Mysterious Disappearances - your theories

[ziznak]

Looks like a job for SuperHAL!!!  I don't know I think I'm going to do a bit of my own research here.  One thing really nags me though.  The Bigfoot thing.  Paulides doesn't state that he thinks that the large footed ones are behind the missing people BUT Im starting to think that he doesn't need to since most of his fans would simply make that connection themselves.  Very good points though Sardondi.  rob69 does seem to have a bit of a beef now that I've read through his post again.  The amazon review is suspect as well.  I actually am going to look around a bit.

Edit:
Ok I couldn't find anything negative during my albeit short poking around online... one reviewer did however say something that I've been thinking.  Paulides doesn't say that bigfoot is to blame but imply's it in a way.  Of course he doesn't rule out any other nefarious forces at work but his ties to the BF community and his BF research I think makes him a bit suspect.  I can't really make up my mind about him at this point.

[Lovely Bones]

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.

[bolding mine]

I first read "Robert's" Amazon reviews last March when I ordered the Paulides book (still waiting, Amazon, so please get on the stick!).  And your third point was my first reaction to his tirade--I sensed there was something personal driving him to put emotion before evidence in his review.  I have no idea what that might be, but his review is clearly the outlier.

I guess we're supposed to believe he's the only one who sees the truth about Paulides, and all the other good folks who have read and reviewed the book are either a) innocent but dumb-as-rocks tin foil hat wearers who have been duped by a slick con artist or b) co-conspirators with Paulides.  Why else would we choose to believe the outlier and reject all the other viewpoints? 

I'm tempted to think ol' Robert just might have some chip on his shoulder with regard to Paulides because of some personal interaction with him.  Maybe Paulides got the promotion he wanted or the girl he wanted.  Who knows?  But until Robert can provide some credible evidence to back up his assertions, I think I'll just keep his charges on the back burner and continue to be intrigued by Paulides' stories of these disappearances.

Meanwhile, as for explanation, I don't think Paulides does more than suggest that in a few of the cases Bigfoot has arisen as a potential "suspect"--most notably the Dennis Martin case.  And I don't know how one would ignore Bigfoot as a suspect there, with eyewitness reports of a big, hairy creature carrying off something or someone in the area the child disappeared.

But I've also studied eyewitness identifications in some depth (never ran into Bigfoot before while doing so) and am familiar with all the ways in which these are so frequently skewed by factors a) intrinsic to the sighting itself and b) unwittingly induced by otherwise well-meaning law enforcement. 

I'm intrigued by the reasoning someone mentioned regarding the military being called in, too.  Can't remember if it was a caller to the show or a  poster here, but the implication was that if Green Berets were on the scene, some matter of national security might be involved.  Military personnel sometimes help with searches (IIRC that might have been the case in the search for Chandra Levy), but I'll be darned if I can recall a case where the Green Berets showed up to help look for anyone. 

[Sardondi]

...I'm tempted to think ol' Robert just might have some chip on his shoulder with regard to Paulides because of some personal interaction with him.  Maybe Paulides got the promotion he wanted or the girl he wanted.  Who knows?  But until Robert can provide some credible evidence to back up his assertions, I think I'll just keep his charges on the back burner and continue to be intrigued by Paulides' stories of these disappearances....

Exactly.

...Meanwhile, as for explanation, I don't think Paulides does more than suggest that in a few of the cases Bigfoot has arisen as a potential "suspect"--most notably the Dennis Martin case.  And I don't know how one would ignore Bigfoot as a suspect there, with eyewitness reports of a big, hairy creature carrying off something or someone in the area the child disappeared....

Again, that is exactly the point. Gee, you're a  smart guy! 

[rob69]

[bolding mine]

I'm tempted to think ol' Robert just might have some chip on his shoulder with regard to Paulides because of some personal interaction with him.  Maybe Paulides got the promotion he wanted or the girl he wanted.  Who knows?  But until Robert can provide some credible evidence to back up his assertions, I think I'll just keep his charges on the back burner and continue to be intrigued by Paulides' stories of these disappearances.

Firstly, to clarify a point here, the only chip on my shoulder is the fact that he is selling this garbage as factual.  90% of missing people, who are found dead, are found with articles of clothing missing, especially if they were out in the elements for any duration of time.  Paulides outright refuses to acknowledge this! 

Secondly, what credible evidence do you need to back up my assertions?  Are you one to say that newspaper articles about his arrest and indictment are planted?  Are you also saying that the San Jose City Police and Fire retirement board’s minutes are also planted?     

[McPhallus]

Firstly, to clarify a point here, the only chip on my shoulder is the fact that he is selling this garbage as factual.  90% of missing people, who are found dead, are found with articles of clothing missing, especially if they were out in the elements for any duration of time.  Paulides outright refuses to acknowledge this! 

Secondly, what credible evidence do you need to back up my assertions?  Are you one to say that newspaper articles about his arrest and indictment are planted?  Are you also saying that the San Jose City Police and Fire retirement board’s minutes are also planted?     

I think the question is do you have any kind of connection to Paulides (personal contact, colleague, etc).  Full disclosure, and all that.

[ziznak]

Firstly, to clarify a point here, the only chip on my shoulder is the fact that he is selling this garbage as factual.  90% of missing people, who are found dead, are found with articles of clothing missing, especially if they were out in the elements for any duration of time.  Paulides outright refuses to acknowledge this! 

Secondly, what credible evidence do you need to back up my assertions?  Are you one to say that newspaper articles about his arrest and indictment are planted?  Are you also saying that the San Jose City Police and Fire retirement board’s minutes are also planted?     

And do you have legitimate sources you can link to besides that scathing Amazon review?

[rob69]

I think the question is do you have any kind of connection to Paulides (personal contact, colleague, etc).  Full disclosure, and all that.

No I don't, never met the man.  What kind of full disclosure are you looking for?   

To further solidify my argument that he is a liar, here are a few links that I couldn't put in the Amazon review, due to site rules.

Link to the SJ Police and Fire retirement Board's vote to award Paulides a 16.5 year deferred vesting in 2011.  Does that sound like he retired with 20 years of service? 


http://www.sjretirement.com/Uploads/PF/Minutes%20-%20June%202011%20(Signed).pdf

San Jose Mercury news archive with an excerpt of the high points, the full article is available to paying members.   

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SJ&p_theme=sj&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(paulides)%20AND%20date(1/1/2010%20to%201/1/1985)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/2010%20to%201/1/1985)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("paulides")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

(Excerpt)

Article 6 of 18, Article ID: 9612250160
Published on December 21, 1996, San Jose Mercury News (CA)
S.J. OFFICER ACCUSED OF FALSE SOLICITATION AUTOGRAPHS: A FORCE VETERAN ALLEGEDLY USED CITY STATIONERY TO ASK FOR MEMORABILIA.
When a veteran San Jose police officer began soliciting celebrity autographs on city stationery, he wound up with more than just a friendly letter from singer Lionel Richie to hang on his wall. He also got an arrest warrant last week charging him with a misdemeanor count of falsely soliciting for charity - a crime for which he could face a year in jail. Officer David Paul Paulides, 40, aroused suspicions after he was seen using city stationery on the departments

Or another source archive.  December 21, 1996
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives

It is possible that there was another David Paul Paulides that worked for the San Jose Police Department at the same time and these two are totally independent of each other, but really, what are the odds? 


Someone brought up the issue that no one else has questioned his background.  I beg to disagree, there are all kind of issues being brought up with Mr. Paulides.  Here is a link to a review of his "Hoopa Project".  I find it interesting that the same lack of fact checking was also found in this book as well. 

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/bigfoot-wars-1-truth-you-cant-handle.html

And here:

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/reading-hoopa-project-study-in.html


Finally, what does my perceived relationship with Paulides have to do with my review of his book?  My facts were well documented, annotated and articulated.  If it was ranting, without having read the book like some of the commenter's, then I can see a point being raised.  Everything I stated was accurate.  Paulides is a LIAR, and a CON MAN and he lost his Police job because of it.  His books facts' are cherry picked and cobbled together to make his theory fit, and the "facts" lack any serious fact checking. 

 

[ziznak]

You wouldn't happen to be involved in some sort of bigfoot organization would you??  I'm smelling some beef here that's VERY well cooked...

[rob69]

You wouldn't happen to be involved in some sort of bigfoot organization would you??  I'm smelling some beef here that's VERY well cooked...

No.  I guess my links weren't legitimate enough for you?  Are you a relative of Paulides?  I'm smelling an apologist who may be related to David. 

[ziznak]

I don't know all that you've proved is that he rounded up 16.5 to 20 years on the force, he got some autographs under false pretenses(?) and that even the bigfoot people hate him.  If you read through this thread I actually think he was implying bigfoot was responsible for the disappearances although he wasn't coming right out and saying it.  He wouldn't have to.  Fan's of his BF work would most likely read his missing persons stuff and make the connection on their own.  Jury's still out in my case I'm just throwin out ideas... and one idea I got is you have an uncanny vendetta going on.

[Sardondi]

No I don't, never met the man.  What kind of full disclosure are you looking for?   

To further solidify my argument that he is a liar, here are a few links that I couldn't put in the Amazon review, due to site rules.....[snip]

You don't get that most of these evoke a huge "so what?" from readers? I'm seeing an anomaly of scale between your vehemence and this....proof.

I haven't dug into these, but from scanning the subjects, and even accepting as true what they seem to establish, I still don't see what the deal is. He used city stationery for autographs? He had 16.5 years in the SJPD instead of 20? I mean c'mon man.

Look, I don't care about the guy; I don't care about his subject other than I thought it was an interesting program. Maybe I've missed the hidden treasure, but I'm scratching my head over your efforts to torpedo Paulides, and why you would think these links do that. I've assessed evidence, interrogated people and sifted through conflicting statements for a living for over 30 years - and your accusations, the way you make them and the significance you assign them are all telling me a great deal more about you than about Paulides.

*edit* Oops. In the time I started a post and got around to finishing I see zisnak had already essentially said what I did. Sorry for duplication of effort.

[onan]

We all get our pants in a snit about shit that doesn't bother others all that much. So he hates paulides. If the guy is suggesting bigfoot did it, I hate him too.

[MV/Liberace!]

If the guy is suggesting bigfoot did it, I hate him too.

hahahaha.   +1

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Well Rob69 I think you make a convincing case now that I have read everything.

Paulides did put on a good radio show though same as Bob Lazar and Roger Leir (the alien implant doctor) and many others on Coast 2 Coast.

[Sardondi]

We all get our pants in a snit about shit that doesn't bother others all that much. So he hates paulides. If the guy is suggesting bigfoot did it, I hate him too.

That's just it - he didn't, and even said more than once he drew no conclusions, just gathered, collated and presented the evidence. Apparently the "he said Bigfoot did it" thing arose out of the fact a witness to one missing person/abduction looked across to a mountainside in the area of the search for the missing child, and saw a large furry biped which looked like it was carrying something. The witness reported nothing at the time for fear of embarrassment  (other listeners, do I have that right?). Paulides merely reported what he was told, and even at that point resisted drawing what IMO was the obvious conclusion.

[Juan]

90% of missing people, who are found dead, are found with articles of clothing missing, especially if they were out in the elements for any duration of time. 

I'm curious about this - do you have a cite?  Or did you mean the 90% figuratively.  I'd still like to see a good study about missing clothing.  And I suspect all missing clothing is not the same - for instance, we recently had a waitress at a strip club disappear.  She was last seen riding her bicycle away from the club at about 3AM.  She was found a few blocks away - dead in the woods. Her pants, bicycle and cell phone were missing.  I don't suspect bigfoot.

[Lovely Bones]

That's just it - he didn't, and even said more than once he drew no conclusions, just gathered, collated and presented the evidence. Apparently the "he said Bigfoot did it" thing arose out of the fact a witness to one missing person/abduction looked across to a mountainside in the area of the search for the missing child, and saw a large furry biped which looked like it was carrying something. The witness reported nothing at the time for fear of embarrassment  (other listeners, do I have that right?). Paulides merely reported what he was told, and even at that point resisted drawing what IMO was the obvious conclusion.

You got it right, Sardoni.

And that's where Rob's rant goes majorly astray for me.  He claims Paulides facts are "cherry picked and cobbled together to make his theory fit."

But Paulides does not offer a theory. 

So Rob is misreading/mishearing/misinterpreting what Paulides has done. 

Someone on the thread suggested a member of a rival Bigfoot group.  Wonder if that's the "personal connection" that causes the white hot heat?  Is there a concern from some corner (due to misreading) that Paulides is presenting dear Bigfoot as a maurading, murdering species kidnapping innocents in the wild and that his books will stir some kind of Bigfoot posses to start shooting Bigfeet (?) willy-nilly as retribution?

[Lovely Bones]

I'm curious about this - do you have a cite?  Or did you mean the 90% figuratively.  I'd still like to see a good study about missing clothing.  And I suspect all missing clothing is not the same - for instance, we recently had a waitress at a strip club disappear.  She was last seen riding her bicycle away from the club at about 3AM.  She was found a few blocks away - dead in the woods. Her pants, bicycle and cell phone were missing.  I don't suspect bigfoot.

Good question, Fill.  I don't have a clothing study at my fingertips, but missing persons' cases are a passion of mine.  I'm kind of a forensics freak (hence the lovely bones moniker) and spend a ridiculous amount of time studying such cases.

Methinks Rob has just pulled the "90% of missing people, who are found dead, are found with articles of clothing missing" claim out of thin air.  Missing-found-dead come in all shapes and sizes, which is to say (as he surely knows) that some are found within hours of going missing while others aren't found till they're skeletonized months later while others aren't found for decades. 

With regard to clothing, the interesting thing about Paulides' cases were the number where clothing was found nearby and neatly folded.   In the thousands of MP cases I've read about, I have yet to come across your basic MP case where a killer folded the victim's clothing and left it near the body (Chandra Levy's sweatshirt was found near her skeletonized remains when found a year after her disappearance, for instance, but no one had folded it).  He also noted a number where the clothing was left in almost unimaginable positions, pants left in semi-standing positions, as if the person who'd worn them had been removed from them and the pants remained, semi-upright.  If Rob can show us police reports that contradict that kind of report, I'm open to listening.  But I also know that LE (and media) can be--uh--sometimes less than forthcoming in what they'll reveal in reports.  Sometimes they don't want the public to know certain things to reduce potential public panic; sometimes (as in the Mitrice Richardson case, among others) they want to cover their own behinds. 

[rob69]

You don't get that most of these evoke a huge "so what?" from readers? I'm seeing an anomaly of scale between your vehemence and this....proof.

I haven't dug into these, but from scanning the subjects, and even accepting as true what they seem to establish, I still don't see what the deal is. He used city stationery for autographs? He had 16.5 years in the SJPD instead of 20? I mean c'mon man.

Look, I don't care about the guy; I don't care about his subject other than I thought it was an interesting program. Maybe I've missed the hidden treasure, but I'm scratching my head over your efforts to torpedo Paulides, and why you would think these links do that. I've assessed evidence, interrogated people and sifted through conflicting statements for a living for over 30 years - and your accusations, the way you make them and the significance you assign them are all telling me a great deal more about you than about Paulides.

*edit* Oops. In the time I started a post and got around to finishing I see zisnak had already essentially said what I did. Sorry for duplication of effort.

C'mon man how anyone can make an intelligent and educated assertion about something they heard on a radio show vs. reading his printed words and thoughts are mind boggling.  Yes he is articulate and intelligent.  So was Ted Bundy. 

C'mon man, a lie by omission is the same as a lie by commission, right?  I certainly hope you don’t handle your interviews in the same slick ass fast food style as you pooh-poohed this away.  16.5 years IS NOT 20 years.  I don’t care how you characterize, rationalize, slice it or dice it!  He has shown he is not above lying to achieve his results, then or now.  Just because he says so doesn’t make it so.

 

[rob69]

I'm curious about this - do you have a cite?  Or did you mean the 90% figuratively.  I'd still like to see a good study about missing clothing.  And I suspect all missing clothing is not the same - for instance, we recently had a waitress at a strip club disappear.  She was last seen riding her bicycle away from the club at about 3AM.  She was found a few blocks away - dead in the woods. Her pants, bicycle and cell phone were missing.  I don't suspect bigfoot.

Come on out or volunteer on any organized SAR.  Finding someone who has succumbed to hypothermia is found in 90% of the cases with missing clothes.  This phenomenon is called paradoxical undressing. 

[rob69]

Good question, Fill.  I don't have a clothing study at my fingertips, but missing persons' cases are a passion of mine.  I'm kind of a forensics freak (hence the lovely bones moniker) and spend a ridiculous amount of time studying such cases.

Methinks Rob has just pulled the "90% of missing people, who are found dead, are found with articles of clothing missing" claim out of thin air.  Missing-found-dead come in all shapes and sizes, which is to say (as he surely knows) that some are found within hours of going missing while others aren't found till they're skeletonized months later while others aren't found for decades. 

With regard to clothing, the interesting thing about Paulides' cases were the number where clothing was found nearby and neatly folded.   In the thousands of MP cases I've read about, I have yet to come across your basic MP case where a killer folded the victim's clothing and left it near the body (Chandra Levy's sweatshirt was found near her skeletonized remains when found a year after her disappearance, for instance, but no one had folded it).  He also noted a number where the clothing was left in almost unimaginable positions, pants left in semi-standing positions, as if the person who'd worn them had been removed from them and the pants remained, semi-upright.  If Rob can show us police reports that contradict that kind of report, I'm open to listening.  But I also know that LE (and media) can be--uh--sometimes less than forthcoming in what they'll reveal in reports.  Sometimes they don't want the public to know certain things to reduce potential public panic; sometimes (as in the Mitrice Richardson case, among others) they want to cover their own behinds.

Please stick to studying cases.  As I mentioned earlier come on out or volunteer on a SAR.  Another point I didn’t mention is the ancillary phenomenon of terminal burrowing.  This is associated with the final stages of hypothermia. 

Paulides states that “clothing was found nearby and neatly folded”, since you are still waiting for his book from Amazon then you wouldn’t know that this was only mentioned in two cases he investigated.  And then it boils down to what he said. 

Methinks that maybe you should reserve any “conclusions” until you have:

1.   Read the book
2.   Understand the effects of hypothermia, paradoxical undressing and terminal burrowing.
3.   Volunteer on a SAR team for years to discover first hand #2.

Methinks also that maybe you are also related to David. 

[Sardondi]

Now where did that blasted "ignore" button go?....

[MABUSE]

I just can't resist the classic Norry rejoinder:
"Was it angels?"

Ok, sorry, back to the crypt for me, see you'se guys at the next thawing.
~~M~~

[BobGrau]

I just can't resist the classic Norry rejoinder:
"Was it angels?"

Ok, sorry, back to the crypt for me, see you'se guys at the next thawing.
~~M~~

Of course it was angels... hairy angels.

[Lovely Bones]

Come on out or volunteer on any organized SAR.  Finding someone who has succumbed to hypothermia is found in 90% of the cases with missing clothes.  This phenomenon is called paradoxical undressing.

Finding someone who has succumbed to hypothermia

Yeah, Rob.  Most of us know about paradoxical undressing and don't need your lesson.  What we need is your honesty in posts.  Your 90% figure wasn't given as 90% of missing persons who died from exposure (that was an "especially" tacked on at the end, with the "90%" figure standing as the whole group figure). Talk about lies of omission and commission.  You don't mention those who died from suicide, accident, or murder (none of whom are likely to engage in paradoxical undressing).

Paulides research starts from the premise that people go missing in the forests, national parks, wilderness areas, etc. on a regular basis all the time and die from exposure, falling in rivers, from accidents, blah blah blah BUT THAT IS NOT THE GROUP OF MP HE IS COLLECTING DATA REGARDING.

[Lovely Bones]

Please stick to studying cases.  As I mentioned earlier come on out or volunteer on a SAR.  Another point I didn’t mention is the ancillary phenomenon of terminal burrowing.  This is associated with the final stages of hypothermia. 

Paulides states that “clothing was found nearby and neatly folded”, since you are still waiting for his book from Amazon then you wouldn’t know that this was only mentioned in two cases he investigated.  And then it boils down to what he said. 

Methinks that maybe you should reserve any “conclusions” until you have:

1.   Read the book
2.   Understand the effects of hypothermia, paradoxical undressing and terminal burrowing.
3.   Volunteer on a SAR team for years to discover first hand #2.

Methinks also that maybe you are also related to David.

Now we get to see the real Rob and why he makes assumptions about Paulides.  Don't make assumptions about me. 

As for reading the book, well, damn it, I ordered it on 3/26/12.  I can't get more copies into Amazon's hands until there are more available.  Maybe you can send one to each of us.  In the meantime, I HAVE listened to 8 hours of interview conducted by a respected investigative journalist who's won more than a dozen emmy awards, an Edward R. Murrow award, writing awards from the AP, and at least one (if not more) Peabody award(s).  I think I'll trust that if Paulides were the horrible fraud you say he is, Knapp would have--at the least--raised some skeptical eyebrows for his listeners to consider regarding Paulides. 

At this point, most of us have a significant history with Knapp and put some trust in him.  With you, none. 

[Lovely Bones]

Now where did that blasted "ignore" button go?....

Oh, Sardoni, my friend, you are so much wiser than I am.   

[rob69]

Finding someone who has succumbed to hypothermia

Yeah, Rob.  Most of us know about paradoxical undressing and don't need your lesson.  What we need is your honesty in posts.  Your 90% figure wasn't given as 90% of missing persons who died from exposure (that was an "especially" tacked on at the end, with the "90%" figure standing as the whole group figure). Talk about lies of omission and commission.  You don't mention those who died from suicide, accident, or murder (none of whom are likely to engage in paradoxical undressing).

Paulides research starts from the premise that people go missing in the forests, national parks, wilderness areas, etc. on a regular basis all the time and die from exposure, falling in rivers, from accidents, blah blah blah BUT THAT IS NOT THE GROUP OF MP HE IS COLLECTING DATA REGARDING.

If you "know about paradoxical undressing” and don't need your lesson”, regarding this, how did you listened to 8 hours of Paulides and not pick up on his utter refusal to acknowledge this?  I find this disingenuous on your part.  You know about this phenomenon, but refuse to acknowledge this as an explanation because…….why?  He says so?  Never let the facts get in the way of a good fairy tale, right?  Or are you just enthralled by David's intriguing stories?

Additionally, and more germane to my articulations, did I miss something here, the context of my assertion was in regards to the topic of the book, not suicides or other nefarious acts; you included Chandra Levy I didn’t. 

I don't know how to address the "Paulides research starts from the premise that people go missing in the forests, national parks, wilderness areas, etc. on a regular basis all the time and die from exposure, falling in rivers, from accidents, blah blah blah BUT THAT IS NOT THE GROUP OF MP HE IS COLLECTING DATA REGARDING." 
 
Is there a question or a statement here?  What is MP?  Missing people, perhaps.  All I can say is, how would you know what the premise of the book is without having read it?  Is this a statement your making based on the radio interview you heard? 

Now we get to see the real Rob and why he makes assumptions about Paulides.  Don't make assumptions about me. 

Interesting, can you say Hypocrite?   How can YOU make assumptions about me, then when I reciprocate in kind it’s suddenly an issue?   

Did I misinterpret this?

“Methinks Rob has just pulled the "90% of missing people, who are found dead, are found with articles of clothing missing" claim out of thin air.  Missing-found-dead come in all shapes and sizes, which is to say (as he surely knows) that some are found within hours of going missing while others aren't found till they're skeletonized months later while others aren't found for decades. “

How about this one as well?

“I'm tempted to think ol' Robert just might have some chip on his shoulder with regard to Paulides because of some personal interaction with him.  Maybe Paulides got the promotion he wanted or the girl he wanted.  Who knows?  But until Robert can provide some credible evidence to back up his assertions, I think I'll just keep his charges on the back burner and continue to be intrigued by Paulides' stories of these disappearances.”

Here’s an observation and an assertion, not an assumption, I tried to be civil with you so to that end, I don’t want upset your frail sensibilities.  Lovely Bones this is nothing more than a typical diversionary tactic delivered by a thin skinned hypocrite to the nth degree.  You can’t argue facts so you will attack the messenger.  Brilliant! 

As for reading the book, well, damn it, I ordered it on 3/26/12.  I can't get more copies into Amazon's hands until there are more available.  Maybe you can send one to each of us.  In the meantime, I HAVE listened to 8 hours of interview conducted by a respected investigative journalist who's won more than a dozen emmy awards, an Edward R. Murrow award, writing awards from the AP, and at least one (if not more) Peabody award(s).  I think I'll trust that if Paulides were the horrible fraud you say he is, Knapp would have--at the least--raised some skeptical eyebrows for his listeners to consider regarding Paulides.

Wow just 8 hours?  I think I heard him mention as many times as he dismissed the hypothermia issue that his book was ONLY available through his site, which is why you have been waiting since March 26.  Maybe it’s a case of selective listening,   but I could be mistaken.

I agree that Knapp is an award winning journalist for the work HE has done.  Anyone can interview a book writer.  Paulides was interviewed by Rene Rinse and Don Ecker.  Did you happen to listen to these as well?  I did listen to him on Rinse and guess what?  There were quite a few instances where a skeptical eye was raised.  I can’t speak for Don Ecker’s show, but from what I can discern he wasn’t given a pass.  I can also say that in the Rinse show he couldn’t get his facts straight about how much the FOIA was going to cost him, from Rinse to C2C.   

I can’t speak for Knapp, or his motivations however, he has also interviewed John Lear, and Bob Lazar as well.  Are you inferring that they are above board, truthful, honest and credible?   Furthermore, if Knapp were to have interviewed him on his TV program, I think more energy would be put into his bona fides, or at least a counterpoint guest to dispel his hypothermia arguments.  This is speculation on my part.  Needless to say C2C is an entertainment program, unless of course I am missing something.  Am I?   

An award winning journalist and other non award winning people have interviewed Paulides.   So what is the point that you are trying to make?   

At this point, most of us have a significant history with Knapp and put some trust in him.  With you, none.

No truer words spoken as a diversionary tactic, when all other arguments have failed!  My credibility is not at issue here, it’s the authors.  For example, you claim you know about paradoxical undressing, and listened to 8 hours of him talking about his book and his outright disregard of hypothermia as a cause and effect, and still consider HIM credible? 

This is a prime example of the ability to talk out of both sides of ones mouth.   Listen to what you are saying.   You can’t have it both ways.  Either you know about this phenomenon and disregard Paulides’ asinine explanation contrary to what is regarded as legitimate, or you are clueless. 

What history of Knapp’s are you referring to, his ability to ask questions?  Knapp didn’t embark on this odyssey; otherwise I would give him credit.  Are you referring to HIS (Knapp’s) investigative journalism in the past, and contrasting it to his radio interview?    Knapp didn’t conduct this investigation; he interviewed a man that did.  Then you make the gratuitous assertion that you find him more credible than me because he can interview someone.  Again I ask what convoluted point are you trying to make?

You are either lying about your knowledge of paradoxical undressing or you are oblivious to the obvious; in any case your credibility as an objective observer is seriously questionable.  This could explain why you haven’t listened to his other radio interviews; they pose a threat to your need to believe in fairy tales, regardless of the facts, or you are a relative of Paulides. 

I will do this.  If you donate 500.00 dollars to any organized Search and Rescue team I will give you my copies.  This will accomplish many things. 

•   You will be assisting in aiding an underfunded organization of heroes who mainly consist of volunteers with supplies and equipment. 
•   You won’t further enrich this scam artist by directly purchasing this garbage.
•   You will have a chance to read his books and be intrigued by Paulides' stories.

With any luck the donation will bring attention to Paulides’ inane ideas that people are being taken by Bigfoot rather that the more tragic effects of disorientation, fatigue, hunger, hypothermia and paradoxical undressing.   

PM me and we can set up the particulars, or if you like we can have an intermediary set up the particulars.  I can provide points of contacts and names as well.  I think I will also put this offer out on Amazon as well.  So this begs the question, are you ready to put up? 

To use your vernacular, methinks that you are:

A relative of David’s
A believer in fairy tales

Prove me wrong.

[ziznak]

Oh dear, round and round we go!! where the wall of text stops nobody knows!!! how bout we agree to disagree and spare the forum?? Or is this fight just heating up??

I must say rob you are very dedicated to your argument and I find your involvement in "a SAR team for years" very telling as to your motivations here.

So what happened you couldn't get your book published so you have to write it here?

[Lovely Bones]

I must say rob you are very dedicated to your argument and I find your involvement in "a SAR team for years" very telling as to your motivations here.

You beat me to it, Ziz.  Over the weekend, I had a chance to re-listen to a bit of the 3/25 show.  It hit me then--ol' Robo's white hot heat may result from the mild criticism Paulides occasionally offers of search groups. 

Interestingly, in the segment I revisted (perhaps less than an hour), Paulides and Knapp did address the paradoxical undressing issue.