Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot = A Hairy Human?

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film

The famed photo analyst Marlon K. Davis has released a shocking news release overnight (November 26-27). He says the alleged Bigfoot in the Roger Patterson-Bob Gimlin film footage is a "human."

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film

The following is M. K.’s release, to which he directed me:

For_Immediate_Release:

Patterson Bigfoot film subject has been identified as a human.

Famous piece of film footage that is considered to be the number one evidence for the existance [sic] of Bigfoot, has had its subject identified to be a human being.

After working on the famous footage for nearly ten years, researcher M.K.Davis has identified the subject of the famous film to be completely human. Not a man in a suit, but a human in the wild. "Everything on the film can be explained," says Davis. Using the famous piece of footage, Davis says that he can explain all the unusual features of the subject as that of a human being. Davis says that he expects to produce the evidence soon that will completely explain this mysterious film. "This is not something that I was expecting when I started this project" says Davis. ["]But I was prepared to go where the research took me."

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film

I wrote M. K. Davis, and asked him it he was talking about a feral (wild) human? And what exactly was he talking about?

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film

His reply only added more mysteries and was not too illuminating:

Hello Loren. When I say living in the wild, I do not mean feral, but "out of contact". I know from the film that it is human, and that it manipulates its environment and has a culture of some sort. It is not normal in size, however. It is much larger than the average human. I will explain in due time. M.K.

At the same time, I began receiving, for publication, the following information from Ohio resident "Pat Holdbrook" of Miracle Movie Makers, identifying himself as the Executive Producer of the movie Bigfoot – An Encounter With Reality:

The word is out! Yes we are saying Bigfoot is human, and we think we have proved it. Without M.K. Davis’s hard work on the film, no one would have ever known the truth. You be the judge of it. M.K. Davis did all the good footage of the Patterson film, no matter who has it.

Stanford recently looked at the film that M.K. made, and for what I have been told, they also think it’s a human. M.K. knew that. Everyone said it was an ape or creature or something else. No, it’s a human being of some sort. A very large human at that. It could be one of the oldest races in existence. Clues are in the movie – where we think it came from – and when and how they got here.

You be the judge. Man in a suit – Miocene ape – no way!

Okay, we will all have to be the judge, but this splash seems little more than promotion with little substance. Even the website that Holdbrook is sharing and wishing us to point to (http://www.ONESTEPBEYONDREALITY.COM/) is nothing more than concepts and an outline typed on a page. There is nothing there to back up these claims or enhance what is being said.

Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of any of this. A publicity stunt to promote a new movie? An honest reevaluation of the footage by M. K. Davis? A revision of M. K.’s stance based on a decade of frustration?

Has M. K. Davis gone beyond analyzing the footage and is now theorizing wildly about the source of what is there? How does he honestly contend that he knows this "Bigfoot" has a culture from looking at this footage? And why should we consider this any more valid than anyone else’s theory? I look forward to more complete details from Mr. Holdbrook and Mr. Davis.

Update

Early Monday morning, November 27, 2006, M.K Davis followed up with this email:

The movie that Pat is making will contain the images and explanations. Those that know me, know that I’m no circus barker. The film is about Roger Patterson and the making of his famous film. I was honored to participate. No frustration here Loren. I’m quite relieved if anything. The public deserves to know what is on Roger Patterson’s film. I hope to provide a decent explanation. I am using this vehicle as it was offered to me, as it promises to reach more people, and allows me the time to talk. I don’t do well when I’m in a competition with time or with other speakers. This is a complex subject and I needed the time to present everything. If I may offer a quote from G.E.Griffin. " If the village idiot says that the bell has fallen from the steeple, and then comes dragging the bell behind him, well… I have the bell.[sic] M.K.

^^^^^^^

I remain skeptical and concerned about how this is developing and how the information is being released. If M. K. Davis is being used in a documentary, and if the focus is really on Roger Patterson or a religious-based theory, who is Pat Holdbrook, One Step Beyond Reality, and Miracle Movie Makers? Frankly, as anyone knows who has been an interviewee for reality television programming or nonfiction films, the hypothesis of the producer and production company is the structure around which the program is constructed, not the interviewee’s. I remain interested in what is being communicated to me and what Holdbrook is trying to tell the public about the Patterson-Gimlin "Bigfoot" being a "hairy human" with a "culture." I also clearly can see a marketing effort unfolding too, without any evidence of anything yet. – Loren

Update : Please click on the following hyperlink for More On “Bigfoot = Human?”.

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.

Leave a Reply

  1. MAN’S A ‘NAKED APE’ BUT BIGFOOT ISN’T AN APE AT ALL?

    Originally, I’d always dismissed the Patterson film as an obvious hoax, until one day I actually bothered to actually LOOK at it and saw the large mammary glands; I immediately thought, how did I overlook that part of the anatomy? And that’s when I suddenly realised I’d been so determined not to believe in Bigfoot, I hadn’t actually been really paying the film any attention at all, because that part of the anatomy – after all they’re furred – are REAL – outrageously so; and don’t even get me started on that!

    The thing is, though, apart from ‘proving’ – SOMEHOW – Patterson’s Bigfoot isn’t a man wearing a suit, what’s the big deal about ‘proving’ it’s ‘human’? I thought EVERYBODY who credited Bigfoot’s existence were more or less agreed that while Bigfoot LOOKED more like a ‘monkey’ than the modern human does, its general demeanour and stealth at evading capture made it much more like us humans than the other apes, thus indicating we were probably dealing with an early hominid form i.e., a protohumanoid.

    As for the ‘culture’ they’re crediting Bigfoot with I suspect it might have something to do with the branch breaking and manipulating attributed to them which, to me, resembles the ‘sign’ messages certain traveling cultures traditionally left behind for others who might follow.

    It may be that in the end that what this is all about is the professional debunkers are realising the ‘man in a suit’ explanation is becoming less and less tenable, and are attempting to replace it with a ‘mutant offspring [from cross-human inbreeding]’ scenario.

  2. This has ‘Publicity Stunt’ written all over it. When someone really has some important scientific discovery to release, they do so in a journal or a news article. They don’t say “You have to wait to see my film…”. Quick! Someone draw us a sketch of Patty’s eyes!

  3. At first, this reminded me of the mystery of Sylvanic, and from what I deduced, that fell on its face. So when I’m reading this and hoping it’s not another ploy at selling movie tickets (i.e “Clues are in the movie”), I always hope that some reputable academic institution plays a vital role in supporting a scientist/researcher/investigator’s evidence/facts/theories.

    Regarding “Stanford”, how do we know who the “they” are in the above letter. Are we to assume that the “they” are panel of scientists? MattBille makes a good point about “Stanford”. Maybe M.K. Davis and his entourage showed the student body a clip, and student body were the [Stanford] “they” MKD was referring to, NOT anyone from the Science Department.

    DWA brings up a truly valid point: not only do incidences such as these, where there is potentially startling new revelations in the research and study of Sasquatch being “human”, but, if untrue, having the capacity to push credible and reliable scientists away from justifiable scientific research, as well as feeding the belly of the naysayers.

  4. In my opinion focusing on the Patterson-Gimlin film is just like a dog chasing its tail.

    There are those that are adamant that it is a true film of a real unknown creature, and the proof is THIS, THIS and THIS. There are others who insist that it is a hoax and the proof is THAT, THAT and THAT. The true believers are never gonna convince the true disbelievers, and vice versa.

    Real or hoax, it is an interesting film, a cultural icon. But it is not proof of the existence of Sasquatch. For that, there needs to be a lot more field research. Analyzing the film itself has gone about as far as it can go.

  5. I have watched the P/G footage many times and believe it to be real footage of Bigfoot. Every time I view it I get goosebumps. Look at the arm length of that thing. It moves like no human. Is it really easier to believe that the subject in the P/G film is human rather than Bigfoot?

    I think not.

    That’s Bigfoot all the way. Believe it.

  6. I wonder what their definition of “human” is. Would they consider Neanderthal human? Chimpanzee? Homo sapien? Homo sapien sapien? Sasquatch?

  7. Wow! Ten years of research to come up with that conclusion? I’m impressed! Not! M.K. only states the obvious that they P/G film subject is walking upright and has very human facial features. His problem is that he like all the other skeptics couldn’t find any zippers to cry wolf about. I don’t think there has been any humans the size of this “human” since Goliath walked the earth.

  8. Modern man’s EGO is so BIG, that he thinks because of his technology he is at the top of the intelligent heap.

  9. Wow this is a very interesting development but I remain highly sceptical. If the creature in the film is human it must be a very primitive one. It looks nothing like a human, apart from an arguably human like walk and the arms are far too long to be a human! I’m still convinced the Patterson Film subject is either an animal or a man in a suit and I think the evidence points considerably more towards the film being genuine than not.

  10. The problem here is that many are misunderstanding what M.K. is saying.

    I don’t think he is about to say that the P/G film is a fake. On the contrary, I think he is about to propose an answer to the question of ‘What the hell is it?’.

    For decades, if not centuries, that has been the question. Is it ‘Ape-like’ or ‘Man-like’? Or, are there more than one species, sub-species, or multiple genus?

    Let’s hear what he has to say, then develop our own conclusions.

  11. bigfooterbob says “I don’t think there has been any humans the size of this “human” since Goliath walked the earth

    Actually, the 1997 attempt to recreate the footage on location showed that the subject in the film is only about 6′ 6″. A good 3′ shorter than Goliath.

  12. If she’s 6.6′ and 450-550 lbs. then a male could easily be 8′ and 700 lbs or more if you consider that gorilla males are twice the size of females in weight; 200-250 (females) and 400-550 in males. And the male Gorilla is probably 20-25% taller when standing upright than the female. Now this is a different species so the differences could be less, BUT they COULD be more too! So you could have 12 foot 1800 lb. giants walking around. I have read of such critters being seen, and some by more than one witness.

  13. It might be some sort of subspecies of human or an evolutionary offshoot, but I think classifying it as “human” is a pretty broad statement. Like a lot of posters here have been saying, I find myself wondering how he is defining the word. If he means a Homo Sapiens, just like us, then I would think that this would be a rather unique, freakish specimen of one and certainly would not explain all of the sightings all over the world. There are a lot of “out of contact” humans living in remote places that are not hairy giants, so why would these Bigfoot appear like that? I really would like to see the evidence to back this guy’s claims. So far it is no more evidence than any other theory floating around out there.

  14. After my #2 comment, “Human, schmuman…doesn’t change a thing for the searchers”…

    #51 alanborky asked: …what’s the big deal about ‘proving’ it’s ‘human’?

    and #42 WVBIG_2006 observed: If M.K. is correct, the new goal for Bigfoot researchers should be to locate groups of these so-called “hairy humans” so anthropologists, biologists, & geneticists can study them.

    and many others suggested possible scientific and governmental ramifications, I must iterate that the REAL work would still be done by the independent searchers, lugging tons of gear around ruggedly remote areas, trudging resolutely through wildlands with equipment at the ready, freezing their body parts as they squat in some dark forest, trying to sleep with rain crashing onto their tiny tent, or sitting around campfires, clutching coffee cups and exchanging trench-tales with others of their kind.

    Until there’s clear, scientifically -supported evidence and appropriate financial backing, those “anthropologists, biologists, & geneticists” will continue to ignore all the reports and rumors and radical rumblings, so MKD’s movie had better have the goods, or…

    It won’t change a thing for the searchers.

  15. It’s tempting to think of the critter in the film, or sasquatch in general, as some kind of human simply because of its success in eluding both searches and the incidental threats of human presence (elk hunters, logging trucks, etc.) This seems impossible for a non-human ape (gorillas and chimps haven’t succeeded in so totally eluding human searchers and hunters in areas where humans have penetrated) but not quite impossible for a creature with a human brain.

    That said, the P-G film creature doesn’t look like a human being to me, or to any of the more qualified people who have viewed the film and written about it. I still go back to Napier on this. He wrote of the film: “either it is America’s abominable snowman, or a man in a monkey suit.” Either an unknown primate, or a fake.

  16. Does M.K.Davis mean Human as in Homo-sapiens? Surely that can’t be right. I’ve, occasionally, pondered over whether or not B/F could be a later evolutionary stage of Neanderthal but to suggest that the creature in the P/G footage is “completely human” seem a little unlikely. It looks nothing like a human!

  17. Please keep comments on topic about MK Davis’ past work and his current “press release,” the proposed Holdbrook motion picture, the human versus non-human notion, and this posting specifically. Avoid getting off-track into a discussion about the Patterson-Gimlin footage in general or about the search for Sasquatch in general. Those comments will be deleted.

  18. human? Where do we draw the line? What are the standards anymore for seperating humans from the animals? Its head doesn’t look human, its arms are a little hairy (not to mention the rest of the body)… If human, then I would say something more towards Neanderthal.

  19. This is a tease a la Johor. That doesn’t mean it is not an interesting and possibly true notion, but why all the flimflammery?

  20. I am very interested in the notion that Big Foot is human. I think it is very possible. I mean why not? We come in all colors, shapes, and sizes anyway, some of us are rather hairy. Why couldn’t there be a hairy race of humans ?

  21. It’s a guy in a suit. Didn’t you guys see the NG channel “Is it Real?” episode when they tracked down the guy who claims it was him in the suit? He is big enough and has the exact same walk as that so called Bigfoot. He was hired by Patterson to wear the suit but they never paid him. When you see this guy walk you just know it’s him and this was the best hoax ever.

    It’s a big ol’ cowboy in a bigfoot suit.

  22. I am not sure if you are a lawyer or not but I can tell you right now the evidence you are showing here on youtube would not hold up as hard evidence as a matter of fact you would be laughed at in court and the Judge would say to you that this evidence is just your opinion and he would class it as hearsay but as far as the bigfoot existence and whether or not it exist or not and the one thing you have going in your favor is the fact that no existence of any bigfoot remains or bones or hair or any DNA evidence at all has been found. Now that in itself is saying that there is something wrong with this picture isn’t there now either the bigfoot have some sort of ritual where the burn there dead and then crush there bones to dust and then discard there bone dust into a river to get rid of any evidence or it is quite safe to say that they don’t exist. Now just using a bit of common sense everyone in the 60s could tell you that the planet of the apes was a big thing on TV at the time so in all honesty if someone wanted to make an easy dollar and GIMLIN and PATTERSON had been into this bigfoot idea for years so they had years of planning something if they wanted to set up a bigfoot on camera. Regardless of how convincing the footage can be to people anyone in hollywood or who was involved in costume designing for the movies will be able to tell you themselves that any costume to make is possible depending on how much time and money they have to put into the costume and to say it couldn’t be done in the 60s is rubbish i mean all you have to do is look at the planet of the apes. Also another fact is that most of these sightings are coming from America and it is well know that America is notorious for owning guns and nearly everyone has one in America so on those facts also i find it hard to believe that nobody has not shot one yet especially with all of these reports coming in on bigfoot stating of how large the bigfoot is. With this fact also I find it still very hard to believe that they actually exist. So unless the bigfoot have been specially trained in hiding themselves and for the them to deceive even professional trackers who follow there footprints and lead them on a ghost trail of non existence then 1 would come to a conclusion that they do not exist. I think everyone who questions the existence of bigfoot should remember how both SUPERMAN and also the Amityville horror started they were both made up up by people who were interested in making up a character or characters and fueling people with this new idea which makes people skeptical and also at the same time very entertaining and all of these things are the perfect recipe for revenue and a money making idea that goes into the favor of whoever makes it up. If people really want to know if Bigfoot is real then my advice is go and check Gimlin and Pattersons tax records and see for yourself how much money they have made from there footage because if I had captured footage of a bigfoot and the footage was skeptical but i was swearing on my grave that I had actually come across a bigfoot for real the 1st thing I would do is tell everyone that I do not want a cent from anything or anyone and I would happily show and give the footage to anyone who wished to see it free of charge and by doing this it will show people that I am for real and I am not doing it for any financial gain for myself or my family. This way of doing it would also be classed as strong evidence in a court because the other side of the argument can not argue that I am doing it for financial gain and this is why most scientist and skeptics haven’t taken the Gimlin Patterson footage to seriously its not a matter of how convincing the footage is or how much it does really look like a different kind of species that human beings have ever encountered the 1st thing that courts, lawyers, scientists, and skeptics look at is there tax records and how and if they are trying to market it straight away after they have shot the footage. Now I can tell you right now if I had come up with an idea that could make me a fortune in my favor I can tell you and the whole world that I would stand there and swear black and blue to everyone and I would even train myself not to flinch for a second when being questioned about it and tell everyone that I was telling the truth if I knew I was going to make a mint from it. Also another clue is that Patterson died of cancer in 72 id be very interested in finding out when he was diagnosed with cancer because I can tell you right now if I knew I was dying of cancer and only had a few years left to live i would try anything to make myself a fortune because I am dying anyway so I have nothing to lose so who gives a f%$# what anyone thinks of me once I’m dead I would do my best I could to try and make my life as easy and as fun as I could well thats just what I would do if I was dying.