Its no secret David Paulides is a controversial figure in the Bigfoot community. One post on Cryptomundo by Loren Coleman criticizes him for propagating the M.K.Davis fantasy.
David Paulides, in 2009, allegedly was the author of several communiques in which he extended some of the M.K. Davis fantasy theories about Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson killing Bigfoot at Bluff Creek in 1967, and John Green, Bob Titmus, and others being behind a coverup of this “massacre.” He caused some folks to think he had some new, correct answers. Those “answers” crumbed like a house of cards when John Green decided to call Paulides on some of his accusations, such as the fact that the “Titmus” photos were of a pilot, and the “red blood pools” were color-filtered rainwater images. --Loren Coleman
In the same post Sharon Lee, one of the best journalist in the community, says this about David:
...Finally, the most difficult presentation to sit through was that of David Paulides….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. 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...--Sharon Lee
On Paulides' North America Bigfoot Search site, they announce tonight's interview on the upcoming events page.
David Paulides will be on "Coast to Coast AM" this Sunday morning [sic] (Really Monday morning from midnight-2am) discussing the latest research that NABS has been working on. The discussions will center on the research conducted in the past versus todays eforts and findings.
"...past versus today's efforts?" Will this be an attempt to hit the reset button and distance Paulides from his earlier, more controversial stands?
Are we reading to much into this single sentence? Either way, even if he isn't planning on resetting his public relations image, most of the crew at Bigfoot Lunch Club feel he should--if not for himself, for the community.
Regardless it should be interesting tune in to Coast to Coast for the last two hours to hear what the new research David Palides is up to.
RELATED LINKS
Cryptomundo quotes
Sharon Lee The Bigfoot Field Reporter™
David Palides' North America Bigfoot Search
Coast to Coast AM
You know, there are certain people who offer something to the field and David Paulides does know how to organize quality material. No he's not perfect and maybe not likable to everyone. So what. This isn't a popularity contest is it?
ReplyDeleteWhy would Ray Crowe entrust his entire decades-long collection of materials to DP if he didn't have certain abilities and capabilities to progress and care for the collection? I'm sure Ray expected them to be cared for and used properly, and thus vetted him before doing so.
Myself being a witness to encountering sasquatch on more then one occasion, I would have liked to have sat down with DP to chat about some stuff a few months ago at the OSS. That's how people learn about other's point of view. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
I've witnessed the witch hunt that takes place in this field with different people. It's really sick if you ask me. What's more rediculous is that it is often carried out by those who have never had an encounter in their life. What do they know about sasquatch when you get down to it? It's little different then those who have never seen a sasquatch and are trying to discount Patty as the real thing. If THOSE individuals had seen one face to face, then they WOULD KNOW that Patty is REAL just by looking at her face. But they haven't and so they can't.
DP is an investigator, HE WAS INVESTIGATING the claims made by MK Davis and I guess Chris Murphy. As far as I know, DP NEVER claimed the massacre theory to be true, but he was RESPONSIBLY investigating a major allegation. Good for him for doing the professional thing contrary to sticking to the emotionally safe status quo. MK has also contributed significantly to the field to warrant someone 'looking into' said claims. And that's what DP did. No crime there. Would you consider someone who investigates a crime, guilty of that crime? No, and there should have been no difference in this case EXCEPT there were some people who had a need to make it more then it was and exploit it for what it was worth. I had submitted my post containing a balanced rational response to CM and Coleman at the time, and how DP's periphery investigative involvement was being overly sensationalized. My post wasn't published. Is that right?
Even if there were elements that DP had pointed out as being corroborated, pointing them out does not make him an advocate of a theory. It's simply what investigators do and we need to get used to that if we expect to evolve into mainstream science and culture. If at some point the evidence weighs heavily in a new direction, then this may persuade a change of thought. Until then, its OK to investigate claims and counter-claims. That's what investigators do and DP is one by profession. Yes its unfortunate that some people's integrity are challenged in the process, but that's not the intent I'm sure and hopefully people understand. I don't believe there was a massacre either, but I also don't close my mind to new evidence whatever the issue because worse things have happened in human history.
Continued...
This situation between DP and Michael Rugg should be addressed by DP. I have to wonder if there is more to that then we know? There usually is. Did something take place between the two that led to the comment by DP? Was he cornered and defensive at the time? Did DP actually not know that Rugg did field research? Does he? I don't know? Was there a distinction between FIELD Research and REPORT Research/Museum Curator that has not been clarified and thus led to the generality of the comment, and what was perceived as an insult? Does DP have a personality that contributed to the situation? Possibly. Was there some level of misunderstanding that led to the whole overblown issue? If an apology is warranted by DP, then maybe he needs to step up, surely he is a big enough man. But in that context it should NOT be some sensationalized event that it has been. It should be allowed to take place in private if the parties can find common ground. Then between the two of them they can let the world know all is well between them. Everyone needs to try being the bigger person in this field.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately there are witch hunts in this field and that is the REAL enemy. We need to guard against this kind of thing happening. We are all writers in this world of blogs and forums, maybe everyone needs to abide by some form of journalistic ethics that is too often lacking on the net?
What I do know is that Paulides is contributing to the field. Just look at some of the substance on his site. Even now there are new letters that are published from Ray Wallace that shed new light on that individual and even Bluff Creek.
David
ReplyDeleteYou've stated what many of us already believe. The witch hunts that take place in bigfoot research is horrible. It almost appears to be a way for people to make a name for themselves by bashing credible people who bring integrity to the topic.After watching this behavior for many years, it's not surprising that many other quality professionals do not come forward and attach their name to the topic.
I would like everyone to read Sharon Lee's work, it's extremely one sided, lacks insight and depth and she places herself in one obvious camp bashing all others, it's extremely clear.
As for Coleman, we all know that he edits responses to his columns making his web address a location that I won't visit. If it isn't an ape, Coleman bashes it...as does Craig Woolheater and....Sharon Lee!!!!!