When you explain something - anything - here, I for one will be listening.

But you don’t seem to be able to do that. If you changed your handle to Captain Potshot, it might be more spot on.

I explained myself above, quite well, but you missed it so badly I don’t feel the need to point you to exactly where I said it.

Hoping you smarten up.

That so misses the point that it doesn’t deserve to be explained to DWA.

Two words, PEER REVIEW. The ones who have proposed this theory now have done so without making their data readily available for analysis by other parties. Usually, the way real science works is that this sort of theory will be announced along with tangible evidence to support it upon which it will be open for review by others within the field. Evidence FIRST, THEN publication. By the time the theory is put forward, it has already been well researched and has evidence to back it up that can be put under scrutiny by others. The opposite of this is what it seems is happening here; proposing the idea first , then either being unwilling or unable to provide adequate peer review of the data used to come to the conclusion (and I mean real, objective data). If every neat idea that scientists have was expected to be given real consideration and weight without the evidence to back it up, it would take forever to learn anything new.

So absolutely Davis needs to share his evidence with other researchers, and make it available for peer scrutiny. If not, this whole theory cannot pretend to be a viable proposition and should not present itself as the truth, or pretend to be something to be given real scientific weight when scientific protocols are not being followed. Until such peer review is put into effect, I think we have really no choice but to treat this as a flight of fancy, pure speculation. I say, don’t tell us this is how it happened. SHOW US.

On Occam’s razor and the P/G film: we know in fact there are hoaxes and hoaxers. We do not know for a fact, bigfoot exist. Hence, Occam’s razor suggests a hoax shave. (Advocates offer hyperbole when addressing how authentic the P/G subject looks; closed minded skeptics say it’s “obviously” fake. Must be in the eye of the beholders.)

In an earlier article, Davis (or someone in his behalf) stated that Patty Patterson possessed
some very clear stills from the original film. Accordingly, these stills were revelatory as to the Native American identity of the P/G subject
(and, presumably as well, a gun assault on the subject). So, posters who claim not to see what Davis claims to see are not addressing the real issue. Obviously, it is Davis’s responsibility to share his evidence with serious researchers like Meldrum and our kind host, or sit down.

A salient issue popping up here concerns the time frame involved in the processing of the original P/G film. This has troubled researchers from the beginning. This troubling fact suggests that Patterson and Gimlin were not entirely accurate in the telling of their story. And if they were not telling fact about this part of the story, then maybe other parts of their story are suspect as well.

John L. Johnson’s first post above offers a curious admission. He says that he and Davis and now Beelart, “sense” that something is amiss with the conventional P/G narrative. This is extremely curious because one cannot simply “sense” the contrary narrative that they put forth. Their narrative is pure fiction and imaginary unless they have some testimony or real evidence in support of it. To date, they have offered nothing but scenario.

What I meant was: for a posited solution to be considered the simplest, you have to be able to get there without positing plurality (i.e., making stuff up, such as is being done with the Patty Massacre Theory right here right now).

To say that Patty was what Patterson and Gimlin say it was doesn’t require making stuff up. If you have seen enough humans and enough ape suits, you know that does not look like either. Expert analysis has come to the same conclusion. There is no reason - contrary to what seems popular belief - that this critter, if such it be, is implausible. The film could simply show the critter (and much other evidence seems to say that it does).

To say that’s a man in a suit you have to posit much that simply isn’t there: how a human could get into that suit and look that natural; how that human could have gotten to that site; how that human would have had to be dealt with in order to provide such a convincing appearance; how the tracks, equipment and other evidence of all the people required to do that dealing could have gotten there and then vanished with no one knowing about it other than the perpetrators; and on and on.

When 40 years have not only not yielded evidence of a fake but haven’t even provided anywhere close to a plausible scenario how it could have been done - well, do you have anything anywhere near what Occam would call a simple solution? You don’t.

Hey, um, that’s an ape?

Now we are talking simple. And backed by lots of other evidence pointing right back to: yes, it seems to be.

“Even now, when we watch motion pictures and TV shows from the 1960s and even the early 1970s, the special effects are incredibly bad, even an embarrassment, when we realize that back then, many of those movies and shows with special effects, costumes, etc, were considered to be convincing. However, as time passed, and better technology and film methods evolved and became better, we were able to see those movies and shows in a different light and their effects are now very much dated.

The P-G film has very much stood the test of time. It looks the same now as it did 40 years ago; its degree of realism has not gotten worse with time (as the Planet of the Apes and other shows of the time have). The subject in the film looks much more realistic than Chewbacca or the apes in the movie Congo (who all have very noticeable and obvious extensions to their arms, unlike the P-G film subject). ”

I’m glad that you mentioned that. While watching a “Making of” show pertaining to a movie that I don’t remember the name of right now, one of the special effects people said something like “what is cutting edge today looks corny tomorrow”. I also think that even looking at the lesser quality net versions of the Patterson/Gimlin film, or the times that it has been used in several T.V. shows it doesn’t fall into the corny catagory for me.

I have not intended to diverge from the posted article. It has simply been apparent to me that much of the “Bluff Creek Speculations” post are built, as I alluded to before, on other people’s speculations, not on verifiable facts. Some of the speculations are presented in such a way as to appear to be true up and down this rickety ladder. In actuality it would take a great deal more research and documentation than has been done. Sources have been cited who to me are not of an authoritative level, let alone credible, yet they have been taken to be such.

Great analysis!!!