International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot = A Hairy Human?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 27th, 2006

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:


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.


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?”.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. 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. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

74 Responses to “Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot = A Hairy Human?”

  1. springheeledjack responds:

    Interesting. I will be waiting to hear what actual proof they may have on the subject based on the video.

    Of all of the films and photos of crypto stuff, this one for me has been the most paramount. I have never bought the “faking” of this one. Too many improbabilities and there was so much to it that was tooooo real to fake, especially in that decade.

    So I wait and hope they do have something to back it up.

  2. fuzzy responds:

    Human, schmuman…

    Doesn’t change a thing for the searchers.

  3. bill green responds:

    hey loren & cryptomundo readers this is definitely a very interesting new article about the p/g bigfoot film footage. I’m sure MK will keep us informed of future updates of his new findings about the p/g film. we just have to be very patient. springheeledjack I totally agree with your above reply.

  4. Ceroill responds:

    I have to agree, Loren. While I look forward to more information, I am a bit bemused by the teasing quality of his press release. Also, I’m wondering if the syntax in the note from executive producer came to you as is presented, or did you perhaps leave out a word here and there? In particular I draw your attention to these exerpts: ‘M.K. Davis did all the good footage of the Patterson film, no matter who has it.’, and ‘and for what I have been told’. Please enlighten me.

  5. mrbf2006 responds:

    Well, the bottom line is, whether Sasquatch is determined to be human or ape, it shouldn’t matter what it is as long as we know what it is. M.K.’s theory is just as good as anyone else’s. I do not feel that this is a publicity stunt on M.K.’s part, but a genuine conclusion he has come to. Certainly, we do not know for sure what the creature is, but the creature in the P/G Film is definitely not a guy in a suit. I stand by M.K. until he does something that I cannot support, and he has not done that yet.

  6. shovethenos responds:

    Well, this would explain why a lot of the DNA samples allegedly from Sasquatches comes back “human”. And it could also explain why there have been offspring produced from alleged sasquatch-human couplings.

    Sasquatch would have to be a drastically different subspecies, however. Their size, environment, and way of life basically demands some pretty drastic physiological differences.

  7. Judy Green responds:

    Shades of the Malaysian Bigfoot! I have a great respect for M.K.’s research, however, it does seem that he is being deliberately cryptic in this case which is a familiar stance as we know from the Malaysia experience which was hailed as a great Bigfoot find, but turned out to be a great disappointment.

  8. Raptorial responds:

    I think this guy is full of it.

  9. mrdark responds:

    The problem the human theory runs into is in what we know of the sasquatch vs. what we know of humans. If these are humans and have a culture, as the claim says, cultures leave traces. We have traces of cultures that are incredibly ancient, cultures that were subject to sudden destruction by disaster, plague, or genocide. We have traces of cultures that we can’t even place within the known annals of humankind (possible norse remnants in North America prior to Columbus, possible Egyptian or Asian influence on art and architecture in North and South America prior to known travel between those regions, etc.). Yet, we don’t have a single physical piece of evidence of culture among the sasquatch. Animals do not leave cultural remnants behind, as they do not have the kind of cultures humans have. They do not create art, they do not use tools (beyond found items such as rocks or sticks) and they do not farm or otherwise raise livestock/plants for consumption. Human cultures all have those traits. Humans also leave remains. When we die, parts are left behind even millennia after our death. The only reason a lack of sasquatch remains hasn’t derailed all claims of the beasts’ existence is because they are so clearly outside our realm of biological knowledge. If they are mutated or unevolved humans, where are the bones? We know the lifespan of humans, and we know that sasquatch has existed for centuries if not -thousands- of years, so it stands to reason there are vast -piles- of bones out there somewhere. That just doesn’t make sense if we’re the same species.

    So to sum up, no, I’m not buying the ‘it’s human’ explanation. It could very well be a hybrid of human and something else (way out in left field here, one explanation could be the ancestors of the nephilim, but that’s a heck of a stretch) but just a ‘big’ human? Yeah, not buying it.

  10. mystery_man responds:

    All that research to come to the conclusion that it is human? I would have thought that would have been apparent to all the people who have seen this film if that were the case. Just a hairy human has fooled everyone over the years? I find that a little hard to believe. I would like to see the evidence they claim for this. It’s odd and a little frustrating that they would come forth with this revelation, then hold back with any of the details of their research. If it is so certain, what is there to hide? Can’t wait to hear what they say because it seems obvious to me that this is just not your run of the mill guy walking around in the woods.

  11. Kimble responds:


    This could explain a lot. If the P-G film subject is human – female human – than she’s got a bad case of hypertrichosis! If hypertrichosis is a result of an excess of androgens, this may also explain why she is so, as we say in Maine – massive.

  12. lobobo responds:

    “Human like creatures” reported week in week out !! so whats new. If the Patterson creature was a boxer, it would have the longest reach in history for sure.

    jim uk

  13. hominology responds:

    Having studied the new data about bigfoots for several last years (here in Russia and especially in America, including the Carter Farm case) I have come to the conclusion that these creatures are representatives of an unknown CLANDESTINE HUMAN RACE which have survived, while the majority of this race has been eliminated by the Sapienses for thousands of year of their coexistence on the Globe.

    They don’t pressure Nature but adapt to it, they had no speech but learned it from the Sapienses, they lead an animal way of life but have a highly developed intellect.

    Igor Bourtsev, Russian Hominologist.

  14. Ceroill responds:

    Igor, thanks for writing in. I am figuring that what M.K. is going to say is very similar. That this race has lived just outside the fringes of our human society for thousands of years, always being driven back by our migrations and expansion, and that they are respobsible for all the old tales of the Big Hairy Wildman from many parts of the world (not the same as the Almas/Almasty and such).

  15. Loren Coleman responds:

    Regarding Ceroill’s comment/inquiry above, yes, all quotes and press release info from Mr. Holdbrook and Mr. Davis are exacting and no changes to what they sent me have been made. The syntax and spelling are theirs.

    Davis’ press “announcement” was released through a free public release site, and the producer’s comments were sent via an email to me. Neither seemed to have been proofread, nor professionally vetted.

  16. Ceroill responds:

    Thanks, Loren. That’s what I was assuming, as you are typically not that sloppy. Just wanted to be sure something hadn’t slipped past, or that my brain was somehow glitching and what seemed confusing to me was perfectly understandable to you and others.

  17. Loren Coleman responds:

    An additional new comment (from M. K. Davis) has been added to this post, on Monday, Nov. 27, under “Update” above.

  18. Ceroill responds:

    Loren, thanks for the update. I echo your thoughts and ooncerns.

  19. captiannemo responds:

    There is only a slight difference in our DNA and that of the chimpanzee. But it still a chimpanzee!

    The creature on the P/G footage is not human!

    Working on the loading docks, I have seen some mighty hairy truck drivers, but they were obviously human.

  20. lastensugle responds:

    I’m not sure what is being said here? Is Davis claiming Patty to be feral Homo Sapiens or what does he mean by “human”? I guess human (not Sapiens) is possible, even though I’m still assuming she’s more ape-like, no matter how intelligent these creatures may be.

  21. Sharm responds:

    Yes, we know Sasquatch are human-like, so they could well be a type of human.

    Maybe there’s no Sasquatch culture, maybe only rituals, like that of chimpanzee. Chimpanzees have some sort of rituals as I read in a study. Sorry can’t provide a link. Can’t find one now.

    If the CLANDESTINE HUMAN RACE really exists, it’s amazing to think how they have managed to evade us for centuries, no traces at all. Like Igor said, they must be highly intellectual.

  22. busterggi responds:

    A clandestine fully human race that’s 7 ft. tall, hairy, has a pronounced saggital crest, no language, but has a highly developed culture?

    I don’t think so.

  23. Loren Coleman responds:

    BTW, just for the record, in case it is changed or updated someday, as of November 27, 2006, the Holdbrook website’s total content is as follows, specifically, with this lack of detail:

    One Step Beyond Reality

    Alien Encounters








    Out of Body Experiences






    Urban Legends

    Native American Stories



    Sell Us Your Story

    Monthly Columns


    Cover Story

    Reader’s Tales

    Editor’s Insight

    Fact or Fiction?

    Government Positions



    Full Media Library

    Become a Sponsor








  24. Carolann responds:

    Maybe he’s on to something, or maybe he’s not. I can’t wait to see what he has to say.

  25. fuzzy responds:

    #9-mrdark sez “it stands to reason there are vast -piles- of bones out there somewhere”.

    Huh? Doesn’t it follow, then, that the African veldt should be covered with animal bones?

    Nature cleans up her mess.

  26. jayman responds:

    As lastensugle noted, what exactly is meant by “human”? “Human” can be a value judgment, or a synonym for Homo sapiens. Were the Neanderthals “human” even if they weren’t Sapiens? We may never know without knowing what they were like in life.

    If this holds up – and I’m skeptical – it would lend some credibility to the Ostman-Green type stories of Sasquatches having a primitive language and other cultural traits.

  27. rifleman responds:

    The conclusions that come from this will be easy to comprehend. So easy even a cave man can do it! Circus barker indeed!

  28. DWA responds:

    Hoo brother.

    Hokay, guess we got to hear yet another round of This Is It!

    Just when I thought everyone was getting tired of Sas Photoshop 6876.0.

    It would be nice to see someone stop analyzing the Patterson film (except to reiterate how it ain’t a fake to all those who still don’t know that), and do some research in the field.

    I can go for a sabbatical, if you ask nice. 😉

  29. Mnynames responds:

    Giving some benefit of doubt here, and obviously just speculating here, but I half suspect the supposition being presented here will go something like this- Patty is not a man in a suit. Patty is real flesh and blood. The only other animal that really looks like Patty is a Human. Therefore Patty is Human.

    Can’t say I’m terribly enthusiastic about any future revelations by this group. However, anyone who steps up to the plate of public spotlight to say that Patty is NOT a man in a suit, but a flesh-and-blood animal, and is able to back that up with any sort of evidence (Of which there is a lot, regarding analysis of the film), can only do good for CZ.

  30. longrifle48 responds:

    Seems another angle to disprove Patterson’s bigfoot movie, by calling it a hairy human.

  31. DWA responds:

    Not sure I’m talking out of turn here, but:

    1. When really exciting new things happen in science, I seem to find out about them via a news story, reporting the findings.

    2. When Yet Another Roadside Distraction happens, I seem to find out about it via an announcement, in advance, by the person who’s gonna present, at Some Event, his/her so-called findings. Which turn out to be, well…

    With me so far…?

  32. cabochris responds:

    I think it is obvious that Bigfoot is not exactly like an ape. Nor like a human as we relate to.

    The good news here is that Marlon K Davis is telling the world that Bigfoot is real! Who cares what he brands Bigfoot as, so long as he can prove the reality of Bigfoot? I say let the scientists hash-out what Bigfoot is. All I care about for now is that, there really is a Bigfoot after all and that Bigfoot believers been right on this subject all along!

    As for Mr. Davis, take your needed time to explain things right, play your hand and ring that village bell the idiot dragged-in!

  33. YarriWarrior responds:

    It has always been my opinion that “Patty” is some sort of giant hairy humanoid, like a caveman (woman). It may very well turn out to be some sort of ape (giganto), but the nose is just like a man’s, not the structure that any known ape has.

    But I could be wrong. If it turns out to be a close relative of man, it doesn’t lessen the discovery at all. And if you believe some of the recordings made of sasquatch, they do indeed have a language.

  34. calash responds:

    Human is an interesting concept. How far back can you push the lineage before you stop using the word?

    Neanderthal was definitely a branch of humans or a human like species. They used Fire, and clothed themselves with animal skins.

    There is also evidence that they buried their dead. I have never seen a report of anyone associating sasquatch with fire or clothing.

    Animals seem to evolve to the point that there natural equipment, instinct, fur, teeth & claws are adequate for survival and reproduction. “Humans’ rely on a bigger brain alone to compensate for the lack of these.

    I would vote on sasquatch being a branch of the primate family with an intelligence that is some where between modern humans and primate.

    They seem to have a natural instinct that humans are bad news to be around if you want to survive and reproduce.

    Just some thoughts

  35. YarriWarrior responds:

    I wanted to mention also that Patty has human appearing breasts too.

  36. Alton Higgins responds:

    Moviemaker R. Patrick Holdbrook was the driving force behind the cowboy flick “Expect a Miracle.”

  37. joe levit responds:

    I happen to subscribe to the ideas Mark A. Hall expounds upon regarding multiple types of hairy unknowns to account for the different sightings worldwide. I think because of the difference in tracks, it is quite obvious that we are dealing with a few different species here. In this case, Patty could without doubt be “human” to a degree. As mentioned above by others, it would explain “human” returns on tests, and also explain a number of behaviors (peering into houses at windows, for example) that are decidedly not animal in nature.

    This idea of that type of bigfoot being a human to some degree is not a new concept. On the other hand, I think we can rule out M.K. Davis attempting to say that he has discovered this is Sapiens. It clearly is not.

  38. dharkheart responds:

    Ok, if bigfoot is human that’s a distinction without a difference. No one knows what Bigfoot is: ape or human. I thought that was what all of the investigations had been designed to attempt to prove.

    So M.K. Davis thinks Bigfoot is human. Big deal. Many people think it is human, probably equally as many think it is an ape.

    Hypertrichinosis representing in a human of those proportions? Ok, not impossible, I suppose, but not even Cro Magnon achieved the proportions reported in Bigfoot sightings.

    Perhaps M.K. Davis has “proof” that Cro Magnon and Neanderthal inter-bred and their offspring were viable reproductives.

    I’m with you, Loren. This is Biscardian hype meant to do nothing more than sell some books and dvds.

  39. DARHOP responds:

    All I can say is, Patty doesn’t look like any human I have ever seen.

  40. DARHOP responds:

    And, even them people that are all hairy. They don’t look like bigfoot but they look and are human. Bigfoot looks nothing like.

  41. DARHOP responds:

    Looks nothing like them.

  42. WVBIG_2006 responds:

    fuzzy says: “Human, schmuman…

    Doesn’t change a thing for the searchers”

    I disagree. 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 to determine if, either it was a genetic anomaly & all the other sightings in 48 other states & Canada over all these years were wrong or false.

    OR if this is one specimen of a totally different population of humans that have spread across North America. (I think the latter is more likely)

    It should also buy researchers plenty of time since the government will surely consider killing one of them a homicide, just like killing any other human is a homicide.

  43. chrisandclauida2 responds:

    I think a better description would be a new member of the HOMO GENUS and a different species. Or new species for that matter.

    If this is what he is trying to show then it isn’t ground breaking new info just another list of facts or traits to try to prove the theory that bigfoot is of the homo genus but not sapien.

    Many think that the creature may be of a different species than those known or accepted by science at this point. Most however still stop classifying Bigfoot or sasquatch at the family level of hominidae or as we always say a hominid.

    Homo sapiens are listed in the chart below all the way from domain down to sub species. Until we hear the evidence we wont know where the supposed evidence causes a branch off. They could be saying the creatures are a new subspecies but they would need for more proof than they have available to make that statement.

    Look at the info below. It is an easy assumption that this creature is related to us as far down as the level of class order and or family depending on ones pet theory.

    What do you all think? How close are they related to us? A new genus species or even sub species?


    Domain: Eukaryota

    Kingdom: Animalia

    Phylum: Chordata

    Class: Mammalia

    Order: Primates

    Family: Hominidae

    Genus: Homo

    Species: H. sapiens

    Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

  44. dharkheart responds:

    chrisandclaudia2: Thanks for the post. Most people forget about the subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens; cro magnon being h. sapiens and we being h. s. sapiens.

  45. MattBille responds:

    From a film of a creature walking through the forest, he can tell it has a culture? What is he doing, psychic readings?

    This sounds like a simple publicity stunt. “More information will be revealed in the film…” Uh huh. Of course. And who, BTW, is “Stanford?” Stanford is a huge university with lots of departments and hundreds of faculty members. Who exactly looked at it, and what did they say?

    Seriously, assuming this is a creature and not a guy in a suit, it depends a lot on what definition of “human” you are using. Davis must be defining the term so broadly that it loses meaning (i.e., it’s not at all clear it would even belong in the genus Homo).

    This whole thing makes no sense.

  46. WVBIG_2006 responds:

    MattBille says “From a film of a creature walking through the forest, he can tell it has a culture? What is he doing, pyschic readings?

    I think M.K. is assuming they have a culture based on 2 facts:

    1) He believes he has proven they are a type of human.


    2) Humans have cultures.

  47. LSU_Crypto responds:

    I could totally buy into the Bigfoot being a previously unknown member of the homo genus, or perhaps even a divergent sub-species of a known one. If M.K. Davis claims he knows something about a culture of these creatures then he has at best a piece meal theory.

  48. Sergio responds:

    Wild human?

    There are “wild” humans still in existence in this century on several continents; none of them are hairy and 7 feet tall; they all use fire for survival, and they all use tools, and build structures that have “human” written all over them. Even the most primitive of humans wear some sort of clothing, albeit minimal.

    Oh, and none of them even arguably look apelike.

    MK Davis is making an extremely bold and audacious statement, and his “proof” better be rock-solid.

    I think it’s probably more speculation.

    Like John Green wrote, if that’s the case, the sasquatches will have rights and will be subject to laws and will covered under the Constitution. They will be entitled to voting rights, Medicare, and full health care in Canada. Taxes will need to be collected from them. Also, the census counters better get busy counting them.

  49. DWA responds:

    Well, Matt, you were looking for a Blogsquatchery Instant Classic? We got one here.

    The most compelling information about the sas — most of it not exactly new — tends to get flooded out by the Weekly World News! fetishizing of old evidence. Which tends to beget stuff like M.K. Davis, who has been looking at the Patty film so long he actually sees culture in there somewhere now.

    Sorry, M. K. D. Insufficient resolution. Both in the film and in your brain.

    I promised I wouldn’t act like this but enough is enough. This is the kind of stuff that keeps most scientists, but thank God not all of them, farther than your proverbial ten-foot pole from sas studies.

  50. swnoel responds:

    How much is this gonna cost us?

  51. alanborky responds:


    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.

  52. cor2879 responds:

    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!

  53. BigfootBeliever71 responds:

    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.

  54. kittenz responds:

    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.

  55. Trent Mullen responds:

    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.

  56. H_Wrabbit responds:

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

  57. sticklez responds:

    Crazy though what hypertrichosis can do to you.



  58. bigfooterbob responds:

    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.

  59. Doug Tarrant responds:

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

  60. YourPTR! responds:

    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.

  61. Al responds:

    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.

  62. WVBIG_2006 responds:

    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.

  63. sasquatch responds:

    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.

  64. mystery_man responds:

    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.

  65. fuzzy responds:

    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.

  66. MattBille responds:

    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.

  67. sadisticgreen responds:

    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!

  68. Loren Coleman responds:

    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.

  69. shumway10973 responds:

    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.

  70. sausage1 responds:

    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?

  71. BendyWVa responds:

    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 ?

  72. Loren Coleman responds:

    Here’s a quick review of M. K. Davis’ remarks to try to understand the essence of what he’s saying (click on link below):

    What’s Being Said?

  73. worlok responds:

    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.

  74. Richard7632 responds:

    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.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.