Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. The video you're about to watch is
Speaker 1: getting a little old now. I think I've made it
Speaker 1: in the spring of twenty twenty four, but I kept
Speaker 1: it as a Patreon only video for quite some time.
Speaker 1: I mainly did that because this video is quite unlike
Speaker 1: most of the others I've done. It's about a body
Speaker 1: of research rather than an in depth analysis of a
Speaker 1: single case. I'm sure I'll receive a little backlash from
Speaker 1: some people, but you can't always make everyone happy. The
Speaker 1: reason I made it was to answer questions I've consistently
Speaker 1: gotten regarding Missing four point one and my opinion on it.
Speaker 1: It's something that's been asking me so many times that
Speaker 1: I thought it was necessary to build an in depth
Speaker 1: answer to it. That's this video. I imagine by now
Speaker 1: most of my subscribers will be surprised by absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: in this but you still may find it interesting, as
Speaker 1: it covers a lot of cases in quick succession, and
Speaker 1: many of them I've never talked about before. I did
Speaker 1: edit out a lot of the original intro because it
Speaker 1: was way too long. It was like fifteen minutes of
Speaker 1: me explaining why I made this video. I think I
Speaker 1: can sum up the cuts a lot quicker by simply
Speaker 1: saying I don't want to be pointing out anyone else's
Speaker 1: mistakes or errors without acknowledging my own, because I've made plenty,
Speaker 1: especially in the early days of this channel. I'll just
Speaker 1: throw a list of mine in the description. Also, I
Speaker 1: was a big believer in missing four on one back
Speaker 1: when I started all this. If you've been around since
Speaker 1: the beginning, you know that my early stuff is riddled
Speaker 1: with bigfoot and the paranormal. It wasn't until I really
Speaker 1: started doing in depth research on some of these missing
Speaker 1: four on one cases that I kind of became red
Speaker 1: pilled to the fact that they're just not as strange
Speaker 1: or unusual as I I thought they were. There was
Speaker 1: a gradual turn from believer to more of a skeptic,
Speaker 1: and it was not intentional anyway. I'll stop yapping for now.
Speaker 1: Let's get to the video. Hey there, folks, this is
Speaker 1: a video I wasn't sure i'd ever make. But at
Speaker 1: some point it almost feels unfair to you, the viewer
Speaker 1: if I don't. From the very beginning of this channel,
Speaker 1: I've gotten comments or emails asking questions about missing for
Speaker 1: one one. Now these questions or comments have certainly evolved
Speaker 1: over time. Nowadays it seems to manifest as why do
Speaker 1: you bash Missing four one one. I realize that people
Speaker 1: get these misconceptions because I've always kind of tiptoed around
Speaker 1: the subject of Missing four one one, because I don't
Speaker 1: want anyone who is a fan to feel like they
Speaker 1: have to pick a side. But at a certain point,
Speaker 1: it almost feels irresponsible to not talk about Missing four
Speaker 1: one one directly because it is so many people's introduction
Speaker 1: into the missing person genre. Give credit to Missing four
Speaker 1: one one and David Politis for popularizing the genre of
Speaker 1: strange missing persons cases now, just in case some viewers
Speaker 1: have no idea what Missing for one one is. It
Speaker 1: is essentially a body of work created by David Politis
Speaker 1: in the form of books and movies that presents a
Speaker 1: long list of missing persons cases that are supposed to
Speaker 1: be mysterious, unexplainable, or maybe even paranormal. It is a
Speaker 1: hugely popular subject with a large and dedicated fan base.
Speaker 1: I was a big fan for a long time. I
Speaker 1: always felt that David Politics came across as a very
Speaker 1: sincere and trustworthy individual. The cases presented in Missing four
Speaker 1: one one claim to be selected based on a set
Speaker 1: of exclusionary criteria, meaning that the presence of any one
Speaker 1: of these items mental illness, voluntary disappearance, criminal activity, animal
Speaker 1: predation would disqualify a case from being included under the
Speaker 1: Missing four one one umbrella. This list is important and
Speaker 1: we will return to it now. Generally the cases have
Speaker 1: an air of mystery about them. And with that said,
Speaker 1: this channel has never been about bashing Missing four one one,
Speaker 1: and this video is not intended to do that. Either.
Speaker 1: When you know people believe in stories that are verifiably inaccurate,
Speaker 1: do you do nothing because the people seem to like
Speaker 1: and enjoy and trust the source, or do you try
Speaker 1: to show them the evidence they're not seen, even if
Speaker 1: it's uncomfortable. I guess in this video I'm trying to
Speaker 1: do the latter. The end goal of this video is
Speaker 1: not to get people to stop reading, watching, or listening
Speaker 1: to Missing four one one. In fact, I think you
Speaker 1: should do those things. Get information from every source you can,
Speaker 1: and if my point of view is considered the skeptical one,
Speaker 1: I would encourage you to seek out the opposite see
Speaker 1: whose information makes more sense to you. It's always important
Speaker 1: to know the arguments of the other side. So if
Speaker 1: you're wondering what I personally think about Missing four one one,
Speaker 1: because it's a question I often get, well, my answer
Speaker 1: is that I have a lot of concerns. These concerns
Speaker 1: revolve solely around the way information is portrayed in Missing
Speaker 1: four one one and other information that is not mentioned
Speaker 1: at all. So I'll come right out and say I
Speaker 1: don't believe in Missing four one one. What does that mean.
Speaker 1: It means I don't believe that the long list of
Speaker 1: cases presented in Missing four one one as having strange, paranormal,
Speaker 1: or unexplainable elements are all legitimate. Now, there are some
Speaker 1: genuinely strange and unexplainable cases in the Missing four one
Speaker 1: one archive, but it is my contention that the vast
Speaker 1: majority of these cases do not even meet Missing for
Speaker 1: one one's own standards for qualifying a case. People also
Speaker 1: ask why I don't like David Politis. The simple answer
Speaker 1: is I don't like nor dislike him. I don't know him.
Speaker 1: This video is not going to be about David Politis
Speaker 1: as a person. It's going to be about his research.
Speaker 1: So this is not intended to be an end datment
Speaker 1: of him. So much as the information presented in his
Speaker 1: books and movies, and criticism of research is essential for
Speaker 1: refinement of future research into the missing person's genre. If
Speaker 1: someone builds off the work I have done and learns
Speaker 1: new details or develops new theories I haven't thought of,
Speaker 1: then that is a good thing. It is refining the
Speaker 1: understanding of whatever case that is. In this video, we
Speaker 1: are going to go over a bunch of cases, some
Speaker 1: I've previously covered and even some I haven't made videos on,
Speaker 1: but that I've researched independently. That way, you can see
Speaker 1: why I don't believe in missing for one one, and
Speaker 1: then you can judge for yourself whether that's a reasonable
Speaker 1: position to hold or not. And I'll also have a
Speaker 1: public video I can just link to all the people
Speaker 1: who ask me questions about what I think about missing
Speaker 1: four one one. So I will walk you through the
Speaker 1: exact same things I went through, case by case, and
Speaker 1: you can see if you come out the other end
Speaker 1: feeling the same, you're getting the crash course. In this video, throughout,
Speaker 1: I'm going to do my best to show you the
Speaker 1: sources for everything, so that you don't have to take
Speaker 1: my word for anything. You can go look at it yourself,
Speaker 1: which I strongly encourage you to do. Anyway, now that
Speaker 1: we have that long winded preamble out of the way,
Speaker 1: let's go over some missing four to one one cases
Speaker 1: that I think shouldn't be missing four one one cases.
Speaker 1: So one of the main issues I have with these
Speaker 1: cases is that some of them seem to heavily skew
Speaker 1: in the direction of making a case seem paranormal by
Speaker 1: hinting at the possibility of something like a cryptid or
Speaker 1: UFOs being involved. And to be honest, I've often felt
Speaker 1: that bigfoot is being inferred in many of these cases,
Speaker 1: but perhaps that's only because I was aware Politis was
Speaker 1: a bigfoot researcher before starting Missing four one one. Let
Speaker 1: me show you what I mean. Jackie Copeland. I covered
Speaker 1: the case of Jackie Copeland some time ago. It was
Speaker 1: an incident back in May of nineteen fifty. He was
Speaker 1: a two year old boy spending the day with his
Speaker 1: family in Pleasantville, Pennsylvania. At some point, Jackie wandered off. Now,
Speaker 1: Jackie's father worked for an oil company and his family
Speaker 1: was staying on land leased from the company. Once Jackie
Speaker 1: was reported missing, a ton of people came in to
Speaker 1: assist in the search, including many volunteers from the oil company. Fortunately,
Speaker 1: Jackie was found quickly and returned to his family. But
Speaker 1: the important part in the Missing four one one book
Speaker 1: that I want to draw your attention to is this quote.
Speaker 1: An article in the Logan's Port Press dated May seventeen,
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty had an interview with the Copelands and heard
Speaker 1: Jackie's rendition of what occurred during his night in the woods.
Speaker 1: The press wanted to hear how the boy got to
Speaker 1: his location in the swamp, what he had to drink
Speaker 1: or eat, and how he kept warm. Jackie first was
Speaker 1: asked why he left the picnic, and here is his quote.
Speaker 1: He saw something peering at him from behind a big tree.
Speaker 1: When he approached, the creature scampered into the brush. Jackie
Speaker 1: didn't explain anything more about leaving the picnic at that point.
Speaker 1: The article goes on to say he recounted in child
Speaker 1: talk his adventure in an awful blackness, peopled by a
Speaker 1: great throbbing giant and a tall friendly tree, and wild
Speaker 1: animals howling in the distance, and the unfamiliar shouts of
Speaker 1: strangers prowling nearby. Okay, so when you hear those excerpts,
Speaker 1: what comes to mind? Obviously it's not very descriptive, but
Speaker 1: it might evoke some kind of image in your mind.
Speaker 1: The child sees a creature watching him that runs off
Speaker 1: into the brush, and shortly thereafter young Jackie goes missing.
Speaker 1: Later he encounters a great throbbing giant. It gives the
Speaker 1: case an added element of something creepier paranormal. But the
Speaker 1: paragraph I just read to you from Missing four one
Speaker 1: one takes the newspaper article almost entirely out of context.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the same Logan's port Press article that
Speaker 1: politis referenced and compare the two. The search went on
Speaker 1: all night. Then about nine o'clock, an oil field worker
Speaker 1: dropped out of a group of searchers to go to
Speaker 1: a nearby pump house to make some adjustments in the machinery.
Speaker 1: He saw something peering at him from behind a big tree.
Speaker 1: When he approached, the creature scampered into the brush. It
Speaker 1: was a badly frightened oil smeared little Jackie. By Now
Speaker 1: you're probably going, wait what, But that's right. The actual
Speaker 1: newspaper reference for this story has an entirely different context,
Speaker 1: while the Missing four one one version somehow attributes this
Speaker 1: description to Jackie Copeland telling the story of how he disappeared.
Speaker 1: The newspaper is actually telling the tale of the searcher
Speaker 1: who found an oil, smeared Jackie Copeland, hiding behind a
Speaker 1: tree and scampering into the brush. Nobody saw any creature.
Speaker 1: Jackie was the supposed creature. The issue here is that
Speaker 1: the missing four to one one book two sentences out
Speaker 1: of an entire paragraph that is telling a story. Now,
Speaker 1: if we give the benefit of the doubt and say
Speaker 1: this mishapen is entirely by accident, then what are the
Speaker 1: chances that this accident also happens to make the story
Speaker 1: more mysterious, creepy or paranormal. Something to think about. And
Speaker 1: if you're stuck on the actual description that Jackie gave
Speaker 1: of the awful blackness, the throbbing giant, and the tall
Speaker 1: friendly tree, Let's remember that Jackie was two years old
Speaker 1: when this happened. Let's talk about the case of Eloise Lindsay.
Speaker 1: Let me preface this by saying that Politis writes that
Speaker 1: this case is definitely one of the strangest stories in
Speaker 1: the entire book. Let's see twenty two year old Eloise
Speaker 1: Lindsay disappeared in nineteen eighty nine in Table Rock State Park,
Speaker 1: South Carolina. This is another case I've covered on the
Speaker 1: Channel back in the day, and probably not very well either,
Speaker 1: but I never focused on the discrepancies. If you read
Speaker 1: the Missing four on one Eastern US version of the story,
Speaker 1: starting on page one thirty three, the story goes something
Speaker 1: like this. Eloise was on a long hike, doing seven
Speaker 1: days alone before meeting a friend. On the third day
Speaker 1: of her hike, she started being followed by a group
Speaker 1: of men who meant to harm her. Eloise drops her
Speaker 1: backpack and equipment and runs off trail to try and
Speaker 1: avoid these men. She was eventually found in a delirious
Speaker 1: state by a hunter after sixteen days missing. Afterwards, she
Speaker 1: was taken to safety, but up until the moment she
Speaker 1: was found, she claimed that she was being chased through
Speaker 1: the woods by a group of men she never saw.
Speaker 1: She then told her story to reporters from her hospital bed.
Speaker 1: Politus finishes the story by saying, quote, my question for
Speaker 1: Eloise and her mother is what did the girl see?
Speaker 1: Her mother indicates she saw something, and what she saw
Speaker 1: is something that she obviously does not want to make
Speaker 1: public for whatever reason. At the end of Eloise Lindsay's story,
Speaker 1: Politis refers the reader to the Denis Martin case and
Speaker 1: the existence of the fabled wild men that live in
Speaker 1: the Smokies, obviously making a connection between what Eloise experienced
Speaker 1: and the supposed feral wild men from the Denis Martin case.
