Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 From the description he seems to be looking at unusual cases which don't make any rational sense. The young boy being found up 2000ft higher in elevation might be an example. I think it sounds interesting even if the connection to BF might be difficult to make. If you could come up with enough dissappearances that seemed incredible then maybe you could conclude that something strange is going on that we have not yet explained.
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) The following is a snipet from the NABS blog page - Blog # 177 02/28/12 In the future you will be introduced to an element of bigfoot behavior that is rarely discussed, routinely ignored and reprehensible in thought. If the government never admits knowledge of a libelous issue on property under their control, they cannot be held liable, this was specifically told to two of our researchers while investigating a specific topic. Be patient, the epiphany of this libelous issue will make its presence in the coming months. To read the entire piece in context - http://www.nabigfoot...igfootblog.html Edited March 3, 2012 by Polypodium
Guest Jodie Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 How is bigfoot being in the forest any more dangerous than bears or cougars? Or meth heads? I've never known the government to be libel for any attack or violence related to incidents involving these animals or people.
bipedalist Posted March 3, 2012 BFF Patron Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) NABS blog page - Blog # 177...... If he has something substantial it sounds like he has obtained it without FOIA results if previous posts are spot on. It should be interesting to see how detailed the data are in such a case. Now his blog on summer camps really draws my attention #116. It is one of the items/check-offs I suggested for inclusion in sighting report efforts (distance to schools, camps, denominational conference centers and religious retreats). Definitely think he has something with that one..... Edited March 3, 2012 by bipedalist
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 This would be a significant leap of faith for Paulides to attribute unexplained disappearances or behavior on a specific creature/animal (other than man) without definitive proof. While the book teaser provided on the website doesn't name Bigfoot as the primary "creature of interest" in this activity it sure is leaning that way given the fact it is on the NABS website. Perhaps his book is going to delve into what he believes is previously undiscovered serial killer behavior associated with disappearances in the national parks. That would of course be of interest to the general public as well as park services, law enforcement personnel and criminal justice researchers. If he goes down the route of it being a scientifically undocumented north american primate being responsible for the activity then his circumstantial evidence would need to be overwhelming and highly compelling in scope. There are are whole lot of reasons why folks go missing and stay missing in the wilderness so all of those variables would have to be investigated and ruled out in each and every case before you could conclude a specific circumstance or animal (man included) was responsible for the disappearance.
Guest wudewasa Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 The "A hiker is missing so there has to be a squatch involved" is fodder for campfires, horror novels and movies that air on Syfy.
GuyInIndiana Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Sensationalism at best. Yup. It seems the longer people stay in this "thing" we call bigfooting, it gravitates toward the sensational as a method to explain anything we can't understand rationally.
JDL Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) This is the book I've been waiting for. I know that there are those who want to believe that squatch are universally benign. This is akin to expecting all people, or all dogs to be universally benign. It is reasonable to postulate that there are squatch that are not benign. If there are squatch that are not benign, then there will be less than benign encounters associated with these individuals. If among squatch that are not benign there are those who specialize in human predation, and they frequent a certain set of locations, then clusters may develop. It is something that MUST be considered, no matter how distasteful it may be. We attribute the lurking of squatch around humans as curiosity or associated with an interest in human food sources. Both of these are certainly true. But these same lurking behaviors are those of a predator, and in the squatch they are highly developed. With regard to government, I am among those who believe that the government must know about them. I cannot believe that the agencies that manage our lands are that incompetent. The fact that government does not manage our interaction with this species suggests that they cannot do so, and the fact that they do not so much as advise people of their existence in areas where people may come into contact with them bothers me even more. It suggests an attitude of acceptable losses to what is considered a low frequency event. If the research has merit and suggests that predation occurs with a level of frequency that the public will not stomach, then this book may catch on after the DNA Study and the Erickson footage become public, because a lot of people will be asking questions about how dangerous squatch may be. Edited March 4, 2012 by JDL 1
Guest Jodie Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) I got to looking at stats, did you know your risk of death by venomous insect bite is far greater than any other attack by a wild animal? Who knew? I guess the killer bees skit on SNL wasn't such a laughing matter. http://blogs.scienti...be-misdirected/ Here are the FBI stats on missing people, very few could be attributed to sasquatch looking at these IMO. http://www.fbi.gov/a...istics-for-2010 Besides looking at these, the only other stats would be how many deaths occurred in the wilderness. This was all I could find. http://www.edarnell.com/Stats.htm http://www.edarnell.com/Summary.htm But it is these cases that give one pause to consider bigfoot as the culprit: http://www.knoxnews....pearances-over/ Here is the book about these folks on Amazon, evidently there is about 100 disappearances, the book focuses on 7 of these cases. It also contains a map of the locations of the disappearances. It would be interesting to see if the map coincides with areas of reported bigfoot sightings. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004RR19GG/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1880308134&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=09Q5C1PJ9XF853VG1XJ2#_ Edited March 4, 2012 by Jodie
Guest Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 The latest from NABS http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootblog.html
Guest Jodie Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Yeah, but he posted his info about the release of the book on a bigfoot web site..........how much exposure were these stories really going to get considering the target audience? And what other conclusion could the target audience of bigfooter's draw? If he wanted the 3 years of research and the book to be received differently maybe he should have chosen a different route for publicity.
