This week we celebrate Thom Powell, the contemporary researcher and author of the Bigfoot research book, "The Locals". On November 3rd he will be speaking at an event sponsored by the Oregon Sasquatch Symposium and University of Oregon. There are rumors he will provide a peak of his new book, "Shady Neighbors"
Please Note: The following reprinted content was before MK Davis's assertions of the Bluff Creek Massacre and although most disagree with MK's assertions (we do anyway), this post is more about the Patterson/Gimlin Film and Thom Powell's ponderings of the possible human-ness of Sasquatch.
On the heels of the anniversary of the Patterson Gimlin film (OCT 20) We found this insightful remark from Thom Powell on Cryptomundo. It is a response to an M.K. Davis Presentation at Don Keating’s Ohio Bigfoot conference on May 17th, 2008.
There is no doubt M.K. Davis has made his mark in the Bigfoot Community, for better or for worse. Most would say for the worse. Once heralded as one of the greatest contributers to analyzing the Patterson/Gimlin Film, his theories became controversial when he began to assert he had evidence for a
Bluff Creek Massacre.
Days before he announced the "massacre", at Don Keating’s Ohio Bigfoot conference on May 17th, 2008, MK presented other less controversial assertions. These assertions supported the more human-ness of the figure of the Patterson Gimlin film, including the possibility of a top-knot and
ponytail.
Although there was the back and forth that can be emblematic of our Bigfoot community, we like Thom's response to the presentation in general. Instead of entering the fray of whether or not Bigfoot is human or ape, capable of braiding its hair or not. Thom provides the sanity of context and asks us not be afraid to look past our assumptions.
To all,
I was fortunate to hear MK Davis make this presentation in Portland OR recently. He showed the audience various enhancements and how he accomplished them. He was able to identify numerous features and elements in the PGF that almost everyone is unaware of.He showed us that there is a great deal of useful and interesting information in that short clip. The short quotation that is taken out of context and published above does not come close to doing justice to the whole subject of enhancing the PGF. Davis provides compelling but admittedly inconclusive film data to support the following conclusions:
1. the creature shows a number of hair stylings like a top-knot. He concludes it’s not a saggital crest on the subject. It is a top-knot of hair. He shows his detailed analysis that supports this view and it is more compellling than most realize.
2. There is also evidence of braids and a ponytail in the head hair. These are utilitarian hair styling that are commonly used in modern and ancient tribes to keep hair cleaner and out of the way. On this basis Davis asserts that the PGF subject is closer to a vestigal member of a Native American population, not an ape. This is the essence of the assertion that the film shows a human being.
3. He presents data that supports the view that the creature is holding a stick, which could be for digging (hence the whole digger-indian thing.)
4. Most reproductions of the PGF have been darkened in the reporduction process. The closer one gets to the original film, the lighter the creature appears and the thinner the hair appears to be. This shows better views of the body outline beneath the hair/fur. Enhancements Davis performed show the breasts and facial features more plainly and definitely. His enhancements show more ‘humanish’ facial features than the animalistic features that other researchers contend are shown in their respective analyses of available copies of the PGF.
There are other interesting points about the subject and the surroundings that Davis presented. It is an excellent talk and if you haven’t seen it, you have no accurate basis to judge it. Roger Knights was at the same talk I attended so I submit that Roger’s assesments of the infromation presented are more accurate than most.
Hopefully Marlon Davis will publish an monograph so more people can get an informed view of his data and conclusions. Davis is a very skilled technician and his conclusiona are fairly sound.
A final note:
Here in the greater Portland area there is a lot of sasquatch activity in the surrounding forests. The patterns that emerge from analysis of dozens if not hundreds of unpublished accounts does, in my view, strongly support the view that at least some of these creatures are intelligent enough to qualify as human, i.e. vestigal Indians. With this body of locally available information in mind, MK Davis’ assertions are really nothing shocking. If anything, his assertions validate something that has been argued by others for a long time: that at least some of these creatures are some form of human.
Yet, the ‘ape’ paradigm still holds sway elsewhere on the continent and indeed some of these being may indeed be ape, but they probably are not all apes and I think Davis compellingly shows that the one in the PGF is not the ape that Dahinden argued, but the rather intelligent creature that Ivan Sanderson asserts. So, we’re back to the old Danhinden vs. Sanderson debate about the true nature of these creatures. Perhaps they are both correct: The bigfoot phenomenon represents multiple taxonomic grouping, as Colemen has long argued.
Best to all,
Thom Powell
May 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
YOU MAY ALSO LIKENovember 3rd EventThom Powell Week: To true believers, Bigfoot livesThom Powell Week: The Contemporary ResearcherThom Powell Week: Peer ReviewShady Neighbors Book CoverEXTERNAL LINKSThom Powell's book the LocalsCliff Barackman talks about the Chehalis Project, investigated by Thom Powell
Bigfoots seem to choose certain homesteads to frequent based on things like the available sources of food, and maybe even more subtle matters like a ‘live-and-let-live’ spirit of animal accommodation displayed by some rural residents. A&A’s place earns high marks on both counts. They raise many types of livestock, and they have a compassion for animals that is evident through their behavior and the caged animals in various stages of rehabilitation on their property. It is easy for me to accept that bigfoots have the capacity to identify people who display compassion for animals because I have seen indications of this at other rural locations where bigfoot activity was suspected. I also understand that such suggestions are pretty far-fetched. Gathering hard data on extremely rare events like bigfoot sightings is virtually impossible. Gathering data on even rarer and more obscure matters like behavioral preferences or characteristics is beyond the current realm of science. All we can do when it comes to answering such questions is to look for patterns and make educated guesses based on very limited data. It’s not very scientific, but it is the best we can do for now.
Bigfoots consciously and effectively avoid most human contact. In general, they don’t want to be seen or found by people. The more you try and stalk them, the more they retreat and hide until you leave. Trying to stalk bigfoots is not just futile, it may be counterproductive. They likely observe people in the woods. If someone is seen to be searching for footprints and casting them in plaster, they may strive to avoid leaving any more easily identified footprints. This suggests that if you want to see a sasquatch, try not to be too obvious about looking for one. Best to go to the woods with another purpose in mind, whether it is mushroom picking, meditating, playing music, or painting nature scenes. Then keep your eyes open and your ears attuned. Guns and other visible weapons are anathema.
Bigfoots are very smart and very shy. They modify their behavior in response to our behavior. The more you try to trick them, the trickier they become in avoiding your tricks and traps. So, if you are trying to get a bigfoot on camera, make sure that your first attempt is your best attempt. Once you flash a bulb or aim a video camera at them, you will never get another chance with the same group of bigfoots. Whether they understand it is a camera or not is a point of considerable debate. Regardless, they have an aversion to things being pointed at them, particularly things that look like weapons or big eyes.
Remotely monitored video systems seem promising for getting a sasquatch on film, but they are still crude and heavily reliant on luck. Based on our experience at A&A’s, getting lucky probably means catching a less cautious and more curious juvenile that carelessly wanders in front of the camera. At our experiment site we thought we were seeing evidence that the juvenile was sometimes far away from any supervising adult. One possible reason for bigfoots blocking trails could be as a reminder to juveniles not to wander too close to suspicious items like the cameras that we had placed in their woods.
The only photographic evidence we are likely to get from mounted video cameras would be fleeting images that are lacking in detail, and therefore inconclusive. On the other hand, the only photographic evidence that could have any real scientific merit must be close-range, extended video or film footage. This seems unlikely to happen with stationary remote monitoring equipment. A more promising approach that has not been tried to my knowledge would be to first habituate a family group over a period of years. Only after the bigfoots are completely comfortable with the researcher’s presence should a camera be deployed. Even then, it would be necessary to avoid big lenses and obvious cameras. I would suggest wearing a hands-free, button-sized miniature camera that is recording images on a belt-mounted digital recorder.
Habituating not just one, but a group of sasquatches to human presence is a critical step. Bigfoots are not necessarily solitary by nature. Even when it appears that there is only one around, there may well be a family group that keeps very much out of sight. (which may well occur more often than is commonly believed) Gaining their trust takes an amount of time that is measured in years, not months. Based on sighting report patterns, children and human females, being more inherently vulnerable, seem to be trusted by bigfoots much more readily than human males.
Forget about proving they exist by shooting one with a gun. There are practical problems of caliber and shot-placement that make the chances of success improbable in the extreme. Beyond that, you just can’t get close enough to one to shoot it. Unless you have habituated it to your presence, it will take years to overcome their distrust of humans. If gaining their trust were actually accomplished, empathy for the creatures on your part would be so great that betraying them with a gun would feel like murdering a relative. If you doubt this, it is only from a position of no particular experience. Even if someone did succeed in killing one, it is highly doubtful that this bigfoot executioner could avoid the swift and lethal retribution from the rest of the family group. This is why, when people ask me what to do if they did manage to shoot a bigfoot, my answer is, “Reload.” If obtaining a carcass is your goal, chances are it will be a road kill or other accidental mortality, not a hunting mortality.
