Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Reports, reports, reports...arggg... today I visit BFE ...and unlike recent weeks something caught my attention, worth reading I thought. And, if true, was. They write in a recent conference D.Paulides claims that Justin Smeja sent a bear sample purposefully to avoid any potential prosecution. My immediate reaction was BS, and probably should wait and let this filter, but I won't...b/c this issue has been what has attracted my online presence since Justin came forward. I argued for a release of that data and notifying authorities to no avail. At that time the "Ketchum Camp" made strong arguments why he was not at risk for prosecution, and Ketchum under no duty to report the kills. I personally will not accept this break down in opinions between a key sample submitter and the study leader until more is provided to support that position, but I am deeply concerned this is truly a mess.. This news might be eclipsed by the further comments in that article for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) They write in a recent conference D.Paulides claims that Justin Smeja sent a bear sample purposefully to avoid any potential prosecution. Well, of course he did, but not to Melba. She got the real deal. Has nobody thought of that here yet? Better to be prosecuted for killing a bear, than for killing a potential human. Edited January 21, 2013 by Sasfooty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Sasfooty I respectfully disagree based on the history that I can see. Ketchum, IMO, had a duty to report the sample, the claim, and the results to authorities, and could have done so within months of the event. Instead, well...a good deal of that study trajectory is online through various "insiders" and Justin and "us." Not buying it at all. Sorry. It will take more than speculation on this one to persuade me either way, but on the surface it appears to me she has abandoned her star submitter.. Edited January 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Some people see things from a different perspective than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Seriosuly, that's the answer? No deeper questions, just it must be Justin lying? I have watched Justin online, and besides cringing that he would allow such a candid view of himself (for who, us? we don't deserve much really!) and place that in contrast to the cryptic or elusive comments of Ketchum...and the scales are tipping toward Justin for me. Perspective isn't the issue here, the truth is. Edited January 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Yep. Seriously. Remember that "nasty" NDA that some people signed? Edited January 21, 2013 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Oh Sasfooty I remember too much about all of this. And, that from a monitor view. Imagine what we shall learn when those NDAs are tossed aside, or personal communications come to the fore..and they will. I feel the "study/paper" is tanking as we write, if it hasn't already. I believe this type of issue will raise deep concerns by any Journal. And, if it makes a ready reason for failure to publish with peer review the claim will be inspected by many. The issue of whether she reported this Kills in a timely fashion, or advised Justin of his possible liability, will also be uncovered. Edited January 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 This post is purely speculation, JMO, & not based on anything covered by NDA, but perhaps she DID advise him of his possible liability, & that is the reason for the sudden appearance of the bear sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Unfortunately Safooty, that is not a good scenario for her. Ok... I do live here on earth, not in cyberspace, and the people whose real lives are affected...whether Justin's daughter believes him as she grows, or Ketchum survives this study as a competent scientist and earns enough to turn her finances around are deep. Much deeper than my involvement or concerns really...except like many I want the issue of BFs settled and this "research" we all argue over shuttled off to professionals to perform and advise...so, I need to get off....adios! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Adios! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I'd lean towards the delusion that there is money to be made thru a hoax. One thread you can find in common with all the hoaxers we've seen is they have little to no money or prospects. If you're weak at sniffing out economic opportunities, you repeat bad economic decisions. To me it seems like taking a stab at a BF hoax would rise strait to the top. Reputation? Another common theme here seems to be low self esteem. People with low self esteem don't care about their reputation. ^ Reports have it that the Ketchum 'study' has cost at least 400K (is that only from Hersom or including others that paid for samples?). We can't know how much of that she pocketed and how much went to other labs/expenses but I think it could be easily argued she has/had financial interest in keeping the 'study' going. I've not labeled this study a hoax. But at this point she seems deep in enough that anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I feel the "study/paper" is tanking as we write, if it hasn't already. I believe this type of issue will raise deep concerns by any Journal. And, if it makes a ready reason for failure to publish with peer review the claim will be inspected by many. The issue of whether she reported this Kills in a timely fashion, or advised Justin of his possible liability, will also be uncovered. Can you point to a statute or regulation that imposes a duty to report when someone delivers you a piece of meat claiming it is bigfoot meat? Seems like a lot of hand-wringing over nothing, or at least over a lot of unknowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Some people see things from a different perspective than others. Some folks take things at face value, some like to inject faith & hope into it, some like a sprinkle of fantasy, some like to question a little, but not as to disturb others, some like to question the questions, some like to question those that question others cause their questions don't seem like questions, some will question everything no matter what cause it all seems suspicious cause no one has answers to the questions. Fact is ~ No matter what, nothing ever gets answered until the end when it all falls apart like every single other tale has in the past. I wanted to work"Fruity"into this, but it wouldn't fit, I'll save it for another day. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Ape, Sasfooty- And what about the visits from the Ca. DF&G? If I remember correctly they decieded not to seek prosecution or even a search permit but just take Justins word that he shot two Bigfoots and told him they might be back. As far as the samples being sent bear, well I would have to hear it from the horses mouth. Lets back up here a minute and remember that almost ever year people are shot by someone thinking they are shooting a bear and are they prosecuted? I think some are and some aren't if remember correctly. #1 misidentification of what a person is shooting is a root problem. #2 is it Melbas' responsibility to report when her study is still not finallized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I would think that there would be no need to call if 1) it was truly a bear (how would DMK know that it was taken illegally and 2) if it were a BF as the species is still in the realm of mythology. If the DNA came up human, how would she know it wasn't contamination? I think the argument saying she is responsible for calling authorities is extremely thin. Additionally, I see every day the Sykes study isn't published as a small drop in the bucket of credibility of the DMK study. If all those samples Sykes got were of known animals, I would think they could pound through the samples very quickly..... Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts