Guest Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 What you're not gonna ask LC to further elaborate? Ask him about the details? So much for being open-minded and questioning everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 It's quite obvious that LC said what he wanted to say. As I already said, as soon as a scofftic goes into ad hominem attack the source, rather than the actual subject matter mode, it means that they really don't have anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 LC claimed based on this research that Paulides left out some things and hence his reliably as a source is questionable. This is not ad hominem. Ironically, instead of asking him to example further, you resort to name-calling. Whose the real "scofftic"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Maybe leisureclass should start a thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 LC claimed based on this research that Paulides left out some things and hence his reliably as a source is questionable. This is not ad hominem. LC clearly stated that he sees "no reason to give him credence" (which is classic ad-hominem) after making some specious claims about Paulides work that he failed to back up with any specific verifiable examples of same from Paulides books. If he'd like to do so he is more than welcome. But I am under no obligation to drag it out of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 LC claimed based on this research that Paulides left out some things and hence his reliably as a source is questionable. This is not ad hominem. Ironically, instead of asking him to example further, you resort to name-calling. Whose the real "scofftic"? Examples would include Paulides' claim that finding a missing person's clothes must be a sign of foul play, because people lost in the wilderness would never undress voluntarily. In fact, removing clothes is fairly common in hypothermia victims, especially advanced hypothermia. It's even got a name - paradoxical undressing, and it occurs in at least 1/4 of terminal hypothermia cases. See e.g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01245483. Same goes for people being found in areas where searchers already checked. Hypothermia victims will also engage in what's called terminal burrowing, where they will either actively hide from rescuers, or crawl into a narrow crevice or other enclosed space that rescuers can easily miss: In 20% of our cases of death due to hypothermia the bodies were found in a position, which at first induced the suspicion of an attempt to hide the body. But after all our examinations together with the police investigations it was clear that no other person was involved. Obviously the strange positions in which the bodies had been found, were the result of a (pre-)terminal behaviour, which - for lack of comparable descriptions in the literature - we have called "terminal burrowing behaviour". The discovery positions always gave the impression of a protective burrow-like or cave-like situation, as the bodies were found under the bed, behind the wardrobe, in a shelf etc.. The clothes of the bodies were always strewn on the ground in front of the final position, sometimes forming a trail. In every case the paradoxical undressing had obviously happened before this self-protective "burrowing behaviour". This is sustained by the fact that the removed clothing was never found at the final position where the body was found, and some of the victims due to cooling had obviously been crawling around. Id. I do not recall Paulides making any effort to explain why those two symptoms do not explain the disappearances in his books. Paulides also claimed that Rosemary Kunst must have been abducted by something. Let's look at the facts of Rosemary Kunst's case. She went missing from a new age spiritual retreat camp in 2000. She was 70 years old at the time and had lost her husband in a car accident about 18 months prior. She had been in the same accident and barely survived - . Kunst went hiking on her own in an attempt to "mingle with her husband's spirit," according to news reports. They found a few strands of hair on a bush about four miles away. The sheriff said that finding the hair wasn't unusual, despite what Paulides claims. A 70-year-old in questionable health hiking alone in a remote area, seeking to "mingle" with her dead husband? Why is it mysterious that she didn't come back? Those are just a few of the issues I have with the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted July 28, 2013 Share Posted July 28, 2013 Then I recalled many of the newspaper articles (found by Tirademan) that I have read in the Premium area. There are tons of articles about sitings of the "Wild man" by people from all over during the 1800's and early 1900's. It seems strange to me how it went from being not particularly uncommon for a siting of a "Wild Man" to occur during those days - to what it has become today after the "Bigfoot" entered the picture. You just don't see these "Wild Men" reports anymore. And when there is a Bigfoot report - it does not make the newspaper like the wild man reports did back in the day. And where along the line did our thinking of these wild beings change from being "men" to animals? I believe the reason we don't see many reports of "Wild Men" is due to people grabbing the term "Bigfoot" as an alternative. The reason we don't see many reports of Bigfoot in the papers is probably due to the fact that we have become jaded as a culture to this now. There have been so many reports over the past decades that we aren't intrigued by it any longer. Back in the 1800's and early 1900's the mind was titillated by the thought that there could be a "Wild Man" running around in the forest or woods. Who was he, where did he come from...things like that. These days we just figure it is a homeless person. As far as when it went from being a man to animal, well, that is probably a societal thing. These days some people with a certain bent (guidelines prevent me from elaborating in public forum) consider only modern man as being worthy of being called "Man". All others are merely animals. The society of the 1800's and early 1900's were much less puritanical in may ways than the society we know today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Those are just a few of the issues I have with the books. Out of the hundreds of very well documented cases outlined in Paulide's books that was you could come up with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 You seriously expect a giant post refuting the "hundreds of very well documented cases"? Stop moving the goalposts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 (edited) LC clearly stated that he had "no reason to give him credence". So yes, I expect a lot more proof that Paulides deserves no credence than a few random examples. And I would think that someone who purportedly puts so much importance on logical deductive reasoning skills as you claim to, would agree. Edited July 31, 2013 by LarryP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 These "random samples" highlight what a great "researcher" Paulides is. How about addressing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Larry, the fact that Pauides tried to turn relatively common symptoms of hypothermia into a evidence of a predator should be enough to call his research into question. It would be one thing if he'd discussed paradoxical undressing or terminal burrowing and why they didn't explain the "unusual" disappearances, but he didn't even mention them. By the way - I made a typo in my last post. I said that Kunst's hair was found four miles away. It was actually found 1.25 miles away. My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Given how poor the government is at keeping secrets, why would bigfoot be any different? I agree and have said the same thing here in the past. I have worked for the Govt for almost 30 yrs and hold a Top Secret security clearence and it baffles me that there are people that believe if bigfoot exists our govt could cover it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I have worked for the Govt for almost 30 yrs and hold a Top Secret security clearence What type and what level of "Top Secret" security clearance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) Not a problem... I can find a thread. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/35926-missing-people-related-bigfoot-questions-are-they-related/?hl=missing Edited August 1, 2013 by Ginger To Remove Quoted Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts