply were not there, that the film was being pushed beyond its limits and many in attendance nodded their heads in agreement, including me.

Several have made the plea that this whole thing be looked at on the basis of the “theory” and not the personalities, but to me when someone is being accused in this manner, that really isn’t possible.

I couldn’t help but notice that Mr. Davis stated to Mr. Johnson that he felt that he was being “used”. This strikes me as very odd since Mr. Davis has never come clean and made it clear just where and how he acquired the still pictures with which he constructed his “stabilization” which by the way isn’t a true stabilization. Credit was not given where credit was due, not to mention the issue of who owned the copyrights. No wonder he surrendered what ever he had earned from that whole deal, yet to make it look as if he was doing it out of concern? Hmmm.

I agree with Photo expert’s post, and I also go with Mr. Gimlin’s take on what happened that day AND the record of what Mr. Patterson said happened also. And for those who don’t know - No, Roger Patterson never recanted his story.
Roger Knights responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
John Johnsen was mistaken, I think, in saying that MK spoke in California earlier this year. I know he did speak on Saturday, March 29, at a meeting of the Western Bigfoot Society in Portland, OR. (It’s no longer called the IBS.)

One hypothesis that has just occurred to me to account for Patty’s lack of blood and flinching is that perhaps Patty was hit by an non-lethal shotgun round, such as rubber buckshot pellets, some of which may have missed the target. Non-lethal rounds are meant to deter and shoo away a potential attacker. These might have accounted for Patty’s stumble at the start, and her PO’d look back at RP (the one preceding the one on camera). At longer range, after the stumble, shotgun rounds lose velocity and wouldn’t necessarily cause a bulky creature to flinch.

These new transparency-images are about as good as the original. The original, Kodachrome II, was top quality, with over a million grains per square inch. Great detail can be extracted from such dense data. MK did a 1200 DPI scan, and even greater fidelity could be achieved with a higher-resolution scan.

I’m not interested overmuch in the two dramatic theories that these images may or may not support–the she’s-human theory and the massacre-at-Bluff-Creek theory. What I’m really impressed by are a couple of authenticating details that have emerged–things a hoaxer wouldn’t have included. (I don’t know if these are yet officially “on the table,” so I won’t mention them.)

I can’t say these absolutely prove that Patty is real, but they are the most dramatic pieces of pro-PGF evidence yet. In conjunction with John Green’s bent elbow/IMI observation, and with several other authenticating attributes, they make the PGF impossible to sweep aside as a hoax. (They outweigh the suspicious attributes skeptics have enumerated. Those are iffier and are susceptible in many cases to alternative explanations.) The PGF must be “taken seriously” now.

Even if MK has broken a lot of china, he’s also broken the case against Patty, IMO.

Stupefied-in-Darien
John L. Johnsen responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
My Reply to the Comments

First may I say that there have been many comments, some public via message boards, some via private email and by telephone that have been very positive, coming from as far away as Australia. By positive I mean they have expressed the sentiments that, even if the writers do not buy the theory of either Patty’s humanity or the violence at Bluff Creek, they have expressed gratitude for my having posted my story of involvement. In fact the greatest percentage of all the comments have been in the positive camp.

Then, there are those comments that seem to fall into categories, admittedly categorized by me, that need addressing on a one to one basis. As I do not pay for nor maintain this blog, I will list segments of the comments as I have grouped them and respond to them in general.

First category:
Some positive public responses:

From infoman
“What I do know is that this latest theory needs to be evaluated as dispassionately and impersonally as possible - M.K. deserves that respect, but we deserve to have the info he has used to develop this. Does it come from a discussion with someone or is it pure speculation?”

“I for one would like to see this theory expounded on and backed up or disproved and left behind. Being that it is a theory we simply have to remember that Scientific Method allows for theories - theories are how we learn, by proving or disproving them.”

From cryptidsrus
“Weirder things have happened in this world. Just because it sounds out there does not mean it is not outside the paradigm of believable reality.”

From whiteriverfisherman
“Just a horrible thing to consider in my opinion and I really do hope this theory or any speculation from it is just that, a theory.”

The above responses represent, in my opinion, an honest open minded look at the theory, realizing it is just a theory and take an non-prejudicial look at it as such. If I was ever to create a list of people to evaluate my work prior to final release, these folks would definitely be on the short version. Impartial, constructive criticism is a good thing. I have received a lot of criticism. Very little has been constructive, almost none of it has been impartial.

Second category:
These comments purport to tell us what Davis has done or felt:

From mythusmage:
“Mr. Davis has never suffered a serious injury in his life.” “Her muscle hernia is a long healed wound, and it doesn’t bother her.”

From photoexpert:
“What Davis has done in coming up with the shooting of BigFoot theory is exactly what he has done with PG Footage. He has taken some evidence, manipulated or changed it from it’s original state, and read into it more than was there. In the case of the film, he manipulated it to the point where “artifacts” were interpreted for a stick or braids, or caucasoid features.”

I simply challenge these posters to prove there statements. Neither of them, I wager, has even so much as passed Davis on the street, yet they tell us, with imagined authority, exactly what it was that Davis did. I have to point out two things here: first, mythusmage referred to Patty as “she”. Before Davis stabilized the images many prominent researchers declared her breasts to be a child being held the animal’s chest. Now, across the board, the footage is widely accepted as being of a female. This is due at least in part, to Davis’s work with the film. My second point is simply: any comments of the ilk submitted by photoexpert, summarily telling us what Davis has done and claiming to know what Davis was looking at, without the benefit of first hand, in person knowledge of the facts, displays traits that suggest he is less than what his chosen moniker implies.

Third category:
A seeker?

From SOCALcryptid:
“Show me the evidence…”

I truly do not know how to interpret this remark. It could have been sarcastic or serious. So, to give the benefit of doubt, I chose it to mean the poster was truly interested in the evidence.

Fourth category:

Simply rabid:

From Artist:
“Now, with the advent of the computer and the universally beckoning Internet, ANY disjointed, inane, crackpot tale, whether piggybacking on some tiny bit of tangible “evidence” or built entirely out of cryptoplasm (to coin a term!), can become a part of any mystery one chooses to infect, simply by posting its preposterous paragraphs onto any Site willing to accept them.
There they lie, quivering in lurid anticipation of some innocent reader’s decision to copy their provocative pronouncements onto yet another Site, from whence it proliferates like kudzu, interesting to observe but containing no actual useful value, and confusing the already cluttered environment.”

This comment was intended to do just one thing, in my opinion, belittle M.K. Davis, and probably myself. I feel that somewhere in time, a computer geek and a filmmaker ran off with this man’s (woman’s?) spouse…or daughters. Therapy, Artist, and de-caf.

Fifth category:
Evidence dismissed without viewing it, assessing qualifications that are not needed:

From DWA
“Well, I read it, all of it, knowing it would be a waste of my time. Bin-go.” “Neither Davis nor Johnsen have a shred of technical qualification in the only two subjects of interest here: hominology and primatology.”

From John Green
“While all of this is complete nonsense, it is interesting as an example of how far from reality it is possible to get by treating a series of speculations as if they were facts.”

From khiatt:
“There’s no credibility left here. I’m done with this one.”

From Size13
“After reading this, it is understood why people see the crypto world ridiculous, flights of fancy, unrealistic.”

From E-ton:
“We are now beginning to debate points that cannot be determined with any accuracy from the film and are backed up by absolutely no other evidence. And in my opinion border on the ridiculous.”

I consider the above comments totally meaningless. John Green, in my opinion, above all, should know better than to make such comments without the benefit of viewing the evidence. As to DWA’s comment concerning qualifications, there are no prerequisites to bigfoot research. Show me the governing boards list…there isn’t one. So, even DWA is free to make assessments. I am qualified in my field. Davis is qualified by sheer experience in what he does. I perhaps should have not included Size13’s comment as it was simply an opinion and not expounding on alleged motives or unsubstantiated claims of knowledge. However, E-ton’s comment, once again, goes down that rocky road…dangerously close to the edge by stating that, “We are now beginning to debate points that cannot be determined with any accuracy from the film and are backed up by absolutely no other evidence.” He should know, I guess, what evidence is available from the film. I am sure that Davis noticed him standing there, looking over his shoulder as he worked. In my opinion, E-ton’s comment is what borders on the ridiculous.

Sixth category:
“Back to the ‘80s”

From John A. Lutz
“In 1980, Canadian Sasquatch researcher Rene Dahinden visited us in Baltimore & presented a private showing of the Patterson Film at Maryland State Police Headquarters for its top officials. Using high-tech procedures, each frame of the creature was carefully viewed by crime lab unit specialists. At NO time was blood or other body fluid evident or visible.”

From Craig York
“If the 1980 viewing that Mr. Lutz mentions above produced no reports of bullet holes, sticks, or braids, if no-one else in the forty year history of this peculiar piece of footage has seen this things, why should we now believe Davis when he insists these things are there?”

The only way to address this is simply to say: a person born in 1980 has had more than ample time to grow up, serve his or her country, go to college and be practicing in his or her chosen field. 1980, people, was 28 years ago. To cling to evidence finalized by assessments taken in 1980 is kin to pouring money into a 1980 AMC Pacer, confident that it will still get you where you want to go. However, it will eventually have to be scrapped and a more modern mode of transportation adopted.

Now here are some of my comments on questions raised by those who responded:

“Why didn’t Patty run when she was allegedly shot?”:

I don’t know, neither does M.K. as we were not there. Maybe she was moving the best she could have under the circumstances.

“Why did M.K. leave the bone at the film site?”

You would have to ask him. I can only surmise that he either didn’t really want to know the truth about what the bone represented (he, like many of us finds this entire scenario disgusting) or, as is his habit, he left it there because it is against the law to remove artifacts from state or national land without a permit.

Use of a Polygraph:

I addressed this as well over on CZ. Here is what I think as quoted from that post:

In 2002, a panel from the National Academy of Sciences were charged with “conduct[ing] a scientific review of the research on polygraph examinations that pertains to their validity and reliability, in particular for personnel security screening.” The panel’s findings were compiled into the report, “The Polygraph and Lie Detection,” and presented to Congress and the Department of Energy. The panel found polygraph testing to be unscientific because it lacked fixed standards. After reviewing the available data and studies on polygraph testing, the panel concluded: “Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy.” Further, there was little hope for advancing polygraph testing. According to the panel’s findings: “The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.”

The above paragraph comes from this page: http://epic.org/privacy/polygraph/ and is found in the second paragraph under the heading Reliability of Polygraph Testing.

This is the reason that polygrahy is not now nor should it ever be admissible in court or in employment screening.

In closing I say thank you to all for your comments. I will leave you with just the very last of a post left here by Ole Bub:

“live and let live….”

John L. Johnsen
PhotoExpert responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Mr. Johnsen–I do thank you for responding to my post and the comments contained in that post. I had requested that you respond in kind, and although you were unable to do that for whatever reason, I do appreciate the response. Just go back and reread my post to see that I did request a response in kind. It is there in black and white and on the record. And although I did not get that, but did receive another defensive answer that was a deflection and avoidance of my questions, I will again make the same request for you to simply answer the simple questions I posed to you earlier. I believe you are capable of that. You seemed to answer everything else and even comment on declarative statements which by definition, are not questions. So why not just answer the questions? Your failure to do so apparently shows that I have struck a nerve in asking those questions. Prove me wrong, answer them if you can.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Let me be fair and objective and once again ask you to respond in kind. I noticed you did not answer any of my simple questions. Perhaps you thought they were rhetorical questions but they were not. They were simple questions which you clearly chose to avoid.

Avoidance, dismissal and deflection did not answer the simple questions I posed to you for clarification. Being defensive and then going on the offense is not going to deflect me from persuing my answers. Instead, you chose to answer comments I had posted. The comments you answered were not asked of you. Why go through all that trouble and pick around my questions and instead address simple declarative statements? Usually when people are ill equiped to answer a question posed to them, this is the path they will take. If we were in court, an attorney would tell you that he does not need your irrelevant testimony. The court would see that as an attempt at deflecting the questions at hand. This is what you have done. All I asked of you is to simply answer the questions I posed, do so as diplomatically as I posted my comments. A judge, in his or her fairness and objectivity would tell you to answer the question posed to you. I am simply asking the same both objectively and fairly.

I am going to answer any question you pose to me. I promise you that! I will do that objectively and fairly. However, I first ask that you stop avoiding the questions posed to you, answer them factually if you are able, and not deflect to other declarative comments made in my post.
Are we back on track now?

Once you find the energy to do that, then I will answer your questions. And I will also educate you in the process since your post makes it perfectly clear that you are not an image expert. Your own words and lack of knowledge when making certain statements, manifests that fact blatantly. I am an expert, and as such, I feel I have a duty to point out your mistatements and why they are wrong. I would not want Cryptomundo readers here taking your incorrect information as fact. So I will be happy to do that, once you answered the questions in my previous post.

Since you have made erroneous comments that certainly need to be corrected at the risk of leaving Cryptomundo readers here, misinformed, I have no other duty as an expert but to correct that misinformation with fact. I do that for every reader. I have even done that with Loren when a statement needs to be corrected. I am compelled to take you to task and give you and all readers here an overview of optical physics as it pertains to the photographic medium. To say that what you posted as fact would not be servicing our readers here. So will point out your erroneous statements.

But please, engage me civilly here, and in the very least, answer my questions. It won’t take long. And it appears you had enough time and energy to make comments on my post but had no time to answer a simple question or two. Attacking me personally, or deflecting questions by going on the offense against other readers here, does not change my focus. I assure you, I will keep my focus on the task at hand and engage you in meaningful dialoque. But communication is two way. I communicated to you questions and had none answered.

I know readers here easily saw that when reading your post. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say once again that perhaps it was unintentional on your part. But the more you deflect, the more you go on the offense without answering questions posed to you, the more I feel there is intentionality behind your motives. You are leaving me with little to doubt.

So answer those questions and I will educate you with a lesson in optical physics and image manipulation and consequent image degredation that you will be unable to refute. That is what experts do!

I await your answers to my questions. And thank you for your past resposne and future response.
John L. Johnsen responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I have made clear enough what my associations and involvement was. My qualifications are impeccable, but I do not have to call myself an expert by name or find it necessary to speak it in correspondence.
DWA responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
John L. Johnsen says:

“As to DWA’s comment concerning qualifications, there are no prerequisites to bigfoot research. Show me the governing boards list…there isn’t one.”

Sure. It’s just SCIENCE - charged with the proof here -that has requirements. If you want to research the sas, go ‘head, brother. But do your homework. You cannot make anything like an intelligent pronouncement upon what is in the P/G film without the prerequisites I specify.

PERIOD.

If you’re telling me that’s human based on reading tea leaves in 40-year-old film, I have more than enough qualifications to call you quite funny. If you are telling me about many sas getting SHOT based on what’s in that film, I have plenty of qualifications to call you, well, quite an interesting fellow.

Don’t tell me you know anywhere near as much as the qualified experts - in RELEVANT fields - that have looked at this film.

PERIOD.

The only people with opinions in this topic that I take seriously are those who have done their homework in relevant fields - anthropology; primatology; wildlife biology; zoology; and their ancillary fields of study. There is a reason for that. Film students tend not to do species confirmations.

He also says:

“To cling to evidence finalized by assessments taken in 1980 is kin to pouring money into a 1980 AMC Pacer, confident that it will still get you where you want to go. However, it will eventually have to be scrapped and a more modern mode of transportation adopted.”

Yeah. BUT YOU STILL NEED TO BE SIXTEEN TO DRIVE IT.

I’ll take the analyses done by qualifed people, regardless how long ago it was done, over fly-by-night theorizing done by water-muddiers with newfangled toys.

This is SILLY. STOP it.
john green responds: May 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I’m not going to waste time by dealing with mistaken assumptions and far-fetched speculations one by one, but just for an example, the place where a piece of construction equipment was borrowed to help get Bob’s truck up to the main road above the valley was nowhere near the film site.
John L. Johnsen responds: May 24th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Mr. Green,

As I said before, I feel that you, above all who post here, should want to contact M.K. Davis and ask him to share what he has. I am telling you sir, it is COMPELLING. To dismiss this, after all of the time you have spent actively seeking the truth, without contacting M.K. is certainly a missed opportunity. M.K. would very much like to speak with you, or at least confer via email. I am sure Loren would give you his address if you already don’t have it. If not, I give Loren permission to give you mine and I will in turn give you Davis’s. It seems that you might want to see what he has before dismissing it. SOMETHING happened there that doesn’t mesh with the stories to date. If there is more that you wish to share with M.K. to correct him then he would welcome it.

Respectfully,

John Johnsen
John L. Johnsen responds: May 24th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Again I say to all, there are no prerequisites for participation in this realm. It is an area which all of us can pool our talents and work towards a common goal. However, I have observed the exact opposite happening. There are many people gifted in disciplines that can and should work together. Yet we separate ourselves into what we call associations, groups, clearing houses, etcetera…all sounding very righteous, but we act more like gangs…belittling each other’s work and motives until there is no cooperation and our own bodies litter the battlefield.

If you wish to sit in a chair in front of a computer and expound your thoughts on the topic then please do so. But if you cannot or choose not to go into the field or otherwise participate in the great search, then do not argue points with those that do if you cannot realistically challenge their facts.

I was honest in every aspect of this matter and, as the saying goes: “no good deed goes unpunished.” I set out to practice my craft and got caught up in this mess and have been attacked voraciously and unjustly from all sides for my involvement and alleged motives. I don’t have ALL the answers, but neither does any one individual…including M.K. Davis. He offers a theory. Help him, dialog with him, learn from him or leave him alone.

Quit harrassing those who attempt to help.

This is my last post on this matter. I thank Loren for the “Bully Pulpit” wish him all the best.
john green responds: May 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I have never had any trouble communicating with MK. He would certainly benefit from discussing these drastic speculations with people who knew the area and the circumstances at the time the film was made, and if he wants to I am entirely open to doing that.

