Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
jjblondee

The book 'Missing 411-by David Paulides'

56 posts in this topic

On 7/11/2017 at 6:37 AM, ChrLzs said:

How many should there be, exactly?  This is the same logical fallacy that is used to justify that we must be being visited by aliens.  But the no of stories simple reflects people's ability and desire to storytell, added to what actually happens from 'normal' disappearances, added to our cultural myths and legends..  Paulides is heavily involved in Bigfoot promotion, so he will have a natural bias to try to find anything that seemed odd.

As a start, since they began recording people going missing in the huge number of national parks in the Americas in the late 1800's, there are hundreds of thousands of disappearances.  Can you quote where Paulides refers to base-line figures to compare to his chosen 411?  Or where he draws a line to determine what should be termed 'mysterious'?  Does he compare the rate of 'mysteriousness' to non-national-park missing persons?

Cherry picking stories is not a good way to get at the truth.

And what do you think he's suggesting - it is that Bigfeet are doing this?  or something else?

Did you read 2-B's excellent post (# 17 on page 1)?   It addresses this claim of cherry picking (towards the end of the post).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
2 hours ago, sees said:

Did you read 2-B's excellent post (# 17 on page 1)?   It addresses this claim of cherry picking (towards the end of the post).

In that post he stated:

Quote

Last, while cherry-picking in theory damages an argument, this reviewer fails to explain how Paulides and his researchers can be cherry-picking when their goal has been to collect data on ALL the disappearances in national park areas that cannot be explained by animal attacks, drownings, mere wandering off of children or elderly, typical outdoor injuries leading to death, etc.

Please explain how the heck you can rule out, for example, animal attacks or drownings given these are disappearances.  Ie there is no body to examine to determine the cause.

Just handwaving it away as an issue shows that either
- you haven't read any/much of the book nor examined at least some of the cases in detail
- don't understand what cherry-picking means, and how a genuine researcher will not only avoid it, but will also declare exactly how s/he avoided it...

The thing is, Paulides simply declared cases 'odd' for the most trivial of reasons.  So if you would like to argue that cherry-picking does not apply, please point out the part in Paulides where he discusses how/where he 'drew the line'.  You will be struggling to find the criteria he used for counting in any given case.. in fact you will find that pretty much anything was used, eg (and no I'm not kidding..):
- that tracking dogs could not seem to find a scent trail...
- that two people had short christian names starting with A...
- that a few disappearances were 'odd' because the persons were last seen near berry bushes... 

Yes, I'm afraid it really is that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the stories Paulides leave out or changes the details. In Bart Schleyer case Paulides claims animal faeces contained no human material, but from articles I've read Schleyer's remains were found in bear faeces. Dennis Martin is another that sounds like a kidnapping that Paulides tries to make sound mysterious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After listening to some of his interviews I heard David Paulides rejects the mountain lion explanation because attacks are so rare, yet when they do attack they have been known drag off adults. Anyone else noticing the irony here? Paulides is spinning these stories as paranormal BUT rejects something that we know occurs because it's too rare. This makes me think his isn't genuinely after answers.

I believe some of the cases (not all) can be explained by mountain lions, they stalk silently and attempt to kill their prey quickly, someone may not even have time to scream. I just found it funny the excuse Paulides gave for rejecting this explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 0:50 PM, Rlyeh said:

After listening to some of his interviews I heard David Paulides rejects the mountain lion explanation because attacks are so rare, yet when they do attack they have been known drag off adults. Anyone else noticing the irony here?

I think you're working a little too hard here. Yes Mt. Lion Attacks are rare, but when they do attack there is evidence of said attack, like blood, tissue and marks in the ground from the aforementioned dragging off of its victims. That is why the mt. lion theory is dismissed in many of these cases, the evidence just isnt there. 

At least thats what Ive taken from his presentations. 

I do think some of the cases have possibly more mundane explanations, especially the ones involving young children for instance as an eagle can pick up somewhere around 30lbs.  

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I think you're working a little too hard here. Yes Mt. Lion Attacks are rare, but when they do attack there is evidence of said attack, like blood, tissue and marks in the ground from the aforementioned dragging off of its victims. That is why the mt. lion theory is dismissed in many of these cases, the evidence just isnt there. 

At least thats what Ive taken from his presentations. 

I do think some of the cases have possibly more mundane explanations, especially the ones involving young children for instance as an eagle can pick up somewhere around 30lbs.  

That's why I said only some cases could be explained by mountain lions, I don't think blood would necessarily be present if the lion took them by surprise breaking the neck. But Paulides excuse "they're too rare" is good coming from someone who is selling bigfoot.

Some of them is truly strange however assuming he isn't leaving out details.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.