More On “Bigfoot = Human?”

Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 28th, 2006

In yesterday’s blog, “Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot = A Hairy Human?”, I overviewed the startling announcement from M. K. Davis, after ten years of study, that he feels that the film’s Sasquatch is nothing more than a “human.” But he says it is not a human in a suit. Due to his forthcoming appearance in a motion picture by Pat Holdbrook, neither Davis nor Holdbrook would share further information or details. So, onward with photos of the principals and comments by leading analysts. Plus, I wish to put out a call for some drawings related to all of this, whatever this is.

Pat Holdbrook

Shown above, Pat Holdbrook, writing a check to someone.

Mike Krein is the former moderator of the Bigfoot Yahoogroups list, and has seen Sasquatch “researchers” and “hunters” come and go in the field. Here is his sense of this latest development:

Well, the only thing that surprises me here is that it took this long for a self-promoter like M.K. Davis to seek his 2 minutes of glory. He’s an amateur star-gazer who’s used some software to flicker images back and forth, and now thinks that that small endeavor, along with his brief TV appearances, entitles him to foist his interpretation of the Patterson footage on the world as some sort of truth. Good grief. Here we go again. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion of course, but that’s all it is.

Why can’t these guys ever do something worthwhile–like go out and find the real thing?

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Meanwhile, Dave Bittner is one of the highest-regarded photo analysts in the country. Doing such photographic manipulations professionally for motion pictures through his Pixel Workshop, Bittner shares this comment on the November surprise announcement from M. K. Davis:

In fact, no reasonable person could scientifically look at the body of evidence [visible in the Patterson-Gimlin footage] and conclude that the creature is in any way, shape, or form human. The size is non-human, the proportions are non-human, the footprints are non-human, the gait is non-human. I suspect we’re in for some kind of verbal gymnastics over what exactly defines us as “human,” but nothing really substantive.

Otherwise, what does the comic relief expert for what he calls Squatching have to say about all of this? Scott Herriott, CNN stringer, comedy writer, and stand-up comedian writes:

In my opinion, the scenario where that’s a human and no suit is involved would probably include a month-long soak in a vat of Rogaine by Bob H. However, Rogaine wasn’t invented yet. Therefore, MK, I would check your basement for fumes.

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film MK Davis Pat Holdbrook

Please click on this image for a fuller-sized version.

The images (above, top and bottom) of M. K. Davis (with striped shirt) and the more elusive Ralph Patrick Holdbrook (visible in two photos) are courtesy of Tom Yamarone, who took them at the recent Bigfoot conference in Idaho.

I have to leave with this remark from Cryptomundo reader David Cole:

Quick! Someone draw us a sketch of Patty’s eyes!

Anyone wishing to send along your cartoon prediction of what is in store for us regarding this “Bigfoot is Human” theory, please pass along your comic drawing for posting in the next blog on this continuing story.

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.

34 Responses to “More On “Bigfoot = Human?””

  1. folcrom responds:

    Why do people have such a hard time considering Bigfoot to be Human?

    Human does not necessarily mean Homo-Sapien and in this case it does not.

    In the ancient days before history, there were many species of Human.
    Only one was Homo-Sapien.
    The others were Homo-what-ever.

    Thus the height can be different.
    Thus the gait can be different.
    Thus the build can be different.

    So Bigfoot is NOT Homo-Sapien,
    instead its Homo-Something-else.
    There can be a whole lot of variation within the family Homo.

    I honestly can’t see the big deal.

  2. Al responds:

    Normally I would agree with the opinions put forth above. The problem is, I know M.K. Davis, and have been in the woods with him doing research. I’m hesitant to jump to conclusions about his announcement until I hear the full context of what he is about to say.

    Now that does not mean that I will agree with him, but I’ll hear him out before I decide. In the past he has made some pretty significant observations on Patty. In fact, some of his findings tie Patty to a previously reported BF encounter several years prior to that film being shot.

    M.K. has always had a reason for anything he has said, even if it did provoke a lot of thought, and generate even more questions.

  3. rifleman responds:

    I would take these “experts” a little more seriously if they just announced their findings and showed their methods of reaching these conclusions without the need to make a buck by pimping for some dvd producer.

    As long as these “experts” continue to attempt to cash in on bigfoot, I will continue to remain skeptical.

  4. WVBIG_2006 responds:

    I have given this alot of thought since yesterday & I just can’t agree with M.K.’s conclusions. At least not at this point. I don’t see how an “Out of contact” human could have the obvious anatomical differences that “Patty” has. Specifically the musculature, the body hair, & the very different skull shape. But I, like Al, will try to keep an open mind until I hear M.K.’s “proof”.

  5. matrob responds:

    This is my first post on Cryptomundo, despite lurking around for ages so, Hi.

    I’m pretty confused by the ‘out of touch human’ comment, which makes little or no sense.

    Worldwide there are several small tribes of humans, who have only recently (meaning the last century or so) been discovered in the middle of jungles and rainforests (and there may still be others yet to be found), who have had no contact with any other civilisation, and remain in exactly the same state of existence that they have for centuries, yet they all look human.

    OK, they be smaller in stature than ‘modern’ humans, and have more unique facial structure (like the Aboriginal people) but they are unmistakably human. Not one tribe or group of indigenous people anywhere in the world has ever been found covered in hair (and Patty is not just hairy she’s downright furry), or built like Michael Clarke Duncan.

    I don’t buy it.

    All I can see happening is ‘evidence’ such as “Look at the way it walks, it’s obviously human” or “You can tell by the way it looks back that it obviously has a culture of it’s own” being released. Or a movie that you have to ‘get’ or ‘understand’ to see the real truth.

    That said, however, if it turns out that the evidence MK is preparing to release is absolutely groundbreaking and phenomenal, I don’t see how it would change anything.

    Proto-Human or Sasquatch, we still can’t find them.

  6. Al responds:

    I think that one of the ultimate points that will be made is this: To be Human, does not mean it has to be Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

    I have doubts as to whether it is human. Everything I have seen, and experienced, indicates animal behavior. But then again, I guess we see that everyday with what we consider to be normal people.

  7. mystery_man responds:

    Folcrom, I think the reason why people are making a big deal about it being human is the sensationalist way that M.K. Davis announced that it is just a “human”. He did not state that it was another subspecies or a different type of human, or give much explaination at all on the matter. He said it is human, and a lot of people are going to take that at face value and think he means Homo Sapiens Sapiens, like us, which it appears Patty is most certainly not. He came out with this extremely bold statement without any details or evidence to back it up and we are left with the claim that it is “human”. What are we supposed to make of that? That it is not the same exact species as us (if it is real) seems to be fairly clear. This would be a rather unusual individual if it was! So I’m wonder as a lot of others are, what does he mean by calling it a human? Everything is just speculation until he comes out and tells us what’s going on here.

  8. Loren Coleman responds:

    Please folks, modern humans are not “Homo Sapiens Sapiens.”

    They are Homo sapiens sapiens.

    Let’s all be “wise humans” and record the species and subspecies names without capitalizations, as they should be written.

  9. One Eyed Cat responds:

    I think bad timing is involved here.

    Surely so soon after the Johor incident — and in the same year to boot. Someone would think twice about such a vague statement announcing such groundbreaking news

  10. fuzzy responds:

    The real work will still be done by independent searchers, lugging tons of gear around ruggedly remote areas, trudging resolutely thru wildlands with expensive equipment at the ready, freezing their body parts as they squat in some dark forest, trying to sleep with rain crashing onto their tiny tents, or shivering 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, anthropologists, biologists, geneticists and science in general will continue to ignore the reports and rumors and radical rumblings.

    MKD’s movie had better have real goods, or it won’t change a thing for the searchers.

  11. daledrinnon responds:

    My first reaction to all this was that the Patterson film creature was not human, did not walk in a human manner and had some serious discrepancies from normal human beings, and in this I feel it best to defer to Grover Krantz, who said it all before (I have a degree in Anthropology from IU and the woman who was my mentor was a student of Krantz’s).

    Nevertheless, there has been an undercurrent in Bigfoot literature since Napier’s book Bigfoot:The Yeti and the Sasquatch in Myth and Reality (1973) that even in the Northwestern area, the tracks do not all belong to one type, and there is a more human and a less human type of track. The more human one could probably well be considered a hairy human being and would correspond to Mark Hall’s category of Marked Hominid, which Loren Coleman describes at length in his Field guide on the matter AND which I must hasten to add, is probably represented by some very real skeletal remains.

    This would not describe Patty, though, and I am still extremely interested in seeing whatever evidence this M. K. Davis may have turned up.

  12. WVBIG_2006 responds:

    fuzzy says: “Until there’s clear, scientifically-supported evidence and appropriate financial backing, anthropologists, biologists, geneticists and science in general will continue to ignore the reports and rumors and radical rumblings.

    When I said “If M.K. is correct” I meant if he really has something beyond doubt to anyone.

  13. Brindle responds:

    I agree with rifleman, and I would have hoped MKD would treat the crypto community better than this.

  14. Doug Tarrant responds:

    No matter how many species of K’9’s we have, from poodles to German Sheppards, they’re still dogs.

    So why is it so hard to except the fact that there are many other species of creatures that share this planet with us?

  15. bill green responds:

    hey loren, this is a very interesting new update article you posted about mk latest new findings. yes loren i do agree with your above replies as well. we all should be very patient with mk . he will present this findings of the p/g film soon lets be professional about this ok. mk is doing all this research etc about p/g film for science not for money or glorey. thanks bill. I’m sure sure there will more updates from mk as they occur.

  16. LSU_Crypto responds:

    Doug Tareant:

    Poodles, German Shepherds, and other domestic canines are all the same species. They are just different breeds.

  17. MattBille responds:

    Napier wrote that the bottom half of the animal looked human, and the gait looked like a human stretching his legs out for a big stride. That part fits. Napier though, thought that the top half looked distinctly nonhuman and apelike. That contradiction was what caused him to reject the film. I’m not reopening the debate into the film’s authenticity here, just pointing out that one of the most qualified people who ever looked at the film thought it was NOT a human being (or, at least, not a human being without makeup and a suit).

  18. 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.

  19. alanborky responds:


    It may be that M.K. Davis thinks he’s cottoned on to something everyone’s so far missed in spite of it being glaringly obvious once it’s finally noticed, and he’s therefore experiencing a little anxiety someone else might beat him to the publication draw. The trouble with such a ‘pre-announcement’ announcement strategy though is

    1) someone might now pay more attention to the film, notice something they wouldn’t otherwise have, and still beat him to the draw;

    2) his final announcement might actually BE significant but look paltry compared to the big build-up he’s given it; and

    3) if he can’t provide any justification for delaying the announcement, it’s going to inevitably look like he’s being earning thirty pieces of silver playing ringmaster for Mr. Holdbrook’s media circus.

  20. jayman responds:

    This all sounds familiar, folks.

    Tantalizing little bits of information thrown out, a big earth-shaking discovery to be announced “soon”.

    Just be patient…

  21. joppa responds:

    If Patty gets a human “tag”, then the implications for researchers, hunters and accidental sasquatch encounters become very significant. You can’t shoot her, can’t “catch” her, can’t harm her in anyway. You now become governed by such legal concepts as homicide, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and a myriad of legal rights which attach to Patty.

    If she is captured, does she get a lawyer? How cool would it be to file a habeas corpus petition for a Sasquatch.

    Human vs. Animal is a big deal.

  22. kittenz responds:

    There are a lot of places in the world where people still don’t recognize EACH OTHER as human so it will be a real stretch to get any non-human primate accorded the status of human. Look at how most of the world treats the other great apes for instance. Even though every other species of ape is endangered, they are still killed for “bush meat” by people who do not realize that eating them is akin to cannibalism.

    While I do not believe (as many of you know so don’t beat me up too badly here), that “Patty” is anything other than a figment of Homo sapiens’ ingenuity, I do believe that there is some unknown creature that is Bigfoot, and I hope that that creature is recognized and given protected status. Whether it is hominid, anthropoid, or even primate at all, it must be rare, and it is apparently very intelligent, and it should be protected.

  23. cabochris responds:

    Guess Bigfoot can’t be shot after all. Why it would be murder!

  24. bigfooterbob responds:

    This subject has sure started a fire storm. Human or ape or hoax. One thing is for sure, if bigfoot is an ape then it is more closely related to us then any of the other great apes. It seems that geographically bigfoot species differ from region to region.

    I believe Loren is right when he says Northwest bigfoots tend to be more human like in the northwest part of the country and more ape like in the southern portion of country where the weather is more tropical. I’m just generalizing a bit so don’t get all crazy, the point being if “patty” was filmed in the south maybe M.K.D. would have come to the conclusion that she was and an ape and not an “out of touch” human.

  25. joppa responds:

    The human vs. animal debate is, for now, an exercise in fantasy; we are still talking about an unclassified and undiscovered creature ( to mainstream science ).

    Yet in this discussion, we indeed revisit the age-old question, “What is man ???” We thump our chests and quickly answer with a variety of scientific and theological assumptions we so bravely cling to. However, our answers need to examined in every generation.

    Only 70 years ago, the Nazis decided that Jews, Slavs and other non-arayans were sub-human and could be elminated. Two hundred years before that, Africans we enslaved because they were considered more simian than human. Finally, the great debate of the discovery of the Americas was whether the Native Americans were human. ( By a narrow vote in the Vatican, they were deemed to be human by a papal decree.)

    So is Patty human? Our answer to this question is more than an academic exercise, it will be, when she is discovered, how our culture will be judged.

  26. ToddPartain responds:

    Perhaps, in the legal sense, we will have to create a new category for this creature. It does not use fire or fashion weapons from flint or wear clothing, but appears to build shelters and may even have a spoken language of sorts. Science may be able to classify patty as “homo” this or that, but legally, is it a “manimal”? Someone once told me,”The BigFoot Monnister(sic) can’t drive a car or shoot a gun, but out there in them woods, It’s a whole lot smarter than you are. It don’t matter how good a hunter you are. Out there you’re in HIS living room.” Maybe from the perspective of such a quiet, aware creature, WE are seen as the subhumans, and it has chosen to avoid us.

  27. drthomas responds:

    Who knows maybe M.K is thinking that Sasquatch aka Bigfoot is a cross between a human and?

    Who knows, he might just trying to get every one’s attention so they will listen to what he has found.

    One thing for sure, he has done a lot to help prove the Patterson film isn’t a man in a suit.

    So it’s wait and see. Maybe Neanderthal man didn’t die out after all?

  28. DWA responds:

    So this is what happens on a Slow News Day.

    There’s way too much speculation about an old film and some old footprints. And way too little field research.

    And waaaay too many announcements!

    The problem with crap like this is that it hits the media; that serious scientists raise their heads from the lab table and see it; and that they go, oh THAT stuff again. And they not only ignore it, they laugh at the very idea of being associated with it.

    I really think it’s coming to this: those who think that we have a flesh-and-blood animal here, verifiable by the scientific method, need to start loudly dissociating themselves from anything — ANYTHING — that proposes ANYTHING that isn’t scientifically verifiable, or just as bad, a New Way of Seeing stuff that is 40 years old, with no additional data one way or the other since then. In other words, we need to stop fetishizing evidence. Science does not respect that practice.

    I have said over and over again that the PG film is NOT grainy or fuzzy. But it certainly cannot support all this “analysis.” Here’s what’s significant about it: it’s no figment of anything. It needs explaining; and it’s had enough analysis to verify THAT.

