Saturday, December 26, 2009
Merry Abominable Christmas! Plus... AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVID PAULIDES OF NABS; More on BLUFF CREEK MASSACRE THEORY, TIMELINE ISSUES
MERRY ABOMINABLE SNOW SEASON TO ALL!!!
(Is that PC enough?)
Dig even deeper into this crazy "Massacre" theory if you'd like. The best place to start is probably where it ends, really--the page on Cryptomundo.com where JOHN GREEN GIVES HIS RESPONSES to Paulides' accusations and MK's ideas. There are handy links in this article which will take you back into the story.
Or read MASSACRE MANIA CONTINUES for more info and graphics on the MKD theory.
AND READ THIS NOW: The Massacre at Bluff Creek; Bill Miller debunks the massacre with the help of John Green's original film, found on the West Coast Sasquatch Reasearch site. But be careful: it's through the looking glass in there!
"The more I try to explain the stranger it seems that anyone could think this stuff up, let alone actually go public with it, let alone have anyone else believe it." -- John Green, August 24, 2009
Linda Martin, on BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS, had some interesting points to make in her entry, David Paulides Responds to the Bigfoot Massacre Issue. She, too, has told me she has been CUT OFF from Dave's holy communication. Oh well, Linda!
And this, perhaps the real source of Paulides' anger, is what Daniel Perez had to say re. the misguided "Massacre" theory in his September 2009 issue of BIGFOOT TIMES: "M.K. Davis, sorry to say, has already lost all credibility and now David Paulides isn't very far behind." Then Perez quotes John Green from a September 5th statement: "Can you believe that Paulides could actually have been involved in criminal investigations with serious consequences? The mind boggles. I don't understand these people, but I don't think it's likely Paulides will now be taken seriously by legitimate researchers."
And then a reader of our blog, asking for total anonymity, sent us the following statement:
"I'm guessing Paulides hates or is hated by a lot of people. His writing and research are awful and he's got incredibly thin skin, even for the Bigfoot community. It's scary to think this guy was a cop. I wouldn't trust him to investigate my missing newspaper."
Dave, if you've gone and shot yourself in the foot, you shouldn't blame it on others.
Images: Both from the 2007 Willow Creek PGF Celebration, by Steven Streufert. Above, the Bigfoot swag table including Roger Patterson's book and bust of Bigfoot statues (one of these is now in our possession!); Below, Bigfoot footprint tracks provided by Cliff Barackman, including some of the PGF Patty.
What follows is the discourse from after our own fiasco with Dave, with data following that was originally meant to be published as a brief interchange here on this blog, with our open letter to Paulides, and pieces of our discussion that we can publish--our own words and synopsis of his--without asking his permission.
If you asked me, I would say that your attitude does NOT further the cause, nor does it make you look good in the bigfooting community. We are all in this endeavor together, and trying to be secretive, combative, alienating others, displaying arrogance, and not being open with research results surely will not help us find Bigfoot and the truth any time sooner.
Here is an option, one I consider much more amenable and mature:
We should just drop the anger and the argument, carry on like before with the things we do.
* I never acted as a "spy" for Perez.
* I never tried to set you up or betray you.
* I never sought to take sides with you or him.
* I acted in good faith in wanting to know what you and he think.
So far in my interviews I have chosen subjects I am in touch with. I bought a bunch of books from Buhs, so I asked if I could interview him. You and Daniel both were writing to me so I figured it would be cool to interview both of you. MK Davis and Bobbie Short both commented on my blog, so I figured I'd interview them. I am talking to Matt Moneymaker lately a bit, and have asked him, too. There is NO CONSPIRACY in these matters, save my own intellectual curiosity and desire to get to the bottom of things, to the truth. You should not take offense to that.
The only thing I really ever said to Perez about you was that I thought the "massacre" theory was kind of crazy, back when MK was spreading it around; and I asked him why he thought you'd gotten involved with it. I admit, I was and am truly puzzled about that; but you would not answer those kind of questions. If you close doors then I am forced to inquire with other researchers, books, or internet sites. Do you want to have your say or not? Other than that I didn't go divulging private words to him. You asked about his sources on an issue, and I asked him about them. Where's the crime, Dave?
I mean you no harm. I do not want to be your enemy. I'm glad you're out there doing your research, and am open-minded to all your other ideas and theories. I enjoyed your books. I promote(d) them and your organization every chance I have (had). I have been ON YOUR SIDE all along, in these regards.
You have misunderstood me, and reacted to something that was not even a problem at all, save in your own mind.
To see threats that are not there, to act out against them, this is what is called "paranoia."
If I have done you any harm tell me what I've done and I will apologize if it was really wrong.
Don't make more out of this than is there.
I sent an email to Daniel to ask him about the Murray Field issue, no more.
I DID say in there that I agreed with him that there is a basic PGF timeline that makes sense, and that if you remove certain inconsistently remembered or reported things then it is more clear. I DID NOT MALIGN YOU TO HIM. What exactly do you think I said that was a slight against you? Or are you imagining what I MIGHT have said? Is your imagination running away with you? Well, I didn't say it.
Yes, OK, this is just my opinion. I do not think that they took the Bald Hills route. That is not to say anything bad about YOU. Can we not disagree about certain things??? To discuss ideas and conduct a serious study of anything requires that we not take things personally.
Really, I am not trying to take sides on this just to get web hits, as you imply. Why would I need web hits? I don't make a cent on doing this, you know. What I really want to know is: WHAT IS THE TRUTH? The truth about the PGF timeline. THAT is what I care about. YES, I have read the Green-Gimlin interview you mention, a number of times. I agree, there are problems with the time statements Bob makes. I am VERY CURIOUS as to why so many differing statements were made by various people. But that DOESN'T mean that P. and G. or Al Hodgson were... LIARS!
Read this one, then, yourself: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm
by Christopher Murphy
I have another email where I have compiled all of this stuff [ed. note--see this below] I've been noting about the timeline, which I am going to send to you. In there I am making honest analysis and questioning things. I do sincerely hope that you will read it. This is some kind of toxic issue. Every time I try to talk about it a whole lot of people get pissed off to high heaven.
I do NOT sit around with Daniel Perez joking about you. BELIEVE me, OK? I do not want to alienate you. That is absolutely NOT my intention. In my opinion I have done you NO wrong, okay? Please tell me, why are you so angry at ME? I think you are getting angry where no anger is due. I am NOT backstabbing you.
If I have done some actual harm, please: PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. At least try to make sense.
Steve, Bigfoot Books
What follows is an interchange that was going on right before Paulides “banned” us from his sacred presence. We have taken out Dave’s actual words, as he does not want us to publish them. We have, instead, given a brief paraphrase of them for context only. His statements are summarized under “YOU” below. Make of this what you will--it is a fragment of a sadly aborted discourse, and we hate to just waste the material. Our words are in capitals, only because we wanted to intersperse our words into his email as a mode of reply--we DON’T mean to be yelling by using this mode, we just don't want to retype it and remove it from its original context.
Image: The winding, often confused road Bigfooting usually takes. A sign on Bigfoot Towing, in Happy Camp, CA.
Dave: Here is what I have to say about what you said about the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film and Timeline, in your first email, before you became enraged, interspersed in CAPITALS:
BIGFOOT BOOKS: DAVE, THERE IS ILLOGIC, INCONSISTENCY, AND INCOMPLETE CONSIDERATION IN MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAY IN YOUR EMAIL.
YOU: Dave too literally assumes that we have to believe Gimlin or not, totally missing that there is ambiguity in memory, and he may not have paid ultra-close attention to ALL details of that day. Questions Perez sources, which is what we asked Daniel about. Questions issue of bringing film to airport.
BIGFOOT BOOKS: ALL GIMLIN IS SAYING, IN MY VIEW, IS THAT THEY WENT TO TOWN TO *DELIVER* THE FILM. TO SAY "MAIL" COULD EASILY MEAN, "PUT IT ON A PLANE." ESPECIALLY AS HE SAYS HE DOESN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE THEY WENT. YOU CAN'T BE TOO LITERAL OR NITPICKY IN INTERPRETING ORAL STORIES. IT IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE, HOWEVER MANY AFFIDAVITS YOU GET SIGNED. YOU KNOW WELL, WITNESS REPORTS DIFFER WIDELY.
YOU: Dave questions how P. and G. could have gotten casts, etc. when it was raining so hard that night. Totally not getting that it only rained later, in the early morning. Dave seems not to have really absorbed the primary sources on these matters.
BIGFOOT BOOKS: THEY HAD GOTTEN THE CASTS OUT, TWO OF THEM, THAT AFTERNOON. GIMLIN COVERED UP THE PRINTS BEFORE THE RAIN GOT THAT HARD. IT WAS A DELUGE AS HE RETURNED TO CAMP, SPRINKLING OR JUST STARTING TO RAIN AS HE LEFT, AS ROGER CONTINUED TO SLEEP. THE RAIN CAN CAUSE MUDSLIDES ON BLUFF CREEK ROADS, ESPECIALLY THE MUD ONES, WITHOUT EVEN BEING THAT BAD. THE ROAD CAN HAVE PROBLEMS WHILE THE FILM SITE SANDBAR DOES NOT, SEE? THE CREEK WOULD HAVE STAYED IN ITS BANKS IN A NORMAL RAIN, ONLY A REAL 100-YEAR TYPE FLOOD WOULD INUNDATE THE ENTIRE SANDBAR.
YOU: Dave thinks it unbelievable that Gimlin went back to the film site (2- 2.5 miles on a dirt logging road with the sun beginning to lighten the sky) that night, in the rain, and that he should have been too afraid to do it with Bigfoots running around. (We think Bob was tougher than that, for sure.)
BIGFOOT BOOKS: HE DIDN'T WALK, HE RODE THE HORSE. AND THAT 2 MILES OR SO WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER WITH THE WELL-LEVELED LOGGING ROAD THERE AT THE TIME. HE HAD THE CASTS ALREADY. THE ONES YOU KNOW OF, THE TEN, WERE CAST BY BOB TITMUS, 9-10 DAYS LATER. BECAUSE BOB HAD COVERED THEM UP WITH TREE BARK THEY STILL HELD FORM TO BE CAST LATER. AND RE. THE THREAT OF "BIPEDS," WELL, MAYBE HE FIGURED SHE OR THEY HAD LEFT THE AREA. AND FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND HEARD OF GIMLIN... YES, HE DOES INDEED HAVE NERVES OF STEEL. HE'S A TOUGH GUY, AND BRAVE, AND NOT A LIAR, EITHER.
YOU: Dave thinks they were at Hodgson’s between 8:00 or 9:00, when they were there around 6:15; chooses to believe the Hodgson version of the story of them coming by after sending off the film, even though that is absolutely impossible within the given time frame, even that given by Al himself (Al says they came by earlier, a little after 6:00) and is contradicted by Gimlin’s own account. Dave also believes in the Bald Hills Route story, by the way, even though that is even more impossible.
Image: The great Al Hodgson, still alive and kickin', presents in front of Patty at the 2007 Willow Creek PGF Anniversary gathering. Photo by Steven Streufert.
BIGFOOT BOOKS: NO, AS THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE MADE IT TO *ANY* POST OFFICE BEFORE CLOSING TIME, AND THE WILLOW CREEK POST WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS GOOD. THE *ONLY* REASON TO GO TO EUREKA WAS FOR A SPECIAL AIR DELIVERY FROM THE AIRPORT OR WHATEVER COURIER WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR OFF-HOURS SERVICE. SEE? NO REASON TO GO TO THE EKA POST OFFICE. NO RUSH TO GET THERE BEFORE GOING TO AL'S IF ROGER KNEW OF A WAY TO HAVE IT SENT BY PRIVATE PLANE OR AIR COURIER SERVICE. WHICH STORY DO YOU WANT? DID THEY GO TO THE POST OFFICE OR NOT? DID THEY MAKE IT TO AL'S SHORTLY AFTER THE 6:00 HOUR OR NOT? WHATEVER HOUR, THE POST OFFICES WERE CLOSED, AND THEY COULD NOT HAVE EVEN MADE IT TO THE LOCAL WCK ONE ON TIME. SO WHY EVEN MENTION 9:00??? IT IS AN OBVIOUS MIS-STATEMENT. AL SAYS SIX OR SO--DO YOU BELIEVE HIM OR NOT??? IF YOU BELIEVE HIM THEN THEY WENT RIGHT TO HIS STORE.
YOU: Dave says, after believing absolutely self-contradictory things, that this somehow proves that the film was taken on another day. This is not logically consistent, however. And that it rained later has nothing really to do with anything. But as Dave can’t get the facts straight he comes up with an even more implausible and non-parsimonious theory of what happened. The timeline is NOT impossible, we argue, if you take out the obviously incorrect statements.
BIGFOOT BOOKS: RE. THE 8 0R 9:00 TIME, WELL, MAYBE BOB JUST MADE A WRONG ESTIMATE OF THAT, AS IT ONLY WOULD TAKE ABOUT TWO HOURS FROM THE FILM SITE TO WILLOW CREEK, HENCE A 6:00 ARRIVAL PLUS OR MINUS MAKES COMPLETE SENSE, AND AGREES WITH AL HODGSON'S STATEMENTS. GOING TO THE AIRPORT OR WHEREVER AFTER THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE, TOO. RULE OUT BALD HILLS, RULE OUT EUREKA FIRST, AND LO, IT ALL ADS UP PERFECTLY. DANIEL PEREZ HAS DISPROVED THE SHOWER STORY--THEY MAY HAVE STOPPED THERE THE DAY AFTER, ON THE WAY HOME, APPARENTLY, BUT NOT THE SAME DAY.
Image: Willow Creek Museum's Bigfoot Collection exhibit of some Bigfoot history, this one covering the 1958 Jerry Crew track finds from Bluff Creek.
YOU: Dave argues that we gave Daniel the softball treatment in our interview. Au contraire! That we should have been defending HIS Hoopa Project and Tribal Bigfoot, as if that were our obligation somehow, as if that had much of anything to do with the fact that Daniel was just expressing HIS opinion. He then denigrates and questions Daniel’s investigative talents.
BIGFOOT BOOKS: SORRY, BUT WHAT AMMO NOW DID YOU GIVE ME? BEFORE THE INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL? HARDLY ANYTHING. WE BARELY TALKED ABOUT ANY OF THIS, AND THE THINGS YOU SENT TO ME WERE *AFTER* THE INTERVIEW WAS COMPLETED. BESIDES, IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DEFEND YOUR BOOK, IN AN INTERVIEW WITH A RIVAL RESEARCHER, BUT RATHER JUST TO ASK THE INTERVIEWED SUBJECT WHAT HE/SHE MAY THINK. IT IS YOUR JOB TO DEFEND YOUR OWN POSITION, AND I HAVE FREELY OFFERED THIS TO YOU. YOU SEEM ADAMANT TO REJECT THAT BASED UPON SOME FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT MY MOTIVES. YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG.
DAVE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE IT, BUT THERE ARE A CLEAR MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE BIGFOOTING WORLD WHO HAVE FOUND REASON NOT TO LIKE YOU OR TO RESPECT YOUR RESEARCH. I MEAN, LIKE THE IMPRESSION YOU MADE IN FELTON THIS YEAR--JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE--A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE FELT GRAVELY INSULTED BY YOUR STATEMENTS, INCLUDING THE ORGANIZER, MICHAEL RUGG. I WASN'T THERE, SO I CAN'T REALLY COMMENT COMPLETELY; HOWEVER, I WISH YOU KNEW HOW DAMN MANY TIMES I'VE DEFENDED YOU AND YOUR WORK FROM CRITICISMS. ALMOST UNIFORMLY BIGFOOTERS HAVE TOLD ME BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU, THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE, OR FOUND YOUR WORK LACKING IN SOME REGARD. I, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU DID GOOD WORK AND SEEMED LIKE A GOOD GUY. I HAVE BEEN ALMOST ALONE IN DOING SO, AND HAVE HAD TO DO SO IN ALMOST EVERY CASE YOUR NAME HAS COME UP. BUT LOOK, I AM NOT AGAINST YOU. I WOULD CONTINUE TO DEFEND YOU, SAVE IN THE CASE THAT YOU TAKE A BAD ATTITUDE IN RESPONDING TO ME, IF YOU LEAVE THE NASTY THINGS YOU JUST SAID ABOUT ME, OR IMPLIED, STANDING AS THEY ARE. IF THAT IS THE KIND OF PERSON YOU ARE THEN I WOULD BE FORCED TO ADMIT IT AND AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHERS. I SINCERELY *HOPE* THAT IS *NOT* THE CASE, DAVE.
Image: One of Shipton's 1950s Yeti snow prints.