Mysterious Disappearances - your theories

[Kaiborg]

Wasn't Sunday's show w/ David Paulides fun?  Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the research was honest...  Especially after Knapp's claims that he got a similar answer of "no records kept" when he did his own homework.  Even if you don't agree 100%, let's suspend disbelief for a moment, and assume that everything said was factual and accurate. 

So, who or what is snatching these people in the woods?  Here are some ideas, in order of increasing wackiness:

1) Mountain Men.  To the MAX     Seriously, it could just be a real case of Deliverance/Texas Chainsaw/The Hills Have Eyes

2) Bigfoot.  I thought this after listening to the first show.  The details from pt. 2 heavily add to my suspicions.

3) The Creeper, from "Jeepers Creepers". This could explain so much.  For instance, the total lack of bodies, the odd body part left behind, and the occasional "bringing back" of mutilated bodies, especially those left in elevated, inaccessible, or wide open places.  I mean, the dude flies around, needs to use people parts, and can be a picky eater. 

[stevesh]

The presence of Green Beret search parties at at least two of the disappearences suggests to me some sort of Dean Koontz-style government biological experiment gone wrong.

[guildnavigator]

Wasn't Sunday's show w/ David Paulides fun?  Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the research was honest...  Especially after Knapp's claims that he got a similar answer of "no records kept" when he did his own homework.  Even if you don't agree 100%, let's suspend disbelief for a moment, and assume that everything said was factual and accurate. 

So, who or what is snatching these people in the woods?  Here are some ideas, in order of increasing wackiness:

1) Mountain Men.  To the MAX     Seriously, it could just be a real case of Deliverance/Texas Chainsaw/The Hills Have Eyes

2) Bigfoot.  I thought this after listening to the first show.  The details from pt. 2 heavily add to my suspicions.

3) The Creeper, from "Jeepers Creepers". This could explain so much.  For instance, the total lack of bodies, the odd body part left behind, and the occasional "bringing back" of mutilated bodies, especially those left in elevated, inaccessible, or wide open places.  I mean, the dude flies around, needs to use people parts, and can be a picky eater.

Option three made me laugh hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluth co.]

This is exactly why i enjoyed those shows so much. Because it's still sort of a mystery. It hasn't been done to death like every other topic on coast to coast. It still keeps me guessing and makes me somewhat uneasy, the way i used to feel listening to coast.

[Sardondi]

Wasn't Sunday's show w/ David Paulides fun?  Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the research was honest...  Especially after Knapp's claims that he got a similar answer of "no records kept" when he did his own homework.  Even if you don't agree 100%, let's suspend disbelief for a moment, and assume that everything said was factual and accurate....

I think it was a fantastic show, perhaps a classic. As far as being fun, I probably would have thought of it as "fun" in a spooky campfire tale way before I knew the details. (I had heard Paulides on at least one previous show, and I see he has appeared 5 times since 2008!) But hearing Paulides' chilling stories of toddlers and kids being snatched from a few yards away, without a trace; and how the families were so devastated by the lack of expected evidence and the anomalous findings, such as clothes and artifacts at distances which no child of the particular age could have covered on foot, or across ground that child could not have covered, I viewed it as much more tragic and sad than fun.

I too found Paulides persuasive and reliable. The way he has laid it out, he has either exposed a national disgrace, or he's a despicable, lying, con man. As far as the Dept of Interior's policy of keeping no records of details of searches, that story is literally "in-credible" on its face. It's an obvious falsehood, because big searches...which these certainly were...take an enormous outlay of manpower (which means hours and money), as well as allocation of and accounting for wear and tear on equipment. These things must be accounted for. For any one of these kind of anomalous missing person case, there is a large outlay of time and effort. A lot of park rangers are involved, with airplanes and numerous vehicles used, along with fuel and oil and maintenance to keep them running. On top of that when it comes to large equipment such as vehicles and especially aircraft, very precise records much be logged as to time/mileage expended on a particular date. And surely there will be some paper to reflect that several hundred Green Berets were in the Park, armed to the teeth.

So in a big search there will certainly be records of an accounting of how many employees were involved, how much overtime paid and how charged off. And even how many volunteers, because although not paid, volunteers have to be fed and lodged and often equipped, and a record of that would exist. Then there would be aircraft and large vehicle log books of hours burned on what dates (which would probably include a reference to a search by name of the missing person, e.g. "Johnson Boy Search" if nothing more) as well as some sort of budgeting/accounting records.

Now the DoI could conceivably get by without recording all the details of a missing person case and search (maybe not even names), or the unusual and anomalous factors involved...but I don't believe it. And with the department-wide policy of Interior being to stonewall on these things, there will be no way for a citizen to make them give it up. The only way I see it happening is if the US Attorney's Office (in effect the federal D.A.) in the particular district that the Park is in, begins a grand-jury investigation. In this case it would be difficult, since the US Attorney has to have a federal investigative agency "on board" and handling the street work. Here the only agencies with jurisdiction in the case, Interior and FBI, have both shown, let us say, "a lack of candor" in the matter. IMO it would take a US Attorney who knew a family involved in one of the disappearances for an investigation to be undertaken.

[BobGrau]

I wonder if DB Cooper comes under this category?

[Kaiborg]

I think it was a fantastic show, perhaps a classic. As far as being fun, I probably would have thought of it as "fun" in a spooky campfire tale way before I knew the details. (I had heard Paulides on at least one previous show, and I see he has appeared 5 times since 2008!) But hearing Paulides' chilling stories of toddlers and kids being snatched from a few yards away, without a trace; and how the families were so devastated by the lack of expected evidence and the anomalous findings, such as clothes and artifacts at distances which no child of the particular age could have covered on foot, or across ground that child could not have covered, I viewed it as much more tragic and sad than fun.

Yes, "fun" probably isn't the right word.  Looking at this seriously, it's absolutely tragic, and downright creepy.  And I have to agree with the rest of your post, too.  Why wouldn't there be a complete database on these cases?  It's almost too strange to accept, unless the bigger picture is really that explosive. 

The Dennis Martin case is really the bizarre one though; green berets, hairy creature seen carrying something, obvious stone-wall from authorities, FBI agent commits suicide...  What the hell?  High strangeness indeed.

[Morgus]

Linda Howe should investigate all these disappearances.
They sound eerily similar to the many cattle mutilation cases she has investigated, the same attitude by the sheriffs and authorities too - they want to sweep it all under the rug and not give any info to investigators.

[MV/Liberace!]

this thread reminds me...


i called c2c twice back in the late 90s.  on the first call, i mentioned to art the growing concern over what will happen to all of the computers/monitors people are throwing away due to the mainstreaming of computer ownership.  what a shitty call.  on my second (and last) call, i asked art if ed dames had ever remote viewed the disappearance of jimmy hoffa.  does anyone happen to recall either of these calls?  i think they were in 98 or 99.  i've often wondered if i have these shows in my art bell archive.  i'm sure if i heard them, my palm would wind up on my forehead with me breathily remarking, "what a fag."

[b_dubb]

1) Bad parenting
2) Infanticide
3) Hungry Sasquatch

[coaster]

this thread reminds me...


i called c2c twice back in the late 90s.  on the first call, i mentioned to art the growing concern over what will happen to all of the computers/monitors people are throwing away due to the mainstreaming of computer ownership.  what a shitty call.  on my second (and last) call, i asked art if ed dames had ever remote viewed the disappearance of jimmy hoffa.  does anyone happen to recall either of these calls?  i think they were in 98 or 99.  i've often wondered if i have these shows in my art bell archive.  i'm sure if i heard them, my palm would wind up on my forehead with me breathily remarking, "what a fag."

The Hoffa call sounds familiar. Did Art say something like 'he could be buried in Giants stadium, but they wouldnt pay to dig the stadium up"? I'm not even sure if thats what he said, but the call definitely rings a bell.

[rob69]

I think it was a fantastic show, perhaps a classic. As far as being fun, I probably would have thought of it as "fun" in a spooky campfire tale way before I knew the details. (I had heard Paulides on at least one previous show, and I see he has appeared 5 times since 2008!) But hearing Paulides' chilling stories of toddlers and kids being snatched from a few yards away, without a trace; and how the families were so devastated by the lack of expected evidence and the anomalous findings, such as clothes and artifacts at distances which no child of the particular age could have covered on foot, or across ground that child could not have covered, I viewed it as much more tragic and sad than fun.

I too found Paulides persuasive and reliable. The way he has laid it out, he has either exposed a national disgrace, or he's a despicable, lying, con man. As far as the Dept of Interior's policy of keeping no records of details of searches, that story is literally "in-credible" on its face. It's an obvious falsehood, because big searches...which these certainly were...take an enormous outlay of manpower (which means hours and money), as well as allocation of and accounting for wear and tear on equipment. These things must be accounted for. For any one of these kind of anomalous missing person case, there is a large outlay of time and effort. A lot of park rangers are involved, with airplanes and numerous vehicles used, along with fuel and oil and maintenance to keep them running. On top of that when it comes to large equipment such as vehicles and especially aircraft, very precise records much be logged as to time/mileage expended on a particular date. And surely there will be some paper to reflect that several hundred Green Berets were in the Park, armed to the teeth.

So in a big search there will certainly be records of an accounting of how many employees were involved, how much overtime paid and how charged off. And even how many volunteers, because although not paid, volunteers have to be fed and lodged and often equipped, and a record of that would exist. Then there would be aircraft and large vehicle log books of hours burned on what dates (which would probably include a reference to a search by name of the missing person, e.g. "Johnson Boy Search" if nothing more) as well as some sort of budgeting/accounting records.

Now the DoI could conceivably get by without recording all the details of a missing person case and search (maybe not even names), or the unusual and anomalous factors involved...but I don't believe it. And with the department-wide policy of Interior being to stonewall on these things, there will be no way for a citizen to make them give it up. The only way I see it happening is if the US Attorney's Office (in effect the federal D.A.) in the particular district that the Park is in, begins a grand-jury investigation. In this case it would be difficult, since the US Attorney has to have a federal investigative agency "on board" and handling the street work. Here the only agencies with jurisdiction in the case, Interior and FBI, have both shown, let us say, "a lack of candor" in the matter. IMO it would take a US Attorney who knew a family involved in one of the disappearances for an investigation to be undertaken.

You sir hit the nail on the head with Paulides.  He is a con man and a fraud.  I conducted my own fact checking on this Ass Clown and wrote a lengthy review on Amazon.  I don't see the point of re posting a 5000 word essay here, but his research and credability are less than desirable.

[BobGrau]

You sir hit the nail on the head with Paulides.  He is a con man and a fraud.  I conducted my own fact checking on this Ass Clown and wrote a lengthy review on Amazon.  I don't see the point of re posting a 5000 word essay here, but his research and credability are less than desirable.

got a link?

[ziznak]

Paulides didn't seem to be pressing his book on us too much nor did he seem to be pressing any crazy theory into our foreheads.  He definitely didn't come off like the regular C2C con artist... I'd like to see any info you have on him as well.

[Juan]

Maybe this is the link
http://www.amazon.com/review/R17M0AXEMAG3HT/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R17M0AXEMAG3HT

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I am leaning towards 2) Bigfoot.

In addition, Bigfeet may be able to control animals and insects-for example surrounding someone with an insect swarm to get them to take their clothes off or run very far distances to flee the insects

[BobGrau]

Maybe this is the link
http://www.amazon.com/review/R17M0AXEMAG3HT/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R17M0AXEMAG3HT

Wow, 'robert' is angry! Pretty damning stuff tho. Oh well.

[Sardondi]

Wow, 'robert' is angry! Pretty damning stuff tho. Oh well.

Might as well pile on: every single C2C guest I've ever thought, "Maybe this one has his stuff together!" about, has been pretty conclusively undermined elsewhere. Every.single.one. Why should Paulides be any different? *sigh*

[Abraham Lincoln]

I must admit I enjoyed David's previous appearance on the show and this most recent one, but whether you think him credible or completely full of shit, everyone should check out an interview he did on Dark Matters Radio with Don Ecker.

The podcast is available on iTunes. It was recorded in mid-May, so right between his last and latest appearances on C2C.

It's interesting because some key questions the host asks, when compared to similar questions asked of him on Coast, pretty much expose him as an ass-hat fraud.

Throughout the interview the host, Don Ecker, who has a refreshingly authoritative approach to radio, will contest something David has said as being "ridiculous" or "impossible" and rather than answer immediately, Paulides leaves a good bit of dead air just hanging there before responding, as if he's been knocked off his script or is waiting to be called out as a liar.

Ecker asks, with such clandestine evil going on within the National Park Service, don't they have their own version of Internal Affairs to contend with these matters? Of course, Paulides doesn't know.

Ecker also asked him that if the NPS wasn't giving him any help, his next step should be to go to his local Congressman or Senator, as they would be able to put pressure on the NPS and help him get the information he was requesting. Paulides says "Honestly, no I haven't thought to do that."

NOW, that one is interesting, because in his latest interview with George Knapp he goes out of his way to point out that during his investigations he did indeed contact his Congressman in order to put pressure on said officials.

Hmmmmm?

One other thing, he brought up the case of the child that was abducted by a "hairy man" where another family heard a scream and saw the hairy figure with something on it's back running beyond the treeline.

Eckers said, although that seemed to be the direction the story was headed, he didn't want to get too far into the supernatural possibilities.

Paulides conforms to this and says one of the authority figures told him that the problem was "Wild Men". Families of wild people who live in the Park system and routinely kidnap people, but the Park Service is helpless against them because if it was proven to be so, they would be liable for all the disappearances.

That makes some sense, but it's funny that he went with that option when it became apparent the host might not buy his theory that Bigfoot or Dog Men are responsible, i.e. whatever he said to George on C2C.

Despite all this, Don is a gracious host who, ultimately, doesn't seem to acknowledge any of this as anything but factual and asks to have David back on. I sincerely hope he does, as I want to call in and confront him.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Grimace]

Wow, I enjoyed the interviews I heard with Knapp but this information is indeed pretty damning stuff. Looking forward to hearing that interview by Don Ecker now, haha. That Amazon review is great, too.

[McPhallus]

I am leaning towards 2) Bigfoot.

In addition, Bigfeet may be able to control animals and insects-for example surrounding someone with an insect swarm to get them to take their clothes off or run very far distances to flee the insects

I use this ability all the time on dates.

[Sardondi]

I use this ability all the time on dates.

Ah, c'mon - I thought surely the name "McPhallus" would be all you needed to have your dates tear their clothes off.

[ziznak]

It's pronounced Mick Fay-Louse...

[Zircon]

Mc"Phallus" ... right ... ha! ha! Probably Mc"Gerken"

[Lovely Bones]

To me the most compelling element of Paulides' reports on these missing cases had to do with the behavior of the trailing and cadaver dogs. 

Witnesses can and do make mistakes in reporting.  Agencies have all sorts of reasons for concealing or bending the truth.

But canines are our best and most accurate reporters, especially when those canines are Bloodhounds.  Recent testing (early 2000's) by the FBI Scent Unit has blown to pieces all sorts of anecdotal mythology about the limits of scent dog capabilities.  Quantifying tests have shown experienced Bloodhounds with experienced handlers to have an accuracy rate of 96% at 48 hours in a variety of settings (heavily traveled urban, suburban, forested, etc.).  A group out of Virginia is working with non-Bloodhounds and having success rates following 6-month-plus-old scents, work that's corroborated by the FBI testing. 

Soooo . . . why in so many of these cases have the dogs simply stopped, circled, laid down, indicated that they've lost the scent on relatively fresh trails? 

Before I write off Paulides based on an Amazon reviewer whose credentials I know nothing about, I'll trust scent dogs I've never met.  While an occasional dog can be ill or have a bad day, too many of these cases involve dogs acting in ways that seem inexplicable (at least without my having had a chance to read the handlers' reports indicating information to the contrary). 

That said, the dogs' behavior doesn't provide answers, just questions.

And from listening to both Paulides' shows, I think that's all Paulides is doing--posing questions. 

[Zircon]

To me the most compelling element of Paulides' reports on these missing cases had to do with the behavior of the trailing and cadaver dogs. 

Witnesses can and do make mistakes in reporting.  Agencies have all sorts of reasons for concealing or bending the truth.

But canines are our best and most accurate reporters, especially when those canines are Bloodhounds.  Recent testing (early 2000's) by the FBI Scent Unit has blown to pieces all sorts of anecdotal mythology about the limits of scent dog capabilities.  Quantifying tests have shown experienced Bloodhounds with experienced handlers to have an accuracy rate of 96% at 48 hours in a variety of settings (heavily traveled urban, suburban, forested, etc.).  A group out of Virginia is working with non-Bloodhounds and having success rates following 6-month-plus-old scents, work that's corroborated by the FBI testing. 

Soooo . . . why in so many of these cases have the dogs simply stopped, circled, laid down, indicated that they've lost the scent on relatively fresh trails? 

Before I write off Paulides based on an Amazon reviewer whose credentials I know nothing about, I'll trust scent dogs I've never met.  While an occasional dog can be ill or have a bad day, too many of these cases involve dogs acting in ways that seem inexplicable (at least without my having had a chance to read the handlers' reports indicating information to the contrary). 

That said, the dogs' behavior doesn't provide answers, just questions.

And from listening to both Paulides' shows, I think that's all Paulides is doing--posing questions. 

That was a good post Bones. I listened intently to this particular program and Paulides clearly indicated he wasn't going to offer up a reason/conclusion to "satisfy" questioners on what happened. He doesn't know and said as much. He was actually "reporting" rather than "lecturing". Props to this guy in my view. Not all will share that but it is my opinion of him.

[Lovely Bones]

That was a good post Bones. I listened intently to this particular program and Paulides clearly indicated he wasn't going to offer up a reason/conclusion to "satisfy" questioners on what happened. He doesn't know and said as much. He was actually "reporting" rather than "lecturing". Props to this guy in my view. Not all will share that but it is my opinion of him.

Thanks, Zircon.  Agree on the "reporting" assessment.  That's why I don't understand the scathing attack on him.  I ordered the book 3 months ago from Amazon--out of stock, no copies in yet--so can only go by the 2 Knapp shows, but what I've heard is not someone interpreting or skewing data to some viewpoint, rather merely collecting and reporting data. 

[Sardondi]

Thanks, Zircon.  Agree on the "reporting" assessment.  That's why I don't understand the scathing attack on him....

Nor do I. I'm still struck by the show and Paulides' presentation. rob69's broadside really took the wind out of my sails though. I was very impressed at how detailed Paulides was. It meant to me that he was upping the ante, because there was no way to later claim he was mistaken or misunderstood something. Either the disappearances it happened the way he said and the DoI/FBI later stonewalled and even lied to him and many others seeking information, or Paulides is a triple-plated-brass liar.

It's of course conceivable that he simply made stuff up and lied about many details; but if so, the lies are just hanging out there for someone to demolish if they only looked. I'm not sure rob69 proved Paulides lied on the program.

Speaking of whom, does anyone know rob69? I ask only to try to figure out the reason for the attack. Having a bone to pick with someone is a well-respected pastime around here, but I must say rob69 struck me as an impassioned man with a mission. But "not that there's anything wrong with that" as Seinfeld taught us. 

[ziznak]

I don't know guys... half of me says all of his evidence would point any irrational idiot to the bigfoot solution... the rest will probly adopt the alien solution... He made a big point about "horizontal wounds" meaning the victims were moved through the forest "horizontally" which would rule out any aliens right?... unless they do some sort of earth surfing... with humans as surfboards... Paulides seems to have many enemies in the law enforcement agencies which turns my nose a bit... if he WAS a respected lawman and what not I would think he would have some sort of support... he doesn't ... he's alone.. the parks hate his ass.  i would think that if he was respectable he would have some past acquaintances that would back him up... hmmmmmmmm?

[Sardondi]

I don't know guys... half of me says all of his evidence would point any irrational idiot to the bigfoot solution... the rest will probly adopt the alien solution... He made a big point about "horizontal wounds" meaning the victims were moved through the forest "horizontally" which would rule out any aliens right?... unless they do some sort of earth surfing... with humans as surfboards... Paulides seems to have many enemies in the law enforcement agencies which turns my nose a bit... if he WAS a respected lawman and what not I would think he would have some sort of support... he doesn't ... he's alone.. the parks hate his ass.  i would think that if he was respectable he would have some past acquaintances that would back him up... hmmmmmmmm?

My take was exactly the opposite: if Paulides was disreputable his past acquaintances would have shot him down long ago...and not just one person with questionable motives who appears to have joined the forum specifically to torpedo Paulides.

Even after reading the posts and "Robert's" Amazon review, I saw nothing that seriously undermined Paulides. It still appeared to me that he correctly reported the facts surrounding the disappearances themselves, and didn't exaggerate/leave out details or cherry pick events or stats, and also accurately reported difficulties with DoI. For example, I felt that Paulides accurately reported that a witness saw the huge thing carrying something in the distance.

As for rob69's challenge, I am not persuaded for three reasons. First, he primarily states conclusions along the lines of Paulides is a liar, he cherry picked cases, he left out details, etc. But rarely does rob69/Robert establish the reason he says so. Second, when he does so, the "errors" he points out are by and large irrelevant or de minimis. Third, his extraordinarily energetic objections burn with the white hot heat of the obsessed, and the more I read them the less convinced I become of his assertions, and the more I doubt his objectivity and good faith. Does anyone seriously doubt he's the "Robert" of the linked Amazon review (which BTW is by far the longest I have ever seen). He cares waaaay too much for me to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him just because he asserts something.

So I can't say I think Paulides has been seriously undermined by what rob69 has said. That doesn't mean he can't be, it's just that what he's presented to undermine Paulides hasn't.