Three solutions:

1. Davis has heard some rumors or talk from someone or some folks he thinks credible enough (concerning the “massacre” scenario) for him to reevaluate the Patterson film and related photos for substantiation. He honestly believes he has found that substantiation.

Against this scenario solution: he has not given any sources for his statements and leaves the appearance that his massacre story is vindicated by his analysis of the pertinent film and photos only.

2. Davis is acting in bad faith for a variety of possible reasons: he wants to be on the cutting edge of bigfoot research and interpretation and has concocted a story that gives him an instant opportunity. He wants to make money from a possible book deal. He wants to make villains of pioneering researchers. He wants….. who knows?

Against this scenario solution: he is (or was) a bigfooter of good standing and seems to believe his own stuff.

3. Like Searle at Ness, Davis has gone bonkers due to all the lonely hours he has put in trying to find evidence (via film analysis and tech) for an all important cryptid he believes in.

Against this scenario solution: he does not appear bonkers.

End result: I haven’t a clue as to why Davis is making the claims he is making.

Davis, explain yourself!

“But I have reevaluated that stance, in large part due to the contributions of such as Bill Munns, Jeff Meldrum, and Darren Naish – contributions that rest largely on the work done by Davis.”

I can’t speak for Jeff or Darren, but my efforts in the PG Film analysis never rested on the work of Mr. Davis. My analysis has been independent of his, and I have never endorsed any of his conclusions.

I may be doing things he has done previously, like the film image stabilization I have just completed, but I never relied upon his prior effort for my work.

I do think it is profoundly sad the John Green and Bob Gimlin must endure demeaning accusations which seem to have no merit. I have met them both and have every confidence that the events of 42 years ago occurred as John and Bob described, and not as Mr. Davis claims.

Bill Munns

Good job, Brent.

I would say what Brent is saying is that it is time for a “purging” of the more “wild-eyed” elements of the BF community that have NO EVIDENCE to back them up. Just slanderous accusations—that’s it. And I agree with him.

Oh, yes—

You hit the nail right in the head, as you do most of the time, DWA.

I guess we’ve been properly “schooled,” isn’t it???

Of course, by throwing in my “this is a joke” comments, which would have no forum otherwise, I may actually be endorsing your point. The more this goes on, the more caustic the comments get, and there’s a simple reason: this guy is behaving either wantonly maliciously or VERY strangely, and is backing nothing he says with evidence.

It’s a shame, really. The stabilization of the P/G film may someday be viewed as a critical step in the process of confirming hairy hominoids. I have said here more than once that P/G is terminally poisoned as evidence. But I have reevaluated that stance, in large part due to the contributions of such as Bill Munns, Jeff Meldrum, and Darren Naish – contributions that rest largely on the work done by Davis.

Some types there are who take a narrow proclivity, develop from it a considerable amount of attention, and over time begin overstepping their bounds – pretty easy to do in the first place – because they can’t get enough of the attention. That certainly seems to be what’s going on here.

So: you’re right. Because if this topic weren’t up on Cryptomundo, how the hell else could people like me say that Davis’s assertions aren’t laughable only because they’re BEYOND laughable?