Guest Thepattywagon Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 "Pattywagon, I really hate to disappoint you, but there are no color closeups of the juvenile or the adult, because for the 337th time, no body's were found." DR I was referring specifically to the fact that he didn't take a single photo when he had the dead juvie at his feet, not when he returned to the scene many days later to search for evidence. I know you were alluding to the latter with your statement, however, since there WAS a body laying at his feet after the shooting, using "no bodies" as a reason for no pictures is technically incorrect. If he's telling it exactly like it was, fine. But with today's technology, few people are incapable of snapping impromptu pics with their phones. General did tell us he had some pics of the 'sample' on a phone, but we never heard any more about it. This means he IS acquainted with cell phone photography, yet didn't have the slightest compunction to authenticate the kill that day. And evidently, neither did Driver, who, chances are, probably had his own cell phone as well. It's the one sticking point I have with the whole story, and I can't accept that no photos were taken that day, sorry. And it's funny in a way, because I can believe the actual shooting story of two rare undocumented creatures. Just can't get my mind around the fact that neither of these guys snapped one photo of something so rare. And they KNEW it was rare, because they didn't know what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Mr. Randles, I am very aware of the leaks leading to your's and general's disclosures and mentioned them in my post. At a certain point, though, (ie after posting the Sierra shooting page on the OP's website) I'd have gone incommunicado until the official release of the story. I understand your frustration with the rampant speculation, but there's no way to prevent that now. I am not implying anything derogatory towards you or general in my post, and discourage anyone from inferring such. I was stating my belief that there's more to the story, hence the NDA's. Thank's. The NDA's we signed are about the test results, and only the test results, and yes Justin did sign one as well. As far as the book is concerned, there is no unforeseen bomb shell we are keeping from the world. We are not going to say, hey everybody, we have a whole warehouse full of bodys. Surprise!! No, but there are some fascinating details about the event that are saved for the book. The story will be told in it's entirety, with every detail and all the emotions that went along with it. DR "Pattywagon, I really hate to disappoint you, but there are no color closeups of the juvenile or the adult, because for the 337th time, no body's were found." DR I was referring specifically to the fact that he didn't take a single photo when he had the dead juvie at his feet, not when he returned to the scene many days later to search for evidence. I know you were alluding to the latter with your statement, however, since there WAS a body laying at his feet after the shooting, using "no bodies" as a reason for no pictures is technically incorrect. If he's telling it exactly like it was, fine. But with today's technology, few people are incapable of snapping impromptu pics with their phones. General did tell us he had some pics of the 'sample' on a phone, but we never heard any more about it. This means he IS acquainted with cell phone photography, yet didn't have the slightest compunction to authenticate the kill that day. And evidently, neither did Driver, who, chances are, probably had his own cell phone as well. It's the one sticking point I have with the whole story, and I can't accept that no photos were taken that day, sorry. And it's funny in a way, because I can believe the actual shooting story of two rare undocumented creatures. Just can't get my mind around the fact that neither of these guys snapped one photo of something so rare. And they KNEW it was rare, because they didn't know what it was. I'm sorry you can't wrap your mind around it. Justin and I are not asking you to wrap your mind around it. People can believe what they want. Not one time on this forum have we come forward and asked anybody to, "please believe us". We are simply sharing what happened, and again I reiterate, we would not even be here talking about this event if if wasn't leaked so inaccurately. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Just can't get my mind around the fact that neither of these guys snapped one photo of something so rare. And they KNEW it was rare, because they didn't know what it was. I can envision a scenario where one might hide a body and deliberately not take a picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I can envision a scenario where one might hide a body and deliberately not take a picture. As it's been explained by Justin, here on this forum, a picture was the last thing on his mind. When the reality of the situation came down on them they just wanted out of there. Is that really so hard to understand? They were scared and they wanted out. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) It's not hard to understand and it's not terribly far from what I speculated. If the same thing happened and the unusual animals were anything other than bipedal hominoids, I'd fully expect we'd have a body and nice photographs. That's not what happened. I'm simply suggesting if the eyes weren't "human", the outcome might have been different. If that's a reach, I apologize. I'm good with the story. I hope to see the evidence soon. Edited November 25, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Thank's. The NDA's we signed are about the test results, and only the test results, and yes Justin did sign one as well. As far as the book is concerned, there is no unforeseen bomb shell we are keeping from the world. We are not going to say, hey everybody, we have a whole warehouse full of bodys. Surprise!! No, but there are some fascinating details about the event that are saved for the book. The story will be told in it's entirety, with every detail and all the emotions that went along with it. DR That's not what Justin or you said previously. When Justin revealed the location of the shooting, he said you reminded him that he had indeed signed an NDA not to discuss the book contents. So which is it? Test results, book contents, or both? Who is telling the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Derek, I can understand it, but I just can't quite accept it. I have absolutely no problem appreciating the surreal situation they found themselves in, but it takes only a few seconds to whip out a cell phone or other type of point and shoot camera and get proof of the encounter. Particularly since they LEFT the scene, ostensibly with no intention of returning. A lifelong hunter, outdoorsman and taxidermist kills a creature that he can't identify, and is so freaked out he can't possibly take ONE photo of it. Yet he takes the time to drag it into the brush and cover it up. I won't belabor the point any further. It's just the one part of the story I'm having trouble with. Thanks for engaging on this, Derek! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Dear Mr. Derek Randles: Thank you for your answers here. I can get my mind around any number of reactions a hunter might have under such circumstances. What I am struggling with is the reactions of the various people who became aware of the shooting and resulting samples. Specifically Derek, I desire you answer simply these questions. I understand you might be tired of our self-appointed community, and I have had to consider long and hard if I would insert myself with such questions. I concluded I would, for a few reasons, among them: my personal experiences in the field, my legal training and my limited interactions with BF researchers. I apologize in advance if these questions are too burdensome, or were answered somewhere in the many threads and conversations on the web (please direct me to those, if already answered..thx) and here they are: 1. When did you personally believe Justin Smeja was telling the truth? 2. When, and who, did you first notify for advice or to advance the sample to testing? 3. What was their advice? 4. When, and who, did you contact that you considered "authorities" (agencies or individuals) outside of the Bigfoot world about your belief? Did you provide them meaningful evidence, such as the sample(s)? What was the result of that notification/disclosure? 5. Are you aware of anyone that has received a sample of the alleged Sasquatch that notified "authorities" in a meaningful way? If so, who and what authority? 6. Do you have legal counsel on this matter? If so please identify the attorney/firm. 7. Does Justin Smeja have legal counsel? If so please identify the attorney/firm. You can guess my concerns at this stage are more about how the Bigfoot "players" handled this. The heat of the moment long over, with reasonable minds adressing, I am looking for responsible, transparent answers. That's about it! Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply. To the forum - thank you also for this interruption, as I am not really a member here. My intention is not to offend but to help with clarity. So, yes..I guess I am setting myself up for snarks as I also anticipate less than clear answers! Thanks Derek p.s. I know you can't share "test results." but I do think you said at one point Dr. Ketchum reported to you the sample was "in" or met her Bigfoot ID criteria? What was the date you learned the sample was from a Bigfoot, as you understand Bigfoot to mean? thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 I consider myself an optimist, but I don't see this ending well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 ^ ^ ^ This line of questioning, I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 I don't have much faith in the possibility of these questions being answered either, but I'm glad they were asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 As I've said before I don't understand why Derek keeps coming back to defend/correct/clarify anything. If the evidence is compelling it will speak for itself. It would seem to me that something this big would not warranty his time or consideration at this point. But I can't wait to learn way more than I ever wanted to know about DNA! PS General next time throw the friggin body in the truck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Dear Mr. Derek Randles: 1. When did you personally believe Justin Smeja was telling the truth? 2. When, and who, did you first notify for advice or to advance the sample to testing? 3. What was their advice? 4. When, and who, did you contact that you considered "authorities" (agencies or individuals) outside of the Bigfoot world about your belief? Did you provide them meaningful evidence, such as the sample(s)? What was the result of that notification/disclosure? 5. Are you aware of anyone that has received a sample of the alleged Sasquatch that notified "authorities" in a meaningful way? If so, who and what authority? 6. Do you have legal counsel on this matter? If so please identify the attorney/firm. 7. Does Justin Smeja have legal counsel? If so please identify the attorney/firm. I think you forgot 8. Boxers or briefs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Dear Mr. Derek Randles: Thank you for your answers here. I can get my mind around any number of reactions a hunter might have under such circumstances. What I am struggling with is the reactions of the various people who became aware of the shooting and resulting samples. Specifically Derek, I desire you answer simply these questions. I understand you might be tired of our self-appointed community, and I have had to consider long and hard if I would insert myself with such questions. I concluded I would, for a few reasons, among them: my personal experiences in the field, my legal training and my limited interactions with BF researchers. I apologize in advance if these questions are too burdensome, or were answered somewhere in the many threads and conversations on the web (please direct me to those, if already answered..thx) and here they are: 1. When did you personally believe Justin Smeja was telling the truth? 2. When, and who, did you first notify for advice or to advance the sample to testing? 3. What was their advice? 4. When, and who, did you contact that you considered "authorities" (agencies or individuals) outside of the Bigfoot world about your belief? Did you provide them meaningful evidence, such as the sample(s)? What was the result of that notification/disclosure? 5. Are you aware of anyone that has received a sample of the alleged Sasquatch that notified "authorities" in a meaningful way? If so, who and what authority? 6. Do you have legal counsel on this matter? If so please identify the attorney/firm. 7. Does Justin Smeja have legal counsel? If so please identify the attorney/firm. You can guess my concerns at this stage are more about how the Bigfoot "players" handled this. The heat of the moment long over, with reasonable minds adressing, I am looking for responsible, transparent answers. That's about it! Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply. To the forum - thank you also for this interruption, as I am not really a member here. My intention is not to offend but to help with clarity. So, yes..I guess I am setting myself up for snarks as I also anticipate less than clear answers! Thanks Derek p.s. I know you can't share "test results." but I do think you said at one point Dr. Ketchum reported to you the sample was "in" or met her Bigfoot ID criteria? What was the date you learned the sample was from a Bigfoot, as you understand Bigfoot to mean? thanks again Well let's see here. The legal counsel questions are none of your business. I could go on, but I won't. I don't know your agenda and I have no idea who you are. If you are cryptically trying to freak me out, it's not working. If you are a researcher and truly want to talk about what already has been discussed, then get a hold of me. I'm an easy guy to find and contact. www.olympicproject.com, or you can PM me here. I won't be interrogated, but I will talk to you as long as you verify who you are, and the info doesn't violate the NDA that binds me. Good day, DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 I agree that the legal counsel questions are really nobody's business, but questions about at what point you believed Justin and who you contacted, those are interesting. What could go wrong in answering those questions truthfully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts