M. K. Davis Apologizes and “Clouds” Bigfoot With Almasty

Melissa Hovey has given her permission to reproduce her recent blog on this matter completely. All comment are hers. – Loren

Well, M.K. Davis has finally spoken up about his use of Rick Noll’s work, and he also discusses his new “discovery” regarding the Patterson/Gimlin film (which does not now seem like such a new discovery). Who does M.K. Davis talk to, to get his side of all this out to the public? None other than Tom Biscardi. Yep, that’s right folks. Did anyone else find the questions Tom Biscardi asked of M.K. to be familiar? Hmm, I can’t imagine where Biscardi could have gotten those questions.

Mr. Biscardi starts out this interview with a bit of commentary about how M.K. has not been offered a “venue” to get his words out. He claimed M.K. has been cut off and not allowed to speak. This is pure nonsense. M.K. chose not to discuss any of this; no one attempted to interrupt him or stop him from addressing these issues, he simply chose not to and allowed others to speak for him. That was his decision. Although Mr. Biscardi may not have known this (because I’m sure he was not told), M.K. was offered a venue to get his story out. I personally had a conversation with M.K. about putting out an article as a way of explaining what his “new discovery” was all about, but he also knew an apology for certain words used had to be included in the article. To insinuate that I would not have been fair to M.K. is very disingenuous; I have been more than fair with every person I have interviewed to date. Still, M.K. politely said, “I will think about it. ”

I must admit, I wonder if Mr. Davis isn’t much better at public relations than I ever imagined? M.K. seemingly had every researcher in this field whipped up into a frenzy, many ready to buy whatever was put out regarding his “new discovery,” and every day the leaks seemed to get more sensational. Why wouldn’t someone want to pay money to see what he was talking about? I had many people ask me (after I made it known I would not be paying money for this), “Why wouldn’t you want to buy the DVD or pay to see the movie where M.K. discusses all this? ” My answer was, “Because I wouldn’t ask another researcher to pay money for any information I might have, that’s why.” I am all for finding ways to fund research into this mystery, I really am, but the people who are currently being targeted for sales of this DVD and movie already spend vast amounts of cash on field equipment, clothes, and miscellaneous gear to keep them safe in the field. I just believe that information isn’t something anyone in this field of research should have to pay for; many have already paid their dues.

In this interview researchers learn that they would have paid for a DVD or movie for no good reason at all. That’s right; M.K. discloses in this interview that he does NOT think Patty is human. Actually, he doesn’t know for sure what “Patty” is; it seems like he tries to go back and forth on “Patty’s” identity, a situation that now has me really confused. Was there a major typo in M.K.’s press release? Who typed up that press release? Someone must have made a big mistake, and M.K. should be very upset with whoever put out that press release. Wait a second, he can’t be upset, because he says in this interview that he put out the press release himself. M.K. says he issued the press release because it’s a “Legal Document.” He says it is something he can always refer back to later. (Are you sure you want to do that now?)

[Note to M.K. Davis: A press release is not a legal document, no more than anything else you have ever typed on any message board.]

I have to admit that M.K. comes across in the interview in such a way that I sometimes feel a little sorry for him, but then he turns around and seemingly just can’t help himself…

For example, more than once during the interview he utters what seems to be gracious words about the work of Rick Noll, then he strays off into a lecture on how this isn’t his or Rick Noll’s work, it’s the work of Roger Patterson. If that’s the case, I can’t help but wonder why M.K. doesn’t stop people from putting his name on all the various websites that post his “stabilization”? Isn’t that the work of Roger Patterson? Shouldn’t the websites be saying it’s the work of Roger Patterson? No, not really, because by his own assertion, M.K. says he made improvements; those improvements are his (and of course someone else’s) and he wants full credit for his work. And, if he did all this in the hopes of showing the world Roger Patterson was not a liar, why did he ask Cryptomundo to remove his “stabilization” from their site? Why is it that he feels obligated to protect his work, but Rick Noll shouldn’t? I guess that when it comes to Rick Noll’s involvement, we should all just look at the film images as the work of Roger Patterson.

I have noticed that on some websites certain individuals think that researchers should not worry themselves about questioning M.K. Davis. I would argue it is important in this case, and it goes directly to an issue most researchers complain about, often and very loudly: Information Sharing. That’s right. Has anyone ever stopped to think why some in this field do not share information as others would like? Could it be because of things like this? If it’s OK to make money or fund your research by making a DVD or movie, it should be fine to protect the investments you have made over time, both financially and in terms of your own blood, sweat and tears.

