December 31, 2006

The MK Interview on Bigfoot Live.

Dear Readers,

Well, M.K. Davis has finally spoken up about his use of Rick Noll's work, and he also discusses his new "discovery" regarding the Patterson/Gimlin film (which does not now seem like such a new discovery). Who does M.K. Davis talk to, to get his side of all this out to the public? None other than Tom Biscardi. Yep, that’s right folks.

Did anyone else find the questions Tom Biscardi asked of M.K. to be familiar? Hmm, I can’t imagine where Biscardi could have gotten those questions.

Mr. Biscardi starts out this interview with a bit of commentary about how M.K. has not been offered a "venue" to get his words out. He claimed M.K. has been cut off and not allowed to speak. This is pure nonsense. M.K. chose not to discuss any of this; no one attempted to interrupt him or stop him from addressing these issues, he simply chose not to and allowed others to speak for him. That was his decision. Although Mr. Biscardi may not have known this (because I’m sure he was not told), M.K. was offered a venue to get his story out. I personally had a conversation with M.K. about putting out an article as a way of explaining what his "new discovery" was all about, but he also knew an apology for certain words used had to be included in the article. To insinuate that I would not have been fair to M.K. is very disingenuous; I have been more than fair with every person I have interviewed to date. Still, M.K. politely said, "I will think about it. "

So, now the truth of that little matter is out.

I must admit, I wonder if Mr. Davis isn’t much better at public relations than I ever imagined? M.K. seemingly had every researcher in this field whipped up into a frenzy, many ready to buy whatever was put out regarding his "new discovery," and every day the leaks seemed to get more sensational. Why wouldn’t someone want to pay money to see what he was talking about? I had many people ask me (after I made it known I would not be paying money for this), "Why wouldn’t you want to buy the DVD or pay to see the movie where M.K. discusses all this? " My answer was, “Because I wouldn’t ask another researcher to pay money for any information I might have, that’s why." I am all for finding ways to fund research into this mystery, I really am, but the people who are currently being targeted for sales of this DVD and movie already spend vast amounts of cash on field equipment, clothes, and miscellaneous gear to keep them safe in the field. I just believe that information isn’t something anyone in this field of research should have to pay for; many have already paid their dues.

In this interview researchers learn that they would have paid for a DVD or movie for no good reason at all. That’s right; M.K. discloses in this interview that he does NOT think Patty is human. Actually, he doesn’t know for sure what "Patty" is; it seems like he tries to go back and forth on "Patty’s" identity, a situation that now has me really confused. Was there a major typo in M.K.’s press release? Who typed up that press release? Someone must have made a big mistake, and M.K. should be very upset with whoever put out that press release. Wait a second, he can’t be upset, because he says in this interview that he put out the press release himself. M.K. says he issued the press release because it’s a "Legal Document." He says it is something he can always refer back to later. (Are you sure you want to do that now?)

[Note to M.K. Davis: A press release is not a legal document, no more than anything else you have ever typed on any message board.]

I have to admit that M.K. comes across in the interview in such a way that I sometimes feel a little sorry for him, but then he turns around and seemingly just can’t help himself...

For example, more than once during the interview he utters what seems to be gracious words about the work of Rick Noll, then he strays off into a lecture on how this isn’t his or Rick Noll's work, it’s the work of Roger Patterson. If that’s the case, I can’t help but wonder why M.K. doesn’t stop people from putting his name on all the various websites that post his "stabilization"? Isn’t that the work of Roger Patterson? Shouldn’t the websites be saying it’s the work of Roger Patterson? No, not really, because by his own assertion, M.K. says he made improvements; those improvements are his (and of course someone else’s) and he wants full credit for his work. And, if he did all this in the hopes of showing the world Roger Patterson was not a liar, why did he ask Cryptomundo to remove his "stabilization" from their site? Why is it that he feels obligated to protect his work, but Rick Noll shouldn’t? I guess that when it comes to Rick Noll's involvement, we should all just look at the film images as the work of Roger Patterson.

I have noticed that on some websites certain individuals think that researchers should not worry themselves about questioning M.K. Davis. I would argue it is important in this case, and it goes directly to an issue most researchers complain about, often and very loudly: Information Sharing. That’s right. Has anyone ever stopped to think why some in this field do not share information as others would like? Could it be because of things like this? If it’s OK to make money or fund your research by making a DVD or movie, it should be fine to protect the investments you have made over time, both financially and in terms of your own blood, sweat and tears.

Ultimately, the decision is ours.

What will we do? Ignore and continue business as usual, or raise our standards and not allow things such as this to happen again? I would say the decision is that of every single researcher. If you come down on the side that this is no big deal and not worthy of your thought and time, then you can never complain if your work is taken and used for something for which it was not intended.

Again, it’s up to each of us to decide.

Without further editorializing, here is the interview.


Tom Biscardi:
Let’s get into the meat and potatoes because we've got a great show, ladies and gentlemen. You've all heard about him, you've all heard about what happened. It’s Mr. M.K. Davis. M.K., are you on the line?

M.K. Davis:
Ahh, yes I am, Tom.

Tom Biscardi:
How are ya, good buddy?

M.K. Davis:
I’m, ah, fair to middling.

Tom Biscardi: Boy, you sound like a million bucks. You sound really good M.K. and I’m glad to hear that, because there’s been a few times that I talked to you and you didn’t sound as good as you do tonight, and that’s a good thing, that you’re up to the old par that I know ya. Now, listen, there’s been a lot of controversy going on, and everybody's been cutting you off and, and, you really haven’t had the real platform and, or the venue that you could just, tell it like it is. Okay? Well, guess what? You've got it now my friend; this is your hour. You can say what you want, how you want to say it. You just put it out there, ‘cause no one is going to interrupt ya. There are a few questions that I’ve got for ya, and uh, (Tom Biscardi clears his throat) and they’ve been aired out on a bunch of these different, ahhhh, websites out there and I hope you don’t mind me asking you some of these things.

M.K. Davis:
No, not at all.

Tom Biscardi:
And, ah, but you’re the one that’s gonna answer em, and, and nobody is gonna bother ya on ‘em, okay? Which way do you wanna go first?

M.K. Davis:
Well, ahh, just ask me some questions, whatever you got there.

Tom Biscardi:
Ok. Here’s, here’s some of the questions that have been opposed out there on these websites. Number one: What exact process did you use to create this stabilization?

M.K. Davis:
Now, which stabilization are you talking about, where it’s, where, is the panorama unfolds across the screen?

Tom Biscardi:
That’s correct.

M.K. Davis:
Yeah, uh, that seems to be the most popular one that I've done. I've done a number of stabilizations, uhh, ahh, I’ve stabilized, there's two different ways to stabilize it, you can stabilize the background and let the subject walk, or you can stabilize the subject and let the background move around, and I’ve done both. Ahh, basically I’ve used, uh, still images that were taken off, right off the film, uh, of John Green’s copy of the film by, uh, bigfoot researcher Richard Noll. Ahh, I used those still images to create the files; it was all hand stabilized. Every one of those frames that you see in that particular one where it scrolls across from left to right has been, uh, been color stripped, uh, in other words, I went in there, I digitally separated all the colors, and then I, uh, I, I removed the colors that were improperly focused, retained the, the more properly focused colors, and then displayed it in black and white and then, uh, changed the format, ah, to a file that I could, uh, animate and then, uh, and then I hand stabilized them, in other words, like, for instance, if I wanted the subject to appear in the center of the screen, and stay in the center of the screen, and be filmed as if the, the camera was following it and staying on it, then I, I, I set there and moved each frame around until the subject was dead center in the screen and it’s just very hard, meticulous, tedious work; it, it’s not the kind of work that most people want to do. It, it’s not rocket science, it’s just, ah, hard work.

Tom Biscardi:
Tedious and, and you did it.

M.K. Davis:
Uh, yes. Yes.

Tom Biscardi:
That was the name of the game.

M.K. Davis:
Uh huh.

Tom Biscardi:
Okay. Number 2: Did you use a copy of the film, or the original and, if so, from whom did you get it?

M.K. Davis:
This was a copy of the film, and I got it (pause and interruption by Biscardi)… Uhh, I got it, from ah, ahh, ah… a mutual friend of Richard Noll, uh, and myself that sent it to me, ahh it was, ah, greatly appreciated by me. I had been working on this film, ahh, sort of, ahh, in, in, in behalf of Roger Patterson, I guess. Once I realized that what I was looking at was real, on this film, then I sort of, ahh, sort of, in my, ahh, my main effort has been to, ahh, to get the very best version of it, and so people could see that Roger Patterson is not, you know, a liar or a hoaxer.

(Tom Biscardi: Okay.)

(M.K. Davis continues) Ahh, uhh, You know, I just think that to me, it’s just wrong for a person that’s deceased, uhh, that can’t defend himself, to have to watch people, like what’s been going on with different people claiming to be a man in a suit and stuff like that, and he deserved better than that. I’ve been working toward that end.

Tom Biscardi:
Well you know it’s easy for when someone passes, for someone to accuse someone else, because now he can’t get up and defend himself, can he?

M.K. Davis:
No, not at all, that, that’s, that’s been my main [unintelligible]. You know I don’t want it to be anything other than it is, ahh, if it, if it turned out to be a man in a suit, ahh, I would be the first person to say, you know, I think it’s a man in a suit. And, and, and actually, the way it has turned out as of late it’s, (unintelligible) you know it’s caused so much of a controversy is that, it went a different way than I expected it to go. And, and I hope people appreciate, that you know, that, that in midstream, sometimes you have to change directions. You know, if you’re honest with yourself and your research and everything that is going on.

Tom Biscardi:
You bet.

M.K. Davis:
I, I, I really don’t wanna, to ahh, take anything away from any other researcher or anybody who has ever worked on the film ahh at all and especially Richard Noll, ‘cause I admire the guy a lot, I know it takes a special sort of a person to, to run a film under a microscope and take, and to optically enlarge every frame and, and photograph it, and ahh, ahh you know, he’s… I’ve just got nothing but good things to say about Richard Noll and, but, all the, all the files that you see, you know, that I have put out, I constructed them myself, they, they, they were constructed from still frames, so I created the stabilizations and they are stabilized, they’re hand stabilized and in, in lots of different ways. There’s many that I have that are, you know, no one has ever seen. But ahh, I don’t want ahhh, I, I, I don’t give myself more credit than Roger Patterson, and I don’t want to give anyone else more credit than Roger Patterson, because these still frames came from Roger Patterson’s film, and Roger Patterson took them.

Tom Biscardi:
(Talks over M.K. and interrupts him). How long did it take you to complete your work?

M.K. Davis:
Uhh, well, I’ve been working, ohh, ah… (Pause)… as far as my total time on, on, as far as my interest in this film and me, you know, working toward getting, you know, the best images and stuff, uh, about 10 years.

Tom Biscardi:
So it took you all the [ten years?] you’ve got involved in this thing right now?

M.K. Davis:
To get to the point where I am now, yeah, it’s taken 10 years.

Tom Biscardi:
Okay. Did you have Mrs. Patterson’s expressed consent prior to publishing your stabilization on the Internet?

M.K. Davis:
Yes sir, she told me that I could put them on the Internet as long as it didn’t harm her film or cost her money…

Tom Biscardi:

(M.K. Davis continuing) …and that’s understandable, and what I’ve been doing is trying to promote the Patterson film as authentic.

Tom Biscardi:
Right. Did that come verbally or written or what?

M.K. Davis:
No, it wasn’t written, she just told me that over the phone.

Tom Biscardi:
So it was just a phone conversation?

M.K. Davis:
Umm hum.

Tom Biscardi:

Tom Biscardi:
Did you have a conversation with Rick Noll, prior to posting your gif file on the Internet?

M.K. Davis:
No, nah huh.

Tom Biscardi:
And if so, what did he say?

M.K. Davis:
No, I haven’t had a conversation with him, no.

Tom Biscardi:
You had none at all?

M.K. Davis:

Tom Biscardi:
OK, very good.

Tom Biscardi:
And then, what are your thoughts on the controversy over your use of Rick Noll’s work? What they’re saying?

M.K. Davis:
Like I said, I admire the guy, and he did a fantastic job, but ultimately those are Roger Patterson’s images. You know, ah, even though he rendered them, they came off of Roger Patterson’s film. Roger Patterson took them.

Tom Biscardi:
Um hum.

M.K. Davis:
And, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t take anything away from Roger Patterson, you know, so I don’t want to put, as much as I think, as highly as I think of Richard, I don’t want to put him above what Roger did.

Tom Biscardi:
So, the bottom line there is, it’s Roger Patterson’s work.

M.K. Davis:
It’s Roger Patterson’s work, that’s it exactly; you can’t go into a movie and film the movie and come out and say, "This is my work."

Tom Biscardi:
Um hum.

M.K. Davis:
You know, it’s still, it’s still the filmmaker’s work.

Tom Biscardi:

M.K. Davis:
Roger Patterson was that filmmaker.

Tom Biscardi:
Um hum, um hum, um hum, um hum. Did Rick Noll ever contact you concerning these issues and or questions about your work?

M.K. Davis:
Yes, he did. (Silence) Ahh, ahh, Rick recognized that I had put some of his stuff up there, and, and, and, at first, I did try to use some misdirection there, ‘cause I didn’t want Chris Murphy to get in trouble.

Tom Biscardi:
Um hum.

M.K. Davis:
Chris Murphy is who sent me the images… ah, Chris is a great guy and he, ever since he met me, him and I have been corresponding he, he’s tried to help me, ‘cause he knows I’m really genuinely trying to, to do, you know, something good with the film.

Tom Biscardi: Um hum.

M.K. Davis:
And I didn’t want Chris to get into trouble. Once, once it got out that, that Chris, uh, was the guy, and everything, then I didn’t have any problem at all, you know acknowledging Rick, the source of the stills, as being Richard’s. And um, John Green, I don’t want to leave John Green out of it, heck, ‘cause it’s his film, and, ahh, you know, John Green’s been in this forever. I mean, he’s like an icon in this, and, and even at this late stage of the game, you know this guy is still producing, you know, prolifically, you know, it may not be in the way he anticipated that it would, but it’s, it’s, it’s ah, been good for the film.

Tom Biscardi:
Umm hum.

Tom Biscardi:
Is it the, is it at all possible that the stick you saw could be a leading edge of the left hand as it swung through in the film?

M.K. Davis:
Well, I thought so at first, uh, ahh, you know, ah, when I first saw it, when I constructed the, ahh, reconstructed the film entirely in color, that’s when I began to notice there was something there in the left hand; ‘course, it wasn’t that distinct, ahh, but what it caused me to do was to go back and look at the film, all the way back through to the beginning. You know, frame-by-frame, there you go back to the tedious stuff again.

Tom Biscardi:
Um hum.

M.K. Davis:
And I did, I found it in, in a total of four places. And, and in the earliest parts of the filming, you know, that’s seldom ever seen, ahh, it actually came through quite clearly, and, ahhh, there’s no doubt in my mind what it is.

Tom Biscardi:
Um hum, so you're a firm believer it's a stick?

M.K. Davis:
Oh yeah.

Tom Biscardi:
OK, good.

Tom Biscardi:
Did you ever contact Mrs. Patterson or John Green prior to using the original film, or publishing your stabilization version?

M.K. Davis:
No, I, I, I talked to, to Patricia Patterson, not John Green. John’s been, ahh, he hasn’t been very cooperative on the film. He told me when I first got into this, that he didn’t think anything more could be done with the film, you know, umm, he emailed me and he said there was, you know, no point in even going on with it. Of course, you know, I have a background in astronomy, and uh, I am an amateur astronomer, and the amateurs sort of learn the tricks, how to get the things out, how to get little out of nothing.

Tom Biscardi:
You know, I’m so glad you said this, because you know, I’ve had about 7 emails, that people are saying, “Well I think he did work for NASA.” Can we put this to rest, either say yeah or nay, can we put this thing to bed? Did you work, or are you working now for NASA?

M.K. Davis: No, No, I don’t work for NASA, nor have I ever worked for NASA.

Tom Biscardi:
Where’d that thing start from?

M.K. Davis:
I think it got started maybe perhaps, uhh, in the early days when, ah, when the, ah, Jeff Glickman analysis of the film, you know, was still being, uh, discussed a lot, uhh, and that would be an organization they formed for the purpose of that called NASI, uh, North American Science Institute. And I think maybe someone heard "astronomy" and "NASI" in the same sentence or something, and, and sort of put two and two together or something and thought it was NASA, but no, no, I don’t work for NASA at all and never have and ah, I’m a big supporter of NASA, but, but I don’t work for them.

Tom Biscardi:
OK, and by the way, um, um, have you determined the color of the skin of this creature?

M.K. Davis:
Ahhh yeah, it’s amazingly light. Ahhh, and, and you know, ahh, looking back through, having traveled back to the film site at the same time of day and the same time of year, and, uh, that’s what you have to do ultimately to fully understand what’s on the film, what you’re looking at on the film, cause this film was taken, uh, with 25 speed film, which is not very sensitive to light at all, and when this thing passes through the shadow, I mean, you lose all contrast. I mean, everything becomes one color on it. But when it steps out into a beam of light that’s filtering off these tall canyon rims, uh, it sort of, ahh, blazes right up, and those are the moments where it gives you, where you can see through, it pierces the hair, you can see the skin and, and the skin is quite light-colored. Ahhh, I would say it’s sort of a high yellow, umm, at least that’s what it appears to me, it’s much, much, much lighter than the hair itself.

Tom Biscardi:
Wow. OK. It’s been alluded to that, the prints you used in your work are actually photographs of Cibachromes, possibly obtained from Dahinden. Is there any truth to that?

M.K. Davis:
Ahh, the Cibachrome prints, uh, they are, they were produced by Bruce Bonney. I think he was working in relation to Rene Dahinden, for Rene Dahinden, perhaps. They were rendered from the original master, which is, you know, any analysis that you can get that’s from the master is naturally going to be the very best. And, when I talk about master, I mean the actual reel that was in Roger Patterson’s camera, when he took the film, the movie; it’s going to be the very best. Ahh, as far as, I think there were like twelve of those images rendered by Bruce Bonney. Ahh, Bruce Bonney rendered the images off the film, just like Rick Noll rendered them off the film, but they’re not Bruce Bonney’s images.

Tom Biscardi:
You know, that’s, it’s interesting you have said this now two or three times now, in the last 15 minutes, ahh, 12 minutes, and, and I want the people out there to understand this, that this is Roger Patterson’s film. You know, they all talk in 2nd and 3rd party. The first party here is Roger Patterson. He’s the one that took this film; it is his, and now, it’s his wife’s. Is that correct?

M.K. Davis:
Yeah, yeah, there’s other people who have bought into the rights and those people have to be satisfied and everything too, but I have to, aahh, I haven’t done anything to hurt that film or cost anybody money, if you can only say anything it’s only helped the film. Ahh, I’m working in Roger Patterson’s behalf, and I really don’t know why; I have asked myself many times why I did this, because he’s deceased, and it’s an almost impossible project, you know, the odds are way against ya, that you will ever succeed. But somehow, Tom, in all of this, with my astronomy experience and, and the things I have learned about film and that, that I could see there was a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel, that it was a doable thing, and if I could do it, it would be an important thing, it would be meaningful, and, and you know, and I wanted to do it in a meaningful way, and to really help, and I think that I have done that. I certainly hope that I have done that.

Tom Biscardi:
Well, you know I think you have too, but I don’t think anybody has really listened to what you’ve had to say, I don’t think you have really had the floor to, ah, let everybody understand what was going on, and you have got that now.

And ahh, I’ve got one other question here for ya. Who is Owen Caddy, and has any of his work influenced you or any of your work?

M.K. Davis:
Owen Caddy worked with the same prints that I worked with, uh, the ones that Noll took. I met Owen Caddy in Pocatello; he seems like, just an extremely intelligent young man. Ahh, he’s been, he’s been over to Africa and worked with the great apes over there and, ahh, just a world of experience, you know, with them, umm, and he put on a heck of a presentation in Pocatello, very convincing, ahh, believe me, if I had not come across, you know, what I have come across, as of late, ahh, Owen Caddy would, would probably still be influencing me as far as what it is. But because the stuff is so convincing, you know, that it overrides everything.

Tom Biscardi:
Incredible. That’s where you met him, up there in Pocatello?

M.K. Davis:
Yeah, ah, Owen, ahh, you know, ah, he’s, Owen, you know, Owen could do anything he wanted to. You know, he undertook this project because he thought he could do some good. And there are a lot of good people in this business. They really try, they wanna help, ya know. Uhh, and, I, you know, I just met lots of wonderful people and I’m really thankful for everybody I’ve met that’s befriended me. I’m, I’m not a bad guy, I’m a nice guy, I’m just trying to help, and people sort of read all kinds of things into what you’re doing and your motives or whatever. What it boils down to is that I’m trying to help a deceased man and redeem his name. You know, this film is an important film; he should have taken a place in history with that, you know, not as a con man.

Tom Biscardi:
Well, I’m, I’m glad that you’re doing what you’re doing. What, what do you say to all these people out there that, that’s saying… Oh, ahh, you signed a movie deal now, and you’re only in it to get money, you know, financial rewards, in the, in the end now?

M.K. Davis:
Tom, to be honest with ya, I haven’t even heard from Pat Holbrook, uh, after all the stuff broke out, [the heat?] that was kinda on me, I don’t even know where he's at. He might have decided to just drop the whole thing. I, I had a very small part in it. I went up there and I shot my part in a couple hours. He wanted to make a movie about Roger Patterson. And, and it was in a fictitious setting, it was Hollywood, but it had elements of truth to it. And it was where the film could speak for Roger, and, and sort of, ahh, uh, redeem him, and, and the people would understand, you know, that they, what they were seeing was Hollywood, but it had elements of truth to it, and, and maybe perhaps, you know, with all the, the uh, the bad press that Roger Patterson has got, uh, Roger Patterson has got press not only about the film, but about his personal life too, uh, a really bad rap. And, and the idea of, of, of, you know, sort of a redemption of Roger Patterson, in a, in that sort of way, just appealed to me, you know. I wanted to help if I could. I have made no money off of it, no money has been given to me, period. Uh, to go to Ohio, I had to put $400 worth of tires on my car. You know, it, it’s always been on my own dime. Uh, he did pay for my, you know, for some of my expenses to come up, but not all of them. I actually, you know, went in the hole before I got back and had to pay my own way back. But, ah, you know, it’s just an effort to try to do something good.

Tom Biscardi:
You know, you know, you’re preaching to the choir, and I will tell you the reason why. Ahh, you know, they all say, "Oh, geeze, you know, you have this, you travel there, you travel here." People don’t realize what it costs today to, to stay into business, okay? And if you got nothing coming in, nothing from nothing is nothing, period, end of report, you know, and, and, they just don’t understand just because you’re a public person, okay, right away, ahh, there’s a stigma that’s planted on you. "Oh, you've got money, and oh, you've got prestige," and, and all this stuff that goes along with it. Baloney! None of that, unless you really get out there and do what you’re supposed ta be doing and, and make it happen. That’s the only way you’re going to make money in this business, as you know. (Laughter by Biscardi.) I hear exactly where you’re coming from. I know, I’ve been there, I’ve done that, okay? And, ahh, but, there's so many people out there thinking that… Oh geesh, uh, there’s somebody put some picture on the ‘net, I saw one of the emails, and it says that somebody was signing a check over to you, and it hit all over, you know, Cyberspace out there, that this was your big Golden Apple. You know?

M.K. Davis:
Oh, no, nobody’s signed any checks over to me at all, no, not at all. No, no, ain’t made no money off it.

[Note: Don Monroe calls in at this point to offer his support for M.K. Davis. He attempts during various points to get Mr. Davis to revert back to his original use of words to describe Native Americans that caused M.K. so much trouble to begin with. Kudos to M.K. for not going back to that place, apologizing again, and holding on to that apology. So much for M.K. getting a full hour. I am not including that portion of the interview.]

Tom Biscardi:
You know, M.K. is on the show with us here tonight (talking to Don Monroe). Uh, M.K., you gotta forgive me. Don is one of our people and he comes in anytime he wants to. Where you at now buddy?

Don Monroe:
Florida, sunny Florida.

Tom Biscardi:
Are ya in Florida? I'll be darned.

Don Monroe:
Yeah, the sun is shining down here; it’s a nice place.

Tom Biscardi:
Yep. Well, right now, ahh, M.K. has been on the air, and without any interruptions or anything, and telling his side of the story, and ah, it’s been pretty darn good. And you know the good thing about this M.K., is now people can’t distort it, because now they can go to the archives and they can listen to the whole story, the way you lay it out.

M.K. Davis:
Well, you know, I, I, I think that once people see, uh, you know, the images that I've got from the film, you know, they won’t be mad at me. I mean, it’s just what came off the film.

(Inaudible—M.K. and Tom Biscardi talk over each other a bit.)

Tom Biscardi:
(Inaudible, someone is moving around or something) It’s how you see it, to them.

M.K. Davis:
Yeah, I think that seeing is believing, and everything, maybe people feel a little threatened that I came to a different conclusion, but what I, I never said that, and people confuse my words a lot and, and, sort of misrepresent it, but, ah, I never said that, that Bigfoot was human, I just said what was on the Patterson film was human.

Tom Biscardi:
Uh huh, uh huh.

M.K. Davis:
Ahhh, that doesn’t mean that, that, Bigfoot is human, or that doesn’t… I don’t even know if that’s a Bigfoot or not, on that film. You know, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Ahhh, ahhh, maybe it’s, uh, some sort of Almasty, or something like that. I had, I had a, I had an interesting theory, you know, that I had worked on, and that, that Don and I had talked about it before, uh, that perhaps these things came from China, or Tibet, the Tibetan regions. You know, there were some sign posts, no hard evidence, but sign posts that seem to point back to across the water there, you know, and I thought maybe they came over here, and, uh, that they had, uh, been abandoned here. Whether they are Almasty, Yeti, or, or whatever you call them. But, ahh, you know, it’s just a theory, that’s all. Uh, and, and I was about halfway through that theory when I ran out of time on another radio show, and it wasn’t their fault because I was part of a symposium. You know, you don’t get the entire time, you know, you only get a short, a portion of it. And, I ran out of time, and, and I was sort of theorizing that maybe the early Spaniards saw, uh, these maybe Yeti or whatever, the Almasty that had been abandoned, according to my theory…


Okay, dear readers, this is where I ended the transcription of this program. The rest is basically an impassioned plea by M.K. to other researchers to stay the course and not allow anyone to take you off your path (which, by the way, is great advice).

As for M.K. thinking researchers are angry with him, I really don’t see where any researchers are angry; it’s more like they are concerned with where all this is going. Even after transcribing this interview, I am still not sure what his "new discovery" is. During this interview he is given the chance to talk for an hour without interruption and set all this straight; instead he only clouds it more with Almasty and Yeti theories. What are you trying to tell us M.K.?

I think he forgot.

M.K. was the one that started this "ball" rolling down hill, and it’s up to him to bring it back to where it needs to be. Researchers who do not know what he is talking about cannot do that. That’s up to you, M.K.

I am all for any new discoveries in this field of research; heck, I would even applaud any new findings with the Patterson/Gimlin film (as I think that film is quite possibly the real thing), but I cannot support a new finding without first understanding what it is. M.K., this theory is not mine or anyone else’s, it’s yours, and as such it is also yours to explain if you want anyone to understand what you're talking about.

As for the commentary by Biscardi—well, once again, he doesn’t fail to disappoint.

*Join in on the discussion at*

December 22, 2006

My Christmas Card to you

December 16, 2006

Interview with: Rick Noll

Who is Rick Noll?

I find that, while many people may read Rick Noll’s comments on various message boards, many do not really know much about this veteran Bigfoot researcher. By his own account, he has been in this field of research since 1969. Rick Noll has worked with the likes of Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, John Green, Bob Gimlin - you name the person and he has probably met him or her.

Mr. Noll’s interest in this began shortly after some nearly tragic events in his life as a child. In order to take his mind off what had happened, a cousin started telling him Bigfoot stories; thus began a lifelong fascination with an animal that, to this day, he has yet to see.

If I had to guess, I would say Rick Noll’s first love is photography, which is apparent if you look at the pictures he has taken over the years. However, his interest in the field of Bigfoot research is something he takes very seriously. He is always looking for new ideas to apply in the field, examining what hasn't previously been tried that might be successful.

Something else many do not know about Mr. Noll is that he is very encouraging of new researchers in this field. I probably wouldn't be as active as I am if it were not for his encouragement. He took my interest seriously and has always been supportive, and I find he is that way with many of the researchers I know. Mr. Noll is always available to those with questions or concerns, or those who just want to talk about the animal. He will be the first to tell you that he does not have all the answers, and sometimes he will have you look for those answers yourself, but shouldn't we be willing to do a little work on our own? I appreciate the support and advice and the push to "do it myself" given by Mr. Noll, as I am not afraid to do a little work.

I would say that, in this field of research, precious few know as much about photography as Mr. Noll, and only a handful of investigators have been as involved in as many "high profile" sightings. Rick Noll has done work on films such as the Patterson/Gimlin film (copy supplied by John Green) and the Memorial Day footage, among others. I'm not sure how many researchers are out there who have the kind of information Rick Noll has and comparable experience and background to support their conclusions.

Mr. Noll prefers to work behind the scene most of the time. He likes to encourage and help - but he is a very humble man and is uncomfortable with speaking publicly about or engaging in controversies. If Rick Noll is going to talk about anything in the field of Bigfoot research, he would rather it be about the species itself or photography issues, not the periodic drama that inevitably ensues.

Unfortunately, recent events have put Mr. Noll in the spotlight.

Recently I posted about M.K. Davis and his work "stabilizing" the Patterson/Gimlin film, and now that news has broken via Cryptomundo. However, had it not been for previous work done by Rick Noll, the odds are that we wouldn't have the celebrated gif file provided by M.K. Davis. I think the commentary provided by Mr. Noll in this regard is very important.

The simple truth on this issue is this: Mr. Davis took images painstakingly acquired by Rick Noll and (after making his gif file) passed them off as his own. Such behavior is wrong. I won’t help perpetuate such a myth and would defend anyone who had their work taken from them. I believe it is the right thing to do, but as I’ve observed, it’s funny what some will defend and what they won’t. It seems to me this should be a "no brainer."

I often wonder, how much of this research is really about documenting the animal?

This field is really no different than most, I guess. Sometimes it seems like the level of backstabbing and drama is something "Days of Our Lives" writers couldn't come up with. When hurtful or wrong things happen, they should be made right. With regard to the current situation, I don't see this happening, as M.K. Davis has dropped out of sight since his comments about the Mewuk people of California (in relation to his “Patty” theory) and the leak of bad research on M.K.'s part (pertaining to his "cradle boarding" discussions).

Now this.

Please click THIS link to see what a "Stabilized" video looks like (scroll down the page and click on the pictures of the cars). Click THIS link, and compare the work done by M.K. Davis - do you see the difference?

I'm sure M.K. Davis supporters will not appreciate this article, and that is well within their rights. But, it’s also within my rights, and especially Rick Noll's, to get the truth of the issue out so that everyone can read the WHOLE STORY.

I will post responses in a later blog by some who are named in this article. First, however, I want the readers to understand that Rick Noll has forgiven Chris Murphy for his role in this matter. Time sometimes heals wounds, but first you must be big enough to apologize. Chris Murphy did exactly that. M.K. Davis has not.

Again, let’s be clear on the central issue being discussed here: there would be NO gif (or what M.K. Davis calls a "stabilization") had it not been for the work done by Rick Noll. PERIOD. Is Mr. Noll going to shout this from the mountains of Washington State? No. He isn't that kind of person.

Quote by M.K. Davis:

"I would like to state emphatically that I have never worked with any stabilizations other than my own.”M.K. Davis."

Posted on Nov 27, 2006, 9:42 PM

Well, then, I have some questions, since a certain message board will not allow dissenting opinion. (Yes, they very quickly stopped allowing my posts after I questioned the people on that board who were, yet again, not giving out factual information as to this issue).

1. What exact process did you use to create this "stabilization"?

2. Did you use a copy of the film (or the original)? If so, from whom did you get it?

3. How long did it take you to complete your work?

4. Did you have Mrs. Patterson's express consent prior to publishing your "stabilization” on the Internet?

5. Did you have a conversation with Rick Noll prior to posting your gif file on the Internet? If so, what did he say?

6. What are your thoughts on the controversy over your use of Rick Noll's work?

It was interesting to see that M.K. apparently chose his words in the above quote very carefully. While M.K. Davis did create a "moving" rendition of these Patterson film frames, he worked with images that belonged to someone else. And, as of last week (noted by the date on that comment), M.K. Davis is still not giving due credit to Rick Noll.

Frankly, I do not expect to be hearing from M.K. Davis, even though this is something I am sure he knew would come out eventually. Since he refuses to even admit he may have misspoken about other issues, why would he want to defend himself in this? He probably won’t. At this point, I'm not even sure there is a defense for him.

Please read this article with an open mind and put yourself in the position of Mr. Noll. Think hard about this issue. Would you want your work to be taken without permission and to have others see such behavior as acceptable? This is an issue that potentially affects us all, regardless of whether you’re an independent researcher or part of an organized group.

I was always taught to "Treat others as you wish to be treated.” Therefore I cannot condone this type of behavior by anyone. If I had stolen an article from Cryptomundo and posted it on this blog, taking full credit for it, would the owners of Cryptomundo have every right to be angry with me? Absolutely, and I would expect nothing less. This is no different. Just because M.K. expanded on Rick Noll's work does not make using the images acceptable.

Read the following interview and make up your own mind. Just remember, this kind of thing could affect you someday.

Interview with Rick Noll.

Melissa: Please tell the readers about yourself.

Rick Noll: I was born in Bremerton, Washington and have lived here in western Washington most of my life, though I did live in California, Georgia, Florida and Switzerland for a while.

I have traveled quite a bit around the world for things other than Sasquatch research, but I did just get back from peninsular Malaysia investigating claims there of having new pictures of Bigfoot-like creatures.

Melissa: Are you a member of any organized group(s) or are you an independent researcher? Or both?

Rick Noll: I have mostly been on my own in this research, teaming up with just a few individuals. I did join an organization once but it didn’t really work out for me or them.

Melissa: How long have you been active in the field of Bigfoot research?

Rick Noll: I have been active in Bigfoot research since about 1971. I was introduced to the subject in 1969, near Bluff Creek, California. I was so enthralled with the subject that I just had to meet with the people who were really active in the subject: Rene Dahinden, Grover Krantz, John Green and Peter Byrne.

Melissa: Have you noticed any changes in this field of research over the years?

Rick Noll: Yes… there are so many people now claiming to be looking for this animal that it begs the question even more so now, “Why we haven’t found one?”

Melissa: What has been your primary focus in this field of study? Please explain.

Rick Noll: My focus has always been photography. I would love to get excellent images of these creatures. Indisputable images. I would like to be able to develop a method whereby I could take almost anybody in reasonable health out and let them do so as well.

Melissa: What keeps you asking questions?

Rick Noll: Getting into the woods. Getting out and seeing wilderness. It makes one ask just how wild is wilderness?

Melissa: What do you think about the growing numbers of women becoming active in this field?

Rick Noll: It adds a new perspective that has been sadly lacking. I think it is great.

Melissa: Have you had a sighting? If so, please explain.

Rick Noll: I have seen some strange things, but nothing I want to say was a definite Sasquatch.

Melissa: What one piece of equipment do you think is the most important?

Rick Noll: Other than a well-trained, observant, and memory-stocked brain, I would have to say a good camera and the knowledge to use it properly.

Melissa: Most researchers have one report that "Stands Out" in their minds; is there a report that still stands out for you?

Rick Noll: I recently had the opportunity to revisit a case that I investigated in 1976. It was interesting. The man seemed to have become obsessed with what he encountered. He made a series of dioramas of the creature that stood in the moonlight at his ranch. Talking with him now I found it fascinating that he wanted to tell the creature that he was sorry he shot it.

Yes, I would say this one stands out in my mind.

Melissa: What questions would you like researchers to ask witnesses?

Rick Noll: I usually just like to listen to eyewitness testimony. My type of interviewing goes on for the life of our relationship. I cannot think of everything to ask right then and there. I also like to let other people ask the questions so I can be more of an observer than someone involved. I am mostly interested in the area and what the person was doing there.

Melissa: Could you please explain the process by which you digitized the Patterson/Gimlin frames you received from John Green?

Rick Noll: John Green gave me a copy he had of the Patterson Gimlin film, with the permission of Mrs. Patterson, to take microscopic pictures of each frame. I went there in person to pick it up. Drove to Canada. John was interested in finding those frames where he could get a reasonable estimate of the IM index of the creature. I had to build a transport stage for the film, which was on a reel. I used a 6-megapixel camera to shoot RAW formatted images through a microscope. Since the camera operator (Roger Patterson) was moving through the scene, as was the subject, the film stage had to be moved many many times through the process. It took about two months to get the images.

RAW images are not sharp or color corrected like consumer jpg files are. John Green could not use RAW images, so I just gave him unprocessed jpg files. These are highly compressed images and can contain artifacts from the process.

This was the first part of the job John asked of me. We were then going to select the very best and make film negatives of those images. I stopped short though.

The film I worked with was the same one used in “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.” It had been optically blown up at some point by John Green. In order to do better work and stabilize the photographs, I told John that we needed a better copy. I needed more of the background to align between frames.

I went to Mrs. Patterson and asked about this as well. She said that she would look into it but she was also dealing with a new book soon to come out on Roger Patterson and the film, so she had her hands filled right then.

She does have a master copy and was willing to make another, but she would have had to come to Seattle with it and stay until it was made.

Melissa: To your knowledge, has anyone ever worked directly with the actual film itself?

Rick Noll: There is a rumor that Bruce Bonney used the original film to make the 12 Cibachromes that Rene Dahinden wanted made. But that is about it that I know of. I remember that Rene told me that he had to go to California and pick up the film right before the UBC conference in 1978. The book that came out of the conference, “Manlike Monsters on Trial,” used the Cibachromes as plates in it.

I suspect that Bruce Bonney used a product called Scratch-All to hide the scratches in whatever film he used before printing onto the Cibachrome paper. Unfortunately, this also degrades the image clarity. The Cibachromes do not have, or they are highly reduced, the scratches that the film has.

I have also seen some stills taken from the film that have to have been altered by hand, details drawn in artistic interpretation.

Melissa: Please tell us your background and experience with Film and Video.

Rick Noll: I use to own a camera shop and professional photofinishing lab in California and know quite a bit about the process. I had to take Kodak classes in processing and slide duplication. I know all of the pros and cons... what is and is not possible.

Melissa: What is the difference between "stabilization" and a ".gif"?

Rick Noll: Stabilization usually refers to arresting subject or camera movement through a sequence of contiguous image frames in video or film works. A gif file is a format that can simulate video like movement over the Internet without the tremendous file size and resources needed to show an actual video stream.

My understanding is that the prints M.K. originally worked with were actually photographs of the Cibachromes. There was only one set of prints made. Chris Murphy took pictures of those Cibachromes using a light setup at Hancock House. Trying to string together 12 widely spaced or disjointed images on this film is nearly impossible, the best that he could do is morph one image into another or do a slow blend slide show... but I suppose one could also find the missing frames on other products than the Cibachromes, such as a video, and lift those to fill in the gaps.

M.K. used Rene Dahinden's Cibachrome prints for his initial work, but the more recent work with "stabilization" was with the digitized work I did for John Green. Cibachromes are one of a kind. You take a positive transparency and project it onto paper enlarged and then process it. If you don’t have the transparency any longer then you can’t make another Cibachrome from it.

Now if Bruce Bonney has a second set of the prints then he is violating copyright. Bruce was a photographer and I don’t think he did that. I went in the woods with the man in 1978 and he didn’t seem the type to do something like that.

The odd thing about Bruce Bonney is that he dropped out of all of this. He was going to make a book about the film with Rene, but they had a falling out of some sort. If I was a conspiracy theorist I might think something happened like Bruce did use the original film to make the Cibachromes and found the leader with a date on it that didn’t match up with the story. But that isn’t me.

Follow up question: In your professional opinion, would you call the work done by M.K. Davis "stabilization"? If so, why? If not, why not?

Rick Noll: I would not call a moving or animated gif file stabilization of a film. When I stabilize a film or video I move, rotate and scale the main subject so as to overlay a continuous image sequence that can be played back as if having been shot on a tripod and panned along the action route. You do not normally enhance each individual frame before reinserting it back into the sequence.

If I were to enhance the images and then reassemble the film it would be called “rotoscoping.” Enhancing the images means further disassembling them through their color layers. Film has different color layers in it, red being closest to the actual focused image on the platen. Blue is the furthest away from that spot and so the blurriest. Separating out that blurry layer leaves you with a B&W image. The red and green layers I would also put through a black point and white halo routine while sharpening. It could take 15 to 30 minutes to enhance just one of the frames.

Anyone who can get themselves a copy of Adobe’s Photoshop Elements can make an animated gif fairly easy. The program sometimes even comes with a camera when purchased new.

The animated gif made by M.K. streams across the computer screen, trailing behind it the background landscape. It is one picture laid down on top of another, but if you use a dry erase marker on your computer screen and mark the top of the head of the creature in the first image and then do the same with the last one you will see that your eyes will have to move across the screen to keep up with the image. This is because the points of reference used were not the creature but the background in trying to arrest movement. This tries to stop the camera motion, not stabilize the creature’s motion.

Melissa: How do you know the images used by M.K. Davis are the digitized strips you originally worked on?

Rick Noll: You can look at images through RAW editors such as Aperture, Adobe Bridge, and the like and it can show you the metadata contained in the image. Owen identified them as coming from my camera and date.

Melissa: Have you ever had a conversation with M.K Davis about all this?

Rick Noll: Only by email. I also had Chris Murphy apologize to me for releasing them to him. At the 2005 Seattle Conference he asked people, who got back with me, how mad I was at him. I told him I wasn't, it was OK.

Melissa: Can you discuss what you told M.K. and what his reaction was?

Rick Noll: I told him that it was wrong for him to have those images. That they should not be made public without the express permission obtained from all parties who have rights to them. They should not be released on the Internet. He didn’t really care about all of that it seems.

You can look at this like some one out in the alley at a Playboy magazine shoot getting a hold of the CDs containing the first photo spread of Angelina Jolie. Of course they want to show the public, make a name for themselves if nothing else.

These images were not mine or Chris Murphy’s to hand out to people. I even held back from letting Owen Caddy, someone I have been working with a lot, have them until I checked with John Green and Mrs. Patterson. I felt that was the right way to do things and still feel that way. I would have no problem with M.K. using the images if he went through that process.

I would caution all who would seek his help for such imaging work in the future. Bigfoot research officially now has its first paparazzi participant.

Melissa: Why have you stayed silent about this for so long?

Rick Noll: I haven’t. I have told people. It is like everything though. Some people rush to release what they have in order to get the scoop on someone else. It usually results in sloppy work and misinformation.

Follow up question: How do you feel about M.K. Davis using these digitized images you created for his latest release of information?

Rick Noll: From what I have read and what others have said about the whole thing, people think it was all his work. I feel kind of slighted and not real sure, maybe uncomfortable, about talking on it with those who would praise such tactics. The dog bit once, do you really want to try and pet it or another one again?

Follow up question: You looked at a copy of the film through a microscope. Did you see anything that resembled a stick or any of the other things M.K. Davis is currently discussing?

Rick Noll: I did not analyze the film in that manner. That is premature, at least on my part. I believe you do each job as well as you can and [do] not leapfrog over things when you get impatient or excited.

When news came out that M.K. had identified this creature as a “digger Indian” and not an Ape I was flabbergasted! Did I miss something? And what the heck is a “digger Indian”? Didn’t sound good, whatever it was. And to be carrying a stick? Now this started to sound like something I just came across, the Malaysia Bigfoot pictures and the metamorphic rocks. I have to really shake my head and laugh about that. I stood face to face with both Chow and Ang in their country and interviewed them on video the night before they released those images to the world and created the mess they are still climbing out from underneath.

It wasn’t until I visited John Green this past weekend that I got to see this animated gif that M.K. made from the images I was contracted to make. It seems that M.K. only sent this gif to a select few people… and I wasn’t one of them. (Remember me saying something about being slighted in all of this by M.K. and his supporters?) I saw what M.K. was referring to but, sorry to say, it looks more to me to be the dark edge of the left hand as it swings back and forth during the walk. It actually blocks out a good size area in back of the creature as it swings.

So to be honest, I haven’t looked at everything, but the email containing what he sent to John is not a stick. It is the edge of the left hand. The images I collected are interesting in this spot because it shows the palms to be as white as the bottoms of the feet. Didn’t someone in his camp also say something to the effect that the creature appears to have white skin? I don’t know, and truthfully don’t care anymore; this episode is about over in my mind.

Melissa: Other than yourself, who else has done work to enhance this film?

Rick Noll: Well, Bruce Bonney and Owen Caddy. I don’t know who else could be considered as really enhancing the images. The NASI work was done in such a format that no one can read them. Mrs. Patterson has a copy of those images on disc and they just sit in storage because she can’t do anything with them.

Follow up question: Did you eventually finish digitizing the copy of the Patterson film? If not, do you think it should be finished or ever will be completed? If not, why?

Rick Noll: No, I stopped around the 500 frame mark. I will start the process over if and when I get a better copy to do so. I think it really needs to be done though. This process maintains the color layers as they were shot. Copying from a print of any type has only half of the density of the original and the layers have been merged, compressed and altered from the original. If film has 11 zones of density, paper has but 5 zones… see what you’re missing here?

Melissa: Approximately how many videos have you been involved with since you became active in the field of Bigfoot research?

Rick Noll: About a dozen or so, mostly as what is called talent or appearing on camera. Recently though I have been trying to get to the other side of the camera.

Melissa: What you would like people to know about you?

Rick Noll: On Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday I have bad hair days. The rest of the weekdays I look for Bigfoot.

Melissa: Do you have any advice for a new researcher?

Rick Noll: Think about what you can add to all of this, see what has been done before and learn from the mistakes made, equipment up - then get your ass out there.

December 10, 2006

The Time Has Come

The following statement, issued to the Sacramento Agency by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, appeared in the California Indian Herald Indians Score Victory After Government Eliminates Name Digger From Official Use:

"Hereafter the term "Digger" as representing the name of a tribe of Indians in the Sacramento jurisdiction, and appearing in the records of this Bureau, will be discontinued, objections having come from others that this term is one of contempt and regarded by the Indians as humiliating and opprobrius. It will, therefore, be replaced by the name 'Mewuk' which, upon accepted ethnological authority, is the true tribal designation of these Indians."

The time has come for an apology. It took me 3 seconds to find this information, doing a Google search of all things. I should be offended at that alone. Why didn't I do it sooner? Not sure.

This saddens me a great deal, as I have typed those very words of disgrace on this forum. If my use of the hideous term offended any of these fine people, my apologies. Not even the use of it to prove my point is a good excuse.

Just because something was allowed at one time, that doesn't make it acceptable today.

In my research on this topic, I can not find 2 separate groups of Native American's that had this horrible name attached. I found only 1, and their wishes were later respected and are no longer referred to by anything other than 'Mewuk'.

People on various message boards have been putting out different names of Native American Tribes this term has been assigned to - but lets be clear here, M.K is not talking about all of the Native American Groups, he is being very specific to the Native American Group in California. This Native American group found this term to be highly offensive, and lobbied to have it changed, and were successful.

I think we should also respect their wishes.

I think the time has come for M.K to issue that apology. Now, he knows. It's time for the excuses to stop.

Frankly, I'm offended now because the information was so easy to find. I would encourage the makers of any DVD's on this subject to make any and all necessary changes to the up coming DVD, and I would extend the same advice to the gentleman making the movie on this issue. Lets show some sensitivity here. The information you need to confirm what has been said by many in this field of research is above - verify it yourself. Should you choose not to, well, I would say you deserve whatever you get.

Until I am sure all reference to this name, given to Mewuk Tribe, as a shameful derrogatory term, are removed from the upcoming DVD and movie - I will not post any links where this film or DVD can be purchased, or viewed. I will not have this blog site be party to the continuation of this shameful phrase designed to put a group of people down.

No more excuses - it's time to apologize.

December 7, 2006

A Sad Week , I wonder if they are taking applications for "Nessie Hunters"

There is no picture for this blog, as I find nothing funny or amusing about this sad situation.

Have researchers in this field been too hard on M.K. Davis?

Hum, I don't know to be honest. When I read all the various blogs and message boards, the overall impression I get is frustration. Once again, bigfoot researchers are being told there is a "new discovery" - but you must wait to find out what it is. I think this is the source for much of the frustration directed at M.K. Davis.

This DVD and movie being discussed is really a sore spot with some. Personally, I would hope M.K. Davis can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that what he is saying is true, before he commits those comments to film of any kind - but that wish may be in vain.

Recently amid controversy, the person responsible for the filming of the DVD stated that M.K was considering leaving the field of Bigfoot, due to the harsh criticism by some... This person then went on to issue a threat against a crypto blogger, basically if that blogger did not apologize to M.K Davis, and M.K did infact pull out of Bigfoot and the DVD project, he would infact take this blogger into court and recover any and all financial losses stemming from M.K.'s pull out from the making of this DVD.

Being someone who works in the legal field - I had to sit up and say out loud "How"?? I would really like to know how that person figures they can recover financially from someone else - if M.K. backs out of a verbal agreement with him... This is very interesting (or comical depending on how you look at it). There must be some obsecure contract law I am unaware of - and if thats the case, then I would appreciate someone updating me on the recent court ruling - or one I missed.

Saying Im sorry.

This crypto blogger did post an apology - which I thought was very big of him. I think its to bad that M.K didn't take that advice a few days ago when it was offered to him. Much of this could have been stopped days ago, had M.K made a general statement saying "I did not know the use of the words "digger Indian" was a
derogatory term, and if I offended anyone, I do apologize". This could have ended much of this.

The message is being lost.

If M.K is at all correct about anything in this "new discovery" - I am afraid the message may be lost because of all this drama. Isn't there enough "drama" in the field of Bigfoot research? Why create more or allow it to continue when you can do something to stop it?

And now, this :

"First, let me say on behalf of MK Davis, a seriously felt thank you to all who stood by him in this last (of many yet to come) shouting match over his newest findings. Here is what we have in a nutshell. (MK has suggested to me that ALL be made known prior to the DVD release through s secured chat room)."

Secured Chat site? This is how the information will be released that M.K put out a Press Release on? So, now my fellow bigfooters - you must either buy the DVD, watch the movie - or gain access to this secured chat site.

Why did M.K. send out a "press release"?

Seems to me he waisted his time typing, if he only intends to give out the information of his "new discovery" to whomever decides to try for membership into this secured chat site.

Everyday this goes on - I am less and less interested.

I can get this kind of information from the National Enquirer to be honest. Do I think there will be some "startling new revelations" revealed by M.K. Davis - No, I dont. I like M.K. he is a good man, and he has always had good intentions, everyone speaks very highly of him, and we have always had very nice exchanges. But I must admit, I am stunned by all this, M.K. issued a "press release" he knew would hit the bigfoot community like a ton of bricks - then told us all to "Wait for the movie"... But, then the announcement of a DVD... Then came the horrible radio program which started the rest of this.

M.K. has made some incredible claims in relation to the Patterson/Gimlin film in recent days, but you know what - I wont spend my money on a DVD or a movie to get the information of this "new discovery". Why? Because I wouldnt expect M.K. to pay for information I have.

When I think about the energy expended in this battle of words by some in the bigfoot community, I shake my head - and wonder what good any of this does for the research. Some seem more entertained by this drama, than the research itself. I often wonder if this happens so often because footage rarely comes out, new discoveries happen very seldom and basically this builds frustration within the researchers, thus the verbal attacks on each other. Its sad when you think about it for too long......

So, I will post something fun tonight :) YEAHHHHHHH ITS FRIDAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Join in the discussion at*