An Apology
Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 6th, 2006
Being a big human being (but not a Bigfoot), let’s just get this over.
I’ve gotten some nasty emails, even some threatening emails in the last few days. No specific death threats this time, but it’s getting close. Let me be clear. I am not doing what I am going to do here because of that kind of feedback, however. I am doing this to be clear to M. K. Davis about my apology to him. I’ve tried giving him an apology that seems to have been taken in and then rejected by him, by his friends, and by his minions. So, I guess I need to do it more publicly, no matter how humbling this may seem. I want to be clear that my lack of declarative sentences about whom M. K. Davis is seemed to have been missed by some people. Therefore, onward with this and back to research.
For those that closely read (and not just emotionally reacted) to my recent, December 3rd blog, I said I "find myself forced to post" what I was about to post. I was not happy to reveal what I had discovered, but I felt someone had to do it.
M. K. Davis began saying things on November 26-27, unchallenged, which had the potential to change the whole focus of Bigfoot studies. Perhaps he doesn’t realize he has that kind of godlike power, but it is something he has earned in the last decade. But just like I know I am going to have to take out the trash tomorrow and anyone, anywhere can call me on my mistakes, so too should any of us call M. K. Davis on his missteps. Why do people feel M. K. Davis is untouchable? Well, his impact on the field in producing the stabilization in the Patterson-Gilmin footage has been incredible. It is used as evidence in hominology, and something I have greatly appreciated and often congratulated.
See it here. Actually you won’t. Using Bobbie Short as his avenue of communication, M.K. Davis has asked for that piece of film to be taken down. It was posted via “fair use,” and we will have more to say about that elsewhere.
As a writer, a reporter, a researcher, a blogger, and a human being, I ask hard questions. For those that read this blog often, hopefully you are not confused when I place an unidentified photograph up here and ask you for your opinion. Are some of these pix silly? Probably. Could some of them show something unknown. Infrequently. Are most of them blobs? Definitely. Do we all learn something from such postings? Of course, I hope so.
Is M. K. Davis a racist? Of course not. I apologize if I hurt him asking that question. I admit to wanting him and others to reconsider the evolution of what was occurring in promoting a film, constructing a theory, and using certain explanations and terms to explain pieces of the puzzle.
Did my questions reveal the weaknesses of M. K. Davis recent logic – "stick" to "human" to "culture" to a type of California Indian? You be the judge. Was it about M. K. Davis personally? Of course not.
For those that missed that I was merely challenging and asking the Cryptomundo community to chime in on a phrase that Davis used, I apologize to you too.
If you did join in and called M. K. Davis a "racist," your comment was deleted (unless the editors, robots, or I missed it). If you called him an idiot or me an idiot, with near profanity, your comment probably was deleted too. I don’t apologize for those deletions; they happened to people speaking in support of my blog as well as those against it.
Of course, I have no control over other blogs, and plenty of people called me some names or an idiot too, here and elsewhere. Some people called M. K. names too, and people blame me for that. I apologize to M. K. about that. I have no control over them. People like to call people names, don’t they? Well, that’s exactly what I was pointing out when a new theory was presented tying Bigfoot to a term that has deeper meanings.
Who is going to do ask the hard questions, if I don’t? I didn’t hear anyone else.
Darn it, I apologize if you were personally upset that I wasn’t soft-peddling it in asking what the heck was M. K. Davis talking about.
Wait a minute. Was it not M. K. Davis who put out the initial press release? Were we all to just take it, at face value, that "Bigfoot is human"? What is wrong with inquiring minds having questions about Bigfoot being called a "human"? What’s incorrect about exploring why a name being used in association with that theory or about Bigfoot "with…a stick"?
When did it not become okay to ask people who put out press releases some questions about what they meant? What is wrong with doing follow-up inquiries on some confusing comments being made by M. K.?
If someone uses words that are viewed as racist by a majority of California Indians in relationship to their understanding of what Bigfoot is, what is wrong with asking questions about that? Someone once told me that the correct word to use is Inuit for the people of northern North America. I did a lot of apologizing that year to some Native friends, and, unless I slip, then apologize again, only use Inuit today.
Nevertheless, I apologize if such an action here in raising this issue about what is being discussed has offended you. Sincerely.
If promoters are going to say something outrageous to get people to come to their movie, that they claim Bigfoot was filmed carrying a stick, shouldn’t they be prepared for a reaction? Hey, Seinfeld DVD sales are up 75% this year over those last year. Will all this attention to M. K. Davis’ theory and new insights into his film projects decrease interest in their forthcoming film? Of course not. We all know that the opposite will happen because people are now going to be watching what he has to say, and my blogs will be partially responsible. No this has not been a stunt, but a serious exploration, most of the time, of the topic of what Bigfoot are. But if M. K. Davis feels hurt by the experience or wasn’t ready for what kind of reaction he would stimulate, I apologize for hurting him, if that’s what he is feeling in his threats to leave the field or destroy his evidence or sue people.
But Bigfoot research to me is bigger than two men. So I apologize. If one makes the jump that what they see in a film means Sasquatch must be a certain kind of Indian, and thus Bigfoot are human, but then retreat into silence and using their friends, when they are challenged on the fact they are using a term that means something they have ignored, wouldn’t confusion be expected? And won’t people want to ask more questions? For every action, people are going to have a reaction.
M. K. Davis put out the press release. Pat Holdbrook followed up with some further elaboration. M. K. Davis followed up in short emails, one radio appearance, and in one short prepared statement. Information was given, questions were asked, responses followed, more questions asked, facts and findings challenged, and more replies and responses followed. Will M. K. Davis’ hardened position that he has nothing to apologize about and was merely misunderstood, really work? Only time will tell.
But, hey, people want to make me the issue, want this to go away and want me to say I am sorry, so I apologize period. Talk about Bigfoot, not me. Examine M. K. Davis’ theory, not the reporter’s question or M. K. Davis’ personality, which never has been under scrutiny by me.
Over 200 people have commented on this thread. Please don’t blame them as questioners, responders, or comment-makers. Blame me for being bold or stupid or silly enough to step up to the plate and ask some questions. Look to how this was rolled out, how it was handled, the research that was not done before the claims, thoughts, words and theories were presented to an unknowing public.
I respect the labor of M. K. Davis’ past photographic and film analyses, I’ve met the gu
y, I like M. K. Davis and sincerely feel he is an authority in a narrow and special field of expertise. But M. K. Davis seems to have walked into a cow patch when he wrote his press release and should have been more careful about theorizing anthropologically.
I apologize if I hurt him personally, and I say this most sincerely and not passively-aggressively. If I pointed out that there was something on the bottom of his shoes, and this has embarrassed him, I am sorry.
Hey, I’m only human. I’ve made mistakes, I’ve admitted them, and I have made those right again and again. Some people will never let me off the hook, and I am well aware of that. That comes with the space of being a celebrity in this field. Welcome to the limelight M. K. But then, if you don’t face your demons, they will live on inside of you.
Therefore, now I would ask, M. K. Davis, I’ve given mine, can we hear from you an apology for your illogical linguistic blunder?
With all due respect, 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.
Very well said, Loren, if (in my humble opinion) unnecessary. Sometimes there’s collegiality in these discussions and sometimes there’s rancor. The choice is always to get used to it, get over it, or get the heck out of it. Carry on, Sir!
PS: The new ‘stable’ clip of the the P-G film is the freshest take on it in years!
Well said Loren. I for one, being just a old wolf in this big world, look at every thing any one says or states as fact when a promotion of a book or film etc is involved. I also question their motives. Hope they all do good science before they make public what they think or know.
Loren, I have heard your words of wisdom before and it went something like this:
Don’t kill the messenger for delivering the message!
Thanks for being the messenger!
Thanks for showing us all the stabilized footage. Fascinating.
good man.
Loren,
I have known you professionally for many years. I do not always agree with your position, but I have gone on record on my groups BLOG site to protest the use of any site to attack another researcher’s character. I have always found you to be an honest person and have not changed my mind after seeing these other comments.
Keep up the good fight.
Rick Moran
ASUP
I didn’t read anything that you wrote that deserves an apology.
As I stated previously, I don’t buy his theories even a little.
Serious researchers have to defend their positions, not hide and sulk.
I never thought Mr Davis was a racist for his claims, I just think he is a person that wants to promote something that will prove inconclusive at best and make a buck doing it at our expense.
The stabilized image really makes the “guy in a suit” theory look pretty implausible. You can see the muscle movement under the skin in the leg quite clearly. The whole walking movement seems way too fluid to be anything but a natural creature.
Loren, healthy criticism is a natural and expected part of the presentation of any new theory. In my opinion, your thoughts and words were completely within the realm of what I would expect from any scientist evaluating a new theory.
I think it is extremely big of you to offer this public apology and even if it is unnecessary, I think Mr. Davis et al should respect your right to question and critique the views of others in your field.
Based on what has been presented on this Blog, it does not matter what the status of Davis is. He is off his rocker on this one, no apologies! As a matter of fact it is Mr. Davies who needs to make apology for wasting our time with his nonsense! I just call things as I see them. A spade is a spade, a duck a duck and there is nothing wrong with reality. I do not believe in kissing butt, nor in Political Correctness. I do believe in the truth. So Mr. Davis, where exactly is this digging tool you see? Otherwise I demand an apology!
Personally, as I have stated before, MK is a very nice gentleman who doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. Anyone who called him a name should apologize, because it’s neither professional nor called for. However, Loren, I think you did the right thing by making your posts. MK is the one who issued the press release and then made various statements about the issue in print and on the internet. This would not have been a firestorm if MK had waited and make one very specific and well-thought out statement (well, ok, it would still be an issue because I don’t agree with the premise that Patty is carrying anything nor MK’s view of what Patty is). I also wish that MK had sought the advice of anthropologists/archaeologists prior to his use of terms that he used (not because we would have clued him in that the term “digger indian” wouldn’t have gone over well…but also that his interpretation of who those people are was wrong). I, for one, would have gladly assisted and helped him flesh out his thoughts with the large reference library I have at my fingertips. If we don’t start doing better science, we are never going to get ahead.
Loren you are a good man.
Political correctness is nothing more than professionalism and civility and nothing less. Nothing more, nothing less. If you violate civility and professionalism and are called on it, quite often, people claim you’re a victim of political correctness. I have always said that Western Frontier newspapers and accounts did not follow what we consider to be valid journalistic principles- something proven in the phony biographies of gunslingers- and anyone quoting from that time period, specifically about Anglo settlers, frontiersmen and others interacting with Native Americans, Spanish settlers, Russian settlers, former African-American slaves working in the west and, yes, all women, need to take into account the reality of the American West, diaries and newspapers or else they deal in fantasy. Cryptozoology is an interesting topic, but is infested with junk. Easily 90% of what I’ve read is wrong. People should not forget the lessons of “In Search of Ancient Astronauts” which virtually said that non-European cultures could never build anything substantial without Extraterrestrial help. Indeed they did. That’s a lesson we should all remember as we give credence to fictional work that claims to be science.
I dont think an apology was needed, Mr. Davis was a bit ‘loose’ with his words during the discussion. I distinctly recall him using the phrase “lowest of the low on the human totem pole” – I realize he was attempting to explain how *others* viewed these ‘diggers’, but why use such a harsh phrase?
An apology was not needed.
What is needed is a complete and total retraction of MK Davis’s ridiculous assertions, first about the stick, and second about the Patterson-Gimlin film subject being a human.
Those statements are as ludicrous as statements about bigfoot being an extraterrestrial.
Another thing – it is totally irrelevant how nice a guy MK Davis is. He still doesn’t have license to boldly assert such things without someone asking for explanations.
And then there’s the matter of his flying monkeys, the posters on the GCBRO message board, who seem to issue threats and call names like a bunch of drunken yahoos with popguns as they “defend” their “buddy.” Talk about pouring kerosene on the fire.
As I recall, the only outrageous things that have been said during this entire bizarre episode have come from the mouths and pens of MK Davis, and his Philistine-compadres.
Geez.
A big thank you to Loren Coleman for doing the right thing by MK concerning the racist comment.
As the producer, videographer and editor of the upcoming Dvais release I can assure you that everything presented will be backed up with evidence. It will be fascinating.
John Johnsen
I have only commented on the “stick” aspects of this thread and in keeping with that approach, the frames are great but in no way do I see a stick. I see nothing new. Show me the stick with a big arrow pointing to it. No stick no new story.
Loren, it takes a big man to do what you did. You’re an inspiration to us all.
You are a decent man Loren even if I don’t always agree with you. That was a very nice entry.
Loren:
I think I’m coming from a unique position with my feedback here. I haven’t the foggiest idea with what it is you are referring to in relationship to M.K. Davis, his press release, research, and comments or your response to them – save what is briefly outlined here – because I didn’t read the blog that you referenced in this post. I almost decided to go ahead and do so out of curiosity and to get more information – but then I thought I’d perform a subjective, psychological experiment to see what my impression was here of your apology without having that background information and just perhaps – embedded bias.
