Filmmaker: My Last Bigfoot Massacre Statement
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 16th, 2008
The following opinions and remarks in this statement do not express any conclusion, stance or position of Cryptomundo, and are only those of John L. Johnsen. The attached is shared here as another chapter in the continuing “Bigfoot Massacre Theory” aftermath:
Loren and All,
In my opinion, Marlowe has some issues with conspiracy in his personal and professional lives. From the beginnings of our relationship in late 2007 I was warned by many people in the research arena, some of whom I respect highly, to distance myself from him. But, I am a person that is endlessly giving the benefit of the doubt to others, so I continued to work with him.
That relationship has been dissolved.
My work with M.K. Davis has brought nothing but criticism to him (Davis) and myself. This criticism has been malicious in nature with no clear motive other than to cause pain. Those of you who treated us (Davis and I) with respect and listened to what was said are appreciated, but you were in the vast minority.
I liken Davis’s revelations to that of someone trying to shed light on a topic that has become a religion to some people. The reaction from “the faithful” is, in my opinion, like what might have been to someone who, for whatever reason, had studied Christ and came to the conclusion that Jesus was so near sighted that he was nearly dysfunctional, thus needing to wear eyeglasses…subsequently entering churches everywhere and placing glasses on crucifixes. The reaction to that would be very predictable. “He changed our religious icon! Death to him!” Inquisition II, the sequel.
What Davis did for the “faithful” was simple. He humanized their ape. He said their ape was not an ape, but a human. Blasphemy! He offered copious amounts of evidence which, if viewed with an open mind, was valid and revealing, even surprising. But, the Inquisitionists had already mounted their horses and unsheathed their swords. “Off with his head!”, they screamed.
When Davis added the theory that the creature had been shot, or another such scenario had occurred at Bluff Creek I had to admit that I was supportive of the possibility of a shooting, but anything beyond that seemed bizarre. But when Davis shared his evidence with me, both the evidence from the film and from personal conversations he had with Patricia Patterson and Bob Gimlin, plus the newer images Patterson gave him, I felt a cold chill as the possibility that he was right crept over me. And, I will admit that the thought of such violence made me physically ill.
Scott Marlowe had, unfortunately, been in the info loop from Davis, something M.K. regrets beyond description now, and (Marlowe) seemed very eager to take a command role in a “forensic style” investigation beginning with a trip to the film site. I was uncomfortable with Marlowe being in the loop because of certain other misgivings I was having about him at the time, but M.K. was, in my opinion, running the show and was entitled to his decision regarding who to trust. Marlowe became increasingly agitated with M.K. (as was I at some points), with the way he seemed to seed the wrong people with the info, resulting in leaks that eventually led to the firestorm on the web boards regarding the alleged “massacre”.
As time went on there was increasing impatience from Marlowe. He became more and more paranoid at what he considered to be his perceived “complicity in a cover-up” of a possible encounter at Bluff Creek. The letter he wrote to the Humboldt County (wrong county…adding insult to injury) is the manifestation of Marlowe’s imagination and should not be considered serious by anyone, including the DA of Humboldt or any other county in California.
It was wrong and was done to cover his own butt, pure and simple.
This is the last time I will comment on this, period. Enough is enough. I will answer no questions from anyone but California authorities if they bother. Frankly I would like to see Marlowe taken seriously to task for making official accusations of this kind without substantial evidence of the facts. But, the damage is done.
My friendship with M.K. Davis is intact. We speak on a nearly daily basis. Both of us are absolutely baffled by Marlowe’s actions. If anything, Marlowe has demonstrated that HE cannot be trusted, nevermind anyone else.
Thanks to Loren for the soap box.
John Johnsen
Timestamped at June 16, 2008 9:10:20 AM EDT.
Although Mr. Johnsen says he will not comment any longer, comments are open below, for all.
- Similar Phenomena:
I am not a religious person, but the Christ analogy used by Johnsen is beyond stupid. Then again, given the utter ridiculousness of this whole sordid affair, perhaps I should not be surprised.
It amazes me that those who are “in the know” regarding these supposed new finding can’t seem to understand why many people find their claims and speculations so absurd. Can they not see that what they’re proposing goes so far beyond the realm of logic that it becomes laughable?
From John L. Johnsen above:
“I liken Davis’s revelations to that of someone trying to shed light on a topic that has become a religion to some people. The reaction from “the faithful” is, in my opinion, like what might have been to someone who, for whatever reason, had studied Christ and came to the conclusion that Jesus was so near sighted that he was nearly dysfunctional, thus needing to wear eyeglasses…subsequently entering churches everywhere and placing glasses on crucifixes. The reaction to that would be very predictable. “He changed our religious icon! Death to him!” Inquisition II, the sequel.
“What Davis did for the “faithful” was simple. He humanized their ape. He said their ape was not an ape, but a human. Blasphemy! He offered copious amounts of evidence which, if viewed with an open mind, was valid and revealing, even surprising. But, the Inquisitionists had already mounted their horses and unsheathed their swords. “Off with his head!”, they screamed.”
——————————————————–
This is just silly. And in a serious science - which crypto is far from, owing largely to the fact that MK’s conjurations get the light of day - it, well, wouldn’t get the light of day.
Show me one scrap of evidence for any of this. So far, none.
When one does not back one’s “theories” with evidence, hard science laughs, and turns back to the search.
Haven’t we seen this way too often? Asking for the evidence, we get, well, this.
It speaks, eloquently, for what we know we’ll never get.
People who have gotten nasty and personal about this - on both sides - need to get a hobby, a girlfriend, or both. But it is in no way nasty, or personal, to ask someone how he is suddenly seeing in this film what experts in relevant fields (man I should hotkey that phrase!) haven’t seen in 40 years.
This isn’t shedding light. It’s heat which crypto doesn’t need.
Science is very about put up or shut up, and very about not crowing until the evidence is put on public view.
If you don’t like that, well, you don’t have to play.
Occam’s Razor can, indeed, cut you to the bone. If you ignore it. Which is the only reason we remember Occam at all.
Yes, I think the whole religious analogy was a bit much. It seemed to me that people were mostly questioning the science involved (or lack thereof). It has nothing to do with “faith” or “believing”. At least it shouldn’t. I’m a bit perplexed by the whole undertone of religion, allusions to Christ, and “the faithful” in this statement. Was this intentionally designed to provoke more controversy?
The only blind faith I see here is that which has been exhibited by those who have been pushing this theory and conjecture forward as the truth. Look, honestly, if you come out with a radical new theory out of left field that is not supported by solid, peer reviewable evidence and rather plays to sensationalism and hangs on subjective analyses, you are going to be heavily criticized in pretty much any field. In cryptozoology, with footage like this, it can be a complicated thing to decide just what IS objective analysis. However, there has been so much work on the PG footage that I think we can say a good deal of ground work has been done that this theory flies in the face of.
I think the thing to do is not complain about how “the faithful” can’t see, or want to hang on to their “beliefs” and are out to bring down the truth somehow. It’s not about “Off with their heads”. We WANT the truth, but there are better ways to arrive at it than seem to have been displayed here. If you really feel you are right, what needs to be done is to go out and collect more evidence to support yourselves. I think if that had been done in a satisfactory manner from the beginning, none of this would have happened in the first place.
Let’s please leave the religious “faithful” analogies out of this and stick to science.
How do people who come up with these kinds of theories expect someone like myself, a laywoman at best in the realm of cryptozoology, take them seriously when all I see is what amounts to foot stomping and pouting when their rather outrageous theory is questioned intently by serious individuals within the field?
hey loren everyone wow this is another interesting update regarding this situation. thanks bill green
I see the writers are expressing their sentiments well and that’s okay by me. I didn’t stop to check that Scott Marlowe had sent his letter to the wrong county DA. Now that’s hilarious.
I share Johnson’s concern about Scott Marlowe. His actions are most likely a misdemeanor at worst and maybe he sent the letter to the wrong county on purpose.
Davis’s theory about BF being human are a remote possibility. It would require a shift in evolution and a bending of its’ natural laws to an extent that’s not normally seen. It might even be impossible and there are readers of this site who have backgrounds in biology and zoology who could comment on this.
The entire matter is better left dropped but the fallout will continue I’m sure. My best.
John Johnsen wrote:
This is the last time I will comment on this, period. Enough is enough.
———————–
You mean, this is the second to the last time you will comment on this. Did you forget about your interview on Sasquatch Detective tonight?
A closing few observations:
No matter how much I look at everything available online or in the books I have, I can’t convince myself it’s any sort of unsuited human being in the PG film. It is either a human in a well-made suit or an unknown species of nonhuman primate.
Well-qualified authorities like John Napier and Bernard Heuvelmans have rejected its authenticity, while other well-qualified authorities like Grover Krantz and John Bindernagel believe it to be genuine. We will not settle the question in this forum: indeed, absent a live or dead sasquatch for comparison, we will never settle it to everyone’s satisfaction at all.
The idea that the animal is shot in the leg and resumes a healthy, normal-looking stride makes no sense.
The current mess has seemingly stayed out of the major news media, which is a good thing. I can’t find a thing using Nexis, which is the most complete news-searcher I know.
I wish we could forget all this ever happened. The conflicting stories and interpretations, to say nothing of the personal conflicts, have tainted any new evidence or conclusions that might have some out of the work done on the film. The state of sasquatch research has, if anything, been set back.
Let’s move on.
The finger pointing has begun. Clear sign it’s almost over.
Never argue by analogy. It is the refuge of those seeking to obscure their point instead of making it.
I recall no posts of derision concerning the humanity of Bigfoot. I recall several disputing the “proof” put forward that Bigfoot is human. Very important difference you seem to have missed.
If bigfoot turns out to be more human than animal the bigfoot community will accept the reality. This is not and has not been the problem.
The problem has been the “proof” of the humanity of bigfoot. The “proof” of bigfoot being shot. The extreme, excessive, wild conjecture of murder with real people having to endure the defamation of character as a result.
I see self serving statements but not a single apology to Mr. Gimlin or Mrs.Patterson their family and friends. This is a grievous error of responsibility and civility.
You have unsuccessfully attempted to reframe recent events in a way that makes the proponents the victims. You are in denial. I suspect the Bigfoot community is in disbelief.
Vampchick21:
Interesting statement you made there. I’m a total “layman” myself. Believer, but am guided by the more experienced posts of others (i.e., Kittenz, Mystery_Man, DWA, etc…)—all I can say is this—theories without any backup does nobody any good.
The only regret I have from witnessing this brouhaha is the fact that once again ammunition has been given to the skeptics and debunkers to further marginalize and dismiss a legitimate and noble discipline.
Good afternoon Cryptos…
Good Faith or Bad faith…agenda or otherwise…and folks wonder why habituators and researchers with “evidence” keep to themselves.
The lack of tolerance, respect and mean spirited exchanges portend an ill wind and a gathering tempest for the Big Folks…JMHO
live and learn…live and let live…
ole bub and the dawgs
Mr. Johnsen,
The issue is not “blasphemy” or orthodoxy.
This issue is malarkey.
More diversionary tactics, trying to create a distancing from earlier statements about how “we” all came to the same revelation.
To top it off I take umbrage at the repeated efforts to point the finger at Patricia Patterson and Bob Gimlin by implying that “private” conversations somehow substantiate the incredibly unbelievable imaginings that have been put forth since it was these “private” conversations that finally convinced him that this idiocy could possibly be right.
So it is said that Scott Marlow is not to be trusted because he revealed the content of “private” conversations - which have been and may in the future be harmful to Mr. Johnsen and Mr. Davis.
What about Mr. Davis revealing the content of “private” conversations? Which have only been put forth by M.K. Davis as a way to promote his imaginings and could only help make more profits. Trust one but not the other for the very same thing?
“The last comment”? how many times have we heard that before?
Mr Johnson,
I hope it was worth the few hundred in DVD sales you received from this. The Kharma bus is coming your way sir. I hope Bob Gimlin is the driver.
I have been suspicious concerning the source of the “massacre” scenario; there simply was no evidence for such an elaborate story. I suspected that Davis may have heard this story from someone else, or in the form of an unconfirmed rumor. If that were the case, it would make sense, then, that Davis would try to find evidence for this story within the Patterson film itself.
