Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2006 16:31:29 GMT -5
Hey Guys! Check out Bobbi Short's website www.bigfootencounters.com"What's New" page. Press Release by MK Davis on the Patterson Film. Says it may be a human in the wild. No man in a suit. Intriguing and bares following as more details become available. Jon
|
|
|
Post by rastaman on Nov 29, 2006 15:17:59 GMT -5
Lots of talk on the GCBRO board, but no action by MK Davis yet.
I've seen some of MK Davis's work on muscle mass movement of the Patterson BF, which was impressive. However, only a body of a BF will prove its undeniable existence and its origin. Its all speculation right now, even by MK Davis.
Also, I find the GCBRO board full of inconsistencies with their claims by their posters and whoa to those who disagree with their unproven claims or beliefs. The Moderator rules the board in an authoritarian manner. Any critiquing by someone of their claims is looked upon as a troublemaker and eventually banned. So, I would take any claims made by the GCBRO and their board members with a grain of salt.
|
|
Sean V.
Has opinions now!
Alberta Sasquatch Researcher
Posts: 256
|
Post by Sean V. on Dec 1, 2006 4:11:41 GMT -5
Hey Guys! Check out Bobbi Short's website www.bigfootencounters.com"What's New" page. Press Release by MK Davis on the Patterson Film. Says it may be a human in the wild. No man in a suit. Intriguing and bares following as more details become available. Jon I've said it before elsewhere, and I'll say it here also: GIVE ME A BREAK! The creature that I observed was not "a human in the wild". It did not act like a human, & did not look anything like a human. It was an animal, an undiscovered animal. M.K. is really reaching with this one. It smells of a book or movie deal to me. There is only so much that can be garnered from one short clip of grainy film, and I think M.K. has just about covered everything. This latest claim just sounds stupid. I used to really respect the information that M.K. Davis brought forth. With this latest stunt; and I do mean stunt, my respect for M.K. has taken a nose dive into the abyss.
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Dec 1, 2006 18:03:36 GMT -5
Just because you've seen something that seems like your idea of an animal doesn't mean it might not be sentient. Just the fact that the toes on footprints are so close together implies a close, very close relationship to humans. So does the new DNA evidence coming out. It apparently is so close to human DNA that that's what it was originally taken as, until someone looked a bit closer. The vocalizations are very complex, and the fact that they seem to communicate with patterns of taps of rocks and wood, plus the sheer fact they've managed to be so elusive while in quite close proximity to human settlements, also indicates a very near relationship with humans. Remember too that the aboriginal populations considered them people, and there are stories of interbreeding, both in the US and the USSR.
I'd be very careful, particularly if you are talking about shooting one (especially if there is a crowd of them nearby, and given their size, too).
Don't be misled by size and hairiness, lack of culture or their apparently solitary nature. We may have once been very similar, long, long ago.
|
|
Sean V.
Has opinions now!
Alberta Sasquatch Researcher
Posts: 256
|
Post by Sean V. on Dec 2, 2006 2:35:20 GMT -5
I never once said that they weren't sentient; your words not mine.
Other animals have complex ways of communicating also, whales are one of these species.
The aboriginal people also believed in alot of other things that most people scoff at. Just because they believed that the Sasquatch was a "person", does not make it so.
I'm always very careful when I'm out in the woods. I used to be an active pro-kill researcher, so I don't need the warning on being careful with these creatures.
My point on M.K. Davis's claim is that he can not really determine this from looking at an old film. But the mass media will grab onto this like a drowning man grabs a life preserver, they will broadcast it as "total & final proof", making all of us look like fools in the eyes of the general public. And the general public, those who know nothing about Sasquatch, will take this as genuine material; material not to be questioned.
M.K.'s statement will do more harm than good, at least for those who are in active research.
|
|
|
Post by rastaman on Dec 3, 2006 16:00:19 GMT -5
Still no response from MK Davis concerning his so-called "Breaking News" blurb.
Talk about grandstanding. Some people will do anything for attention on BF boards.
This will sure make MK look bad if he does not come up with something in the next few days. Easy to see that there's no earth-shattering news that will become of this.
This thing should go to a new thread, not on 'Bigfoot on video claim'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2006 20:17:49 GMT -5
he is worng it is animal to what i have seen and to what it has been doing around us here on the coast acks just likea animal
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Dec 13, 2006 21:47:06 GMT -5
M.K Davis's results are usually 'self serving'..because he wishes it to be so....I have never seen what he can see in the Patty footage!
Having said that..I also think that he has done marvelous work with what he has had to work with...but, he should just stop there..and let people make of it what they will..without his editorializing everything...Because, I love his images..but I agree with nothing that he claims!
|
|