bipedalist Posted March 4, 2012 BFF Patron Posted March 4, 2012 Sounds like the route of pre-release book reviews may have foundered. It is much harder to spin in the days post-anonymous bloggers take to the streets (what blog is he referring to?). Let's see, I have a report from a young shepherd from out west ..... I have reports from local TV personalities and berrypicking experiences..... but I'm missing that farmer/rancher but I'm sure there are numerous fill-ins that could be provided. So, I'm thinking, yeah, it could be Bigfoot. Something wrong with that picture? All kidding aside, very humbled that he is doing it for the families and survivors..... is there a survivor's fund that has been set up re: the effort?
Guest Jodie Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 In the Rense interview the first words out of his mouth are "it could have been bigfoot, could have been something else". Several bigfoot blogs have a mention of his book. Sorry, not feeling the sympathy for the author when he talks out of both sides of his mouth.
JDL Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 The latest from NABS http://www.nabigfoot...igfootblog.html Blog entry #177 talks about government silence regarding bigfoot and "reprehensible" aspects of bigfoot behavior, but does not specifically link the entry to Missing 411. The entry concludes with: " In the future you will be introduced to an element of bigfoot behavior that is rarely discussed, routinely ignored and reprehensible in thought. If the government never admits knowledge of a libelous issue on property under their control, they cannot be held liable, this was specifically told to two of our researchers while investigating a specific topic. Be patient, the epiphany of this libelous issue will make its presence in the coming months. If you need to be hit over the head with a new idea, it won’t happen here. Enjoy the great outdoors! Always walk in pairs when in the woods. Questions and comments to: nabigfootsearch@yahoo.com"
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Might be difficult not to talk out of both sides of his mouth on this one. I have an admitted soft spot for NABS. Not really sure why, but much of what they claim has resonated with me. If he is personally involved with some of these cases, i.e., if he has researched them well and has had intimate contact with families, he has to tread lightly. These are missing persons cases with distraught loved ones. Do you proclaim that their loved ones were possibly taken by BF and expect to be taken seriously? I totally agree with your former point Jodie - that if he wanted to stay away from implicating BF in the disappearances, hocking the book on his BF site is not the way to do it. So there are red flags here for me, too. I am just going to have to break down and buy the book, so we can discuss further merits or troublesome issues. The lead up blog entry that JDL just posted seems related, but may not be. My take is that it is. I am trying to figure out what he means by libelous issue. Does he mean "liability issue?" Some of NABS blog updates are, umm, lets just say not the best written pieces I have ever mulled over...I haven't read any of Paulides' previous works, but I hope that they are better written than some of the blogs. Maybe I am too harsh, though. It is a blog and not a formal paper. Edit to add: Hey, what happened to blog 178? Numbers skip around...are there lost blog entries? oooheeeeeoooohhhh spooky Edited March 5, 2012 by notgiganto
Recommended Posts