Post from BFF by Matt Knapp

To M.K. Davis, finding the truth is more important than anything else. He has been studying the film indepthly for over 10 years. The only thing he is guilty of is coming up with theories and explanations for the observations and perceptions of the things he has seen on the film. He has formed opinions and reached personal conclusions on certain aspects of the film throughout his work. He has willingly shared those things with the public time and time again, knowing that so far it has done nothing but harm his own standings in this community. He is not crazy. He is an intelligent person who does in fact have quite about of knowledge about the particular type of work he is doing on the film. I also believe a lot of the things he says get lost in translation. I've talked to him numerous times over the telephone, and discussed at great length some of his theories he has come up with in regards to the observations he has made. I've listened to his explanations, and while I honestly don't agree with a lot of them, I do understand why he has reached some of those conclusions. At no time while speaking with M.K. have I thought to myself "This guy is a raving lunatic!"

At the heart of the matter you have this; the P/G film is a Rubik's Cube with all the colored stickers removed. M.K. has made observations of the film, and has formed opinions and theories to explain those observations. It's all a matter of perception of what the individual sees on the film. It's no different than some people seeing a man in a costume, some seeing a large ape, some seeing a "forest person," or someone even more famous, and well respected in this community than M.K. claiming to see several of these creatures in the film. Whether I agree with any of them or not, people are entitled to their opinions, and are free to interpret what they personally see on the film any way they would like. Why crucify M.K. for it specifically, when it's something that has been going on since the film was first released? I for one wasn't at the conference. I don't really know what M.K. said exactly, and I have yet to see anyone provide a transcript of his exact words. Nor have I spoken with him directly about this latest theory, and heard his explanation of how he reached the conclusions that he has. Furthermore by saying all of this, that doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with his conclusions, nor does it mean I'm trying to defend the man. I'm just trying to defend the rights of individuals in this community to be able to speak freely about their own theories and findings, and at least shown a moderate amount of respect from their peers when doing so.

We all for the most part agree that when someone makes a certain claim as factual, we have the right to challenge that claim or ask for some evidence to support what they are claiming. I think that should be the focus at this time. I think we should urge M.K. or provide him with a "forum" where he can address these issues. It's difficult to persuade an individual to do that when they are being met with ridicule and name calling out the gate. Not to mention the last time he agreed to do this he was threatened with a lawsuit.

The final aspect I'd like to address is this. If you are basing your opinions of M.K.'s work on evidence he has personally shown you, explanations he has given you as to how he has reached the theories he has, then that's fine. However, a lot of people are basing it off what they have been reading on the internet. The "ground breaking exclusive" information being provided on a certain website via a certain author we all know. This individual got their "big exclusive" from another individual who is an independent film maker. A film maker that was at one time colleagues with M.K. A film maker that was at one time a member of a group that M.K. belongs to. A film maker who publicly defended an individual from Missouri numerous times who claimed Bigfoot were actually a type of people, and that she could telepathically communicate with them. This film maker also publicly defended M.K. on his findings that Patty is a type of human, claiming that they had in fact seen the evidence that M.K. had provided, and that it would "change the history of the world." This film maker also publicly lied stating that they shared exclusive legal rights, and were appointed to speak on M.K.'s behalf. The same film maker also released certain information based on their previous claim, with no permission to do so. This coupled with several other wrong doings as perceived by the group they belonged to and by M.K. himself, led to not only the film maker being removed from the group, but had ties cut with M.K. as well. The motivation of this film maker had seemed to be monetary, and it wasn't until they were cut out of the possible monetary gain of this endeavor that they all of sudden "flipped sides." Did the film maker ever point out that he had always supported and agreed with M.K.'s theories previously to releasing this "exclusive" information? It wasn't until the film maker was cut out of the loop that they decided that they needed to release all of this "exclusive" information. And where did they choose to release this information? On a certain author's website of course. Nevermind the fact that the certain author holds animosity towards M.K. from previous events. Thus making his opinion of M.K.'s work completely and negatively partial. He is not a journalist. His website is not a news website. It is an opinionated blog site. Regardless of how it's presented, that's all it is. Do you think it's coincidence that ALL of the quotes used on the website about M.K.'s theories happen to be negative ones? What about a couple of particular quotes from certain Russian hominologists who "heard about the theory from people in Ohio" not M.K. himself? Did the article mention that they have worked with M.K. in the past and supported a lot of his findings? Did it mention these same Russians are the ones who support the supposed happenings of a certain farm in Tennessee, and believe Bigfoot to be a race of people who have the capability of speaking various languages depending on their geographic location? Of course not. But their brief quotes speaking negatively of this "massacre" theory were certainly used. Theories they heard about second hand, which were more than likely coming from a person who already held a negative opinion about the matters. Imagine that, a writer who doesn't like M.K. and refuses to allow M.K. posting privileges to defend himself, uses words and quotes to lead the reading audience a certain way. Gee, I wonder why this film maker who is surely just looking out for the best interests of the Bigfoot community, happen to choose that particular author and website to bring us this "exclusive" news? Especially since he had gone head to head with the author previously defending these very same theories, and even went as far as to threaten legal action against him.

I would hardly consider any of that honest and true journalism.