As to what he sees in the film, 40 years ago Rene Dahinden and I had the original in our possession and took part in a close examination of it with all the facilities of a processing laboratory and the assistance of the professionals there. Later I showed copies to experts at two institutions involved in the enhancement of space photos, and discussed what they could and could not do with it. As a result I am quite certain that its blurred frames do not contain anything approaching the degree of detail he believes he finds.

I presume that it is because my views on that pivotal question are so completely opposed to his that no regular communication between us has developed, although am certainly open to it. I have the same basic disagreement with Erik Beckjord, but we have engaged in a productive interchange for many years.
DWA responds: May 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
There is a reason this kind of stuff gets lumped in with Little Green Men and Auras and Fairies and other stuff that science laughs at.

Here it is. There are no tools available for science to confirm it. OK, ancillary reason. Scientists know that people theorizing are technically unequipped to theorize.

Cryptozoology isn’t taken seriously by most mainstream scientists because there is too much of this “YOU MUST BELIEVE ME!!!!!” stuff going on in crypto. Scientists don’t care about that. They only care about evidence they can follow up.

Where I keep smacking science with a wet noodle is that science has much searchable evidence, but chooses to ignore it. Tangents like this, however, are one good reason why; serious scientists can’t help but stay away, because it damages their credibility too much to step in. (And you notice you don’t see many of our real names. That’s because most of our loved ones, acquaintances and employers see the wackiness that attaches to this field. And we want to keep them, and our jobs.)

I can go with Mr. Johnsen’s assertion that “It is an area which all of us can pool our talents and work towards a common goal” and that “there are many people gifted in disciplines that can and should work together.” However, one reason he - and I - see “the opposite happening” is that the camps and groups and associations go off on tangents, and DON’T RESPECT EACH OTHER’S TALENTS, OR FINDINGS.

MK Davis shows a distinct ignorance of, or disdain for, I can’t tell which, all of the science that has gone into this quest so far. Science will not respect that, for sure.

And without the interest of science, proof of the sasquatch awaits the blindest of blind luck.

Anyone want to place bets on that happening?

RSR, people! Bet Davis and Johnsen haven’t done that. And the anecdotal evidence says: an animal that is much like the one in the film, and is, although disturbingly (to some) human-like, decidedly NOT human.

Go with what you know, and you’ll find your answers. The tangents need to stop.
jerrywayne responds: May 24th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The Good, Bad, and Ugly

The bad: It has been suggested that Davis has proposed “a theory” or is involved in “speculation”. Yet, his statements concerning the killing of a family of (human) sasquatch can not be considered “theory” because it has no evidential support. It is simply imaginative or made of fantasy. How can he infer such a thing? If he basis his statements on testimony (from Patty Patterson, or someone there at Bluff Creek when the film was shot), then he ought to name his source.

Did Patterson’s bigfoot receive a bullet? Well, if the big girl was indeed shot at twice, and received a wound in the leg, then it is no wonder Gimlin looked down in shame. He virtually missed what he was aiming at—-and at such a short range!

Did “Patty” behave like a person/animal that had just been shot? No. But then again, her brisk, but not necessarily hurried, stroll does not fit, one might guess, the behavior of a super elusive and reclusive ape, either.

Is it true that researchers thought “Patty” was carrying young sasquatch and it was the work of MK that convinced folks of her human female breasts? No. From the very beginning Patterson pointed to the breasts on his subject as evidence of its femininity.

The good: MK has opened up the discussion as to what it was Patterson captured on film. Over the years an orthodox view has developed, promoted by professional advocates, that Patterson’s image is of a relic ape. MK is taking us back to the original sasquatch, the sasquatch of Native American lore. Sasquatch is human.

The “sasquatch is human” school of thought has some advantages. First, the tracks and the feet that allegedly made them. The feet are too human like to be ape. Secondly, Patterson’s subject has human like female breasts.

If we are to take native tales to heart, as we are often admonished to do by professional cryptozoologists, then we will find sasquatch is of a tribe of large, hairy native American humans, with developed language.

(I often wonder why the scientist John Napier believed there are sasquatch, but cautioned that the creatures won’t be what they are cracked up to be. Could it be that he thought sasquatch will prove to be native Americans and not monster apes?)

Also, there is the school of thought that distinguishes between bigfoot and sasquatch. In this view, evidence for the sasquatch (giant, hairy humans) can be found in native accounts, the Roe testimony, and the Ruby Creek incident.
Bigfoot, on the other hand, is a California hoax from the 1950’s that capitalized on news stories of the newly minted “Abominable Snowman” of the Himalayas. In this view, Patterson’s film is a hoax, capturing “America’s Abominable Snowman”.

This view points out that Roe’s creature had no sagittal crest, no stooping posture, no great bulk, and no large butt as is found in Patterson’s subject. (Ironically, MK’s views seem to bring “Patty” back around to the sasquatch and contra bigfoot camp.)

The ugly: the nasty, testy comments thrown at those who do not accept the bigfoot orthodoxy, especially as it relates to Patterson’s film.
DWA responds: May 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
jerrywayne sez:

[first two paragraphs]: can’t argue with those.

“Did “Patty” behave like a person/animal that had just been shot? No. But then again, her brisk, but not necessarily hurried, stroll does not fit, one might guess, the behavior of a super elusive and reclusive ape, either.”

No it doesn’t. Neither does the frequent behavior of the bighorn sheep, another legendarily super-elusive and reclusive animal that has been known to approach humans as a dog might. That notwithstanding, this is another phony brickbat against Patterson-Gimlin, of the sort that might be expected from those who have not read the anecdotal evidence. An identical stride - and an identical leisurely departure, in many cases far more so - are behavioral trademarks of the sasquatch. This is an animal, the anecdotal evidence tells us, that is very familiar with human beings (many reports of sasquatch have them peering into house windows), but nonetheless very curious about us, and while it stays about as much out of sight as any wild animal might, doesn’t seem any more nonplussed about occasionally being caught out than any other wild animal might be in similar circumstances. Many sasquatch depart the scene in an extreme hurry bordering on panic. Many simply walk slowly away, turning back to view the viewer in the same way Patty does. Many not only aren’t timid, but put on very convincing displays of aggression, often “unprovoked,” which almost invariably result in the human, not the ape, departing in panic. Sounds like, well, my encounters with bears. In other words, as one would expect any big wild animal to behave.

