MERRY ABOMINABLE SNOW SEASON TO ALL!!!
(Is that PC enough?)
Perhaps you remember this cool Abominable Snow Monster of the North, from the 1964 Rankin/Bass stop-motion animated TV special production, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." This was probably our own first exposure to hairy cryptid hominoids, predating our first viewing of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Plus, you've just got to love the Island of Misfit Toys!
NEWS FLASH: This week we knocked off an appreciative email to Daniel Perez regarding his latest issue of BIGFOOT TIMES, and now he's posted it on his blog. READ IT HERE, or go and bookmark BIGFOOTTIMES.NET now. We mainly talk about the PGF in the letter to the editor. Go and subscribe to BF TIMES, it will do you some good, for sure. This month Daniel announced the very well-deserved selection of BILL MUNNS as "BIGFOOTER OF THE YEAR." It is our feeling that we now have the data and historical perspective to do a full re-evaluation of both the film's Bigfoot subject AND the timeline issues. To us Bigfooters this should be of singular importance: that we put the puzzle pieces together and throw out the ones that obviously don't fit. What remains is the truth of the matter, all "Bluff Creek Massacres" be damned (unless, MK and Dave, you can actually PROVE that thing!).
Check out Munns' CREATURE GALLERY. And the essential site for new data on the Patterson-Gimlin Film, THE MUNNS REPORT.
WHY DOES DAVE PAULIDES HATE US??? Our Recent Experiences with Mr. NABS.
Anyway, it looks like we have stepped into the middle of a major bigfooting shitstorm. We'd interviewed David Paulides earlier, hoping to get him to open up on some of the more controversial issues he has raised or that surround his attitude and public behavior and written statements. However, he declared he'd only talk about non-controversial things. So, we talked a lot about Ray Crowe and the Track Record product that NABS has recently released. However, at the end of that blog we placed a small "Coming Soon" slug about an interview with his arch-rival, Daniel Perez. Dave became angry. "Disappointed" was how he put it, bluntly. And for what? Just for interviewing Mr. Perez, and not being "loyal" to Mr. Paulides. Apparently, Dave does not understand the concept of objective and investigative journalism.
As soon as the Perez article was published he seemed to flip his wig. He thinks we are Perez' spy or something, as we'd sent a question Dave had asked us on to Daniel, as Dave was questioning Daniel's sources in regard to an issue of the P-G Film timeline. This is NORMAL in any field of inquiry... to INQUIRE. But just because we sent that question to Daniel, and Daniel replied back to BOTH Dave and us, now Paulides thinks that we were forwarding his emails to Perez. Perhaps Dave, using his awsome "investigative abilities and training" could have looked at the email more closely and seen that it was not US who sent any preceding material to Perez, but rather it was Daniel who chose to add Paulides' email to the reply list. Instead, he got it all wrongly, like he does often enough in his two books. Read more closely, Dave.
As soon as the Perez article was published he seemed to flip his wig. He thinks we are Perez' spy or something, as we'd sent a question Dave had asked us on to Daniel, as Dave was questioning Daniel's sources in regard to an issue of the P-G Film timeline. This is NORMAL in any field of inquiry... to INQUIRE. But just because we sent that question to Daniel, and Daniel replied back to BOTH Dave and us, now Paulides thinks that we were forwarding his emails to Perez. Perhaps Dave, using his awsome "investigative abilities and training" could have looked at the email more closely and seen that it was not US who sent any preceding material to Perez, but rather it was Daniel who chose to add Paulides' email to the reply list. Instead, he got it all wrongly, like he does often enough in his two books. Read more closely, Dave.
Now, in Paulides' book, we are "disloyal, a backstabber, dishonest, not to be counted on," etc. So, we may as well write what follows. He even rudely implied that we might not pay him for products he'd sent for the store. He accuses US of ignoring facts and not doing research when, in fact, it is HE who won't read our email, who won't consider any of the information included below. He'd rather think he is the first to interview Al Hodgson, or the first to read the 1992 Green-Gimlin interview. Sorry Dave, you're a late-comer to this party (so are we). All this despite the obviously discoverable fact that it is his own misunderstanding and hot-headed emotional reaction that has led him to this point, he has cut off all communications with us and vows to never do another interview with anyone ever again. “NABS,” his "group," even had a special "meeting" the next day with humble us as Issue #1 on the agenda, and they are now establishing a no-interview, no media policy. Dave seems to like to do things this way. Perhaps it gives him that grand feeling of power that he misses getting from law enforcement?
Well, NABS, good riddance, we suppose. With an attitude like that who really WANTS to hear from you, anyway? But it is incredibly rude to just cut off communications like that, after unjust recriminations to boot. Dave, you should be glad that I did NOT write the kind of fairly critical review of your two books that I WOULD have written had I not been interacting with you via email and in a business relationship. Perhaps now I will go back and write those. Believe me, I liked those books in great part, but they are not, um... PERFECT. Not at all. Some of the factual and grammatical errors are, frankly, embarrassing.
It is sad, Dave. Look, who defended you in every case we could, against constant criticism from others around in the bigfooting community? Who promoted constantly and sold your books, not to mention maps, patches and stickers, in our shop? Who gave you a full blog entry to say whatever you wanted and to promote your product, The Track Record? Who edited your grammatical and spelling errors out of that interview so that you would look better in it? Who got this product set up on Amazon.com for sales there, and designed a nice product listing page for you? Who has an ad flier in his window promoting your new book and a large sticker promoting your organization? Who also got your book placed in the stock of the most popular bookstores in Humboldt County based solely upon our recommendation? Who still has promotional links on our blog for your website? That was US, Dave, WE at Bigfoot Books did that for YOU. Now, Dave, who is backstabbing whom? Who is being disloyal? It certainly is not us! It is you who, in apparent paranoia, is doing it to us. And we've heard repeatedly about how you have done this kind of things to other bigfoot researchers. Cut enough bridges, Dave, and who will eventually be left on your "side"? NO ONE.
We first encountered Dave, we are certain, when a man whom we later recognized from the author photo on his book came in to our shop here in Willow Creek, sometime in 2007. His first book had not come out yet, and no one knew whom he was at that point. He didn't announce to us that he was a "professional" Bigfoot researcher, but rather played the part of the tourist and tried to pick our brain for information. We'd asked him what his interest in Bigfoot was, as he seemed curious about ours, and the subject in general. He said he was just looking into some things, now that he'd retired from being a police officer, that he'd always been interested in but didn't have the time to explore. He played naive, as if it was casual interest, and he'd just begun to think more seriously about it. Actually, it seemed to us, he was trying to hide his identity, using his supposedly awesome interrogative and investigative skills. The professional thing to do, when encountering a colleague in any given field, is to INTRODUCE yourself and your projects and area of interest. Rather, we were left later with a sour feeling, especially as many of our ideas for our own research projects then seemed mysteriously to turn up in Paulides book. Now, we're not saying that he stole them, necessarily; but it just doesn't ring with collegiality and openness of discourse that should exist in any growing, collaborative field of knowledge. Rather, it seemed the behavior of a spy, a snooper, especially as, when we later came into contact with him to sell his products, he never once let on that he had met us nor been in our shop before. Beyond sneaky, this seems almost duplicitous to us. It's just plain odd.
He's alienated a lot of others, including numerous folks we know personally. Here's what BIGFOOT FIELD REPORTER, Sharon Lee, had to say about Dave's behavior at this year's BIGFOOT DISCOVERY DAYS:
"Finally, the most difficult presentation to sit through was that of David Paulides. Now, I am pretty new to this world of bigfoot research, 6 years. I have not had time to read every book written on bigfoots because almost EVERYONE has written a book. So, I had no idea who this Paulides guy was, but I guess I should have! In his words, he is the best researcher. His organization is the best. He doesn't consider individual people researchers. He insulted Michael Rugg, the host of the event, by telling Mike that he was not a researcher, but just a museum curator. He then went on to talk about what a bad rap he gets, and how no other organizations will step forward to work with him. Gee, I wonder why? This guy had no shortage of arrogance! I felt really badly for Mike Rugg. He has dedicated his life to bigfoot research and to be insulted at his own event that Paulides was invited to, was so disrespectful."
Image: Bigfooter Elders at the 2003 Willow Creek International Bigfoot Symposium, including Bob Gimlin (in hat), Al Hodgson, and John Green (in back, hidden).
In a public comment Believe It Tour's Brad Pennock reported, "Yeah, David Paulides talked a lot about how the Patterson/Gimlin story details didn't add up, but then emphatically stated he believes the Bigfoot in their movie is real. WTF?" This goes along the lines of what Paulides has been promoting non-publicly, using an email rumor campaign: the "BLUFF CREEK MASSACRE THEORY." Yes, Dave claims that he came up with the very same theory that MK Davis propounded earlier, but to have found it independently, in some archival materials and film found in the Western Bigfoot Society/Ray Crowe archives that NABS had purchased. The rumor campaign? Much like MK's tactics, it was conducted within the Bigfoot researcher community, and began to spread out like a virus. There was nothing really new here--we'd heard all of it before from MK either personally or over the WWW. However, as outed and published on CRYPTOMUNDO by Loren Coleman, and then in the BIGFOOT TIMES by Daniel Perez, there was apparently something more sinister going on here, something more like defamation, and it was aimed at the most respected names in the Bigfoot field.
Daniel Perez and Loren Coleman both published and quoted Paulides as writing (yes, we got a variant of these odd emails from him, too),
"I actually got my hands on a fairly old copy of the PG film, full framed with segments on it nobody has seen. It is in the experts hands and many of our impressions of what actually occurred is playing out. I actually believe that John Green and Gimlin are harboring a very, very dark secret, really."
The "Secret"? It is a theory that claims John Green, Bob Gimlin, Rene Dahinden, Roger Patterson and Bob Titmus participated in the slaughter of a Sasquatch family, and that the clip known as the PGF is just a small piece of the killing action. In stating or at least implying things like this, Paulides is not only scandalizing the names of these two elder statesmen of Bigfooting, but he is also besmirching the honorable memory of nearly all the late greats, who aren't around anymore to defend themselves against such outrages: Patterson, Dahinden, and Titmus. He is not just dragging their names in the dirt, but more: he is accusing them of MURDER. If you buy into Dave Paulides' notion that Bigfoot is fully HUMAN, then what else can we call the slaughter of a whole family of them in Bluff Creek? This is serious shit, and ex-cop Dave should KNOW BETTER.
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.
Be sure to check out NABS/Dave's "Blog #67 Professional Investigations" found by scrolling down on the NABS BLOG page. Here, among other things, Dave finally admits (after many earlier claims) that he was not the first to utilize affidavits in Bigfoot research. Nope, it was John Green. Here Dave makes the most hypocritical statement we can imagine. Talking about OTHER researchers he ends up simply describing himself: "...the world of Bigfoot is one of the most dysfunctional arenas in any spectrum imaginable. It’s a place where many can’t work together, most don’t have friends, a majority of research “groups” are a group of one and almost all have an ego the size of Texas." Mr. Paulides, if you want us to believe you, stop being so secretive, so combative, so arrogant, so presumptuous and... show us these "Experts" already? Who ARE they? Are they even there? What are their credentials? Is NABS really just Paulides and Pratt with some financial backers and a lot of hot air, or can we really believe in the credibility of your evidence and methodology? It is hard to believe in its value if it is hidden behind what seems like the smoke, mirrors and stage curtains normally used by magicians and charlatans and snake oil salesmen. Come out into the open Dave, share the world with other researchers and thinkers in the field, don't be something like a paranoid recluse. But you're going to have to play nice....
*********************************************
AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVE PAULIDES OF NABS:13 November 2009
Willow Creek, CA (Revised slightly Dec. 23, 2009)
Dave,
I wish you would not be so angry. About what? I did not forward your mail to Daniel. I simply asked him a question you had raised about the mailing/sending of the PGF. This is NORMAL in an inquiry, to ask questions, to debate and mutually consider evidence.
I cannot help it if you and Daniel Perez are enemies. I do not deserve to be treated the way you are treating me, simply because I interviewed him. Your reaction is really rather extreme, and if you asked me, unworthy of a researcher and author of the stature you want to be.
If you would take a step back from your knee-jerk emotional reaction you would see that I never took sides between the two of you, and simply asked both of you about your ideas and opinions. I had no obligation to defend your work after Perez’ comments, but if you’d look you would see that I DID defend you in the interview. I am not responsible for Daniel’s views. I gave you the right of rebuttal, which you refused, to your own detriment, I think.
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.
Look:
* 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.
This:
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.
I believe:
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.
Really.
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.
Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books
*********************************************
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.
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.
BEST,
STEVE, BIGFOOT BOOKS
*********************************************
OK FOLKS, MAKE OF THE ABOVE RELATIONS AND FRAGMENTS WHAT YOU WILL.
Think of Mr. Paulides as you like--these are just our own current views and experiences. We exercise our First Amendment right to FREE SPEECH in doing so, but in no way wish to claim that you should believe as we do. We are open to a change in attitude in Dave, but somehow feel we should not expect it. We do hope that solipsism and egotism don't cloud his mind forever, and he can get on with the more serious topics wherein he may just contribute something worthy to the field of Bigfoot research. Hoopa Project and Tribal Bigfoot were pretty darn fascinating books. Let's hope he does come around!
OK FOLKS, MAKE OF THE ABOVE RELATIONS AND FRAGMENTS WHAT YOU WILL.
Think of Mr. Paulides as you like--these are just our own current views and experiences. We exercise our First Amendment right to FREE SPEECH in doing so, but in no way wish to claim that you should believe as we do. We are open to a change in attitude in Dave, but somehow feel we should not expect it. We do hope that solipsism and egotism don't cloud his mind forever, and he can get on with the more serious topics wherein he may just contribute something worthy to the field of Bigfoot research. Hoopa Project and Tribal Bigfoot were pretty darn fascinating books. Let's hope he does come around!Image: The Heat Miser is all fired-up over this! From "The Year Without a Santa Claus," another fine Rankin/Bass stop-motion Christmas treasure.
**********************************************************************
ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS:Me hibernate!!! Get out my cave, hu-man! Me break scrawny hu-man neck. ZZZZ. GRRR. ZZZZ.
**********************************************************************
All words in this blog entry are just the opinons of Bigfoot Books. DISCLAIMER: You might want to investigate the issues and form your own opinions before coming to any conclusions about the subject matter discussed. These are just our personal experiences and views, and are in no way meant to be construed as absolute statements of fact and truth.
Copyright 2009, Bigfoot Books Intergalactic.
Image: One of Shipton's 1950s Yeti snow prints.
******************************************
