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.

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.

“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!

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.

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.

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?

[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.

”

“