Thursday, May 29, 2008
DVD Review: Bigfoot (Bob Gray Productions)
My earlier review of this film is below, but this is for a newer version of this film, released in I think 2007. This version has slightly re-shot scenes and some scenes removed for smoother flow. It also has some terrific behind-the-scenes material, which features Don Keating discussing the possibility of a Sasquatch creature in the Mentor Headlands area, as well as a photo gallery. I will give this production a 3 1/2 out of 4 stars rating.
Review: "Bigfoot", AKA "The Monster of Mentor Marsh"
This film was made in 2004 and made its big-screen debut in 2005. The film, shot in and around Mentor Headlands, Grand River and Painesville Township, Ohio, follows the story of single father and former army vet Jack Sullivan (Todd Cox), who moves back to his hometown of Mentor, Ohio with his daughter Charlie (Mentor native Brooke Beckwith). He runs across old childhood friend and local sheriff Bob Perkins (Bob Gray, also the producer and writer of the film), as well as Park Ranger Sandy Parker (Liza Foster), Bob's wife, Kathy (Bettina Steinmetz) and Old Man Hobson (Van Jackson), who claims that mysterious deer deaths are the result of not a bear, but Bigfoot (Shawn Kipp). The old man is seen as a crackpot by the townspeople, until an elderly gentleman goes missing, and the Sheriff's office is forced to investigate. People and animals are found eviscerated, with heart and liver missing. Without giving too much away, the story takes twists and turns that would make any big-time director proud. The film is reminiscent of "Jaws" and "Predator", but manages to retain originality. It's a mystery which takes the viewer on a horrifying journey which has a conclusion few would expect. The movie can be found
Beyond The Edge Radio Tonight...
Eric and Sean will have John Ventre of Pennsylvania MUFON as their guest beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at
Review: Sasquatch Triangle 5-29-08
This was a GREAT show, with Liza Foster, one of the actresses in Bob Gray's movie Bigfoot, who discussed her acting career and also her role in the movie, as well as the fun she had making the movie. She also discussed future projects she will be involved with in the future which are not related to 'Squatch. Thomas Hughes called in and asked if Liza had fun making the movie, I called in and told Liza what a pleasure it was to meet her at the Conference and also asked Don about the Ancient Conneaut Giants in Northeastern Ohio. Bill Green also called in and complimented Liza on the movie and also asked Don his standard question, LOL Dunno what Don has in store for next week, but it should be an interesting one, beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at The Sasquatch Triangle, Now On NowLive.com
And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
Bill Green's review of America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction
my new book review of america s bigfoot fact not fiction by dmitri bayanov this book is AWESOME its russian researchers look all about bluff creek p/g bigfoot filmfootage it was wonderful photos in this book articles & other great stuff as well. i give this book A++++ this book will realy make you realy understand the russian researchers opinions ideas about the p/g filmfootage.this book is realy wonderful for any sasquatch researchers bigfoot/sasquatch books library. thanks bill green ct usa sasquatch researcher henry please put this above review in your blog & janice forum or your yahoo group
Russian Hominology Books now for sale on eBay!!!!!!
Bigfoot Research The Russian Vision |  |  | $70.00 | $4.80 | 8d 23h 23m | ||
 America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction | | | $40.00 | $4.80 | 9d 00m | ||
Special 3 Book Gift Set on Bigfoot Research by BayanovRussian Hominologists Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev, with special assistance from Janice Carter, are now making their books available for sale on eBay. In one auction, the three books, In The Footsteps of The Russian Snowman, America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction and the newest book Bigfoot Research: The Russian Vision are available as a gift set for $125.00, a $25.00 savings. We hope, and I know Igor, Dmitri and Janice concur, that you will enjoy all these books and learn more about the Russian hominologists and their pioneering studies. Addendum: Comment from Chris Murphy: This book provides an extremely in-depth study of hominology. I have known Dmitri Bayanov since the early 1990s and will attest without any reservations that he is a (if not *THE*) world authority on this subject. He and his friend Igor Bourtsev have spent many decades researching hominids in Russia and throughout the world, and are both world-renown in this regard. In this volume, Dmitri "puts it all on the table" in his usual hard-hitting, no nonsense, direct manner. He gives credit where such is due, but does not mince words when he points out that truth or justice has not been served. When you finally put this book down, you will have a totally new appreciation of hominology -- I know, because this happened to me. |
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
Recent Post from ShBoom2 on BFF
For what it's worth, I was also there, in the large session as well as the small session, and I was one chair closer to the screen than John Cartwright (who's a very nice person, by the way).
I only want to discuss the images themselves and what I SAW. I'm a visually-oriented person and a photographer, so I paid close attention to the details of what I observed. I also work in a visual field, and visual material is not something effectively communicated verbally. Visual material can only be absorbed visually, and one must see these images for themselves.
The images from the Noll catalog, and the transparencies were amazingly clear. Remember that with every generation of copying, film loses details and gains contrast. The transparencies were first generation and were made by Roger himself, and provided to MK by Mrs. Patterson. The Noll images were early generation copies made by microscope, but I didn't catch what generation. With one exception (which I'll mention later), the versions of the film we are used to seeing on the Web are several generations removed.
Also, we must remember that the film moves at 18 frames/sec. The BF community has focused its attention on only a select few frames. What MK did was look at sequences of frames and the information revealed by motion that happens too quickly to be seen at normal speed. Most of what he showed us was either slo-mo, or frame by frame.
In the Noll images, you can clearly see the vertabrae of her back, the muscles move beneath her skin/hair and her glutes move as she walked. And after removing the reflective values representing her hair, MK revealed nipples on her breasts. This was no suit.
It is in Roger's original transparencies that Patty's skin is lighter, but her face was still darker than the rest of her. It was in Roger's original transparency that her mouth was open and you could see her teeth. It was in Roger's original transparency that she had NO fingers in the classic view of her looking back at the camera - her hands were more fisted. In the comparison of that image to the later versions of the film, MK did a simple enhancement that exposed the masking done around Patty. As a photographer, I'm familiar with masking and recognized it immediately ... it was at this stage that her skin was darkened and her fingers added. He also compared her face at this stage with Roger's original transparency. Her mouth had been closed, lowered and widened. (And yes, this kind of airbrushing was commonplace as it used to be the only way to adjust images. I still had film airburshed before printing images as late as the mid-90s when graphic software finally started getting good enough for such editing.) MK had no idea who had done this, but an audience member spoke up with the name of the person who did that work, supposedly in preparation for printing/selling individual photos from the film. But the bottom line is that SOMEONE edited Patty. One can speculate about the reason, but we have no way of knowing for sure. But the proof of the editing is in the images themselves.
I saw the ponytail clearly once MK pointed it out. It moved like a ponytail and did appear to be secured in two places. The braid was revealed when he increased contrast on a zoom-in on it, and a herringbone pattern emerged. I've messed with pictures for years and I've never seen a pattern like this emerge in only one spot in a picture, and certainly not in conjunction with where such a pattern would make sense. The braid was at the end of a lock of hair that swung out from her head as she turned it, visible only in slo-mo, which is what caught MK's eye, as he told it. Because it was so thin at the end, it looked weird so that's why he took a closer look. The braid appears even in the blurriest versions of the film as blurry line hanging down across her right cheek in the view of her looking back at the camera. Her saggital crest is only hair. A saggital crest wouldn't move as hers does in slo-mo (MK referred to this as her head changing shape). But I admit I wasn't totally convinced of this until the later, smaller session (mentioned below) because of the visual interference of dark background objects as she passed in front of them. This can account for the optical illusion of movement or a change in shape.
I saw the red stuff on her heel and the large spots of it on the ground from where she had just lifted that foot. This was RED, redder than what was in the pool. Maybe she stepped in some red paint - is that any less absurd than blood? All I know is that it was RED, it was on the ground and on her heel and after the next step, it seemed to have been wiped off her heel or covered up by dirt that might have stuck to it.
I saw when she went down. I have since spoken with a couple of folks who had previously noticed on their own that she went down and wondered why no one else ever said anything about it. But she does go down and her butt is up on the air, just as she disappears behind some logs and stuff. She gets back up quickly. I did not see, but spoke to some who have, the spot at the beginning where she seems to stumble over her own feet, and drag one foot, creating a small trench. MK's presentation was interrupted before he could show us this, but I did see the trench in a later frame, just not when she made it.
As for the hernia, looking frame by frame, a flap of skin is seen rising up and completely separating from her leg, than flopping back down. Then the hole and concentric circle appears. MK did not call it a bullet wound ... an audience member first said it. In the private session, I asked why she didn't react and MK showed us a sequence where she did come down on that leg differently in the very next step. And I also realized that in relation to her size, it may have felt more like a BB shot to her, but that's my speculation. There was no blood on her leg, and MK never said there was blood on her leg, so I don't know where people have gotten this. But the classic view of the hernia with which we are familiar is simply the middle frame where the skin flap is halfway up. Now, people have said that these images can be interpreted differently, but I've not heard of another explanation. The hunters I spoke with at the conference seemed convinced that it was a bullet wound. So, who knows ...
Another interesting sequence that suggested a second shot was shown to us in the smaller session. Something causes her topknot to suddenly blow upward and forward. The pony tail jerks upward in reaction. The wind was supposed to be less than 10 mph that day, and a breeze like that isn't going to blow your hair up like that - this was too quick and violent of a motion. Roger jerks the camera in the next frame, perhaps in reaction to a noise? So, was there another shot that narrowly missed her head? It looked like a reasonable explanation to me, but it's only speculation. But this sequence eliminated any doubt I had about her saggital crest being only hair. I can't point you to when this happened. Her back was more to the camera and I think it was later in the film, but I don't know for sure. And of course, unless you can advance it frame by frame, it happened too quickly to see at normal speed. I believe it was only four or five frames long.
As for the pool, it appeared to have a square corner, but it's seen from a slight angle so one can't be sure. There were dirt berms on two sides of it. Roger shot a sequence of Patty over the top of the berm on the far side of the pool, and does appear to be standing in the pool as he does so. There are straight, consistenly-spaced vertical marks along the far edge of the pool that look like the teeth of a back-hoe. The pattern was ... wide space - thin vertical line - short space - thin vertical line - wide space ... repeated across the length of the pool several times. There are no heavy machinery tracks in the frame, nor did MK say there were, so I don't know where this came from. He only said that he got it confirmed that logging activity was taking place there so heavy equipment could have been on site. There is no way to judge the size of the pool in this pic, and the berms don't look very tall. But assuming that Roger was average height, the berm he shot over blocked a lot of his view of Patty, so it must have been pretty tall compared to where he was standing ... MK speculated that he was standing in the pool based on a frame by frame examination. But for all we know, he could have recovered his balance on his knees and shot from there after falling. But my point is ... there WERE dirt berms on two sides of this pool, but you can't tell how large anything is. Some people at the larger session couldn't see the right-hand berm but there were rocks on the right-hand side of it that had shadows clearly indicating the slope. Oh, and you cannot tell how deep the pool is.
The pool had whitish things in it that were lighter in color than the dirt and rocks around it. And there was a dark object in the pool. You could see where the red fluid had been splashed up onto the dirt and rocks on the far side of the pool and left a stain or residue. The red color was a tad more brownish -- not as red as the red on Patty's heel and those spots on the ground. Maybe a slightly rust color would describe it better, but the contrast between it and the light-colored soil around it was drastic. The pool exits the edge of the frame at the bottom and lower left, so you only see the far side and the right-hand side. And yes, this is only one frame in the sequence where he falls down, but it's a clear frame. Patty is only visible from the knees down at the top edge of the frame, a bit right of center. (MK said he found this frame after he grew curious about a flash of red that appears in the sequence where Roger falls down.)
There was another sequence showing a light-colored, stick-like object in Patty's left hand. She seems to shake her hand when dropping it at some point, and it can be seen falling behind her left leg. No clue what that is. But it sort of looks like it has a straight end and a curved end. I believe I recall that Patty looked down at her hand when she dropped it, but my memory is fuzzy on that because it wasn't as interesting to me as the other stuff.
Now, I HAVE SEEN a version of the film, within the last year, somewhere on the Web, where I could see Patty open her mouth and show her teeth. I only really got into BF online about a year or so ago, and I saw it at that time. In subsequent viewings of the film, I was puzzled because her mouth was closed. And I found her image itself to be flat in appearance (because of the skin darkening). I have no idea where I saw that other version, but I do believe that SOMEONE out there has an original copy of it and it's floating around somewhere. When I saw the original transparencies at the Ohio conference, I was blown away because I had seen Patty that way before.
THIS IS WHAT I SAW. If anyone wants to ask questions about what I SAW, fine. I understand the negative reaction to the speculation of the day's events, and we may never know what really took place. But I'm only going to discuss what I SAW in the images themselves. And to me, the images are the only important factor because speculation is only that.
I do think it would be interesting to have someone from outside the BF community, and with appropriate film forensic skills, to examine/compare the images for an independent determination.
I only want to discuss the images themselves and what I SAW. I'm a visually-oriented person and a photographer, so I paid close attention to the details of what I observed. I also work in a visual field, and visual material is not something effectively communicated verbally. Visual material can only be absorbed visually, and one must see these images for themselves.
The images from the Noll catalog, and the transparencies were amazingly clear. Remember that with every generation of copying, film loses details and gains contrast. The transparencies were first generation and were made by Roger himself, and provided to MK by Mrs. Patterson. The Noll images were early generation copies made by microscope, but I didn't catch what generation. With one exception (which I'll mention later), the versions of the film we are used to seeing on the Web are several generations removed.
Also, we must remember that the film moves at 18 frames/sec. The BF community has focused its attention on only a select few frames. What MK did was look at sequences of frames and the information revealed by motion that happens too quickly to be seen at normal speed. Most of what he showed us was either slo-mo, or frame by frame.
In the Noll images, you can clearly see the vertabrae of her back, the muscles move beneath her skin/hair and her glutes move as she walked. And after removing the reflective values representing her hair, MK revealed nipples on her breasts. This was no suit.
It is in Roger's original transparencies that Patty's skin is lighter, but her face was still darker than the rest of her. It was in Roger's original transparency that her mouth was open and you could see her teeth. It was in Roger's original transparency that she had NO fingers in the classic view of her looking back at the camera - her hands were more fisted. In the comparison of that image to the later versions of the film, MK did a simple enhancement that exposed the masking done around Patty. As a photographer, I'm familiar with masking and recognized it immediately ... it was at this stage that her skin was darkened and her fingers added. He also compared her face at this stage with Roger's original transparency. Her mouth had been closed, lowered and widened. (And yes, this kind of airbrushing was commonplace as it used to be the only way to adjust images. I still had film airburshed before printing images as late as the mid-90s when graphic software finally started getting good enough for such editing.) MK had no idea who had done this, but an audience member spoke up with the name of the person who did that work, supposedly in preparation for printing/selling individual photos from the film. But the bottom line is that SOMEONE edited Patty. One can speculate about the reason, but we have no way of knowing for sure. But the proof of the editing is in the images themselves.
I saw the ponytail clearly once MK pointed it out. It moved like a ponytail and did appear to be secured in two places. The braid was revealed when he increased contrast on a zoom-in on it, and a herringbone pattern emerged. I've messed with pictures for years and I've never seen a pattern like this emerge in only one spot in a picture, and certainly not in conjunction with where such a pattern would make sense. The braid was at the end of a lock of hair that swung out from her head as she turned it, visible only in slo-mo, which is what caught MK's eye, as he told it. Because it was so thin at the end, it looked weird so that's why he took a closer look. The braid appears even in the blurriest versions of the film as blurry line hanging down across her right cheek in the view of her looking back at the camera. Her saggital crest is only hair. A saggital crest wouldn't move as hers does in slo-mo (MK referred to this as her head changing shape). But I admit I wasn't totally convinced of this until the later, smaller session (mentioned below) because of the visual interference of dark background objects as she passed in front of them. This can account for the optical illusion of movement or a change in shape.
I saw the red stuff on her heel and the large spots of it on the ground from where she had just lifted that foot. This was RED, redder than what was in the pool. Maybe she stepped in some red paint - is that any less absurd than blood? All I know is that it was RED, it was on the ground and on her heel and after the next step, it seemed to have been wiped off her heel or covered up by dirt that might have stuck to it.
I saw when she went down. I have since spoken with a couple of folks who had previously noticed on their own that she went down and wondered why no one else ever said anything about it. But she does go down and her butt is up on the air, just as she disappears behind some logs and stuff. She gets back up quickly. I did not see, but spoke to some who have, the spot at the beginning where she seems to stumble over her own feet, and drag one foot, creating a small trench. MK's presentation was interrupted before he could show us this, but I did see the trench in a later frame, just not when she made it.
As for the hernia, looking frame by frame, a flap of skin is seen rising up and completely separating from her leg, than flopping back down. Then the hole and concentric circle appears. MK did not call it a bullet wound ... an audience member first said it. In the private session, I asked why she didn't react and MK showed us a sequence where she did come down on that leg differently in the very next step. And I also realized that in relation to her size, it may have felt more like a BB shot to her, but that's my speculation. There was no blood on her leg, and MK never said there was blood on her leg, so I don't know where people have gotten this. But the classic view of the hernia with which we are familiar is simply the middle frame where the skin flap is halfway up. Now, people have said that these images can be interpreted differently, but I've not heard of another explanation. The hunters I spoke with at the conference seemed convinced that it was a bullet wound. So, who knows ...
Another interesting sequence that suggested a second shot was shown to us in the smaller session. Something causes her topknot to suddenly blow upward and forward. The pony tail jerks upward in reaction. The wind was supposed to be less than 10 mph that day, and a breeze like that isn't going to blow your hair up like that - this was too quick and violent of a motion. Roger jerks the camera in the next frame, perhaps in reaction to a noise? So, was there another shot that narrowly missed her head? It looked like a reasonable explanation to me, but it's only speculation. But this sequence eliminated any doubt I had about her saggital crest being only hair. I can't point you to when this happened. Her back was more to the camera and I think it was later in the film, but I don't know for sure. And of course, unless you can advance it frame by frame, it happened too quickly to see at normal speed. I believe it was only four or five frames long.
As for the pool, it appeared to have a square corner, but it's seen from a slight angle so one can't be sure. There were dirt berms on two sides of it. Roger shot a sequence of Patty over the top of the berm on the far side of the pool, and does appear to be standing in the pool as he does so. There are straight, consistenly-spaced vertical marks along the far edge of the pool that look like the teeth of a back-hoe. The pattern was ... wide space - thin vertical line - short space - thin vertical line - wide space ... repeated across the length of the pool several times. There are no heavy machinery tracks in the frame, nor did MK say there were, so I don't know where this came from. He only said that he got it confirmed that logging activity was taking place there so heavy equipment could have been on site. There is no way to judge the size of the pool in this pic, and the berms don't look very tall. But assuming that Roger was average height, the berm he shot over blocked a lot of his view of Patty, so it must have been pretty tall compared to where he was standing ... MK speculated that he was standing in the pool based on a frame by frame examination. But for all we know, he could have recovered his balance on his knees and shot from there after falling. But my point is ... there WERE dirt berms on two sides of this pool, but you can't tell how large anything is. Some people at the larger session couldn't see the right-hand berm but there were rocks on the right-hand side of it that had shadows clearly indicating the slope. Oh, and you cannot tell how deep the pool is.
The pool had whitish things in it that were lighter in color than the dirt and rocks around it. And there was a dark object in the pool. You could see where the red fluid had been splashed up onto the dirt and rocks on the far side of the pool and left a stain or residue. The red color was a tad more brownish -- not as red as the red on Patty's heel and those spots on the ground. Maybe a slightly rust color would describe it better, but the contrast between it and the light-colored soil around it was drastic. The pool exits the edge of the frame at the bottom and lower left, so you only see the far side and the right-hand side. And yes, this is only one frame in the sequence where he falls down, but it's a clear frame. Patty is only visible from the knees down at the top edge of the frame, a bit right of center. (MK said he found this frame after he grew curious about a flash of red that appears in the sequence where Roger falls down.)
There was another sequence showing a light-colored, stick-like object in Patty's left hand. She seems to shake her hand when dropping it at some point, and it can be seen falling behind her left leg. No clue what that is. But it sort of looks like it has a straight end and a curved end. I believe I recall that Patty looked down at her hand when she dropped it, but my memory is fuzzy on that because it wasn't as interesting to me as the other stuff.
Now, I HAVE SEEN a version of the film, within the last year, somewhere on the Web, where I could see Patty open her mouth and show her teeth. I only really got into BF online about a year or so ago, and I saw it at that time. In subsequent viewings of the film, I was puzzled because her mouth was closed. And I found her image itself to be flat in appearance (because of the skin darkening). I have no idea where I saw that other version, but I do believe that SOMEONE out there has an original copy of it and it's floating around somewhere. When I saw the original transparencies at the Ohio conference, I was blown away because I had seen Patty that way before.
THIS IS WHAT I SAW. If anyone wants to ask questions about what I SAW, fine. I understand the negative reaction to the speculation of the day's events, and we may never know what really took place. But I'm only going to discuss what I SAW in the images themselves. And to me, the images are the only important factor because speculation is only that.
I do think it would be interesting to have someone from outside the BF community, and with appropriate film forensic skills, to examine/compare the images for an independent determination.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Sasquatch Triangle tomorrow...
Don will have a very interesting show, discussing research dos and don'ts and also technology and how it is used in Sasquatch research, including the use of digital recorders and infrared cameras. It begins at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at The Sasquatch Triangle, Now On NowLive.com
And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
Review: Monsterquest 5-28-08
This was a rather interesting episode, featuring a look at large hogs across the US, more especially in Georgia and Texas. A couple of Texas hog hunters, Tim Hicks and Kevin Ryer, band together with two from the Pacific Northwest, Mark Peterson and a gentleman with the last name of Ramber or something similar. They set traps in the Texas wastelands attempting to first of all capture a Trojan hog to attach a camera to in order to film an actual giant hog. They did accomplish that first goal, but not the second. An ecologist named Jack Mayer is also interviewed and is given a skull of a large hog killed in West Texas in 2002 which was estimated to weigh upwards of 700 pounds or more. He does determine that the skull is of a wild animal, but also surmises that most large hogs are most likely escapees from farm pens, farm-fed and they somehow escape into the wild. A couple of individuals describe attacks they suffered from large hogs which did injure them, but they survived, fortunately. No large hog is filmed during the course of production, but there is interesting data for future possible expeditions. Next week, the hit series on History examines the Vampire Beast (most likely Chupacabras) beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central on History. Check local listings for time and channel.
Confession...
I have gotten some criticism on a certain forum on my most recent HBM's Crypto-Corner, and last night I read it and thought these people were just being arrogant and negative. Well, having gone back and listened to the most recent show, it seemed like it did break down and degenerate into an argument between myself and an individual in that chat that day, and I lost focus on the show and it got completely out of control. So, my last show was not really as good as I would've liked, and I am admittedly disappointed in it. I hope the next show, on June 15th, will be much better. I am going to have a pretty stellar lineup for that show, in the form of Janice Carter, Tom Shirley, Steve Summar, Darin Richardson, Thomas Hughes and Becky Sawyer. It will be a lively roundtable show, and we hope you will tune in and support great research.
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.
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.
Seven Mysterious Creatures of Japan Pink Tentacle
Japan, like most countries of the world, has a rich history of mysterious creatures, part fable and part fact. Here are seven such creatures with images, including some photos. Elsewhere in today's cryptid corner, Mystery Big Cat Spotted in Wolds! continues the saga of large felines roaming the UK, More on MonsterQuest and Yeren offers details about the new season and the background on who served as the China contact for the recent Yeren expedition of Jeff Meldrum and Adam Davies and we join Nick Redfern to offer Congrats to Linda Godfrey!. Meanwhile, you would be advised to never let yourself be kicked by an African frog, because Some African Frogs Carry Concealed Weapons. There's more about this anatomical frog-oddity in Bizarre Frog Can Break Its Own Bones to Produce Cat-like Extendable Claws.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monsterquest Season 2 Premieres Tomorrow on History!!!!!!
MonsterQuest : Mega Hog Airs on Wednesday May 28 09:00 PM EST/8:00 Central
Do wild hogs in the United States grow to monstrous sizes? Many think so. In Georgia an 1100 pound hog was shot and killed, and in Texas beasts almost as large have been reported. But are these creatures raised and fattened up in a pen, or are they wild hogs, naturally more aggressive, that have somehow reached gigantic proportions? A MonsterQuest examination meets victims of vicious wild boar attacks, looks at the existing evidence and teams up with hog hunters, researchers and trackers to find a giant.
Check local listings for time and channel.
Review: Bigfoot Central/Bigfoot Quest 5-27-08
Bigfoot Central was good and interesting, with M.K. and Don discussing the recent findings on the Patterson/Gimlin Movie which may indicate that certain frames have been doctored, such as on the hernia spot/possible gunshot wound, the teeth and open mouth (which seems to have been doctored and changed) and some other frames. M.K. and Don also had John Johnsen on in the second half to address some things such as copyright infringement and other interesting aspects of the filming and his work on the DVD project with M.K. I also asked Johnsen about the recent posting he made on Cryptomundo about M.K.'s possible implication that Gimlin shot Patty. Dunno what is in store for next week, probably more on the film, but it begins at 8:00 EST/7:00 Central at Bigfoot Central Archives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigfoot Quest was interesting, if a bit disturbing, with guest John Phillips, who told a rather disturbing story of participating with the GCBRO in a hunt in 2003 at Monster Central in Louisiana which resulted in tricking a group of Sasquatch creatures by feeding them and then shooting them, especially gut-shooting one individual whose blood was collected and allegedly tampered with to fit the GCBRO's belief that we are dealing with an ape. Several folks called in, including Thomas (smiter), myself and Bill Green, and we asked various questions. Dunno what Bob and Mike have in store for next week, but it should prove to be interesting, beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at Bigfoot Quest
You can also download past shows there as well as subscribe via iTunes. And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigfoot Quest was interesting, if a bit disturbing, with guest John Phillips, who told a rather disturbing story of participating with the GCBRO in a hunt in 2003 at Monster Central in Louisiana which resulted in tricking a group of Sasquatch creatures by feeding them and then shooting them, especially gut-shooting one individual whose blood was collected and allegedly tampered with to fit the GCBRO's belief that we are dealing with an ape. Several folks called in, including Thomas (smiter), myself and Bill Green, and we asked various questions. Dunno what Bob and Mike have in store for next week, but it should prove to be interesting, beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at Bigfoot Quest
You can also download past shows there as well as subscribe via iTunes. And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
Now I can finally say, I have been to the top of the Mountain!!!
Steve A., Tom, Janice, Holly and I went to the top of a mountain in Cumberland County today, and it was an absolutely beautiful view. Words cannot describe how gorgeous it was. View the images for yourself to see my trip for today. We also had some interesting views of rock formations and sticks stuck in trees, but nothing definitive. We also ran across a small brown snake which was poisonous according to the shape of its head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)