BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: Uncle Duke on May 12, 2017, 08:03:10 PM
I have just completed reading Mr Bouchard's book.  Sad to say this self published book is not very well written, disjointed, and poorly edited.  It's only seventy-eight pages long, including a good number of photographs and one map.  There is no index, no glossary of terms/acronyms, and the table of contents is a disaster.  I also noted some factual errors, but admittedly they don't impact the story of Martin's disappearance and/or the search for him.  I think it's fair to say Mr. Bouchard is a better researcher/investigator than he is a writer.

Rob69 did a good job relating the handful of points on which the author directly calls out Paulides, but Paulides is only mentioned five or six times in the book's text.  There is no explanation of who Paulides is, other than him having been a guest on C2C and MITD (no dates given for his appearances on either show), nor are any of his books referenced.  Why Mr. Bouchard did not introduce the reader to Paulides and his books is puzzling. 

I don't mean to come down hard on the author, clearly he is as disgusted with Paulides' line of half truths and unsupported claims as some of us here.  I commend him for the effort, but if his goal was to discredit Paulides, he fell short.

I didn’t find the read as awful as DP’s first and second “missing”.  I was a bit confused with the mentioning of clothes in the blue envelope memo chapter.  I inferred it to be articles of clothes that were brought to the search for the dogs.  The author clarified the issue, they were clothes used for the search and not found on site.  Other than that…

I do not think Michael’s intent was to focus on DP, otherwise it would have detracted from the spirit and scope of his investigation and what he found.  He highlighted what needed to be said and corrected DP’s misrepresentations.  For the most part people familiar with the Dennis Martin disappearance know who’s who in regards to the investigators.  I did not ask him what he thought about DP and I can only surmise that he has the same level of contempt for him that most of us do.

I would like to hear Dwight McCarters take on DP and how he put words in his mouth.

Quote from: 311guy1 on May 08, 2017, 11:12:45 AM
I helped back his Missing 411 movie on Kickstarter, almost 2 years ago to the month.

I hope you didn't donate more than a dollar. 

Quote from: 311guy1 on May 08, 2017, 11:12:45 AM
He announces a release date of May 15, but "has no idea when the digital download" will be made available. WTF? Dude, it's 2017. I called Davey out on his BS on the Kickstarter page, and Oh Man did that set him off.

Welcome to the club. 

Quote from: 311guy1 on May 08, 2017, 11:12:45 AM
After him allowing me to switch to the DVD from download, he sees my comments and emails me at 11:40 at night and tells me "Your DVD is being held because of your baseless claims" because I called him out for being money hungry (he doesn't sell his books anywhere else besides his website, and now the movie too)

And people wonder why he is called a narcissist?

Quote from: 311guy1 on May 08, 2017, 11:12:45 AM
This guy's credibility is getting weaker and weaker.

Even more so now that another investigator has looked into the Dennis Martin case.  Forever Searching by Michael C. Bouchard looks at his misrepresentations, omissions and outright lies he presents as facts. 

Michael actually interviewed Dwight McCarter who outright denies that he told Paulides that a wildman attacked a park Ranger.  In a short email exchange with the author, Michael stated that during his conversation with Dwight McCarter, he had never heard of a wildman attacking and injuring a park ranger. He further stated that he had the NPS check their reported injury list from 1967-1968, no mention of a ranger being attacked. 

So much for no records keeping huh Dave? 

He interviewed a member of the Rike family who unequivocally denied that he committed suicide over the case as he eludes to.  (What an effing scumbag)

What's more important is that all references to wild men seem to be David's alone.  The term unkempt appears in later reports to describe the unidentified man at Rowans Creek.  Mr. Key used the term dirty or unkempt in an interview with the Sumpter Daily news.     According to Michael, Mr. Key told him that he never used the term Moonshiner or Wildman in any report. 

He also stated that Mr. Key stated that the person he saw at Rowans Creek was wearing manufactured clothing that were disheveled and he WASN'T carrying anything. 

Michael suggests that people listen and read all of the online sources concerning the Dennis Martin disappearance before buying his book.  Then one can truly appreciate all of the misrepresentations in the case.

Quote from: Just Me on September 08, 2015, 01:28:59 PMI've read 4 of Paulides books on 411 missing and he pulls the stories from public archives with a little dab of another authors findings to hedge his approach. Now he has a new book number 5 and I'll read that but I'm suspicious of Paulides now.

At least you’re seeing the light. 

Quote from: Just Me on September 08, 2015, 01:28:59 PMI caught his c2c show with George Knapp a week ago and he was all over that Elisa Lam story, after I emailed him 2013 he should look into that story because I detected similarities to his books.

I am not familiar with the Elisa Lam case; I will definitely look into it.  I emailed Super Dave regarding the Death Valley German tourists and the disappearance of William Michael Ewasko in Joshua Tree National Park.   The tourists were found, albeit their remains, William Michael Ewasko was not!  He disappeared in the Joshua Tree National Park in 2010 and has NEVER been located. I am not sure that Super Dave has picked up on his disappearance but his case is "STRANGE" due to the numerous cell phone pings the towers received and a host of other issues too numerous to go into here.

Quote from: NW Kro͞oˈsādər on July 19, 2015, 02:59:56 PM

So, what is the answer to the (supposed) mystery? Why would George Knapp, an investigated reporter, Peabody Award winner, shill for Paulides if he didn't think their was a problem also? I just cant see a man like Knapp sell his integrity for ratings or a bit part in a movie.

Knapp is an entertainer.  He may have had some credibility in the past but now not so much.  He hitched his wagon to Bob Lazar for years.  He like Paulides is a good story teller.  He seriously strained his credulity after his failed attempt to prove his claim (among a host of others) that the government erased his entire school career (MIT) to include yearbooks and photos.  Anyone with any critical thinking skills RAN away from him.  I don't know what Knapps's relationship with him is presently, but for all intents and purposes Lazar was proven to be a con-man who could spin a good yarn. 

Quote from: Robert on August 14, 2015, 07:59:53 PM
Unfortunately financial regs make crowd-investing a lot harder than crowd-funding via the nets.

That would make sense. 

Quote from: Gingerwatch on July 20, 2015, 09:24:48 AM
Hello, I'm new to the BellGab forums.  I have been reading for a long time but decided to join and post last night in light of Art's return.  I hope I'm not being redundant or breaking any etiquette here, I want to be respectful and join your conversation.  Love reading what you guys have to say.  I have been totally obsessed with the David Paulides stuff and really appreciate your view points.  It may have already been brought up but there is one time where you can almost hear him say "Bigfoot is doing it."  It's on a YouTube video where he is presenting to LA Mufon.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeT2FG88PIM

Especially towards the end he hints that he doesn't say it's Bigfoot directly, because he doesn't want to upset parents that their kid might have been taken and even eaten by Bigfoot.  I'm paraphrasing but see if you don't think he implies that pretty heavily.

Again I hope to not ruffle any feathers (or fur) - I really admire you guys and I'm really into all this stuff, but kind of scared to join your conversation.

Welcome aboard Gingerwatch.  No we don't bite.......Hard.  Ah just kidding.   Don't be afraid to jump right in.  We oppose all view points..........

Quote from: Robert on July 02, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
If there are already numerous books on the subject & he's not uncovering anything new, then how can he be crossing a line by using the deaths & disappearances to make a buck?

Any credibility he had as a researcher was utterly destroyed by the aforementioned cases then the "mysterious" cases of children missing that amounts to child abductions by parents--He shot himself in the foot with that.

Anyone who knows anything about child disappearances is aware that a significant percentage of such cases turn out to be abduction by a family member. Statistics can be found at http://healthresearchfunding.org/40-uncommon-parental-child-abduction-statistics/

The only "abomination" is a self-described researcher who is either ignorant of these statistic--(among a whole host of others) or worse, who chooses to ignore it.

How about these cases he "UTTERLY CHANGED THE FACTS SO THEY FIT HIS NARRATIVE". 

Leeanna Warner, 5, 06/14/2003 Minnesota

She was another missing girl that he included but didn't include that a known pedophile was suspected of kidnapping her, cleared of the kidnapping, then killed I mean 'committed suicide' in a gravel pit by suffocating himself with a plastic bag. Seems worth mentioning, but it doesn't show up in his narrative.

Nyleen Kay Marshall 6/25/1983 Elkhorn Mountains Oregon

Dave seems to have omitted in his narrative that Nyleen was last seen talking to a man in a purple jogging suit. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office has also indicated that her stepfather was a person of interest in this case.

Two years after her disappearance, strange letters and phone calls were made to missing children organizations from a man saying he had her, although he called her Kay. These were traced by the FBI to the Edgerton and Madison, Wisconsin areas; however, once the phone booths where they came from were found, they subsequently stopped. The letter was also postmarked from the Madison area. The man writing them refused to return her to her parents.

Yes this is a line that was crossed so he could make a buck.  Maybe some are OK with that, but they were abducted by people, not some mysterious unexplained force and he CHOSE to omit these facts!  Google their names a mountain of information is available and has been long before he set out writing books on "all things mysterious".   

Quote from: Juan Cena on August 07, 2015, 10:29:06 PM
So this is what Paulides is doing instead of trying to get Congress to look into his claims.

Good point Juan.  My question is why does he need donations?  His revenue streams from his books and the DeNovo journal should be enough to get this off the ground.  As of the August 10th his donators have pledged 119,190 and now David, Ben and Mike are asking for another 50,000.00 so they can "ensure the hiring of professional visual effect artists, as well as film additional aerial photography, and retain a music composer."

How many visual effects does 150,000 buy and aerial photograph and a music composer?

I would put a whole lot more credibility into his efforts if he asked for "investors" rather than donations.  I suspect that this will turn into another Melbum Ketchup/DeNovo fiasco plagued with set-backs, delays, excuses and other "reasons" why it can't be finalized whilst enjoying all the donations. 




   

Quote from: Robert on July 02, 2015, 12:06:09 PM
And you use that to argue that he's crossed a line?  Looks like evidence of the opposite to me!

I think this has already been discussed, but when you change the dynamics of a case by omitting facts then yes you cross a line!   Not to mention his constant opinions and statements of "he was a trained outdoors man" and "that would never happen", and the constant omission of case file information that is intentionally left out to make the reader think it was Bigfoot.   

Maybe it's me.....but by saying that Jaryd Atadero wasn't attacked by a mountain lion when all evidence says he did is disingenuous.  Or when Dave omits that there were "Human" suspects in the disappearance of Dennis Martin (Dennis' mother thought this) then yes you cross a line.  These are only two.......There are MANY others.

So are you saying that changing the facts of a case by omitting them is ok?       

Please tell us how his evidence looks like the opposite to you!  Seems he is making up adversity to make some coin. 

YMMV

Quote from: Uncle Duke on January 23, 2015, 09:15:55 PM

My problem with Paulides' was his ridiculous supposition US Army Green Berets were involved in some nefarious criminal/supernatural abduction and/or cover-up of same of a child in the Great Smoky Mts National Park.  I offered to help him with a FOIA request to Ft Bragg and to contact a couple Special Forces' vet groups I've worked with in the past to get the back story on why the GBs were in the Park, but he wanted no part of serious, professional research.  Although I don't recall calling his work "b.s.", I do question his agenda.

Uncle Duke Check your PM. 

For those that are interested.  I came on here back in 2012 talking about this charlatan and was poo-pooed by a few people and called all kinds of shit by "Sardondi" "Lovely Bones" and a few others.  I think old Dave actually posted under "Iceman" attempting to assuage his negative reception by me and a few others calling him out. 

Regarding Dennis Martin, there is a Park Service report on line that very distinctly articulates who and why SF was called into the park.  It also contradicts many of Dave's "facts" in the Martin's disappearance as well as the other interesting issues regarding what he left out.   Here is a link if you haven't seen it.


http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/062109martinreport.pdf. 

I took him to task as well over his NUMEROUS omissions on that case as well.

Quote from: Robert on July 01, 2015, 08:34:43 PM
It could be because he wants to be asked more sophisticated questions.  He's gotten plenty of exposure via Knapp, so maybe he's looking for someone more engaging to interview him.  Knapp's vastly better than Noory, but that doesn't mean he's the last word in interviewing.

Does Knapp still interview him?  I list all respect for the guy as a "journalist" when he didn't vet him in the beginning.  Knapp in my humble opinion is just another entertainer.  Who is Dave Schrader?  Is his show on terrestrial radio or a podcast?

   

Quote from: Robert on July 01, 2015, 08:40:47 PM
That is what you consider a bad line to cross?

We're still looking for causes of some of the great plagues of the distant past.  What's wrong with using tragedy to stir interest?  And without interest, which often takes a good deal of entrepreneurship to stir, how do you expect to get answers?

I can understand people attacking a researcher for special pleading (such as via cherrypicking data, or failure to adequately explore hypotheses), for conflict of interest, for incompetence...but not for trying to make $ from adversity.

1. He is not suggesting any remedies or solutions or uncovering anything new.  There are numerous books on the subject of missing people and people that have died in the wilderness by known and unknown means.  Many of the stories he recounts are presented in these volumes without the underlying theme of "nefarious forces beyond our control" mumbo-jumbo.  Not to mention his constant opinions and statements of "he was a trained outdoors man" and "that would never happen", and the constant omission of case file information that is intentionally left out to make the reader think it was Bigfoot.   

2.   His consistent and mind-numbing references to some huge cover-up by the park service and by association Search and Rescue.  After all we are the people that actually look for these folks so we must be in on it too.  Additionally, the people that have gone missing in the Park systems' represent less than 20 percent of his stories in his first two books.  He massages that conveniently by including 92 people that were found alive and well to skew his data sets.   

Take what he writes as fiction and get them second hand.         

Quote from: Juan Cena on July 01, 2015, 09:10:04 AM
Paulides was laughed out of a search & rescue conference? Please, tell us more.

At the 2012 NASAR (National Association of Search and Rescue) conference at Lake Tahoe he gave a presentation about missing people and his "strange" ideas.  He was plugging his first book, and was given some latitude until he was challenged on his perception of hypothermia and lost person behavior, or more to the point his complete ignorance of them. 

It was suggested that maybe a course in Wilderness first aid, combined with the fundamentals of Search and Rescue and a follow-up with lost Person Behavior might enlighten him.  Being that he wrote a book and "talked" with numerous S&R teams he didn't need any of those. 

At that point anyone who remained in the room left, and then the question was asked who invited the Bigfoot guy?

Quote from: tos11201 on June 29, 2015, 03:49:31 PM
Paulides keeps insisting that he offers no explanation for the events he chronicles in his books out of respect for the victims' families. Quite heartwarming, David. I'm all tears. So why does every slide in your Missing 411 presentation have a page-height caricature of a sasquatch?

Good question.  I don't listen to him on the radio or on YT.  Is he giving a presentation about 411 with Sasquatch undertones?  Say it isn't so..........I can't understand how some people can't make the connection. 

You’d be surprised at how many of his followers show up at a search call-out spewing his BS!  It's frightening in terms of how his “theories” are gaining traction and how many people think that he should be instructing S&R on what to do.     

Yeah SAR needs Paulides' BS like we need a hole in our collective heads, thanks but no thanks. They should ask Dave why he hasn’t been to a search and rescue conference since 2012? He was laughed out of that one and asked never to confuse his fiction with the reality of missing person search and rescue operations.

Quote from: tos11201 on June 29, 2015, 03:49:31 PM
Disingenuous to the core. Seriously, wtf?

People want to believe that the FOOT is taking people in the woods.  Nothing more nothing less. 
 

Quote from: Charles Daniels on June 24, 2015, 06:13:20 AM
I think it was his second appearance, but maybe it was bits of the first and the second, what I decided to do was jot down every name he mentioned and go look them up.

That was quite some time ago, so I don't remember the names. I could go back and listen and do it all again.

There was one case which he mentioned, which really seemed like a woman running away from a terrible marriage once I dug into it. But even then, the case is still very strange, I'd love to know how she did it. Because there were witnesses who saw her go down the dip of a trail, and she flat out disappeared. Never a trace found of her in decades. And that's pretty impressive. Not impressive in I suspect something supernatural, impressive in -- how did she arrange and maintain her disappearance over years and decades?

That doesn't ring a bell.  I have his first two books.  If you come across the name I can look into it.

Quote from: Charles Daniels on June 24, 2015, 06:13:20 AM
I tell you one way Paulides stacks the deck in his favor. And this is a real obvious piece of misdirection on his part.

He keeps suggesting that the mysterious force behind these disappearances somehow knows how to act shortly before severe weather hits the area.

As if it knows that bad weather is coming and therefore it acts at that time to evade detection.

I'm calling bullshit.

Bad weather can happen for a couple of reasons.  In a lot of parks at higher elevations mountainous topography has an interesting effect on weather.  Brief storms blow in more afternoons than not and as a result the subject will be found deceased, because hypothermia can set it remarkably quick, even in the summer.

Time is of the essence in SAR operations, and bad weather that delays or hinders a search is not good.  Since a big part of Paulides' profile is basically "there's no coherent understanding of the time missing," a dead person is going to fit the profile better because they're not able to explain how they got there.

Bad weather that isn't quite bad enough to delay the search hinders visibility, and washes away scent rendering tracking dogs useless.  This increases the chance that a team will miss an unresponsive person who is found later in an area that was searched.   Children also hide from searches which is another reason they are found in areas already searched.     

Quote from: Charles Daniels on June 24, 2015, 06:13:20 AM
In those cases its painfully obvious that what's happened isn't some weather predicting supernatural occurence -- but instead, just bad weather frustrating a search or preventing a search. Just bad luck.

The people aren't found because they are unlucky to go missing right before bad weather hit.

If the weather hadn't turned bad suddenly, it would be a run of the mill disappearance and they likely would have been found quickly.

You got it.  It's one of his coincidence is correlation. 

Quote from: FightTheFuture on June 24, 2015, 09:14:56 AM


It doesn't matter in the slightest what Ranger Bob's personal feelings are regarding a FOIA request, he is mandated by law to fulfill that request. That is, as long as the FOIA request doesn't' seek any information that is exempted under several provisions in the law.

This is where he loses credibility.  He makes the claim that they won’t honor his request.  If this is in writing then he does have recourse.  However, if it’s a…..Hey they told me over the phone type of thing it becomes his word over the Park Service.  That may or may not be the case.  Regardless he doesn’t reprint any of these “rejection” letters or correspondences and it comes down to his credibility. 

I am curious does it ever occur to his fans the reason he's being quoted thousands of dollars for the information is because he's asking for thousands of pages of cases and hundreds of hours of work to be done? 

He's asked FOIA for every missing person in every National Park from the past 100 years.  Yeah, there are problems with government transparency and FOIA documents, but his project is not a highlight of that problem. It's a highlight of his ego issues.  He requests a waiver, but fails to understand that waivers are reserved for journalists and if memory serves…..you have to be providing something educational or vital to public knowledge to get a waiver. I have doubts that weird missing person cases ranks very high as 'vital public knowledge'.

Your mileage may very.

Quote from: Charles Daniels on June 24, 2015, 06:21:18 AM
Okay, lets put Paulides aside for one moment and agree that his research is at best highly selective and massaged (as I totally agree it is highly selective and massaged).

So putting Paulides in a corner and forgetting about him, and just a question from me to you -

You've been involved with S&R?  So is there any cases you've ever heard of which has elements which baffle the S&R teams?

And to make this clear - I DO NOT MEAN evidence of Bigfoot, or UFOs, or portals.

I mean, just down to earth, weird stuff which is hard to explain or seemingly inexplicable from what evidence was or for
some reason could not be recovered?

Because as a lay person, with no S&R experience, I've read a few cases which just seem really weird. I don't mean from the Paulides set. But from other sources over the years.

No.  Since 92 I have never experienced or heard anything unusual.  SAR is a small community and something FOOTY would travel faster than a flu bug.


Weird is a subjective word.  Reading about stories is a different ballgame compared to being out there looking for someone.  It's visceral if you have never experienced it firsthand.  My very first recovery was a man who was found partially clothed.  This was in the mid 90’s, in the middle of winter.   I thought he was the victim of a crime the way we found him.  That first exposure to hypothermia culminating in his attempt at burrowing (He was found under exposed tree roots) was weird to me. 

Quote from: Charles Daniels on June 24, 2015, 02:08:21 AM
I went out and read up about several of the cases he presented.
The guy isn't lying.  The cases are as he presents them.


There are several which just totally defy explanation -- people only out of sight for only seconds, with no obvious place to go, in extremely well searched areas, and nothing is ever found.
Or kids who somehow climb up mountains, or through swamps, and end up 30 to 40 miles outside the search area.

That is according to Paulides.  Please provide some names so we/I can fact check it.  Just because Paulides says so.....don't make it so.  Searches and searchers aren't perfect.  Missed areas can be attributed to mapping errors and search coordination, under lap and overlap.  This is especially true with rough terrain.  Again I have never heard of someone ending up 30-40 miles away.  There are quite a few cases outside of Paulides' campfire stories were nothing was found, including the people.  It happens, and depending on terrain and how FAST a search was initiated can be attributed to this. 

Most lost people WILL go to higher ground to get a bearing, that's not strange or mysterious.  Without names of people who climbed mountains I ain't buying it.

Quote from: Charles Daniels on June 24, 2015, 02:08:21 AM
I went out and read up about several of the cases he presented.
The guy isn't lying.  The cases are as he presents them.

He cites apocryphal details that don't show up in any case files.  Without names to verify I am not taking him at his word.  In the years I have been involved with S&R I've never heard of cases of a shoeless person without cuts, I have seen and found people without a shoe, jackets, shirts etc.....All attributed to hypothermia.  So where is he getting this information? A prime example of that would be the Stacey Arras case, he has claimed ad nausea that he will never see the file…..But claims a camera lens cap was found. 

There is a case file on her disappearance. The China Lake Mountain Rescue Group.  They were on scene and found nothing.  Her disappearance was also recounted by Butch Ferebee in Off the Wall and he indicated that nothing was found.   

Ultimately, he is not a reliable researcher because his methodology is questionable and his descriptions of the incidents are too often massaged to fit his spooky implications.  His stuff is BS filled with embellishments intended to add spooky paranormal/bigfoot/dog men/wendigo mojo to true and unfortunate disappearances of real people.

Quote from: Juan Cena on May 28, 2015, 11:51:12 PM

I'll say it again: I asked Paulides point blank on his last time talking to Knapp if he had asked someone in Congress to make the NAtional Park Service to keep a missing persons database. Paulides just pulled the old "they don't want you to know" conspiracy spank crap. That was even with Knapp volunteering to ask C2C listeners to petition their members of Congress to do so.

Paulides doesn't really care about finding an answer to the (supposed) mystery, he just want to exploit it.

These are nothing more than an interesting collection of missing persons and David Paulides is CLEARLY trying to attribute the disappearances to Bigfoot. He's a big time BIGFOOT "researcher" and he's constantly and subtly implicating Bigfoot in the cases. His claim of "offering no theories" is a smokescreen.

In real research, scientists need to disclose their conflicts of interest to their overseeing agencies, because those things make a difference to conclusions. Study design and methodology is important when you want your analysis of anything to be taken seriously at all. Data does not exist in a vacuum but needs to be contextualized by how it was gathered and who analyzed it (that's another reason why, in real research, researches look for Intercoder reliability to judge that the researchers have minimized bias errors through consensus).

Data is not judged purely on its merits, it's judged on the merits of the atmosphere in which it was collected and processed. The fact that Dave Paulides is obsessed with all things Bigfoot is hugely relevant to how he has interpreted his data.

