Lost Boy-Finders Connection?

Dennis Martin

Cryptid researcher Bob Gymlan presents a detailed account of a truly chilling missing persons case: the disappearance of six-year-old Dennis Martin from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Multiple oddities intersect to make this case deeply disturbing--doubly so for parents of young children.

Still, forewarned is forearmed. Gymlan--along with investigator David Paulides--offer information that may give families enjoying the great outdoors an extra measure of safety.

My comment: Gymlan runs a Bigfoot channel, so his promotional art must reflect his brand. Though he does list Sasquatch among the potential suspects, he readily considers more mundane culprits.

In light of the recent Finders revelations, I've developed an alternate theory.

Let's look at some known facts:

  1. The CIA sponsored a hippie network called the Finders, which was involved in kidnapping young children.
  2.  An unusual number of disappearances take place in national parks. The National Park Service doesn't keep an official tally, but independent researchers estimate the figure at 1600 on the low end.
  3. Public lands play host to extensive and well-organized criminal enterprises. It's been an open secret among law enforcement for years that the cartels keep large marijuana farms in national parks.
  4. It's also a barely kept secret that large hippie communes--some the size of small towns--have become fixtures in national forests. They're not confined to the US, either. These hippies were caught squatting in an Australian national park. Guess how they were funding their lifestyle.
What if a hippie offshoot subculture is entrenched deep in a number of national parks? What if they funded their activities through a combination of government sponsorship and the drug trade? What do the glow-in-the-darks get in exchange for giving these hippies money and protection? How about a steady stream of abducted children for their foreign and domestic clientele?

The value of a model depends on how well it explains observed phenomena. In this case:
  • Finders style child trafficking rings based out of national parks would explain a percentage of the missing children cases.
  • Hikers who stumble upon illegal drug farms and are quickly sunsetted to hush it up would explain some of the other missing persons reports.
  • The relative ineffectiveness of law enforcement in solving these cases may be partly due to CIA secret classifications and Do Not Prosecute orders, as were issued in the Finders case.
  • The seemingly preternatural ease with which some of the victims are abducted could be attributed to feral hippies' far greater familiarity with the terrain. Generations of these people may have been living in these forests since the 60s, giving them a decisive home field advantage.
As a final note, the above would explain the odd involvement and strange behavior of the Army Rangers in the Dennis Martin case.

Anyhow, that's my working theory. What's yours?


  1. Before Epstein, I'd have labeled this entire post as nutty conspiracy mongering. The whole thing has the smell of a bad 60's pulp novel. Unfortunately, the real world has proven even more evil than fiction writers are capable of expressing.

    Yes there seems to be a world wide network that preys on the young. Yes they seem to be protected (until they become a liability) by people in high places. So no, nothing you proposed is even slightly beyond the realm of possibility. Unfortunately.

    1. Which is why it's vital not to let them memory hole the Epstein affair.

    2. Chris

      Excellent observation Epstein was the first thing that popped into my head.

      I wonder if they have list of specific traits or even kids' names to kidnap?

      In the end we'll discover our spy services are no different than the communists checkists.


  2. I think your model has merit. I remember listening to that video a few months ago and both my wife and I found it odd that the army got involved and then behaved the way they did. The Finders reveal might be a key piece to the puzzle.

    1. To go out on a limb, perhaps the Rangers were proxies in a CIA turf war with the FBI. The case hits the papers, and somebody at the Company makes a call to a Ranger unit commander along the lines of: "The Tennessee cell went off the reservation. Clean up the mess before somebody finds our fingerprints in it."

    2. It's plausible. The CIA does have a paramilitary division, while the TLAs do have a long history of screw-ups. The National Guard and the Green Berets getting involved would make a crime look like an innocent search fo lost little boy, and perhaps muddy the waters and contaminate the crime scene(s), though with a heaping helping of violating Posse Comitatus. Even if they had federalized the Guard for the search, one lost little boy does not a natural disaster make. Unless the Berets were there because they train there and know the ground well, they make even less sense. If that park wasn't their stomping grounds, I can think of no good reason to involve the SF. Maybe they got away with it because it was Federal land and too few people knew to be suspicious.

    3. Good catch pointing out that it was the Green Berets and not the Army Rangers involved in the search. They're both special forces, but they have very different mission roles.

    4. That they do. Sending the Rangers would have made more sense. There are more of them, for one thing. They're all trained in Mountain Warfare, for another. I expect most USASF candidates were Ranger-qualified in addition to being Airborne-qualified back then, which I think is still the case now, so they would have the skills, but as you pointed out, theirs is a different mission.

      Comparing the travel distances between the USASF's HQ at Fort Bragg and the Ranger Regiment's HQ at Fort Benning to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, it seems to be about even. Fort Campbell isn't appreciably closer, either. Granted, I'm using a modern mapping site with modern roads which probably didn't exist in 1969, but we're still taking about a distance of 250 to 300 miles. Bragg and Campbell are closer than Benning, but not by that much, so "We sent the Green Berets because they were closer" doesn't really make sense. It's possible they didn't have much to do, heard about a little boy lost on really difficult terrain, and volunteered to go (because we do have the best bad-asses on the planet) but it still strains credulity. If they needed searchers with security clearances, or who knew how to keep their mouths shut even without official classifications involved, that seems to turn the search itself into a part of a cover-up.

  3. The Sodder Children disappearance has always been one of the most telling about how many disturbed people are hiding in plain sight.

    Over Christmas Eve, five children disappeared during a housefire and were never seen again. No remains were ever found in the ashes, and no one ever determined who started the fire. Not to mention, fake bones were planted at the site. Oh, and the ladder was taken (the children slept on the second floor) and the power was cut and his trucks were sabotaged.

    Even those who try to find "rational" causes to what happened can't explain why no evidence has ever arisen to show they died in the fire. Nothing.


    It's obvious that someone hated the father and wanted to send him a message. So they attacked and destroyed his family.

    The bad police work solidified this impression of kidnapping further.

    I have to wonder how big this network is, because it has to larger than we think.

    1. Sir, it IS larger than you think. It is global and reaches to the highest levels of power in many levels of society.

      So they must be exposed and fought and defeated in EVERY nation on Earth without exception. And in the end they will be.

      Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

    2. Textbook mafia-style vendetta. My Italian grandmother's cousin was rubbed out by the Chicago Outfit, so my family isn't wholly unfamiliar with the standard M.O.

      George probably pissed off the wrong people back in the Old Country. Those guys weren't the type to let a little thing like an ocean get in the way of avenging their honor.

      At the time of the fire, the American mob was flush with cash after parleying their rum-running money into a gambling empire. They'd also cut a deal with the government to watch New York Harbor for U-boats.

      Meds with a grudge + vast wealth + glow-in-the-dark protection = a perfect storm rolling over the Sodders.

      The only two details that don't fully add up are George's Sardinian origins--the mob didn't establish a foothold there until after the war--and the salesman's umbrage over insults to Il Duce. Mussolimi put a bigger hurt on the mob's operations than Eliot Ness. Goes without saying that he wasn't too popular with the wise guy set.

      Those details of George's personal history back in Sardinia that he never wanted to talk about probably explain it all.

  4. When you're ready for your custom tin foil hat, start looking up MK Ultra and Project Monarch. This sort of thing would be right up their alley.

    1. Way ahead of you. That's why I switched from tin to graphene.

  5. I've always surmised the "bigfoot" sightings were either holdover injuns or wildmen/hippies. It being a drug trade is well entirely within the realm of possibility.

    1. Those two possibilities probably account for a good chunk of sightings. Physical and zoological evidence does indicate a surviving Ice Age great ape as well.

    2. The thought just occurred to me that the Bigfoots might be someone in a gillie suit. This would explain easy disappearance into terrain, and the head netting could be fashioned like that as a multi-level decoy. Sasquatch hoax draws attention away from something sinister.

    3. There was a flap of bigfoot sightings in my town a few years back that turned out to be one or more guys sneaking around in gillie suits. Multiple eyewitnesses saw them--even in someone's front yard on one occasion--but they were never caught or identified.

  6. I want to preface what I am about to write with a caveat: I believe your theory has much merit. Not too long ago, I would have called it crazy. But we know more now with certainty than we did even five years ago.

    That being said, I am leery of Grand Unified Theories in this realm (or most for that matter). Being a midwit, I could be wrong but that was the impression I got on reading it.

    Do I believe there is a group of Federal Government affiliates and employees stealing small children? Or at the least, facilitating the same? Yes.

    Do I believe that some are cultists or aligned with entities even darker than our government? Yes.

    But one of the thoughts that struck me after listening to one of Paulides lectures (and I mentioned this in the prior post) is that there are enough of these disappearances that I find it stretches belief that one group satisfies all.

    Finders. Mafia/Organized crime. Yes to both. But I am reminded of the fringe theory of Serial Killer Gangs/Cells working together (the theory the FBI believes to be hogwash.)

    Also, due to my time in both Law Enforcement and Mountain Search and Rescue (I belonged to a mountain team and was trained in Whitewater/Swift-water rescue and recovery and Winter survival and High Angle Rescue), I firmly believe there are communities of feral humans in parts of this country (and likely in others) that the US Park service and other agencies are aware of.

    To make a long story short ("Too late for that!"-Clue), I think that with the large number of disappearances, and wide variety of victims and terrains/settings, there are a number of plausible causes/perpetrators.

    I believe your theory is novel and efficient for one specific subset of these disappearances.

    1. I completely agree. Any impression that I intended my theory to explain all unexplained disappearances in national parks is due to my lack of clarity.

  7. Many Cabal activities involve public lands.

    Pot growers affiliated with cartels operate on public lands hundreds of miles from the border. I've heard stories about pockets of lawlessness and savagery in remote regions of the country, as Emmett describes. Lots of conspiracies around the Bundy Standoff involving uranium mining claims.

    Smaller, Burning Man-like pagan worship gatherings happen on public lands all the time.

    One tell is how politicians in Blue Bubbles "care" about public lands, and stir up their constituents to support various "environmental" laws and "environmental" NGOs that don't help rural communities or promote sound land management.

    1. Look into accounts of what TVA workers found when they ventured into remote parts of the Kentucky hills that had been cut off from civilization since before Lincoln's day.

    2. I'm going to look that up. Do you know of any specific links?

      Because of my aforementioned experiences, I tend to find those cases and accounts fascinating.

    3. @ Brian - what are some key words to use for said search? TVA workers, remote, Kentucky, cut off from civilization, are not providing any reports/articles.

    4. There was a whole valley they flooded when they dammed a river--left a couple of towns underwater. It's been so long, I forget the name.

  8. @Durandel

    I was looking too and I couldn't find anything about the TVA.

    Near where I live, nowhere near Tennessee, a river was dammed to make a lake and reservoir and control yearly flooding.

    A town was evacuated and the buildings were left underwater. Some of the higher elevation buildings in the river valley can still be explored by casual swimmers and snorkelers. When I was in my 20's, we would go out on a buddy's boat and explore some of them, though we were never dumb enough to go inside a structure while underwater. We saw an old cemetery, as well, though we were told all the actual remains were removed and re-buried afterward in a new cemetery.

    They even filmed an old X-files episode about that same man-made lake on location and, to the chagrin of every local, kept mispronouncing the location in an excruciatingly affected way.

  9. Even if your explanation has holes a conspiratorial view of democracy makes more sense than a transparent view.

    If you bribe someone, you have to increase the level of the bribe for it to continue working, and if you depend on them more than they depend on you, what's really going on is that they are extorting you. Therefore, we can conclude that bribery is a depreciating technique.

    The threat of blackmail, on the other hand, doesnt lessen with use. Furthermore, the first thing a smart blackmailer will do is make you do something that gives him even more blackmail material to use on you. Therefore, smart blackmail gets stronger with use.

    If someone has blackmail information on you, the only way to protect yourself is to find blackmail information on them for mutually assured destruction.

    Considering the only people you want to promote are people you can control, we can safety conclude the upper levels (whatever those are, who knows if its politics, government, business, religion) are largely run by interlocking blackmail networks.

    This view, that the puppets and puppeteers are on and the same, rather than a single entity behind it all that isnt controlled, is further corroborated by considering the second technique to get out from underneath blackmail: normalize whatever it is they have on you. If there was a single, uncontrolled entity behind everything, we wouldn't see that, but we do, so we can assume vast mutual blackmail networks.

    And looking at the progression of social mores in that last several decades it's safe to assume these networks have been in place for a long time.

    It's been a long time since cheating on your wife has been a blackmaim-able offense.

    Also further corroborated by the ancient observation that democracy cases social decay. They may not have seen the mechanics, but they saw the results.

    1. Washington essentially operates like a crooked police department. Everybody's on the take, so they all have a perverse incentive not to snitch.