norseman Posted August 20 Admin Posted August 20 12 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said: I don't ignore any evidence and "deadfall" that falls into structures certainly is interesting. Paulides is making money off of lying to you. That isn't interesting. its sad. How is Paulides making money off of me? So by your logic then? Anyone associated with Bigfoot cannot make money? So Meldrum, Bindernagel, Roger Patterson? We should throw all of that out? Come on up. I can show you millions of acres of deadfall. The Forest service doesn’t do anything anymore.
NorCalWitness Posted August 20 Posted August 20 (edited) 34 minutes ago, norseman said: How is Paulides making money off of me? So by your logic then? Anyone associated with Bigfoot cannot make money? So Meldrum, Bindernagel, Roger Patterson? We should throw all of that out? Come on up. I can show you millions of acres of deadfall. The Forest service doesn’t do anything anymore. paulides sells books, ads on his youtube and charges for appearances. by all means, make money. I have no problem with that. my issue is when the person making the money is lying. thats the rub. Edited August 20 by NorCalWitness
norseman Posted August 20 Admin Posted August 20 Just now, NorCalWitness said: paulides sells book, ads on his youtube and charges for appearances. by all means, make money. I have no problem with that. my issue is when the person making the money is lying. thats the rub. Selling books and charging for appearances? 🤔 That’s every notable speaker in Bigfootdom. But he isn’t lying. I.e. Dennis Martin was a child. That child went missing under very weird circumstances. The search was done under very weird circumstances. And he was never found. And his parents still have no answers. Are all of the facts surrounding the case spot on? Probably not. Does Paulides embellish? I am sure. But the fact still remains that without Paulides I would have no clue about Dennis Martin.
NorCalWitness Posted August 20 Posted August 20 1 minute ago, norseman said: Selling books and charging for appearances? 🤔 That’s every notable speaker in Bigfootdom. But he isn’t lying. I.e. Dennis Martin was a child. That child went missing under very weird circumstances. The search was done under very weird circumstances. And he was never found. And his parents still have no answers. Are all of the facts surrounding the case spot on? Probably not. Does Paulides embellish? I am sure. But the fact still remains that without Paulides I would have no clue about Dennis Martin. Paulides is a con man. I am surprised to see you prop him up. That is all.
norseman Posted August 20 Admin Posted August 20 4 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said: Paulides is a con man. I am surprised to see you prop him up. That is all. You can keep repeating the same thing over and over again. But you have not shown that David Paulides or more importantly the Dennis Martin case is a “con job”. It happened. Along with a lot of other weird cases. And if following a YouTube channel guy that walks around in the woods looking at sticks supposedly placed there by Bigfoot isn’t a con job? I don’t know what is. 🤷♂️
RedHawk454 Posted August 20 Posted August 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, norseman said: Selling books and charging for appearances? 🤔 That’s every notable speaker in Bigfootdom. But he isn’t lying. I.e. Dennis Martin was a child. That child went missing under very weird circumstances. The search was done under very weird circumstances. And he was never found. And his parents still have no answers. Are all of the facts surrounding the case spot on? Probably not. Does Paulides embellish? I am sure. But the fact still remains that without Paulides I would have no clue about Dennis Martin. A skeleton of a boy around the size of dennis martin was found in the 80's by ginseng poachers. The skeleton was found in the general vicinity of where he was reported missing. If i recall he disappeared in 1969. I'm not saying it was an open and closed case but if a skeleton of a boy that was around the size of dennis martin was found in the area that he went missing it kinda looks less likely that sasquatch abducted him. To be fair tho, it was never proven to be dennis martin. Heres Googles gemini overview. Again, if i recall, it was a skeleton and not just remains. No, the skeletal remains found in Tremont's Big Hollow in the Great Smoky Mountains were not those of Dennis Martin. In 1985, a ginseng hunter reported finding the remains of a small child, but a search of the area yielded nothing. The remains were never identified as Dennis Martin, and the mystery surrounding his 1969 disappearance remains unsolved. Edited August 20 by RedHawk454 1
norseman Posted August 21 Admin Posted August 21 1 hour ago, RedHawk454 said: A skeleton of a boy around the size of dennis martin was found in the 80's by ginseng poachers. The skeleton was found in the general vicinity of where he was reported missing. If i recall he disappeared in 1969. I'm not saying it was an open and closed case but if a skeleton of a boy that was around the size of dennis martin was found in the area that he went missing it kinda looks less likely that sasquatch abducted him. To be fair tho, it was never proven to be dennis martin. Heres Googles gemini overview. Again, if i recall, it was a skeleton and not just remains. No, the skeletal remains found in Tremont's Big Hollow in the Great Smoky Mountains were not those of Dennis Martin. In 1985, a ginseng hunter reported finding the remains of a small child, but a search of the area yielded nothing. The remains were never identified as Dennis Martin, and the mystery surrounding his 1969 disappearance remains unsolved. Awesome. Yah if Paulides isn’t accurate? I not here to “prop him up”. And I am sure that the Martin family wants closure. Too bad that it wasn’t him.
NorCalWitness Posted August 21 Posted August 21 On 8/20/2025 at 1:51 PM, norseman said: You can keep repeating the same thing over and over again. But you have not shown that David Paulides or more importantly the Dennis Martin case is a “con job”. It happened. Along with a lot of other weird cases. And if following a YouTube channel guy that walks around in the woods looking at sticks supposedly placed there by Bigfoot isn’t a con job? I don’t know what is. 🤷♂️ Norseman, You keep defending David Paulides like he’s some kind of truth-teller, but let’s call it what it is: he’s profiting off lies about people’s deaths. That isn’t “investigation,” it’s exploitation. He takes real tragedies, bends the facts to fit his storyline, and then sells books and lectures off other people’s grief. That’s not respectable — it’s predatory. The ethical problem with propping him up is simple: when you defend him, you’re defending someone who manipulates families’ worst moments for money. Imagine losing someone you love and then watching a stranger twist the circumstances of their death into some “mystery” just to move units. It’s disgusting. You can’t just shrug this off by saying he “raises questions.” Questions built on distortions aren’t curiosity, they’re snake oil. If Paulides really cared about truth, he wouldn’t have to lie about the details. But he does, over and over again, because mystery sells. So yeah, keep backing him if you want, but understand what you’re actually defending: not the pursuit of answers, but a business model built on misleading the public and exploiting the dead. That’s the ethical weight on your shoulders when you prop him up. I get that you don't think Sasquatch makes tree structures, but at least that guy isn't standing on the graves of the dead, harassing families of the dead, and making money off of lying. I am done responding to this thread. Carry on.
norseman Posted August 22 Admin Posted August 22 2 hours ago, NorCalWitness said: Norseman, You keep defending David Paulides like he’s some kind of truth-teller, but let’s call it what it is: he’s profiting off lies about people’s deaths. That isn’t “investigation,” it’s exploitation. He takes real tragedies, bends the facts to fit his storyline, and then sells books and lectures off other people’s grief. That’s not respectable — it’s predatory. The ethical problem with propping him up is simple: when you defend him, you’re defending someone who manipulates families’ worst moments for money. Imagine losing someone you love and then watching a stranger twist the circumstances of their death into some “mystery” just to move units. It’s disgusting. You can’t just shrug this off by saying he “raises questions.” Questions built on distortions aren’t curiosity, they’re snake oil. If Paulides really cared about truth, he wouldn’t have to lie about the details. But he does, over and over again, because mystery sells. So yeah, keep backing him if you want, but understand what you’re actually defending: not the pursuit of answers, but a business model built on misleading the public and exploiting the dead. That’s the ethical weight on your shoulders when you prop him up. I get that you don't think Sasquatch makes tree structures, but at least that guy isn't standing on the graves of the dead, harassing families of the dead, and making money off of lying. I am done responding to this thread. Carry on. Dude! Get a grip!🥴 (Go over to the JREF and ask if Meldrum or Patterson or Bindernagel is a “snake oil salesman”)
georgerm Posted August 22 Posted August 22 David is a businessman who has hit on a hot topic and brought up some of the mysteries surrounding missing people who went into the forest and vanished. Is bigfoot the cause for 411 missing people or aliens? There have been hundreds of abducted people that many claim have been the work of aliens who may prey on solo hikers where there are no witnesses. Paulides probably embellishes the subject matter to tweak public interest. Now if he was a billionaire like Bill Gates who doesn't need to live off of book sales, he would probably not need to embellish the true facts of missing person cases. Would his books have been a big flop if