What’s Being Said?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 4th, 2006

“Davis says that he can explain all the unusual features of the subject as that of a human being.” – M. K. Davis’ press release, written by M. K. Davis, Nov. 26, 2006.

“When I say living in the wild, I do not mean feral, but ‘out of contact’. I know from the film that it is human, and that it manipulates its environment and has a culture of some sort.” – M. K. Davis, email to Loren Coleman, Nov. 26, 2006.

“I will explain in due time.” – M. K. Davis, email to Loren Coleman, Nov. 26, 2006.

“Yes we are saying Bigfoot is human, and we think we have proved it. …Everyone said it was an ape or creature or something else. No, it’s a human being of some sort. A very large human at that. It could be one of the oldest races in existence. Clues are in the movie – where we think it came from – and when and how they got here….Man in a suit – Miocene ape – no way!” – Pat Holdbrook, email to Cryptomundo, Nov. 27, 2006

“The movie that Pat is making will contain the images and explanations.” – M. K. Davis, email to Loren Coleman, Nov. 27, 2006

“M K DAVIS: is a former NASA employee and an amateur astronomer who has been studying the Patterson/Gimlin Film for nearly 10 years and has determined, through his research, that the creature is real, and has recently announced that in his estimation, it is a humanoid creature, very similar to Paranthropus.” X-Zone Radio’s promo for M. K. Davis’s Nov. 30, 2006, appearance.

“And this is not… not to be confused ahhhhh with what they call digger Indians today,” M. K. Davis on X-Zone Radio, Nov. 30, 2006, trying to explain what he meant by saying Bigfoot was a “Digger Indian.”

“Perhaps M. K. Davis…is unaware that the use of the term "Digger Indian" is based on a rather well-documented history of it being used as a highly offensive racial epithet?” – Loren Coleman, December 3, 2006.

M.K. Davis “was referring to the actual tribe of Digger Indians, as called by other Native Americans, who were a very primitive type of N.A. who were known for their large size, and their primitive lifestyle. They were called ‘Diggers’ because they would literally dig for their food with digging sticks. That’s how they got their name….He isn’t saying Bigfoot is human, or that there are no hidden apes in North America, he is simply saying he has found evidence in the Patterson film that supports the subject in the film as being human.” – Matt Knapp, trying to explain what he heard M. K. Davis say, Dec. 3, 2006.

Consider the definition found within The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05, which states: “Digger Indians Term indiscriminately applied to many Native Americans of the central plateau region of W North America, including tribes in Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and central California. The name is supposedly derived from the fact that they dug roots for food. It has no ethnological significance and was a term of opprobrium.” – Loren Coleman, posted Dec. 3, 2006.

“I was referring to the term applied in earlier times to a people who sustained themselves by digging for roots and grubs with what is called a ‘digging stick’. I went looking for this information after I found that the Patterson subject was carrying such a stick.” – M. K. Davis’s “Hey Folks” statement, Dec. 3, 2006.

“Here is a quote from Theodora Kroeber’s book on Ishi the last member of the Southern Yahi/Yana tribe of California: ‘What then of the Digger Indians who are supposed to have been the aborigines of California, to have spoken a gutteral language, and to manage barely to maintain a miserable existance by eating the roots that they dug from the unfriendly land with that most generic of tools, the wooden digging stick? Alas the diggers are a frontier legend.’
“Dr. Kroeber was obviously referring to a group of people that were different than other tribes…” – – M. K. Davis’s “Hey Folks” statement, Dec. 3, 2006.

“No she wasn’t. She was referring to the obvious racism of the 49ers who encountered these tribes and were inaccurately describing their lifestyle. She was plainly stating that the ‘myth’ of the digger Indian never existed because it was untrue that they lived in such a manner. She was not referring to an different people.” – California Anthropologist Kathy Strain, Dec. 4, 2006.

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.

21 Responses to “What’s Being Said?”

  1. One Eyed Cat responds:

    This is getting more confusing, not less

  2. DWA responds:

    I hate to weigh in before I see the evidence.

    But this is looking to set back sas research, oh, 20 years or so.

    “I know from the film that it is human, and that it manipulates its environment and has a culture of some sort.”

    Sez who? Apparently, sez a “former NASA employee and an amateur astronomer…”

    It’s more than bad enough that scientists not even in the same field can slag — I’d actually call it slander and libel — Jeff Meldrum.

    But this? Whoo brother. I wish this would be left to the scientists. Or at least the SERIOUS amateurs.

  3. daledrinnon responds:

    The term “Digger Indian” is definitely insulting. Several commentators on this line of commentary have tried to say that Davis did not know what he was saying: well, then, he should have bothered to look the term up in the standard references. There never was a specific ethnic group of “Digger Indians”. Coleman’s explanation of the term is correct.

  4. Blue Steel responds:

    I have to agree with the posters above. Using the term “Digger”, and calling the creature in the film “human” just distorts the dialog at this point. Anthropologists, Archeologists, Paleontologists, and other scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines use the term “human”, in particular, in a very narrowly defined way. I wonder at the provocative use of these terms, and the possible desire to promote a film rather than to add information to the question.

  5. crgintx responds:

    There’s long been a ethnocentric bias against hunter/gatherers by so called civilized man. We keep calling Bigfoot a creature rather than a cousin/older brother human race because we dislike the idea that we haven’t fallen so far from the tree. The latest article about Neanderthals on LiveScience.com has said they committed acts of cannibalism to survive proving further how much more evolved we really are. What horse puckey! I can’t think of one person I know that doesn’t have some racial/ethnic bias. Let’s stop being politically correct and let the hard scientific data speak for itself. When some remains or dna are recovered and Bigfoot/Alma turns out to be genetically close enough to produce offspring with a human, what then will the sapien-centrists say about our older brothers?

  6. scousequatch responds:

    I now think Davis is just *ahem* digging a hole for himself. With a stick made of film grain?

    But seriously, I was never quite taken in by his earlier work on the Patty film (yes, the grain issue), and the “debunking” of the HISM was laughable.


  7. billkirbywofb responds:

    M.K. Davis is now saying that he sees a “digging stick” in the P/G film!?

    This is getting stranger all the time. Specially since no one else has reported this “stick” in all the years of examination.

  8. Raptorial responds:

    I’d say that M.K. Davis is digging himself a hole with said stick. The more he talks the less we listen.

  9. caddo21 responds:

    M.K. Davis says the subject is carrying a stick and all the comments here infer that means throughout the entire film when it could mean just a second after the film starts.

    People don’t realize two important facts about the Patterson film:

    1) Patterson got VERY close to this cryptid, if I remember correctly about 15 feet away.

    2) This cryptid was obviously infirmed if it couldn’t hear horses on a rocky ground approaching.

    Maybe it’s sense of smell was affected but it could have been upwind.

    So maybe this cryptid was startled and had a stick and dropped it when it started to leave.

  10. airforce47 responds:

    It would be a riot if MK is right and eventually proves that Loren Coleman has been correct all along with his theory about the origins of Bigfoot.

    ““M K DAVIS: is a former NASA employee and an amateur astronomer who has been studying the Patterson/Gimlin Film for nearly 10 years and has determined, through his research, that the creature is real, and has recently announced that in his estimation, it is a humanoid creature, very similar to Paranthropus.” X-Zone Radio’s promo for M. K. Davis’s Nov. 30, 2006, appearance.”


  11. CamperGuy responds:

    If Bigfoot had a stick in missing frames then these frames would have to be at the beginning and have been dropped before the rest of the frames of the film most everyone has seen.

    If that is the case, why would those frames have not been included?

    If there is indeed some stick it proves nothing that is not already evident in the animal kingdom.

    If there is a stick how do we know it wasn’t being chewed on as food and not a digging tool?

    Now if there is a stick and it has some type of carving and the bigfoot did that carving then someone would have my undivided attention.

    Doubting I will have to put any time aside for undivided attention.

  12. bill green responds:

    hey loren wow i see the mk situation debate still continues here. im sure in time he will show us all here his new finding of the p/g film, lets all be patient & quiet in fighting about mk and be nice to mk as well. thanks bill

  13. Shamus responds:

    Mr. Davis’ “evidence” is along the lines of:

    1. Early Spanish explorers reported seeing large Native Americans digging roots with sticks.

    2. Patty is large.

    3. Patty was allegedly carrying a stick.

    Conclusion: Patty’s stick “must have” been used for digging roots, therefor Patty “must have” been one of those large natives that the Spaniards mentioned.

    I don’t buy it. First, there’s no evidence that Patty used her stick for digging roots. Second, “large” to those early Spaniards would have been 5′ 10″ to 6′ tall, not 9′ and 500 pounds: someone like that would have been termed “giant”, not just “large” Third, there’s no evidence that the Spaniards were referring to beings covered with long body hair.

    The fact that Mr. Davis is releasing this information in conjunction with a new sasquatch movie sounds like a publicity stunt to me and raises some red flags. Being true to my inner skeptic, though, I’ll wait until someone has seen and reviewed this movie before I make my final conclusion.

  14. Spoon Nose responds:

    Gee, I remember when NASI had a 3rd generation copy of the Patterson film. It was about as complete a copy as it got. It was scanned to something like 1000 dpi. It was almost certainly much better than whatever MK Davis Tivo’ed. Jeff Glickman reran the film thousands of times studying it for the paper he wrote. Guess what? NO STICK! Repeat: NO STICK! All the viewings of early generation copies of the film made by all the people, and NOBODY has reported seeing a stick. Jesus, this is kind of stupefying, that people are giving even a tiny bit of credence to this frankly dumb claim. All this speculation over something Davis has presented absolutely no evidence for. “Just trust me,” he’s saying. Hey guys, heard that before? Maybe a thousand, billion times? The only stick here is the limb this guy is out on.

  15. stooge75 responds:

    I do not doubt that there was a stick. Even if its not on film. there have been documented sightings were the cryptid has been seen shucking clams on riverbanks and stacking them in piles. Using a stick to dig up mounds of fresh riverbed to find clams and other shellfish seems reasonable.

    As far as the horses on the riverbed, there is a theory that the horse often masks the presence of man. The horse is a familiar sound, being hooved and what not. From what I have read, horseback sightings are not that uncommon.

    What if in fact it is an offshoot of what we are. Big deal. I find this just as acceptable as if it were a NAGA. We all share a common ancestry.

    This is probably all stuff you know. We should keep dance card open though, this guy could be onto something.

  16. Al responds:

    Although I do not agree with M.K. at present, I’m not going to dismiss what he is saying until I’ve seen his ‘evidence’.

    M.K. has done a lot of detailed analysis of this footage and has shown some astounding results.

    I’ve also had the pleasure of talking with Bob Gimlin at length about the circumstances of the encounter that was caught on film. As a result of my interactions with both of these fine men, there is no doubt as to the film being genuine in my mind.

    Now, is ‘Patty’ human? Here is where I have to wait and see what M.K. puts forth as evidence. I’ll admit to a great deal of skepticism at the moment, but I’ll wait and see what he shows us.

  17. mystery_man responds:

    Stooge75, yes it is possible that Bigfoot uses sticks. I don’t find the idea entirely unfeasible as primates are known to do the same thing. But look at what it is in the film here, not speculation. Whether it is feasible or not does not change the fact that the stick is nowhere to be seen in this film. There is no evidence I can see at this point that Patty was holding one of these sticks. Now, MK Davis claims to have this evidence but has apparently chosen not to release it yet. We still have not seen any extraordinary evidence to back up his extraordinary claims. I find myself wondering if this is perhaps about making us shell out to see the film? If so, that automatically raises a red flag for me. Or maybe is it that the theories do not hold enough water yet? Perhaps it was a bit premature for him to come out with such bold claims at this time.

  18. Morgoth responds:

    MK’s video work is great, but evolutionary biology is a different topic. The Victorians saw the tree of life as a hierarchy, with “higher” and “lower” animals, also corresponding to the food chain to some extent. So when MK says “low men, the lowest of the low” I think he is using this concept from the history of evolutionary science.

    But this mode of thinking has been replaced with more modern concepts of fitness and adaptation. What is higher: a bird or a frog? They are just different creatures adapted for different ecological niches. If BF exists it is a separate species with no gene flow between humans. This is a species that makes its living by avoiding man.

  19. Lee Pierce responds:

    MK “Digger” Davis needs to get his history straight before he quotes ANYONE. Bad start “Digger”.

  20. bccryptid responds:

    So the moe-hill below the mountain is that this guy is now firmly in the ‘hominid’ camp, picking Paranthropus, and that in so trying to articulate this he accidentially blurted out a racial slur.

    The id of Paranthropus is certainly not new, I think it’s in ‘Raincoast Sasquatch’ for example.

    Perhaps the greatest fear was what would be said about all this in the media and what conclusions would be made. It all seems a bit overblown to me, though.

  21. CryptoInformant responds:

    Ok, so first it’s Paranthropus, then it’s a “______ Indian” with a stick, because of the stick, and all along there’s never been a stick? M.K, you should have stopped while you were ahead.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|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.