There are other interesting points about the subject and the surroundings that Davis presented. It is an excellent talk and if you haven’t seen it, you have no accurate basis to judge it. Roger Knights was at the same talk I attended so I submit that Roger’s assesments of the infromation presented are more accurate than most. Hopefully Marlon Davis will publish an monograph so more people can get an informed view of his data and conclusions. Davis is a very skilled technician and his conclusiona are fairly sound.
A final note:
Here in the greater Portland area there is a lot of sasquatch activity in the surrounding forests. The patterns that emerge from analysis of dozens if not hundreds of unpublished accounts does, in my view, strongly support the view that at least some of these creatures are intelligent enough to qualify as human, i.e. vestigal Indians. With this body of locally available information in mind, MK Davis’ assertions are really nothing shocking. If anything, his assertions validate something that has been argued by others for a long time: that at least some of these creatures are some form of human.
Yet, the ‘ape’ paradigm still holds sway elsewhere on the continent and indeed some of these being may indeed be ape, but they probably are not all apes and I think Davis compellingly shows that the one in the PGF is not the ape that Dahinden argued, but the rather intelligent creature that Ivan Sanderson asserts. So, we’re back to the old Danhinden vs. Sanderson debate about the true nature of these creatures. Perhaps they are both correct: The bigfoot phenomenon represents multiple taxonomic grouping, as Colemen has long argued.
Best to all,
Thom Powell

Comment about the topic of the blog, only.

No flaming, no personal notes to each other, no name calling, no bios, no weblinks that have nothing to do with the subject of the blog, please.

Talk about theory or style of writing or presentation components, folks, but please do not flame people, specifically being nasty about the personality of M. K. Davis or the height of Roger Patterson or the intellect of Greg Long, for example.

Comments off-topic or inappropriate will disappear.

Why is this note even necessary?

Two other questions: One for greenmartian 2007 even though he says he will not be posting to this thread again, what still in Chris Murphys “Meet the Sasquatch” are you referring to and why does it “prove” it is not of a real Sasquatch? Do we know what a Sasquatch buttocks looks like? And for Matt Bille, I agree, has there been confirmation of Sasquatch being human, not ape and how do we know the “neither/nor” theory does not apply here? It may be neither ape nor human, but somewhere in between, a separate species branching off at a seperate time. Why does it HAVE to be human or ape?

If this film had been one man attacking another and committing a crime it would have been sufficient enough to convict the subject. Bank robbers and convenience store robbers have been convicted on less clear pictures. Of course sometimes these are linked with eye witnesses, but the Patterson/Gimlin film also has eye witness testimony. But once again the skeptics and critics have refined their arguments as to why eye witness testimony in this situation is not reliable.

After all of this, it is simply too bad that those who believe that they have found some kind of proof of the existence of Bigfoot don’t get all of their ducks in a row before making any kind of announcement whatsoever.

Now what has happened to the “large frame” copies of the original film that show much greater detail? Are they now lost forever in some kind of custody or copyright battle?

I, too, do not see a ponytail.

Davis is a great guy, but he “doth protest too much, methinks.”

Still good to see back-and-forth discussion.

“Like I said in another thread, the one still out of Christopher Murphy’s book of 2006 puts proof the film is not of a real Sasquatch. One still, one lack of buttocks conformation with the upper back leg. And there you have it.”

The butt-blockiness visible in frame 339 is due to Patty’s huge left hand emerging just a little bit from behind the torso on its swing back. In frame 340 it swings further back and the blockiness increases, but it becomes obvious that it is the hand that is the cause.

(I captured frame 340–and subsequent frames–off BFF when it was posted briefly there. It’s from the Rick Noll digitization. I don’t know where else this frame might be available. Maybe Rick would post it.)

In subsequent frames the hand pauses in its backswing and then swings forward, and by frame 344 things are back to normal.

1. Marlon’s hypothesis/theory is just that. He believes he sees something in his enhancements which we may not see. Since he has the technical background to support what he does I won’t argue the point with him. He sees it and I may not. No biggie.

2. The prior writers agreed with me that only a body or a DNA finding will get the species officially listed in the taxonomical charts. Photography can be useful to help convince the skeptics that the species exists but won’t stand alone as total evidence.

3. Given the current DNA evidence and repeated findings of “primate in origin but species unknown” there’s a far greater chance of Marlon being right or at the least partially right than of being wrong.

I’ll wait for the evidence and continue our research in the Sierras. In the meantime I’ll give Marlon far more leeway without criticism than I will Dr Krantz’s “fringe elements”. My best to all,

Larry Lesh

I have worked with film–both the 35 mm kind, the land camera kind and with the motion picture kind (both super 8, and 16 mm) as part of the work involved in industrial engineering and chemical analysis.

I am going to say this. The moment ANYONE sets up a camera–whether still or motion picture–you are already “altering reality.” Period. The moment you look through the viewfinder you are “altering reality.” And bear in mind that the field of view of a camera is not the same as the field of view of a human being, standing there gawking.

Also, where one plants oneself in an environment to view something also “alters reality.” If one views a creature walking in front of them (as in the medium shot of the P/G film), that view will not produce the same information transmit as someone viewing the same animal from behind, or directly in front, or from above (as in a tree stand), or from 300 yards away, or from 2 feet away. Or if holding its hand as it walks.

This is as plain as I can make this.

So this claptrap about film not altering reality. Sorry, it does. Most of the time, this “altering” doesn’t have much of an impact on the results one wants. But there are times when it has significant impact–like in forensics, for example. Or even wedding picture snaps. Or industrial process photography. And the list can go on and on.

The grouping that says that the P/G film is “real” (as in, it is a filmed depiction of an authentic Sasquatch sighting) better step up to the plate and use definitions that aren’t distorted to suit their purposes. It not only distorts any discussion, it also set back any research. There has to be common agreed-to procedures and definitions.

Like I said in another thread, the one still out of Christopher Murphy’s book of 2006 puts proof the film is not of a real Sasquatch. One still, one lack of buttocks conformation with the upper back leg. And there you have it.

I will not make further comment in this thread. I consider it an affront to scientific method to keep seeing this kind of BS.

You want to prove that Sasquatch exists? Then go out and look for one. Track one down. Stop attempting to prove it with a film clip that is of great questionable veracity (not in who filmed it, but in what it has filmed).

The creatures I have no doubt exist. But you have to go look for it. There are also other videotape (say the one from 1994 at the end of “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”) that is of greater import.

You can take exception to the views above, but that doesn’t change their validity.

Davis may be a prince of a guy; I don’t know him. But when we start talking about digging sticks and ponytails and Homo-ness that haven’t been seen in this film in 40 years (and I got an issue with suddenly seeing “Homo” in a film; you can’t prove that and really have no business saying that), some of *us* need to start taking exception. When you say “Film is NOT an manipulative medium…it is a truthful medium that can, in some instances, be manipulated,” well, there’s really no substantive difference between the two if the film got manipulated, is there?

Davis may indeed be “brilliant.” And in stabilizing the film, he’s made it more accessible, and this can only be to the good. But some of his “revelations” seem to be tossing caution to the wind. It does indeed sound like the kind of stuff that keeps serious science away from the sasquatch. And unless you don’t want it confirmed - and I admit it might be at best a mixed blessing for an animal that may suffer from the attention - this isn’t helping your cause. It’s sure not helping the cause of research.

I have long said that the skeptical shibboleth that this thing is all blurry and you can’t make heads or tails out of it is a crock. Davis may be a substantial reason why I think that; his stabilization doesn’t appear to have added anything but stability while taking nothing away. ‘Course that’s just my amateur’s view. But it is NOT so crystal clear that the stuff Davis is “seeing” in it should be the kind of stuff that would jump out, for the first time, after 40 years. “Ponytail” sounds too much like the alleged “zipper” to me.

And I think it may be because it is.

Jayman, you are correct!