this was the case? He has brought a lot of attention to bigfoot that may have falsely given bigfoot a bad name. On the other hand, he has brought lots of attention to bigfoot that might someday cause bigfoot to be protected by federal laws. Read what Wikipedia says about Paulides: ".............. is an American former police officer who is now an investigator and writer known primarily for his books dedicated to proving the reality of Bigfoot, and establishing the Missing 411 conspiracy theory. Missing 411 is a series of self-published books and films, which document cases of people who have gone missing in national parks and elsewhere, and assert that circumstances surrounding these cases are unusual and mysterious, although data analysis suggests that the disappearances themselves are not statistically significant or particularly unusual." David Paulides - Wikipedia
Pembo Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago Any chance anyone with the books could provide a quote of the “hairy man, seen carrying a red thing on his back” part of the book? The books aren’t really available here. Doesn’t seem legit to me but want to see his own words before coming to a firm conclusion. In particular, I’m interested to know, did the info come from Bill Martin, citing Harold Key some 40 years or more after the incident?
Trogluddite Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago Not from the book, but here is substantially the same thing is noted at https://vanished.us/cases/dennis-martin-vanished-great-smokey-mountains/. This page mentions footprints that were found as if it was mysterious. One of the Kingsport Times articles published during the search stated that tracks were found of a person with one shoe off and one shoe on. While they don't mention size (or I missed it in skimming the article), they tried to use tracking dogs on that section. Presumably, because they thought that the tracks were from Dennis. Here's the earliest report available, which was almost a month after the disappearance. The second article mentions the car that was nearby, partially hidden off the road. I don't want to say absolutely nothing Bigfoot-related to see here, but I would be at about 93% or greater that this was a tragic accident or unfortunate encounter with a hungry animal.
Pembo Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago Thank you for the reply. I’m aware of the footprints, Bill Martin saying they were the wrong size (but who else would they be) etc. I’ve been through old newspaper clippings because you can’t believe anything anyone says on the internet and as close to original source is as good as anyone can get. My interest right now is purely where the “hairy bipedal carrying a red cloth/bag along a ridge” came into the story. It seems that it’s a Paulides fabrication but I want to give his own words a chance before I dismiss him completely
Pembo Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 31 minutes ago, Trogluddite said: Not from the book, but here is substantially the same thing is noted at https://vanished.us/cases/dennis-martin-vanished-great-smokey-mountains/. This page mentions footprints that were found as if it was mysterious. One of the Kingsport Times articles published during the search stated that tracks were found of a person with one shoe off and one shoe on. While they don't mention size (or I missed it in skimming the article), they tried to use tracking dogs on that section. Presumably, because they thought that the tracks were from Dennis. Here's the earliest report available, which was almost a month after the disappearance. The second article mentions the car that was nearby, partially hidden off the road. I don't want to say absolutely nothing Bigfoot-related to see here, but I would be at about 93% or greater that this was a tragic accident or unfortunate encounter with a hungry animal. I meant to say thank you also for going to the trouble of finding and attaching the clippings. Sources are immensely important and people who are willing to engage cogently with rational, well thought out ideas are the reason I joined (and the reason i believe- (tip of the hat to bill munns)) 1
Recommended Posts