Points taken, except for one it sounds as if was being made (so let me check).

In the robbery example, things happened bangbang, people had a deep need to justify their behavior in terms of the life-threatening nature of the experience, and the gloss-over of the manager’s behavior is just what a psychologist would expect from her.

In the case of sas sightings (which it sounded to me are being directly compared to this incident):

1) There are way way WAY too many of them to ascribe the above to even a significant minority of them;
2) Many had the opportunity for long observations, totally NON-bangbang, unthreatened by the animal, which gave them a very good opp to form an opinion shared across the spectrum of encounters - including a lot of bangbang ones;
3) Many witnesses, MOST in fact, have NOTHING to gain from their sighting, and in the main are reluctant to even say anything at all.

I could go on.

But if the psychologist that the skeptics keep calling for were put on this case, as a witness for their cause, I have a funny feeling they’d be very gravely disappointed.

“Sorry. But these people are seeing what they say they did. Every professional bone in my body says so.”

OK, so MK reminds me of me.
It’s just that - in the same way that preconceptions flavored scientists’ perceptions of Patty - what I’ve seen of Davis’s opinions wrinkles my nose here.

But I always have felt -as you do - that our tendency to expect perfection in order to assert goodness is poisonous. I won’t say one negative thing about what he’s done for the Patty footage per se, that’s for sure. Looking at the stabilized footage is all one needs to do there.

So, point made. I just want to hear what THIS one’s gonna be.

Open mind. All ears. As any good skeptic should be.

Actually, these were taken from the original shortly after the filming, and are better, imo, than the cibachromes (made in 1981).

What I meant by “right angles” is that the mind-blowing stuff he’s got doesn’t have anything to do with MK’s idea that Patty is some sort of human. (Well, it’s sort of related, but pretty tangential.) There’s really wild new stuff. The wildest ever, by far.

It does seem to me, as it does to many ‘footers, that MK has an unfortunate tendency to go well beyond the evidence in forming his conclusions, and that he can be annoyingly headstrong. But a lot of great men have this a-social I’m-right characteristic. From talking to him, I find this is made tolerable by his generosity of spirit, enthusiasm, and desire to find answers.

And his skill and dedication. It takes a great deal of time and technique to create some of the stabilizations and animations he’s created, and to notice the little details that are worthy of such attention. He’s really a standout there. So I think his critics should groan and bear it for the sake of his “finds,” and for his praiseworthy dedication to the quest, which may well bring in more discoveries, directly and indirectly.

“Take what you can use and let the rest go by.” –Ken Kesey

PS: I agree only with part of what he sees in this upcoming round, and some of that I’m not completely sure of. It’s going to take independent professional analysis to evaluate this stuff more confidently, because it’s so extreme. If I were in MK’s shoes, I’d have had such independent evaluations done first. (But who’d pay for them?)

Hopefully this controversy will have the effect of unearthing the original film and getting a neutral team of photo-analysts on the case. (That’s what should have happened in 1967.) Even if they disagree with everything he contends, Davis’s claims will still be valuable for having provoked such an examination. It may be that nothing else would do the job.

i agree with you about the phototshop comment if you think you see somthing so filter it some more you can end up filtering somthing you thought you saw to BE what you thought it was- were all familiar with the term matrixing by now

as for the swipe ALL men get stuck on this thats why women are better for this …. this face says it all really -> -_-

eyewitness statements suffer the same problems as image matrixing the mind adds a bit here takes a bit away so it makes sense to that person in thier own unconcious mind

then retelling adds flurish to the tale turns it to what you wanted it to be

i worked in a store and there was an armed robbery 5 memebers of staff in the store

the manageress in the story would tell you she heroicially faced down the robbers after making sure all members of staff were safe in the office locked the door

3 of us will say she saw them and ran into the offfice straight away without saying a word

the cashier who ran past us when we all went to see what the commotion was and was first in the office will tell you the manageress tried to lock us all out as soon as she got through the door and it was the cashier that stopped her

5 people 5 slightly different tellings of the same event even with 4 of us saying she was the first to run she still believes that she didnt run and wasnt scared

witness statements are just as liable to a form of mental matrixing as video/photo evidence

caucasoid skin ….. as shown chimps can exibit very light skin but can almost be black too

as mentioned above there is a wide variation in in caucasoid humans too examin an average mediteranean complexion to that of skandanavia

as for the above new evidence etc guess we will wait a few days then pick it apart or agree wit it as we each see fit

although the stick/braid id heard before but not the baby bigfoot and ambush dad ……. maybe we cant see them because they are hiding

would be a terrible ambush if we could see him stood there with 1/2 a tree to give them a beating with lol

I’m assuming he means non-human apes?
This whole “ape v. man” debate is terribly dated I think, in terms of the semi-recent molecular evidence that puts us right there next to chimps. Where is he drawing the line?

Am I the only one who feels huckstered-to here?

Let me just say this: anything that comes from a third-generation re-analysis of stills derived from a fourth-generation copy of transparencies provided immediately, OK not quite, following…

Getting tired yet?

This is the guy who said it’s an Indian with a stick.

Why am I bracing for a historic setback for sas research? Just idly wondering.

If he can show it’s a fake: GREAT. No really; I would cheerfully stand corrected. Now we can all move on. To the eyewitness evidence, which is truly where it’s at with the sas.

(Calling all women: this is why we need you in sas research. Men can get SO wrapped around Photoshop and irrelevant details.)

As for the mind-blowing evidence, I just hope one day it happens and the evidence is worthy of the phrase.

Oh my, you mean Patty was on the grassy knoll?!