I’m deeply disturbed by the connection of David Paulides to the the Bigfoot massacre theory of MK Davis, especially since this morning Loren Coleman of Cryptomundo put an email said to be authored by David Paulides in his blog posting about Rene’s Film. For what it’s worth, I generally think it is a violation of internet ethics to place a private email on a public site without permission from the sender. But there it is, accusing John Green and Bob Gimlin of “harboring a very, very dark secret” or at least implicating that they bear some sort of culpability in this matter. [Update: see note from Loren Coleman regarding the source of the email in comments, below.]
I emailed David Paulides a few days ago for clarification after seeing him mentioned in one of Loren Coleman’s earlier postings: Bigfoot Massacre Theorist, John Green & Coverup. I got no reply to my email, which is unusual for him as he usually responds to my emails right away. I realize Dave could be out traveling, researching, deep in the woods, or anywhere. Maybe he didn’t get my email! In case he hasn’t seen my email, here’s what I wrote:
I noted today that Cryptomundo has run an article about MK Davis and his accusations against John Green, and that Loren Coleman implicated you when he posted this, “Needless to say, Green feels that M. K. Davis, and now Davis’s new associate, Dave Paulides, have lost all credibility in his eyes.”
I’m writing a short response to what I read there – and would like to know from you – do you believe the MK Davis analysis of the film site? Also, are you really an associate of this man?
No response. What could it mean?
I’ve met David Paulides only once. I was working at a Happy Camp restaurant at the time; when he finished his meal he introduced himself to me and gave me his card, not knowing at the moment that I own this Bigfoot blog. Of course I told him right away who I was and about this site. Since then I’ve exchanged a few emails with him and reviewed his first book, The Hoopa Project. I’ve started a Bigfoot Reading Group project for the review of his second book, Tribal Bigfoot, during the month of September.
Now suddenly I see he’s implicated in a controversy (the Bigfoot massacre theory) that is creating waves in the Bigfoot research community, especially as he’s upset John Green, who most of us revere as an early Bigfoot researcher and author of some of the most respected books ever published on the topic of Bigfoot.
I want to state clearly, straight up, that I don’t agree with this Bigfoot massacre theory, don’t support it, and am distressed at the entire issue. As a former law enforcement investigator I’d think Mr. Paulides would reserve judgment until after Bigfoot skeletons have been recovered from the site, if that could even be possible. No body, no story… you know what I mean?
I already demonstrated in my earlier post on this topic, Bigfoot Massacre? Bloody Nonsense! that the supposed evidence of a bloodied hand seems to have been enhanced unnaturally by photoshopping some red into the photo. Since that bloody sight seems to me to be fraudulently created, I believe all the other suspiciously bloody photos are equally irrelevant to real life. I realize I probably don’t have the same photo-enhancement software that the video-maker did, but using Paint Shop Pro v.8, there was no way I could find to bring out that kind of red on the man’s hand without turning the entire photograph red, or using masks to isolate the hand for retouching.
My respect for David Paulides’ earlier work in his two books is not diminished, but I believe that the Bigfoot massacre theory is a big mistake and I’m hoping he can distance himself from it and redeem his reputation. I’ve decided to go ahead with my reading and reviewing of Tribal Bigfoot in September, but needed to put this posting out first so everyone will know my support of Mr. Paulides’ work doesn’t extend to the current issue of a Bigfoot massacre cover-up.
I feel the need to clarify this as I’ve been burned before by a very irresponsible so-called researcher who came to my town, made a fool of himself in a big way, and by association, smeared my reputation as a beginning Bigfoot researcher. That happened in 2005 and it has taken years to recover from that association. I’m still asked about him and his associates as if I’m still associated with them, which I am not and haven’t been since the big disaster of 2005. I refer to him now as “he whose name will not appear in my blog” because he’s a publicity hound and I’m not going to help him with that.
Because of my earlier experience, I’m not happy about having someone I associate with veer off into what most of us will consider an erroneous theory… especially when that error is hurting some of the older members of the Bigfoot research community.
The thought of having a group of Bigfoot present themselves for slaughter just doesn’t make sense to me. They are so reclusive, I don’t believe they’d do that. And if someone did come upon a group, and started shooting, it is unlikely they’d slaughter them all. The remaining Sasquatches would probably attack, not run.
I’ve said it before… dig up the bones if you really think they’re there. I just hope that the situation resolves itself soon and that everyone is satisfied with a peaceful and happy outcome to what looks like a challenging Bigfoot research issue at this point. I agree with Loren Coleman that ignoring the issue isn’t a solution.
4 Replies to “Compromised by an Errant Bigfoot Researcher Again?”
the internecine warfare and the he said she said tales among bigfooters is surely the least interesting aspect of this “field.” YAWN
mk davis and any associates of his certainly have the right to access information available to them and make their conclusions known. this is after all america, and we still have freedom of speech, no matter what the sasquatch thought police believe. i for one would LOVE to be able to read their presentation in total, and not merely as dribs and drabs in other people’s outraged postings…where is it on the internet? can somebody PLEASE post a link so i can read it for myself and make up my own mind?
“revering” authors and long time researchers simply because they are published or well known is just plain toadying. you find yourself in a potentially embarrassing political situation…you seem to have endorsed someone who might now be considered politically incorrect. this is on top of a previous faux pas that took years to come out from under…so what do you do? you post a blog distancing yourself, in an effort to retain credibility……. for once and for all dear girl, there is no credibility of ANY kind in the “field.” just ask any on on the street, randomly selected what they think of “b/f” and stand back. there is NO credibility. so i advise you to read up on what davis and others might be postulating (if you can find it on the web) and make up your mind for yourself. by all means continue to feature the books you select…it is only by widening our frame of reference that we can become wise. that means sometimes actually reading books by people who are not the current flavor of the month. if you are brave enough to go searching for the big man in the woods at night, you are brave enough to take a little political heat. plus we have to look at who is throwing the flames…cryptomundo is not known as CRYPTOTATTLER for nothing. and there have been many complains on message boards about his refusal to take anything but the most innocous comments on his blog.
Fascinating POV, Ralphie Boy… is that your real name? (Just wondering…) But on the whole I agree with you. Freedom of speech is important and examination of the full spectrum of evidence by interested parties such as yourself will no doubt help to throw more light on the issue.
Where I really drew the line was at implicating Bob Gimlin and John Green in what constitutes, in my mind, a murder. Like many, I consider Sasquatch to be more human than animal. So hearing that someone is accusing them of being involved with Sasquatch murders and covering them up — that is what set off my emotional reactions to this topic. Also I have a lot of respect for elders, and they are the elders in this field of Bigfoot research.
All that aside, I looked at the videos back when they were posted at Cryptomundo, and was shocked by the red and bloody visage of “skin and gore” on the ground and a bloody hand. I screen captured the bloody hand before-and-after photo processing pictures, put them into my own photo processing software program, and couldn’t replicate the bloody hand results. I wrote about that in my earlier post on this issue. Then I went back to look at the videos again and – lo and behold, they had been removed from YouTube! Someone didn’t want us to see them… probably because it is so very easy to detect that the bloody hand was photoshopped in.
Okay, so based on the non-bloody hand video, I already believe this whole theory has to be a farce, so I’m upset that Mr. Paulides, someone I have totally respected for many months, is investigating this… and I cringe at the thought that he’s got some book half-written somewhere that accuses John Green and Bob Gimlin of being part of a murder cover-up. I was also distressed that I got no answer to my email. I still haven’t heard from him. A little communication goes a long way… so I posted this, really, hoping he’d drop the issue before his credibility suffers more. He’s a good man and decent enough researcher that’s been a credit to the Bigfoot research community. Hopefully that won’t be destroyed by pursuing this crazy ‘massacre’ issue. I know from my own experience that it is very hard to regain credibility after being involved with the wrong researcher’s agenda… and I don’t want that to happen to David Paulides. It would help if he would clarify his role in this ‘massacre’ issue. Is he really taking it seriously? Really? Is there any proof, or just old and inconclusive films?
About credibility – I don’t care much about credibility for Bigfoot research with the unbelieving public. I do care about credibility among other dedicated Bigfoot researchers. Those who are involved with this matter are the best to judge who is credible and who isn’t.
Thanks for the clarification, Loren. I’m so shocked by this matter, and overlooked that it was quoted to you. I do understand why the email has come out at this time, to validate the issue at hand.
Just a minor contextual clarification, please.
The “very, very dark secret” email quotation shared from Mr. Paulides, as noted above, was quoted by Mr. Green in the body of his statement that was published on Cryptomundo. Some may read the way this is reported here as if I personally shared that versus this comment being employed by Mr. Green to demonstrate Mr. Paulides’ statements about Mr. Green and Mr. Gimlin.