Bigfoot Massacre Theorist Banned From Museum
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 15th, 2008
The full impact of the damage the Bluff Creek Bigfoot “killing field” theory is having on people’s lives is beginning to hit home. M. K. Davis has been asked to not speak at an August meeting and has been banned from the hosting museum. Full details revealed below.
We are hauntingly reminded of Blogsquatcher’s elegantly simple statement reflecting on how people feel about the eventual outcome of M. K. Davis’ poisoning of the waters with his incredibly unsupportable “Bigfoot massacre” or “Bluff Creek killing field” theory:
You’ll ultimately have to decide for yourselves how you feel about [M. K. Davis' speculations]. I will leave you with this thought though — for more than 40 years, nothing has been able to diminish the impact of the [Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot] Film. But maybe this grand conspiracy theory will.Blogsquatcher, May 22, 2008.
The bits and pieces were crying out to be fully exposed, and graphically detailed, in the light of day, instead of whispered in little back room public gatherings, in which only certain people, with the “special knowledge” could begin to pollute the waters.
The time had come for questions to be answered, questions still lingering unanswered from 2006. If there was an “it” there, where was “it”?
M. K. Davis had said much in 2006, but then when challenged, he had retreated. But he was back in 2008.
From left to right - at a tension meeting in Ohio, April 2008 - a public face is presented to the photographer: Don Keating, Ohio Bigfoot group director and host of the Ohio Bigfoot conference; Jeff Meldrum, professor and Sasquatch book author; M. K. Davis, Bigfoot film theorist; and Eric Altman, Pennsylvania Bigfoot group director.
It was Davis who first had already shockingly “revealed” elements of his “humans were at Bluff Creek” thoughts in public releases and meetings, starting in 2006. But he had more intensively revealed “the killing theory” in the spring of 2008, at Ray Crowe’s public meetings in Washington and Don Keating’s public conference gatherings in Ohio.
On May 22, 2008, at Cryptomundo, filmmaker John Johnsen shared his insider’s view, giving a picture of Davis’ motivation (Davis thought Jeff Meldrum was going to beat him to disclosure) and connected the dots in the “killing field” scenario.
Johnsen merely laid it out more clearly, Joe Beelart revealed other layers to the scenario, naming names, and M. K. Davis continued to avoid presenting any real documentation for his claims. Indeed, Davis showed, once again, a lack of insight regarding the impact of his “killing field” speculations were having on the only living witness who was there, Bob Gimlin.
Bob Gimlin is a personal friend of mine, and an intelligent man. I know that he understands that brainstorming sessions require the inclusion of all possible scenarios, with most eventually dismissed, and will not take such personally. ~ M. K. Davis, May 22, 2008.
Clinically speaking, that’s called rationalization for pain that is inflicted on others.
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.John L. Johnsen, May 22, 2008.
Scott Marlowe was the silent partner in the triad. That is until Flag Day, June 14, 2008, when Marlowe decided, allegedly without legal counsel, to send a letter to the “District Attorney of Humboldt County, California.”
In that missive, Marlowe clearly stated that…
There is increasing photographic evidence that the person, or possibly persons, so afflicted were shot and killed by others in the Patterson/Gimlin party who remain unnamed by Mr. Gimlin who survives Robert Patterson….Having been associated with the analysis work of two of the photographic experts examining the film, Mr. Marlon Davis and Mr. John Johnsen, I am compelled to contact you to avoid any hint of complicity in failing to inform the authorities of these potentially criminal acts. I would suggest that it would be prudent for your office to initiate an investigation into this matter in order to ascertain the actual facts surrounding this event and determine if criminal prosecution proceedings should be initiated.Scott Marlowe, June 14, 2008.
Scott Marlowe, as has been pointed out by Bigfoot researchers John Green, Kathy Strain, and Roger Knight, however, got Patterson’s first name wrong and directed his call for a “murder investigation” to the incorrect county.
Comment from John Green: “What idiocy. Anyway, it’s Del Norte County.”
Marlowe’s reaction:
Sorry about the ‘Robert’ typo…The quick search turned up Humboldt County when I Googled ‘Bluff Creek County.’…that means that I will be crafting another letter and sending it. Scott Marlowe, June 14, 2008.