Mr. Johnsen states that part of the scenario was derived from conversations with Mrs. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin. How much of Davis’ scenario is based on these conversations, we do not know. If his scenario can be confirmed as based largely on statements from Patterson or Gimlin, then the story obviously will become even more controversial than it already is. It would imply that R. Patterson and Gimlin’s original story about the film was false, and/or that Gimlin and Mrs. Patterson are now telling or implying a different story, either truthfully or falsely, and/or that all the stories coming from these two folks are suspect. On the other hand, Davis may be the single, true source of this scenario, based more on imagination than any real confessions from Mrs. Patterson or Mr. Gimlin.
I do have sympathy for Mr. Johnsen’s commentary on a “human” bigfoot. While I personally think bigfoot is a myth, I welcome all the various viewpoints concerning the alleged reality of bigfoot. I do believe there has been a virtual codification of the “great American ape” identification of bigfoot. This identification is premature and not entirely in agreement with the facts at hand. First, bigfoot tracks do not look like ape tracks (as yeti tracks do). Secondly, as stated just the other day on the tv series BIGFOOTVILLE, when people see these things from a distance, they say they look like apes. On the other hand, when people have close encounters, they say they are looking at some form of human.
While I’m a skeptic, I recognize that the bigfoot mystery is a compelling mystery. And we should always be rethinking the solutions to the mystery.
cryptidsrus :
Speaking as someone who has a long standing (though armchair) interest in the Paranormal, I can totally understand and grasp the disappointment regarding the ammo to skeptics and debunkers. I feel it every time someone jumps the gun over alleged evidence of ghostly activity that later proves to be something completely normal.
Thankfully, no one has accused anyone of a massacre (I suppose because it’s impossible to kill what paranormal investigators hunt….lol)
Theory is one thing, speculation is one thing. In ghost research, that’s more or less all we have. Cryptozoologists at least have the possibility of provided rock solid evidence, something the advocates for this strange theory do not have (as evidenced by the constant grandstanding/foot stomping).
I’m putting the entire thing down to a bad case of pareidolia…after all if pareidolia can make me see a demon face in an ‘orb’, it can make Davis et all see mysterious gunshot wounds in a grainy film.
Terrible analogy, I doubt anybody was ever crucified while wearing glasses.
And this whole “He said their ape was not an ape, but a human” is just ridiculous. Humans are of course hominoids like all the other apes. It’s like saying “He said their canine was not a canine, but a fox.”
The whole ape/human dichotomy really shouldn’t exist within the field, because within the Homo genus or not it would still be a North-American “Ape.” Assuming of course that such an animal exists.
Oh, and would “Inquisition II, the sequel” be a third inquisition?
Too little, too late.
The sad reality is that they will come to terms with the fact that in real life there you cannot click on “undo” or “delete”…
Once they (or anybody else for that matter) choose to release their theory to the public and mass consumption, they are agreeing to live with the consequences, and if that happens to be interpreted as “hairy human with ponytail massacre conspiracy theory” then so be it.
There are some who always point out that the internet is not the same thing as “real life”, but as long as there are real people sitting behind the computer screens, they must never forget that it has the potential for consequences in real life.
I am beginning to believe that the computer enhancement programs that Mr. Davis uses on the Patterson film will soon be able to show us the shooter on the grassy knoll, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Jimmy Hoffa’s remains and the boy scout knife I lost in 1975 - all at Bluff Creek. ( An increasingly aptly named locale )
My problem with this whole affair (outside the fact that Davis has somehow used a brief piece of film to make assumptions on what happened the day BEFORE the film was taken) is the same problem I have had with every other theory Mr. Davis has proffered: he talks of “evidence” but never produces said “evidence”. If one wants to be taken seriously one needs to go through the process of peer review. Every other science works in that manner yet Davis somehow believes he is exempt from this process.
Cryptozoologists must begin to conduct themselves like scientists in every other field. I don’t remember Watson and Crick telling everyone that they were not releasing their findings until their book/DVD came out.
The emphasis of the argument still fell on the supposed “massacre” and the idea that BF was really a human seemed secondary from my chair…until the fire rained down on the “massacre” idea, and then the human-BF theory seemed to come to the forefront as a hedge to escape the ridicule from the first.
I don’t buy the above analogy either. As DWA and others have pointed out time and again (ye olde broken record…), show us some proof. I’ve looked at the footage time and again, and have never come across anything to suggest mass killings, bulldozers, and wounded Patty.
Also, while I agree this has been a HUGE waste of time for the BF discussions, on the other hand I think it is good to discuss this stuff, even the inane. This is what we’re here for–to dissect theories, evidence, ideas and see if they have some substance to them, or are just ramblings and conspiracy theory crap.
And I don’t feel this hurts the case for BF, other than the waste of time on this particular topic. I think this just points out to the wizened and the new comers that you don’t-believe-everything-you-read…or hear…you have to think intelligently about this stuff as it comes across your screen and at conferences and you have to be very careful in taking someone’s word for these things, and use your own brain pan to see if what you are being told makes sense…or is nonsense.
I’m with MattBille…you said, it–Let’s move on!
(though thatericn’s comment made me laugh out loud)
As they retreat to lick their wounds, the world slowly starts to right itself and time washes this bitter taste from our mouths.
Never forget history otherwise it may repeat itself.
We are hearing from two of the three that they are done with this but we shall see. As much as I would like to think this is done I have a hard time believing that we shall not hear new “theories” or see “new evidence” on this matter. We must be wary.
On a note to Mr Johnson.
You bring up the evidence once again. Please don’t forget M.K. was given a chance by Loren to show us evidence of gunshot wounds, topknots, walking sticks, the pony tail. All he delivered were grainy pictures of a dark spot on the leg. This is less than conclusive and even though it’s a theory it is a weak one. We have been asking for more evidence to back his “theory” of a massacre than Mr. Gimlin looking at the ground. Nothing has been delivered and if you know more than us I would think you would be less than chummy with Mr. Davis because you are a part of this and he is not making you look good. If the evidence he has shown you is all that he has shown us perhaps you should step back and subjectively look upon what has been presented. I will give you credit for stating you do not agree with Mr. Marlowe’s actions. I really hope this is the end of it.
wayne_cramp- Precisely. I believe there were only handpicked people allowed to see the full extent of the “evidence”. That is enough to send up a red flag because if the evidence was so compelling then why not open it up for review and show everyone? Could it maybe be because it is not all that impressive and might not hold up to expert scrutiny?
Also, even among the things that were shown to people, it seems that there was some amount of disagreement as to what was shown. For example, there was a good portion of people who disagreed that the dark patch was a spot of blood. Yet instead of accepting this criticism and maybe allowing for the possibility that their idea might be in fact wrong, there was a general refusal to maybe reconsider whether it was in fact blood or not. How is this a pursuit of the truth?
It’s one thing to pick and choose who sees the evidence, but then to discount the opinions of those who DO see it in favor of sticking to a neat pet theory? Instead of reappraising the “evidence” in response to other opinions, the whole theory was doggedly held to no matter what anyone might say to the contrary. This is poor science.
The religious analogy is not so far off the mark. Think of the uproar over the “da Vinci Code”.
This has been a most interesting few days. There may be some who feel some of the posts have been too pointed.
However, accusing a man of murder, multiple murders, and covering it up over a 40 year span, deserves a pointed response.
Anything said on the posts pales in comparison to the charges leveled against Mr Gimlin.
Personally, I’m proud of the persons on this site. Unless you have more than a theory based on “evidence” that is not available except for sale on a dvd, keep it to yourself.
Just my thoughts.
Gavinfundyk: good post and great point.
The pouting I’ve seen from proponents of this silly theory is downright unwarranted. It is in fact ludicrous, given what they are alleging based upon, once again, ZERO EVIDENCE. The only way to purge such stain on people’s reputations - sustained, once again, by NOTHING - is to laugh it, most forcefully, out of the court of public opinion.
jayman: Da Vinci notwithstanding, the religious analogy was beyond irrelevant. “We humanized their ape” is, well, um, they didn’t. You have to present evidence for that.
(Christ would look so way cool in a pair of shades. Just thought I would point that out.)
Wow!! I feel a little creepy right now. I think Mr. Johnsen has a few personal issues to sort out. The comments made by Mr. Johnson almost read like ranting to me.
I for one agree that this entire thing has gotten ridiculous and I will be glad when it’s over. All this speculation, outlandish theory making and bickering is all just a bunch of childish BS. Dust yourself off Mr Johnson we all make mistakes but don’t blame Cryptomundo or anyone else for your unfortunate situation.
A perfect example, on both sides of the fence,of what is wrong with the so-called “Search for Bigfoot”. Charlatans, circus barkers, media whores virtually describes the entire lot. There are a scant few (maybe .0000999 percent) of us who take this issue seriously and try to be objective. The buffoons always seem to attract the attention and that is exactly why anytime bigfoot is discussed by mainstream media or science, it is discussed with a “wink wink and a smirk” which irritates me to no end. Many are just in this for two reasons, ego trip and the possibility of making a buck. So called researchers (anyone can call themselves a “cryptozoologist”) who have done nothing more than read a few books, watch a documentary or two and then proclaim themselves “experts” in the field, have done nothing but put a stain on the “legends” of this field. With the recent boom in “sasquatch” interest, the idiots are crawling out of the woods, so to speak. This may sound harsh but am I the only one embarrassed by some of these so called “researchers, detectives and radio hosts”? I am speaking of no one in particular but the entire lot. Buffoons for the most part and that is exactly why this issue is not taken seriously by most. I have studied, read every book and watched virtually every documentary and video ever produced, does that make me a cryptozoologist? I don’t consider myself one. I am a bigfoot enthusiast and consider it one of my “interests”. I have probably spent more time in the woods and reading and learning about these possible “creatures” than 99 percent of those calling themselves “researchers”. Still, I am not a scientist nor do I consider myself any kind of expert in the field. Like it or not, we need intelligent, well spoken and trained individuals to represent us if we ever want to get science interested and get the funds necessary to really prove once and for all whether this creature exists or has ever existed. That is not to say that we can’t grab a camera, mic and hit the woods in search of proof, however, we should not, unless fully capable of representing the entire field in an appropriate manner, try to sell ourselves as researchers, experts, detectives and cryptozoologists. Just my opinion. I think the face that is being put out there of cryptozoologist and bigfoot hunters is now almost cartoonish. We now have unintelligent, virtually illiterate, unprofessional people who are representing this field. Now, before you bash me as trying to sound snobbish, I am the most liberal, blue collar and open minded person you will ever meet. I just think that if we are to be taken seriously we need people like Meldrum, Krantz, Chilcutt and others who have the intelligence, schooling and ability to make this field credible. Just hop over to blogtalkradio or many of the other sites where anyone with a telephone line can host a show and just listen to some of the people calling themselves experts, cryptozoologists and researchers. I sometimes get embarrassed FOR THEM. I almost feel sorry for them because they do not realize when they are being lampooned. Oh well, I am sure that I will catch hell from these comments but so what. I am tired of being looked at with that smirk that we all know and hate when I mention that I believe that an unknown large primate may exist in North America. Again, this is targeting no one in particular but the general consensus. I am not talking about looks, weight or accent, those things do not matter (although some have made very disparaging remarks along these lines concerning those in the field) in my mind. If I had to put a face out there that would represent all of us who truly are interested and believe, I would want it to be that of someone like Jeff Meldrum. Well, take care my friends and I hope one day that this boom will fade away and only those of us who have been there since the 70’s and the few new to the field who take it serious remain.
Amen, Hudge.
Thanks so much Hudgeliberal, I couldn’t agree with you more. I too have been an enthusiast sense the 70’s. I sure as hell don’t consider myself an expert either. It is sad to say but there are going to be a ton folks that read your comment and they will get bent. To those that do all I can say is the old saying “the truth hurts” Good luck with your research and thanks for being one of the “.0000999 percent” that take this seriously.
Ah, if it were only true. I hope it is truly your last BF Massacre statement. I grew tired of correcting your so called “facts”, so much to the point, that I just let you rant like a lunatic in the last posts you made. I basically gave up on you and trying to help you see the light. I also did not respond to your personal attacks on me, although I never personally attacked you and just went after your ridiculous theory. I could have again corrected you point by point but I had the wisdom to see by the reply posts, that almost everyone agreed with me and disagreed with your theory. By not attacking you in the last thread after you purposefully went after me for whatever reason, I accomplished two things.
The first thing I accomplished was that members here, saw for themselves firsthand, without my posting another sentence, your childish and immature antics of attacking me personally. You went after a couple of members but you seemed to favor going after me personally. I would have been alright if you went after my data or facts, but you went after me personally. I never did that to you Mr. Johnsen. And that spoke volumes about you.
When I clearly stated the facts and others agreed and backed up my statements, your question and attack on me became irrelevant. You stated, PhotoExpert (or not?) That showed your maturity level and I did not want to lower myself to your level and engage in such folly. But the replies also answered your own question, PhotoExpert! And you were not! LOL
The second thing it accomplished remaining silent in that thread was that since others could not read a reply post from me, it gave them time to think for themselves. It gave them time to mull over the facts and they probably wondered why I did not respond. I did not respond and did that with purpose and intent. Nothing you said could have upset me, because I have to consider the source of a comment. Johnsen saying something about me, really? No big deal! I could care less. But if I responded to your childish baits, then I would not be an adult. That would be juvenile behavior. I although you cared to resort to that kind of behavior, my ethics won’t allow it. So your ranting proved my original allegations. You proposed a theory. When confronted with the facts from an expert in the field, you did what I said you would do. You ranted, you diverted attention elsewhere, you diffused the situation with personal attacks on members who disagreed with your ludicrous theory, and never answered even one of my original questions when you first proposed this theory. So you proved me right twice! And I did not even have to post or stoop to your level.
Mission Accomplished!
Now with that being said, you should have just come out and stated your theory. You could have said, that although you do not have any concrete evidence and there were some enhancements done to the PG Footage that were open to interpretation and debate, here is my theory. People would have embraced it. People would have probably helped you. But to say you had facts would be incorrect. You had some supportive information that was open to interpretation for your theory. Then I might not have called it a ludicrous theory. I would not have brought in the humorous UFO theory and BF. I would have said, that is pretty interesting, what do you have in the way of evidence? Tell me more. Tell us more. It is the way you approached the subject Mr. Johnsen. That was the problem!
In this thread, you stated: “Frankly I would like to see Marlowe taken seriously to task for making official accusations of this kind without substantial evidence of the facts. But, the damage is done.”
Sound familiar? That is exactly what I did to you. In fact, they were my exact words in your first or original post. I told you I was going to take you to task and I did. Here, you want to do to Marlowe exactly what I did to you. However, when I did it to you, you wanted to change the rules and complained. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And the theory you proposed had little to no substantial evidence of facts. Yet, you did the same thing that you are complaining about with Marlowe. A bit hypocritical, wouldn’t you say? And you are right, just as with Marlowe, the damage is done.
Unfortunately, you can not take back that damage. You can not delete it. You can not erase it. But what you can do is learn from it and not make the same mistake next time. We are a forgiving bunch here at Cryptomundo. As long as you come openly and post with good intentions, no one will hold a grudge. Hey, you attacked me personally, but I will not hold that against you. If you wanted to attack my facts, I would have been alright with it. But since you could not, I found it a juvenile attempt at diversion to attack me personally. No biggie! Just make sure you do not make the same mistake again. I will not hold it against you. And I believe in my heart, no one else here at Cryptomundo will hold it against you. Just make sure you truly learned from this scenario and come to the table clean next time since this is your last post on the matter.
Thank you for your time and your promise!
One reason why I tell people that the anecdotal evidence is the living, breathing, essential core of the evidence for the sasquatch:
It lies beyond the charlatans, the media whores, the all that other stuff hudge talks about, and gets straight to the point: people are seeing, and continue to see, an animal largely answering to the description of the one in the P/G film. The variations correspond to exactly what one would expect of individuals within a species, if not a related species.
You can’t do to the anecdotal evidence what’s been done to Patty. To see why you can’t, all you have to do is try.
It raises a clear-cut zoological question, and puts this topic where it should be: with science, and not with hip-shooting theorymongers with both feet firmly planted in the woo-woo.
PhotoExpert- I was wondering why you didn’t step in and reply to some of the scathing comments directed your way. Reading your post now, I think you probably did the right thing. I agree with many things you have brought up. I really enjoy your comments, and think you always have informative things to say, so I’d say don’t let it get to you too much and keep on posting!
As to the “humanizing” of Patterson’s subject, I recently reread Ivan Sanderson’s original article about the Patterson film. Sanderson was probably the first scientist to take sasquatch/bigfoot seriously. His conclusion concerning Patterson’s subject: “our lady is a form of primitive, full-furred human.”
jerrywayne: one problem crypto has, for sure, is that proponents are proponents, however they came to whatever they think. And all are tarred with the brush properly applied to a few.
Whatever Sanderson’s credentials, he made a completely unsupportable assumption. There is no way to tell from P/G what that critter is. Or, for that matter, from any film, by itself, what anything is, as witness the discussions of every film that comes up on this site. Although there is plenty of evidence, right there in the film, that asserts she’s not human as most of us would recognize one, there is no way to CONCLUDE that from the film. P/G was never anything more than evidence; it could never, by itself, however compelling, be proof.
In the case of the kipunji, one of the rare cases (maybe the only one?) where scientists accepted a photo-holotype, they had much other evidence to draw from in doing so.
Bipedal locomotion and a human-like gait and foot shape are not enough to mark one as human. And as has been shown, both of those things differ significantly from human norms in Patty.
Everything else notwithstanding, though, she ain’t NOTHIN’ until we have a specimen. Although many of us believe there’s more than enough evidence to go after that specimen posthaste.
DWA,
I agree with you concerning Patterson’s film as “stand alone” evidence: we cannot deduce with any degree of certainty whether the film subject is “primitive” human, ape, or a guy made to look like a sasquatch. Yet, I don’t think Sanderson made the kind of error you attribute to him.
Sanderson’s reasoning, I think, runs as follows:
He interviewed eyewitnesses who claimed they saw what appeared to them to be hair covered HUMANS (primitives?). Sanderson believed Patterson had filmed one of these creatures. Thus, Patterson had filmed one of these primitive HUMANS.
I’m not sure I follow you as you suggest “human-like” foot shape does not imply human tracks. Even when I was most ardent concerning PNM bigfoot, something always bothered me about the tracks. It is true they aren’t merely blown up human tracks (although they do have a distinct resemblance to infant human prints, made giant), but they looked almost nothing like ape tracks, for sure. So you have apes with human feet?
Anyway, I’ll turn the discussion over to Sanderson. He wrote this in the same article I quoted from above, as he distinguishes yeti (”giant, rock-climbing ape”) from bigfoot (”primitive…human”), based on their prints:
“The Yeti footprints found have an opposed big toe, almost like a hand. The Bigfoot has an unopposed toe, such as is seen only on human-type creatures.”)
jerrywayne:
Oh, I get Sanderson’s reasoning. That’s my problem with it: he automatically thinks something is human because it looks human-like, or witnesses with no other existing mental box to put it in put it in a “human” box.
I can only say again what I said above: Bipedal locomotion and a human-like gait and foot shape are not enough to mark one as human. And as has been shown, both of those things differ significantly from human norms in Patty.
We have an almost-innate tendency to look at all of our traits as peculiar to us, as having been granted by nature and God to us alone as hallmarks of our superiority to other beings. I don’t think so; I think even our vaunted intelligence might turn out, in the cosmic scheme of things, to make no more lasting impact on this orb than the antlers of the Irish elk or Smilodon fatalis’s teeth. (So far: 200 or so million years for the dinosaurs; about half a million, give or take, for us. Any given dinosaur species was probably around longer than we’ve been, by a lot.)
But we are smart enough, at least, that bastion after bastion has fallen to our knowledge of the world. Tools? Shoot, tool-users and makers are all over the place. Laughter, sadness, slavery, war? Not unique to us at all. Language? Not so fast. And on and on.
So: an ape with “human” feet? That walks upright? Sure. Why not? Why would we pick feet and an upright posture as our ultimate trademarks? There sure seem to have been enough species that came up with it; seems to work pretty well. There’s always room for one more!