Being a big human being (but not a Bigfoot), let’s just get this over.

I’ve gotten some nasty emails, even some threatening emails in the last few days. No specific death threats this time, but it’s getting close. Let me be clear. I am not doing what I am going to do here because of that kind of feedback, however. I am doing this to be clear to M. K. Davis about my apology to him. I’ve tried giving him an apology that seems to have been taken in and then rejected by him, by his friends, and by his minions. So, I guess I need to do it more publicly, no matter how humbling this may seem. I want to be clear that my lack of declarative sentences about whom M. K. Davis is seemed to have been missed by some people. Therefore, onward with this and back to research.

For those that closely read (and not just emotionally reacted) to my recent, December 3rd blog, I said I "find myself forced to post" what I was about to post. I was not happy to reveal what I had discovered, but I felt someone had to do it.

M. K. Davis began saying things on November 26-27, unchallenged, which had the potential to change the whole focus of Bigfoot studies. Perhaps he doesn’t realize he has that kind of godlike power, but it is something he has earned in the last decade. But just like I know I am going to have to take out the trash tomorrow and anyone, anywhere can call me on my mistakes, so too should any of us call M. K. Davis on his missteps. Why do people feel M. K. Davis is untouchable? Well, his impact on the field in producing the stabilization in the Patterson-Gilmin footage has been incredible. It is used as evidence in hominology, and something I have greatly appreciated and often congratulated.

See it here. Actually you won’t. Using Bobbie Short as his avenue of communication, M.K. Davis has asked for that piece of film to be taken down. It was posted via “fair use,” and we will have more to say about that elsewhere.

As a writer, a reporter, a researcher, a blogger, and a human being, I ask hard questions. For those that read this blog often, hopefully you are not confused when I place an unidentified photograph up here and ask you for your opinion. Are some of these pix silly? Probably. Could some of them show something unknown. Infrequently. Are most of them blobs? Definitely. Do we all learn something from such postings? Of course, I hope so.

Is M. K. Davis a racist? Of course not. I apologize if I hurt him asking that question. I admit to wanting him and others to reconsider the evolution of what was occurring in promoting a film, constructing a theory, and using certain explanations and terms to explain pieces of the puzzle.

Did my questions reveal the weaknesses of M. K. Davis recent logic – "stick" to "human" to "culture" to a type of California Indian? You be the judge. Was it about M. K. Davis personally? Of course not.

For those that missed that I was merely challenging and asking the Cryptomundo community to chime in on a phrase that Davis used, I apologize to you too.

If you did join in and called M. K. Davis a "racist," your comment was deleted (unless the editors, robots, or I missed it). If you called him an idiot or me an idiot, with near profanity, your comment probably was deleted too. I don’t apologize for those deletions; they happened to people speaking in support of my blog as well as those against it.

Of course, I have no control over other blogs, and plenty of people called me some names or an idiot too, here and elsewhere. Some people called M. K. names too, and people blame me for that. I apologize to M. K. about that. I have no control over them. People like to call people names, don’t they? Well, that’s exactly what I was pointing out when a new theory was presented tying Bigfoot to a term that has deeper meanings.

Who is going to do ask the hard questions, if I don’t? I didn’t hear anyone else.

Darn it, I apologize if you were personally upset that I wasn’t soft-peddling it in asking what the heck was M. K. Davis talking about.

Wait a minute. Was it not M. K. Davis who put out the initial press release? Were we all to just take it, at face value, that "Bigfoot is human"? What is wrong with inquiring minds having questions about Bigfoot being called a "human"? What’s incorrect about exploring why a name being used in association with that theory or about Bigfoot "with…a stick"?

When did it not become okay to ask people who put out press releases some questions about what they meant? What is wrong with doing follow-up inquiries on some confusing comments being made by M. K.?

If someone uses words that are viewed as racist by a majority of California Indians in relationship to their understanding of what Bigfoot is, what is wrong with asking questions about that? Someone once told me that the correct word to use is Inuit for the people of northern North America. I did a lot of apologizing that year to some Native friends, and, unless I slip, then apologize again, only use Inuit today.

Nevertheless, I apologize if such an action here in raising this issue about what is being discussed has offended you. Sincerely.

If promoters are going to say something outrageous to get people to come to their movie, that they claim Bigfoot was filmed carrying a stick, shouldn’t they be prepared for a reaction? Hey, Seinfeld DVD sales are up 75% this year over those last year. Will all this attention to M. K. Davis’ theory and new insights into his film projects decrease interest in their forthcoming film? Of course not. We all know that the opposite will happen because people are now going to be watching what he has to say, and my blogs will be partially responsible. No this has not been a stunt, but a serious exploration, most of the time, of the topic of what Bigfoot are. But if M. K. Davis feels hurt by the experience or wasn’t ready for what kind of reaction he would stimulate, I apologize for hurting him, if that’s what he is feeling in his threats to leave the field or destroy his evidence or sue people.

But Bigfoot research to me is bigger than two men. So I apologize. If one makes the jump that what they see in a film means Sasquatch must be a certain kind of Indian, and thus Bigfoot are human, but then retreat into silence and using their friends, when they are challenged on the fact they are using a term that means something they have ignored, wouldn’t confusion be expected? And won’t people want to ask more questions? For every action, people are going to have a reaction.

M. K. Davis put out the press release. Pat Holdbrook followed up with some further elaboration. M. K. Davis followed up in short emails, one radio appearance, and in one short prepared statement. Information was given, questions were asked, responses followed, more questions asked, facts and findings challenged, and more replies and responses followed. Will M. K. Davis’ hardened position that he has nothing to apologize about and was merely misunderstood, really work? Only time will tell.

But, hey, people want to make me the issue, want this to go away and want me to say I am sorry, so I apologize period. Talk about Bigfoot, not me. Examine M. K. Davis’ theory, not the reporter’s question or M. K. Davis’ personality, which never has been under scrutiny by me.

Over 200 people have commented on this thread. Please don’t blame them as questioners, responders, or comment-makers. Blame me for being bold or stupid or silly enough to step up to the plate and ask some questions. Look to how this was rolled out, how it was handled, the research that was not done before the claims, thoughts, words and theories were presented to an unknowing public.

I respect the labor of M. K. Davis’ past photographic and film analyses, I’ve met the gu
y, I like M. K. Davis and sincerely feel he is an authority in a narrow and special field of expertise. But M. K. Davis seems to have walked into a cow patch when he wrote his press release and should have been more careful about theorizing anthropologically.

I apologize if I hurt him personally, and I say this most sincerely and not passively-aggressively. If I pointed out that there was something on the bottom of his shoes, and this has embarrassed him, I am sorry.

Hey, I’m only human. I’ve made mistakes, I’ve admitted them, and I have made those right again and again. Some people will never let me off the hook, and I am well aware of that. That comes with the space of being a celebrity in this field. Welcome to the limelight M. K. But then, if you don’t face your demons, they will live on inside of you.

Therefore, now I would ask, M. K. Davis, I’ve given mine, can we hear from you an apology for your illogical linguistic blunder?

With all due respect, Loren Coleman