Some people seem to be without insight into how what they are saying and doing are impacting people, and don’t know when to retreat, stop, offer an oops, and exit stage left.
Certainly, the reaction within the Bigfoot research community should be some indication. For example, now comes the word that M. K. Davis has been uninvited as a speaker for an uncoming August conference, and banned from the host museum.
In the latest issue of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum Newsletter, it has been revealed the organization has decided to deny the “Bigfoot massacre theorist” M. K. Davis access to their podium at their forthcoming August conference.
The following is the statement of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum of Felton, California, sent to Cryptomundo because, according to Curator Michael Rugg , “in light of the ridiculous letter written by Scott Marlowe (as shown on Cryptomundo) I thought it was time our opinion on the matter was made public.”
The newsletter is dated May 27, 2008, but obviously written after June 6, 2008; indeed, it was only released late on the evening of June 14, 2008.
Message from the Curator
Now that I’ve had to ban a second Bigfoot researcher from appearing in an official status at our museum, I think an explanation is due.
* * *
Eleven years ago, a man named M.K. Davis decided to enter the Bigfoot research arena. Being experienced with photo enhancement via his hobby of astronomical photography, he felt he could nudge more details from the P/G film using this methodology. So he set out to gather the best copies he could find, calling on other researchers for their best versions of film frames, and eventually even convincing Mrs. Patterson to provide him with her highest quality images (almost all images used for analysis over the years have been copies, at least one if not several generations removed from the original film.)Davis began posting his results online in various forums, on temporary websites, and the like. His work was well accepted by most of us in the Bigfoot community, because his enhanced images showed details in the film previously unavailable, such as the toes. He would isolate certain areas and utilizing short film clips (animated gif files) demonstrate muscle expansion and contraction, previously overexposed details and the like, using dedicated image enhancement software.
Over the years he worked on all parts of the film, a few frames at a time, “seeking truth” as demonstrated by the details of the film. Then, a couple of years ago he announced that some of these details told a story (at least to him.) He began to venture beyond the realm of film enhancement with suggested interpretations of what was being revealed by this “new” look at the film. At this point he was treading on the slippery slope of subjective analysis and pulling away from the more indisputable aspects of the film images.
In 2006 the announcement was made that “Patty is human.” This was based on his opinion that certain details in the film revealed a digging stick, a ponytail and hair braid. This caused a major reaction from factions in the bigfoot community who were less convinced that those items are actually present on the film.
* * *
Davis then got together with two different filmmakers and made his theories and filmwork public on two separate DVDs. The first spoke to the reasons he called it human and suggested that the apparent sagittal crest or “crown” on Patty’s head might have been produced deliberately as is the case with certain Indian tribes. The second went even further, to suggest that the Sasquatch might be descended from Chinese Yetis who were trained as laborers and brought to North America in giant ships even before the arrival of Columbus.All of this made Davis a controversial and much discussed figure almost overnight. We invited him to Bigfoot Discovery Day II, to have an opportunity to to view his evidence up close (it’s called “peer review”) and have him show the detailed enhancements that prove the film does not depict a “man in a suit.” I personally had no problem with anything he had said at this point, not that I was totally buying into it all, but I too have hypothesized that Patty could be more human than ape.
Then Davis was given several never-before-seen closeups from the film by Patricia Patterson. After viewing these new images he began some very startling hypothesizing, coming up with imagined events that could explain what he felt was evidence of blood at the film site. These hypotheses, which M.K. refers to as public “brainstorming” had the side effect of inferring that Patterson and Gimlin had not revealed all the truth about the filming. He even went so far as to suggest they, or someone else at the site, had gunned down several Sasquatch and buried them with a backhoe!
At this point almost everyone who has studied the P/G Film over the years, including those who had praised Davis’ work in revealing the genuineness of the creature in the film, jumped up and yelled “whoa.”
* * *
Then, on May 27th Davis was invited to guest on the Coast to Coast AM radio show with George Noory (the number one late night talk radio show in the country, made popular by Art Bell). There he shared these elaborate scenarios with millions of listeners. With him was one of the videographers he had worked with, John Johnsen.When questioned by Noory, they both let loose with all the wildest scenarios they had ever imagined, without hesitation and apparently without any thoughts to the damage it was doing to the credibility of Patterson, Gimlin and the very film M.K. had just proven to be genuine! This shouldn’t and wouldn’t have happened had M.K. Davis shown even a modicum of respect for all the other researchers who preceded him, or listened to those of us who warned him that much harm would come to Bigfoot studies in general should this unfounded scenario go public.
