Branco Posted August 3, 2015 Author Posted August 3, 2015 Thanks Gumshoeye & Jayjeti. I badly want to talk to Justin, but have had no luck contacting him. If he or his friends monitor this forum, I would sure like to get a PM with a telephone # (with his OK) and a good time to call him. Don't want to go the Facebook book route!!!!!!
hiflier Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Hello Branco, From what I gather on this thread Bart Cutino or Mr. Randles might be able to help out on that? Maybe the interviewer of the "driver" can get a message to the driver himself. Yeah, long shots but it's certainly all I have. As far as reports of young BF's with male adults go there are some instances in John Green's data. I'll check just to shore up the discussion in that area. I have other OPINIONS but they're not for here. Edited August 3, 2015 by hiflier
Guest Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 The question of identifying the gender of one depends on what you believe they are. As I understand it, female non-human primates do not maintain visible "breasts" unless nursing. It seems that is a human characteristic. This complicates the issue a lot.
Guest Divergent1 Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Patty had breasts, and although the debate about her being real vs hoax continues, no one has definitively called it one way or the other. I do recall reading about a couple of other sightings that noticed breasts, but as I said, those sightings are rare. Assuming female bigfoot have breasts then there aren't many sightings of females reported. One thing you can't mistake is a child and I bet you could count bigfoot child sightings on two hands. Edited August 4, 2015 by Divergent1
WV FOOTER Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 The tissue sample Justin Semja submitted to the Sykes analysis came back as having come from a bear. There was also an issue Semja had with his connection to the Ketchum report although I don't know exactly what that was. He did however produce a video where he seemed to be trying to clear his name and distance himself from the Ketchum project. Now he's become something of a bigfoot celebrity and a film maker is making a movie about him. As I see it he shot a bear (his is a bear hunter after all) and either before or after that kill made the decision to turn the killed into having killed a bigfoot. When I piece together how the Semja episode is playing out it reeks of a premeditated idea to create a bigfoot scenario that might play out exactly as it seems to be playing out now. I agree with your post. His so called "Steak" was Bear flesh. Too many red flags, to be credible. He was scientifically proven to be untruthful with his story.
norseman Posted August 4, 2015 Admin Posted August 4, 2015 The question of identifying the gender of one depends on what you believe they are. As I understand it, female non-human primates do not maintain visible "breasts" unless nursing. It seems that is a human characteristic. This complicates the issue a lot. There is a ginormous 4 million year gap between chimps and homo sapiens. And there are a lot of theories regarding the evolution of human breasts. Did Lucy have breasts brought on by puberty? Or was she more like a chimp only growing breasts when lactating? Its my opinion that breasts evolved with bipedalism. And if a primate is bipedal then we should expect them to have similar traits to us.
hiflier Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Hello All, Just thought I could help round up a few of those involved? http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bart-cutino-sierra-kills/
Branco Posted August 4, 2015 Author Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Does anyone seriously think that Justin deliberately submitted that bear "steak" as a BF sample? He wasn't sure what the heck it came from; he was just hoping it was from a BF. There are so many dad-blamed versions of what actually happened after the shooting that folks not directly involved will never know the straight of it. Now, thanks to Hiflier, I see where there was reportedly at least two different dogs brought to the shooting site. If that is true, the cadaver dog was a waste of time and effort. (Unless the dog refused to go into certain areas.) Reportedly the "Bear" dog did refuse to go into one area. They may have missed the boat there. The bear tissue and hair sample was so mishandled from the git-go that no one can say for sure why there were differences in the results from the various labs that examined splits of the original sample. Let's ASSUME that a BF ripped the "Bear" steak off a bear scavenging on one of the two BF shot by Justin. If that was actually true, there would have been, without a doubt, BF DNA left embedded in some parts of the flesh. Very likely there would have been BF DNA left on the hair itself from the BF's saliva, although the melting snows could have washed that off. What if Dr. K's sample portion contained more noticeable amounts of the BF DNA than the samples sent to the other USA lab(s)? Now mind you, I have a problem with that. Surely someone at the lab had enough expertise to look at one hair under a simple optical microscope to identify a bear hair. Could she have separated just the BF DNA from the bear DNA? Suppose the portion of the sample sent to Dr. S in the UK also had "rider" DNA from the BF. From what I've read, his crew determined that the particular sample came from a bear by identifying the hair under the microscope, and the sample was not subjected to DNA testing. Is that correct? If not, and the DNA tests were conducted, the question is why? If the tests showed bear DNA alone, it's a done deal. What if he detected the BF "rider" DNA, but disregarded it in the report because it would compromise it? Would that situation have anything to do with his visit to the DOI's Wildlife Forensic Lab in Ashland? Now open for opinions, speculations and guesses; after all that's what these are. Edited August 4, 2015 by Branco
WV FOOTER Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I think he shot a Bear, maybe the cubs as well, then rolled the Bones with his so called Squatch Steak. Pretty Naive. DNA doesn't lie. Just FWIW, From all of the encounter reports that I have read, The meer sight of a Bigfoot strikes a fear in humans that has never been tapped before. I just dont see a person, taking aim and shooting one Bigfoot, let alone small ones too. Just doesnt make sense to me.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Bear poacher shoots a bear or two. Nothing about his story seems credible. I have seen him on shows travelling the bigfoot circuit. He appears to be as honest as the fella who claims to be the star in the Patterson film. Sarcasm intended.
jayjeti Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Patty had breasts, and although the debate about her being real vs hoax continues, no one has definitively called it one way or the other. I do recall reading about a couple of other sightings that noticed breasts, but as I said, those sightings are rare. Assuming female bigfoot have breasts then there aren't many sightings of females reported. One thing you can't mistake is a child and I bet you could count bigfoot child sightings on two hands. Sightings with breasts are not rare at all. Males tend to be seen more, and it's theorized they are more forward in active to account for that, but female sightings aren't rare. Gumshoeye just posted a story about a pregnant female on another thread yesterday.
jayjeti Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Actually, Justin's buddy has never sought the spotlight. He has done an interview with Ro Sahabi where he corroborated Justin's story entirely and would not even allow his face to be shown. Ro also did the documentary on the alleged killings. It's available on YouTube now. I'm no fan of Justin's. But I did watch the whole thing unravel...looking for inconsistencies in his story. I found very few. But still, because of lack of evidence, who knows whether it's true or not. Branco, BC is Bart Cutino. Bart and Tyler (who LeafTalker mentioned) also obtained a sample of the BF Steak and sent it to 2 independent labs for analysis and both found it to be bear as well. There was a whole long story of Ketchum calling Justin and wanting him to destroy his sample so that no one else could test them. The witness to the shooting was there and heard the conversation. But who knows? When they went back to the site the spring after the shootings, Bart Cutino got the thermal video of the 2 or 3? supposed BF's in the woods. They did a nice follow up investigation of that video - also available on YouTube. Chelefoot, I lean toward the event actually taking place for the reasons you note plus Justin passed a lie detector test regarding the incident. I also saw the interview of the driver of the truck who was with Justin when he allegedly shot the two sasquatches. As you say, he completely supported Justin's recollection of events. The sample that tested bear was when they went back to the location looking for it and Justin's dog is said to have found it. But hunters often dress bear kills in the field and that could be the source of what the dog found. There are also claims that Justin wanted to sabotage the DNA evidence because he had heard if the samples tested human, which many believe sasquatches are a species of man, then he could be charged with murder. I think he had given samples to Ketchum first that in her early testing looked good for a hominid (human), and as the conspiracy goes Justin got scared when he heard that, thinking he could be charged with murder, and so he sent bear samples elsewhere to be tested for DNA and started in with maligning Dr. Ketchum as part of his fear of being arrested for murder. I don't know what to think of that theory/consiracy; I'm just relaying what some claim, which Justin has denied of course. All around, looking at the story as it's been told, Justin did some stuff that's not the brightest. Why shoot the little one? and why not take the body? If he had been a bigfoot enthusiast before this event he may have realized the importance of taking the body of the little one. There's also comments that when he looked at the sasquatch child it looked so human is scared him that he might be in trouble, and it's why he left it. But as you say, it lacks physical evidence. In support of the claim it only has two witnesses and Justin passing a lie detector test. There's not really anything concrete that says it didn't happen. A sample found later and tested for bear doesn't nullify anything. Edited August 4, 2015 by jayjeti
Guest Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I just watched Bigfoot in America and Smeja said he shot a monster and it was a nightmare. He was afraid they were going to attack him. So, he jumped out of the truck to chase them! Red flag. Those are his words and defy any common sense. If he has changed the story, then that's another red flag. As for the sample, he stated it was a patch of hair with some fat. He never mentioned a steak or anything. He also stated they rapidly covered the body because they thought a game warden was heading there way, not that sis wine may find it, but they believed one was actually coming. I guarantee they were poaching. So, if you shot a nightmare monster whom you feared was going to attack, would you drive away or chase it onto the woods at last light? Would you then shoot another, and cradle it in your arms? No. Bobcats are very small, but if you shoot one, you make darn sure it's dead before getting near it. The whole story is ridiculous. His drivers interview was just weird. The guy who supposedly didn't want him to shoot talked about how "F'ing" cool the shot was? And how he saw the flesh ripple? Through hair? Plus, the blast from Smejas rifle would've likely interfered with his crystal clear view at the moment of the shot. Polygraphs have little value and are not trustworthy. They're main value is scaring someone into telling the truth.
jayjeti Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 His drivers interview was just weird. The guy who supposedly didn't want him to shoot talked about how "F'ing" cool the shot was? And how he saw the flesh ripple? Through hair? Plus, the blast from Smejas rifle would've likely interfered with his crystal clear view at the moment of the shot. Polygraphs have little value and are not trustworthy. They're main value is scaring someone into telling the truth. Polygraphs often do work to catch people in lies. I found the driver's description of events compelling. I find no conflict in the driver not wanting Justin to shoot and the way he described the impact, from his hunting perspective, as something cool to see. Are you inferring that the blast from Justin's rifle would not allow the driver to see the impact of that round and thus he's making it up? You didn't state it that precisely but that seems inferred. I don't see your speculations as valid or really chipping away at the event in a way that really works to discount it.
Guest Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 It's just a small piece of the puzzle, but yes, I have to wonder about seeing the bullet impact with the ripples in the flesh he describes. This shot was supposed to be at some distance, if I understand it correctly, and the animal was hairy. Plus, having spent a long time standing near rifles going off, the concussion can affect you. This is especially true with the rifles mentioned in this thread, like 7 mags or a 30-06. Whether you reflexively blink or move the slightest bit, that would keep a person from seeing what he described. Again, this is just one detail which raises a red flag to me. I can't say its 100% right or wrong. What I look for are inconsistent details and actions which seem to go against human nature. That's how I decide if a story is something I believe or not. To each his own. Not to argue, but it's well known polygraphs are untrustworthy. They are a part of a process to determine truthfulness, but mean nothing by themselves. Just because a person perspires or increases in respiration, it doesn't necessarily mean they are lying. As well, some people can lie all day without showing any tell tale signs.
Recommended Posts