They ARE animals, Silvereagle. Animals ain’t stupid. Look at us. WE’RE animals. (Oh, sorry. We’re pretty stupid.)

Actually I would say that the sas’s ability to outwit people comes partly from his wit and mainly from the lack of man-hour time spent by researchers in the field looking for the animal. M.K. Davis’s problem, as I see it, is that he thinks he can conjure up new information from a 40-year-old film. Ain’t happening.

And I’m willing to bet that if the sas exists, it ain’t human. Premature though that may be it seems well supported by available evidence.

Which means he’s a DIFFERENT animal from us.

M.K. made statements, and needed to be able to support them when asked simple questions about his own statements. When he could not, however, he and others tried to move the blame to the questioners merely to take M.K off the hook he clearly put himself on. Those mean-spirited M.K. Davis supporters who continue to call people names versus the remarkable behavior that Meldrum and his supporters have shown demonstrates why Meldrum is the one the media wishes to interview.

Where the money is in this field now is in FIELDwork. Which costs money better not wasted.

Couldn’t have said it better. I think sometimes crypto gets a bit TOO open-minded.

I saw this coming from day one. It really is (thanks, Ben! ) time to stop continuous re-re-revisionism of the Patterson film.

If there’s an animal out there now, rehashing film shot in 1967 sure won’t prove it, one way or the other.

That no one has ever, conclusively, that is, found the Patterson film to be anything — and that it most clearly shows a bipedal animal, albeit possibly one wearing a suit — is enough for me to say: keep looking. Elsewhere.

This is all very sad to me, all this tempest in a teapot. All the time and energy and attention that could have gone to something productive in Bigfoot research is wasted.

Frankly the most incredible thing to me is that anyone really believed that any new evidence would come from yet another analysis of the P/G film.

I have to agree with Alton Higgins comments above. Well said! The real issue is about “use” of the material, in this case, images. If the images have copyright, normally a written copyright release is obtained from the holder of the images. That copyright release can be for limited use or unlimited use. You may pose restrictions on the use of the images. The concern may arise in that Rick released the images to M.K. in “good faith” but for personal use only. And M.K. perhaps used them directly or indirectly for promotional purposes of a film or future book. Typically, “personal” use does not include commercial use for profit or advertising purposes.

As Alton alludes to above, one does not have to be a lawyer to understand the basics of copyright law. And certainly photographers, whether professional or amateur have more than a basic understanding of copyright laws concerning images and their manipulation. And that is where the problem lies!

Here are some legal and ethical questions that need to be uncovered.

The legal questions would be:

1. Did Mrs. Patterson give Rick a written copyright release for the images, either limited or unlimited?

2. Was there a verbal contract or just a mutual understanding that the images were to stay with Rick?

3. Were the images taken by an associate of Rick without Rick’s permission?

4. Were the images used by M.K. violate any prior copyright release?

5. So who would sue who in civil litigation?

The ethical questions would be very simple:

1. On what basis did M.K. feel he had the right to distribute those images even if permission was granted by Rick for personal use?

2. Where those images intentionally used as a means of generating interest (advertising) and/or profit?

3. What is the meaning of “personal use”.

It is very clear to me as a professional photographer where the lines are drawn both legally and ethically. And it would have been almost as clear in my amateur days of photography in college.

But to some, the answer seems more elusive and the lines less clear. In other words, ah, ahhh, um, ahh, uh, ahhh…

I could not agree more with every word of your post Alton. Nice job summing up my exact sentiments.

I believe the Apollo Theater in Harlem cut short spectacles like his with a broom-wielding clown.

The real issue has become that of one man using another man’s work without permission.

As indicated by his words in the Biscardi interview, Davis does not see his behavior as being wrong and actually rationalizes his actions. He offers no apology to Noll because none is warranted, from his perspective.

Unfortunately, there are those who do not consider Davis’s actions as being a big deal, to use Melissa’s term, and others who still seek to exploit Davis and this controversy for their own purposes.

This situation is a sad reflection of society.

Again, JMO.