On the 6th of June I called M.K. Davis and rescinded my invitation for him to speak at our [August 2008] event. I explained the discomfort felt by all of us concerning the gunfire talk, and the imprudence of his appearance on C2C. In his own defense he stated that his massacre theory was just that –a theory– and that he had also postulated a couple of other theories as well; he was sorry that others (such as Johnsen) had spread the story so far so fast. (Johnsen subsequently bragged online that he had sold over 120 DVDs as a result of the radio broadcast.)
MK told me he did not directly accuse Gimlin and had suggested there were possibly others in the area who may have done the shooting. But he held on firmly to his conviction that Patty was being fired upon while on camera. He then stated that he now doesn’t think it likely that it was Gimlin who shot her because “the angle was wrong.”
He indicated that he’s sending all the materials he got on the Film back to Mrs. Patterson and wiping his hands of the whole Bigfoot thing. He said he had already decided that our event would be the last one of its kind that he would attend, and said he was meaning to call me about it.
M.K. previously sent me a copy of the slide showing what he calls the ”puddle full of blood” several weeks ago, and I told him it didn’t look like blood to me; that the backhoe used by Gimlin to pull the truck out was several miles from the film site….that a backhoe may have been at the site at some time prior to October 20, but not when Gimlin and Patterson were there filming. Several others who saw all 5 of the new slides on his laptop at the Ohio Conference, stated online that they too were not convinced it was “blood.”
M.K.’s “story” was based solely on his subjective interpretation of a couple of newly revealed slides that only a few others have even had the opportunity to view, and it reminded me of red circles drawn around blobsquatches.
I asked Mr. Davis not to present at our event because it was the nearly unanimous concensus of our most active museum members, including a number of other widely respected Bigfoot researchers. He was denied a podium at our event not as much because of what he said, but mostly because of the way he went about it, and his complete disregard for research protocols and the feelings and suggestions of his “peers” among the Bigfoot research community.
I regret having had to make this decision, but if Bigfoot research is ever going to gain the respect it deserves from the scientific establishment, this kind of sensationalism and grandstanding by amateur researchers needs to be kept in check. I also did it to show the respect I have for the work of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, and to give them my unequivocal vote of confidence. I never had the opportunity to meet Patterson, but I have met with and spoken to Bob Gimlin and I am absolutely sure he is a truthful and honorable man.
Michael Rugg, Curator,
Bigfoot Discovery Museum Newsletter,
Volume 4 Number 1
For the record, it should be noted, when under fire, M. K. Davis has put out statements before that he was “leaving the field” and/or taking actions to “withdraw.” On May 23, 2007, for example, M. K. Davis told all that he was releasing his rights to the enhancements back to Patricia Patterson (although many questioned whether he owned them in the first place).
Since M. K. Davis’ actions have overlapped with his Tom Biscardi relationship, the two “old buddies” have demonstrated a historical pattern of disappearances and appearances when it was “hot” from challenges and when the heat wasn’t on.
Conspiracy theory? Indeed.
Helpful to hominology and Bigfoot/Sasquatch research? Highly doubtful.
Comedic relief? Priceless.
Unless you happen to be one of the people being accused of shooting a family of Bigfoot.
- Similar Phenomena:
Is Mr. Gimlin considered a public figure by the courts?
It seems that that for a couple of years now Mr. Davis has gotten pretty close to that libel/ slander line. His accusations are volatile and hurtful at the very least and possibly actionable at the other end. I hope he is represented by someone who is advising him on where that line is drawn. Whispers among friends in a back room after a convention is hard to prove and may be absent of malice. Broadcasting your opinions out to 15 million radios is another thing entirely.
Asking a prosecutor to bring charges takes this theory out of the realm of honest posseting of ideas. Mr. Gimlin now is in a position of needing to defend his good name. This may get very interesting soon for reasons other than the obvious debate.
“For the record, it should be noted, when under fire, M. K. Davis has put out statements before that he was “leaving the field” and/or taking actions to ‘withdraw’.”
When questioned further, M. K. Davis replied quite sullenly, “Fine! I’m going home to tell my mom.” He then broke his Lego Chewbacca in half and stormed off.
Sheesh! I say let the man speak, he seems to be digging his own grave - perhaps with a “digging stick”. At this point, his rapidly vascillating theories seem less incendiary than they do comical. “Thank you, Mr. Meldrum. And now for the zany antics of….”
Then: Moe, Larry, Curly.
Now: Davis, Johnsen, Marlowe.
PLEASE just let them crawl back into the woodwork!
Ok…I have to speak up here. I’ve been visiting Crytomundo for a while now, and this is my first posting.
I’m not going to pretend that I have even a quarter of the knowledge that many people here do surrounding the subject of Bigfoot, the Patterson/Gimlin film, and cryptozoology in general. For years my own interests have been the paranormal, with cryptozoology and ‘fantastic creatures’ (like the Jersey Devil) being on my sidelines…interested, fascinated by the evidence, but ultimately more drawn to research into evidence of the dead rather than evidence of the living.
I’ve still very much appreciated the research and evidence found in the world of cryptozoology. And my interest grows. Ultimately, I’m nothing more than an interested person.
I’ve been watching this entire thing from the sidelines, not really having any kind of stake in it. But that letter written by Mr. Marlow, was to me, even more bizzare than the original theory.
If Mr. Davis cannot even bring forth solid evidence to back up his theory, beyond captures of a 40 year old film that may or may not show what he’s claiming (and being long into ghost research, I know full well the effects of pareidolia, having more than once ’seen’ something in a photograph or video that actually isn’t there and isn’t evidence once I step back and reevaluate), what makes Mr. Marlow think there is enough evidence to convince County or State authorities to undertake an investigation?
If they wanted their theory to hold water, they ought to know to have more than, well, pareidolia to back it up. Especially when they are, in essence, accusing a dead man and a living man of murder.
hey everyone wow this is definetly a very suprising new update article about the bigfoot massacure & people involved in it. good morning bill green. this is getting very interesting i guess.. like i said before no judge will ever acept this case it would be laughed out any court rooms of any kind.
I couldn’t agree with Mr. Rugg more.
For me, I don’t find anything wrong with postulating or theorizing either, but this thing has gone far, far beyond that. This is completely non-scientific rubbish that throws dirt in the eye of other researchers and the protocols they try and follow to make this a legitimate science. This has been a completely amateurish episode of sensationalism, not a truly scientific endeavor. the fact that the guy will probably sell more DVDs as a result makes me somewhat queazy. I actually find myself highly doubting MK Davis’ grasp of science and research principles.
This would have been all and well if it had remained what it is, a speculative exercise. But it has been made into way more than that. This has gone past conjecture and taken on a life of its own. There are ways to get to the truth, to learn about the way are world works, and MK Davis is obviously not aware of them.
I am not denying anyone’s right to pursue theories or ideas, or writing off Davis’s ideas because I think they are impossible. But I think we have to follow scientific principles and conventions, work on objective evidence, make public the research and evidence obtained, and to encourage as proper peer review. There has been not a lot of that going around in this case. I cannot really call this whole “massacre” thing research or a theory, and it obviously isn’t meant to be just speculation, so what shall I call it?
Is ‘farce’ too harsh a word? Perhaps not.
Having actually read what Mr. Marlowe has written is would seem to me that he may actually be attempting to be the voice of reason in all of this. Now, before everyone goes off the deep end on me allow me to explain. Having originally seen the work of Davis and Johnsen, Marlowe seems to be attempting to do the right thing and allow the authorities to determine whether or not a crime has actually been committed. The beautiful part of what Marlowe has done is that by turning all of this over to the D.A., who will likely turn it over to the Park Service because it is in their jurisdiction, they will have to either admit once and for all officially that it is either a human in the film or best of all for the first time ever they will have to turn down the case by admitting that no murder has been committed because the creature in the film is actually a Bigfoot. That is right, Mr. Marlowe may have found a very “dumb like a fox” way of boxing officials into admitting that what is in the film is what we all want to believe it is.
• subrosa responds: June 15th, 2008 at 6:07 am
“This from a guy who calls himself a ’scientist’ (sans credentials)!
This from the same guy who has ’swamp ape hunts’ complete with a person in a monkey suit running through the woods!
The ‘pangea institute’ (nothing more than a website) must be getting awfully slow to showboat with this kind of crap.
It appears that one’s background will ‘out’ eventually, it certainly has in this case.
I want to see the subpoena for the remaining living relatives of Patty to appear in court! (Certainly wouldn’t want to be the one having to serve it).
Maybe that was Scott’s motive all along, if we cant find bigfoot, turn a relentless process server loose on him! “
In all honesty it is Not Mr. Marlowe her in Florida that has been named as having been the one “in a monkey suit running through the woods!”, that would be a gentleman down my way who offers “skunk ape” not “swamp ape” hunts. Now, regarding the Pangea Institute. As a Fellow there myself I can attest to the fact that it is “more than a website” and that Mr. Marlowe is in fact NOT the president. The actual president of the Pangea Institute is Dr. Daniel C. Harrigan, Ph.D., LMHC, LAP. Mr. Marlowe sits on the board along with several other Fellows and board members. The statement that the “The ‘pangea institute’ (nothing more than a website)”, is entirely a false statement that can be verified by contacting any of the board members listed on the site who’s credentials are all listed. To be honest I have to say that I take personal offense to your statement, as it implies that Marlowe single handedly runs the Pangea Institute. We operate by a board vote and nobody is authorized to make unilateral decisions for the Institute, to include Mr. Marlowe. John Johnsen is also a newly elected fellow at the institute and should be aware of this fact as well. However, this does not apply to our own individual research projects and business operations outside of the Pangea Institute.
Someone has no credibility anymore. He might as well take his toys and go home now. Wow, to lose credibility in a psuedo science, that pretty much sums things up.
While asking the question of whether it’s possible that someone was shooting at Patty is, and should be acceptable, it’s quite another thing to offer it up as truth without grounding those statements in facts.
I love the reference to He Who Shall Not Be Named with the “red circles around blobsquatches” statement. Priceless. I still have some of that material He sent me. And I can see MK becoming He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 : Electric Boogaloo in the very near future. Good call on the uninvite.
Where have they ever shown Bigfoot in the famous footage to have toes?
One of the sticking points for me is that the feet do look like big pads, but I have never seen any work that revealed the subject of the video to have toes. Can anyone point me in the direction of where this information was released?
Thank you Loren for keeping us up to date on everything (good and bad) in the crypto world; but as for myself I think I will avoid the cryptodrama involving M.K. Davis for the next 27 years.
My new mantra:
“I will not read another M.K. Davis article”
“I will not read another M.K. Davis article”
“I will not read another M.K. Davis article”
For those wishing to read M. K. Davis’ new final statement on this matter, please click here.
While some folks here are coming to Gimlin’s defense, let’s remember it is Bob Heironimus who has been named as the trigger man.
If the fellows who are promulgating the “massacre” scenario weren’t so earnest sounding, I would swear this whole episode is an intentional spoof.
Actually, if you look it up, at least three individual names, including the one most often defended, have been floated in the “rumor mill,” as shooters. However, there remains absolutely no proof that there was even one shot fired at Bluff Creek.
Who ever it is in the realm of law enforcement that ends up with Scott Marlow’s letter on their desk will have to decide what, if anything, to do about it. However to think that it will force them into admitting the existence of Bigfoot is a stretch.
Given the fact that there is no tangible evidence here, they can simply say “we see nothing to substantiate an investigation” and leave it at that.
When Mr. Davis openly admitted to visiting the site and finding a bone and simply discarding it, could he in fact have been destroying evidence?
Now I am wondering, since Scott Marlow is a member of this “Pangea Institute” which has as it’s president a credentialed Dr. and several other members who also have credentials, did he discuss with the institute board members the idea of sending his letter to the authorities? Being a member of such an institute I would think that this would be the first place he would even bring this idea.
If he did not bring all of this to the institute then I would think that he does not regard this institute very highly.
I agree that asking Mr. Davis not to speak, and banning him from the museum (presumably so that he could not have any more ‘private showings’) was the right call to make.
