Sunday, December 27, 2009


In response to an emailed criticism we received regarding our previous post on our experiences with David Paulides of NABS we offer the following response.

One might wish to read our previous post... HERE first.

If you'd rather not read about our DP/NABS soap opera, click on down to the bottom half where we cover the timing of Bigfoot events in that crucial year, 1967. There is more to follow, as we are setting out to document these timeline issues from every source available. Look for that in the months to come!
"Dave Paulides treated me with disrespect. Those insulting things he said and implied about me, to me, are real--he DID say them, accusing me of things I did not do, or exaggerating what I did, just like he accused John Green and Bob Gimlin, really. I did not make any of that stuff up. If only you could see and read the emails he sent to me. He demanded that I not publish or distribute them, and I won't, especially as he wrongly thinks I'm sending his emails to Daniel Perez. It bothered me how much hate he seemed to have for Daniel Perez (who is a good guy), so I looked into it. I gave Daniel an interview shortly after I interviewed Dave, and it seemed to drive Paulides off the deep end. It did indeed confirm to me so many things others had told me, and made me have to re-evaluate the guy's whole methodology and attitude among the BF world. I gave him a chance to reply, and he very rudely cut me off, with insults I did not deserve. If you look at what I wrote it is mostly just me trying to get Dave to see where I was coming from, and then when he did not reply I looked into what he had said and done, and what others had said about him and his works.

I am not the one making slanderous accusations and insinuations against good men like Green. Paulides is... or he was, anyway. He basically accused them of murder, of being liars and frauds, by implication. That is SERIOUS. And when I first got email to that effect from Paulides, and then read more about it from Cryptomundo and BF Times, I decided to look into it even more. When I saw that I was not the only one he had been so rude to I figured someone should speak up. Dave, I think, needs to think twice about how he is acting, and show more respect to others, especially those who have lain the path out before him. I gave him his chance to reply to Perez, and then to me, but he rudely and insultingly rejected both. He cut me off in the middle of what I thought was a civilized conversation that was to be published on this blog. I was left with no other option than to publish what I did already have, and to look into the situation more deeply. I DID think much about just not writing it; but I'd spent all this time already writing to Dave on the timeline subject, and trying to get him to see what I was saying, and I finally decided to just publish it.

Sorry if it offends you. Someone had to say it. I didn't start it, Paulides did. I merely held up the mirror. It is not as you put it, "mean-spirited vindictive rage," but just the cold hard facts of my experience with the guy. I am not acting out of anger, but rather a desire for justice, and for truth. I wasn't about to just take it lying down; I HAD to say something. Why should Dave be able to do and say what he does, and not have someone respond to it? I merely looked at it all with a critical, objective eye, and I wrote about and reported on what I saw.

I think it needed to be said. It is a public matter when Dave is out there saying the things he says. He would not talk to me about any of it after a point. I tried. I don't know why so many are so afraid of saying what they think. Paulides shouldn't be able to just arrogantly walk over people. I think it was Dave who created the discord you speak of when he started going around and implying that Gimlin and Green were liars and murderers. It is THAT I am talking about, more than just Dave's personal behavior or my own interactions with him. It goes beyond personal matters, and that is why I published it.

Why should Paulides be able to go around acting like a playground bully, but I not be able to publish something in response? Be fair. These things go both ways.

He seems to bully others in his demeanor and statements. I've heard about it from a lot of folks. He tries to act smoothly in public, but then disparages them or cuts them off rudely, or insinuates things behind the scenes into the Bigfooting world. Like this 'very dark secret, really' stuff. Like the things he said about Daniel Perez. Like the things he said at Bigfoot Discovery Days about Michael Rugg and others there. Acting like only HE is a REAL researcher, NABS the ONLY professional group, etc. It's there in the stuff I put on the blog entry. He has not said bad things about me *publicly* that I know of, but he still acted like a bully and insulted me for no reason at all. It just left a real sour taste behind, and I didn't feel like leaving it lie and shutting up. Sorry. Everyone is afraid on the playground to speak out against bullying, lest they get 'beaten up.' But someone, somehow, has to speak up, and I did.

Examples? You saw it RIGHT THERE in my blog. A large section in there is not my criticisms, but those of OTHERS. And there are the links for information. Surely you know of Paulides' accusations of Green and Gimlin? Well, you do now, it's right there in my blog. I didn't just cull that from my own feelings. It's out there in the public record. I just collected this stuff and put in it one place with my own thoughts and interactions with the man.

Generally, I think it is arrogance that he displays. He talks down to others, assumes he is somehow the biggest, greatest, most real Bigfooter on the planet. This just bothers me. It needed to be confronted.

Dave has done some really good work which I respect still, so it was disappointing to me that he behaved in the way he did towards me. And I was trying to warn him that such behavior among others puts a bad light on his work and the subject.

Dave Paulides is a public figure, publicly propounding theories, spreading at one time this idea that Green and Gimlin were murderers, disparaging other researchers, etc. Hence, he may be criticized publicly. That is the way debates work. My criticism of him was not ad hominem. It was just a criticism of his massacre theory involvement and treatment of others including myself. You should see all the stuff I COULD have published. I held A LOT back, believe me.

The "Massacre Theory" is where the "CRAP" you speak of lies.

I believe ethics apply across the public/private line. If Dave treated me badly that is only one small thing, but that it involved Green and Gimlin, and got out publicly on Cryptomundo, one of the largest sites on the internet for this subject, made it a very public issue. This, too, compounded itself upon the festering controversy already going over MK Davis' more recent ideas. In short order it was all over the global internet, and Paulides did nothing like apologize to those guys. You should see the horrible slander, even coming to the point of implied death threats against Green, that can be found on the GCBRO forums, and from folks like "Monster Hunter" Jim Lansdale.

I am simply acting in their defense, really, of Green and Gimlin, as that is where I started talking to Dave in the first place. My own grievances with the guy came later, and pale in significance. So, I am really blogging against the Massacre Theory, and only secondarily saying Dave should not have said those things he did. I am not trying to be the "playground monitor," as you suggest, but I do have a right to speak up against injustice and slander.

If I went around to Bigfooters saying to various people, "privately," that [YOU] were a murderer and a liar, would you not think that wrong? Would you not want someone to speak in your defense? Would you like to be bullied into feeling like you had to take a lie detector test and sign some paper to prove that you are the good person that you are? Would you want your entire sincere life's work and character questioned in that way? No, you wouldn't, I'd bet.

Hence, it was Dave who got in there and committed grievous insults against the living and the dead. It is a huge insult to accuse someone like Green, putting him in the position of having to take a polygraph test (and at his age!) just to prove his innocence. I'd think that, before putting out this "crap" kind of accusation, some decent evidence could have first been assembled. There was nothing convincing at all put forth.

There will be unrest in the Bigfoot world where bullshit resides, as I will comment upon it, plain and simple.

And no, I was well aware that Henry May came up with the term "massacre," or is credited as doing so.
But I don't understand what difference it makes WHAT you call it. If you say that a Bigfoot family was ruthlessly slaughtered by certain individuals, and then covered up with backhoes and a lifetime of lying, then what SHOULD it be called?

I looked into it as deeply as I could, even spending over a month interviewing MK Davis. I also talked with MK back in June for over three hours about this issue. Back then he was very specific. Since he has backed off. I was unable to be at the Ohio Conference you mention, unfortunately, and never found a way to obtain the recordings of MK announcing his new theory. In any case, I'd thought that MK's statements were made more in the private after-conference talks. There is a difference. MK is a gentleman about it. Dave was kind of rude and mean-spirited. So, I am not really too bothered by MK. I like the guy, actually. But these ideas--they are poison.

Please explain to me why calling it a Massacre is any different from saying that there was a slaughter, a killing, an ending of life, or whatever?

How is what I am doing "tabloid" journalism? I've spent some good part of the last few months trying to get to the bottom of this. I've done PLENTY of "homework" on this issue. Check my current blog post [this one, below]. You will see the tip of the iceberg of evidence that there could not have been and was not any kind of massacre at Bluff Creek. I feel I have honestly inquired about it at great length with the two principle proponents of the issue. I also spoke with Loren Coleman and Daniel Perez. I have also spoken at great length with many others who have felt Paulides' "wrath," including the organizers of the Yakima Round-Up, Linda Martin of Bigfoot Sightings, etc. I don't know why you would consider my honest and straightforward, though admitedly also personal, presentation of the issue as somehow sensationalizing the thing. How, now?

I am not trying to "damage" Bigfoot research. I am doing what I am doing for the GOOD of research. I think this "massacre" or WHATEVER you call it is just wholly toxic, and yes, an EVIL kind of theory. Whether you call it a massacre or not, these guys are calling the ones they claim were there "killers." It is an especially serious accusation, as BOTH of those guys  believe Sasquatch to be HUMAN. That is ALL I am pointing out about it, and it matters not what term is placed on it. Gun shots, blood, guts, skins, bloody hands, it all adds up... "massacre." If not, what do MK, Dave, You? think it was, then???

Thanks for talking. I am thinking about it, deeply. I did not want to publish what I did the way I did, but I felt drawn in, as it was necessary, the more I thought about it. I had wanted it to be a nice talk between me and Dave, but no, I guess not."
Bigfoot Books

An interesting comment was left by MATTHEW MONEYMAKER of the BFRO on our previous blog post. Read it with our comments HERE, or read the full prior post HERE. Or for your convenience HERE:

"Wow ... I must say I would not have predicted that Paulides would buy into the 'massacre' nonsense. It's so laughably absurd ...  I can only assume that Paulides has such a boner for making a sensational, high-profile revelation, as a direct result of his detective prowess ... that he unduly inflates the likelihood of situations that would put him in the position to do that. His drive to become the great detective who cracked the case, has made him a bit irrational. So far he has bragged a lot about being the first to do various types of investigations ... that he was not the first to do. It's pretty amazing how much he claims to be a trail blazer along such well worn trails ... and now thinks the "massacre" idea has some validity.
I've always been struck by Paulides consistent misrepresentations that he's the only full-time, professional, sponsored bigfoot investigator in existence... He somehow thinks that his training puts him in a different league than other investigators. If we're gonna play that game, then I'll inform him that lawyers are better, smarter investigators than cops."
--Matt Moneymaker

And now: Notes on the 1967 Timeline of events from Onion Mountain, to Blue Creek Mountain, and finally the Bluff Creek Patterson-Gimlin Film.
These events note the actions of John Green mainly during the time, but also cover the locations of the main figures--Bob Titmus, Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and Rene Dahinden--accused in the "Bluff Creek Massacre Theory." These locations of individuals and timings of events completely DISPROVE that theory.

From our notes, taken so far mostly from Green's SASQUATCH: APES AMONG US:
* FEBRUARY 1967: Green and Dahinden head south, visit Roger Patterson, visit Willow Creek and hear of recent BF "activities" on Bluff Creek, meet Syl McCoy

* "LATE AUGUST 1967" (not too specific): Syl McCoy of Willow Creek calls Green at home re. tracks found on Onion Mountain

* Green contacts Harold McCullough for tracking dog (White Lady)
* Drives south with McCullough, Dale Moffit and dog, sees tracks
* Meets Al Hodgson of Willow Creek, also Mrs. Bud Ryerson, drives home to Canada (probably a two day drive).
* Even LATER AUGUST 1967: First day after getting home Green is called re. Blue Creek Mountain tracks by Bud Ryerson, contractor on the Bluff Creek project.
* SAME AFTERNOON: on a plane with Moffit, Rene Dahinden and White Lady, calls Al Hodgson for provisions to be at Orleans airport.
* NIGHT: Arrival at BCM site, dog reacts but they don't want to track in the dark.
* NEXT DAY, MORNING: No dog response
* EVENING: Return to Orleans for phone calls, return to Bluff Creek area with pilot, go to older Onion Mountain tracks, find new 12-inch prints.
* NEXT DAY: To BCM again, 2 small sets one large of tracks found (590 counted not destroyed by road activity)

* VAGUE ("2 days") (Now EARLY SEPTEMBER): Don Abbot arrives from B.C. Museum; they hear word of sandbar tracks just downstream from future PGF site. THIS IS THE SANDBAR AREA, apparently, where the film that MK is looking at came from.
* Flight back to Canada

* SEPTEMBER: Patterson on BF expedition in Mt. Saint Helens area. Upon return home hears that Al Hodgson has called his wife about the tracks found in Aug-Sept. in Bluff Creek area. Begins to plan expedition.

* VARYING DATES, either OCTOBER 1st P-G departure (Murphy), or "A little over a week" (Patterson) or just "a few days" (Green) before filming. So... sometime between October 2nd and October 21st Patterson and Gimlin are in Bluff Creek.

* OCTOBER 21ST: They hit the road home (a full day's drive)
* OCTOBER 22ND: FILM FIRST VIEWED IN YAKIMA. Present: Green comes from Canada; Dahinden was in SF at filming time, promoting the tracks found BCM/OM, cannot get to film site due to weather; Titmus has come from Kitimat, Canada as well (ALL OF THEM WERE IN OTHER AREAS AT TIME OF FILMING).

* SOMETIME AFTER, BEFORE TITMUS ARRIVES: Jim McClarin goes to site. Lyle Laverty also at site, photographs tracks. Others also witness, mostly locals to the area/forest workers

* LATER OCTOBER to EARLY NOVEMBER: TITMUS in Bluff Creek area for a number of days, finds film site and casts tracks NINE OR TEN DAYS AFTER OCT. 20TH FILMING.

* JUNE 1968: After snows clear and roads reopen, John Green at film site with McClarin, makes film, documents dimensions.

So, the timeline is really pretty clear. Green was in the Bluff to Willow Creek area three times that summer-fall. A busy guy.

IF there were a "conspiracy" how come McClarin, Laverty and the others also independently at the film site DID NOT SEE ANY EVIDENCE of the "Massacre," blood, guts or bones? Or were they, too, lassoed into the inner circle of "liars"? Implausible.

Here's another thing. We think MK Davis and others are exaggerating the "RED" colors of the film(s). We live in the area of Bluff Creek, and have seen the film site on October 20th, August and other times of the year. Really, there is little pure red in the area, save for the poison oak, in the fall. There is A LOT of reddish brown however, as in the ferns that die off. I have them in my yard, and it looks a lot like what MK is calling red. They are NOT red, however. I am going to ask my Natural History buff friend about this. Mostly the trees are not red, as in the eastern USA, but rather YELLOW, and then they wither to LIGHT-TO-REDDISH BROWN. So, if MK is exaggerating the reddish tones found in brown, then he is certainly also exaggerating dirt and mud into... "blood."


CRYPTOMUNDO blogs about this and previous entry on BIGFOOT'S BLOG!

Squatchopedia PGF TIMELINE.

Bill Miller's great indictment of the "Theory,"
The Massacre at Bluff Creek.

Another earlier CRYPTOMUNDO article,
Bigfoot Massacre Theorist, John Green and Coverup


Images: Blue Creek Mountain, tracks and Green investigating; Titmus at Hyampom, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin with track casts, John Green's book and his cast collection;, John Green at Bluff Creek with the dog White Lady. Do you really think these lifelong investigators "massacred" a Bigfoot family? Come on! If your do, then you must throw out nearly all of Bigfoot history in North America. What more convincing theory do you have to replace all this with?


BONUS FEATURE, UPDATE!!! The following was in reply to the talk above, it is our further reply, done 4 January 2010. If you care, this little missive lays it all out there, and nails it shut. We really do wish to NEVER mention the word "Massacre" again, though surely it will rear its ugly head again.



I sent you that email because (don't you remember?), YOU had brought up the issues to me. We had a lengthy discussion about them by email, right?

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and I frankly don't mind at all. Reading your email did, though, make me feel kind of ill in the pit of my gut. Such anger, such rage (as you've put it earlier). If I worried I'd offend someone I'd never be able to write anything. There would always be someone to take offense; and even if I wrote innocuous drivel someone would be offended by that.

But look, my "interviews" were all specifically entitled "Interview and Discussion." I made this clear to all to whom I talked, that I wanted to engage in discussion of issues. It is too easy to just take the words from the horses' mouths, let people say only what they want to say with no challenge or discussion, sticking to only safe and comfortable topics. I am aware of journalistic conventions. I simply choose to not follow this idea of the non-existent objective interviewer. On my blog, in the actions I take there, I am engaged as one investigating the world of Bigfoot every bit as much as those that I am interviewing. There is no inherent hierarchy in discourse, save if you are a fascist. The perspective of both participants is inevitably there, and cannot be erased. If the world needed yet another interview of Paulides or Davis talking about the very same things they have already said and talked about then I would do such an interview. The fact is that I wanted to explore NEW territory. To a healthy and inquisitive mind this should not be a problem. Don't express my "own damned opinion," you say??? Whom are YOU to say such a thing? It is my blog, I will say what I like. I am not here to serve you nor the ego of someone who will not openly talk about things that matter. It only reveals their own weaknesses, not mine, if they cannot reply sensibly.

In my interview with Joshua Blu Buhs everything went civilly and with jocular conviviality, even when I was challenging him. He didn't mind, and I think his responses challenged me to think better. That is a productive discourse. And, interestingly, he is NOT part of the Bigfoot community. What does it say about certain bigfooters if they cannot engage, if they have such thin skin that they react with outrage like I feel Paulides did? What is WRONG here? MK Davis agreed to the interview I did, and its format. It was all revealed to him BEFORE it even began what I was going to ask. In what way did I transgress? I only "laid my cards on the table" after he started hedging away and sending responses that had nothing to do with my questions. How do YOU know "nobody likes" my kind of approach??? I have had plenty of readers praising the work I've done, especially for its unique approaches. And how in the world do you get that my honest questions are expressive of "cynical personal opinions"? WHAT so-called CYNICISM have I expressed? NONE. It is called: a critical attitude. I am very skeptical, however, about lunatic theories that have no basis at all in fact, especially if they damage the veracity of the subject at hand. They were not "driven away" by my questions; they had certain areas where they would not talk, that is all. The ones who wouldn't talk preferred to remain silent rather than speaking out sensibly about their own prior ideas. I can't help that. And they have all had every chance to rebut anything subsequent to their interviews, and I've made that utterly clear.

All of my questions to Dave in the discussion/interview were civil and respectful. He allowed me some room to challenge certain ideas, and I did so. Everything went fine. I spent over a week of serious work making him look good, editing his responses for a better presentation (spelling, punctuation, a number of grammatical issues), and thinking generally how to engage him in a hearty and interesting discussion. He was NOT open and welcoming of certain questions, as you suggest. Frankly, I found it a bit annoying to have to tip-toe around what I sensed were his angry zones, to not step on his toes, to get him to talk about things beyond his straight PR line for NABS. He was open enough to do the interview, which I appreciated. However, once I said that I was also talking to Perez about an interview he really got outraged and outrageous, in my opinion. I mean, I put in all this effort and once I published the interview/discussion, which I had presented to him in full for his approval, all I got is a blunt "DISAPPOINTED," with some rather vociferous accusations coming from him that were absolutely TOTALLY UNPROVOKED, TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. A couple of weeks later, when I published the Perez interview, he just couldn't handle it. He was obviously already angry over NOTHING, but then utterly blew his top when I sent an email to Perez saying that Dave had asked me what his (Perez') sources were for P&G going to Murray Field to send the film. Dave says, implies basically, but clearly, that Gimlin must be lying about this. This is just discussion, not at all personal (save for Bob)--I just wanted to know, like Dave, what the source was. But rather than join the inquiry he'd rather dismiss Perez and insult him. And then he blew his top and started berating ME. For what? NOTHING. Perhaps he is jealous of Daniel's obviously superior knowledge and experience in this field of Bigfoot?

I did not betray personal email from Dave to Daniel. I did not set Dave up. I didn't do anything but promote his product and ask a few sensible questions. I had never said one bad thing about Paulides to people at this point, and yet I had HEARD such bad things uttered constantly by MANY in the field. I tried to remain neutral, but Dave DRAGGED me into the mess. I am not going to just sit by and watch as someone acts the way he did, accusing me of disloyalty, backstabbing, dishonesty (even implying that I'd try to rip him off for his products), having ulterior motives, etc. It was HE WHO SAID THESE ORIGINAL NASTY THINGS, not me. Regarding Paulides' work: YES, a lot of the stuff he has done is very good, and intriguing. However, much of it is NOT original, and he does not GIVE CREDIT nor much of any citation for things that he has obviously gotten from other writers and researchers. I can prove this by textual analysis, and I will. A vastly superior book on Native American Bigfoot culture is RAINCOAST SASQUATCH. It puts Tribal Bigfoot down several notches, in my own humble opinion. Perhaps it is Dave, not John Green, who needs to take a lie detector test: Did you (or did you not) secretly derive ___ from John Green's books, and use it without citation? OK, just kidding.

In what I published I was actually just reiterating much of what is out there in the PUBLIC RECORD. Many had already spoken out. I had some criticisms of Dave's reported behavior in public, of his apparent arrogance (one researcher told me he has an ego the size of Everest), of some of the things in his books and blogs that are factually misconceived. But I also felt he had done me serious personal insult--and I wrote about all of that stuff. That is all. I didn't want to, but felt I had to at that point, especially as I felt someone should have the courage to speak out. I have actually received WAY more praise than criticism over what I wrote.

I cannot help it if you are older than me. I can't have been in this field longer than someone of a previous generation, really. Patterson was dead when I was a little child. What are you, in your sixties right? I have been interested in Bigfoot since childhood. I got involved in studying it seriously after I finished graduate school. Before that I simply never had the time. In the last ten years I have read nearly every book on the subject out there, all the major ones and most minor ones with any merit, many more than once, and I have studied deeply in certain areas (such as Bluff Creek). I don't, surely, know everything, and I admit it--that is why I admire and give credit to people like Daniel Perez and Loren Coleman, or John Green. Had I done this work in school I would only have to write the dissertation to get a Ph.D. I have studied all the major web sites, and read much of the worthy and fine content on yours. I have seen nearly every available Bigfoot documentary and feature film. I have gone to a number of conferences. What more do you WANT from me? Because I was not schmoozing with Dahinden or whatever I am somehow not allowed to speak or comment? Shall I kiss your ring before I am allowed? I am perfectly well informed on the issues on which I speak, and I try to the best of my ability to get to the truth in those matters. I do not just ramble or speak off the cuff, or with rage, or whatever, as you imply.

I communicate widely with people into Bigfoot, but of course I was not there to be involved in the early days. I have always respected John Green, and meeting him and seeing him in action only proved it to me again a hundred times that he is a good and honorable man, not one to live a life of lies and deception. Same goes for Bob Gimlin. Surely, they are not perfect; neither are you, nor am I myself. I could not get involved with the folks you mention, as they were distant, older, out of my sphere of interaction. I did not know when I opened my store in Willow Creek that I would suddenly become part of the world of Bigfoot Researchers. But it happened, and I've found it fascinating. From there I have slowly gotten involved with people I'd before thought of as somewhat legendary. I do NOT advocate "genuflecting" before anyone, not Gimlin or whomever; nor will I accept your silly implication that I bow before your own "seniority" in these areas of study. One can be older, but not necessarily wiser. There is no way you can criticize my activities based on the length of time I've been involved. I am capable. I have a rich and deep and ongoing education and breadth of knowledge. I was trained in academia to utilize logic and critical acumen, and I have studied Philosophy, Science, and contemporary Critical Theory, not to mention Psychology and Social Science. I have two advanced post-graduate degrees. I don't mean to brag, because I really don't care, but my qualifications are actually quite high, whatever the intellectual endeavor. Since the early 1980s I have made it a serious back burner project to study "paranormal" and fringe thought. I am looking at it now in a social, political and philosophical culture-criticism context. I am working on a book on these issues, involving Bigfoot.

Hence, I have been into these things basically since the time YOU had your XXXX [date removed for privacy] sighting that got YOU into this stuff. Since you said in an online interview that you had absolutely NO interest in crypto topics prior to that, then, actually, I have been doing "THIS" longer than you have! Well, not just in the area of Bigfoot, I'll admit it. BUT, I HAVE BEEN DOING BIGFOOT LONGER BY FAR THAN DAVE PAULIDES, if you want to venture into that kind of territory. Who are you to question that? Just because you've had a particular more narrow focus longer than I have? No, sorry. If you want to imply I don't know what I am talking about, PRESENT THE EVIDENCE! Where have I made an error? I have confirmed everything I can from the wide variety of sources. I have consumed the vast bulk of credible (and sometimes incredible) information on Bigfoot that is available. There is no way you can say what you have said and back it up. Thus, it is merely you trying to insult me. OK, fine, whatever. I really don't care what you say about me. It's OK.

These "massacre" slanders out there, though, are toxic and evil, and I only felt the more convinced of this truth after observing Gimlin in action at the Yakima Round-up. I like MK, from my interactions with him, but his ideas of the last couple of years are, I believe, utterly unfounded. And it has the sad consequence that they amount the to virtual tarring and feathering of good people. How can he say the things he does without some at least slightly decent evidence? And there IS NO DECENT PROOF of a bloodbath at Bluff Creek. That Paulides would fall for such crap disturbed me deeply, as I'd really enjoyed Hoopa Project in most ways. I was at least glad to have him working in the area where I live and getting to some good, new information. It was only later that I started to get folks telling me stuff about him, but when I got that "dark secret" email from him and saw it on Cryptomundo and in Bigfoot Times, I really had to re-evaluate my position. The interview was me trying to see the good side of Dave. I believe I showed a lot of that. Didn't I? Well, I really did sincerely try.

In fact, here, it seems to me that it is YOU who are consumed with rage and vindictiveness. Look, it was DAVE who was the "angry man with no social graces," and it is you here who are being intolerant of the views of others. I am not angry. I feel the truth has been offended. Logic has been offended. History has been offended. Good reputations of others have been damaged by bad theories. I am trying to correct those things where I detect the BS. There is a lot of it in bigfooting, I'm sorry to say... a lot of thin-skinned folks trying to prove their positions rather than investigate the truth. Thankfully, this is not all of us.

I have plenty of researchers on my side. I'll stick with them. I have plenty of good readers who know what I am doing and why, and frankly, I could not do a good job if I did not eventually say things that would offend some people. I KNEW you would react to what I wrote, as I'd seen you in other public forums jump all over people who even dared question certain sacred cows. What "damage" to my blog or myself do you think I need to rectify? I have only revealed the truth, as I saw it--I have not lied or distorted ANYTHING. The more proper question is, how is Dave, how MK, going to repair the mess that THEY have stirred up? I have no worries, I'm not invested in some stake here--I am only exploring an area of interest that I find interesting. The blog is a hobby. No one pays me a dollar to do it. I will continue to explore and find the truth to the best of my ability even if I do end up tipping over a few sacred cows, offending some already borderline individuals. If you weren't so biased, you'd see that IT IS I WHO AM THE SENSIBLE ONE HERE! But since Dave does not want me to forward his emails, I cannot prove it to you.

I wouldn't talk about this stuff publicly...
Huh? Look in the mirror...???

Do you really believe that Green is a wretched life-long liar, that Gimlin is a murderous glad-handing fraud? Or what? Do you cling to MK and Dave just because they support the "HUMAN hypothesis," or what?

Can't we all just get along?
Best, really.
Please cool it,
Bigfoot Books


"If you cant take it, then don't dish it out, hu-man!

Me go back to hibernate now. Grrr."


This blog's text is copyright 2009 Bigfoot Books Intergalactic. Quote freely but please provide a citation and link back to this blog. Thanks!


  1. How can there be a massacre of creatures that do not exist?

  2. No Bigfoot. No cry.


Hello! Speak your mind. Let me know someone is actually reading all of this stuff! We moderate the comments here, but will let everything through that is not either blatant Spam or vile hate speech. Don't worry if your comment doesn't appear immediately--it is just under review. Thanks!