MarkGlasgow Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Shooting out of the Car and shooting at a "monster", he's said that all along. Quite correct Bobby. However did you notice elements of his story were distorted by the show? They suggested that Justin was always planning on going back to dig up the bodies. It was my understanding that Derek Randles had to persuade Smeja hard to go back to the site. Wonder how that 'disparity' came about.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I agree with those who have said this episode had a condescending tone. The head-shaking over the "fanaticism" of the researchers and their "need to believe" was insulting and makes me question the motives of the producers of this series. Maybe Bobcat Goldthwait should've made this documentary. At least he seems genuinely interested in the subject. And like he has integrity. But maybe he has his price, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I think it's a mistake to assume that the TV show is giving us the final word on Sykes study. I have read some who are really bashing Sykes based on what was revelaed on this show! I have to wonder about that... He is an expert. He is exactly who we want looking at these samples. If he finds nothing - which remains to be seen - then he needs to be sent more samples. The show was disappointing. But, I hold out hope that now that we have Sykes testing samples, if it can be done with DNA, it will - eventually. I agree, I like Sykes and the way he handles delivering the news. Of coarse he wasn't in control of how the show is put together so I don't put that on him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I agree with those who have said this episode had a condescending tone. The head-shaking over the "fanaticism" of the researchers and their "need to believe" was insulting and makes me question the motives of the producers of this series. There wasn't anything they said that wasn't projected by the people on the show. Two guys thinking every noise is a Bigfoot, two other guys crying on the show, whining about "Bigfoot is my life". It was painful to watch. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 It was painful to watch. I'll second that... and then some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I'll third that. The guy who found a hair in the garden - Whose great idea was it to pick that sample to test? He hasn't even seen a BF in his garden (or his yard). I don't know if I missed something, or what.... But that one made NO sense whatsoever to me. But it was perfect for making a point about "Bigfootologist"....unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) "Whose great idea was it to pick that sample to test?" That's a great question, chelefoot. The answer to that question would tell us a lot. Edited November 2, 2013 by LeafTalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) There wasn't anything they said that wasn't projected by the people on the show. Two guys thinking every noise is a Bigfoot, two other guys crying on the show, whining about "Bigfoot is my life". It was painful to watch. ^^ Exactly. I don't understand the victim reaction that some people are presenting here. The production is mean to Footers,etc. If anything I thought Sykes had a fairly sympathetic moment with Smeja when he said something to the effect of this doesn't mean you have to quit looking or whatever. That is more than Smeja deserves imho. As for the rest of them, they were portrayed exactly as they presented themselves. I see no indication of biased editing or any such thing. If they looked less than some would prefer to see, then all I can say is that the truth hurts I guess. I wonder if any of our resident habs sent in any samples to the study? Edited November 2, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Here's the You tube link: Hurry - They will pull it down soon! I'm curious what you think about what he has to say? Why would they pull it down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted December 5, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted December 5, 2013 Copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Dan Shirley speaks out about the show and his samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Thanks for posting that, JRid. Those things that Dan Shirley is reporting certainly do not sound good. I think it's cool, though, that after saying he suspects the people he's dealing with are not on the up and up, he says, "I hope I'm wrong." I bet a lot of us hope the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peeker Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Re Dans video: So lets get this straight, hundreds of hours of work yield him nothing but he is sure that the one memory card that he didn't view had evidence on it? Why not check it first, that would take two minutes. There's clutching at straws then there is desperation, that hope/statement is the latter. I do not believ that Dan is anyway a hoaxer but he may be fooling himself with his self appeasements.He seems such a nice guy and this is quite a sad video, frankly is seems like denial as reality meets his situation. Sure a tv program is being made so certain choices regarding editing and inclusion are made but does anyone really think that a tv channel, a scientist and a wildlife tv presenter would willingly pass up on such a discovery if there was even the slightest chance of decent evidence. I think it was a great series and Syke's work is looking good so far, this was not a patronising piece laughing at fantasists but a clear an grown up statement that the so called evidence so far presented is laughably far from sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 When something professing to shed light on a topic pays this little attention to evidence it has been more than easy enough for me to accesss, well, that utterly smells from a scientific standpoint. Case in point: all this leeching over "believers" and "fanaticism" when Meldrum is tapping you on the shoulder: fellas...FELLAS...FELLAS!??!?!?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts