Comments on: M. K. Davis Responses

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:54:17 +0000

I don’t see a digging stick in that video any more than I see Tom Biscardi, in a top hat, riding a pygmy purple donkey. And, even if the sasquatch did have a stick, who’s to say that it was a digging stick? It could have been a weapon, or even a toothpick! If you are going to make extraordinary claims, don’t stall on the evidence, because it ticks people off!

By: scout242

scout242 — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:03:14 +0000

I’m a little late on this comment….but….one mistake I did notice is that he said that the thumb ring was only known to the Mongols?….He needs to study the Native American histories a little better…..Ishi also used a thumb ring…even though he didn’t know a thing about the Mongols….Hmmmm

By: YourPTR!

YourPTR! — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:28:31 +0000

I don’t see “Patty” carrying anything, let alone a “digging stick”. :O

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:48:29 +0000

Here’s a quick review of M. K. Davis’ remarks to try to understand the essence of what he’s saying (click on link below):

What’s Being Said?

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:53:58 +0000

I am Native myself (as well as a Anthropologist/Archaeologist) and I am not insulted by MK. However, he is reading too much into Kroeber’s comments. She stated that “Alas the diggers are a frontier legend” meaning that what the 49ers described wasn’t true…NA were not living hand-to-mouth and grubbing around in the dirt. She was not referring to another group of people out there (diggers (or bigfoot as MK suggests) and NAs). Regardless, MK should not have used the term as it has ALWAYS been associated with California tribes.

I am still at a loss to understand why MK is heading down this road. There isn’t a digging stick in the film (and how could you tell it was a digging stick anyway vs. just a plain stick?). How can you tell anything about Patty’s genetic origin from a film? Credibility is about all any of us have, and to make a extraordinary claim, you best have extraordinary evidence.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:38:38 +0000

Mr. Davis may be saying that further enhancement has yielded new details from the film, and this is of course possible. However, a digging stick is a substantial object. Even if it were only, say, 18″ long (remember the film subject has big hands and would likely be using a good-sized stick to fit them), this is large enough to be obvious on either the original film or the enlargements/enhancements already done. There seems no logical way something of this size could have been missed by all the examinations of the film done so far.

Regards,
Matt Bille

By: Ray Soliday

Ray Soliday — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:22:46 +0000

Rather reminds me that “semantics” can get things all jacked up. As for Davis, his use of the “word” had no malice intent. He stated the context for how the word was meant, (listen to the archive). As for his theory, I do not concur.

By: moregon

moregon — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:06:33 +0000

OK, again if you had listened to the show Mr. Davis said he had further enhanced the work he had already done. So looking at his previous work you are not going to see anything. He plans on making a formal presentation of his findings very soon, so let’s give him the opportunity rather than starting another lynching party. If what he says is true, it’s significant, we can wait a bit longer since we’ve already waited almost 40 years.

Mr. Coleman, thank you for being big enough to allow Mr. Davis an oppotunity to clear his name.

By: satarina

satarina — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:52:26 +0000

i think it’s just time for mr. davis to admit that he screwed up. whatever his intentions, whatever he meant, it hasn’t come across in the way he says he wanted it to. hey, that happens. it’s not the end of the world.

of course, it’s not helping at all that this ‘digging stick’ he claims to have seen is invisible, as far as i can tell. his basis for his comments is something that only he can see, apparently.

from his response above, it looks like he has taken a paragraph of text that discusses a ‘legend’, and a stick that only he seems to see, and constructed an argument that he feels is sound. and he is upset that no one can follow that argument?

so, mr. davis, instead of retaliating against those whom you say have just misunderstood what you said, try showing us what prompted the theory in the first place. quit with this johor-like promotion and give us the information we need to follow your reasoning, because right now it doesn’t seem like anyone can.

By: bill green

bill green — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:44:41 +0000

hey loren, interesting new article about mk davis that i finally agree with you. i guess you kinda made a nice return apology to mk davis. thanks loren keep up with research, yes im really looking forward to seeing mk new p/g bigfoot film footage evidence etc as well. lets all be patient. thanks bill