Wednesday, January 30, 2013

MK Davis Answers the Critics on the Patterson Bigfoot Film

MK Davis addresses the critics of the Patterson film in this well done video.



  1. Why did MK not acknowledge that a possible cat or canine print could be either a coyote print or a mountain lion print, since coyotes and mountain lions are much more abundant than dogs in the forest? Furthermore, why did MK not acknowledge that the simple sun shadow caused the depth of that print to appear slightly dark. From there, he contaminates the photo by boosting the contrast to make it look very dark that he then describes as blood? Why did MK not acknowledge that a brown muddy pool was photographed? In the background, I have never seen that brilliant red in autumn leaves. It appears that the colors were distorted significantly to the red side, by the ektochrome film, yet the muddy pool still maintained it's brown coloring. Why is brown not a word in MK's vocabulary? Why is coyote not a word in his vocabulary? For MK's information, all interdimensional forest people can emit flashes of light. I have witnessed it dozens of times. That flash of light in the film looks to be the same forest people caused flashes of light that I have witnessed. Therefore, there is no muzzle flash. I noticed with the video of the dog moving near a small pool, that this time MK did not capture and then contaminate a still shot by inducing red tint into that small pool. Same goes with the initially larger brown muddy pool. In the past, he was able to really put some red into both pools. Today, he is attempting to go commando and simply convince the viewer, THAT BLACK AND BROWN ARE ACTUALLY RED, instead of tweeking the colors as he did in the past.

    In conclusion, there is no blood in either of the pools nor in the print, the possible flash has other explanations than being a muzzle flash, the cat or canine print has other explanations than being a dog, brown is not red and MK does not have a leg to stand on for making a sound arguement that there ever was a Bigfoot massacre at Bluff Creek.

  2. You pretty much just parroted the very same wild assed guesses that prompted MK to make this video in the first place. Have you seen the actual film? I would guess NO. Did you speak with the Naval photograph analyst that testified that there was no color introduced into the film? Can you not tell a clawed dog print from a retracted claw cougar print? Do you think your inane joke about interdimensional beings lends credence to your sputtering? Can you explain why I am wasting my time even rebutting such a hater troll as yourself? Because I can't.

  3. Dave, One could probably count on one hand, the number of people that knew that MKD's group rounded up a Naval photograph analyst, to lie through his teeth about color contamination. We can see old pictures here of MKD's color tampered photographs and compare them to his latest "contrast tampered photographs".

    The evidence is still all over the internet, of what MKD attempted to pull off the last time. Here is a detailed description of his antics.

    Bigfoot research has advanced considerably since MKD's first massacre theory. Most researchers and onlookers have been left behind because they are not sufficiently open minded. Only a few are aware of the nuances of interdimensional beings. That information for the most part, can only be gained from actual field experience and careful observation of something that remains invisible 99.9999% of the time. Which is something that most people, do not have either the time or the patience for. But please try and keep up.

    1. Thank you for the detailed response to my somewhat snarky answer. As a retired Mustang Naval Officer, I admit a deference to Navy guys . The group I am with, Pulaski Research Group is a very small group that is lucky enough to have a family group that we are habituating. I think I look at things like this discussion a bit different... because I need no evidence that they exist, our group is more concerned with learning the morphology of the (i am convinced) sentience of the beings than convincing anyone that they exist. We know they do.

      The reason that I am going on about this is that we are very curious in respect to the interdimensionality aspect you refer to. Our group is unsure what abilities that our family group possesses in regards to transdimensional travel. We have a friend that is an Elder in a tribe of Native Americans that lives at the base of Mt. Shasta, her tribal lore acknowledges them ... I am presently corresponding with her to get a feel for what they believe. I personally have a lot of respect for MK, but in light of your comments about his character I will reserve comment until I research the links you provided. You made some very strong accusations, we will see how they pan out and respond to you. I am assuming that you have an objective mind... even though the underling tone of your response was slightly condescending, I thank you for your response and the latitude despite my terse comments.

    2. Dave, If you go back and review the photo from frame 352 above, you will see no unusual red colored leaves in the background. Then on the photo that MK shows his fingers where he is attempting to prove that there is a pool of blood, the leaves in the background are inexplicably a brilliant red that is both not seen in nature and was not seen on frame 352. And he claims that no tampering was done. However those prints were made, the settings were not the same for the two photos. And MK chooses to use the photo where the red colors are obviously off, in his attempt to prove his point. That appears to be trickery.

      If you look at the coyote print series, initially the log behind the print appears to be light tan and the shadow in the print is black. When MK states that he changed the contrast and that is all that he did, the log takes on a reddish hue, at the same time the coyote print takes on a reddish hue. And then he zooms in further so we no longer can see the log and have that as a basis to compare whether he tampered with the colors. Both of these stunts appear to be deliberate trickery on MKD's part. He just cannot keep his little fingers off of the color adjustments, and then he denies touching them.

  4. Still researching the available facts. The next installment in MK's saga is out, more info to absorb. I do have a question however. Looking back through your comments, a person can't help but to glean a sense of vehemence on your part. To be fair, MK seems to be developing a bit of defensive sarcasm in his remarks ... but no where near the bent of your comments. I can't help but wonder why? It's an accurate assessment and a fair question, I believe. Do you know MK personally? Is your anger purely altruistic, or is there more to the relationship?

  5. Thanks for posting this Scott. I happen to have a great deal of respect for M.K IMO, His work on this film set a high standard,period. The first time I seen his work was A,M/Bigfoot(the two frame blinks),and I was impressed.
    One would think as long as this mystery has been unfolding,and today,perhaps as we are on the threshold of understanding,there would not be as much petty bickering and negative remarks made. To chase after something most of the population of this great country says is not real,and to be called crazy,foolish,etc is unpleasant as it is. Most would think such a special group of dedicated researchers,each helping in their own way,would be,well,too busy trying to make a positive contribution,and far beyond childish antics to begin with. I'm glad to see so many researchers,including you, that are really making the results,and not ate up with drama. Thanks Scott!