I am fundamentally a skeptic but keep an open mind, to a point.
But David Paulides does appear to stretch things a bit at times. The common occurrences he gives as a feature of mysterious disappearances aren't as otherworldly as he lets on.
For example, to suggest that there is a specific kind of group that typically goes missing in these "clusters" speaks to teh paranormal is a huge leap, largely based on a "type" of person. That "type" meets this criteria: men in a certain age group, Caucasian, some type of physical deformity or ailment, etc., appears to strain at making something out of nothing. I'd wager that most people who go missing fit that category because they're in an area where -- if anyone is going to go missing -- that's the place where it's most likely to happen (i.e., the terrain) and that the commonality of characteristics is because that is what most people who go to these areas will fall into this category to begin with.
It's somewhat like me saying "isn't it mysterious that most drowning victims are found near this river and at a young age!" When kids are more liking to drown and of course they're going to be near water!
He mentions that the next day after disappearances there is a "major weather event" and that dogs are unable to track the missing individual.
Well, I'd suggest that because there was a major weather event that is exactly WHY the dogs are unable to pick up a scent and track the missing individual. Not to mention, we don't know how common these "weather events" are, he doesn't say. It's probably frequent. So the occurrence of a front moving through isn't mysterious either.
There are indeed unusual events that occur that defy explanation to a point. But all that means is that we can't explain them -- yet. I wish people wouldn't automatically seek the most fantastic explanation first.
reply
share