Jump to content

Missing 411


Recommended Posts

wiiawiwb
On 3/30/2020 at 11:10 AM, Huntster said:

Agreed, but the opposite is also true: a collection of strange cases doesn't establish anything except a collection of strange cases, which is simply a regular part of life, and thus not even all that strange.

 

 

Paulides was the first person to see patterns in what those before him merely saw as disparate, unrelated events.  Key factors which occur time and time again in these Missing 411 cases such as the point of separation, water, meteorologic event, tracking dogs never picking up a scent, and more.

 

By understanding patterns he stitched together places where a number of people went missing under similar circumstances, hot spots, like Yosemite, as they're called. A number of disappearances were occurring with similar story lines.

 

People being murdered were nothing more than random, unrelated events until someone scratched beneath the surface, did some extraordinary gumshoeing, and  tied together a pattern. That's exactly what happened with Ted Bundy, Ted, Kaczynski, and other serial killers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying nor implying that's what's going on here because I don't think that is the case. But these would never have been solved until someone saw a pattern no one else could see.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
10 hours ago, MagniAesir said:

I listened to him telling the story of a missing camper by Harrison lake. At best he wasn't really familiar with the area, at worse he was deliberately misrepresenting it


There are absolutely typos in his books for my area. And I’m positive he wouldn’t be familiar with BC. But no one is perfect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MagniAesir
1 hour ago, norseman said:


There are absolutely typos in his books for my area. And I’m positive he wouldn’t be familiar with BC. But no one is perfect.

It goes beyond typos.

One example he claims that the rescue dive team told the gentleman's wife, they were 100 % sure that if he was in the lake, they would have found him.

This lake is 218 km2 in area and around 900 feet deep, and has a history of not giving up bodies.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
5 hours ago, MagniAesir said:

It goes beyond typos.

One example he claims that the rescue dive team told the gentleman's wife, they were 100 % sure that if he was in the lake, they would have found him.

This lake is 218 km2 in area and around 900 feet deep, and has a history of not giving up bodies.

 

 

 


What’s your take on the Dennis Martin case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, norseman said:

"Strange would be after three days the body of the five year old is found 100 feet up the trail where searchers walked 1000 times. Or stranger yet after three days the child is found unharmed and when asked where they had been, the child replies they have been living in a hollow log with a bear to keep them warm."

 

Stranger still is persons who've been missing for for a period of time like several weeks, are eventually found deceased (often in water) but in decent condition, and the coroner says they died very recently.

So where were they while missing, and during that time receiving shelter and nourishment?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MagniAesir
3 hours ago, norseman said:


What’s your take on the Dennis Martin case?

I honestly don't know 

My problem is, that I just don't trust DP's investigations.

There are a number of strange disappearances that I do not have a plausible explanation for

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
14 hours ago, MagniAesir said:

I honestly don't know 

My problem is, that I just don't trust DP's investigations.

There are a number of strange disappearances that I do not have a plausible explanation for


I think he has done a good job of bringing these strange disappearances to the lime light. And I think some of these higher visibility cases could easily be fact checked if he was misrepresenting them. But as I said, there are thousands and thousands of cases and no one is going to get them all right.

 

Were the Green Berets actually called in to the Dennis Martin case? Everything I’ve read? Absolutely. Just one example.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MagniAesir

Was the swat team brought into the Harrison lake disappearance? Nothing I have read coraborates this.

Do I expect 100% accuracy, no.

However when he makes statements that IMHO a seasoned investigator would not make, that makes me question their veracity 

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On 4/11/2020 at 6:52 PM, MagniAesir said:

Was the swat team brought into the Harrison lake disappearance? Nothing I have read coraborates this.

Do I expect 100% accuracy, no.

However when he makes statements that IMHO a seasoned investigator would not make, that makes me question their veracity 


I do not know. But a police dept makes way more sense than the military in the US. Not sure about Canada.

 

A Green Beret presence for a missing child is unprecedented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MagniAesir

I do agree that some of these cases are strange and do have odd circumstances attached to them, and if a particular case (s) peak your interest, then you should try an find multiple sources for information I would think.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
On 4/5/2020 at 1:48 PM, norseman said:


I think he has done a good job of bringing these strange disappearances to the lime light. And I think some of these higher visibility cases could easily be fact checked if he was misrepresenting them. But as I said, there are thousands and thousands of cases and no one is going to get them all right.

 

Were the Green Berets actually called in to the Dennis Martin case? Everything I’ve read? Absolutely. Just one example.

Another factor that plays into this is that Paulides himself was not present for any of these disappearances.  He relies upon official accounts, media reports, and (whenever possible) witness statements and interviews.

 

There could certainly be varying degrees of information from report to report... article to article.

 

When you speak with him, it quickly becomes obvious that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of these cases, along with what appears to be a very genuine concern for the missing and their families.  When you look at the sheer number of cases that he has reviewed and published...well, I wouldn't be surprised if you able to find conflicting reports or articles on many of them.  

 

I think that a lot of his detractors can be explained by one simple reason...his refusal to publicly state the cause of the disappearances.  I honestly think that is because he himself is not 100% certain. I think that their are different culprits that may or not be related.  I also get the feeling that his own personal opinions have evolved over the course of his investigations, and he is not ruling out that those opinions may further change as new evidence and cases emerge.  

 

Once he publicly states what he thinks is causing this, that is it.  If his opinions change with new evidence, then that will quickly be taken up to discredit him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Palidese not stating his theory of the cause of the disappearances is hardly surprising because of his law enforcement background.     A detective does not publicly voice their suspicions about who their suspects are.   If he had some sort of direct evidence that it was BF,   he might voice it.    But because he is always reviewing the investigations done by others in law enforcement,   he certainly is not going to be critical of their investigations or pin it on bigfoot if he ever wants to have access to future investigations.  Professional courtesy and common sense are all part of him  stopping short theorizing what he thinks might have happened.        If there was evidence pointing to bigfoot or any other predator,   the principal investigators likely would have found some evidence to that effect.   That such evidence has not been found in these cases is what makes them different in the first place.   The criticism of Palidese by the BF community is symptomatic of them associating  way to much to bigfoot.     We see that in those that seem see a bigfoot behind every tree in their forest pictures.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Palidese not stating his theory of the cause of the disappearances is hardly surprising because of his law enforcement background.     A detective does not publicly voice their suspicions about who their suspects are.   If he had some sort of direct evidence that it was BF,   he might voice it.    But because he is always reviewing the investigations done by others in law enforcement,   he certainly is not going to be critical of their investigations or pin it on bigfoot if he ever wants to have access to future investigations.  Professional courtesy and common sense are all part of him  stopping short theorizing what he thinks might have happened.        If there was evidence pointing to bigfoot or any other predator,   the principal investigators likely would have found some evidence to that effect.   That such evidence has not been found in these cases is what makes them different in the first place.   The criticism of Palidese by the BF community is symptomatic of them associating  way to much to bigfoot.     We see that in those that seem see a bigfoot behind every tree in their forest pictures.  

Very perfectly stated.

 

Great point on his detective background influencing the way that he presents his findings sans personal opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr

Palidese books have evolved over time.  The initial ones were clearly aimed at BF.  The later ones seem to have more of an alien abduction vibe to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...