If the law enforcement agency in charge should for some reason decide to excavate the film sighting and they find nothing, who do you think will have to pay for the excavation? Mr. Marlow? or Mr. Davis? or Mr. Johnsen? Perhaps all three since their names are in the letter? It won’t be done for free to be sure.
Frivolous litigation is something that is being taken more and more seriously as of late. While law enforcement’s motto is “To Serve and Protect” that cannot be interpreted in such a way as to simply point a finger and say to them “sick’em”.
Michael Rugg. Thank you.
“…. new final statement ..” priceless!
To Scarfe:
I saw the toes in a presentation Dr. Meldrum did at the 2005 Texas Bigfoot Conference. He did a frame-by-frame close-up of the right foot and you could very clearly see the toes spread independent of the foot as it lifted from the ground and came back down. I don’t know where else you might be able to find it, but I was blown away when I saw it.
In reply to EdCraft
The Florida State Department lists Scott Marlowe as the ‘contact person’ for the Pangea website/corporation.
Mr. Marlowe apparently speaks for the Pangea Institute, (at least legally), as a ‘voting member’ perhaps you could enlighten us on Mr. Marlowe’s credentials?
Also Mr Marlowe IS the one who held ‘Swamp Ape Hunts’ in conjunction with a Florida radio station, complete with a ’swamp ape’ in a suit. Any comments? Could it have been simply for publicity, just like this last fiasco?
Since you are ‘in the know’ about the Pangea institute, could you also enlighten us about what Florida agencies it is certified by, and what curriculum it provides?
Why on earth would you allow him to continue to promote the ‘institute’, at the expense and ridicule of real science?
I would think you would want to distance yourself from him as soon as possible, else your own credentials be questioned.
I’m going to wake up in the morning and find Bob Newhart in bed with me…
Wow, guys. You all (unless MK snuck in a post there) spoke for me.
Word to MK: when you tick off mystery_man to the point that he uses words like “farce” and “rubbish,” you have really crossed a line.
I’d rather get sued for libel than have him mad at me.
Is this the end of the whole sorry business?
I think not. Sigh…
NightFlight: LOL.
DWA- It isn’t very usual for me to get like this, is it?
I’ve thrown around the term “hogwash” on this one as well. I guess I’m just at my wits end with this one. Maybe I wouldn’t say I’m mad so much as exasperated and frustrated by the whole thing. But I’m fine, all fine.
Now excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall some more.
Throughout this whole fiasco people have piped up and said “mainstream” science would not even consider this plausible without good evidence (which this clearly has lacked) and M.K. Davis would largely be laughed out of the field. It is good to see that voices are calling out his nonsense outside of message boards. As it is said actions speak louder than words and this speaks very loudly indeed. Bravo!
If MK Davis noted that there was a bit of blood in the creek, it may be due to Patty menstrating, and coming to the creek to wash away traces as this was an issue for human females and obviously bigfoot females as any carnivour will quickly pick up on blood scent and track it down, and maybe why she didn’t hear the horses. To remove any blood in the creek is a good and efficient way to remove any trace from the body. Massacre I think not as the horses would have been running if more of the family was around and bigfoot doesn’t usually show itself that readily, unless provoked compared to the old days. When patty looks back at patterson, I think she heard the camera? and is checking to see if he has a gun out and a bead on her ass or not, and if they are following.
As I have sat and watched this little melodrama play out over the weekend, I have seen the same names over and over again. However, thanks to our gracious host, Loren who exposed the connection back in January of 2007 we may be able to see that there maybe a fourth key player in this drama. A key player that may actually be the real puppet master behind it all. Having dealt with Tom Biscardi personally in the past and passing on his invitation to go along on an expedition here in 10,000 islands I am not shocked to learn of the connection between him and MK Davis. Given Mr. Biscardi’s history and controversial past involving video evidence, playing the “silent partner” and even a “Bigfoot hand” it stands to reason that Mr. Davis and Mr. Biscardi could be involved in some type of video sales effort. Add to this connection Mr. Johnsen who makes videos professionally for a living and has in fact sold and made money from this very subject one could hypothesize a potential monetary connection between the trio. However, this is just purely speculation and hypothesis on my part and presented as thought for the readers of this forum.