Quote from: NW Kro͞oˈsādər on May 28, 2015, 05:32:06 PM

Also, the National Park service has their own police and rangers. Why they wouldn't have a database on missing people does seem odd.

The Park Service (DoI) does maintain records.

His line about the Park Service not releasing records is his "out". They have records and certainly released them to Michael Ghiglieri and Charles Farabee when they authored Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite. Now Dave's fallback position is that Charles Farabee had an inside track to records because he is a retired Ranger from the park service. That may or may not be. His co-author Michael Ghiglieri wrote another book without Charles Farabee, Over the Edge: Death in Grand Canyon and did not seem to have any issues getting records for that book.

One must ask, is Dave inept at initiating FOIA requests? Or is it because the Park Service does not want to deal with a nut-job based on his shady past and dealings with all things supernatural?

Maybe, (and this is my opinion and probably the reason) requesting THE ENTIRE LIST OF MISSING people is a logistical challenge that would cost the Department of the Interior countless hundreds of man-hours to compile.  Why give these records to him so he can enrich himself for free or at a reduced cost?

There are all kinds of records out there and most are in the public domain. Dave makes wild and outrageous claims without a scintilla of evidence or documents to back them up. He is relying on his "I am a retired Police Officer" spiel, and he is the only one able to get this information without any further scrutiny. That is why his Army of salivating fans come out of the woodwork to thank him for writing this dribble. His fans fail to ask the important question. Why has it been three years and he has utterly failed and failed miserably to garner absolutely no attention from the mainstream media, Congress or the Department of the Interior regarding his so called park services' cover up? Gee, I would think with the vast conspiracy you would think that Dave would at least get someone on the case.

Quote from: BobGrau on May 24, 2015, 01:26:05 AM
Is there an actual line though? How much time has to pass before a raw tragedy becomes a fascinating mystery?

Good question.  When you sensationalize a story to fit a narrative that you (Paulides) have to sell copy then that's an issue.  He changed and omitted facts in quite a few stories to make them more "mysterious/ominous" than they were.  Butch Ferebee wrote two books about deaths and disappearances in Yosemite.  He managed to do it without sensationalizing or adding his commentary.         

Paulides parrots stories from Off the Wall.  These included his (Paulides) opinions and facts that "he" was only able to find while simultaneously omitting information that was originally included by Ferebee.   

Quote from: goldendeal on January 26, 2015, 12:39:45 PM

To make the accusation that Paulides is a liar would not be correct. It is well documented that the people Paulides claims are missing are in fact missing. So, if Paulides tells of the circumstances in which these people are disappearing, I don't see the lie in that. He has interviewed some of the families of those that disappeared; I don’t believe Paulides can embellish on their stories without repercussions from those families should they be so inclined.

Ah, Paulides is a liar!  Paulides omits pertinent information and facts that if included would lead the reader to conclude something else.  A lie by omission is the same as a lie by omission.  He makes the claims that he has interviewed families, but never once has he included any interview notes, information, etc.,  He makes claims of maleficence on the part of the park service without a shred of evidence to corroborate his claims.  No reproduced FOIA denials, cost approximations etc.  Taking a known conman and charlatan at his word without verifiable evidence because he says so strains credulity.  He caters to a niche element that is relegated to late night talk and YouTube.  He is hardly mainstream.  Any opposition or family member complaints/contradictions would be hard pressed to voice their abjections due to the one-sided manner of these venues.   

Quote from: b_dubb on May 23, 2015, 09:10:30 AMPaulides distorts facts to create a narrative that supports a more fantastic explanation.

b_dubb that is a colossal understatement!  In Search and Rescue circles he is considered a loon.  In the 20 plus years I have been involved in SAR, I have NEVER come across a case that was mysterious or did not correspond with the behavior of a lost person. Nor have I heard any of my contemporaries talking about strange cases. The SAR community is very small and compartmentalized and something strange or weird would travel faster than a middle school rumor.

Quote from: nooryisawesome on May 23, 2015, 09:29:31 AM
Yes, I view it as entertainment. I find him entertaining we he has new tales to tell. He does tell the stories well.

Telling a story is fine and dandy, in fact I am all for it.  When you use the deaths and disappearances to sell books you cross a line.     

Quote from: goldendeal on April 02, 2015, 02:02:23 AM
Gd5150, you are so right but I didn't think anyone else would notice. Paulides not only sounded a bit down but also a little grumpy as well. Perhaps he had a bad day, (possibly someone on his list was found??)   Whatever the case, he wasn't his usual upbeat self, it was as if he was annoyed with the questions, it was very usually.

Most likely this is because more folks are waking up to his BS.  I brought him and his cherry picking up on this site back in 2012 and was poo-pooed by more than a few.  How does finding 92 people out of 408 alive and well constitute unexplained disappearances?

These are nothing more than an interesting collection of missing persons and David Paulides is CLEARLY trying to attribute the disappearances to Bigfoot. He's a big time BIGFOOT "researcher" and he's constantly and subtly implicating Bigfoot in the cases. His claim of "offering no theories" is a smokescreen.

In real research, scientists need to disclose their conflicts of interest to their overseeing agencies, because those things make a difference to conclusions. Study design and methodology is important when you want your analysis of anything to be taken seriously at all. Data does not exist in a vacuum but needs to be contextualized by how it was gathered and who analyzed it (that's another reason why, in real research, researches look for Intercoder reliability to judge that the researchers have minimized bias errors through consensus).

Data is not judged purely on its merits, it's judged on the merits of the atmosphere in which it was collected and processed. The fact that Dave Paulides is obsessed with all things Bigfoot is hugely relevant to how he has interpreted his data.

Dave would also have his audience believe that the United States Park Service is engaging in a vast cover up of biblical proportions regarding records and tracking data of missing people. The Park Service does keep records; it's just that they won't release them to HIM. Michael P. Ghiglieri and Charles R. Farabee co-wrote "OFF THE WALL, DEATH IN YOSEMITE outlining some 1300 cases of deaths, disappearances and other mishaps during that parks' existence. These accounts were gathered by utilizing coroner repots, superintendent reports and Freedom of information requests.

To articulate that the park service doesn't keep records is disingenuous and an outright LIE. A more accurate description would be that the Park Service won't give them to him. Perhaps it's because of his shady past and his known associations with all things Bigfoot.

His line about the Park Service not releasing records is his "out". They have records and certainly released them to Michael Ghiglieri and Charles Farabee when they authored Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite. Now Dave's fallback position is that Charles Farabee had an inside track to records because he's a retired Ranger from the park service. That may or may not be. His co-author Michael Ghiglieri wrote another book without Charles Farabee, Over the Edge: Death in Grand Canyon and didn't seem to have any issues getting records for that book.

Dave makes wild and outrageous claims without a scintilla of evidence or documents to back them up. He is relying on his "I am a retired Police Officer" spiel, and that he is the only one able to get this information without any further scrutiny. That is why his Army of salivating fans come out of the woodwork to thank him for writing this dribble. His fans fail to ask the important question.

Why has it been three years and he has utterly failed and failed miserably to garner absolutely no attention from the mainstream media, Congress or the Department of the Interior regarding his so called park services' cover up?  

I would think with this vast conspiracy Dave would at least get someone on the case.

Dave is nothing more that a conman, (starting with his autograph swerve), BIGFOOTER and previously a UFO aficionado. Nothing wrong with a hobby, but when you use the deaths and tragic disappearances of people in order to make a buck then you cross a line.

Quote from: Lovely Bones on July 08, 2012, 10:40:14 AM

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? 

Quote from: Lovely Bones link

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?

Quote from: Lovely Bones


“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?

Quote from: Lovely Bones

“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! 

Quote from: Lovely Bones

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?   

Quote from: Lovely Bones

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.

Quote from: Lovely Bones on July 07, 2012, 07:53:22 AM
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. 

Quote from: UFO Fill on July 07, 2012, 05:08:36 AM
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. 

Quote from: Sardondi on July 06, 2012, 08:34:00 PM
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.