Comments on: Bigfoot Massacre Mess Ends Decade

By: bigfootbookman

bigfootbookman — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:53:01 +0000

It's surely a "massacre" despite what MK and the GCBRO crowd like to say. Strangely, the major supporters of this theory--Paulides, Davis, and Bobbie Short--all just happen to be on the "BIGFOOT IS HUMAN" side of the debate. Thus, killing them would be, by their own terms, "Murder." This makes it a much more serious accusation against Bob Gimlin and John Green. These massacre theorists are accusing these two good men of being murderers. This is slander, libel, pure and simple. Obviously, this theory is not true. The accusations are baseless character assassination. And now they want, supposedly, to publish a book on the matter. What nerve! Hopefully all of our efforts to debunk this theory have nipped this book in the bud! JUST OUT: an interview with Willow Creek's Bigfoot Elder, AL HODGSON. He clears up this mess quite thoroughly.

By: TheHighlandTiger

TheHighlandTiger — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:53:05 +0000

It says a lot about Bigfoot research, when every year we get some re-hash of the “Adventures of Patterson and Gimli”.

If resarchers spent a fraction of the time and money spent on dissecting this still unproven film, on proper field research, (and by proper research, I don’t mean taking a dozen well intentioned locals armed with guns and beer on a long weekend in the woods, hoping to hear branches being tapped on tree trunks), then I’m sure we’d have long solved the Bigfoot phenomena.

By: mrbf2007

mrbf2007 — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:14:41 +0000

Excellent post as always, Loren.

By: graybear

graybear — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:35:39 +0000

It is becoming more and more clear that somewhere in this mess is someone who expects to get a substantial amount of money from this ridiculous jumble of mistakes, false information, digital artifacts and La-La Land speculations. There is nothing there to base any of these obscene speculations on. Therefore, the only reason to keep this pot boiling is the hope of reaping some substantial gain from it. Why else try to smear Bob Gimlin and the long-dead Roger Patterson? Why else try to manipulate the time of year that other researchers were actually at the site? Why mis-identify people in old photos?
Someone either wants some free money, or is mentally ill. I’ll accept either one, but not much else.

By: bigfootsdad

bigfootsdad — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:24:46 +0000

Good post.

By: PhotoExpert

PhotoExpert — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:22:19 +0000

I believe the posters here at Cryptomundo have already put this nonsense to rest. We did that a while back when we first got word of this absurd theory. When they tried to discredit Bob Gimlin, that was enough for me.

Simply put, the Cryptomundo posters massacred the BF Massacre Theory!

Of course, with no monetary gain to be made after destroying this ludicrous theory, those who were going to benefit, had to let it rest a while. Now they are trying to reconstitute it for financial gain. Guess what? It ain’t going to work this time either.

But it is nice to know that we have some watchdogs keeping their eyes on the real dogs. Thanks for posting this Loren and keeping us informed. Much appreciated! And Happy New Year!

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:21:24 +0000

Good post, Loren. Unfortunately, things happen, as some say.

By: K. Steven Monk

K. Steven Monk — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:56:48 +0000

Wow! Just what our credibility needs as we enter a new decade. The “man-in-a-suit” hecklers are gonna have a field day with this one when it hits the mainstream press. When are we gonna stop shooting ourselves in the foot and start focusing on the facts?

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:16:41 +0000

A massacre is defined as such:

massacre |ˈmasikər|
noun
an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people : the attack was described as a cold-blooded massacre | she says he is an accomplice to massacre.
• informal a heavy defeat of a sports team or contestant.
verb [ trans. ]
deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people). See note at kill .
• informal inflict a heavy defeat on (a sports team or contestant).
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French, of unknown origin.

A massacre by definition involves a number of victims, or ruthless killing without provocation (usually used in reference to humans).

By: Joe Beelart

Joe Beelart — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:15:09 +0000

Just for the record.

M.K. Davis is my friend, and will be to the end.

Also, I stepped away from this theory some time ago and will remain far away from it.