    Now into the field to explain. And turn off the tap over all this hash/rehash/re-rehash. Because it’s all been done before, and pretty much just like this.

    Into the field. Verify. THAT’S what we should be doing, MK. Not THIS.

  29. Bobcat responds:

    If I was to take a shot in the dark….there is some interesting information on reclusive “hairy races” to be found doing a net search.

    1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

    There are “hairy races” of humans that have been historically reclusive. Could MK be claiming that BF is one of these early races of “hairy humans” that was VERY Hairy and have taken reclusiveness to the extreme?

    It would be a relatively new idea, but I don’t see how the Patterson footage would confirm this…unless maybe he has spotted a braid or ornamentation that has been previously overlooked, but I would be surprised. I have to agree that what it smells like is ethically questionable marketing that we seem to be seeing more often lately.

  30. YourPTR! responds:

    Is there anywhere you can go online to see digitally mastered stills of the original as opposed to the plentiful ones of the grainy blurry footage that’s available to watch on the net? I’m just wondering because I would love to see better quality images! Or maybe what I have seen is the best that is available and includes the digital images but I don’t think so because they look pretty grainy and fuzzy.

  31. Firefly responds:

    Bigfoot cannot be human; the dermal ridges on its feet are unique to itself, beside apes, monkeys, and man.

    The eyes are made for night vision, as animals have.

    Intelligence does not make necessary human origin. Bigfoot likely is above a dolphin in that respect.

  32. airforce47 responds:

    I have read through the comments and chuckled a bit. If MK is using a marketing strategy to gain attention he has done it quite well.

    However, Loren is very correct with his skeptacism and wait for the details. An analysis needs to be done of MK’s theory based upon the evidence presented and his academic support from Stanford.

    I wonder if MK will account for the variations in Bigfoot reports from the Northwest to the Deep South? Loren is correct about this and his Field Guide does a good job of covering the reported types and differences.

    It will quite interesting to read our scientific advisor’s comments once MK has presented his evidence.

    My gut feeling based on my own experiences with the species is that MK’s theory is plausible. I’m very curious to see how he accounts for the various anomolies in the Patterson film.

    What’s really interesting is the assertion of culture. I wonder how this conclusion came about?

    I’ll wait and ante up when the DVD comes out. It will be fun anyway it turns out. My best,


  33. 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?

  34. Tianca responds:

    I have to ask about how well you are reading your history, because it has already been proven that Sasquatch is human, many times, in fact!

    * Every continent has written history of some version of Sasquatch taking human women to mate, and that produced kids. Most times the kids survived. Russia, Europe, Australia, South America, China and North America, of course. I guess the most famous one is Zana, from Russia.
    * There are six (6) versions of Sasquatch on this planet, each adapted to their environment.
    * Our DNA is 99.99% like the Sasquatch Itan, with only one nucleotide different, like that of a chimp.
    * Biology 101; In order for them to mate us and produce offspring, they would have to have DNA compatible with ours. Or it just wouldn’t work.
    * Geneticists cannot say there is nothing to compare it to now, because they have ours to compare it to.
    * They have lived here millions of years, and we have only existed 300,000 years. They are the Ancients!!!
    * It has been proven that they are not Apes.
    * The Itan are not only an ancient Royal line, they have 94 of their own planets. They travel in space a lot better than we do, and have done so for centuries.
    * They are very good at avoiding us, because we are too violent and destructive. They are simply waiting for humans here to grow up.
    * The Itan are extremely psychic, and communicate using telepathy, the Universal language.
    * When the disappear in front of you, they are only going up into a higher dimension. They could still be there, watching you, listening to every word you are saying or thinking, and you wouldn’t know they were there unless you were a sensitive, or they wanted you to know.
    * You cannot lie to them, they would know it instantly.

    That about covers it. So when this man says they are human, it is no big surprise to me. I’ve known that for a long time.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.