The Davis Report-A New Beginning

It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to go in new directions. My health is declining. I have a few projects to finish I hope…before “I” am finished. I hope that this site and this blog meant something to you. To all the nearly 30,000 people who have visited, please know that you are important to me and your interest in my work is greatly appreciated. I have protected my sources, and I have done right by them and by you. I leave with a clean conscience. I’ll continue with the Bigfoot Central show as long as Don Monroe wants and artistfirst will have me. I thank you one and all. M.K.Davis

 

7 thoughts on “The Davis Report-A New Beginning

  1. MK,

    I for one understand and wish you the best and would like to convey my feelings and thoughts on what transpired last night and hastened you to make your decision. I listened to the blog talk radio show last night and am appalled at the way Steven Streufert not only attacked and harassed you but also, how the host of that show Chuck Prawl? let him go on for as long as he did. Steven Streufert, the host Chuck P. and blogtalkradio should be held accountable for defamation of character since it was broadcast live and publicly also allowed to go on..

    Mr. Streufert even tried to lie about the fact that he said MK had harassed him when MK had called-in and confronted him on the show, he said he never mentioned it. But in fact, he did say it more than once approx 26.48 minutes in to the show and then again at approx 27.50 minutes in to the show. He also said that MK had only been to Bluff Creek a couple of times which is another false statement and can easily be proven otherwise. That he based the distance from Bluff Creek bridge to the site at 2.0 miles from information provided to him from B.S, again, another false statement.

    Also, the host at approx. 28.20 minutes in to the show asked Mr. Streufert what if he were wrong (or found to be wrong) Streufert replied (to a certain extent) there would be Zero chance of that happening because he knows his site location is the right one. How arrogant can you get! Do you see a pattern here with this individual. He blatantly accuses well known and respected individuals as being “wrong” with their data, or that it is just opinion.

    How can people believe this person, has the world gotten so far out of balance that people like him are going to be taken seriously because he says so? This is yet another example of a person who has set out to make a name for himself in the BF world, and is a recent “self proclaimed” finder of the P&G film site, if this is the direction that the Bigfoot community as a whole is willing to take (not me), then the future of Bigfoot research is definitely in trouble.

    And the fact that he and Robert Leiterman have blatantly and publicly (on Steven Streufert’s blog) said that Peter Byrne and Christopher Murphy are wrong to a certain extent as well, should give testament to how low these guys are willing to go to put themselves up on a pedestal in the BF world and or make a name for themselves. Now I appreciate and respect Robert Leiterman’s back ground, heck I have met and talked with him, but to be on board with this whole scenario, it will eventually come back around and taint his reputation, there is no doubt about that.

    And to go solely (for the most part) off of Daniel Perez’s information on the location of the P&G film site, and his accounting of it at the 2003 Bigfoot Symposium is just another perpetrated falsity. I was at that Symposium, where was Steven Streufert, according to him, he was living on the coast near Eureka going to school. What other excuse is he going to come up with to try and exempt him from being scrutinized for his supposed facts on finding the P&G film site.

    Does he even know that Daniel Perez was so upset because the people who put on the Symposium had not asked him to be a guest speaker, that he purposely parked himself in the center isle of the event, facing the stage, sitting in his Stars and Stripes folding chair, and when a speaker came up to do their presentation, Perez would get up (more than once mind you) and walk up to the front of the stage to take pictures with the flash of his camera going off! Clearly to disrupt the speakers.

    Not to mention his extremely noisy hard sole dress shoes that when he walked, all eyes were on him as he made his way to the stage and back. I was there, and when he was talked to on why he did this? His answer was that maybe they should have asked him to do a presentation. In fact during one of the breaks I believe he was confronted on the disruptions but he didn’t care. Understand also that when everyone was trucked down to the supposed P&G film site in 2003, that it was Daniel Perez who kept insisting that he had the exact location of the film site even though a large number of people (myself included) and some older forest service people who were familiar with the site location and it’s proximity and Bob Gimlin (remember I was there) felt that the location everyone was taken to was not the actual site, that it was much farther down stream.

    But because Perez felt that he was shunned from the Symposium, he kept on insisting it was the site. Also, another thing I remember, was that he kept going around trying to convince people at Bluff Creek, that the time frame reported by Roger and Bob was off and couldn’t be justified as well (trying to make Roger and Bob out as not telling the whole truth), he claimed this off of the shadows cast on the logs in the stream bed in the film, and the story they gave as to how long it took them to drive to the coast and later talk with Al Hodgson that evening. In fact I have spoken with Al on more than one occasion who said that he met with them as he was closing his store. My point is, how can anyone believe Steven Streufert’s findings completely when they are for the most part based off of information provided by someone like Daniel Perez.

    Now as I have said it before, and I will say it again, I do not discount the many hours that the above named individuals have spent over the years gathering their data, and what they have put in to their research etc….especially Daniel Perez, All I am trying to convey is that when you look at what they are trying to propose on to the world as factual, with regards to their findings and or research, take a step back and realize what is taking place, where the information is coming from, who is involved, their back grounds and what they are trying to achieve (do the research, don’t take things as literal or factual until they are proven or at least have verifiable supporting evidence). Streufert’s claim is that he is doing all of this out of a passion, that he is not in this for any personal/monetary gain, if this were true (as only time will tell) then why is he so set on dissing and discrediting so many reputable people (as I have pointed out) and saying that they are wrong with regards to the location of the P&G film site and that he is right!

    Why does he keep trying to drill-in his opinions and information to everyone, whether through his blog or on public on-line radio? It’s obvious to me that he (as so many others), has a hidden agenda, one that probably is consistent with a future book, documentary, TV series or the like (maybe). Not to mention making a name for himself in the Bigfoot world which will inevitably boost his Bigfoot books business, or at the very least, get him invited to various functions. If he thinks that for one minute that other educated logically thinking individuals don’t see this then he is definitely bordering on the realm of never never land.

    More power to him if he accomplishes his goals, but why not do it with some taste, dignity, and respect of your fellow Bigfooters who inevitably are going to ask questions, dissect your findings, and or have their own opinions. This is the chance you take by trying to put forth this type of information on such a passionate subject. But to try and literally force feed it to the public ( for your own obvious personal reasons) and to then attack people for questioning your findings, you are clearly in the wrong arena as it were.

    It’s one thing to present your assumptions/findings in a manner consistent with just presenting them and to let people decide for themselves, it’s another thing to attack/harass and or blatantly say that respected people like Chris Murphy, Peter Byrne or MK Davis are wrong. And to insist that MK bring forth the people he has worked with to gather his data who have asked to remain anonymous, is just as disrespectful to them. You might as well go after Autumn Williams for doing the same.

    If there is one thing I have learned from this whole situation is that I would take greater consideration of the information provided by someone like MK or Autumn because they are willing to put their reputations on the line to protect the confidentiality of individuals who prefer to remain anonymous than someone like Streufert who will attack these same individuals or harass them to prove their point for their own personal cause.

    And to go after such reputable people like Peter Byrne who was there before the filming and shortly after, who “factually” documented the site with a distance from Bluff Creek bridge of 2.0 miles and who took photographs of the site and also the pictures of Al Hodgson’s son at the site, your actions Mr. Streufert are quite frankly, shameful and disrespectful. I wonder how these same individuals are going to react WHEN they find out (if they already haven’t) what you have posted on your blog and said about them recently on the blog talk radio show including Peter Byrne, Chris Murphy and Cliff Barackman.

    As an example from the blog talk show last night, you said that “Bob Titmus was there 9 days after the film was taken” according to J.G.? Al and others would beg to differ since Titmus was in the area, prior as were some very prominent people one being associated with the department of the interior who was there as well. I believe they had rented out a small house as I recall with the assistance of Al. Mr. Streufert you also went on to say last night, that MK said the site was located some “500 yards” down stream from your site and then you quickly increased it to “500-1000” yards (and on your blog it is claimed at 1.5 miles for obvious reasons), then you continued on with how Peter Byrne and Al Hodgson’s memories are very “Fuzzy” as to the actual location of the site, that their information is “unreliable” and also, that Cliff Barackman’s information is “a matter of opinion”. But those of us who have spoken with these men over the years on more than one occasion, way prior to your ever arriving on to the BF scene, would have to disagree due in part to the data we have collected and found to be correct. Heck, your own friend “Ian” as is stated in your recent blog dated 12/17/2011, said he’s not convinced of your conclusions at this point (smart man).

    One example of evidence is a copy of the hand drawn map that Al provided to Roger and Bob on where to go, that corroborates for the most part with Peter Byrne’s distance from Bluff Creek bridge to the site and MK Davis’s location, which by the way was determined and later confirmed by Peter’s information since he actually walked-in from Bluff Creek bridge (as did MK) to confirm the 2.0 miles and which I myself can attest to. Something I believe you haven’t done yet, have you?? You asked for MK to produce factual information, it doesn’t get any better than that. And your claims to “landmarks”, are you serious, there is no verifiable way that you can conclusively prove that what you consider to be “landmarks” are actually those that are identified in the actual P&G film. They are nothing more than your opinions based on pieced together information from various sources (that you yourself have pointed out) to form an hypothesis to support your own conclusions.

    To “self proclaim” that you have found the actual P&G film site location without a doubt from verified evidence you have collected/gathered, like the trees seen in the frames of the P&G film, the stumps, measurements, coordinates etc,,,, is absolutely unverifiable assumptions on your part with the exception of some of the data that you have collected and used from various sources, that were born from data collected in previous years nearer to 1967 from other researches as mentioned like with Peter Byrne.

    Those of us who have frequented the approximate site location, who have taken many pictures over the years, documenting the ever changing cycles and topography of Bluff Creek etc…., can in all good conscience convey that it is literally impossible to confirm an exact location of the site without tangible-verifiable evidence. That is the honesty of a true researcher, one who also has enough integrity to be happy with that amount of information instead of trying to convince people otherwise.

    What you have as far as “evidence” to prove the sites location is nothing more than pieced together information that truly does not prove anything other than it’s possible proximity to the actual site itself. And if people want to believe this than they can believe what they want to believe. Tell falsehoods long enough and to as many people as possible and eventually you will have believers (unfortunately). I for one choose to believe the “factual” documented information that has already been presented years ago by someone like Peter Byrne and who MK Davis (for the most part), bases his determined location by and I would even go as far as to take in to consideration the information Cliff Barackman has provided as his estimated location is much closer to the site location of Peter Byrne and MK Davis unlike yours.

    Another thing I would like to mention and not to be disrespectful nor discount their achievements or contributions, is that up until the 2003 Symposium most of the well known people who are now recognized as the “go-to” people in Bigfooting, James “Bobo” Fay, Cliff Barackman, Tom Yamarone, and so on, were to some extent unknowns up until the 2003 Symposium, and some of them met up with members of the BFRO (and joined), who were marketing themselves heavily at the time, driving up at the Symposium in their $100,000.00 motor home and who in fact asked me if I wanted to join them down at Bluff Creek and for some filming they were doing, but I respectfully declined.

    My point is, no one person or organization has all the answers, nor can they be absolutely sure of anything they produce as evidence that they proclaim to be factual or true, without taking in to consideration the opinions or information gathered from others and to do it without attacking them for their opinions or the evidence they provide. To “self proclaim” something whether it is an actual Sasquatch/Bigfoot, or a site location without actual physical/tangible evidence is just that, a “self proclamation” and nothing more until proven otherwise.

    Unfortunately this is a “fact” even with all the foot print casts, eye witness accounts, and Native peoples oral history that has to some extent been documented. To this day, the majority of the Scientific communities still do not recognize a Sasquatch or Bigfoot as actually existing, even with the P&G film. What they require is “physical/tangible evidence” for proof, heck J.G. has said the same thing (in so many words) himself.

    Up until roughly three years ago Mr. Streufert, you were an unknown in the BF world of who’s who’s, you opened a Bigfoot books store of “rare books”, your selection of BF books is ok, and you have a Bigfoot blog. Why did you decide to call your establishment Bigfoot books? Probably because you saw an opportunity to have a niche in a town that is a mecca for Bigfoot enthusiasts and tourists and the like. Good for you, but that doesn’t make you a “foremost authority” or “self proclaimed finder” of the P&G film site, nor does it give you the right to attack people for their opinions or prior documented information/evidence, and claiming they are wrong. And lets not forget that originally your blog started out as a means to converse about Bigfoot, and various individuals whom you voiced your opinions on and which later has caused you quite a bit of grief. Then, you went on to your proving the P&G film site.

    My whole purpose for writing such a long post on this blog (and I hope people have read it this far) is to at the very least, provide information that will help in recognizing when a person or people are trying so desperately to write themselves into the annals of history, (even in Bigfooting) regardless of who is stepped on along the way and whether the information they are claiming to be factual is actually, verifiable and true. That in most cases as with this one, they are obviously in it for their own personal reasons or gain, and if your willing to look at the circumstances unbiasedly, you will see, that the evidence (as in this case) speaks for itself. To recognize when falsities are being perpetrated and to hold those individuals accountable. To speak up on behalf of the people whom they are unjustly accusatory of and whom they have wronged, if only for the reason that it is in all good conscience, the right thing to do.

    Good luck MK, I hope you return after people have seen the “Forest Through the Trees” as it were, and although I may not have agreed with you on certain points in the past as with other individuals in the BF community, I do appreciate your contributions.

    A Fellow Researcher

  2. The core of the above reply is that you were apparently treated badly on a webradio show and as a consequence decided dealing with people like this is not worth the effort. Which is of course correct. Please accept my best wishes and my hope you will be able to accomplish what you want.

    Your retirement is frustrating though to an interested observer of your work. I have never gotten a clear and complete explanation of what I believe you have proposed. I learned most of it reading between the lines of explosive and hyperbole ridden bf message board comments. Messages were posted and deleted, opinions expressed and then repressed. I was never able to hear you speak and make your full presentation, and this site as well as your youtube films were (to an “outsider”) coyly written, ambiguous and confusing. I understand you believe study of the film shows the creature was shot, but there were vague and confusing innuendos re when the film(s) were made, missing footage, missing films, who was where and when, etc. I did ask a couple of times in the youtube replies to just lay it out for me (us) and explain what you were getting at, but you never replied to any of my questions…maybe too simplistic for you to deal with…And it’s really not important now, but a clear and concise timeline of events with personalities involved and their actions would have helped, as would some explanation of what all those enigmatic red arrows were supposed to be telling me.

    I’m sorry you were driven away (for the second time ) by the STP Sasquatch Thought Police, who apparently believe they have full rights to an undiscovered entity, understand what it is and know what happened when they weren’t “there.”

    It would be wonderful if before you leave the “bf” arena, you would write your manifesto, your version of events of what happened at Bluff Creek and afterward for posterity in a full and forthright manner. Otherwise the full extent of the implications of your research will be know to only the few who had the opportunity to hear you speak.

    At any rate, I send you my best wishes

  3. MK,

    First off I would like to say that I hope all is well with you and your family. I wanted to make you aware (if you don’t already know?) that Steven Streufert is at it again, I am going to make this as short as possible and sincerely hope that the majority of Bigfooter’s out there will read this. Streufert is without a doubt living in the realm of never never land and he has got others following him.

    How convenient that after that ridiculous on-line radio show which he blatantly lied more than once. His blog which he has disrespected other reputable Bigfooter’s and his many many claims to finding the Patterson/Gimlin film site, he is now claiming that some unknown Geology student from Humboldt State has now Mathematically proven that his assumed site location is the actual site based on his assumed landmarks.

    And this guy says he is not doing any of this for his own personal gain, ya right Streufert, are you aware that anyone who has any scholastic back ground in mathematics can draw the same conclusions on virtually any part of that creek with similar land marks. Your information proves absolutely nothing. And the mathematics is being done by a Geology student, are you serious??

    And by the way, the trees you keep referring to as being the P&G film landmarks, for those of us who are actually familiar with determining the age of a tree with the proper instruments, for your information, the trees that you have taken pictures of are not large enough to be the actual trees, yours are way to close in size to the P&G film trees to be the actual trees. 40 plus years of growth even in drought years would increase the size of the trees substantially especially with second or third generation trees.

    Also, how convenient that Perez has named you Bigfooter of the year, you both are two peas in a pod, and most in the Bigfoot community would concur, his “Bigfooter of the year” is considered more of a novelty than actually being legitimate (my apologies MK Knowing you were named once) You remind me of past individuals who I will not name out of respect for the human race, but if it looks and smells like B.S., chances are it probably is B.S. I only hope that the Bigfoot community as a whole sees whats really going on here and at the very least will speak up and or not acknowledge this pile of B.S.

    No wonder the majority of the world especially the Scientific community thinks that the belief and or research of Bigfoot is a joke, with people like Streufert shoveling the way, the future of Bigfooting is definately in deep _ _ _ _!!

    A Fellow Researcher

  4. Again, MK, sorry to hear of your situation, I hope it improves.

    AFR, I am not sure exactly what it is that you want to happen. S.S. has come to the conclusion that he has located the exact location of the Patterson filming. Are you saying that is not the exact location? or that he should not be so sure it is the exact location? Or that there is a different location that is indeed the exact location? Clearly, for historical purposes, it would be great to be able to pinpoint the exact spot of the Patterson film, even though after all these years everything may be changed. It’s always good to have that site pinpointed for those who appreciate what happened. Does this new S.S. filmsite location conflict with another site proposed to be the real one? Is there any way to chart out these various sites, indicating which ones were established by which person or group of people, which has the highest likelihood of being THE site? I know there is a lot of other “stuff” feeding your fire, but taken one at a time, is there a better way, or a better source for the exact location of the filming?

  5. Hello MK Davis, I am not sure what all has transpired for you personally, the “I” am finished and poor health have prompted me to write a comment. First, I want to share my personal faith none of us are “finsihed” at biological death, as final as it feels here. So, that may seem lame, but it is a source of strength for me personally and I hope for you. Second, bummer we will lose the best, most careful, and respectful examination of the PG film to date. And a great blog.
    I personally doubt it is b/c of a web show. I never made it into the “BF cene” b/c I don’t fit that tight clique parameters, few do – according to my youtube demographics 55% of people who visited my site were male 30-60, the rest female and yet? Only that 40 something white male seems to mesh with the various groups…so, the majority aren’t actually involved at that visible level. And the women? Well go figure, where are they? Almost everywomanI have read on the subject is dismissed out of hand…won’t it be great when amateurs are sent home?
    That’s my opinion anyway. I have also wondered why there seems to be no African American bigfooters, I can’t think of any. Oh well, just curious, hard to join groups that only accept likeminded and that does seem to be how the BF “community” divides itself..by friendships.
    If you decide you need a small project contact me apehuman@yahoo.com I have a daylight video I shot with a juvenile whose hands come into light as he grabs branches, the torso and arms and.one leg visible as well, but in shadows. I did my best, not great with consumer level software….so can’t offer you anything but a new film!
    Again, thanks so much for this well communicated and expertly executed effort/blog.
    Deeply appreciated.

    apehuman aka H.indomitus.

  6. Wow! This is absolutely breath taking — so many “expert” opinions on where the actual Patterson/Gimlin film site was. Excuse me for asking what should be the obvious: has anyone thought about asking Bob Gimlin for his take on the matter?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s