Bigfoot With A Stick?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 4th, 2006
"I found that the Patterson subject was carrying…a stick." – M. K. Davis, December 3, 2006.
At the top of this post are two photographs; (1) a common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) digging with a stick; and (2) a lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) with a stick. Directly below is the archival photograph from the Library of Congress of a human being (Homo sapiens sapiens), who has been labeled a "Digger Indian" within those archives. Further below is the image of Bigfoot from the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Please compare them all.
Initially, M. K. Davis said that from his reading of the images he sees in the Patterson-Gimlin footage, he saw a "human" with evidence of culture. But he would not release more information because of Pat Holdbrook’s forthcoming film. Needless to say, one would expect that people would want to know more and challenge such radical statements. Now he says that he has "found that the Patterson subject was carrying" a stick and, for some reason, he relates that observation to the sticks used by California Indians to dig for roots.
Recently Henry May posted at his American Bigfoot site these insights that may start more conspiracy theories, but something we have to consider. May writes:
M.K. was able to determine that there were missing frames in most copies of the film shown on television; even the "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" DVD copy of the film, donated by John Green, has missing frames! The recent National Geographic special on Bigfoot was the only one to date to show the entire film, missing frames and all, from end-to-end. M.K. was able to determine that the copy shown on that broadcast was a 1-inch tape scan of the original film because of writing on the end of the film which said "American Bigfoot". That writing was significant because a company back in the early-’70s called American National Enterprises, or ANE, bought the rights to the original film from Roger Patterson, and they kept it for many years. The company was bought out by another company called Perequin, and that company eventually went under, which left the fate of the original film in limbo.
So what are we to surmise now? There are missing frames from the Patterson-Gimlin footage? M. K. Davis has taken those missing frames and feels they show Patty is carrying a stick? This is despite no one else ever having seen this or that there seems to be no evidence before or after those frames of anything in this cryptid’s hands? And based on this observation, M. K. has decided to relate this Bigfoot to it being an "Indian"? Or is he saying that there are Paranthropus that have been misidentified as humans who were really Sasquatch (as noted in the promo blurb at X-Zone)?
I admit. I am confused by all of these varied possibilities. After all, I’m only human. I look forward to the final clarifications from Pat Holdbrook and M. K. Davis. In the meantime, it is obvious that this has all turned into the best kind of publicity they could have ever wished for, regarding their forthcoming movie. Everyone wants to "know" now. Sort of like everyone wanted to see the "yet-to-be-released" photographs from Malaysia. No disrespect for M. K. Davis, but it seems this could have all been handled differently, in terms of this "roll-out" of data.
I have always admired M. K.’s remarkable photo enhancements. I guess I have, however, been a bit more critical of his theorizing and the stumbling that has occurred in the realm of the release of his breaking new "discovery." I hope I can finally, someday, "see" what he sees. I will, however, always asks questions, no matter what people read into them. In the meantime, there is one thing I do know; apes and humans both use sticks.
For more recent postings on M. K. Davis’s statements, see the following blogs: 1, 2, 3, and 4.
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.
Keep asking questions. Always question.
I’m sure everyone is awaiting those final clarifications with bated breath!
hey loren, good update article, like i said before loren when we see mk new evidence we will be amazed & look at it with open minded science & objectively etc and try not to be to skeptical of the evidence. thanks bill 🙂
I also agree that both apes and humans use sticks. I hope that’s not all he’s basing this alleged significant finding on.
Concluding that Bigfoot are people, based on a Bigfoot having been photographed carrying a stick (a tool), would normally be a bit premature. However, other reports exist of Bigfoot carrying sticks and I have also witnessed tools that appear to be utilized by a Bigfoot. Wood knocking, which requires both a striking tool and a striking instrument, are perhaps even a better example of tool usage. Bigfoot are frequently attempting to communicate with man by breaking branches, so for Patty to be caught holding a small branch is not particularly unusual, nor exciting. Indeed, Bigfoot never seem to be without a handy branch, for apparent communication with either man or each other. But a Digger Indian or any other type of aboriginal Indian? Not a chance. Why? Because Bigfoot sightings are too widespread to not have found the associated camps, caves or dwellings that would go along with each individual. Look at the uncensored, Native American beliefs, for the answer to “what bigfoot is”.
This must be some truly amazing “missing frames”, maybe we could get a drawing of the stick until we get to see the film? But seriously, if the P/G film in its entire length shows Patty carrying a stick, that will be an amazing discovery. But claiming it proof we’re dealing with a human being is, in my opinion, just foolish. I’ve seen birds use sticks for digging out worms and rocks to crack open eggs, they’re human too then?
Total nonsense; hogwash; poppycock; balderdash; claptrap; twaddle; tomfoolery; drivel; idiocy.
The subject in that film at no time carries a stick.
Even if it were carrying a stick, that would not constitute proof that the figure “has a culture,” “is human,” or is a “digger Indian.”
And we wonder why few take this subject seriously.
Why would a respected and talented researcher resort to this nonsense?
Perhaps it’s the dreaded Malaysian Flu?
Well put Loren! I think one of the things I am struggling with is objectivity versus subjectivity. I think you pointed out or inferred that same notion in all of your posts pertaining to this.
When asked to analyze still photographs for cases in a court of law, I must always remember that I am an objective professional in my field. My objectivity is what adds to my credibility. The attorneys will read into court record those things which qualify me as an expert in the field of photography and the reasons why my analysis and findings will be objective.
I certainly could ascertain just as M. K. Davis has done: that the subject of the photograph is holding a long instrument, probably of the wooden type, with the dimensions yxz. That would be objective testimony. But for an expert to go outside their “realm of expertise” would be subjective. To infer that I knew the intentions of the subject carrying the stick and what the stick was going to be used for, would be subjective.
There is where I take issue on this subject matter. Once I start reading into things and making a leap from point A to point B on what I surmise but not based on the facts at hand, I have crossed the line of objectivity. I would be adding my own personal thoughts on the intentions of the subject of the photograph and linking that to other activities that go beyond my realm of expertise. And not being an anthropologist, psychologist or an expert in social behaviors–I would be invalidating my credibility as an objective photographic expert. My professionalism and expertise would end after giving my analysis of the photograph.
In fact, I have been asked to extrapolate and theorize an answer on certain photographs used as evidence. I have to decline and even state for court record that is not within my scope expertise. That would be the correct and fair thing to do.
Taking something to another level, out of the realm of objectivity would leave any expert open to scrutiny. I am afraid that is what has happened in this circumstance. And you have made that very clear in your example here.
When you wrote your original post on this, I could see where you were going with it very clearly. I had the same questions come to mind that you put into writing. Some took it not as you intended it. Your post had nothing to do with racism or slurs. Far from it! You were trying to get readers to think and how M. K. Davis got from point A to point B. That was as puzzling for you as it was for me.
And it is still puzzling me. May we also assume that all BigFoots are right handed or left handed because of which hand carried the stick? Can we say what the stick was used for because of it’s length and diameter? How do we go from that point A to point B where this is indicative of a social heirarchy?
At best, I think it is a reach and confusing to many. At worst, it makes the future statements of M. K. Davis less credible as an expert in photographic or still frame analysis. It does not enhance the reputation of this person in the professional sense. I would simply say that this was there as evidence and it is for experts in their respective fields to interpret those findings. Giving any furthering opinion one way or another would leave my interpretations open to scrutiny and questions.
All you did was ask the question when that door opened. Thank you for asking it! I think you were 100% correct with everything you have written so far as it pertains to field of expertise, credibility and the proper way of handling this exact scenario!
“But he would not release more information because of Pat Holdbrook’s forthcoming film.”
That is incorrect. He has not released his supportive evidence as of yet due to obtaining copyrights and protecting his work legally before releasing it to the public. It has nothing to do with any forthcoming film. There are also works in progress to release all of the information the correct way to the public. These things take time. There is a lot of information to get out there, and he, along with others are working as quickly as they can to do so. He obviously knows he needs to answer to the public for the brief claims he has made, he’s just trying to go about it in the right manner so as not to rush through it. Some would say he should have had all this prepared prior to making his internet “press release” but even that had a reason behind it which is not my place to speak about.
As for the comment about carrying a stick. Once again it is obviously more elaborate than just a stick being carried. This too will eventually be revealed with the other evidence. He would not make such claims if it had just been carrying a stick. We all know apes have the ability to carry sticks. One would think that if M.K. Davis was held in such regard that people wouldn’t jump the gun so to speak and try to discredit his findings without first at least seeing what the man is offering. I understand the apprehension due to such fiascos as the Malaysia incident, but I still think some patience should be allowed in this instance given the history of the man’s work and previous findings.
This “teaser” type of release of information does not reflect the behavior of a respectable researcher, however, a snake oil salesman wouldn’t think twice about using such tactics.
I’m glad this discussion is getting somewhat back to the history of the film and what versions most of us have been looking at. It is my understanding that what is shown on TV is usually a 3rd or 4th generation video dub. What gets me is that one of the most controversial films next to Zapruder has only been digitally enhanced and stabilized by an enthusiast with his home pc – source material recorded off of cable TV no less! If a direct digital transfer from the second generation patterson film dub were to be digitized directly at a resolution higher than video we may even see more details. Video post production facilities have workstations that do video stabilization and enhancements- let them at it. Until then it’s MK. Maybe he has shot his mouth off or is being manipulated by a promoter but what he has posted in the past has spoke volumes.
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?
Sea otter uses rocks to break open clam shells, ravens use small pebbles to break open snails, I use rocks and pebbles on occasion to bust stuff up, therefore I am either a sea otter or a raven. Right?
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Some people have talked about how we should not try to discredit his findings but what about other scientists who have analyzed the film? Are we to discredit what they have found based on as yet unreleased evidence? There seems to be a kind of double standard here that we should listen to what MK Davis is saying (all of which is unsupported so far) and forget about what has been found up to now about the footage. Are we to forget what some have said about the biomechanics, movements, and musculature of the creature in favor of this new theory? If so, it had better be some spectacular stuff that we can look forward to seeing.
My dog carries a stick. As yet she has not enrolled in college.
To be more clear- when I said: “but what he (MK Davis) has posted in the past has spoke volumes.” I was referring to the various enhancements and animations from the PG film that have been posted online by MK. Those – in my opinion- have not been given the attention they deserve (maybe until now!)
I am not going there on what he is verbally saying now- as others have said he may be better off releasing the visuals and let others do the analysis.
Ok, but where’s the stick?
Also, from Wikipedia: “Anthropologists most commonly use the term “culture” to refer to the universal human capacity to classify, codify and communicate their experiences symbolically.”
So I’ve missed the stick and I’m stumped as to how one infers culture from the film.
I think it’s all schtick with far less culture than a petri dish. I’m just sayin’…
I herd that bigfoot uses sticks and bangs them against trees as a form of comunication.