The YouTube Bigfoot... What's It All Really About?

[Ninurta]

An interesting slant on the Patterson-Gimlin footage.
Here, Scott Carpenter relates his discussions with the late-Bobby Short, a woman who said she knew
the back-story and missing footage of what really happened at Bluff Creek and how certain elements
of the establishment control the topic of Bigfoot.

Scott mentions someone called Steve -from 'How To Hunt' in regards of this so-called revelation, so
here's the link to that. Link. If true, the story is horrendous.




Also, renown Bigfoot investigator M.K. Davis talked about evidence of the 'massacre' a number of years ago.

I watched the videos. I cannot comment much on the first one, other than to say trophy hunters hunt for trophies, whether they are hunting man or beast, so if what he says is true, it's not unexpected. Some men take heads and are called "head hunters", some take ears, some take fingers or other, more disreputable appendages, and all of them are "trophy hunters" when they hunt for trophies.

The second video, that of Mr. Davis, I found lacking. VERY lacking. It looks to me like Mr. Davis is reaching, and if he reached much harder, he is liable to get gravy on his tie as he drags it across the table in his effort to get a main course. I saw no blood, nor did I see any evidence of blood. What I saw was dirt, and it was unsurprisingly dirt-colored.

I fail to see how a dog, even a dog as magnificent as the one he showed, could hold on to a paw full of blood in order to plant ONE bloody paw print in the middle of a sand bar where there were no other bloody prints. It's been my experience that substances adhering to a foot, whether a foot of man or beast, gradually fade away as the individual walks and the substance is deposited in the prints. There is invariably less of it deposited in each succeeding print.  I know of no cases whatsoever that anyone or anything has been able to hold on to the entirety of that substance while walking, in order to deposit it all in ONE place, at least several steps removed from the place of contamination. That print looked to me like a print in wet ground, where the surface is drier than the subsurface.

The "pool of blood" was no such thing. There would not be that much blood in 10 bigfoot bodies, large as they are, much less half that number, and even then ALL of them would have to have been hung and bled in a single spot to gather all of their blood into one pool... which I imagine would be difficult to do with a grown bigfoot that was not injured until you hung it to cut it's throat. Prior injuries would of course have resulted in blood in other places, and less for the pool o' blood.

The "ditch" or "excavated cavity" was just that - it was dug into dirt, and had dirt-colored sides. No surprises there, either.

The "lens flare" that Mr. Davis is claiming to be a muzzle flash defies physics if it is one. Muzzle flash, in the absence of a flash suppressor, follows a line from the muzzle in the direction of bullet flight, with a bulbous ball of fire at the distal terminus of the flash. If a flash suppressor is present, there is a linear or star-shaped pattern radiating outward perpendicular to the muzzle. In order for that to have been a muzzle flash, the operator would have had to have been firing straight up, into the sky overhead.

There may, or may not, have been a "bigfoot hunt", but Mr. Davis' video gives no evidence either way - it appears to me to not relate to the tale at all!


.