MK Davis revisits the ABS Bigfoot

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, Dave said:

........I'll be sure to run all topics by you before posting so I don't appear to be "holding onto something."........

 

Please don't. I recant. You're obviously free to invest all you wish into that pic and all others like it, and I encourage you to give it your all. Do not let it go. Sink your teeth into it like a pit bull. Please keep us informed on what you glean from that investment.

[NCBFr]

10 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

This photo is a hoax. It was taken in a room. If you go back on the video to the time stamp 2:08 and pause. You will see the shadows of the leaves on a drywall. As the flash goes off on the camera. I am not buying it. Hoax.

Yep, that is where I was going with the comment but chose not to be direct to see if anybody else noticed.  

[Dave]

On 7/18/2022 at 9:18 AM, Huntster said:

 

Please don't. I recant. You're obviously free to invest all you wish into that pic and all others like it, and I encourage you to give it your all. Do not let it go. Sink your teeth into it like a pit bull. Please keep us informed on what you glean from that investment.

The initial thread has bankrupted me. You were right and I should have listened.  Now I have a garage full of all these MK Davis Sasquatch videos and it may have been a hoax.

[norseman]

11 minutes ago, Dave said:

The initial thread has bankrupted me. You were right and I should have listened.  Now I have a garage full of all these MK Davis Sasquatch videos and it may have been a hoax.

Well. Every photo and video of a undocumented ape man could be a hoax. Two arms, two legs and a head. 
 

If we chose to ignore all media because it could be a hoax? It would be crickets chirping here at our forums.

 

With that said, we must remember that photos and video will never prove anything to science.

 

 

[Huntster]

57 minutes ago, norseman said:

Well. Every photo and video of a undocumented ape man could be a hoax. Two arms, two legs and a head. 
 

If we chose to ignore all media because it could be a hoax? It would be crickets chirping here at our forums.

 

With that said, we must remember that photos and video will never prove anything to science.

 

 

 

^^^ This.

 

I don't bother with most bigfoot movies because you know it's fiction, and once you see a few, they're pretty much the same. Harry and the Hendersons was quite different, since it was produced as a comedy, and it was a pretty good one. 

 

Sighting videos and pics deserve a look. The vast majority turn out to be either nothing but a dark hole in foliage with a red circle drawn around it, or something like the Jacobs pic; an animal in an interesting pose which ellicits excitement, but which will turn out to be nothing of import. 

 

The photographic evidence to really take stock in is that which comes with supporting evidence: multiple on-site witnesses, casted footprints, hair samples, motion picture over still photo, etc. Even then, as the PG film has proven without question, it will "prove" (as defined by the skeptic and science industries) absolutely nothing. 

 

But such photographic events, depending on how current, does provide opportunity to find more trace evidence, data, and the possibility for more encounters with prepared researchers. This is here the BFRO came in with the Jacobs photo event. IMHO, it was conducted with much fanfare, which made it poorly done, and it likely provided little more but additional manufactured reports, which soiled previous reports, and mass media exposure for the organization. 

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

Without a body we will never know for sure. Photos are just photos. But taking a shot with a rifle or even a bow means risking one's own life. But also brings to life what we all want to know what they are. JMHO 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

On 7/22/2022 at 2:01 PM, Huntster said:

 

^^^ This.

 

I don't bother with most bigfoot movies because you know it's fiction, and once you see a few, they're pretty much the same. Harry and the Hendersons was quite different, since it was produced as a comedy, and it was a pretty good one. 

 

Sighting videos and pics deserve a look. The vast majority turn out to be either nothing but a dark hole in foliage with a red circle drawn around it, or something like the Jacobs pic; an animal in an interesting pose which ellicits excitement, but which will turn out to be nothing of import. 

 

The photographic evidence to really take stock in is that which comes with supporting evidence: multiple on-site witnesses, casted footprints, hair samples, motion picture over still photo, etc. Even then, as the PG film has proven without question, it will "prove" (as defined by the skeptic and science industries) absolutely nothing. 

 

But such photographic events, depending on how current, does provide opportunity to find more trace evidence, data, and the possibility for more encounters with prepared researchers. This is here the BFRO came in with the Jacobs photo event. IMHO, it was conducted with much fanfare, which made it poorly done, and it likely provided little more but additional manufactured reports, which soiled previous reports, and mass media exposure for the organization. 

 

 

Outstanding post. I agree with almost all of it. Especially agree about the Jacobs bear 🐻 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Patterson-Gimlin

[Dave]

On 7/22/2022 at 12:35 PM, norseman said:

Well. Every photo and video of a undocumented ape man could be a hoax. Two arms, two legs and a head. 
 

If we chose to ignore all media because it could be a hoax? It would be crickets chirping here at our forums.

 

With that said, we must remember that photos and video will never prove anything to science.

 

 

I completely agree.

[Dave]

On 7/22/2022 at 2:01 PM, Huntster said:

 

^^^ This.

 

I don't bother with most bigfoot movies because you know it's fiction, and once you see a few, they're pretty much the same. Harry and the Hendersons was quite different, since it was produced as a comedy, and it was a pretty good one. 

 

Sighting videos and pics deserve a look. The vast majority turn out to be either nothing but a dark hole in foliage with a red circle drawn around it, or something like the Jacobs pic; an animal in an interesting pose which ellicits excitement, but which will turn out to be nothing of import. 

 

The photographic evidence to really take stock in is that which comes with supporting evidence: multiple on-site witnesses, casted footprints, hair samples, motion picture over still photo, etc. Even then, as the PG film has proven without question, it will "prove" (as defined by the skeptic and science industries) absolutely nothing. 

 

But such photographic events, depending on how current, does provide opportunity to find more trace evidence, data, and the possibility for more encounters with prepared researchers. This is here the BFRO came in with the Jacobs photo event. IMHO, it was conducted with much fanfare, which made it poorly done, and it likely provided little more but additional manufactured reports, which soiled previous reports, and mass media exposure for the organization. 

 

 

That's odd because that was exactly the reason for my OP, yet you said "let it go", as if I was holding onto a hope or dream.  According to you, when is it learning more about a photo and the situation surrounding that, and when is it "holding onto a hoax"?  Just when it's you doing the inquiry?

4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Outstanding post. I agree with almost all of it. Especially agree about the Jacobs bear 🐻 

Those cute cubs that were caught in shots?  They were indeed adorable.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Dave

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Dave said:

Quote

^^^ This.

 

I don't bother with most bigfoot movies because you know it's fiction, and once you see a few, they're pretty much the same. Harry and the Hendersons was quite different, since it was produced as a comedy, and it was a pretty good one. 

 

Sighting videos and pics deserve a look. The vast majority turn out to be either nothing but a dark hole in foliage with a red circle drawn around it, or something like the Jacobs pic; an animal in an interesting pose which ellicits excitement, but which will turn out to be nothing of import. 

 

The photographic evidence to really take stock in is that which comes with supporting evidence: multiple on-site witnesses, casted footprints, hair samples, motion picture over still photo, etc. Even then, as the PG film has proven without question, it will "prove" (as defined by the skeptic and science industries) absolutely nothing. 

 

But such photographic events, depending on how current, does provide opportunity to find more trace evidence, data, and the possibility for more encounters with prepared researchers. This is here the BFRO came in with the Jacobs photo event. IMHO, it was conducted with much fanfare, which made it poorly done, and it likely provided little more but additional manufactured reports, which soiled previous reports, and mass media exposure for the organization. 

 

That's odd because that was exactly the reason for my OP, yet you said "let it go", as if I was holding onto a hope or dream.  According to you, when is it learning more about a photo and the situation surrounding that, and when is it "holding onto a hoax"?  Just when it's you doing the inquiry?

 

Here is the photographic evidence which you are referring to:

 

 

Did this come "with supporting evidence: multiple on-site witnesses, casted footprints, hair samples, motion picture over still photo, etc"? Do you know where the pic was shot? Whose camera it was? The date of the pic? 

 

I had a look. It offered little to nothing.

 

I let it go. I made the supreme mistake of suggesting that you do likewise.

 

I apologize, and I again humbly plead with you to do overdue diligence and show me that I was grossly foolish in disregarding that pic. I await your report..........

 

[Dave]

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Here is the photographic evidence which you are referring to:

 

 

Did this come "with supporting evidence: multiple on-site witnesses, casted footprints, hair samples, motion picture over still photo, etc"? Do you know where the pic was shot? Whose camera it was? The date of the pic? 

 

I had a look. It offered little to nothing.

 

I let it go. I made the supreme mistake of suggesting that you do likewise.

 

I apologize, and I again humbly plead with you to do overdue diligence and show me that I was grossly foolish in disregarding that pic. I await your report..........

 

 

From my OP:

 

Quote

 

I searched the forum to see if this topic was posted previously, but didn't find anything. My apologies if this is a duplicate.

 

The video is from 2012.  MK Davis breaks down an image from the American Bigfoot Society, and he was able to pull some information out of the photo.

 

Has anyone heard anything more in regards to the validity of the image?

 

 

Gosh, I'm so obsessive.

[Huntster]

25 minutes ago, Dave said:

.........Gosh, I'm so obsessive.

 

I hope your obsession pays huge dividends.

[Twist]

I’ve always been under the impression it’s a hoax, back from when it originally appeared.    It’s one of the better ones IMO however.  

[Dave]

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I hope your obsession pays huge dividends.

It better, after everything I've put into this.