More on Bigfoot Killing Fields
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 22nd, 2008
Robert Kittoe was one of the “eyewitnesses to history,” who attended M. K. Davis’ presentations on the Bigfoot Massacre (see summary by clicking on links here). Here are some of his sound bites remembrances. They add angles heretofore unexplored.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
M.K. indicated that Hancock’s materials did appear to be airbrushed inpart, in areas. Not that it was done by him! Dr. Meldrum concurred, and stated that he had previously discovered a modification in one of those frames as well. ~ Robert Kittoe, May 19, 2008.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At the Ohio conference, M.K.’s analysis is based (in part) on 8 glass slides that he obtained from Mrs. Patterson. The slides are taken from the original film. The slides show that the original film was “touched up” by the processor who is a friend of Mr. Patterson’s who worked for Kodak. Also the slides show that the markings that indicate who processed the film were punched out of the original film. ~ Robert Kittoe, May 27, 2008.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Biscardi’s antics wouldn’t make a fitting circus side-show performance. Connecting with him will open a lot of eyes to where Davis intended to go with this. His allegations on any shooting is complete nonsense and not worthy of any discussion. It is plain ludicrous!!! I’d be happy to elaborate but rather not waste any time on it. I agree with Melissa [Hovey] on the deception possibly felt by those who entrusted him. What kind of a person praises someone while insinuating they lied. Complete lunacy.
This mis-information will die a short death. It is so far out there, it grabs attention, but most people outside of Dr. Krantz’s ” L fringe” will see it for what it is. If Davis did actually bring out some details by use of software techniques, they are very fast fading away forever due to his lack of attention to math in school. Two plus two doesn’t equal ten. ~ ~ Robert Kittoe, May 28, 2008.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
M.K.
Your theory’s do implicate Roger Patterson. You put forth that Bob Gimlin shot Patty on the day of the film shooting. I think we all agree that Mr. Patterson was there, yet he never mentioned Bob Gimlin shooting at anything. That does implicate Mr. Patterson in a cover up according to your theory. You do a quantum leap with Bob Gimlin shooting a bigfoot family days before, and apparently assume Roger Patterson wasn’t a player in that event. How in the world do you manufacture all this? You place people here and there at your whim. Where is your proof? You also suggesting Bob Gimlin did not tell Roger about the massacre. Yet another cover up between friends? Come on M.K., think out all the processes at work here.
I was at the Ohio conference. You did lead the audience up to the hernia and bullet hole. You stated that you addressed the issue with Bob Gimlin of his shooting Patty, and that he did not refute it, you quoted him “that was in the film?.” Which by the way, does not make him guilty of anything. He probably couldn’t believe your statements. Later that evening you did show alleged blood dripping from Patty’s leg wound onto her foot, and you brought forth the massacre theory in all its detail, blood pool, operation back hoe, et al. These are your theories you are espousing, …all yours.
I suggest that if you offer up your work in a format that could be studied. Do a paper on your film analysis with proofs of the detail on Patty. Do separate papers on your shooting theories with proof. Why throw the baby out with the wash water.
Bob Kittoe, Ohio - May 30, 2008
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Similar Phenomena:
I think Davis did some important work with his enhancements and stabilizations, but just got carried away with speculation.
Bringing these airbrushings and modifications to light is important in itself and needs to be explored further.
Make it go away! Leave it alone and let it die the lonely death that it so richly deserves. Any “Killing Fields” mentioned forthwith should be only about the death of this ridiculous libel (I’m not going to dignify it with the title of ‘theory’).
very interesting update new article regarding this sitiuation about the so called bigfoot massacure. thanks bill green
Oh no. Not again…..
I’ll be happy when all this is over. It has done the cryptozoology community no good whatsoever.
This just helps further illustrate how out of hand and how perverse this all got based on some leap of faith conjecture…to me this is just a great “how-not-to demonstration on how to take a look at your own ideas…if you can’t look objectively and don’t have the proof to back up those ideas, then maybe you should do some more digging before you unload it on the cryptozoology arena and then have it blow up in your face…eventually…