Yowiehunters Forum

Hey Doc,
You're actually wrong (shock, horror) MK has indeed spoken about two bullet wounds... this being one and the other being the one on pattys thigh, as i'm sure you are aware...

Damn, MK Davis is still trying to pull new "data" from this film...

last time Patty was carrying a stick or tool of some sort whilst sporting braids, in addition Patty was trying to divert the filmers attention away from a nearby bigfoot youth and hopefully draw them after her so that a waiting adult male bigfoot could kick their ass... all of this is clearly visible in the film... (no mention of a bloodbath during this particular interview)

MK is pulling things from no-where, literally, I work in graphics, enhancement can only be taken so far, as they say you can't polish a turd!

Hi Sealo

Well actually, you can! I saw on Mythbusters last night Jamie and Adam polish two types of turds. Adam polished an Ostrich Turd and Jamie polished a Lion Turd. Both produced a fantastic shine.

Which one had the best shine? The Lion's turd of course. It was as shiny as a billiard ball. True story.

Big Cats rule!!!

Big Cats

One wonders how much shine you could apply to the purported droppings of a Yowie.
Quite a bit, going of the findings of many a researcher.

Muppets wrote:One wonders how much shine you could apply to the purported droppings of a Yowie. Quite a bit, going of the findings of many a researcher.

...hey Muppets... it wouldn't matter how much you polish a Yowie turd ... polish it enough into a ball shape and it would become an Orb ... and as Doc has pointed out on many occasions... it would then disappear into another dimension and disappear as any evidence of proof whatsoever would'nt it??? ... hmmmmm... the mind boggles!!! ... cheers... Stickyfingers.

Hi guys i know this shoting was probably piss & wind. But if it did actualy happen he needs to be shot himself how in gods name could you in cold blood shot one of these wounderful creaturs without even breaking a sweat....

BB

bush baby wrote:Hi guys i know this shoting was probably piss & wind. But if it did actualy happen he needs to be shot himself how in gods name could you in cold blood shot one of these wounderful creaturs without even breaking a sweat....
BB

...as I see it BB... just say somebody saw a Bigfoot/Yeti or Yowie... got his trusty rifle up and shot the creature DEAD... jumped up and down with glee and shouted out... "I'm going to be a hero!!!... I've bagged one!!!... I'm going to be RICH!!!!!!!" ... then ran over to look at his "prize" ... his "trophy" ... his immediate instant "wealth and fame" ... bent down to look at this "creature" and then SMACK!!!!!! ... like a bolt of lightening out of a clear blue sky he saw that the Bigfoot/Yeti or Yowie was actually deemed to be an offshoot of HUMAN BEINGS rather than an amimal of some sort... would all of his happiness and glee suddenly disappear and would the realisation set in that he has murdered a fellow HUMAN BEING and that he will be going to prison for manslaughter or murder???... I'm sure that the moron would break into a sweat pretty quickly... don't you???... I imagine the next obvious step would be to bury the body and cover up all evidence of the murder methinks!...

...I just cannot fathom why somebody would want to shoot one of these "creatures" dead whether it be either human or animal regardless ... but human beings being the most destructive lifeform on this planet Earth... it doesn't surprise me at all unfortunately ... cheers... Stickyfingers.

Hey Big Cats, thanks for the info hahah, i guess they're running out of things to do on mythbusters these days..

http://www.themunnsreport.com/the_munns_report_r1.pdf

Bill munns thoughts on the film, its 16mb PDF file so not dial up friendly. I havent had the time to go through it just a quick flick though as it was only released a few hours ago.

Though a few here might find it interesting

Thanks, Mikka,

The Munns report. Now that's a report I'll be following closely. I know it's only part 1 but his approach is meticulous.

There's a number of elements that arent quite gelling in regards to the bigfoot in the sequence being shot. For example, the frame where a sniper is said to step out slightly from behind a tree, coincides heavily in a change of camera angle which may have revealed some dark foliage behind the tree instead.

A word or two on the subject from our friend M.K. Davis.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Campfire_S ... /05/14/TBA

His Facebook also has some interesting aspects - http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=ho ... 878&ref=ts


DMH

Hey Dean,
Only people who are 'friends' with MK Davis can see his profile on Facebook... and I'm not really interested in 'friending' people I don't know, so can you be a bit more specific about his posts? Or is that not the done thing? Up to you...

Frankly, the whole Patty event is starting to sound like the fifth (or is it the sixth?) re-make of the Star Wars series by George Lucas. The more 'new' stuff comes to light, the muddier the waters become. Red herrings abound, and it all just starts getting a bit hard to believe the 'new' claims, *sigh* though I DO believe that the filmed creature is a Sas.

Kind regards,
Shazz

Hey Shaz,
The post on Facebook that Dean was referring to was basically the story that Doctorscream was talking about with some photos and stills from the film... He is saying that there was one or more bigfoot killed and then the scent from the skins was used for the hunting dog to track down the eventual film subject... perhaps he will post something up on youtube soon..
Cheers,
Dan.

OK, thanks Dan. If they really did do this, then that would really p*ss me off. I guess the adrenaline would make it hard to use common sense, so it theoretically could have happened that way, but I really hope that isn't the case.

cmon peoples lets not believe straight away what new stories come up without thinking of the evidence we have at hand from this encounter and all the thousands of other reports.
basicly i find it ridiculous that new ideas come out all the time, and people will adhere to them cos it sounds possible, and then when the next story comes out, they will drop the last one they beieved and go with the next one.
why didnt these people come forward 20, 30, 40 years ago, would have been great to debate what happened when all who were involved were still with us, easy to put your story in when a major witness cant defend his story.
also my main thought, comes from the hundreds of recorded sightings of bf and the way dogs act toward them, well basicly they c**p themselves and run the opposite direction, i havent read of many dogs that are willing to track down or run at a bf, they wont even stay loyal to their master and defend. of the very few that have followed a bf, they havent come back in one peice.
im just saying that we have to not just rely on one piece of evidence but put all the evidence we do have together to know whos legit and whos spinning c**p for a bit of attention, it seems in the u.s at the moment there is alot of the former.
anyway ive said my peice so ill let you have your peace.

oh yeah i forgot to mention the muzzle flash.
now they say that this was all planned, well dont know about you, but im not going to let someone step out from a tree take aim and fire at a moving target while im filming on the direct otherside of the target in the 'stray bullet zone', no matter how good an aim he is.
i mean really, if you can make a gun shot out of flecks and flashes on those old films, then i was shot at least twenty times on my sixth birthday home movie ( didnt even see the shooter behind the red candle, ahhhhh).

appologies to any gen ys who would have no idea about grainy, scratchy and soundless home movies.

Hello all, I'm new to your forum but have been a long time follower of Crypto stuff, my comment on the supposed Bluff Creek massacre is simple, two people can keep a secret, but only if one of them is dead, an old saying but most appropriate, if there really was a killing there it would have come out long ago.

One of the most important questions for me in this film is..... Why wasn't the bigfoot more elusive?
Seriously..... why wasn't it running away into the closest bit of cover? Why did it walk for such a long distance out in the open when it turned and looked at the person filming them. It could have ran 10 metres to the left and pretty much disappeared behind the incline or into the forest or something like that, but it didn't, it just casually strolled away. (IMO).

I have answers and all of them could be correct, but I suppose 'Patty' won't or can't tell me.

Here are some answers involving as many rumours as I know.....

* It was tired from being chased by men on horseback and when it was too tired to run, the photographer took his shot.
* It was leading the pursuers away from others of its kind. (baby or juvenile possibly)
* It was leading the pursuers to others of its kind. (big bad daddy)
* It hadn't seen man before, so therefore, never thought it was in danger.
* It was wounded from gunshots and was on its last legs.
* It was where the director told him to walk.
* It had just appeared from nowhere like DRSCRM says.
* It wanted to be filmed and known to the world.
* It was filmed by pure chance and was so surprised, it didn't know if it should react in anyway.

They are my answers for my question and if anybody else has any other answers for me, let me know.
I know that there isn't much chance of finding the answer to this question without interviewing the bigfoot involved, but it does make me wonder.... ... Trev

AussieTrev wrote:..... why wasn't it running away into the closest bit of cover? Why did it walk for such a long distance out in the open when it turned and looked at the person filming them. It could have ran 10 metres to the left and pretty much disappeared behind the incline or into the forest or something like that, but it didn't, it just casually strolled away. (IMO). Here are some answers involving as many rumours as I know.....

* It was tired from being chased by men on horseback and when it was too tired to run, the photographer took his shot.
* It was leading the pursuers away from others of its kind. (baby or juvenile possibly)
* It was leading the pursuers to others of its kind. (big bad daddy)
* It hadn't seen man before, so therefore, never thought it was in danger.
* It was wounded from gunshots and was on its last legs.
* It was where the director told him to walk.
* It had just appeared from nowhere like DRSCRM says.
* It wanted to be filmed and known to the world.
* It was filmed by pure chance and was so surprised, it didn't know if it should react in anyway.

They are my answers for my question and if anybody else has any other answers for me, let me know. Trev

Trev, my view is a combination of two you have mentioned:

Back then, there were no noisy cars to draw attention to the men taking the footage, they were on horseback, and might not have indicated any sort of danger to Patty. Researchers in the past have managed to get quite close to wild herds of animals such as elephants etc by riding on an animal of the same or similar species. The wild ones see a familiar shaped animal, but don't associate the 'thing' on its back as being human - the 'walking on two legs upright' alarm doesn't seem to ring as loudly in their heads, though they are wary of the man/animal combination.

Also, Patty probably had no fear of men, having probably had limited contact with them in the forests of the US, and therefore, they were not seen as a threat back then. If no threat, why run and hide? To me, Patty looks as if she is moving along quite briskly, not dawdling at all, which to me indicates a healthy respect for the unknown men watching/filming her, though not blind fear or panic. The look cast over the right shoulder at the filmers shows to me that she is interested, but would prefer to be in the secure area of the forest, so is making her way there ASAP.

Shazzoir

the thinking has always been ( as far as i can remember) that patty was heavily pregnant, therefore the reason for her seamingly slow exit.
as for the direction of exit, i guess just heading to somewhere familiar or in its mind, a safe haven.
or maybe she had her family up that way.
sorry if im wrong, but i think it may have been bob titmuss who followed paddys tracks a week later, they went up along the creek bed then at the end of the pg footage, she headed into and up the heavily treed hill, he found that not far up she had stopped and maybe sat and watched back down to the riverbed where p&g were, a common trait in most bf sightings, retreat into cover then observe.