Leaderboard

Since I do mostly solo field work I am very cognizant of people going missing in my research area. Since I started doing field work all the missing who were never found are women. That could be pure chance but might indicate women alone are in greater danger. But the reality of it is women alone are more in danger in the city too from humans. That certainly could carry over in the woods from both human and animal threats. I am only concerned about risk in my research area, what happens hundreds of miles away is probably not applicable. Having been a military aviator I am used to accepting some risk, so unless something changes I feel the drive to my research area is more risky than on foot in the field. There have been dozens killed on the road in the area in the same time frame. In any endeavor there is always some risk. Our bathtubs are dangerous too.

Yes, I have 6 of Paulides' books including all 4 Missing 411 volumes ... and I've read them cover to cover, some several times. Go to the 4th book, "Missing 411: The Devil's in the Details". In the introduction, page xiii. Find "I will say that the fields of suspects is narrowing." Read the next 4 sentences. Then go to page 400 and read the paragraph that begins a third or so of the way down the page. Those are David's own words. There's another quote I'm looking for. I don't remember if it's in one of the books or in a blog entry he wrote. Paraphrasing, he said he initially was looking for bigfoot as culprit but the facts have lead him away from that conclusion. (I'll dig around and see if I can find it. If anyone else happens to locate that, please post book, page, etc or a link. Thanks!) You continue quoting Paulides' details yet ignore his conclusions. That doesn't make a lot of sense. MIB Edit to add: a vague reference to what I was looking for is in the conclusion of the third book, "Missing 411: North America and Beyond" chapter 10, page 451. Somewhere he specifically says that one thing he originally leaned towards as culprit but has since moved away from is bigfoot. I'll keep looking, maybe I'll find it.

Absolutely untrue. That is NOT a fact. You have NO proof, only baseless inflammatory speculation on your part. MIB

1) Truth is a wonderful thing. 2) In these cases though, it's emotion based speculation being confused with "truth". People *want answers* when there are no facts to support conclusions, so we (they) create answers to satisfy that need. Those are 2 completely different things This supports exactly what I was just saying. You're accepting at face-value that all these reports are 100% valid, true and correct, and therefore is bona-fide information and facts connected to these creatures. That's amazingly naive.

I was pleasantly surprised last night, at my wife's big family dinner, when my oldest bro-in-law, a retired school principal, responded very positively to my mention of the subject. We got into a fairly lengthy discussion, where he brought up the question of what I thought it might be; neanderthal offshoot, G.Blacki, unknown primate, or what. Turns out he's been following the recent developments in dna testing of ancient fossil finds, like Denisova and Floresiensis, and is genuinely curious. Who knew? In general, I'm not shy about broaching the subject to anyone, as I'm old enough (70) to not give a crap about what anyone thinks of my mental state, nor is it likely to affect my career, being semi-retired, working at what I please, when I please. I guess that's one advantage of being an old fart!