The Davis Report-The Film Site…Has it Changed?

There is no doubt that the 40+ years since the famous Patterson Sasquatch film was taken has seen some changes to the site. Most of the changes, however, are superficial, involving the vegetation changing, rather that the actual “lay” of the land. This “lay” of the land has not changed. The canyon walls are still where they were, the creek bed meanders across the sand bar, changing from year to year in its endless fractal wandering. The dimensions are still the same, and can be recognized. Many people are embracing a site that is much smaller than what is seen in the film. For some reason, the belief is that the camera itself was projecting a much larger image than the actual site was. I adamantly disagree. What is seen in the film, is still very much there and recognizable. Here is an aerial view, that is, a view from the bluffs above the film site. Click on the image  to enlarge.

From the book "Meet the Sasquatch" by Chris Murphy. Published by Hancock House.

As you can see, the area is quite sizable. Nothing has shrunken about this mysterious place. It is still there. For a perspective, look at the upper end of the red arrow. A man is standing there. His figure is minuscule compared to the rest of the site. Here’s another view of the site, taken in the early 1970’s. Click on the image to enlarge.

Photograph courtesy of longtime researcher Peter C. Byrne. Please do not right click.


This is the view from down stream. As you can see, the “lay” of the land has changed little.

Copyright M.K.Davis. Please do not right click


Here is a view from upstream of the site. Click to enlarge.

Copyright M.K.Davis. Please do not right click.


The Patterson Film site has never been lost. It has been visited regularly through the years by individuals who know positively where it is. One of the main reason’s for people thinking that it is lost is that Bigfoot researchers are constantly coming and going. The Bigfoot community, if that be what it should be called, is one very large edition of a debutante’s ball. If this filmsite were to be confirmed today, then tomorrows bigfooters would consider it lost again, and embark upon a rediscovery project all over again. This is unfortunate indeed, for in all other pursuits for edification, the debutante’s build upon the knowlege of those that were before them. The Bigfoot Debutantes start over and over again with a clean slate, without anchoring their efforts in anything solid.  My advice is…that if the place that you seek, does not appear to be the same dimension as the filmsite, then it most likely is not it. If my advice doesn’t mean anything to you, then go to the filmsite of your choice.






10 thoughts on “The Davis Report-The Film Site…Has it Changed?

  1. Au contraire, MK. We have found the true site, upstream from your location. The proving is ongoing, but the documentation is done. We surveyed and gridded out the sandbar and found not only all the main trees, but also the majority of old stumps and aging log debris piles. What is more, we have made our grid map starting at the very spot Gimlin himself identified in 2003 and again this summer. Having pursued this since 2001, and living near the locality of the filming, I am hardly a “debutante.” Not one “expert” has, in our lengthy investigation, been able to identify extant landmarks as seen in the film. Now we have, and there is no doubt remaining.

    Steven Streufert

    • The site is the same level post 1964 Flood sandbar. The big trees, stumps and log debris are still there. The creek has eaten down to bedrock in its banks, though, and has eaten away some 20-30 feet from the front of the sandbar. Gimlin confirmed this. We looked, but found no bones or bigfoot bodies on the site.

      See bigfootbooksblog dot blogspot dot com for more info.

  2. MK Your right, these individuals (One in particular) who continue to claim that he/they have located the P&G film site are off in their own little world (s), or to sum it up in a line from a movie “it must be nice living in never never land, I will have to come and visit you sometime when I need a break from reality”.

    I don’t care if you spend 20 years gathering data, hours upon hours of film footage, talk with those people who claim themselves as the foremost authorities on BF or the P&G film site, or take hundreds of photographs. It is impossible to determine and or claim the exact location without absolute physical evidence to support your assumptions.

    And the bit about Bob Gimlin confirming the site recently, come on, if he couldn’t confirm the site back in 2003, then how can he confirm it now? I will tell you how, you have a group of individuals who over the last eight years have (to the present day) positioned themselves to be recognized as the “go to people in Big-footing”.

    They have their blogs, websites, and make their appearances at various functions and even more recently have been recognized on TV programs. You spend enough time painting a picture or telling a story about who and what you are and enough people listen, then unfortunately those same people will eventually began to believe.

    Now I’m not discounting the many many hours these same individuals have spent gathering their data, nor what Bob Gimlin has recently claimed. I know all these individuals. All I am trying to convey is, with all this time and effort spent on not only trying to determine/confirm the actual P&G film site, the TV productions etc…. what has actually been accomplished in relation to proving the existence of these creatures/people, not much.

    What has been accomplished is that these certain individuals have carved out a name or an identity for themselves, spent time and gone to extremes condemning or trying to discredit others who offer different opinions, don’t think as they do or who try to be part of the “BF community” in their own way.

    For what purpose? For their own personal gain. To ensure that they will be asked to functions, make more TV episodes, or produce a book every now and then that people will hopefully purchase and as a bonus will pay for their Big-footing excursions (more power to them, but what is really being contributed?). These are the only facts or verified evidence that has really transpired these past years and it’s a shame.

    These same individuals are following in the foot steps of the infamous D.P. who if anyone really knew what kind of a person he truly is as with T.Y. and others (as I have personally experienced), they would never buy the materials they put out nor compliment what they creatively produce. Get on with whats important people, gathering verifiable data to prove the existence of these People/creatures instead of focusing on creating your own legacies.

    To the true Scientific communities that are recognized, what you guys are doing (for the most part), is looked upon as a novelty or entertainment and quite frankly a joke. And that is a sad state of affairs.

    A fellow researcher

    • “Fellow,” whatever you think of the BFRO, this was a completely independent project aimed at studying Bluff Creek history. We were not trying to prove bigfoot exists or not. We have not made a single dime. In the spirit of true inquiry we investigated all evidence and we have found and documented the real site of the filming. MK has offered not a single piece of evidence for his proposed site location. All the evidence we have gathered shows our location to be correct. You are simply making a straw man and ad hominem attack based on your own uninformed bias and ideology. If you’d read my report you’d have seen that Gimlin DID confirm the location in 2003. We are the only ones to publicly identify the big trees and landmarks in decades. See the map and photos. This is not a personal issue, but an actual PLACE. It is a FACT, that rare thing in bigfooting.

      We have done the real investigation.
      I’d be happy to show you.
      Munns and Perez will probably be coming up, too.

      The trees follow the magnetic north line from the first sighting spot, in a diagonal way towards the bowling alley across the sandbar.

      It’s all there in my blog. The tree is huge, but we also found the other trees, and stumps and debris piles.


      • Gimlin only identified the area of the first sighting. It has changed a lot since 1967. We have found his memory to be sound and very helpful on these issues of site geography, however many issues may remain with the PGF timeline.

        Perez got his information from Dahinden, the best source on these matters.

        All MK has for evidence is a metal wire and a deer bone.

        So, what was your point, “researcher”????

  3. MK, do please give us at least one single piece of evidence for your site location proposition. As yet I have seen nothing. I tried to include you in our study, but you did not provide any useful information. I had to find your site location from what Sean Fries told me of it, as he had been there with you. Then I had to further figure it based on clues in your radio show broadcasts, and then a couple of internet posts others had written about your trip there. Tell me, beyond “It Felt Like the Right Place,” what is your evidence, and who are your sources? You know mine, as I have been utterly public and open with them.

    Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek

  4. I wish an impartial somebody would write a “who’s who” of bigfoot research. Can you guys imagine how it all looks from the outside? How are “outsiders” supposed to know which researchers are good and which are bad? It’s very confusing.

    • Ernest,

      They are all good people for the most part. Some have inflamed egos. I disagree with MK on many things, but I still think he is a good guy, and a pleasure to talk to on the phone. He has done some really great work, and continues to do so. Until there is proof of anything, one really needs to reserve judgment. On the issue of the PGF site location, we have proof. It’s pretty simple, really.

      Bigfoot’s bLog, Willow Creek, CA

  5. The Peer-review process works very well in the scientific world and there are no shortages of ego there. They might not like each other behind the scenes but they debate in a professional manner in front of the public precisely because they themselves do not want to be seen as petty and unprofessional -especially when grant money is on the line. I know that many BF researchers take themselves and their work seriously and I don’t see why that same outwardly courteous peer-review process would not work just as well in this field. In fact, I think it needs it if for no other reason than to separate the kooks from the serious minded folks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s