Leaderboard

I am currently filming and editing some projects, I will be adding some of our catalog here for discussion in the near future.

From the FBI contemporaneous files - internal memo July 1969 'Park Officials have noted the attitude of Williams Martin has undergone marked change from time when he was frantically searching for his child and appreciative of all help rendered. He has increasingly come under the influence of visionaries, is unwilling to accept fact his child is dead, and prefers to believe child has been kidnaped and might yet be found alive'. This statement strikes me as being very callous and heartless. It does however, suggest that Mr Martin didn't 'always' maintain that his son was kidnapped, but entirely understandably, hung on to any hope he could find, which, as time went on and it was clear that he couldn't have survived alone in the wilderness for such length, latching on to the idea of kidnap. Again, there's no judgement here, I would almost certainly have done the same. Even if he had always believed that there was kidnap involved, a desperate father in emotional turmoil and probably blind panic likely isn't the best, most objective assessor of the situation. Trying to imagine how I would feel in his shoes, I certainly wouldn't trust my objective assessment of anything. Even then, if you do accept that he could think about it rationally and always believed it was a kidnapping, a belief, however strongly held, does not make it a fact. The fact is that there was never any credible information regarding a kidnapping. From the NPS chronology 'He [Bill Martin] quickly went west on the AT as far as Little Bald (Approximately 1 mile) and returned thinking Dennis might be back to the others. He then went west again on the AT to Russell Field, 2.5 miles, and returned to Spence Field.' I have no idea how long this might have taken him, but clearly Dennis hadn't gone west along the trail or his father would have found him. As such, we don't know where he went. But we do know that in the immediate aftermath, only the westbound trail was searched by his father. It seems from the chronology that, at least until Rangers arrived (some time after being notified at 8:28pm) only trails were searched. The first mention of searching the immediate area around where he was last seen comes with Rangers involved. The mention also comes after the first mentions of the heavy rainfall and mention that 'All streams were high and turbulent.' We know Dennis was off trail and looping around when last seen. Unless he got back on to a trail, no one was looking off trail until at least 8:30 in pouring rain and coming darkness. It was followed up on and the FBI didn't 'do nothing'. They visited the site with the witness. The timeframe is everything here. I've shown you, with sources quoted, that the scream happened at the same time, up to an hour before and certainly no later than an hour after Dennis went missing 90 minutes away. The FBI, with the Rangers, did what was necessary to conclusively establish that the encounter was completely unrelated to Dennis' disappearance and therefore not credible evidence of a kidnapping and therefore outside of the FBI's authority. You've provided no evidence or sources to suggest otherwise. No they don't, but plenty of forest animals make noises that could potentially be mistaken for a scream. Men who don't want to be seen or approached also have the potential to scream. There's simply no reason to believe that the scream was Dennis given that it would be impossible for him to be there, and you've provided nothing to suggest why it should be considered him. I absolutely agree that people were evicted to establish the park. Where you lose me is the leap that some haven't left, that the NPS/FBI would leap to the conclusion that they were child abductors, certainly responsible for a kidnapping (for which there is no evidence of kidnap anyway) and in collusion with the military, send in the Green Berets to take them out. Again, you've provided nothing to back up those huge assumptions and leaps in logic. I don't know why. I have given you quotes and sources for why they were included in this particular search. I've also suggested a logical answer to your question - that is that they weren't previously training in the local area at a time when a massive public SAR was happening and required the exact skills that the Green Berets had experience of and were currently training for. The NPS documents suggest improvements that could be made to SAR procedures, including using fewer searchers and concentrating on ones with specific knowledge of the area and tracking skills. 'could this have precluded using Green Berets in future? Again, I'm not stating that I know for certain, but it sure seems more likely than sending them in to take out mountain men or 'feral' humans in front of hundreds of potential civilian witnesses based on no evidence of wrongdoing. You're the one making an assertion that the official line is false and that there was another reason for the use of Green Berets, but you haven't provided anything to back it up. The FBI and NPS documents show that the 'Search admittedly was not absolute. This is extremely rugged terrain covered with heavy brush and woods and contains many deep crevices and sink holes.' As I have shown, the search covered 56 square miles by the end of the 9th day, meaning a search radius of 4.22 miles, not covered absolutely. I've also shown that with a speed of 1mph, by the time the co-ordinated search started on the morning after he went missing, Dennis could have been anywhere within a 450 square mile area. With a speed of 1mph, by the time the first Rangers and family started searching off trail that night, Dennis would have been at the outer edges of what was searched, but not absolutely, by the end of the 9th day. Any bear/cougar could have dragged him into an area not accessible for human searching, or outside the outer edges of what was searched. Your point also doesn't deal with the potential for accident, being washed away in those streams that were 'high and turbulent' even on that first night, or those sink holes, crevices and any other areas that couldn't be searched within, let alone without the search radius. You are stating things as a certainty, when they are absolutely not certain, then using that as a launchpad for a vague conspiracy that has no supporting facts and without providing any evidence or sources to back it up. This seems disingenuous to me. You say you have no dog in the fight, but keep repeating that the Harold Key encounter indicates something nefarious, in particular a kidnapping. You mentioned a 'mangy' human carrying something through the woods. I asserted that that was incorrect and provided quotes and reasoning, as well as showing how the encounter couldn't be relevant unless you accepted 411's false timeline. You didn't dispute my assertions or provide anything to disprove them but rather repeated the description of a mangy man carrying something through the woods that seems to be a Paulides fabrication, and use that fabrication as a reason to doubt the FBI assessment and thereby suggest some further conspiracy. You also mentioned Paulides in your first post on this thread and asserted on the 411 thread that he wasn't lying. You say that the case is well known 'because of the oddities associated with it' but on the 411 thread state that 'the fact still remains that without Paulides I would have no clue about Dennis Martin' and many of the oddities that you have listed and repeated are based on Paulides' untruths. My distrust of Paulides is not bias, it is a rational assessment of his reliability, or lack thereof, to accurately present the facts, some of which I have demonstrated in this thread, and which distrust is widely shared and proven elsewhere regarding this and other cases. I truly do not have a dog in the fight, I have satisfied myself of Paulides' unreliability and would be more than happy to discuss the case without any reference to him whatsoever. However, that is not possible until his inaccuracies are removed from the discussion, and at present, some of your arguments seem based on them, and you have provided no evidence or other sources to back up those arguments.