“Over the years an orthodox view has developed, promoted by professional advocates, that Patterson’s image is of a relic ape.”

No, the orthodox view is that it’s a guy in a suit. The anecdotal evidence marks that one of the more peculiar “orthodox” views since the one that the earth was flat.

“MK is taking us back to the original sasquatch, the sasquatch of Native American lore. Sasquatch is human.”

Well, then, if we take the Indians’ word for it, here are some other humans: coyote, eagle, pocket gopher, bear, antelope, bighorn, and bison. And there are many more. The fact is that Native American lore treats the sasquatch no differently from the way it treats any animal science acknowledges.

“The “sasquatch is human” school of thought has some advantages. First, the tracks and the feet that allegedly made them. The feet are too human like to be ape. Secondly, Patterson’s subject has human like female breasts.”

By this precise logic: bats and insects have wings, so they are birds. I will never for life of me understand why our feet and breasts are such hallmarks of our humanity. They are pretty successful adaptations. That they weren’t copied elsewhere in nature would seem, well, weird to me, as if only one species of bird developed wings, and nothing else did. And the research that has been done into the sasquatch gait indicates its foot to be quite unlike ours.

“If we are to take native tales to heart, as we are often admonished to do by professional cryptozoologists, then we will find sasquatch is of a tribe of large, hairy native American humans, with developed language.”

Yes, and we are gods who came to this favored land on big white clouds. What cryptos are saying is what I say above: the Indians treat the sas in the same way they do animals we acknowledge.

“Also, there is the school of thought that distinguishes between bigfoot and sasquatch. In this view, evidence for the sasquatch (giant, hairy humans) can be found in native accounts, the Roe testimony, and the Ruby Creek incident. Bigfoot, on the other hand, is a California hoax from the 1950’s that capitalized on news stories of the newly minted “Abominable Snowman” of the Himalayas. In this view, Patterson’s film is a hoax, capturing “America’s Abominable Snowman”.

No serious - note I said “serious” - sas researcher makes any such distinction. Roe himself said that we need to get away from the idea that these are humans as we understand them. “Bigfoot” is just a name, and itself about as good as “sasquatch,” which itself is one of those innumerable charmingly incredible English manglings of a native word.

“This view points out that Roe’s creature had no sagittal crest, no stooping posture, no great bulk, and no large butt as is found in Patterson’s subject. (Ironically, MK’s views seem to bring “Patty” back around to the sasquatch and contra bigfoot camp.)”

Not sure what this says, and await a clarification.

“The ugly: the nasty, testy comments thrown at those who do not accept the bigfoot orthodoxy, especially as it relates to Patterson’s film.”

Um, no. Just the way anyone should be treated who slings outlandish theses, unbacked by evidence.

”

“
Tamarack responds: May 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Well apparently Mr. Johnsen still hasn’t and wont answer “Photo Expert”’s questions.

This would appear to me that Mr. Johnsen is guilty of doing precisely what he says we should not do. And I quote

“It is an area which all of us can pool our talents and work towards a common goal. However, I have observed the exact opposite happening. There are many people gifted in disciplines that can and should work together.”

If he is wanting ‘us’ to work together then why didn’t he simply answer PE’s questions?

Photo Expert - I sincerely hope that you inform us as to the fallacies in all of this. As a photography buff I look forward to your posts.

JerryWayne says “Gimlin looked down in shame. He virtually missed what he was aiming at—-and at such a short range!”

Sorry Jerry, no proof what-so-ever so this is also pure speculation. Once again I will accept the record of what Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin have said happened on that day over and above Davis’s assumptions. No shot were fired!

Much has been said about the “shock wave” that supposedly can be seen. While Davis says that there is a plethora of reasons that can explain these movements why does he insist on bringing things back around to what he wants others to believe?

This movement could also have happened if Patty were to have stepped on a small log or big stick or rock and her foot shifted to the side, I’ve done that myself many times while hiking, which also caused my head to bob.

I have spoken to some who were at his presentation that was done after the main presentation, and I must say that it appears to me that Mr. Davis has already consulted an attorney as to what he can and cannot say to others.

As to Mr. Davis’s appearance of ‘dedication’ and hours of driving, ect. ect. this all means little to me in the face of putting together a scenario that accuses others of murder, nay, massacre.

He has said once again that he is quitting, yet he is scheduled to speak in August in Calif. - Will he really quit?
coelacanth1938 responds: May 25th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I never thought that I’d be thinking if whether or not there’s a special place in Hell for people who kill Bigfoots.
jerrywayne responds: May 25th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Response,

Tamarack: My comment was facetious. How could anyone miss a target so large and so close, one shot too low, the other too high?

DWA: The difference between a cryptid and a known animal is, presumably, one of behavior. Is a bighorn sheep a cryptid? No. Why? Because you or I may find it in its natural habitat and verify its existence. On the other hand, you cannot have a sauntering bigfoot in broad daylight without a care in the world, or a sasquatch standing in a bean field at high noon, or an “American ape” approaching your car at night with an erection, etc. etc. etc. etc., and STILL have a creature that is formally UNKNOWN, one that can never seem to be pinned down and verified. If you want to retain belief in a “Great American Ape”, you’re going to have to tone down the alleged mountain of evidence (sightings and tracks) to more of a molehill, else the whole enterprise starts to look silly.

My comment about “professional[s]“, DWA, is in relation to “advocates”. By this, of course, I mean folks like the late Krantz or Meldrum.

Native American lore: DWA, the reports I have read suggest the sasquatch is of a tribe of “Indian” that uses a known native language. Not a shaman interpretation, rather, the sasquatch is a human human.

Roe and sasquatch: he said he could not shoot what he saw because he felt it might be an act of murder. Furthermore, he thought he might be looking at a specimen of sasquatch, the giant forest “Indians ” of lore.

I’m not sure, DWA, what you find “serious” in research and interpretation. Suffice it to suggest that there are other ideas out there beside the “Great American Ape” scenario. For instance, the Ruby Creek tracks as well as Roe’s description of his creature’s feet, are at odds with tracks found in California during the Crew incident and later at Bluff Creek. Are there two kinds of unknown animal out there, one mistaken for the other? Is one type really a human, the other some other kind of primate? Is one based on lore, the other a recently manufactured myth?
I’m willing to keep such options open, if you are.

DWA, we have had prior discussions concerning the differences between Roe’s (and his daughters) sketch, and Patterson’s subject. All I can say is that Roe’s animal had an upright posture, no sagittal crest, no huge bulk, and was virtually butt-less compared to Patterson’s subject. This suggests we should decouple the two accounts. They may not be of the same type of animal, if animal they both be.

Happy Memorial Day, amigo, and to all the rest here at Cryptomundo. Remember our veterans, and especially those who have given everything to serve our country.
PhotoExpert responds: May 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
LOL Yes, and I am laughing out loud. I knew my questions would not be answered by Mr. Johnsen. After asking, encouraging, and requesting an exchange of dialogue for the second time, Mr. Johnsen ignored my simple questions once again. Although it was noted by all that he was able to post three times after my second request. That is there for all to see in black and white. What we all won’t see is one single answer to my questions.

What is blatantly obvious to all and what Tamarack so eloquently pointed out, is that Mr. Johnsen refused to answer my simple questions. What is also blatantly obvious to all is that Mr. Johnsen had posted three times after my second request for dialogue but failed to answer my questions in any of his posts. He proved my point!!! Thank you Mr. Johnsen. He validated my posts in doing that. I’m still waiting! As an ethical expert, I engaged him civilly in an attempt to start a dialogue. Isn’t that what he wanted and why he posted initially? He requested that we all read his post in it’s entirety. We granted him that and did so respectfully. However, he did not grant us the same courtesy that we granted him. That is not a little one sided, that is a lot one sided. That shows a double standard. Or does it? As I stated before, there are always alterior motives for people doing what they do.

The point here is that everyone here honored Mr. Johnsen’s request. We read his initial post from beginning to end as he requested. But he would not and did not do the same for our requests. We honored his request but he did not honor ours, or at least mine. Then I posted and asked some questions. He failed to answer them. Instead, Johnsen got a bit defensive and then went on the offense by posting “comments” instead of answers that were posed to him in simple question form. I again posted and pointed out that his tactics of avoidance, diversion and deflection would leave little doubt of his motives. I encouraged him, no, I begged him to answer my simple questions posed in my first post and he could not do that. I even added a few “pleases” in that second request. I did so respectfully and civilly and was still giving him the benefit of the doubt. I was trying to remain objective, fair and balanced even though I saw where this dialogue was headed with his avoidance and offensive tactics used as a diversion to the questions at hand.

In my second post, I posted: “I know readers here easily saw that when reading your post. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say once again that perhaps it was unintentional on your part. But the more you deflect, the more you go on the offense without answering questions posed to you, the more I feel there is intentionality behind your motives. You are leaving me with little to doubt.”

Now there is no doubt for me and it appears there is no doubt for many other readers here at Cryptomundo as Tamarack and others have pointed out. By not answering my questions after multiple opportunities and three subsequent posts by Mr. Johnsen, his motives are crystal clear for me. I feel vindicated by Mr. Johnsen proving me right. There is no doubt when there is ample opportunity and requests, and the same tactics are used by him as a response. I did everything I could do to get him to answer my questions. But perhaps Mr. Johnsen knew it was a discussion or argument that he would be unable to win. Maybe he realized his limitations and did not want to engage a true expert in the field. Maybe he did not want to hear from a scientific point of view, why the theory would not hold water. Maybe I can’t fault him there for not answering my questions. If I knew my theory would be shot down readily with science and physics, I too would not want to engage an expert on the facts and look foolish. I would even avoid questioning and deflect those questions by diverting the discussion somewhere else. Which is exactly what Johnsen did. And did again and again and again with his subsequent posts. So perhaps Mr. Johnsen took the path of least resistance. Maybe that was just prudence on his part. If so, I understand. I might do the same thing myself if I faced a stronger adversary.

Since he is not going to answer my questions after ample time and opportunities, I am now going to move on. But I will do so first by responding to his erroneous comments which were actually an attempt at deflection and avoidance. I will take him up on his challenge even though he could not do the same for me. Mr. Johnsen, I told you I would put you to task. Unlike some, I keep my promises.

Mr. Johnsen stated in the post when he went on the attack of Cryptomundo readers, the following: “I simply challenge these posters to prove there statements. Neither of them, I wager, has even so much as passed Davis on the street, yet they tell us, with imagined authority, exactly what it was that Davis did.”

Well Mr. Johnsen, I am not going to do just that. I am going to prove my statement. You probably won’t like it because the truth can sometimes hurt. In this case, it is probably going to hurt you. But I do admire you for calling me and others out. One should challenge people on their merits. Unfortunately, in my case, you probably should have investigated a bit more before making erroneous comments that pertain to me or my screen name.

First of all Mr. Johnsen, you are right in that I probably have not passed Davis on the street. I will give you that. There could be several reasons for that. I am usually busy at my trade because my expert services are in demand. If I am not personally working in my field, I am busy managing my staff. Or I could be in court giving expert testimony. But one thing is sure, you will not find me “on the street”. So I probably have never passed Davis on the street as you suggested. And even if I had passed Davis on the street, I would not have recognized him. There are degrees of celebrity. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of me. People seem to know me by my real name, company name, numerous sightings on TV or they could recognize me by my voice from radio appearances. So although I might not recognize Davis, he may recognize me if he passed me on the street.

Secondly, my authority is not “imagined” , as you put it. It is real. It is not me that calls myself an “expert”, it is what numerous judges have referred to me and called me in courts of law. So it is the United States government which accurately calls me an expert! That is not imagined sir, it is a reality. If it is good enough for the government of the USA, then it should be good enough for someone like you. And since my appearances in court are a matter of public record, anyone could look up my name and see that my status as it pertains to photographic image analysis is “Expert” status. Proven! Enough said!

