While I am not as familiar, however, with Mr Davis’ work as some others are, I must say, with all fairness, that I while I applaud this effort to present a greater understanding of “Patty” as a living, breathing animal, I must also say that some of the conclusions made in the presentation were, to say the least, disappointing and confusing.

It is one thing to present a detailled image, showing us things which we have never seen before.

It is another, however, to definitively state or infer any meaning about these details.

Mr Davis stated several times that he saw “chevrons” in the braided bit of hair that swings forward over Patty’s face in one frame. Well, I must tell you, I was sitting in the front row, and I didn’t see it.

I only saw what Mr Davis had hand-drawn over the image….

Mr Davis also presented free-swinging, flowing hair (or something like it) from the top of Patty’s head, almost like a topknot. I do not recall him using the word “ponytail”, however.

As for the “gunshot wound” frames, I really must say, I was truly disheartened by Mr Davis’ implications. Insofar as I am concerned, Mr Davis clearly inferred that, if Roger Patterson was holding the camera, someone else was holding a gun, and firing it into Patty’s leg. He did not state that this person was Bob Gimlin, however, but the implication was made, nonetheless. This seemed, to me, to be rather a bit of a slur on the reputation of both these men.

Was not the point of this effort, as per Mr Davis’ own words, to restore Mr Patterson’s good name?

Was then the point of this to then slur Mr Gimlin instead?

It was also inferred that perhaps Roger & Bob were not alone on that day at Bluff Creek. It is my understanding that other researchers were in the area, but I do not have more knowledge of this than others may possess.

And what of the red pool? This part of the presentation was absolutely the most fun. The conversation between Dr Meldrum and Mr Davis most definitely showed, at least to this writer, that Dr Meldrum is not someone to be fooled, nor to be fooled with. He is a highly intelligent person with a great deal of experience in this field; also, he has been to Bluff Creek as well. The man knows his stuff!

In my own (humble) opinion, I should daresay that, based upon the visual evidence presented, the red pool was, in all probability, a rather large puddle of standing water from the recent rain/flood (I cannot remember which?), and, in an area of possibly red clay or ferrous earth, had been coloured accordingly by its surroundings. I do not, for a minute, believe that this was a pool of blood, and I sincerely wish that this had not been presented in this format. Regrettably, Mr Davis’ own file names for his photographs were labelled “The Blood Pool” and I daresay this is what many persons in the audience inferred, whether he stated it or not.

In conclusion, then, I really must say, I applaud Mr Davis’ efforts, but I cannot applaud his presentation.

I’m not “overwhelmed” by any feelings here, other than the overwhelming feeling that once more, the proponents vastly underestimate the power of the evidence to hand, beside which Patty is as a grain of sand against a beach. They needlessly worry third-rate artifacts, not to mention a pretty good film that’s been poisoned as evidence by irrational attitudes, and conveniently focus the attention of the skeptics on the impossibility of proof without a real animal.

You can’t get anything from this film other than:

1) Looks like an animal.
2) Looks subtly but definitely non-human.
3) What can be analyzed, which has been, by experts, not one of which has come down with the conclusion of “fake.”

Case closed. Until the animal is confirmed.

Yes, MK Davis is doing damage to the cause. The main source of the damage? All of the handwringing by proponents, which count on it Davis wants – and plays for – just as sure as Madonna plays for the sort of attention she craves. If there’s a “heart of darkness” you should fear, it’s looking silly breast-beating over this crap, rather than brushing it off and soldiering onward, into the field, where the critter awaits, if it’s real. Which, pay attention now, ‘cause here’s what you need to pay attention to:

ALL THE EVIDENCE – ALL OF IT – SAYS IT IS.

Proponents need to understand this! The skeptics sure won’t do it for them.

Davis has helped, some. Unfortunately he’s a drama queen who just can’t get enough.

The evidence – most of it – is not in this film. Which is – and no more – what it is.

Sschaper: your objections fall into a common skeptical trap: assuming that Patty’s going to be just the same as other animals. If she’s not a fake, she’s a new species, and by definition not everything we see on the ones we know about. Don’t know what your qualifications are. But highly-qualified people in relevant fields have brushed off your – and many other – reservations about the reality of this film. Including a hoax scenario, on which for my money Bill Munns has put in the last word: didn’t happen.

Argue with them, not me.

(As to the “photoshopping”? What do you expect with something that’s been played with this much? The experts – at least many of them – looked at the original; and today’s experts, count on that, can get past “photoshopping” with no problem.)

The most obvious scenario that I see is that Mr. Davis has been staring into his looking glass too long. In the animated .gif I see at least 4 other spots that are round throughout the upper thigh and pelvic area as well as a much larger round spot at the top of the picture.

One “speculative scenario” could be that this is from a grenade launcher and the grenade is protruding through the chest cavity and the smaller round spots, well since there is no red visible this could have only been caused by 5 or 6 other shooters who all shot at the exact same millisecond.

Mr. Davis also claims “Bob Gimlin is a personal friend of mine”.

I know Mr. Gimlin to be a very kind and gracious gentleman. Since these traits are not frequently found I think that you may have mistaken them for personal friendship. I would only believe that statement if it were to come from Mr. Gimlin himself.

However if you consider him to be a friend, is this the way you treat your friends? You will put out there a “theory” that has all the components of the most serious crime of murder, but try to distance yourself from all of the angst you have caused. Well, with friends like you ………………!

As far as the film itself, I stand by Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson’s statements as to what really happened that day.

The only “baby” that I will be throwing out with the proverbial bath water is Mr. Davis and his work.

However, there are far too many folks in Crypto-ville that think “Peer Review” means heaping unprofessional, uninformed commentary and vicious personal attacks constitute the kind of constructive debate that science attaches to that concept.

Great comment.

Kimble,

I agree with the peer review comment. But, as in every peer review process whether it be in medicine, law, or academia, the reviewers can, by acting on personal biases, ruin the work of the peer presenter. In this realm, there clearly are no parameters within the bigfoot community for judging evidence as there are no positively identified examples for comparison. I would whole heartedly support a panel of forensic and scientific people who would simply apply an even handed assessment of evidence. I.e., “yes, that is part of what was captured in the film or picture and not noise or dust”, or, “yes, the DNA provided was a pure sample, uncontaminated and clean”…or something such as that. Until there is final, irrefutable scientific evidence for this creature for use as a benchmark, “peers” don’t have a leg to stand on in the criticism of another’s findings.

Please pardon my bluntness but no one cares about slight misquotes that may have been attributed to you Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis I ask you to simply state clearly what you ARE saying. What is your point?

What do propose as merely interesting, speculation, a working theory, fact?

This should be in the form of clear bullet (no pun intended) statements:

Patty was shot. Followed by whatever you have to support the statement.

There is a braid. Followed by whatever you have to support the statement.

Patty was shot? Really? A speculative spot and speculative change in stride.

What about the reaction of a very powerful animal to being hurt? The humans are not ran away from or attacked by an animal this reported to be able to move very quickly. There is also no report of a blood curdling yell Bigfoot is reported to be able to make which would be expected if shot.

Challenging your point of view whatever it really is does help the Bigfoot community at large. It shows that everything attributed to Bigfoot is not readily accepted and absorbed thus it cannot be said “those people will believe anything”.

First and foremost, while some of the photographic “evidence” seems to support the more extreme conjecture surrounding the events at Bluff Creek as attributed to MK, these speculations are a long way from being considered facts.

As John Johnsen pointed out, there are a number of alternate explanations for each and every observation made from the images evolving from the Patterson/Gimlin film as enhanced by MK.

It is essential that these “leads” be properly run down before reaching any valid and reliable conclusions regarding same. Else, the whole “theory” as described by John becomes nothing more than wild imaginings developed from watching too much TV crime dramas.

I am highly distressed by the mere act of leveling what are, at this point, unfounded accusations at the person or persons involved in the P/G film creation and the circumstances surrounding it.

While I agree with John that IF the “theory” were to pan out as being accurate, or substantially so, the parties need to face justice, I also want to scream from the mountain tops that this accusation is a very big “IF!”

Proper forensic research, in so far as this material is concerned, has been laid waste and answers which would resolve this long standing issue in the Bigfoot community may now be lost as a result of the “loose cannon” activities associated with the new “evidence” and rush for ratings and sensationalism instead of pure and simple fact.

I have counseled for restraint and proper scientific method throughout the development of MK’s imagry since I met with him at Chester Moore’s conference several years ago — at which point I became involved with this research. I am highly disappointed, and quite frankly peeved, that MK apparently took it upon himself to reveal SOME of his findings prematurely — thus starting this tidal wave of non-science.

Unfortunately, I’ve also been taken to task for “concealing” information regarding these issues on other sites and fully expect to be chastized (if not muzzled) elsewhere in cyberspace for trying to be a voice of reason and restraint. So if you want to take pot shots at the “messenger” go ahead.

But, doing so won’t alter the probable result that nothing useful will be the outcome of this now tainted research and the damaged credibility and reputation of some of the parties involved.

Indeed, with the accusations being made, the truth of it may only be revealed in a court of law — if at all.

She still looks like she is wearing panties.

The buttocks do not flex, they are inert. That shouldn’t be the case on a real animal. The torso seems inert as well.

There is something wrong with the way the arms move. Like the weight is wrong for a real animal. I don’t know how to describe this. Just watch it over and over.

The exposure on the animal is different from the background such that it has a very obvious ‘photoshopped’ outline.

No amount of arguing and analysis, no matter how contrived, is going to answer the fundamental question about “Patty” : is “she” a real specimen of a scientifically undescribed native species of primate, or is “she” a hoax that snowballed to mythic proportions.

Until more unambiguous, incontrovertible evidence comes to light, “Patty” is still just an interesting artifact.