Guest Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 NABS/Paulides announced today the publication of a new book that *looks* to pin disappearances of persons in wilderness areas on BF. That is my take on it. What is yours? *Note* NABS/Paulides is also hocking the book via the website. Not linking in any attempt to encourage or discourage sales, just to introduce the topic for discussion. http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/missing_411.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Hey notgiganto, I saw this earlier and thought the same thing about the possible BF link and dissappearances. I do not want to jump the gun having not read the book nor do I know what he concludes, but if he does make that connection I don't know how you keep people with guns from taking shots post Ketchum paper. It could end up all warm and fuzzy for all i know? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Well now that just does not make sense. I thought Paulides and Dr. Ketchum were both supporters of protection. Now why would he write a book on circumstantial evidence of bigfoot kidnapping if that is the case? The thought had crossed my mind that one could jump to a false conclusion when you look at the missing kids in each state. The states with higher bigfoot sighting rates also have the higher number of missing kids. When you get down to it though, most of those are runaways and we also have a huge issue with human trafficking in this country that is hard to nail down. I'ld be interested in seeing how he got from point A to point B on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Poly - excellent point that I hadn't considered. Here is a no kill org. that has, for a long time, been at least hinting at the possible dangers involving BF (walk in pairs in the woods, BF likes to watch your kids, etc...), which is in and of itself an odd stance. Post-Ketchum, this book represents the kind of thing that could alarm people and get BFs killed. At the same time, I kinda think that it is the right stance, especially if what natives have said about BF (naughty and nice, both cannibal/woman stealer and wary giant) turns out to be a more truth than legend. Considering these are unsolved cases, the circumstantial evidence that he presents to make his case must either be quite weak ("BF is kidnapping people" is really pretty out there) or he has amassed enough circumstantial evidence to feel confident about making the case. We'll find out when we read the books, I guess, and no matter the strength of the argument they still get $ from book sales... I just hope that it isn't a collection of cold case missing persons reports tied together ONLY by the BF kidnapping notion. Are there really enough BF related disappearances to warrant two books, theoretically chock full of cases? I don't know what to think of this one. If the DNA study is going to present something chimeric/hybrid, then BF had to - or would still be - getting human DNA from somewhere, which means people would have to have been historically disappearing. There would have to be some sort of trail, at least in modern times. LIke you said Jodie, I too want to to see how we make the leap from disappearance to kidnapped by BF. Or maybe that leap won't be made until later, and these books only establish some sort of long running "disappearance conspiracy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Well now that just does not make sense. I thought Paulides and Dr. Ketchum were both supporters of protection. Now why would he write a book on circumstantial evidence of bigfoot kidnapping if that is the case? The thought had crossed my mind that one could jump to a false conclusion when you look at the missing kids in each state. The states with higher bigfoot sighting rates also have the higher number of missing kids. When you get down to it though, most of those are runaways and we also have a huge issue with human trafficking in this country that is hard to nail down. I'ld be interested in seeing how he got from point A to point B on this topic. People act to protect bears and bears have been known to prey on humans. BF is a wild creature, and given it's historical reputation going all the way back to pre-colonial American times, can be and should be looked at as a potential danger whenever and wherever encountered. Are they all slavering, vicious man-eaters? Probably not. The problem is that you have no way of knowing if the one you run into is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 When I'm in the woods, my main concern has always been nefarious humans. Hopefully, Paulides will consider them too, when making assumptions as to why people disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Agreed Mulder, but the odds of getting kidnapped and eaten by bigfoot, assuming that there is only 7000 or so of them, versus bears, cougars, or people seems to be bad sensationalism if that is what he is saying in his book....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 2, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 2, 2012 Odd timing. Sensationalism at best. You are more likely to die from exposure, thirst and hunger by getting lost in the woods by yourself (after being injured and lost even more likely) than by being chased, apprehended or attacked by a Bigfoot. Still, caution is the watchword in Grizzly, cougar and wilderness areas in general. If nothing else, having a locator beacon, signaling devices and a travel plan roughed out and distributed to friends should help along with extra food, water and emergency warmth/shelter as you are more likely to need these to be extricated. Personal protection in the form of pepper spray or a firearm is something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I've always believed that Bigfoot will eat humans on occasion. Now, without having read the book, I don't think that Bigfoot hunt, kill and eat humans all the time. To me, it boils down to opportunity. If Bigfoot is, in fact, an opportunistic omnivore, it stands to reason that he would, every once in a while, grab a lost and weakened hiker, camper or hunter. How often does this happen? Who knows, but it just makes sense to me. Bigfoot may understand that preying on people, all of the time, may cause unwanted attention. However, I'm sure if is was an easy grab.....why not do it? Hungry Bigfoot + weak and lost camper = missing camper Again, I would imagine that this is a rare event and probably not frequent enough to explain any large quantity of missing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 This is pure, unadulterated speculation. What if the DNA reveals something about hybridization that Paulides found particularly alarming? Someone I met in an MNBRT chatroom claiming to be a sample provider in Ketchum's study believes hybridization has and is (present tense) occurring. At the time, I filed that under F for "Freakishly Disturbing". Feel free to do the same. FWIW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I went to buy it and I was prompted to sign up for an account with Verisign. There does not seem to be a PayPal option. I've heard of Verisign, but have no idea what an account there entails. Nothing suspicious, I am simply unfamiliar with the process or company and have no desire to sign up with another Internet Payment Company. PayPal is fine with me. I'll wait and see if they fix that or if the Book appears on Amazon. Just FYI. GK BTW I listened to him speak about the Book on the Jeff Rense show. It's pretty much what it seems-tying missing persons cases to potential Sasquatch activity. He was prompted to investigate these cases after a visit by a Park Ranger (or some other official Government wildlife type person) after a series of disappearances in a Western National Park. He says he has found interesting clusters-Yosemite and Crater Lake Parks were singled out. Cases from Crater Lake and Yosemite were discussed at some length, including a particularly grisly Rape/Murder in Yosemite. Reference was made to a cluster of cases involving young boys (at Crate Lake, I believe). A 1938 case in Colorado of a possibly kidnapped boy who was spotted the next day a few miles away and 2000 feet upwards in elevation was also discussed. It was a creepy case as well. He tried to get info using FOIA queries and was rebuffed and sees that as part of a deliberate cover up by the National Park Service. I've always been interested in cases of possible Sasquatch caused deaths etc., and figured THIS would be the hot subject immediately after proof of Sasquatch's existence were that to happen. I don't know if the release of the Book is tied in to the Ketchum report in any way. It could have just as easily run its course as a project. Should be interesting to read. I'll look forward to it. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfooter Posted March 2, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) If there was enough evidence to tie BF to abductions or missing outdoorsmen, I think we would have heard of it by now. That or it was very quickly and efficiently hushed up. In which case the info would not be coming out in a book. It will be interesting to see how this book tries to pull this all together. At this point, I see them having an extremely difficult time doing so in a convincing manner. Edited to add: OK, having now actually read the overview of the books (I had not previously) I did not see anything mentioning BF in it. Reading between the lines, yeah, you can kind of see that maybe where it is headed, but nothing directly. Perhaps they do not deal with BF at all... Edited March 2, 2012 by VAfooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 If there was enough evidence to tie BF to abductions or missing outdoorsmen, I think we would have heard of it by now. That or it was very quickly and efficiently hushed up. In which case the info would not be coming out in a book. It will be interesting to see how this book tries to pull this all together. At this point, I see them having an extremely difficult time doing so in a convincing manner. Edited to add: OK, having now actually read the overview of the books (I had not previously) I did not see anything mentioning BF in it. Reading between the lines, yeah, you can kind of see that maybe where it is headed, but nothing directly. Perhaps they do not deal with BF at all... He was somewhat circumspect about what exactly was doing all the dirty work. Rense was not and referred to Bigfoot a number of times. I wondered at the time whether he was looking for a larger audience who might be intrigued by the 'Mystery' of the disappearances but put off if Bigfoot was plastered on the cover. The Rense show might be available archivally. Paulides takes up most of the first hour. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 There are a few sure fire ways to protect yourself from a sasquatch attack while in the great outdoors 1. Carry a camera at all times 2. Set game camera's around camp or picnic area 3. Carry a thermal imager 4. Carry a video recording device Doing all of these things is ideal but even one will keep one 100% safe. If Paulides does elude to the big guy abducting people I wonder if he thought to ask if they had done any of the 4 safety precautions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ok, I had to plus that Poly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts