gigantor Posted October 20, 2017 Admin Share Posted October 20, 2017 I remember when it happened and Justin was in here answering questions. He was also in the chat room and we tried to purchase a piece of the steak... 10K wasn't enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 20, 2017 BFF Patron Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) ^ Remember it well, nobody ever said he didn't have swagger, don't most poachers! Forgot to add, poachers also think they are telling the truth about their legal hunting right on up to the forfetiture of their accoutrements, sound familiar?! I would wager a bet that if research studied poachers and lie detectors there would be a study in the positive direction that they can beat them. Any dissertation candidates out there?! Gave you a free pass if you are into the poacher crowd. Edited October 20, 2017 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) Can you proffer any scientific studies which prove your assertion or is it just 100%, pure conjecture on your part? This business about dismissing, out of hand, a lie detector test is utter rubbish. If a person fails it, it proves beyond all doubt they're a liar. If they pass it, well, it's no big deal because it's meaningless. What clear-thinking person can draw a conclusion like that? Edited October 20, 2017 by wiiawiwb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 20, 2017 Admin Share Posted October 20, 2017 There is a reason "lie-detector" tests are not admissible in court... So yes, these tests are not considered to be reliable enough to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Here is some more to the story. http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1047-justin-smeja-replies-to-questions-about-his-killing-of-sasquatches/ First off, I believe Justin Smeja shot two sasquatches, an adult and a child. I only posted this here in hoaxes, hoaxers, & hoaxling because so many people have tried to discredit Smeja as a hoaxer, and not just bigfoot skeptics. Too often people within the bigfoot community jump on the bandwagon calling someone a hoaxer only because they hear others stating as such. This documentary may help with some of the lingering questions used to attack the veracity of Smeja. Below is a good documentary that details what exactly happened when Justin Smeja shot two sasquatches in Northern California. It helps clarify what happened that day, which is verified by the two witnesses, Justin and the driver of the truck, who explained what happened in separate interviews on camera, helping underscore the veracity of this account. Adding to the truthfulness of this event is Justin Smeja passed all questions on a lie detector test. The test was video taped and some of it is in this documentary. Additional corroboration came from researcher Bart Cutino who has a back ground in criminology. Cutino hid a microphone under a deck where Justing and the driver would be alone to see if he could catch them admitting to a hoax, but what he heard was them talking about the event for several minutes, about the positions they were in and other perspectives of the event in an intimate conversation. Cutino said that was compelling for him because they had no idea he was listening to them talk. http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1047-justin-smeja-replies-to-questions-about-his-killing-of-sasquatches/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 6 hours ago, gigantor said: There is a reason "lie-detector" tests are not admissible in court... So yes, these tests are not considered to be reliable enough to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That test was not given in this case to prosecute someone. That was not its purpose. I guarantee you they are reliable enough for people to draw conclusions when they reveal someone failed it. That's all you'd hear..."He failed the test. If he was being truthful with us, he would have passed it...but he didn't it!" No one is saying it is perfect and completely infallible but you can't have it both ways. They're good enough to draw a conclusion when you like the outcome but not good enough when you don't. Let's face it, in my opinion, if we're being intelligently honest, we all know he would have been harshly condemned if he failed it. Who here would have rushed to his rescue if he failed it at the same speed they run from it when he passed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 Whoa. a) Justin claimed to have shot two bigfoot. Instead of dragging out the greatest discovery ever he chose to leave the bodies where they lay. b ) Upon having a change of heart many months later he returns to the scene and collects samples. Ruling out the Ketchum samples as goobly gook. The other samples tested where bear. What are the chances a random old bear decided to lay down and die at the exact spot Smeja shot his bigfeets? c) Smeja has been in trouble with the law over poaching bears and other wildlife. d) Was Smejas motivation to shoot a bear, let it decay for a year and then come back and claim it was a bigfoot? Hoping maybe the dna would have been contaminated enough to be inconclusive in a test? e) Regardless of his lie detector test results. We have absolutely NO proof that Smeja shot two bigfeets on the day in question. If he had cut off just a finger or a toe and kept it? Game over. This is the same tired old game of Ketchum, Biscardi, Standing, Dyer, and all the rest......promises, promises but not deliver the goods. And then excuses, excuses and finger pointing and name calling. Smoke and mirrors..... Wake up people! Remember.... you dont have to defend the creeps looking to cash in on this subject, to defend the subject itself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 3 hours ago, norseman said: Upon having a change of heart many months later he returns to the scene and collects samples Many months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, norseman said: This is the same tired old game of Ketchum, Biscardi, Standing, Dyer, and all the rest......promises, promises but not deliver the goods "Biscardi, Standing, Dyer, and all the rest......" aren't even close to being in the same league as someone who can write and do this: (from here: http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/novel-north-american-hominins-final-pdf-download.pdf ) I also took the liberty of bolding and underlining an important segment of the text. "Prior to DNA analysis, all samples were screened to eliminate common wildlife species using a variety of methodologies including microscopic morphological examination and comparison against a large reference collection of known North American wildlife hair. Further, utilizing several morphological criteria, unusual characteristics were seen in hair texture, diameter ratios, medullary structures and cuticle patterns. The purported Sasquatch hairs also demonstrated elongated hair roots. Taken together, these morphologic differences indicate non-human hair that is also inconsistent with hair from known wildlife species. Over one hundred specimens survived this initial screen and were judged sufficiently different from human and wildlife samples to undergo DNA analysis. In order to minimize concerns about bias, degraded DNA, operator error, bad reagents or contamination influencing the data during this study, sample integrity and cleanliness were prioritized. As a preliminary screen for possible human contamination of samples during the collection or laboratory analysis phases, control samples obtained from submitters and working with the collection of field samples were run in parallel. In all cases, as demonstrated by clean sequences without false heteroplasmic bases denoting mixture or contamination and single source profiles with the PowerPlex® 16 amplification kit, no evidence was obtained that the DNA extracted from collectors or scientists or any other secondary source was present as a contaminant in any of the samples. In the next generation whole genome sequencing, the Q30 scores provided definitive proof that the genomes were derived from single source of DNA, not a mixture of human DNA contaminated with animal DNA since the Q30 scores vastly decrease if contamination is present. Furthermore, the Q30 scores also indicated that the genomes were well above average quality (Supplementary Data 7-10) further eliminating the possibility of contamination." And please let me know if Biscardi, Dyer, or Standing can put something like this together- I would like to be the first to know: http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/novel-north-american-hominins-final-pdf-download.pdf Edited October 20, 2017 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 Biscardi? Oh yah, he was there..... https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science Ketchum has been associated with several other individuals and projects throughout the years of Bigfoot DNA collection and analysis, including the following: the Olympic Project—a group of researchers studying habitat and attempting to obtain trailcam photos of Bigfoot11; Tom Biscardi of Searching for Bigfoot, Inc., involved with the infamous 2008 Georgia “Bigfoot in a freezer” hoax, who collected DNA samples for her project7; Wally Hersom, a generous contributor to several Bigfoot research projects, who funded at least some of Ketchum’s work12; Adrian Erickson of Sasquatch – The Quest, who stated he has high quality pictures and video of the creatures13; and David Paulides of North American Bigfoot Survey, who is a Ketchum supporter. Paulides, an ex-police officer and author of books about missing persons and the “tribe” of Bigfoot14 has been particularly outspoken about Ketchum, placing the responsibility of the scientific study of Bigfoot DNA all on her, saying each of the samples used had its own specific story. Ketchum alone had all the data, he says,5 and deserves the praise. Nondisclosure agreements were signed among participants of the projects so that information would not be leaked prior to the reveal. But it was anyway. The sources of these samples supposedly included a toenail obtained by Biscardi from Larry Johnson,15 blood from a smashed PVC pipe, and flesh from the remains of a Bigfoot body (see sidebar, “Sierra Kills”).16 But it is not clear that all the samples were collected properly. They also may have been exposed to contamination or to degradation. 3 hours ago, hiflier said: Many months? They shot it in fall bear season of 2010 supposedly. And didnt go back for it until the next year? Presumably after the snow thaw out of the mountains? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 It was a few weeks. When Derek Randles’ search group went there, they found small biological remains of some mammal. A sample was then sent to Melba Ketchum, and things got screwed up from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2017 Author Share Posted October 21, 2017 If thats true? There should have been a lot more than a few scraps of remains. And it shouldn't have tested as a bear. He supposedly shot a adult female and a juvenile. What is that 600-800 lbs of meat and bone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 I have yet to to see or hear anyone suggest the very logical reason the clump of bear hair may have been found at the site where Justin thought he had concealed the BF.. It was cold weather. Bear country. Bear working hard to find and eat enough to get them through the winter. They can smell dead animals from miles away. A bear finds the hidden body, another bear tries to steal it, and a knock-down drag-out ensues, One bear loses the fight, along with a clump of hide and hair. The winner drags the Bigfoot body of to a good place eat and guard it. If there had been a bear killed and/or cleaned at that location by a legal or illegal hunter, there would have undoubtedly been more evidence of such a kill at that site, especially if was an illegal kill. There is absolutely no reason that bear hair would have to be subjected to DNA analyses to determine the source animal. Somewhere down the line someone either messed with that clump of hair, or its analysis. It is my understanding that Dr. S made at least one, and maybe two trips to the F&W DNA lab in Ashland before he presented his "findings" to Justin and the others. Why? So the folks there could explain what they were obligated to do by "little o's" memo. Since it was a sample from the USA, Dr. S was under the gun, big time! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 27 minutes ago, Branco said: I have yet to to see or hear anyone suggest the very logical reason the clump of bear hair may have been found at the site where Justin thought he had concealed the BF.. It was cold weather. Bear country. Bear working hard to find and eat enough to get them through the winter. They can smell dead animals from miles away. A bear finds the hidden body, another bear tries to steal it, and a knock-down drag-out ensues, One bear loses the fight, along with a clump of hide and hair. The winner drags the Bigfoot body of to a good place eat and guard it. If there had been a bear killed and/or cleaned at that location by a legal or illegal hunter, there would have undoubtedly been more evidence of such a kill at that site, especially if was an illegal kill. There is absolutely no reason that bear hair would have to be subjected to DNA analyses to determine the source animal. Somewhere down the line someone either messed with that clump of hair, or its analysis. It is my understanding that Dr. S made at least one, and maybe two trips to the F&W DNA lab in Ashland before he presented his "findings" to Justin and the others. Why? So the folks there could explain what they were obligated to do by "little o's" memo. Since it was a sample from the USA, Dr. S was under the gun, big time! Out of plusses for today, but at least I can quote you and say, "Yay!" It's always great to see your posts, whatever the thread (but your posts are especially important here, I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2017 Author Share Posted October 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, Branco said: I have yet to to see or hear anyone suggest the very logical reason the clump of bear hair may have been found at the site where Justin thought he had concealed the BF.. It was cold weather. Bear country. Bear working hard to find and eat enough to get them through the winter. They can smell dead animals from miles away. A bear finds the hidden body, another bear tries to steal it, and a knock-down drag-out ensues, One bear loses the fight, along with a clump of hide and hair. The winner drags the Bigfoot body of to a good place eat and guard it. If there had been a bear killed and/or cleaned at that location by a legal or illegal hunter, there would have undoubtedly been more evidence of such a kill at that site, especially if was an illegal kill. There is absolutely no reason that bear hair would have to be subjected to DNA analyses to determine the source animal. Somewhere down the line someone either messed with that clump of hair, or its analysis. It is my understanding that Dr. S made at least one, and maybe two trips to the F&W DNA lab in Ashland before he presented his "findings" to Justin and the others. Why? So the folks there could explain what they were obligated to do by "little o's" memo. Since it was a sample from the USA, Dr. S was under the gun, big time! Unless they took the bear and left behind the "steak" to be found. I'm not at all convinced that the "steak" is the result of a bear fight. And if it was, there should have been a ton of bear sign around feeding and fighting around the carcass. As well as plenty of pieces of carcass laying around. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/tyler-huggins-and-bart-cutino-shares.html?m=1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts