Sasquatch Coffee

Bigfoot Massacre Mess Ends Decade

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 28th, 2009

Patty

Sometimes you have to wonder why some people say what they say. It continued all year.

It appears the debate and anger that has visited the Bigfoot community in recent years regarding the so-called “Bluff Creek Massacre,” is now with us again, as the first decade of the 21st century ends.

The rumor that human-styled Bigfoot were allegedly killed at Bluff Creek, California, on or around October 20, 1967, allegedly by Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin, and others, with alleged “coverup” assistance by John Green, Bob Titmus, and others does leave a bad taste in the mouth, as 2009 closes. But that is exactly where we find ourselves, looking once again at this alleged promotional effort, and its aftermath, from M. K. Davis, David Paulides, and their phantom associates.

All of this earlier this year called for a formal rebuttal from John Green, as frequent readers of Cryptomundo know (see one example here). Green was placed in the uncomfortable position of defending against rumors that he was involved, in some fashion, with hiding “murders,” despite the fact he was at Bluff Creek in the summer, not the fall (in 1967). And despite the fact that Davis, Paulides, and others are unexplainably seeing red blood and people there that weren’t there.

Recently, over at the Bigfoot Books Blog, in Steven Streufert’s “Open Letter to David Paulides,” Streufert wrote, in part,

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.

Now, in Paulides’ book, we are “disloyal, a backstabber, dishonest, not to be counted on,” etc. 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 my 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. 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.

The man identified as Bob Titmus is not him, but presumably is the pilot of our chartered aeroplane, who didn’t want to sit around in Orleans with nothing to do and joined up as one of the two people carrying rifles that the dog owner insisted on. Titmus was then living on the British Columbia coast, either at Klemtu or Kitimat, and was not in touch with what was going on. ~ John Green, August 24, 2009.

On Facebook, [Davis] tells how he manipulated Rene’s film by intensifying the red element in specific spots. I don’t do that sort of stuff, but I would expect that would make anything brown, orange or purple appear to be red. ~ John Green, August 24, 2009.

As documented here at Cryptomundo, Paulides is allegedly the one behind this last year’s email campaign which tried to raise doubts about John Green’s role in the making of the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Paulides also has a habit of offending people quite easily with outbursts of his ego (see here).

Streufert notes,

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.

An extensive response to the whole Paulides affair is shared at Streufert’s blog from Daniel Perez too.

Also, to be found at the Bigfoot Books blog is this public comment:

Matt Moneymaker said…
Wow … I must say I would not have predicted that Paulides would buy into the “massacre” nonsense. It’s so laughably absurd …

I can only assume that Paulides has such a boner for making a sensational, high-profile revelation, as a direct result of his detective prowess … that he unduly inflates the likelihood of situations that would put him in the position to do that. His drive to become the great detective who cracked the case, has made him a bit irrational. So far he has bragged a lot about being the first to do various types of investigations … that he was not the first to do. It’s pretty amazing how much he claims to be a trail blazer along such well worn trails … and now thinks the “massacre” idea has some validity.

I’ve always been struck by Paulides consistent misrepresentations that he’s the only full-time, professional, sponsored bigfoot investigator in existence …

He somehow thinks that his training puts him in a different league than other investigators. If we’re gonna play that game, then I’ll inform him that lawyers are better, smarter investigators than cops.

DECEMBER 26, 2009 7:56 AM

In a followup blog posting, Steven Streufert re-published part of this comment from Matt Moneymaker.

So, here we are, as the calendar ticks down to the final hours of the year, at this place in time and space, with the god Thor throwing thunderbolts up and down the West Coast.

Let’s hope next year turns out more reports on positive results from the field, and less time addressing and dealing with a rather unsupportable theory that has besmeared many good people.

So, once again, I am reminded of Blogsquatcher’s haunting but elegantly simple statement that reflects on how people feel about the eventual outcome of M. K. Davis’ ~ and now David Paulides’ ~ poisoning of the waters with their incredibly unsupportable “Bigfoot massacre” or “Bluff Creek killing field” theory:

You’ll ultimately have to decide for yourselves how you feel about [these speculations]. I will leave you with this thought though — for more than 40 years, nothing has been able to diminish the impact of the [Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot] Film. But maybe this grand conspiracy theory will.D. B. Donlon, Blogsquatcher, May 22, 2008.

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


11 Responses to “Bigfoot Massacre Mess Ends Decade”

  1. fossilhunter responds:

    Greetings All!
    Now here is a job for Monsterquest! Have their independent experts look for manipulation of the film (photo or movie) and see what they make of the (in my opinion) questionable elements such as the “skin”, “pools of blood”, and who’s who. They could do a whole “How to spot hoaxed photos” episode, and include this as the centerpiece (again, in my opinion).

    Everybody, (in my opinion) have a Happy New Year!! :)

  2. Joe Beelart responds:

    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.

  3. shumway10973 responds:

    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).

  4. K. Steven Monk responds:

    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?

  5. cryptidsrus responds:

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

  6. PhotoExpert responds:

    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!

  7. bigfootsdad responds:

    Good post.

  8. graybear responds:

    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.

  9. mrbf2007 responds:

    Excellent post as always, Loren.

  10. TheHighlandTiger responds:

    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.

  11. bigfootbookman responds:

    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.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.