Which brings me to another comment which seems you just had to make. You wrote: “My second point is simply: any comments of the ilk submitted by photoexpert, summarily telling us what Davis has done and claiming to know what Davis was looking at, without the benefit of first hand, in person knowledge of the facts, displays traits that suggest he is less than what his chosen moniker implies.”

The beauty of the internet is that our “monikers” as you call it, or what I like to call “screen names” are there for a reason. It is a way to provide anonymity. It ensures security and safety. So I use the screen name which I received from a judge, my first time in court as an photographic imagining expert witness . When you can prove who you are Mr. Johnsen, it is therefore real and not imagined. Now try applying those same set of standards to your BF Massacre Theory. I can do that to back up what I say, can you? So there, I just proved it as you requested. I met your challenge with proof. You stand corrected as I told you I would do. I proved my statement to you. Would you care to take back your implication? Or would you want me to challenge you for the libelous comments and have you prove in court that I am not an expert but am just imagining it? I don’t think you want to go there sir. But if I wanted to, I could put you to task and have your implication refuted publicly in a court of law for everyone to see including the readers here at Cryptomundo. Do you stand corrected! I told you I would not back down or go away. I promised the readers here I would put you to task and I just did.

So it seems as if the “ilk” you are referring to is a group of true experts, then Mr. Johnsen, you may have this one right. If the “ilk” you refer to are the true experts, what does that do for massacre theory when we punch it full of holes and offer more feasible alternatives to that theory? If you want to group me, and DWA and Tamarack and other readers here at Cryptomundo in that “ilk”, I would be honored! They would be honored too. The only problem you would have is that if this “ilk” or experts are the true experts, what would that make you and Mr. Davis? So next time, maybe be a little more careful before you speak or post. It appears as if I have proven you wrong and my chosen moniker is at it applies and not as you “think”. It is PhotoExpert!

I don’t have to meet you Mr. Johnsen or Mr. Davis to evaluate your theories. The FDA does not have to watch drug trials in progress either. They simply need to review the studies or look at the data. I looked at you massacre theory and evaluated it as an expert. I made a decision. It is full of holes. End of conversation. And although a good story or a good story for promoting a book or DVD, there are many other scenarios that have a much higher probability of happening or had happened. Sometimes, the evidence is what it is. In the case of the PG Footage, it is what it is. My UFO theory has as much credence and probability as the Massacre theory proposed here. Perhaps, it is even more credible. I hope not because I made that theory for a bit of comic relief. Unfortunately, the theory you have proposed was not done for comic relief and therein lies the problem.

Tamarack–Now that I have put Mr. Johnsen and his absurd implications to task, I will come back and post on the photography information you requested. I just did not want to do it in this post as it might have deterred from my correcting of Mr. Johnsen on his untrue statements. But now that he stands corrected and is obviously never going to answer my original questions, I will move on and out of his negativity and onto the more positive things I am noted here for at Crytpmundo.
DWA responds: May 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
jerrywayne:

“On the other hand, you cannot have a sauntering bigfoot in broad daylight without a care in the world, or a sasquatch standing in a bean field at high noon, or an “American ape” approaching your car at night with an erection, etc. etc. etc. etc., and STILL have a creature that is formally UNKNOWN, one that can never seem to be pinned down and verified.”

Yes you can. Look! It’s happening!

As has been said before: until the sasquatch becomes something other than the individual experience of the witnesses, it will remain hallucinatory as that term is defined by Western culture. It will only become something other than hallucinatory (as defined by our cultuure, remember) when science follows up on the evidence, of which there is much. RSR! It’s a mountain, amigo; it’s more than any animal, other than the ones known since antiquity, has left before its confirmation. It’s consistent, in the way that ghost and fairy and UFO and little green man evidence isn’t. It’s descriptive of an animal, living its life, in a way that no evidence for any other cryptid is.

It’s the kind of thing that cries out for field investigation, not film worrying.

“Native American lore: DWA, the reports I have read suggest the sasquatch is of a tribe of “Indian” that uses a known native language. Not a shaman interpretation, rather, the sasquatch is a human human.”

Well, not so much. As I note, we’d have to conclude the same about Coyote. But we don’t.

“Roe and sasquatch: he said he could not shoot what he saw because he felt it might be an act of murder. Furthermore, he thought he might be looking at a specimen of sasquatch, the giant forest “Indians ” of lore.”

Roe’s not the first to feel that way. But he wasn’t a scientist; he was recording his impressions of what he saw, and they went beyond his simple description of what he saw. That happens; but most sasquatch witnesses don’t do it. I know. How can you? RSR!

“DWA, we have had prior discussions concerning the differences between Roe’s (and his daughters) sketch, and Patterson’s subject. All I can say is that Roe’s animal had an upright posture, no sagittal crest, no huge bulk, and was virtually butt-less compared to Patterson’s subject. This suggests we should decouple the two accounts. They may not be of the same type of animal, if animal they both be.”

And as I have said before, that’s a drawing, by someone with limited artistic skill. Patterson’s subject is a MOVIE of something alive (although what remains unknown). The two are different; but the descriptions not so different that I’m ready to decouple them, just yet.

More than one species, sure it could be! ‘Til science gets involved I’m afraid we won’t find out, though.

Happy Memorial Day!
Tamarack responds: May 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Reading through this fictional story of a massacre, I can’t help but notice that there is MUCH that is implied. I wondered about several of the things that have been said and how they were said, but it wasn’t until I started hearing some of the questions that many of the other readers and even people who were at the conference had, that I began to realize that others were simply believing the implications.

I think that it is irresponsible for these implications to be defended as if they were true.

I hope here to point out a few in the effort to help others to carefully examine what is being said.

To say “I have some new, never before seen still transparencies that were taken from the original film” and then to roll out the fictional story leads one to believe that these new pictures support that story. I have talked to several who were at the presentation and when I asked point blank “were these new pictures part of this fictional story” and each time the answer was “no”. Very misleading.

Some keep repeating “He never said that Mr. Gimlin was the one that did the shooting”. Yet again the statements made in the fictional story definitely lead one to believe this. However the statement above clearly says

“whoever was with Patterson that day” (the day of the filming) “was with him the day of the attack and opened fire on Patty, scaring her from the water and wounding her in the thigh as she fled”

Mr Gimlin is the only one who was with Roger Patterson the day of the filming. This speculation is completely contradictory to the statements made by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin as to what actually happened.

The conversation between MK and Mr. Gimlin as recounted is not specific as to what MK was telling Mr. Gimlin but is specific as to what Mr. Gimlin supposedly said and ends with “He never confirmed or denied anything Davis said, but sat with his head down, looking at the floor.” and the implication here is that Mr. Gimlin’s silence is an admission of guilt.

If I were in Mr. Gimlin’s position and I had just heard this extravagant, convoluted, fictional story of how I and my partner had been involved in some kind of massacre and that I must have shot Patty, I would also be speechless.

A much more believable scenario is one of Mr. Gimlin’s having developed a trust in yet another “investigator” who was, up until that point, assuring him that Patty was a real live flesh and blood sasquatch by his observations of the film. Who wouldn’t want verification of what they had seen and been stating?

Then to have such a wild and crazy story told to him with the accusations of being the shooter, to simply stand in silence and shake his head is completely understandable and not any kind of admission at all. It appears to me that Mr. Gimlin was simply stunned. Trust completely broken and violated.

To say that “He never confirmed or denied anything” is another implication. Are you seeing a pattern here? I certainly do.

For MK to make the statement “we killed their ape so we were now on the s__t list.” is another jumping to a false conclusion.

Apparently he doesn’t realize that the traditional Native American beliefs surrounding Sasquatch is that they are indeed another “tribe” of people and not in the same manner as the animals.

Apparently he doesn’t realize that there are many researchers who lean more towards the idea that Sasquatch is more like a human (I didn’t say is a human) than an ape. A point on which many simply agree to disagree without believing that either side is forming a s__t list.

Like I said, these are only a few of the implications that I see. I hope that the readers will also be able to see the many other implications and false conclusions throughout this fictional story.
rbhess responds: May 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I never thought I would agree with DWA on anything, but in fact I agree *entirely* with DWA on this (well, almost entirely). And by the way, it’s an honor to be on the same thread where John Green has made comments.

I think this kind of wild speculation should drive everyone even more to realize that it’s time to lay off the Patterson film–ignore it, pretend it doesn’t exist–and get on with finding evidence. It’s 40 years later and we still aren’t one step closer to concretely establishing whether the film is genuine or a hoax. And god knows it could be another 40 years before we have the answer–if we ever get it. All this does is turn the focus onto the film, not onto Bigfoot. And as a result, we get endless speculations like this, growing more and more wild, and endless “enhancements” of the film that purport to show more than was probably ever really there.

It’s understandable why the Bigfoot community is so obsessed with this film. It’s the one really great visual treatment of the animal that we have. For that reason alone it would be compelling, but even as a piece of film work (whether real or fictitious) it’s even more compelling. As I’ve said many times, if Patterson did fake the film, he did a brilliant job and deserves to be remembered in history as quite probably the greatest hoaxer ever. And he missed his calling as a showman and possibly even a cinematographer.

But endless analyses of this film, over the years, have led things nowhere, really.

Meanwhile, good (though still inconclusive) evidence (hair samples, Skookum cast, footprint casts, etc.) is out there, and - if the animal is real, more is to be found… but it seems as though the focus as ever goes twisting back to Patterson. I sometimes wonder how much money and time has been spent on all these re-evaluations of the film (for all I know, very little money, but perhaps it’s been a great deal, too) which could have been better spent elsewhere, in finding something new and equally compelling.

This latest stuff is the worst kind of baseless speculation - gigantically implausible in every sense (bigfoot massacres) and dependent, also, on a fairly bizarre underpinning—namely, that when Patterson and Gimlin saw their Bigfoot victims up close, they appeared so human that they went to a huge amount of trouble to bury them, rather than present the bodies to science, which would have earned them a place in history. And yet—for all its blurriness and so forth, it’s hard to believe that the being seen in the Patterson film could look *that* human on close approach–unless one were to take off the mask and see the man underneath. Of course, this is just as subjective a statement as finding “baby sasquatches” in the film and whatnot…. but nevertheless, it seems to ask us to allow a stretch in credulity which would bring it far past the breaking point.
Loren Coleman responds: June 15th, 2008 at 7:53 am
See the latest on this by clicking on “Bigfoot Massacre Theorist Banned From Museum.”
Jeremy_Wells responds: June 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Just my quick two-cents…
The so-called “digging stick” (whether or not it is actually present) is not in and of itself evidence that Patty was human or influenced by an advanced culture of peers as Johnsen asserts (unless one would consider chimpanzees, for instance, an advanced culture). Have our so-called researchers never seen the footage of chimpanzees hunting bush-babies in tree hollows with sharpened sticks? Or those images of apes using sticks to gauge water depth while crossing streams?
Advanced? Yes. Evidence of humanity? Not necessarily.
Folks might want to consider even these basic arguments before they go asserting that the one living participant might be involved in the cover up of some type of murder.
Especially considering the obvious size of the subject (if she were a human with a rare genetic condition that caused hair growth, she was still of Amazonian proportions) and the sagital crest (whether real or the result of head binding) I think that, at the time period, if critters had been killed, they wouldn’t have been buried with a backhoe. They’d have been dragged out of the woods (even if some cover story such as “we found them shot” or “it was self defense” were used) and then science would have confirmed that they were some rare inbred human group, like the Blue Fugates.
The only scenario where I can see anyone panicking is if they walked up to a naked, hair covered body and saw a wrist watch and heard the guy go “I’m Steve, I have a rare condition that makes me hairy all-over and clothing uncomfortable, please help,” before he died. Of course, that is pure conjecture that I pulled right out of my imagination. Not something that I would have the audacity to call a theory based on paltry, insubstantial evidence.
If Johnsen, Davis, and Marlowe are vilified in any way for the grief they are causing the Patterson family and Bob Gimlin, it’s their own inability to separate their flights of fantasy and conjecture from verifiable fact (downright shoddy science that I wouldn’t have expected from Marlowe a couple years back) that is the cause.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

66 Responses to “Bigfoot Massacre: The Theory”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training