Speaker 1: And don't worry, we'll hit the Denis Martin case. The
Speaker 1: main takeaway from the Missing four one one presentation of
Speaker 1: this case is this Eloise was stoked by some strange
Speaker 1: and shadowy people for over two weeks. There is no
Speaker 1: mention of the group of men ever doing anything other
Speaker 1: than silently following Eloise in the woods, and the only
Speaker 1: speculation Politis puts forth about who they could be is
Speaker 1: the supposed wild men. Why does this matter, Well, let's
Speaker 1: look at the reporting. At the time. Miss Lindsay said
Speaker 1: she knew rescuers were searching for her, but also believed
Speaker 1: men working in the area were bent on harming her.
Speaker 1: She said the men had dogs, monitors for tracking down
Speaker 1: living animals, whistles, guns, tractors, cars, mopeds, boats. I feel
Speaker 1: like if they had been part of the search party,
Speaker 1: they would have been calling out Eloise, we're here to
Speaker 1: get you. At some points they came very close to
Speaker 1: finding me, but it was never at the right time.
Speaker 1: Other articles mentioned that Eloise could hear the men using
Speaker 1: walkie talkies and even talking about her. If you read
Speaker 1: the articles, you get the sense that Eloise may be
Speaker 1: suffering from some sort of mental illness. She went in
Speaker 1: for a psych evaluation after she left the hospital. It
Speaker 1: really seems like she was perhaps paranoid and eventually determined
Speaker 1: that the searchers were actually men out to cause her harm.
Speaker 1: The main question is why doesn't Missing four one one
Speaker 1: mention any of this. Is it because you can't push
Speaker 1: a feral wild man theory. If the missing person says
Speaker 1: that they were being chased by cars, mopads, and boats,
Speaker 1: Seriously consider what it does to the perception of a
Speaker 1: case when you say she was being chased by mysterious
Speaker 1: men she never saw, versus she knew searchers were in
Speaker 1: the area, but she felt she was being chased by
Speaker 1: men using dogs, guns, tractors, cars, mopeds, and boats. The
Speaker 1: two scenarios give off very different vibes. One that's mysterious
Speaker 1: and one that's not at all. In the end, this
Speaker 1: case should have been excluded due to mental illness. Karen
Speaker 1: Cooney Karen Cooney was a fifteen year old girl in Corey, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: who disappeared in nineteen sixty eight. The missing four one
Speaker 1: one story goes that Karen was in her backyard doing
Speaker 1: chores when her family heard her scream. When they went
Speaker 1: to check on her, Karen had vanished. A search was initiated,
Speaker 1: and a little over a day later, Karen was found
Speaker 1: in a dazed state. She told authorities she was chased
Speaker 1: from her home by a big man with a knife
Speaker 1: who followed her into the woods a long ways until
Speaker 1: she fell asleep again a story of someone being chased
Speaker 1: through the woods. So what's the deal with this case, Well,
Speaker 1: let's read some additional information that newspapers talked about. You see,
Speaker 1: authorities quickly found out that Karen was making things up.
Speaker 1: The FBI got involved when there was allegations of kidnapping,
Speaker 1: and when the state police talked to her, she told
Speaker 1: them that she had been very nervous and high strung
Speaker 1: lately and decided to go for a walk in the
Speaker 1: woods near her home. Her scream which triggered the theory
Speaker 1: that Karen may have been kidnapped as she was hanging
Speaker 1: the family wash occurred when she entered a wooded area
Speaker 1: and had to cross an electric fence, which shocked her.
Speaker 1: So the whole Karen Cooney story is kind of just
Speaker 1: a fabrication. But in the same Missing four one one book,
Speaker 1: Politis compares this case to that of Eloise Lindsay, saying
Speaker 1: this case is not the only case in which strange
Speaker 1: looking men are described in the woods associated with a disappearance.
Speaker 1: He then refers to Eloise's story and ends the paragraph
Speaker 1: with it's an odd coincidence that both Eloise Lindsay and
Speaker 1: Karen Cooney described being chased by men and they don't
Speaker 1: or won't supply descriptions. Why is it just me or
Speaker 1: are both those sentences kind of contradictory? Anyway, We actually
Speaker 1: know that Eloise did describe the people chasing her almost
Speaker 1: too well, while Karen was just never chased at all.
Speaker 1: But these cases in Missing four one one worked to
Speaker 1: create a narrative that there are these strange people in
Speaker 1: the woods. That Karen Cooney case should have been excluded
Speaker 1: due to voluntary disappearance. Let's talk Kevin Die. Kevin Dye
Speaker 1: was a nine year old boy who disappeared in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy one from a cabin in Wyoming. Missing four one
Speaker 1: one mentions that Kevin is disabled, but doesn't go into
Speaker 1: detail about just how disabled he is. Kevin was playing
Speaker 1: pingpong outside with family when the ball was hit out
Speaker 1: into the trees and brush. Naturally, Kevin chased after the ball.
Speaker 1: He ran into the woods and did not return. A
Speaker 1: search began, and some searchers said that they saw Kevin,
Speaker 1: but he ran off into the woods. Food was left
Speaker 1: out for him and was taken quickly, with no culprit
Speaker 1: having been found. Searchers also found a lean two shelter
Speaker 1: made of pine bows, as well as some stick and
Speaker 1: stone constructions that his parents said looked like the stuff
Speaker 1: that Kevin would make. Kevin was actually found after eleven
Speaker 1: days alongside a creek, laying down exhausted. He had lost
Speaker 1: twenty pounds, a quarter of his body weight, and a
Speaker 1: doctor said that he believed Kevin ate nothing the entire time.
Speaker 1: The Missing four one one entry ends by saying that
Speaker 1: Kevin was not telling anyone what happened during his time
Speaker 1: in the woods. Keep that last sentence in mind for
Speaker 1: just a minute now. To me, this case isn't very
Speaker 1: strange to begin with, but it gets even less strange
Speaker 1: when you learn that Kevin was so disabled that he
Speaker 1: couldn't really speak at all. He was barely communicative, but
Speaker 1: he had more energy than any kid we can probably imagine.
Speaker 1: One newspaper said that he had the physical condition of
Speaker 1: a top athlete, But who can become a screaming, flailing
Speaker 1: animal when he fails to make himself understood? In fact,
Speaker 1: the newspaper's report that Kevin was so hyperactive that his
Speaker 1: parents had to give him nine tranquilizers a day and
Speaker 1: it still wasn't enough. This poor kid was so unbelievably
Speaker 1: energetic that they had to give him enough meds to
Speaker 1: kill a horse and it still didn't work. Is it
Speaker 1: any wonder that he just ran off into the forest.
Speaker 1: His parents said that they're yelling and screaming for him,
Speaker 1: probably drove him into the forest. Even more, All of
Speaker 1: the constructs that were found in the forest were probably Kevin,
Speaker 1: as confirmed by the parents, and the missing food was
Speaker 1: probably Kevin as well. You see, the doctor assumed Kevin
Speaker 1: didn't eat because he lost so much weight. But consider
Speaker 1: that we have an ultra hyperactive kid who is now
Speaker 1: off his nine tranquilizers a day, this kid was probably
Speaker 1: burning many thousands of calories per day while lost. Even
Speaker 1: with some food, he still would have lost that weight.
Speaker 1: There was also some local people who reported that they
Speaker 1: had break ins at their cabins where someone stole their
Speaker 1: jars of peanut butter. As it turns out, peanut butter
Speaker 1: was Kevin's favorite food. It seems readily apparent to me
Speaker 1: that this hyperactive child spent ten to eleven days running
Speaker 1: around building things and stealing peanut butter until he eventually
Speaker 1: lost a quarter of his body weight, at which point
Speaker 1: he finally collapsed and was found by searchers. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure why this is a missing four one one case.
Speaker 1: It should have been excluded based on mental illness. Moving on,
Speaker 1: I know Missing four one one has often made mention
Speaker 1: of the children who disappear and show up many miles
Speaker 1: away or are found at incredible elevations. Okay, if true,
Speaker 1: it also sounds amazing to me, So let's take a
Speaker 1: look at some of those cases. I got this list
Speaker 1: from Missing four one one Devil's in the Details page
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty two. This is a list of
Speaker 1: missing people by distance traveled. So let's look at the
Speaker 1: number one on that list, Jack Hodges, who apparently traveled
Speaker 1: fifty miles at only seven years old. Here's the story,
Speaker 1: Jack Hodges. Seven year old Jack Hodges was with his
Speaker 1: family visiting a ranch thirty miles to the north of
Speaker 1: the city of Seligman and northern Arizona. At some point,
Speaker 1: and for some reason, Jack disappeared along with his dog.
Speaker 1: The dog returned a few hours later, but there was
Speaker 1: no Jack. A search was immediately initiated to try and
Speaker 1: find the boy, as temperatures in the area were getting
Speaker 1: down to fourteen degrees at night. Two days into the search,
Speaker 1: Jack was found by two cowboys on the slopes of
Speaker 1: Mount Floyd, which lies about ten miles to the northeast
Speaker 1: of Seligman. A newspaper article referenced in Missing four one
Speaker 1: one states searchers estimated the warmly clad youngster must have
Speaker 1: walked some fifty miles, mostly in circles. Jack was in
Speaker 1: relatively good condition. He was taken to a hospital and
Speaker 1: released a day later. Politis ends Jack's case with these lines.
Speaker 1: I will continue to present these cases to exemplify a
Speaker 1: point we can't ignore what seems illogical we can't attempt
Speaker 1: to reconcile in our minds what seems uncomfortable to believe.
Speaker 1: Some pretty cryptic words there. Politis makes a point to
Speaker 1: say that there was no water in the area and
Speaker 1: that only a little snow was on the mountain. He
Speaker 1: states that the idea that Jack could have eaten this
Speaker 1: snow does not make sense. Keep that last part in mind.
Speaker 1: Politas says, it makes no sense that Jack could have
Speaker 1: eaten snow. So what's the reality of this situation? Did
Speaker 1: little Jack Hodges really walk fifty miles in two days?
Speaker 1: Probably not. Let's think about it. This is literally just
Speaker 1: something a searcher told a newspaper and for who knows
Speaker 1: what reason, and he was probably exaggerating. Jack disappeared from
Speaker 1: a ranch that was about thirty miles north of Seligman
Speaker 1: and was found at a location about ten miles northeast
Speaker 1: of Seligman. Jack could have walked twenty to twenty five
Speaker 1: miles in order to get to Mount Floyd. I'll also
Speaker 1: add that one newspaper says that Jack was found near
Speaker 1: Mount Floyd in an area about twenty miles north of Seligman.
Speaker 1: If accurate, Jack would have only been ten miles away
Speaker 1: from the ranch that he disappeared from. But believe it
Speaker 1: or not, the distance is totally besides the point in
Speaker 1: this case. It's literally not an issue at all. Even
Speaker 1: if he did walk fifty miles, it still would be
Speaker 1: virtually irrelevant. Unbelievably impressive, yes, but irrelevant. You might notice
Speaker 1: that in the Missing four on one book there's no
Speaker 1: quotes sharing what Jack had to say regarding his disappearance.
Speaker 1: This gives the story its air of mystery. What could
Speaker 1: have happened to him while he was lost? That he
Speaker 1: traveled an impossible fifty miles, And this also might lead
Speaker 1: you to think that he said nothing at all about
Speaker 1: the incident. But Jack Hodges told his story to reporters
Speaker 1: and it sheds a lot of light on things. When
Speaker 1: asked how he survived the freezing temperatures of the waist,
Speaker 1: Jack responded, I curled up under a tree and slept
Speaker 1: all night. Remember Jack was warmly clad. He goes on
Speaker 1: to say that he was taking his dog on a
Speaker 1: long walk and just kept walking. After leaving the ranch,
Speaker 1: Jack continued, I saw a deer and antelope, but I
Speaker 1: didn't have a gun. I ate dirty snow that was
Speaker 1: on the north side of the mountain. Oops. You see,
Speaker 1: Jack is clearly not like your modern jen alpha child.
Speaker 1: This is a rough, gruff, nineteen fifties country boy who
Speaker 1: wanted to turn his disappearance into a little hunting trip.
Speaker 1: I'm starting to think he just breezed through the fifty miles.
Speaker 1: After all, he slept under a tree. He wished he
Speaker 1: had a gun to hunt some game, and he ate
Speaker 1: mountain snow for water. The point here is, do you
Speaker 1: think this should be a missing four to one one case?
Speaker 1: The child told his story and it didn't involve aliens
Speaker 1: or Bigfoot or any mystery at all. Really, Jack himself
Speaker 1: never asserted he walked fifty miles. This is merely the
Speaker 1: story of a tough kid who got lost for two days.
Speaker 1: While we're on the subject, let's talk about another, even
Speaker 1: more incredible distance story that for some reason didn't make
Speaker 1: the list in Devils in the Details, even though the
Speaker 1: distance traveled was stated to be seventy five miles. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about the Daughters of John Hammond. In May of
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety one, the four and eight year old daughters
Speaker 1: of John Hammond left their home six miles north of
Speaker 1: the town of Bedford to go visit their sister, who
Speaker 1: lived a mile away. They visited their sister and then
Speaker 1: began walking home. They never made it back. A large
Speaker 1: search was initiated to find the two girls. On the
Speaker 1: fourth day of searching, they found the youngest girl, unconscious
Speaker 1: but still alive. She was found fifteen miles from the
Speaker 1: point she disappeared. This was good, but they still had
Speaker 1: to find the other sister. She was found on the
Speaker 1: tenth day of the search, but unfortunately she was already deceased.
Speaker 1: The Missing four one one book quotes an article that
Speaker 1: says the girl was found ten miles north of Running,
Speaker 1: Blaine County, fully seventy five miles from the place where
Speaker 1: the children lost their way. That is quite incredible if true.
Speaker 1: So let's have a look at the newspaper in question. Now, incidentally,
Speaker 1: that quote I just shared for Missing four one one
Speaker 1: actually as a typo, as the newspaper does not state
Speaker 1: the girl was found north of Running, but actually a
Speaker 1: town called Dunning. So we know where the girl left
Speaker 1: from and where she ended up. She started six miles
Speaker 1: north of Thedford and ended up ten miles north of Dunning. Now,
Speaker 1: as the crow flies, that distance is about twenty five miles. Obviously,
Speaker 1: she likely didn't walk a straight line, so the distance
Speaker 1: is more. But the idea that if this girl walks
Speaker 1: seventy five miles is completely unconfirmed and highly unlikely. Why
Speaker 1: couldn't she have walked thirty miles across the ten days
Speaker 1: she was missing. My main point here is that this
Speaker 1: seventy five miles number is entirely fabricated and totally unreliable.
Speaker 1: It comes from one newspaper article that just got reprinted
Speaker 1: by all the other newspapers. This case could very well
Speaker 1: qualify as a missing four one one case. It has
Speaker 1: that element of mystery where we don't know why they disappeared,
Speaker 1: but the supposed eye catching fact this seventy five miles
Speaker 1: is more than likely a typo or something. Reliability in
Speaker 1: newspapers from the eighteen hundreds has always been an issue.
Speaker 1: How would anyone know she walked seventy five miles instead
Speaker 1: of twenty five? There was simply no way to confirm
Speaker 1: that unless they followed tracks for seventy five miles, which
Speaker 1: I can guarantee did not happen. So those are two
Speaker 1: of the largest distances traveled by children in missing four
Speaker 1: one one cases. It was apparent to me after researching them,
Speaker 1: that those distances were not verifiably traveled and also highly
Speaker 1: unlikely in each situation. I don't want to beat a
Speaker 1: dead horse with this, but I feel like I have
Speaker 1: to throw an elevation one in here just to satisfy everyone.
Speaker 1: So let's do that. Going back to the Devil's in
Speaker 1: the Details book, on page three sixty one, we have
Speaker 1: a list of children who covered great elevation. Obviously, let's
Speaker 1: go to the top of the list, which is Jill Hatch,
Speaker 1: who traveled up thirty five hundred feet in elevation at
Speaker 1: seven years old. Already, it sounds like a supernatural feat,
Speaker 1: so let's see what the story is Jill Hatch In
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty seven, Jill Hatch was seven years old when
Speaker 1: she left her home with her parents to go on
Speaker 1: a camping trip in Camp Shydeck, California. Camp Shydeck is
Speaker 1: a small town that sits kind of near the base
Speaker 1: of Reye's Peak, which towers over the area at seventy
Speaker 1: five hundred feet in elevation. Camp Shydeck sits at about
Speaker 1: thirty eight hundred feet in elevation. Keep those two numbers
Speaker 1: in mind. Here anyway. While on the trip, Jill went
Speaker 1: out with her father to do some fishing along with
Speaker 1: her dog. The dad spent some time fishing while Jill
Speaker 1: and the dog were just sitting nearby. When he was done,
Speaker 1: he went to grab Jill, only to find that both
Speaker 1: her and the dog were gone. A search was immediately
Speaker 1: started for Jill, but only the dog was found after
Speaker 1: it returned to camp on its own. Missing four one
Speaker 1: one states that twenty eight hours after Jill disappeared, searchers
Speaker 1: were near the summit of Ray's Peak and descending when
Speaker 1: they saw Jill on the side of a hill seventy
Speaker 1: five hundred feet up, which is essentially at the very
Speaker 1: top of Raya's Peak, and she was lying in fresh snow.
Speaker 1: Politis states that Jill was found five miles from her
Speaker 1: camp and thirty five hundred feet up in elevation, a
Speaker 1: truly incredible distance. Unfortunately, Jill was already dead from exposure
Speaker 1: when they found her. She would have had to cross
Speaker 1: two steep ridges to reach this point. So what's the
Speaker 1: problem with this one, you might ask? Well, to start,
Speaker 1: I have no idea where Politis got this story of
Speaker 1: searchers coming down from Ray's Peak and somehow finding Jill
Speaker 1: up there near the top. He cites no source, and
Speaker 1: just think about it, why would searchers even be up
Speaker 1: there looking for a small child. Almost every article you
Speaker 1: find on Jill Hatch's case says that she was found
Speaker 1: between half a mile to a mile and a half
Speaker 1: from Camp. I looked at a ton of articles on
Speaker 1: this case, and only one claims she was found five
Speaker 1: miles away. But the problem with the five miles figure
Speaker 1: is that it doesn't make sense. Five miles from Camp
Speaker 1: Shideck puts you past Ray's Peak. But even if you
Speaker 1: accept this anomalous figure, the story told in this article
Speaker 1: is completely different from Missing four one one. It says
Speaker 1: her body was found huddled in some bushes, not laying
Speaker 1: on the snow at the top of Ray's Peak. The
Speaker 1: most important newspaper I've found on this case comes from
Speaker 1: the Ventura County Star, which actually shares details from those
Speaker 1: who found her. Russell Princeton, a butcher from New Quiama,
Speaker 1: was one of the searchers covering a hillside above the creek,
Speaker 1: making his way over snow covered rocks and brush when
Speaker 1: he came upon the little limp body of the girl.
Speaker 1: She apparently had begun to make her way up the
Speaker 1: slope where she could see greater distance when exhaustion overcame her, and,
Speaker 1: sleepy from the bitter cold, slumped down in the snow
Speaker 1: and collapsed. Reading a little earlier in the article, we
Speaker 1: learned that this searcher was in Snail Canyon when he
Speaker 1: found Jill Hatch, so he was covering the hillside above
Speaker 1: the creek in Snail Canyon, not climbing to the top
Speaker 1: of Ray's Peak. Let's look at where Snail Canyon is
Speaker 1: in relation to Camp Shydeck. The highlighted area is Snail Canyon,
Speaker 1: and it does not extend southward more than about two
Speaker 1: and a half miles from Camp Shydick. But keep in
Speaker 1: mind that Jill was found about half a mile to
Speaker 1: a mile and a half from the camp, so she
Speaker 1: wasn't very deep into the canyon, which coincidentally agrees with
Speaker 1: what ninety nine percent of newspapers say about where Jill
Speaker 1: was found. It also means Jill could not have climbed
Speaker 1: higher than the canyon walls let's say one thousand feet.
Speaker 1: But judging by the article of the fellow who found her,
Speaker 1: she died very shortly after even attempting to climb up
Speaker 1: the sides of the canyon, So the total elevation Jill
Speaker 1: climbed is likely next to nothing, and certainly not even
Speaker 1: close to thirty five hundred feet. In my opinion, the
Speaker 1: story as told in Missing four one one uses cherry
Speaker 1: picked numbers and also does not cite a source for
Speaker 1: Jill being found at the top of Reya's Peak. The
Speaker 1: only newspaper report that even remotely sounded like what's written
Speaker 1: in Missing four one one describes two male searchers who
Speaker 1: were coming down a slope when they spotted Jill lying
Speaker 1: on the snow. One of them also had the last
Speaker 1: name Princeton, and I bet he's the son of the
Speaker 1: man who gave a much better description of the discovery.
Speaker 1: Neither iterations describe the searchers being a top rays peak.
Speaker 1: It simply doesn't make sense, and Jill Hatch's case represents
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing in terms of elevation climbed by a child.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Dennis Martin. I know fans of the
Speaker 1: channel probably don't need a Dennis Martin refresher. I have
Speaker 1: a lot of videos on the subject, but it is
Speaker 1: a hugely important case because the Missing four one one
Speaker 1: version of this story has been told a thousand times
Speaker 1: on various radio programs and other venues, and I would
Speaker 1: venture a guess that the majority of people familiar with
Speaker 1: the case only know the Missing four one one version,
Speaker 1: but I'll keep it brief. Dennis Martin disappeared in the
Speaker 1: Great Smoky Mountains National Park in June of nineteen sixty nine.
Speaker 1: He was visiting the park with his grandfather, father, and
Speaker 1: brother for a family reunion of sorts. The plan was
Speaker 1: to meet up at a place called Spence Field. Along
Speaker 1: the way, the Martins encountered an unrelated family with the
Speaker 1: same last name. They got along well, and the two
Speaker 1: groups decided to make the trek together. After arriving at
Speaker 1: spence Field, Dennis disappeared after the group of kids hatched
Speaker 1: a plot to scare some of the adults by jumping
Speaker 1: out from behind trees. Unfortunately, Dennis was wearing a bright
Speaker 1: red shirt, so they told him to go a different
Speaker 1: direction than everyone else. He was never seen again. According
Speaker 1: to Missing four to one one. Hours after Dennis disappeared,
Speaker 1: a man named Harold Key was in the park with
Speaker 1: his family in the Rohans Creek area. They wandered into
Speaker 1: the woods looking for bears. While out there, they saw
Speaker 1: a large hairy man or a man wearing animal pelts
Speaker 1: running through the forest carrying something on its shoulder. This
Speaker 1: description seems to be inferring a bigfoot or a wild
Speaker 1: man abducted Dennis Martin, missing four one. One claimed Special
Speaker 1: Forces green Berets showed up out of nowhere during the
Speaker 1: search for Dennis. It is said they carried weapons while
Speaker 1: they searched and did not communicate with any other searchers.
Speaker 1: Much of this this information comes from an interview that
Speaker 1: Politis and bigfoot researcher Scott Carpenter did with Dennis Martin's father,
Speaker 1: Bill Martin. Politis never interviewed the most important witness in
Speaker 1: this case, however, which was Harold Key, because he says
Speaker 1: he was already dead back in twenty ten and twenty
Speaker 1: eleven when he was researching for his book. The exact
Speaker 1: quote is most of the people involved in this case
Speaker 1: have retired or passed away. Mister Key died in twenty ten.
Speaker 1: The problem with that story is that it is only
Speaker 1: accurate up until Dennis Martin disappears. Harold Key was actually
Speaker 1: alive up until twenty nineteen and fortunately he was interviewed
Speaker 1: by a police officer named Michael Bouchard before that time.
Speaker 1: Harold Key stated that the man he saw in the
Speaker 1: woods that day was carrying nothing. There was no child
Speaker 1: being carried on anyone's shoulder, nor was the man he
Speaker 1: saw a bigfoot or a wild man in animal skins.
Speaker 1: He said he saw a disheveled looking man moving through
Speaker 1: the forest and then getting into a white vehicle and
Speaker 1: driving out of the u S area with haste. Shortly thereafter,
Speaker 1: he said he heard someone scream the word help and
Speaker 1: then heard an agonizing scream of pain. This version of
Speaker 1: the story can actually be verified by contemporary newspaper articles
Speaker 1: where Harold Key was interviewed and said the man he
Speaker 1: saw left in a white car. Bigfoots and wild men
Speaker 1: generally don't drive, as I understand it. Besides that, we
Speaker 1: know that the green Berets arrived at the request of
Speaker 1: the Park Service because they were training in the nearby
Speaker 1: area of Nantahala and they received permission to help. This
Speaker 1: record has existed and been available for a long time.
Speaker 1: As of twenty twenty four, there are also many photographs
Speaker 1: that show the green Berets during the Denis Martin search,
Speaker 1: and not a single one is shown carrying a weapon.
Speaker 1: If you want more detail than this, I suggest you
Speaker 1: check out my past videos on the Denis Martin case. Essentially,
Speaker 1: everything about the case that appeared strange and unusual turned
Speaker 1: out to be incorrect. To sum up, this disappearance was
Speaker 1: considered a keystone case in the Missing four one one catalog,
Speaker 1: but in the end, when you look at all of
Speaker 1: the facts, it appears that Dennis was either kidnapped by
Speaker 1: the disheveled man, which would mean criminal activity and disqualify
Speaker 1: this case, or Dennis got lost and died from exposure.
Speaker 1: None of those options make the case worthy of a
Speaker 1: moniker such as unexplainable or paranormal. Let's move on to
Speaker 1: something else. I know many people are probably familiar with
Speaker 1: Missing four one one because they watched the movies. Perhaps
Speaker 1: you're wondering, what, if anything, is wrong with those I
Speaker 1: don't want to go over every case in each movie
Speaker 1: because that would take some time, but let's just say
Speaker 1: that the movies aren't exempt from this problem. Don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong, I think Missing four one one The Hunted
Speaker 1: is a beautifully made movie. I've watched it many times
Speaker 1: It's very well made from an artistic standpoint, but in
Speaker 1: terms of telling accurate stories, I think it can be
Speaker 1: seriously lacking in some areas. I'll briefly touch on some
Speaker 1: things from each movie. For the first Missing four one
Speaker 1: one movie, I remember watching it right when it came out,
Speaker 1: and even then I felt like it didn't really capture
Speaker 1: the essence of what Missing four one one was. I
Speaker 1: think the only truly mysterious case presented in it was
Speaker 1: that of Jared Adadero. The main focus was on Dior
Speaker 1: Coons Junior, in a case that I feel has a
Speaker 1: lot of indications of foul play. It's still being investigated
Speaker 1: to this day. Another case brought up in the movie
Speaker 1: was that of Bobby buys Up, a boy who disappeared
Speaker 1: while attending a Catholic camp and whose partial remains were
Speaker 1: later found. There is strong evidence to indicate that Bobby
Speaker 1: was the victim of some very evil camp counselors. The
Speaker 1: case is still being investigated to this day, and media
Speaker 1: has provided updates in the case as recently as twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. This case should not have been included due
Speaker 1: to criminal activity. With regard to Missing four one one,
Speaker 1: The hunted There's really two cases that I want to
Speaker 1: point out to this movie Stanley Vihill Junior as the first.
Speaker 1: If you watch the movie, it tells Stanley's story something
Speaker 1: like this. In twenty seventeen, he was out on a
Speaker 1: hunting trip with his father and friends when he spotted
Speaker 1: a deer as they were driving around in the truck.
Speaker 1: Stanley jumps out of the truck, chasing the deer. Bad
Speaker 1: weather rolls in and Stanley never returns. A search is initiated,
Speaker 1: but it is unsuccessful. Then Stanley is eventually found dead
Speaker 1: in the Pecos River months later. This is all suggesting
Speaker 1: that we have no idea what could have possibly happened
Speaker 1: to Stanley. It makes it sound like Stanley just ran
Speaker 1: out of the car and vanished into the woods before
Speaker 1: showing up dead. That would be pretty mysterious, but this
Speaker 1: is only a fraction of Stanley's story. Before disappearing, Stanley
Speaker 1: was in the truck drinking with the other men. Maybe
Speaker 1: a minor detail, but still potentially important. The day after
Speaker 1: Stanley went missing, he actually showed up on the doorstep
Speaker 1: of a woman named Eumelia Gonzalez. Eumelia found him knocking
Speaker 1: on her or late at night, and she had no
Speaker 1: idea who he was. She said that he was armed
Speaker 1: with a nine millimeter pistol on his hip, and he
Speaker 1: told a story about his truck being stuck in the
Speaker 1: mountains and that men were chasing after him. Stanley asked
Speaker 1: to use her phone, but because Eumelia was scared, she
Speaker 1: told him he could not, and she then told him
Speaker 1: to leave, which he did. Later on, Eumelia would make
Speaker 1: contact with authorities where she identified Stanley Vihill as the
Speaker 1: man who knocked on her door. Canines were brought to
Speaker 1: her house where they were able to pick up his
Speaker 1: scent and track it for a while. Stanley was also
Speaker 1: likely captured by a number of game cameras after this incident,
Speaker 1: giving us some idea of his path of travel. Stanley's sister,
Speaker 1: Darcy Vihill, also believed that men were chasing her brother,
Speaker 1: and stated that police told her that his body had
Speaker 1: been found with head trauma and broken ribs. Darcy Vihill
Speaker 1: provided police with other testimony that she had seen surveillance
Speaker 1: tape of men appearing to chase someone who appears to
Speaker 1: be Stanley hiding near a gas station. As far as
Speaker 1: I know, police never confirmed this report, so I don't
Speaker 1: give it the same weight as other evidence. I corresponded
Speaker 1: with Darcy back in twenty twenty three, and she still
Speaker 1: believes foul play was involved in Stanley's death and she
Speaker 1: wants further investigation. But here's the point I want to make.
Speaker 1: If you had to guess what was going on in
Speaker 1: this case, what would it be for me? I'd say
Speaker 1: either foul play or mental illness. Well, let's examine the
Speaker 1: missing four one one exclusionary criteria shown in this very movie. Again,
Speaker 1: the likely explanation falls within two exclusionary categories. It seems
Speaker 1: like this should not be considered a missing for one
Speaker 1: one case, but it's still in the movie. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Aaron Hedges briefly. I made a detailed
Speaker 1: video on the topic already, but if you're unfamiliar with
Speaker 1: the flaws in this case, I would suggest you go
Speaker 1: view it on my channel. Here is an abridged version
Speaker 1: as told in the movie. Aaron Hedges went hunting in
Speaker 1: the Crazy Mountains with two of his friends. Into their trek,
Speaker 1: the group's pack mule bucked a bunch of Aaron's gear,
Speaker 1: including a sleeping bag, and it was all lost. Aaron
Speaker 1: had hid in a cache of gear at a place
Speaker 1: called Sunlight Lake, so he told his friends that he
Speaker 1: was going to leave and go get it. Aaron left,
Speaker 1: but stayed in radio contact with his friends for some time.
Speaker 1: In the last contact they had with him, he told
Speaker 1: them that he believed he had missed a turn and
Speaker 1: would not be back soon. Aaron's friends eventually shot an
Speaker 1: elk and then left the area without him. They told
Speaker 1: authorities that when they returned to the trailhead, they received
Speaker 1: a delayed text from Aaron saying that he would call
Speaker 1: them that night. A brutal snowstorm hits the area and
Speaker 1: the search for Aaron eventually begins. They find a place
Speaker 1: he appeared to have stayed with a fire pit, some gear,
Speaker 1: and his hiking boots. They don't find erin. His backpack
Speaker 1: and bow were later found located on the Rhine Ranch,
Speaker 1: further down the trail from where his campfire was found.
Speaker 1: It was resting against a tree purposefully placed. Aaron's remains
Speaker 1: would be found a year later by I guessed from
Speaker 1: the sweet Grass Ranch. There was not enough left of
Speaker 1: him to determine the cause of death. The sad truth
Speaker 1: of this story is that Aaron was quite an alcoholic.
Speaker 1: He had a serious problem. He was taking medication to
Speaker 1: help kerb his drinking, but it appears it wasn't working
Speaker 1: very well. Witness testimony indicates that he went out on
Speaker 1: this hunting trip with a crazy plan to try in
Speaker 1: detox complications from alcohol, withdrawal in a sudden snowstorm or
Speaker 1: what likely led to his death. There was also this
Speaker 1: other element of Aaron's hiking boots being found at the
Speaker 1: small campsite he made. I talked to this guy who
Speaker 1: you might recognize from the movie itself. This is sweet
Speaker 1: Grass County Sheriff Roniberg. He told me that it's common
Speaker 1: for bowhunters to carry a spare set of hunting moccasins
Speaker 1: with them for stalking game. Sheriff Roniberg said that he
Speaker 1: believed Aaron was wearing these moccasins instead. If you really
Speaker 1: look at all of the details of this case, nothing
Speaker 1: seems unexplainable about it. It's really just a tragic story.
Speaker 1: After my video on the subject was released, I've heard
Speaker 1: people say that perhaps Politis knew about the alcoholism but
Speaker 1: decided not to say anything out of respect for Aaron
Speaker 1: and his family. That idea would be all well and good,
Speaker 1: but then you should not include it as a main
Speaker 1: entry in your movie. You can't emit a key element
Speaker 1: in explaining the case and then say the case is unexplainable.
Speaker 1: Sheriff Roniberg said that he did an hour long interview
Speaker 1: for the movie, which got whittled down to just a
Speaker 1: few minutes, which is normal, But I have a hard
Speaker 1: time believing that Roniberg didn't bring up any of these
Speaker 1: key points at the time. In my opinion, Aaron's disappearance
Speaker 1: has clear signs of both voluntary disappearance because he wanted
Speaker 1: to detox alone, and also mental illness in the form
Speaker 1: of addiction. It's pretty plain that both Stanley Vihil and
Speaker 1: Aaron Hedges should have been excluded from Missing four on one
Speaker 1: based on its own criteria. The key details of both
Speaker 1: of these cases are what's really missing in this movie.
Speaker 1: You might defend this by saying, well, maybe Politis just
Speaker 1: didn't know, but the problem with that is that you're
Speaker 1: also saying this rather large production, a film that had
Speaker 1: an actual budget to go to all of these places
Speaker 1: and interview these people in person, does worse research than
Speaker 1: I do. By myself. From my own home. I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to think about that. I also want
Speaker 1: to mention that some people out there still say that
Speaker 1: David Politis has never put forth an explanation for the
Speaker 1: cause of missing four on one cases, But I couldn't
Speaker 1: disagree more. In this movie, they play the Sierra sounds,
Speaker 1: which are famous purported Bigfoot vocalizations. Why would you play
Speaker 1: that in your movie about missing people unless you are
Speaker 1: making a connection. There After the Bigfoot sounds, the movie
Speaker 1: presents a case about UFOs and an invisible predator creature. Again,
Speaker 1: if you are trying to refrain from proffering an explanation
Speaker 1: for these cases, why would you present these unrelated incidents
Speaker 1: in the same movie. Did any one watch those parts
Speaker 1: and come away thinking they weren't being presented as possible
Speaker 1: answers for the disappearances of people? Speaking of UFOs, let's
Speaker 1: talk about missing four one one, the UFO connection. It's
Speaker 1: kind of right in the title with this one. If
Speaker 1: you watch this movie and still come away thinking Politis
Speaker 1: hasn't offered any theories or explanations, I don't know what
Speaker 1: to say. I'm not gonna spend much time on this
Speaker 1: because I found the movie in general to be pretty
Speaker 1: wacky with the whole aliens are coming here to steal
Speaker 1: our elk meat theory, but that's neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: I made a video on one of the cases featured
Speaker 1: in this movie, Mark Stripmoter. I won't criticize that too
Speaker 1: harshly because I know the police report wasn't available to
Speaker 1: him when he filmed that segment. Suffice to say that
Speaker 1: any theory that Mark Stripmoter was abducted by aliens was
Speaker 1: destroyed right around the time the movie came out, because
Speaker 1: his body was found in the same forest he disappeared
Speaker 1: in the release of the police report showed that Mark
Speaker 1: found himself in a situation not unlike Aaron Hedges, only
Speaker 1: this time it was a combination of an opiate addiction
Speaker 1: and some really harsh inclement weather. I know I said
Speaker 1: I would try to avoid this, but I have to
Speaker 1: pick out some small inaccuracies that just surprised me, like
Speaker 1: misspelling the name of an individual who provided an interview
Speaker 1: on your film, or in the case of Raymond Jones
Speaker 1: featured in the film, which if you follow my channel,
Speaker 1: you know that Raymond wasn't abducted by aliens either. All
Speaker 1: evidence appears to indicate he was climbing a rock face
Speaker 1: when a piece of rock broke off and crushed him.
Speaker 1: But they show a supposed picture of Raymond in the movie,
Speaker 1: except that is not Raymond Jones. That is actually Raymond's neighbor.
Speaker 1: This picture was taken from a news article which interviewed
Speaker 1: some of Raymond's neighbors, but apparently nobody in the movie
Speaker 1: production bothered to check that it was actually the man
Speaker 1: they were covering in the film. Again, this is a
Speaker 1: film with a budget and multiple people working on it.
Speaker 1: It has a long list of credits at the end.
Speaker 1: It just feels like accurate information takes a second seat
Speaker 1: to atmosphere and presentation when it comes to these movies. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's time to conclude this video. Some might wonder if
Speaker 1: the cases I've discussed were cherry picked in a way, Yes,
Speaker 1: some of them were. They were cherry picked from a
Speaker 1: long list of cases I found to be inaccurate. Did
Speaker 1: I pick the ones I felt were the most egregious? Yes,
Speaker 1: I did. I did that for time purposes and certainly
Speaker 1: to make a point. I did not cherry pick the
Speaker 1: elevation and distance cases. Those two were just at the
Speaker 1: top of their respective lists. Again, there are cases in
Speaker 1: the missing four to one one catalog that are strange
Speaker 1: and have no obvious explanation, but those seem to be
Speaker 1: very few and far between. In my opinion, given this information,
Speaker 1: I can't reasonably conclude that there is a missing four
Speaker 1: to one one phenomenon. And just a reminder, I did
Speaker 1: not start out with that opinion. That opinion was built
Speaker 1: over time as more and more cases revealed a rational explanation.
Speaker 1: Why does Missing four on one have these errors? I
Speaker 1: don't know. I can only guess. I can only give
Speaker 1: you my opinion when I consider it. The only things
Speaker 1: I can come up with are one, the research that
Speaker 1: went into missing four on one has been woefully inadequate, or
Speaker 1: two there has been some sort of intentional deception. Again,
Speaker 1: that's just my opinion on the why, and I don't
Speaker 1: know which one of those it could be, but neither
Speaker 1: of them are a very good look. At this point,
Speaker 1: it's hard for me to believe that David Politis has
Speaker 1: not been made aware of these errors. I have never
Speaker 1: heard him issuing any corrections to these cases that he
Speaker 1: has often presented. If he has, please send me the video.
Speaker 1: It's important because opinions should be adjusted as more information
Speaker 1: is gained, and if information comes out that makes a
Speaker 1: paranormal case seem rational, then that is not a bad thing.
Speaker 1: If we care about getting to the truth, then we
Speaker 1: should follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if we're
Speaker 1: disappointed in the outcome. To perpetuate him. Information that is
Speaker 1: incorrect does not help the future of missing persons research.
Speaker 1: This isn't about being a believer versus being a skeptic.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a good thing to be wholly
Speaker 1: dedicated to one or the other. It's about a balance.
Speaker 1: The moment I get good evidence of some paranormal happenings
Speaker 1: in a case, you better believe I would immediately make
Speaker 1: a video on that. I imagine there are some cases
Speaker 1: out there with paranormal indicators. There's definitely a number of
Speaker 1: cases that have no obvious explanation, but that's a different standard.
Speaker 1: The vast majority of cases have a rational explanation that
Speaker 1: is readily apparent. Hopefully this has done something to explain
Speaker 1: where I'm coming from and why I have the outlook
Speaker 1: that I do. And for the people who comment that
Speaker 1: if it wasn't for missing four one one, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have a job. Maybe you're right, but if Missing four
Speaker 1: one one got it right the first time, we wouldn't
Speaker 1: need people like me either. So until next time, thanks
Speaker 1: for watching. B