Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 On the FB message from Ketchum... Seriously? That's it...sarcasm, distain, and puffery? No denial of the Sierra Shootings, or disclosure? Really? Sorry, as an attorney, humane BFer, and ex-engineer/chemist...BS A proper announcement on this still boiling issue of the "Kills" is warranted, one way or the other. NDA's that tie someone to anything illegal are illegal themselves! Poaching is illegal, and so forth.. I seriously wonder if her lawyer has updated his Professional Responsibility MCLE. I am actually at a point where I would not be surprised the "steak" sample just disappears and Justin left hanging out to dry... Based on the bizarre and shifting alliances in this Study that are public...I am not happy at all. But, if she delivers as promised.. I am OK with that...just the paper please.. Dr. Ketchum, it may be that you can only hear the din on the net, or Paulides? So? Can't you hear the real concern ? I won't be back on this topic today... I have lost my patience ! illegal ? what's illegal ? poached ? Your going to call the authorities for killing an animal that hasn't been proven to exist ? good luck on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 He's not talking about it being bigfoot. If there is a question about the study results, in other words no one agrees with Dr. Ketchum that this is something new, and it falls back to the intial ID of human, then there might be questions. Poaching would be a little further down on the list of concerns at this point. It just depends on the study results, the longer that takes, the more nerve racking it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 But his sample has an undercoat and guard hairs (at least according to Ginger3). If that's true, how can it be human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 But his sample has an undercoat and guard hairs (at least according to Ginger3). If that's true, how can it be human? Good point. BTW - Does Ginger3's name have more significance after Lindsay's post on the Nuclear DNA result revealing the red hair gene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 30, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 30, 2011 Lindsay would probably know, but last I heard he's not naming sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 But his sample has an undercoat and guard hairs (at least according to Ginger3). If that's true, how can it be human? Who knows Slim? That was the quandry I was pondering if it were me, show my freezer sample, or throw it in the river.....no one seriously thinks Justin did something wrong because it makes no sense to claim you shot a bigfoot and then submit a sample. I don't have any idea how it would go as far as legalities are concerned because if the results say human...legalities versus reality( which we all probably need a reality check at this point) is the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 All the General really had to do was slap that bear tag on it and call it good. At that point there would be no question of legality, maybe just an honest case of misidentification. He could've just said it was a non-typical bear. If any wildlife officals checked him out, the whole process of identifying what he killed would have probably started immediately and publicly. Leaving bodies out there really complicated things in just about every way. Killing the kid didn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 30, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 30, 2011 Killing the kid didn't help. Actually in a gruesome way if "the kid" did bleed out on him at the base of the hill as he couched it as has been reported.....and if blood stained clothing was involved it would serve as additional verification and sampling if the dna was useable which I assume it would have been with proper handling and care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I seriously doubt that part of the story that the young one "died in his arms". A hurt or dying wild animal- even a bigfoot- is not something even think of approaching. Especially if he didn't know what it was at the time, any hunter would wait for it to die, or pop another shot in it to speed things along. These things can't look that human if he shot 2 of them. It just doesn't make sense to me. They were both mistaken bears, or he knew what they were and shot the little one to take as proof. Or he is a killer that'll shoot anything. We need Derek to give "thedriver" his smartphone back and let him weigh in on it. I'm sure he's muzzled for the book though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 All the General really had to do was slap that bear tag on it and call it good. At that point there would be no question of legality, maybe just an honest case of misidentification. He could've just said it was a non-typical bear. If any wildlife officals checked him out, the whole process of identifying what he killed would have probably started immediately and publicly. Leaving bodies out there really complicated things in just about every way. Killing the kid didn't help. I agree 100 percent. Well sort of the kid was the only one we had the option of throughing a bear tag on... yes there's bloody clothes. Their in a safe place. Isn't behind the shoulder and the cheast the same area? Its common for a hunter yo say "I put the stick behind his shoulder" in reality they may have hit the cheast. Either way who cares where I hit it. I originally guessed it to be 120 yards. After returning to the location I guessed it to be closer to 80 yards then 120. Either way lets not put too much thought into some details. Well do what you wish. I think that about covers it. (530)289-3700 that's the number to the sierra county sheriffs office. Knock yourself out. I'm sure they will take your report very seriously 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Don't sweat it Gen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Geez, it's Facebook, not an address to the American Medical Association. She's been almost giddy on Facebook today. No worries, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I agree 100 percent. Well sort of the kid was the only one we had the option of throughing a bear tag on... yes there's bloody clothes. Their in a safe place. Isn't behind the shoulder and the cheast the same area? Its common for a hunter yo say "I put the stick behind his shoulder" in reality they may have hit the cheast. Either way who cares where I hit it. I originally guessed it to be 120 yards. After returning to the location I guessed it to be closer to 80 yards then 120. Either way lets not put too much thought into some details. Well do what you wish. I think that about covers it. (530)289-3700 that's the number to the sierra county sheriffs office. Knock yourself out. I'm sure they will take your report very seriously Justin, I get the impression that you aren't that enthusiastic about all of this bigfoot stuff, I might be wrong. It appears to me that you let the OP kind of take over your story and run the show. That is the part of this story that irritates me more than anything because I don't think you needed them. Is this what you wanted? Can you go your separate way anytime you want to? Or have I got it all wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 General, a few questions please. Was the first one you shot facing you directly, at an angle, or was its back to you? Did the little one "die in your arms" or not? Are you corresponding with Robert Lindsay now? (he says you are). Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 She's been almost giddy on Facebook today. No worries, I guess. Compared to her previous activity on FB, she was a fairly prolific poster yesterday. It's almost as if she has more free time. Like some big project has been taken off her plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts