The Bigfoot Checkered Shirt Conspiracy
Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 29th, 2009
You might want to think carefully about what shirt or hat or coat you are wearing next time you have someone take a Bigfoot-related photograph of you.
Years later, you never can tell what someone else might be saying about it.
One of the strangest pieces of “evidence” ~ which is still posted on the Internet ~ in support of M. K. Davis’s Bigfoot “massacre” and “coverup” theory is what he’s done with a series of pictures of Roger Patterson holding the 1967 filmsite Bigfoot casts.
M. K. Davis appears to have seriously mislabeled, once again, with the use of his “lines and arrows” comments, well-known photographs to create a conspiracy. Take the one on the right, labeled with “Dahinden’s Camera.” This image is being presented to the world as primary evidence to support Davis’s implications of something which never happened.
According to long term research from the likes of Christopher Murphy and others, these images were taken at Bluff Creek. They are on the second film roll that Patterson was going to use for his documentary, not “Rene’s film.” The images were naturally taken by Bob Gimlin using Roger Patterson’s rented camera.
Murphy, working with image upgrades from Bill Munns, passes this along: “The images are on the second roll. I am reasonably sure this roll was sent for processing with the other roll on the evening of October 20. The film images could not, therefore, have been taken in Yakima, or anywhere else for that matter, the next day.
“Given the second roll was not sent with the first roll: The images are taken in sunlight. It rained the next day. Although I suppose the sun could have come out briefly.
“Patterson is unshaven and in his grubby clothes. If he took the images the next day, then he either did not shave or change (slept in his clothes) or put the same cloths on the next day for the benefit of the photos. (All certainly possible, but not probable).”
See Chris Murphy’s in-depth comparative analysis of these images, placing them at Bluff Creek, in his pdf, questioned-photo-patterson.
John Green writes on August 29, 2009: “I am sure Rene was not ever at Bluff Creek when Roger was. When I contacted him about Roger getting a movie he was well to the south, I believe in San Francisco. Roger could, of course, dress the same on two different occasions. If it can be established that any particular picture was taken at the film site, then, of course, Bob Gimlin would have to have taken it.”
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.
I can confirm that what is labeled “the casting bucket” in the photo of Roger holding up two casts, while standing in front of a tree, that object is a piece of paper on the ground, not a bucket. This is from inspection of six 4K scanned frames from this particular portion of the film.
Bill Munns
I don’t quite see just what the controversy is here. In the photo labeled ‘coat buttoned’ the coat is plainly not buttoned, it is simply hanging closed. The photo marked ‘coat unbuttoned,’ just as plainly has the coat still unbuttoned but now hanging open a bit. So the coat opened a bit when Patterson moved, shrugged, let the casts hang down for a second, whatever. So what?
Also, there seems to be an effort to use the fact that Patterson might have worn the same shirt two or more days in a row into something sinister. Ever been back-country camping? You don’t want to drag along your entire wardrobe, just a change, maybe two of clothes. If you’re going to be out for a week or more, you are going to be in the same clothes for several days in a row. Also, not shaving every day is simply par for the course. Who are you gonna look dapper for out in the woods with nobody around but a few other, equally scungy guys, the female Sasquatch, maybe?
This whole MK Davis thing is stupid.
His coat is unbuttoned in all pictures. If the first. his arms are raised, thus closing the coat. In the second, his arms drop allowing the coat to open. My wool peacoat I got in the Navy does the same thing.
I made the same observation as Kimble.
Ok, this comment is rather non-sequitur, but every time I see those pictures I am reminded of that bit from “Alice’s Restaurant”, where Guthrie talks about “The 27 8 x 10 colored glossy photographs, with circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one, explaining what each one was, to be used as evidence against us…”
I have heard of “grasping at straws” but MK Davis is raising it to a whole new art form. Anybody who spends time in the outdoors knows that even if going out for only a couple of days about the only change of clothes you will take is extra underwear and socks. This pretty much applies even if you’re going to spend the night in a motel. If you work out of a base camp you might take more because you will be not only out longer but will probably have pack horses/mules to carry your supplies. If you’re the pack animal you take as little extra in the way of clothes as possible; food, water and shelter are much more important.
As to the jacket being buttoned and unbuttoned, I agree it is unbuttoned in all the pictures. I haven’t seen a jacket of any kind that won’t usually be closed when your arms are raised and opened when you lower them. The reason is most people will spread their arms as they lower them which will pull the coat open.
One further observation; if MK Davis can’t tell that the coat is unbuttoned in all of the photos, then his powers of observation are seriously compromised. It calls into serious question his ability to see anything at all in any photographic medium. Much less the grainy and blurry photos and screen captures which he usually proclaims as ‘proving’ his current fantasy.
It really is a shame; Davis did do good work once. But this isn’t part of it.
Actually, the funny thing is this:
First photos show checkered shirt – white “checkers” inside dark lines…
Last photo shows checkered shirt – dark “checkers” inside white lines…
Hey dumbness, those are two DIFFERENT shirts! This is EXACTLY what I harp on when I rant about substandard research….
It’s likely the same shirt, shot on different roll but at the same time as the first image(s). However, in that third shot at the bottom (the reddish hued image), the quality is poorer and there is some color-shifting that has occurred in the chemicals due to age or poor processing.
the collar of the shirt looks identical, buttoned and unbuttoned. It sits at the same angle with the same pattern. The colors look different perhaps because they are different rolls. And don’t forget- these guys are CAMPING. If you change your clothes daily when camping, then you are not a true outdoorsman. Do you think they worry about that?
Really, we are still talking about MK Davis. He is a fruit loop. He is basing his research on wild myth, and we as cryptoresearchers should not even give him the time of day. But since we have we now have to defend our research, and valid researchers. So, yes I would say it is the same shirt, in the same place, just shot on a separate camera, or roll. Indeed it may be the next day. The ground appears to be wet, and he looks a little more disheveled, but they are in the back country, so that is to be expected. MK get a life, and stop trying to create wild fantasies, and do your own research.
Enough already! No amount of “exposure” completely changes “black” to “white” in regards to the checkers….come on people! You’re better than this!
All I know is that first, the background in the picture is not in Yakima. Second, my mother-in-law had both Patterson and Gimlin as students in Yakima years ago. When I ask her if they are the type of people to pull off a prank like this she simply says “…no, they were both good students and I could not see either of them doing something like that.” What ever happened to taking ones “character” into account.