Guest BFSleuth Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hutch, I think claims like "...there is zero evidence to back up..." this story are incorrect. I take Derekfoot at his word, that there is evidence in the form of tissue samples, pictures of tissue samples, pictures of the location and follow up investigation, etc. that are currently under NDA's. If you don't fully understand the concept of NDA's and their role in publication of scientific findings, then it would be well for you to do a little research on the matter. Look up any major science publication and click through to find their publication requirements. No publication wants to have their researchers blabbing to the press before they are ready to publish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hutch Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) You say that Justin is willing to take a polygraph. Let's do it then. I will personally front the $500 for a polygraph and get it all set up. You can contact Justin and tell him there is someone who wants to polygraph him - after all, he has already agreed to do one per your words. I';d like to polygraph the driver as well and will pay for that test also. When Justin/Driver pass the test, this will lay to rest all questions surrounding this story. It will also provide validity to clear up the chain of custody of the evidence (your piece of meat). I will be happy to get on this forum and any other bigfoot forum and state that he has taken and passed a polygraph test regarding questions surrounding his purported shootiong of an unidentified creature at the date and location he has specified. As far as taking the polygraph to make me feel better, I feel just fine. I am calling BS on this story and am willing to put my money where my mouth is to prove it. If Justin is his own man, then I am sure that as a man, his integrity has some value to him. You speak for Justin quite a bit, so I am sure that you can get word of this to him. Something tells me however that this will never occur due to some portion of the NDA that you all purport to have signed. Edited March 21, 2012 by Hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Well Hutch, you certainly have strong convictions. Hats off to you for your willingness to get some answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Derek, you get my vote today Thank you for holding true to your word and remaining honest and steadfast. Also for making this about the discovery and not a popularity contest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MJ151 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) NDA's are commen everyday things. I'm sure most people know they are used in a number of industries and not just for scientific publications. I am under probably 2 dozen NDA's for different projects I am working on, and no, none have to do with the topic at hand or any other bigfoot related things. I wouldn't violate them because someone asks me too and I wouldn't expect Derek or anyone else under a NDA to break thiers either. As far as Justin taking a polygraph, he can't really win. If he passes then there will still be those who could say, "well the tests are subjective, which they are, and the examiner didn't do a good job. You could get the same response if he "failed" So in the end it won't prove anything. There is a reason they are generally not admissible in a court of law. And yes I know they are used for certain security clearances and other government agencys. Did Justin shoot two bigfoot? I don't "know" because I wasn't there. I tend to think he probably did, soley based on what I have read and heard. As far as inconsistancies in statements, most of the time you will get changes, especially as time goes on. If two witnesses have the same statement and it doesn't change it may reflect a rehearsed story. I have no idea what day the bear season opened when this occurred, but I get to elk camp a number of days before the opening and do some last minute scouting and I carry my rifle loaded, not for elk but bear and cougar. Would I use a 25-06, no, is it the "best" caliber to take bear, probably not. However, Karamojo Bell killed over 1500 elephants, 300 of which were killed with a 6.5 and the remaining majority with a 7mm. So Justin's weapon choice doesn't really mean anything. Ofcourse, this is just my opinion. Edited March 21, 2012 by MJ151 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hutch, I sent you a long PM detailing the back-story here. It is a shame you didn't respond, or take up my suggestion. Never mind....... What I find truly bizarre is that someone can join a forum all-guns-blazing, and then instead of waiting for the results of a definitive test would try to stir up a move to have a polygraph test done instead!!! I mean, a polygraph.............really? You are kidding? That same test that isn't accepted in any court, that has failed to pick up serial killers, and that has produced endless false-positives? Seriously, do you really think that would end the controversy of what happened up on that hill a couple of years ago? And would give a better result than a little bit of patience for the outcome of DNA testing? Mike Karamojo Bell killed over 1500 elephants, Sorry, but that thought just sickens me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Regarding the issue of lie detector tests, this is a good start: http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx This is the American Psychological Association stance on the issue. Note there is no research that has found validity with polygraph tests, it is all theoretical. The APA does NOT accept polygraphs as evidence of anything other than physiological measurements that have no basis for interpretation at this time. "Lie detector" tests have been touted for years as some sort of magical thing. It is not. It is more like the wizard behind the curtain, all smoke and mirrors without basis in reality. I have a degree in Psychology and studied the matter. I believe in BF more than I believe in lie detector tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hutch you are talking out of two sides of your mouth now, you accuse, then aren't judgin, now you have appointed yourself the judge.Which is it? Not that I don't have questions myself, but I just went to the source and politely asked. It worked for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hutch Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) I cannot imagine the need for all the secrecy when you have a biological find of this nature. I mean, its not like this is a national security issue or something...... Regardless of what the outcome of the DNA findings are, there is going to be a huge chain of custody issue regarding the samples that will have to be addressed for the scientific community to give validity to this study. It is true that Lie detector tests are not admissible in court. No one is trying to take Justin to court. Lie detector tests are used all the time to eliminate suspects or verify details of a story. That is all I am suggesting be done in this case. I too am a man of my word and I stand by my observations as they pertain to the story of the shooting. I personally think shooting 2 BF's is still BS. Too much cloak and dagger and no disclosure. Sorry, but if all the hoaxes up to this point have not made you skeptical, then I am sure that this story is gospel to you. Hutch out. Edited March 21, 2012 by Art1972 :to remove 1A violation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Good afternoon Hutch. (Hat's back on now). Trust me, there are plenty on here that are skeptical about the Sierra Killings, however, truth of the matter is that we don't know, and can only take peoples' words for it (FWIW). The story garnered a lot of attention from a lot of high ranking researchers. They have been made privy to the information and from what I gather, feel it is legitimate. I can only defer to their expertise in witness interview and intrepretation of the information they were provided. Additionally, I think if someone had made a biological discovery of this nature, once you realized what it is that you were dealing with, secrecy would be key. But I do agree, there are a lot of bits and pieces of the saga that can easily be coined red flags and what-have-you, but there are other interesting bits and pieces of the saga that also could provide creedence to the authenticity. But, you and me both, just have to wait and see. Thanks. Edited March 21, 2012 by Art1972 :to remove reference to above 1A violation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hutch, once again I'll stick to the high road with my comments. If it's really important to you to see that Justin takes a polygraph, then I suggest you ask him yourself. He's a member here. Have a great day, DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hutch, you've noted that polygraph tests are inadmissible in court and I presume you also clicked through the link I posted noting that the APA basically says polygraph tests have NO test data to validate them as evidence of any kind. I also presume you have had time to look up the submission requirements of one or two major journals with an eye toward their policies of NDA's as I suggested. I think "calling BS" on this because you can't have full access to everything RIGHT NOW is falling a bit short of understanding how this whole process works. I do encourage you to actually study a little bit about how the process of submissions work with scientific publications before trying to make that big leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I cannot imagine the need for all the secrecy when you have a biological find of this nature. A lack of imagination can be compensated for by researching a subject with thoroughness... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dozy Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Actually, as much as my suspicions tend towards the "Bigfoot doesn't exist" end of the spectrum, I have to agree with Derek and his defenders here. The reason that 'lie detectors' are not admissible in court is that they're broadly held to be of no evidentiary value. Sufficiently large numbers of people can beat them sufficiently often to render any result borderline useless. I beat one myself in college as part of an experiment. The only thing they show is that someone was prepared to take a test, but if that person is aware of the flawed nature of the test, there's arguably nothing valuable being demonstrated. I don't think it's necessarily fair that, from a skeptical perspective, one should be asking someone to submit to something which has, by skeptical investigation, been shown to be almost valueless. Whatever that is, it isn't carte blanche hypocrisy, but it lives in the same zip code. Edited March 22, 2012 by dozy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Attached Thumbnails Bfsleuth, thanks for making me laugh today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts