Recent Post from Matt Knapp

What I'm wondering...

Why is there so much emotional attachment to this particular subject? What difference does it make what a single individual's lone theory is? M.K. says he sees certain things in the film that others do not see. Why crucify him for it? I don't see anyone crucifying Robert Morgan for saying there's a baby Bigfoot hiding behind the log and several more standing in the tree line. If you don't agree with someone's findings, then debate those findings. None of it has any bearing on the one thing that matters. Is "Patty" a person in a suit, or is it not? That's ALL that matters in regards to the film. If it doesn't answer that question, it isn't valid. It doesn't matter what one person believes might have taken place prior to or after the film was taken. If M.K. believes there was some sort of massacre and cover up, fine with me. I don't agree with it, but it's not ruining my day or causing me some sort of emotional build up. It's just one person's theory. It does not determine the fate of Bigfoot research.

Now it's moving beyond areas of the film and evidence. It's moving onto is M.K. the friend he says he is, and M.K. associates with Tom Biscardi. That's attacking the person, not debating the theory. Only non-legitimate researchers talk to or associate with Tom Biscardi? Well, I've corresponded with him a couple times, so add me to the list. Add Steve Kulls and Billy Willard to the list as well. I'm not trying to drag them into this or disrespect them by any means, and I hope everyone can clearly see the relevance. There are many other people in this field who have associated with Biscardi at one time or another as well. I don't see how that has any bearing on who they are or their research legitimacy. I thought we might all be above judging people and their accomplishments based on who they do or don't associate with. If Biscardi somehow managed to bring in an actual Bigfoot, everyone here would be patting him on the back and praising him.

I mean honestly, what's the goal here? Solving the mystery, or discrediting other people due to their theories and associations? I see it as having two options. You can either choose to agree or disagree with M.K. and move on, or you can present evidence and arguments that prove or disprove his theories if it really means that much to you. I think all of us can and have benefited from the work that has been done on the film, not only by M.K., but by many others as well. Regardless of those individuals own theories and opinions about what they think or see on the film.

Matt Knapp

Tulsa, OK