My name is David Paulides and for the last 4 years I've been investigating people missing in the wi

reply to post by Dianec


Nisene marks park in Aptos.

I'm hearing you when you say parks cover these things up - close them out to clear the books. Years ago I was jogging through Nisene Marks park in Aptos, Ca (also near the epicenter of the Lima prieta quake). I was alone and about to round a corner about a mile up and got the strangest feeling. When jogging you don't usually stop but something made me stop and run in place and then turn around and leave. My heart was racing from more than the short run I had engaged in thus far. It's almost like the further I got from that spot the more convinced I was I had made the right choice. I couldn't move fast enough. This is the only time this has happened to me during a run. I found out a few weeks later that a person disappeared up there (I cannot remmeber if male or female - this was quite awhile back - early 90''s). I assumed instinct kicked in and there must have been a predator (human) hiding behind the big tree I stopped before.

I am wondering if you have any cases for those who have gone missing there - any strange circumstances. I'll get around to your book but in the meantime am curious about this location.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Been to Nisene many times, use to live on High st in SC.
That park gets very dark the deeper you go in up above SJ/Soquel Rd. Go in up high in the park and walk down to Soquel, it is a gorgeous hike but very lonely...

Nothing in that area in regards to missing.

Thanks for the contact.

PS. Go to Gayles and get me crocodile....

schuyler
Let’s take a closer look at this DeNovo Journal.

It is accessed via www.advancedsciencefoundation.org.... It’s a fairly simple site with a landing page that says: DeNovo Accelerating Science. When you click on the “Contact” Tab you have to page down where you enter name, etc. and what you want to talk about. At the bottom is the phrase “© DeVono Scientific Publishing”
So which is it? DeNovo or DeVono? They don’t know how to spell their own name. So let’s go a little further. Below that they list an ISSN, which is an International Standard Serial Number. It’s ISSN 2326-2869. When you look THAT up in WorldCat, which is a worldwide database of books and magazines, you find out is published in Big Rapids, Michigan by Advanced Science Publishing. There is no listing for such an organization in Big Rapids directories. Once again, no libraries in the entire world have holdings because it is an online publication only. According to a review posted at WorldCat:

According to the author (of the only paper in the first issue) herself, this amateurish journal/website was put up hurriedly to publish a paper (claiming to prove the existence of bigfoot/sasquatch by means of DNA evidence), which had been turned down by various publications over a period of some years. She claims that another journal (which had never published an issue) was going to publish it but backed out, so she bought that journal and changed its name to DeNovo. The article, which sold for $30, received (informally) very negative comments online from scientists in the field of genomics. Some time after going live, the website/journal began to offer peer-reviewed publication for up to $1500/manuscript.

www.worldcat.org...
I could find no reference to the $1500 on the site today, but understand what this fellow is saying. DeNovo, the journal, was willing to “publish” a scientific paper “with peer review” (for which they advertised for the peers) if the author paid them $1500. This is not the only place to do this. There are other publications that charge a “per page” fee for publication, a practice widely condemned in academia as pseudo-academic. It’s a scam, really, that preys on the “publish or perish” fears of assistant professors without tenure. Here’s a good article on the practice: www.nytimes.com...

So we have “Advanced Science Foundation,” “Advanced Science Publishing,” and DeNovo Scientific Publishing.com.

Advance Science Foundation
+ No Listing in the IRS Data on US non profit organizations. This lists all organization that have applied for and/or received IRS 501c3 status as a non profit organization.
+ No Listing in Associations Unlimited. This is the main library reference source for foundations and associations, the first reference source a librarian would consult when tracking down an organization
+No Listing in Foundation Directory Online, a pay-to-use compilation of foundations in the US.
Advanced Science Publishing
+ No listing in Reference USA, which is a nationwide listing of all businesses and residences. We’re assuming “Publishing” refers to some sort of business here.
DeNovo Scientific Publishing
+ Quite a few pages of companies that have the name DeNovo in Reference USA, from cafes to spas, but none that would indicate any sort of publishing and none in Michigan.
+ There is a Whois entry is protected by a privacy screen so you cannot tell who the owner is, but the domain itself is “unfinished.” It takes you to a “you are almost done!” page which gives directions to the domain owner on how to complete connection of the domain name to WIX which is an online “cloud based” web site builder that allows amateurs to build a web site using “drag and drop” tools. In other words, the domain has never been actually published.

So what has happened here, really? Ms. Ketchum failed to pass peer review for any existing publication, so first she got help to create a “journal” called JAMEZ through Scholastica which is an online “open source” site dedicated to circumventing the pseudo-academic “pay to publish” scenario listed above and, indeed, all academic journals. JAMEZ never published a single issue or article.

When that fell through Ketchum started up DeNovo by buying a couple of domains and getting a (entirely free) ISSN from the Library of Congress Copyright Office. With that she was in business, though rather sloppily. There is no “Advanced Science Publishing” company anywhere. It’s bogus. There is an “Advanced Science Foundation,” but it is a domain only. It isn’t real in the sense that it is registered with the IRS as a foundation or in any other recognized source. It doesn’t pay taxes, doesn’t have a phone or an address, doesn’t even have an email address. Similarly, DeNovo Scientific Publishing is a registered domain, but does not have a working web site at all.

Ketchum failed to get her paper published anywhere, so she decided to publish it herself on her own site, and disguise its origins and make the site appear as if it were a legitimate scientific journal fully cognizant of “peer review.”

Now she’s pointing to this saying, in effect, “See? I’m published in a peer-reviewed journal!” No, she is not. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's fake, and not even a very good fake. There are so many loose ends and flaws in this scheme that it is embarrassing. Neither DeNovo, DeVono, DeNovo Publishing, Advanced Science Publishing, or Advance Science Foundation have any academic standing whatsoever. To continue to insist this is real is simply delusional. And that's really sad. It's like continuing to believe in Billy Meier's alien ray gun even after it has been proven to be a plastic toy available on eBay.

edit on 9/25/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

---
schuyler!!!!!!
really? Did you not just read what "Springer" displayed??
Okay I will tell you want, I WILL BUY THE FLIPPIN PAPER! how's that? you cool now? you good? this is your third attempt at something, your almost as bad as winnar.

I will buy the paper and read it and assess it myself. Because this is about asking David about people going missing in woods, the paper is something all together different in a different spectrum of research that "CAN" go in tandem with a working hypothesis of what may be going on in the woods, BUT! to suggest this would mean we need some kind of valid proof of what may or may not be in the woods. INFACT this is different all together.
IMHO, I think there a couple of "Things" in the woods that go bump in the night and bigfoot is prolly some huge innocent fluffy teddy bear that has been wrongly accused of taken people when all along it could very will be something just as scary and darker then our worse fears, Plants that eat people? utilizing pollen, some kind of creature that dwells in the mud and rocks that suddenly jump up and grab people, maybe something that lives in the trees high above that is camouflaged against the bark, something beside our hairy friend.
I WILL BUY THE PAPER, but I will not show you, but to other members who would LOVE this more then you.

Thank you for your participation in our beloved forum Mr Paulides.

I have been reading this thread over the past few days and I am almost caught up on every response you have made. I commend you on your progress in answering so many questions. It is obvious to me that you care about your venture here at ATS.

My issue/idea is as follows:

You stated the following:

Regarding contacting victims that are found alive, we were advised early in our development by other missing person groups that this would be an inappropriate practice. Some people may talk, later see their story in print and feel that they were victimized a second time. We are VERY sensitive to the victims and their families and would never want to do anything to cause them further anxiety. If they initiate the conduct, we would gladly speak with them. ..."

At first I agreed with this. But then i thought....why not contact the victims and record information obtained by them for internal use only. Then after hundreds or so cases you can make a better detailed analysis of the broad spectrum of things. No one said you have to make public the detailed stories of certain cases, but I think if you could hold some sort of confidentiality standard you could make use of the invaluable information that would undoubtedly be spewing forth as fast as can be comprehended.

It seems to me that the questioning of the victims that are recovered is such a vital piece of the puzzle that especially in the case of the most strange cases in existence (of which you specialize in) this action would/should appear to be as an essential part of your investigation.

I think you get the point. My question is: Why do you not proceed in this manner?


EDIT TO ADD: I wan't to add emphasis on the fact that I would like Mr Paulides to answer why Mr Paulides chooses not to collect this information for internal purposes only.




-Alien

reply to post by BO XIAN


GIVEN Americans fondness for guns and the amount of serial killers at large.

Its obvious that many people fall victim to foul play they can stumble into a marujha grow or an illegall meth lab an get murdered

Or like I SAID JUST MEET SOME DEMENTED SERIAL KILLER BACK WOOD S TYPE HILLY BILLYS .

Some get lost an disorientated an die of exposure many many things can happen bear attacks .

In summary thease are not u f o abductees or big foot victims an there not inexplicable disapearances.

People disappear every day every minute of the day in citys on the road in the wilderness every where.

There no limit to some humans capacity for callosness an inhumanity to anyone they encounter

reply to post by ecossiepossie


GIVEN Americans fondness for guns and the amount of serial killers at large.

Its obvious that many people fall victim to foul play they can stumble into a marujha grow or an illegall meth lab an get murdered

Or like I SAID JUST MEET SOME DEMENTED SERIAL KILLER BACK WOOD S TYPE HILLY BILLYS .

Some get lost an disorientated an die of exposure many many things can happen bear attacks .

In summary thease are not u f o abductees or big foot victims an there not inexplicable disapearances.

People disappear every day every minute of the day in citys on the road in the wilderness every where.

There no limit to some humans capacity for callosness an inhumanity to anyone they encounter
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Bo
Just a few questions.

I think we as a society all need to have our minds comprehend issues in a rational method, without such we come to illogical conclusions based our on our breadth of knowledge, or lack of knowledge.

You've never read the books, never talked to investigators, never talked to SAR personnel, never read the official reports, how can you make such a rash judgement?

How do you know the circumstances of what we've documented in order for you to come to your conclusions?

Do you realize that many of the official reports we possess have statements from SAR and law enforcement stating they have no idea how the incident occurred????

I'm not offended, just don't understand how anyone would make such a statement without a base of knowledge of what we research.

David,

I'm just not seeing how you can keep claiming that Bigfoot is responsible for so many of these disappearances!

Kidding.

Seriously though, you *must* have some kind of working theory, or pet theory, about what is happening in a large fraction of these disappearances. I am betting you have more insight than a blanket 'it's complex' and are just not comfortable sharing it publicly . . . just a hunch. Which is too bad, because you have some interesting (and potentially useful) data and stories but your analysis of it stops short of what is needed.

You have pretty clearly ruled out Bigfoot, wild animals in general, serial killers . . . but are you brave enough to provide us with a list, wholly personal, of things you are ruling IN at this point?

Throw us a bone here David. Have a few beers, relax, and open up about what you suspect might be happening here.

A follow up question you might be more comfortable with: how many of the missing percentage-wise were experienced hikers who also had a gun?

Thanks. Good thread. I will be buying at least one of your books.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


At first I agreed with this. But then i thought....why not contact the victims and record information obtained by them for internal use only. Then after hundreds or so cases you can make a better detailed analysis of the broad spectrum of things. No one said you have to make public the detailed stories of certain cases, but I think if you could hold some sort of confidentiality standard you could make use of the invaluable information that would undoubtedly be spewing forth as fast as can be comprehended.

It seems to me that the questioning of the victims that are recovered is such a vital piece of the puzzle that especially in the case of the most strange cases in existence (of which you specialize in) this action would/should appear to be as an essential part of your investigation.

I think you get the point. My question is: Why do you not proceed in this manner?


EDIT TO ADD: I wan't to add emphasis on the fact that I would like Mr Paulides to answer why Mr Paulides chooses not to collect this information for internal purposes only.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••
The groups stated NOT to make the initial step towards victims, we listen and we won't.

Can you imagine if we did just as you prescribe and we gather all of these great stories and completely solve this mystery, what good would it do? We couldn't tell you. If I promise something to someone, I stand by my word. If I told a victim that I wouldn't tell the world what they stated, I won't.
I also don't want to be in the position of having knowledge that may save peoples lives and be unable to communicate it. When you live in a world where honesty and integrity are key, don't put yourself in a position of compromise, because that's where this would lead.

Thanks for the question!!

reply to post by DavidPaulides


I would go to Gayle's to try this crocodile but am up North at this time:-(. Missing Santa Cruz. When I get back there in a couple of months I'll check this out. I'll save the hike for summer maybe. I haven't done the entire trail of the park since I found other places to run after that (right on Soquel after that incident). Grew up in Felton as well as SC so used to dark woods but this experience truly spooked me. Thank you for your response though. Knowing there is no mystery at this particular spot is reassuring - because it is too cool to not explore better.

I know I'm not supposed to ask many questions but one more if it's ok....

With these personal transponders - I have a winter coat that has one but don't have a clue how to use it (it says avalanche ready and I can feel a chip inside). Only bought it because it was on sale so it was just by luck it had this extra feature. In fact, I don't see many costs with these so move to the next thing - a transponder you carry. I see these things are expensive and assume the more expensive the better (maybe better technology). If you really wouldn't use one enough to justify spending the money on it - it would seem those less experienced (go into the woods less) would also be the least likely to have one.

What are the best alternatives? If carrying a cell phone these can be traced from my understanding - only until they lose battery power. I would assume this is the second best device to have on you, or would you recommend any other - more multi purpose location device.

in the end it would be ideal to rent these things - especially at national parks. That way the less experienced wouldn't have to weigh cost over amount of use it would get.

southbeach
reply to post by DavidPaulides

 

Here's the thread,pretty spooky

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh, thanks so much *heart racing*. Do you happen to have the spin off thread of ppl sharing creepy forest stories?

many thanks,

~rose

reply to post by SecretGoldfish


David,

I'm just not seeing how you can keep claiming that Bigfoot is responsible for so many of these disappearances!

Kidding.

Seriously though, you *must* have some kind of working theory, or pet theory, about what is happening in a large fraction of these disappearances. I am betting you have more insight than a blanket 'it's complex' and are just not comfortable sharing it publicly . . . just a hunch. Which is too bad, because you have some interesting (and potentially useful) data and stories but your analysis of it stops short of what is needed.

You have pretty clearly ruled out Bigfoot, wild animals in general, serial killers . . . but are you brave enough to provide us with a list, wholly personal, of things you are ruling IN at this point?

Throw us a bone here David. Have a few beers, relax, and open up about what you suspect might be happening here.

A follow up question you might be more comfortable with: how many of the missing percentage-wise were experienced hikers who also had a gun?

Thanks. Good thread. I will be buying at least one of your books.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••
Have you been reading these threads?
Many have sent accolades my way for not putting some groundless theory in front of them and trying to convince them its right.

You are incorrect on one BIG issue. I have not eliminated ANYTHING from the suspect list except a serial killer. I have stated that I have never named anything as a suspect.

This statement is truly, truly puzzling: "because you have some interesting (and potentially useful) data and stories but your analysis of it stops short of what is needed."
You have no idea what data we have, your guessing. You state it stops short of what's needed, needed for what?

I'm seriously trying to be patient and follow the logic in some of these statements and am having a very difficult time, and I don't want to ignore them, but I have a difficult time following the theme...

Statements such as "brave enough" are demeaning and are not constructive in a healthy conversation.

Good Luck.

reply to post by ecossiepossie


I'm sorry to feel compelled to say this

but that type of post

seems to me

to be a VERY CHEEKY failure to

1. Read sufficiently David's responses in the thread with sufficient fair-mindedness and understanding

&/or

2. Read any of the supporting evidence he's given ref's for.

= = = =

Even "merely" his great candid responses hereon--as meager as they may be in some respects,

IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR

that in both cases:

1. Big-foot

2. The disappearances . . .

This super seasoned, super trained; extensively experienced, VERY PROFESSIONAL investigator with a great team effort, to boot . . .

HAS/HAVE EMPHATICALLY DOCUMENTED

THAT THE MUNDANE EXPLANATIONS JUST DO NOT FIT. DO NOT FIT!

Where is the mental disconnect?

The mundane explanations REQUIRE FAR MORE FAITH than the mystery the confessions of unknown that David articulates so well.

THE EVIDENCE SIMPLY DOES NOT ALLOW for the mundane explanations to carry any weight whatsoever.

It does NOT require a high IQ to realize this, folks.

Where is the mental disconnect? Where is all the hyper skepticism, snide, cheeky junk coming from?

It's certainly NOT coming from the evidence.

It's certainly NOT coming from David and his record; skills, posts.


It must becoming from the psychodynamics of the obtuse and seemingly willfully blind chronic and compulsive naysayers.

I can't think of any better or even workable other explanation.

Sigh.

Sorry, David, some of us have to put up with those characters routinely hereon.

They seem to get up being snarly, snide and cheeky and to go to bed that way.
.

Blarneystoner

TDawgRex

DavidPaulides
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Wouldn't you consider abduction a form of attack? Isn't that exactly what you are claiming? That bgft has abducted or relocated hundreds of people in the wild?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••

This is the third time I've been told what we are doing and someone makes a claim that is completely outlandish....

WE HAVE NEVER MADE A CLAIM THAT BIGFOOT is involved in any abduction. No place, nowhere!

Kidnapping and abduction are the same crime, in essence.

An attack on someone usually involves and assault and battery, in law enforcement terms.

Well, you see that there are plenty of cynics here on ATS. Don't let them get to you.

Keep on, keepin' on. You're doing ok.

edit on 24-9-2013 by TDawgRex because: Crap! Spelling

I remain skeptical... too many unanswered questions. The DNA evidence is sketchy at best and a possible conflict of interest on Ketchum's part.

It seems obvious to me that David is alluding to the possibilty that the abductions he's investigating were perpetrated by "wild men" or "bigfoot". Am I the only one who sees this? And yes... I would call being carried off by a giant ape-man an attack... geeze.

Still no reponse from David as to why the paper was only published in one journal and is that jounal's only publication. Which, btw was only founded 9 days before the paper was published. Yet, David is convinced that the conclusions drawn by Ketchum are valid.

I respect David for taking the time to come and answer questions. With that said, I think it's only normal for someone to ask the tough questions which surround the controversial research and conclusions which are drawn.

Deny ignorance... unless you're star struck?

I can understand why so many are disturbed by the findings. The conclusions drawn by Ketchum say that these wild men or BGFTs are human/primate hybrids originated 15,000 years ago. That seems pretty far fetched, even to a layman.

It's a shame that the paper was never properly peer reviewed and if it was, why was it rejected?

Those questions have not been answered yet.

Actually Missing 411 doesn't elude to BF being the culprits, at least not in all the instances. The books actually give a picture of something much stranger than just BF such as dimensions.

Mr. Paulides: Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions here. I grew up in Maine, (I have a story in the mentioned "creepy forest stories" thread), and spent most of my childhood in or on the edge of the forest. After having heard you on Coast to Coast and Unknown Country I think back now and *really* wonder about some of the weird stories I heard growing up, and my own weird story, and shudder to think.

Anyways, I ordered your Eastern and Western books tonight and I can't wait to read them after having heard so much about them here and from your interviews.

Cheers!

Hello and welcome Mr. Paulides. I have not commented on this forum in a while but you piqued my interest. You mentioned that some missing persons were found unusual distances away. Can you tell us what was the farthest distance you've encountered? Have you considered the possibility of spontaneous teleportation?

I recently was reading about the case of Gil Perez, a spanish soldier from the 1500s that teleported from the Philippines to Mexico instantly and was found by his peers months later. I imagine that if this story is true, and spontaneous teleportation is real, the teleportee would not always be fortunate enough to appear in a safe, populated area as in the case of Gil Perez.

reply to post by ecossiepossie


Evidently you don't believe in reading the guest's posts before lobbing unfitting rants at their reputations and assertions.

Evidently you just "don't get it."

Evidently David's great training, experiences and reputation count for nothing with you.

Evidently you have not understood . . . it has not sunk in . . .

That he has more than a few boxes of evidence backing up his stances and assertions on both BF and the disappearances.

A HUGE GREAT LOT MORE

Evidently when he talks about VERY STRANGE; or beyond all conventional explanations . . . your biases simply won't allow you to believe him REGARDLESS of his experience, his professional co-horts and even 10+ laboratories affirming the solid scientific evidence.

I suspect that many folks of your demonstrated mentality could have been at the

Garden Tomb on Jesus' Resurrection

and the most remotely coherent thing likely to have escaped the mouths of such witnesses would have been something akin to:

"Crawl back in the tomb. My biases declare that you can't resurrect so get back in there."

Impressive.

Sarc

Sigh.

reply to post by DavidPaulides


I understand and of course I agree with the confidentiality of the victims if it is as they wish. But I think what I didn't make clear here is the fact that you could obtain the vital information needed by the contact with the victims and still maintain the confidentiality of the victims by first learning the commonalities and then relaying them in a manner that is evident, solid and yet keeps in terms with the confidentiality of the victims. You can bring up broad terms and a very few underlying threads that bind the cases together without singling out any one case.

As you stated as a part of your goal you are looking for a common thread.



-Alien

defcon5
reply to post by DavidPaulides

 

I'd like to now a bit more about how they eliminated them as a candidate.
The government of British Columbia on their website refer to them as “one of the most mysterious and elusive of all creatures.”

Cougars don't always leave prints behind.
They are silent, stealthy, and very difficult to track.
They are known to be attracted to children (64% of all known attacks)
They can jump up to 40 feet.
They can run up to 50 mph.
They can reach 7 feet in length, and up to 300lbs.

Isn't there many of your cases where the people have left shoes behind? A 300lb animal, striking a human at 50mph, stands a pretty good chance of knocking them right out of their shoes, similar to being hit by a car, correct?

The people investigating these incidents are not Joe Blows from the local trailer park, these are professionals who know what a cougar attack or kill looks like!

reply to post by DavidPaulides


Please take this query seriously, I'm not joking.

Are you aware of any case(s) in which an urban serial predator was described as being somewhat similar to the Nosferatu character?

You can access pictures of Nosferatu, via Google images.

Thank you, for helping make this world a safer place.

reply to post by seasoul




I hope you're going to say more about this later, I'm dying to know what prompted this question!

reply to post by Alien Abduct


I understand and of course I agree with the confidentiality of the victims if it is as they wish. But I think what I didn't make clear here is the fact that you could obtain the vital information needed by the contact with the victims and still maintain the confidentiality of the victims by first learning the commonalities and then relaying them in a manner that is evident, solid and yet keeps in terms with the confidentiality of the victims. You can bring up broad terms and a very few underlying threads that bind the cases together without singling out any one case.

As you stated as a part of your goal you are looking for a common thread.



-Alien
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••
Let's pretend we allow a victim to read what you just posted and told them that this was the path we would take with their story. Is that going to make them warm and cozy, or will they feel as though we compromised our promise. Even if 1 out of 10 said we lied, your word is your word. Once your credibility has been compromised, your done. I would never do it.