I’m going to agree with all previous posters here that no apology was needed on your part – but for a different reason. I don’t think an apology calls for a defense of one’s position when it’s clear from your post that you felt your actions were justified on nearly all accounts. Besides that, in my opinion defending your position at such great length as you did here takes the wind out of the sails of the apology. It’s the old “I’m sorry…” with the last minute “but” jab that we all hate to hear when the apology is aimed our direction. The hatchet is never truly buried. Indeed, the post ended with a challenge for a return apology! It’s “Crypto Apology Smack Down!” I think most of our mother’s taught us that an apology is offered because a wrong has been recognized – not because we expect an apology in return. Yes, it’s great to receive one – particularly when you feel it’s deserved – whether it’s aimed at you personally or someone else. But should it be the catalyst for the original action?
History is rife with people being crucified for sticking to their guns and saying what they believe. History also bears out just as often society would have been better served if we listened to them.
An excellent posting Mr. Coleman, best regards.
Mr. Coleman,
After reading your comments, I fail to see any need for an apology. I may have missed something, but in my reading I have not made note of you calling anyone a “racist”.
Was your apology driven more by a threat from a greedy would-be mega film producer and his hoaxing, mis-representing buddy? You know, the one that publicly calls you a liar and a thief on his message board?
You may have sparked some lively debate over M.K.’s comment, but where did you call anyone any names?
I for one am glad that these tough questions were asked. Indeed, to make the claims that MK Davis made and then not follow through with any sort of evidence, well he certainly must have expected some sort of strong reaction. The fact that he is someone with some clout in the field makes this especially true. I do not see anything that was asked of him that was unreasonable or wholly out of line. I do not agree with any personal attacks against the man, but some of us demand answers that make sense. I don’t see anything wrong with questioning the integrity of new theories or claims, especially those of such an outlandish or far fetched nature. This is how we learn, how we get to the bottom of things, and search for the truth. If the theory is sound, the evidence will fall into place, there’s no need to hide or obfuscate one’s as has been done with MK Davis’ alleged findings. I for one am not going to just sit back and take every new photo or outstanding claim at face value and I think perhaps MK Davis would have been aware that a lot of people feel the same way. It’s scary how the impersonal nature of the net can make people very belligerent and hurl insults, and I feel that is uncalled for. But as far as asking the tough questions? I say keep up the good work, Loren.
Yes Loren I think that you SHOULD ask tough questions. You should not be held responsible for how other people react to information that you have printed. How can you know whether someone will make inappropriate comments in response to a post? You did not incite those comments.
Perhaps at some point the term “Digger Indian” was considered correct and inoffensive, but it is now recogonized as a racial (or cultural) epithet and it should not be used. It was not out of line for you to point that out; on the contrary it needed to be pointed out. Too often people use terms that they have heard without realizing that those seemingly innocuous terms may be hurtful and denigrating to some people.
If we can discuss the propriety or impropriety of using terms such as Sasquatches as opposed to Sasquatch as a plural, then surely we can address improprieties such as unintentional ethnic slurs.
Loren, the only thing you’d have to apologize for is the incindeary title of the controversial post (which, if people read the actual post would see was not your position). There is no reason to apologize for asking questions and calling people on lack of evidence / potentially offensive terminology
Duly noted. Edited. Changed.
The bottom line in this whole thing is that M.K. Davis’s new film is benefiting from a tremendous amount of publicity because of the “feud” with Loren, who is a recognized master in the field of Cryptozology, especially when it comes to Bigfoot. As I see it, M.K. Davis should heap praise on Loren for all the free publicity. Hey, Mr. Davis, how about crossing Loren’s palm with a little cash for the great PR. It seems fitting to me.
Good grief.
Loren is a writer. He employed a common rhetorical device, asking a question as a method of beginning a discourse. That’s how I understood his initial post regarding the repeated use of an apparently abhorrent appellation. It was not a personal attack.
Loren questioned the appropriateness of the term, and he questioned the validity of its application to the P/G sasquatch, as did many others. He did not accuse anyone of being a racist, even suggesting the possibility that M.K. Davis was unaware of the history of the use of the term as a racial epithet. Those who assert otherwise have either accepted the negative interpretations of others without checking out the facts for themselves, or they have another agenda.
Although I do not think it was appropriate for Loren to attach any expectations to his apology, he should not have been pressured into giving an apology in the first place. Davis, like anyone else, should be held accountable for his ill-timed and ill-considered comments.
As for the seemingly outrageous claims about the nature of the P/G sasquatch, I’m afraid I foresee nothing positive coming from this affair for M.K. Davis, a person who has been nothing but professional in his conduct with me.