What will we do? Ignore and continue business as usual, or raise our standards and not allow things such as this to happen again? I would say the decision is that of every single researcher. If you come down on the side that this is no big deal and not worthy of your thought and time, then you can never complain if your work is taken and used for something for which it was not intended.

Tom Biscardi: Let’s get into the meat and potatoes because we’ve got a great show, ladies and gentlemen. You’ve all heard about him, you’ve all heard about what happened. It’s Mr. M.K. Davis. M.K., are you on the line?

Tom Biscardi: Boy, you sound like a million bucks. You sound really good M.K. and I’m glad to hear that, because there’s been a few times that I talked to you and you didn’t sound as good as you do tonight, and that’s a good thing, that you’re up to the old par that I know ya. Now, listen, there’s been a lot of controversy going on, and everybody’s been cutting you off and, and, you really haven’t had the real platform and, or the venue that you could just, tell it like it is. Okay? Well, guess what? You’ve got it now my friend; this is your hour. You can say what you want, how you want to say it. You just put it out there, ‘cause no one is going to interrupt ya. There are a few questions that I’ve got for ya, and uh, (Tom Biscardi clears his throat) and they’ve been aired out on a bunch of these different, ahhhh, websites out there and I hope you don’t mind me asking you some of these things.

Tom Biscardi: And, ah, but you’re the one that’s gonna answer em, and, and nobody is gonna bother ya on ‘em, okay? Which way do you wanna go first?

Tom Biscardi: Ok. Here’s, here’s some of the questions that have been opposed out there on these websites. Number one: What exact process did you use to create this stabilization?

M.K. Davis: Now, which stabilization are you talking about, where it’s, where, is the panorama unfolds across the screen?

M.K. Davis: Yeah, uh, that seems to be the most popular one that I’ve done. I’ve done a number of stabilizations, uhh, ahh, I’ve stabilized, there’s two different ways to stabilize it, you can stabilize the background and let the subject walk, or you can stabilize the subject and let the background move around, and I’ve done both. Ahh, basically I’ve used, uh, still images that were taken off, right off the film, uh, of John Green’s copy of the film by, uh, bigfoot researcher Richard Noll. Ahh, I used those still images to create the files; it was all hand stabilized. Every one of those frames that you see in that particular one where it scrolls across from left to right has been, uh, been color stripped, uh, in other words, I went in there, I digitally separated all the colors, and then I, uh, I, I removed the colors that were improperly focused, retained the, the more properly focused colors, and then displayed it in black and white and then, uh, changed the format, ah, to a file that I could, uh, animate and then, uh, and then I hand stabilized them, in other words, like, for instance, if I wanted the subject to appear in the center of the screen, and stay in the center of the screen, and be filmed as if the, the camera was following it and staying on it, then I, I, I set there and moved each frame around until the subject was dead center in the screen and it’s just very hard, meticulous, tedious work; it, it’s not the kind of work that most people want to do. It, it’s not rocket science, it’s just, ah, hard work.

Tom Biscardi: Okay. Number 2: Did you use a copy of the film, or the original and, if so, from whom did you get it?

M.K. Davis: This was a copy of the film, and I got it (pause and interruption by Biscardi)… Uhh, I got it, from ah, ahh, ah… a mutual friend of Richard Noll, uh, and myself that sent it to me, ahh it was, ah, greatly appreciated by me. I had been working on this film, ahh, sort of, ahh, in, in, in behalf of Roger Patterson, I guess. Once I realized that what I was looking at was real, on this film, then I sort of, ahh, sort of, in my, ahh, my main effort has been to, ahh, to get the very best version of it, and so people could see that Roger Patterson is not, you know, a liar or a hoaxer.

(M.K. Davis continues) Ahh, uhh, You know, I just think that to me, it’s just wrong for a person that’s deceased, uhh, that can’t defend himself, to have to watch people, like what’s been going on with different people claiming to be a man in a suit and stuff like that, and he deserved better than that. I’ve been working toward that end.

Tom Biscardi: Well you know it’s easy for when someone passes, for someone to accuse someone else, because now he can’t get up and defend himself, can he?

M.K. Davis: No, not at all, that, that’s, that’s been my main [unintelligible]. You know I don’t want it to be anything other than it is, ahh, if it, if it turned out to be a man in a suit, ahh, I would be the first person to say, you know, I think it’s a man in a suit. And, and, and actually, the way it has turned out as of late it’s, (unintelligible) you know it’s caused so much of a controversy is that, it went a different way than I expected it to go. And, and I hope people appreciate, that you know, that, that in midstream, sometimes you have to change directions. You know, if you’re honest with yourself and your research and everything that is going on.

M.K. Davis: I, I, I really don’t wanna, to ahh, take anything away from any other researcher or anybody who has ever worked on the film ahh at all and especially Richard Noll, ‘cause I admire the guy a lot, I know it takes a special sort of a person to, to run a film under a microscope and take, and to optically enlarge every frame and, and photograph it, and ahh, ahh you know, he’s… I’ve just got nothing but good things to say about Richard Noll and, but, all the, all the files that you see, you know, that I have put out, I constructed them myself, they, they, they were constructed from still frames, so I created the stabilizations and they are stabilized, they’re hand stabilized and in, in lots of different ways. There’s many that I have that are, you know, no one has ever seen. But ahh, I don’t want ahhh, I, I, I don’t give myself more credit than Roger Patterson, and I don’t want to give anyone else more credit than Roger Patterson, because these still frames came from Roger Patterson’s film, and Roger Patterson took them.

Tom Biscardi: (Talks over M.K. and interrupts him). How long did it take you to complete your work?

M.K. Davis: Uhh, well, I’ve been working, ohh, ah… (Pause)… as far as my total time on, on, as far as my interest in this film and me, you know, working toward getting, you know, the best images and stuff, uh, about 10 years.

Tom Biscardi: So it took you all the [ten years?] you’ve got involved in this thing right now?

Tom Biscardi: Okay. Did you have Mrs. Patterson’s expressed consent prior to publishing your stabilization on the Internet?

M.K. Davis: Yes sir, she told me that I could put them on the Internet as long as it didn’t harm her film or cost her money…

Tom Biscardi: Okay. (M.K. Davis continuing) …and that’s understandable, and what I’ve been doing is trying to promote the Patterson film as authentic.

M.K. Davis: No, it wasn’t written, she just told me that over the phone. Tom Biscardi: So it was just a phone conversation?

Tom Biscardi: Did you have a conversation with Rick Noll, prior to posting your gif file on the Internet?

Tom Biscardi: And then, what are your thoughts on the controversy over your use of Rick Noll’s work? What they’re saying?

M.K. Davis: Like I said, I admire the guy, and he did a fantastic job, but ultimately those are Roger Patterson’s images. You know, ah, even though he rendered them, they came off of Roger Patterson’s film. Roger Patterson took them.

M.K. Davis: And, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t take anything away from Roger Patterson, you know, so I don’t want to put, as much as I think, as highly as I think of Richard, I don’t want to put him above what Roger did.

M.K. Davis: It’s Roger Patterson’s work, that’s it exactly; you can’t go into a movie and film the movie and come out and say, “This is my work.”

Tom Biscardi: Um hum, um hum, um hum, um hum. Did Rick Noll ever contact you concerning these issues and or questions about your work?

M.K. Davis: Yes, he did. (Silence) Ahh, ahh, Rick recognized that I had put some of his stuff up there, and, and, and, at first, I did try to use some misdirection there, ‘cause I didn’t want Chris Murphy to get in trouble.

M.K. Davis: Chris Murphy is who sent me the images… ah, Chris is a great guy and he, ever since he met me, him and I have been corresponding he, he’s tried to help me, ‘cause he knows I’m really genuinely trying to, to do, you know, something good with the film.

M.K. Davis: And I didn’t want Chris to get into trouble. Once, once it got out that, that Chris, uh, was the guy, and everything, then I didn’t have any problem at all, you know acknowledging Rick, the source of the stills, as being Richard’s. And um, John Green, I don’t want to leave John Green out of it, heck, ‘cause it’s his film, and, ahh, you know, John Green’s been in this forever. I mean, he’s like an icon in this, and, and even at this late stage of the game, you know this guy is still producing, you know, prolifically, you know, it may not be in the way he anticipated that it would, but it’s, it’s, it’s ah, been good for the film.

Tom Biscardi: Is it the, is it at all possible that the stick you saw could be a leading edge of the left hand as it swung through in the film?

M.K. Davis: Well, I thought so at first, uh, ahh, you know, ah, when I first saw it, when I constructed the, ahh, reconstructed the film entirely in color, that’s when I began to notice there was something there in the left hand; ‘course, it wasn’t that distinct, ahh, but what it caused me to do was to go back and look at the film, all the way back through to the beginning. You know, frame-by-frame, there you go back to the tedious stuff again.

M.K. Davis: And I did, I found it in, in a total of four places. And, and in the earliest parts of the filming, you know, that’s seldom ever seen, ahh, it actually came through quite clearly, and, ahhh, there’s no doubt in my mind what it is.

Tom Biscardi: Did you ever contact Mrs. Patterson or John Green prior to using the original film, or publishing your stabilization version?

M.K. Davis: No, I, I, I talked to, to Patricia Patterson, not John Green. John’s been, ahh, he hasn’t been very cooperative on the film. He told me when I first got into this, that he didn’t think anything more could be done with the film, you know, umm, he emailed me and he said there was, you know, no point in even going on with it. Of course, you know, I have a background in astronomy, and uh, I am an amateur astronomer, and the amateurs sort of learn the tricks, how to get the things out, how to get little out of nothing.

Tom Biscardi: You know, I’m so glad you said this, because you know, I’ve had about 7 emails, that people are saying, “Well I think he did work for NASA.” Can we put this to rest, either say yeah or nay, can we put this thing to bed? Did you work, or are you working now for NASA?

M.K. Davis: I think it got started maybe perhaps, uhh, in the early days when, ah, when the, ah, Jeff Glickman analysis of the film, you know, was still being, uh, discussed a lot, uhh, and that would be an organization they formed for the purpose of that called NASI, uh, North American Science Institute. And I think maybe someone heard “astronomy” and “NASI” in the same sentence or something, and, and sort of put two and two together or something and thought it was NASA, but no, no, I don’t work for NASA at all and never have and ah, I’m a big supporter of NASA, but, but I don’t work for them.

Tom Biscardi: OK, and by the way, um, um, have you determined the color of the skin of this creature?

M.K. Davis: Ahhh yeah, it’s amazingly light. Ahhh, and, and you know, ahh, looking back through, having traveled back to the film site at the same time of day and the same time of year, and, uh, that’s what you have to do ultimately to fully understand what’s on the film, what you’re looking at on the film, cause this film was taken, uh, with 25 speed film, which is not very sensitive to light at all, and when this thing passes through the shadow, I mean, you lose all contrast. I mean, everything becomes one color on it. But when it steps out into a beam of light that’s filtering off these tall canyon rims, uh, it sort of, ahh, blazes right up, and those are the moments where it gives you, where you can see through, it pierces the hair, you can see the skin and, and the skin is quite light-colored. Ahhh, I would say it’s sort of a high yellow, umm, at least that’s what it appears to me, it’s much, much, much lighter than the hair itself.

Tom Biscardi: Wow. OK. It’s been alluded to that, the prints you used in your work are actually photographs of Cibachromes, possibly obtained from Dahinden. Is there any truth to that?

M.K. Davis: Ahh, the Cibachrome prints, uh, they are, they were produced by Bruce Bonney. I think he was working in relation to Rene Dahinden, for Rene Dahinden, perhaps. They were rendered from the original master, which is, you know, any analysis that you can get that’s from the master is naturally going to be the very best. And, when I talk about master, I mean the actual reel that was in Roger Patterson’s camera, when he took the film, the movie; it’s going to be the very best. Ahh, as far as, I think there were like twelve of those images rendered by Bruce Bonney. Ahh, Bruce Bonney rendered the images off the film, just like Rick Noll rendered them off the film, but they’re not Bruce Bonney’s images.

Tom Biscardi: You know, that’s, it’s interesting you have said this now two or three times now, in the last 15 minutes, ahh, 12 minutes, and, and I want the people out there to understand this, that this is Roger Patterson’s film. You know, they all talk in 2nd and 3rd party. The first party here is Roger Patterson. He’s the one that took this film; it is his, and now, it’s his wife’s. Is that correct?

M.K. Davis: Yeah, yeah, there’s other people who have bought into the rights and those people have to be satisfied and everything too, but I have to, aahh, I haven’t done anything to hurt that film or cost anybody money, if you can only say anything it’s only helped the film. Ahh, I’m working in Roger Patterson’s behalf, and I really don’t know why; I have asked myself many times why I did this, because he’s deceased, and it’s an almost impossible project, you know, the odds are way against ya, that you will ever succeed. But somehow, Tom, in all of this, with my astronomy experience and, and the things I have learned about film and that, that I could see there was a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel, that it was a doable thing, and if I could do it, it would be an important thing, it would be meaningful, and, and you know, and I wanted to do it in a meaningful way, and to really help, and I think that I have done that. I certainly hope that I have done that.

Tom Biscardi: Well, you know I think you have too, but I don’t think anybody has really listened to what you’ve had to say, I don’t think you have really had the floor to, ah, let everybody understand what was going on, and you have got that now. And ahh, I’ve got one other question here for ya. Who is Owen Caddy, and has any of his work influenced you or any of your work?

M.K. Davis: Owen Caddy worked with the same prints that I worked with, uh, the ones that Noll took. I met Owen Caddy in Pocatello; he seems like, just an extremely intelligent young man. Ahh, he’s been, he’s been over to Africa and worked with the great apes over there and, ahh, just a world of experience, you know, with them, umm, and he put on a heck of a presentation in Pocatello, very convincing, ahh, believe me, if I had not come across, you know, what I have come across, as of late, ahh, Owen Caddy would, would probably still be influencing me as far as what it is. But because the stuff is so convincing, you know, that it overrides everything.

M.K. Davis: Yeah, ah, Owen, ahh, you know, ah, he’s, Owen, you know, Owen could do anything he wanted to. You know, he undertook this project because he thought he could do some good. And there are a lot of good people in this business. They really try, they wanna help, ya know. Uhh, and, I, you know, I just met lots of wonderful people and I’m really thankful for everybody I’ve met that’s befriended me. I’m, I’m not a bad guy, I’m a nice guy, I’m just trying to help, and people sort of read all kinds of things into what you’re doing and your motives or whatever. What it boils down to is that I’m trying to help a deceased man and redeem his name. You know, this film is an important film; he should have taken a place in history with that, you know, not as a con man.

Tom Biscardi: Well, I’m, I’m glad that you’re doing what you’re doing. What, what do you say to all these people out there that, that’s saying… Oh, ahh, you signed a movie deal now, and you’re only in it to get money, you know, financial rewards, in the, in the end now?

M.K. Davis: Tom, to be honest with ya, I haven’t even heard from Pat Holbrook, uh, after all the stuff broke out, [the heat?] that was kinda on me, I don’t even know where he’s at. He might have decided to just drop the whole thing. I, I had a very small part in it. I went up there and I shot my part in a couple hours. He wanted to make a movie about Roger Patterson. And, and it was in a fictitious setting, it was Hollywood, but it had elements of truth to it. And it was where the film could speak for Roger, and, and sort of, ahh, uh, redeem him, and, and the people would understand, you know, that they, what they were seeing was Hollywood, but it had elements of truth to it, and, and maybe perhaps, you know, with all the, the uh, the bad press that Roger Patterson has got, uh, Roger Patterson has got press not only about the film, but about his personal life too, uh, a really bad rap. And, and the idea of, of, of, you know, sort of a redemption of Roger Patterson, in a, in that sort of way, just appealed to me, you know. I wanted to help if I could. I have made no money off of it, no money has been given to me, period. Uh, to go to Ohio, I had to put $400 worth of tires on my car. You know, it, it’s always been on my own dime. Uh, he did pay for my, you know, for some of my expenses to come up, but not all of them. I actually, you know, went in the hole before I got back and had to pay my own way back. But, ah, you know, it’s just an effort to try to do something good.

Tom Biscardi: You know, you know, you’re preaching to the choir, and I will tell you the reason why. Ahh, you know, they all say, “Oh, geeze, you know, you have this, you travel there, you travel here.” People don’t realize what it costs today to, to stay into business, okay? And if you got nothing coming in, nothing from nothing is nothing, period, end of report, you know, and, and, they just don’t understand just because you’re a public person, okay, right away, ahh, there’s a stigma that’s planted on you. “Oh, you’ve got money, and oh, you’ve got prestige,” and, and all this stuff that goes along with it. Baloney! None of that, unless you really get out there and do what you’re supposed ta be doing and, and make it happen. That’s the only way you’re going to make money in this business, as you know. (Laughter by Biscardi.) I hear exactly where you’re coming from. I know, I’ve been there, I’ve done that, okay? And, ahh, but, there’s so many people out there thinking that… Oh geesh, uh, there’s somebody put some picture on the ‘net, I saw one of the emails, and it says that somebody was signing a check over to you, and it hit all over, you know, Cyberspace out there, that this was your big Golden Apple. You know?

M.K. Davis: Oh, no, nobody’s signed any checks over to me at all, no, not at all. No, no, ain’t made no money off it.

[Note: Don Monroe calls in at this point to offer his support for M.K. Davis. He attempts during various points to get Mr. Davis to revert back to his original use of words to describe Native Americans that caused M.K. so much trouble to begin with. Kudos to M.K. for not going back to that place, apologizing again, and holding on to that apology. So much for M.K. getting a full hour. I am not including that portion of the interview.]

Tom Biscardi: You know, M.K. is on the show with us here tonight (talking to Don Monroe). Uh, M.K., you gotta forgive me. Don is one of our people and he comes in anytime he wants to. Where you at now buddy?

Tom Biscardi: Yep. Well, right now, ahh, M.K. has been on the air, and without any interruptions or anything, and telling his side of the story, and ah, it’s been pretty darn good. And you know the good thing about this M.K., is now people can’t distort it, because now they can go to the archives and they can listen to the whole story, the way you lay it out.

M.K. Davis: Well, you know, I, I, I think that once people see, uh, you know, the images that I’ve got from the film, you know, they won’t be mad at me. I mean, it’s just what came off the film.

Tom Biscardi: (Inaudible, someone is moving around or something) It’s how you see it, to them.

M.K. Davis: Yeah, I think that seeing is believing, and everything, maybe people feel a little threatened that I came to a different conclusion, but what I, I never said that, and people confuse my words a lot and, and, sort of misrepresent it, but, ah, I never said that, that Bigfoot was human, I just said what was on the Patterson film was human.

M.K. Davis: Ahhh, that doesn’t mean that, that, Bigfoot is human, or that doesn’t… I don’t even know if that’s a Bigfoot or not, on that film. You know, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Ahhh, ahhh, maybe it’s, uh, some sort of Almasty, or something like that. I had, I had a, I had an interesting theory, you know, that I had worked on, and that, that Don and I had talked about it before, uh, that perhaps these things came from China, or Tibet, the Tibetan regions. You know, there were some sign posts, no hard evidence, but sign posts that seem to point back to across the water there, you know, and I thought maybe they came over here, and, uh, that they had, uh, been abandoned here. Whether they are Almasty, Yeti, or, or whatever you call them. But, ahh, you know, it’s just a theory, that’s all. Uh, and, and I was about halfway through that theory when I ran out of time on another radio show, and it wasn’t their fault because I was part of a symposium. You know, you don’t get the entire time, you know, you only get a short, a portion of it. And, I ran out of time, and, and I was sort of theorizing that maybe the early Spaniards saw, uh, these maybe Yeti or whatever, the Almasty that had been abandoned, according to my theory…

Okay, dear readers, this is where I ended the transcription of this program. The rest is basically an impassioned plea by M.K. to other researchers to stay the course and not allow anyone to take you off your path (which, by the way, is great advice).

As for M.K. thinking researchers are angry with him, I really don’t see where any researchers are angry; it’s more like they are concerned with where all this is going. Even after transcribing this interview, I am still not sure what his “new discovery” is. During this interview he is given the chance to talk for an hour without interruption and set all this straight; instead he only clouds it more with Almasty and Yeti theories. What are you trying to tell us M.K.?

M.K. was the one that started this “ball” rolling down hill, and it’s up to him to bring it back to where it needs to be. Researchers who do not know what he is talking about cannot do that. That’s up to you, M.K.

I am all for any new discoveries in this field of research; heck, I would even applaud any new findings with the Patterson/Gimlin film (as I think that film is quite possibly the real thing), but I cannot support a new finding without first understanding what it is. M.K., this theory is not mine or anyone else’s, it’s yours, and as such it is also yours to explain if you want anyone to understand what you’re talking about.

As for the commentary by Biscardi—well, once again, he doesn’t fail to disappoint.

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.

Email • Facebook • Twitter •