In November of 2009, MK Davis went on a radio show that he host and said the following …
Davis said, ‘But when I have good video evidence … you know, where I pretty much know what I am talking about, then it trumps personal testimony … it trumps the word of mouth … it’s good stuff. “
Davis went on to say this about the film images he has offered as proof of his allegations, ‘I want people to understand that I didn’t make any of this stuff up … I didn’t put anything in any of these films … I didn’t add any color … I have no reason to do that.’
I am here to tell people that I believe that Davis is playing loose with the facts and he did indeed add color by altering the film images. I believe that there is evidence that not only was Davis aware that he was altering the images, but that he knew when and when not to use them to his advantage.
To start with, I would like to share some of the things MK Davis has written about using poor multi-generational images when attempting to analyze films. These statements are found in a document Davis wrote called “An Important Paper”.
Davis writes, “When analyzing fine detail in the film, it is absolutely vital to work with the original film or with a copy produced directly from the original film …”
“The copy image is altered drastically by slight errors in focusing, filtration, exposure, and development. These errors are transmitted and compounded every time a copy is made so that the image degrades sharply after a few reproductions.”
“Therefore, analysis of film copies spawned far from the original film will result in errors of perception and interpretation caused by severe optical, chromatic, and tonal distortion.”
From MK’s own mouth it is apparent that he knows the shortfalls of using poor quality images removed far from the original and yet he ignored his own teachings when he takes a poor dark over contrasted copy of the Blue Creek Mountain footage and makes statements so bold as to say how the images he has seen trumps the witnesses testimony. If what Davis says is true, then one could say that the sand in Bluff Creek is of a reddish hue color and not bluish gray which is the true color seen by anyone who has actually been there.
Below is one such example where the film frame has a reddish hue to it. It is common knowledge that over time the dyes in the film become unstable. In this case the film has taken on a light reddish hue appearance. This image seen well before the alleged massacre is theorized to have taken place shows a reflection of the objects and colors located on the banks and hillside leading up from the water. (see image)
Concerning the stream at the film site, I couldn’t help but notices the blotchy looking colors in the water. If I was to make an educated guess, I am inclined to believe that the reflection of the colors coming off the hillside and seen in the fast flowing stream are playing a part in the look of the water. The fading of dyes in the film also contribute to the reddish hue appearance.
But when Davis used an insert to bolster his slaughter claim … he used an image that had had the contrast boosted to the point of the stream becoming a deep red color. (see image)
So when Davis says he didn’t add in any color, then I must disagree. The clip below is the same image with the exception that one version has had the contrast and lighting bumped up to the point of lightening the sand bar and turning the stream a deep red color tone.
Is this a coincidence one might ask … well let us investigate even further …
Below is a clip showing the dog moving away from the pilot that had just been petting the dog playfully. There is no blood seen on the pilots hands … no indications that the dog has just attacked anyone … no signs of stress on either the dog or the pilot which should be present if the dog had just attacked the guy and bitten the man’s hands. (see clip)
Yet when Davis attempts to illustrate proof that his theory has legs … he singles out the hands of the pilot and adjust the contrast accordingly so to make the hands look bloody red. Davis says in the caption that he intensified the color three clicks. No matter how many clicks he wishes to take credit for … the bottom line is that he is altering the image when doing so.
To further consider if Davis is jumping back and forth and being selective in what version of the images he uses so to attempt to deceive the reader into buying his theories, let us look at his horse crap on the ground claim. In this claim he uses an inserted photo of brown horse crap against (oddly enough) a bluish grey ground surface. (see below)
In the illustration above showing the rocks on the ground, he used the tinted version so to make the rocks look brownish in color to better match the color of horse crap. But had he used a version of that image that shows the sand in its true bluish grey color, then the rocks are no longer seen as brown to match that of horse crap. Are we to believe that this is just a mere coincidence … I think not!
It appears that there is a pattern whereas when Davis wants the stream to look bloody … he uses a version of the image whereas the contrast is boosted up. Coincidence … I think not!
When he wants the pilots hands to look bloody from his imaginary dog attack … he intensifies the color range of the hands only. To have done so equally throughout the photo would have made other similar one-time skin tones look red as well. Coincidence that Davis singled out the hands … I think not!
I ask that people listen to the November 2009 Bigfoot Central Radio show and then look at the past images attributed to Davis and how he uses them and then decide if he told the truth when he claimed that he has done nothing to the images … that he has not added color.
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research