Comments on: What Stick?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:36:06 +0000

Groan.

By: Munnin

Munnin — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:22:22 +0000

I also look forward to what else Mr. Davis may have to say on this issue. Could it really be that the crux of his theory regarding “Patty’s” humanity is the stick he alleges is visible in the film? As many others have pointed out in earlier comments, plenty of non-humans, including even birds, have been observed and even filmed using sticks (which they even sometimes modify for the specific job) as tools to assist in obtaining food. This type of behavior among non-humans is so widely known and documented that it seems unlikely to me that a researcher such as Mr. Davis would overlook it. Would he?

By: YourPTR!

YourPTR! — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:29:23 +0000

The creature in the film isn’t carrying a stick.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:01:17 +0000

Let’s hope the media doesn’t pick up on this debate, or pretty soon Sprint or somebody is gonna come out with an add showing Patty carrying their latest cell phone…

By: bill green

bill green — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:21:23 +0000

hey everyone nice article but it kinda upsets & annoys me as well. when we see mk davis complete new findings of the p/g film footage it more surprising & controversial etc but lets all be very patient. who knows maybe the creature in the film is carrying a stick or a piece of wood of some kind thats what we all here in name of science & research will find out in time. thanks bill. the controversy continues to heat up. I’m beginning to sound like a movie director in sense of the term.

By: silvereagle

silvereagle — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:16:36 +0000

Perhaps the stick is not a tool for digging or communication, but rather, a tool to hype an upcoming bigfoot documentary. It appears that it has served it’s purpose, rather well.

By: CamperGuy

CamperGuy — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:17:59 +0000

I’d still like to see what Mr. Davis reports as being a stick. I’d also like to know what he feels supports his conclusions.

By: fuzzy

fuzzy — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:37:22 +0000

Stick to the topic!

By: joppa

joppa — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:21:53 +0000

Too many puns abound that we can stick on this story.

By: eagle4571

eagle4571 — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:57:55 +0000

MK has stated his theory of what the creature is. He has said that it is not a human in a suit and that it is human like, but that does not mean it is completely human like. He used the term Digger Indian without knowing that it was a racist term.

MK made some mistakes, who hasn’t. But you know what he is out doing what he can to prove the truth of the PG film, He spends time in the field and in the books learning about his subject and all he has offered is his theory nothing wrong with that. After all ,that is all that we bigfooters have about what the creature is are theories.

MK should correct and apologize for the incorrect usage of the term Digger Indian. He need not apologize for his theory of the PG film.

We in the Bigfoot community need to be less reactive and more open to other views. We do not need to be burning others at the stake as I feel has happened in this case.

I for one will wait to see what MK has to offer and then decide from that.