How Often Are Bf Involved In David Paulides Missing 411 Stories?

[Guest]

I personally asked David Paulides to discuss what he thinks is behind many of the mysterious disappearances. I even posted on his Facebook site that he should be discussing the BF issue with regards to many of these disappearances. 

 

David said that he is hindered by the lack of belief in this species, and he can only explain how odd the circumstances are in these particular incidents that meet certain criteria.

 

After reading his books, the criteria is that these people totally disappear without a trace, and sometimes partial bodies or parts may be located *miles* away, but usually the person is just gone.

 

Small children seem to be picked up, and are just gone. Adults who know how to survive in the woodlands, totally disappear.

 

Dogs either don't locate a smell, or they refuse to follow the scent. Apparently the "human" smell disappears, just an odor is left that scares away the tracking dogs:(

 

Now I have kids old enough to be hiking and camping who totally ignore my warnings.

 

I am beyond ready for a BF body to be produced, a real body, not a Rick Dyer dummy.

What can be done to help protect the public since no one with any stature in the world is willing to come out and admit they exist?

[MIB]

I've read the books and done some followup of my own.

 

Something less than 5% of the disappearances should be attributed to bigfoot and I can only think of 3-4 of the specific cases where there the person taken was not recovered alive.  The rest are something else.   According to one of my sources, the bigfoots themselves get abducted.  I believe a much higher (than 5%) percentage of the recoveries can be attributed to bigfoot. 

 

Do I know what's going on?   Pretty sure.  Can I prove it?  No.  The answer, at least as I perceive it, is right there.  It will have more meaning for you if you do the rest of the math yourself. 

 

MIB

[Guest]

Do you believe that UFOs are taking some of these missing people?

I think that the different types of the BF are taking many of these people. After reading his books, and talking to David, he seems to be thinking that both Bigfoot and UFOs are involved.

From my research the Dogman, type 3, is the most aggressive, followed by the Wolfman, type 4, who looks, honest to God, like a wolf walking on 2 legs. 

Type 1 is the Patty type. I have no clue what type 2 is, nor what it looks like.

Does anyone here know?

[frap10]

In his latest book he suggests (along the lines of - I'm not quoting) that the reader should broaden their scope of the possible suspects. If your thinking bigfoot, read up on aliens.  If your thinking aliens, read up on fairies and so on....   and I would say also meth-heads and weed growers...

 

Sounds like no one predominant culprit or M.O.

[Bonehead74]

It's not bigfoot that's taking these people. At least not bigfoot as understood and accepted here.

[Guest lightheart]

Type two is 6-8 feet or so, powerfully built with an athletic frame, narrow waist. Muscles are seen as they move along taking a 5 foot stride. The body shape is much thinner more like a basketball player but solid with muscle. They would rather not be seen ever. I seriously doubt this type abducts people. They will parallel you to see what you are up to as you pass through but only rarely move in closer than 150 feet. These guys have much more human like faces with less hair covering the area around the eyes, cheeks, and chin.

[Guest]

MIB, Could you PM me and I promise *not* to share whatever you tell me. I am very concerned about these occurrences, I have kids hiking and camping, and they have no clue that there is anything more dangerous than an occasional snake or wolf in the forest, and well, sometimes, not too nice people can be encountered, or God Forbid, drug makers. Yikes!!

[Guest]

Type two is 6-8 feet or so, powerfully built with an athletic frame, narrow waist. Muscles are seen as they move along taking a 5 foot stride. The body shape is much thinner more like a basketball player but solid with muscle. They would rather not be seen ever. I seriously doubt this type abducts people. They will parallel you to see what you are up to as you pass through but only rarely move in closer than 150 feet. These guys have much more human like faces with less hair covering the area around the eyes, cheeks, and chin.

Thank you! I am not sure if I have seen a picture of this *type* of BF. I am pretty sure that I have had encounters with BF but did not realize at that time that it could have been BF. My girlfriends and I would go swimming in a lovely stream with a gorgeous sandy bottomed pool near my home tucked away from the street and no homes anywhere close by. Several times we had pine cones tossed at us, and try as we might, we could not see anyone. Each time we sorta freaked out and left. 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I agree with MIB as far as the percentage of cases where a sasquatch might be responsible, give or take a few percentage points. Disappearances in relatively rough country are to be expected, considering there are numerous things that could cause injury or death, not to mention just getting lost. If you happen to go in the wrong direction you could be moving further away from civilization. In the cases of experienced woodsmen I wouldn't expect them to get lost so much as get injured to the point where they cannot walk. If they cannot walk then they probably will not survive, and what happens depends on the particular area, as well as who knows they were in that area, and whether they veered from their expected path to a significant degree. So many potential factors will determine the outcome.

 

I am more interested in the cases that seem physically impossible, such as young children ending up in an area where they would have had to travel over extremely difficult terrain on their own, which does not seem feasible in most instances. There are just certain situations where people are more likely to go missing. The highest disappearance rate in the US is probably in Alaska, or at least that would be my guess, and this is probably due to both the unforgiving terrain and the quick changes in weather that can cause planes to crash. Or take the Bermuda Triangle, where you have an area where major currents cause very rough and treacherous seas at times, and where storms are relatively common. It is a dangerous piece of ocean at times. These factors alone will account for the majority of disappearances. I am not saying something strange is not going on, rather that rarely will the strange explanation be the correct one when there are so many other possibilities.

 

So that is basically why I agree with MIB that few disappearances are likely perpetrated by sasquatch. Another possibility is that a disappearance is inadvertently brought on by a sasquatch. Someone sees one in the woods, gets scared, and takes off in whatever direction offers the easiest escape route, which could cause them to get disoriented and lose their bearing. This is also unlikely, but I'm sure it could easily occur. I also think that sasquatch are much more likely to abduct a child than an adult. Logistically this makes more sense, and they also seem to be more comfortable around human children as opposed to adults. But rarely are children in the woods by themselves, nor are they able to articulate their experiences in many instances. There are multiple reports from adults who had experiences when they were children.

 

I never really thought about the percentage of children who are rescued by sasquatch, but the idea itself is not unprecedented where eyewitness reports are concerned. To wrap this post up I think that in most instances, even strange instances, there could potentially be a non-sasquatch explanation, mainly due to the fact that sasquatch interaction with people is highly limited due to the nature of the sasquatch themselves. Thus it makes more sense that they will avoid humans most of the time, under the majority of circumstances. Not definitive, but relatively logical, although it fails to take into account many important factors, such as intelligence.

Edited September 18, 2014 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest]

Thank you JiggyPotamus, and a plus one with a rose.

[Guest]

Please, What else is "taking" people? BF, plus wild animals along with bad luck due to falls, sudden weather changes, and injuries I can understand. What else is happening? PM me if you don't want to say something here.

[roguefooter]

Okay so, why not bears?

 

Small kids, dogs, experienced hikers, how many of them stand a chance against a bear? People go missing, bodies never found or buried somewhere, body parts found a distance away. Why not bears?

[GuyInIndiana]

 

What can be done to help protect the public since no one with any stature in the world is willing to come out and admit they exist?

 

Your thread title asks one question, but your post concludes with another one, seemingly concluding that there 'is' a connection. I'd say based on actual evidence, NOT belief in a creature, that there is no reason to believe it happens at all. Believing BF exists is not a reason for BF to be abducting humans.

[Midnight Owl]

I would say common predators could be involved in some of these disappearances, but certainly not all of them based on the very unique ways some of these folks have gone missing.  A family of three disappeared in central Oklahoma and have not been found to this date.

 

I have openly shared a number of my Bigfoot experiences on this forum telling the complete truth of what happened out there.  With that said, I have also seen and experienced things I don't share with many folks.  For one, most wouldn't believe me anyway so why try or give the doubtful more fodder.  I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't experienced this stuff.

 

The bottom line from my point of view is there is a whole lot more going on out there than just a few Bigfoot subjects lurking around.  Things I don't begin to understand and now feel what I don't know could or may hurt me if I let my guard down.  Just my honest opinion... 

[Guest UPs]

If bf does exist as has been described by witnesses, I would expect some predation on humans just like any other apex predator. As for as some of the 411 cases go, there are only a few that have enough facts that point to a bf type predation. There are more of the cases that evidence rules out human or known animal predation and that leaves door open for anything else and this is where the more bizarre theories can take hold. If I had to simply guess at how many of the 411 cases were a result of contact with a bf, I would say somewhere around 10 percent, but that is just a WAG.

Suziq,

You seem to worry about something happening to your kids, but remember that all of those cases cited in 411 happened over a great period of time and there IF an unknown animal is responsible for any of them, the chances of it happening again are extremely remote. I don't think the authors intent was to make people afraid to go into the woods, but instead to be aware of your surroundings while in the woods.