Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) 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 ~ GreatPost really, and except for the doubt (?) about the reality of BFs, it probably represents a sensible view of past Bigfootery. And I see elements of my own ideals in some of that! Ahhh, were we all much simpler. 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. I realized after signing off that perspective did require more explanation. Duty in some contexts is codified, or well laid out in case law and burden of proof. But, in a Professional Responsibility context, such as surrounds many professional licenses, duty can become a vague term, in that discretion of the professional, and interpretation of things not so concretely codified come to play. Professional judgment, ethics and so on. For lawyers those rules are fairly extensive and one is required to take continuing education annually to stay abreast and revisit their interpretations. I won't try (even privately actually) to lay out a legal argument under current codes/regulations and/or case law as to her legal duty, in the strict sense that arises in a court. Or Justin's. I don't have what I consider facts to do so. And, on many levels it's just not my business and would perhaps place me a dicey situation of someone thinking I was giving legal advise. I am not, and will not, give a legal opinion on those issues, the very question you ask. My concern is the expectation of Professional Duty, in the more general sense, of what it means to be a licensed professional and what duties you might have at a level in excess of "letter of the law" to handle such a novel situation. I argue that precisely because of the novel character of the claim and potential risk to Justin, that a Professional Duty arose to take a conventional path of reporting this event and working with authorities in analysis or whatever. That might have been done, I don't know. But, if D.Paulides is correct it sounds like it wasn't. Now, it may be that for a Vet license there is no ethical rule, whether some confidentiality implied by service of sample or to her Board if she knows of an illegal taking or such. I don't know and it matters not to me. Because this measure I make again from a very fundamental view, the idea of our ethical behavior and when that should be foremost on our minds as people, and especially as professional reps of society's knowledge etc. Why so fundamental, why so strict a view? Because in this case, not only are we apparently talking about some kind of humans killed, but also a complete paradigm shift of how we, as a society, view our world and the reality of BFs by relaying this news. Our legal system is geared toward a fair and speedy resolution of potential liability or criminal guilt/punishment. We have time limit is to prosecution or civil complaints.. We try to be fair, and in this case Justin, even if a "criminal" deserves resolution, as he has stated he seeks. If one believes there is a Gov conspiracy to remain silent then the fundamental ethical questions become even deeper. How do you feel about Wikileaks? What if BFs are a matter of National Security or deemed by our elected and appointed officials as something best remained hidden. One then must make a choice to be a personal Wikileaks for BFs, or submit to our Republic. So, in sum (LOL) I argue this duty from a personal, but conventional perspective, that in this case disclosure, early, was best. Edited January 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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. It's hearsay, but the Paulides commentary is deeply disturbing. 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? Which is what I mean by "I don't have, what I consider, facts." For me to arrive at that level of personal "judgement" about specific laws/events would require "admissible evidence" of things we are merely speculating about now, really. But, maybe I am out of touch with the reality of trying to take such news public, or relying unfairly on certain emotional "facts." But, as poster above said if those are actual comments/positions with the study it is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 GreatPost really, and except for the doubt (?) about the reality of BFs, it probably represents a sensible view of past Bigfootery. And I see elements of my own ideals in some of that! Ahhh, were we all much simpler. Because of the past and how the internet has been used so easily, I have doubts or just outright no belief left, it was much simpler years ago for sure, in the past it was not so easy to fool as many folks as it seems to do today, the questions about is it real have been replaced by questions of hope and for some it seems desperation, I will venture to say that if anyone found a real BF it would takes just hours or days for it to hit the news and become reality, not weeks, months and years. But keep in mind, I am here and have an interest ~ I am not the enemy, I am an allies that wants a little more than words on the internet. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I was back probing and found this. They did complete genome sequencing on 5 samples, which included three individuals, male and female. So where are the other two? so we have complete genome sequencing on 5 samples, which included 3, but the other 2 are super secret so subtrated 2, so that gives us 3 for the Melba report, minus 1 for the Justin bear dna, which leaves us at,......I don't know. Nothing? Awesome!!! Or maybe one sequence, ummm the enquire wants to know. No, it means that of the 5 samples, they had 3 individuals represented. Meaning that more than one sample came from at least one of the three identified. And there is still NO showing that I am aware of that Smeja's sample was one of Ketchum's "unknown" findings. Lastly, the issue of the leak about 9/11 is potentially troubling. It's the first claim made about her character that seems to have some evidence to support it beyond the self-serving allegations of Skeptics. Time will tell, and this post may be obsolete by the time I get to the current "end of thread". Well well.Dyer just upped the ante HUGE. He invited a true skeptic...Musky Allen...to come out within the next two weeks to view the body. No strings attatched. Dyer even offered to PAY FOR THE PLANE FARE! Allen agreed to come out and will let Dyer know when by tomorrow. We're going to know VERY soon if Dyer is blowing smoke or not....unless Allen flakes out..which I would find hard to believe. Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I will venture to say that if anyone found a real BF it would takes just hours or days for it to hit the news and become reality, not weeks, months and years. I "found" two walking along the fence, one morning a couple of weeks ago, but had no idea how to hit the news with it & turn it into other people's reality. Maybe you can make some suggestions for what I should do next time I find some. Forget the camera, thing. They were gone before I could get one to the window. And they run too fast to catch them, but they were definitely "found". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I "found" two walking along the fence, one morning a couple of weeks ago, but had no idea how to hit the news with it & turn it into other people's reality. Maybe you can make some suggestions for what I should do next time I find some. Forget the camera, thing. They were gone before I could get one to the window. And they run too fast to catch them, but they were definitely "found". Let's prop up the "Found" a little first, I mean found by Science. So they are too fast for a camera, then you need to slow em down some, I'll throw out few Ideas. 1. Dig a pit about 6' deep along the fence line, fill it with some tar and blanket the area with feathers, cover it over and wait for the next time they walk by, I am sure you will be able to snap a picture then or get a good laugh watching BF run around like a chicken. 2. Leave some tainted bait, ( rat poison or ex-lax your call) that should slow them down and let you get a picture or a body, you should bring a pooper scooper with ya on this one. 3. Try leaving some kids toy's out for them and cover them with super glue or something really sticky like taffy, that should confuse them and cause them to leave some skin and hair for samples, might get some vocal so have a recorder at hand. 4. Lay down an electrified grid and have the voltage up high but not to kill, you could also buy some cheap taser's or stun guns and booby trap them to go off when touched, you can also booby trap a box with Amyl nitrate or nitrous oxide, again that will slow them right down and possibly cause them to vomit leaving evidence, have some gloves and a plastic bag. 5. Set up a crossing gate with a big red light, if they are as smart as some think, they will stop and wait for the gate to go back up signaling it is all clear before they move on,you should get some great pictures with this, put a chair at the gate in case they get tired waiting, if they fight over the chair collect hair samples, use the gloves and bag from idea #4 if that didn't work. Well that's a start, I have other ways but let's talk about those if these don't produce anything. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 These are some magnificent ideas!!!! I will take them under the most careful consideration. In the mean time, I will also be faxing them directly to Finding Bigfoot, because I think it would be very selfish to not share with someone who is actually...looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 They need some new ideas. I think they "jumped the shark" with Girl Scouts as bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 These are some magnificent ideas!!!! I will take them under the most careful consideration. Be careful with # 4, electricity is nothing to fool with it can be downright dangerous and unpredictable. I once put an electrified net up between some trees to try and capture the Dover Demon here in Massachusetts, I ended up snagging The Jersey Devil on a flyby going home from New Hampshire, it's one thing dealing with a small demon, but trying to get a winged reptile like horse out of a tree is something else. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Well, I didn't want to hurt your feelings, but I never seriously considered number 4 anyway. They've ruined every electrical device that I've tried on them. They just have a knack for shorting out that kind of stuff. I can't count the number of times I've had to fix my bionic ear, & don't even get me started on security cameras & electric fences!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Ripley: They cut the power. Hudson: What do you mean, "They cut the power"? How could they cut the power, man? They're animals! Aliens (1986) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Ripley: They cut the power. Hudson: What do you mean, "They cut the power"? How could they cut the power, man? They're animals! Aliens (1986) That is so wild , I was just watching this movie with friends on Saturday and we joked about that very line, and how we think were so intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Sometimes, I insert little nuggets of truth when I'm joking....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Sometimes, I insert little nuggets of truth when I'm joking....... Bigfoot is an Electrician? Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts