Guest Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Didn't Justin Smeja claim to shoot both a juvenile and the mother? And wasn't that the core of Ketchum's study and supposed groundbreaking evidence? Wound up being *hogwash* I believe. Just take one and prove the existence of the subject. Male, female, or juvenile. It would be unfortunate were it a pregnant female. I used to think I wanted to be the one to do that but I don't after seeing The Grooming Video. But that is what it will take to prove and document the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Crabshack, I don't understand the double rows of teeth. Why would that indicate that they should all be killed? I'm just curious. I also believe that a body could bring about protection for humans who would be aware of what the humans are sharing the woodlands with, and then could take appropriate precautions. One body to protect them all, a male, since females maintain the species. SweetSusiq, you could get the answer to that question in the Premium Area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 Didn't Justin Smeja claim to shoot both a juvenile and the mother? And wasn't that the core of Ketchum's study and supposed groundbreaking evidence? Wound up being *hogwash* I believe. Just take one and prove the existence of the subject. Male, female, or juvenile. It would be unfortunate were it a pregnant female. I used to think I wanted to be the one to do that but I don't after seeing The Grooming Video. But that is what it will take to prove and document the species. Here is the kicker.........it would seem Mr. Smeja passed his poly. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/08/justin-smejas-official-polygraph.html Crabshack, I don't understand the double rows of teeth. Why would that indicate that they should all be killed? I'm just curious. I also believe that a body could bring about protection for humans who would be aware of what the humans are sharing the woodlands with, and then could take appropriate precautions. One body to protect them all, a male, since females maintain the species. "Born on a mountain top and raised by a bear, Got two sets of dog teeth and a triple coat of hair. If you see us coming better run better hide, 'Cause we'll hunt you up and down every mountainside." — Marine Corps cadence Better know as a "Jody" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Yeah that is a real kicker norseman. Wonder why the Ketchum Report/Analysis failed so miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 As a hunter? I find a lot of his story doesn't stack up. We don't go into the woods to shoot anything and everything and we don't shoot it and leave it behind. Nor do I believe living in California that he never even heard of such a thing...... I guess for me it says a lot about polygraph tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted November 6, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) The crime to me was that seemingly Smeja wasted the BF he shot that day. He had proof of the species and it went to waste. I wonder how many other times something similar has happened but the person involved, was worried about legal consequences and kept it to himself? Smeja had those concerns but decided to go public anyway. It did not help that he went back and got some bear tissue. If the polygraph results are legitimate, that is the real mystery. On his interviews, I did not get a lot of confidence he was telling the truth. He seemed to contradict his own statements at times. But indiscriminate shooting is not unknown in California. Since the DNR was involved, I wonder if they beat Smeja to the kill site? Would be interesting to assemble a time line of what happened when. I think Kit is a good one for that project since he seems to like that kind of analysis. Edited November 6, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 It's one thing to see the thing with rifle in hand and let it pass. Not trying to be a jerk, it's not for everyone I get that. But getting a sighting while being prepared is a rare prime opportunity. But to kill it and leave it lay? I don't have words to describe the frustration I feel. But I'm leaning towards the fact that it never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I guess for me it says a lot about polygraph tests. And I'd wager the reason they are not considered evidence in trial proceedings for the most part. I doubt it ever happened as well norseman. At first the account was exciting. But when one seperates the wheat from the chaffe it becomes much less exciting. Doubt it ever happened in the manner described and I really wonder why Ketchum failed so miserably in her analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 Agreed about Smeja. And I think Ketchum failed because she put belief in front of science. You can milk the data anyway you like. Until another scientist stumbles upon your work, or two or three. Peer scrutiny is very important in science. Surprisingly its not uncommon. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/01/greatest-hoaxes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 It's gonna take a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 There is no question about it. And I'll add that for people that cannot pull the trigger on one? There is plenty of other ways in which to help the pursuit. Many people over on Project Grendel donate their time and energy crunching reports and try to give us a leg up on when and where is best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't think it is a good idea to kill in general. I mean hunting and fishing are good for sustaining yourself but not for trophies. When people kill something for a trophy, I think its wrong. Surely there must be other ways to prove existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) I don't think it is a good idea to kill in general. I mean hunting and fishing are good for sustaining yourself but not for trophies. When people kill something for a trophy, I think its wrong. Surely there must be other ways to prove existence. Well SweetPolly some really good things could come from the collecting of one type specimen. Its existence would be proven without any measure of doubt and protective measures would soon be put into place IMO. IOW's the sacrifice of one might very well save the species. I don't think any video or photographic evidence will ever satisfy the scientific community. DNA could perhaps identify the species if it were really good but we've gone down that road so many times and wound up disappointed. Welcome to the forum by the way. Edited November 7, 2014 by HRPuffnstuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted November 7, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted November 7, 2014 The story on Smeja and the polygraph might be that he has told the story so many times that he is starting to believe it or is becoming immune to the physiological effects that a lie detector picks up when you lie. If it was the first time he told the story the results might have been different. The inconsistencies of his story the various times he has presented it has made me wonder. A police detective watches for that with a witness. If it happened at all, the inconsistencies could be that he wants himself to look better for what he did. So he could be lying about certain aspects of the kill. Watching a young very human like BF die from being shot in the throat might have made him feel he made a mistake. Certainly I do not think he was ready for the outrage that many BF proponents directed at him. He thought he would be some sort of hero. Whoever does take down a BF better expect, science or not, many will not like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts