Jump to content

Sierra Shooting from A-Z


slabdog

Recommended Posts

Guest OntarioSquatch

Other than Ro Sahebi and anonymous comments on Bigfoot evidence, no one said Smeja is possibly a psycho. He isn't. More like someone who really likes hunting and made a bad decision when he came across a rare animal. That is all 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BFSleuth

Moderator Statement

Please refrain from speculating about the psychological makeup of another forum member. Some posts have been hidden for moderator review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Luckyfoot

Sooo,

I wuz watching the the solo interview of Carl Olineselot over @ that other site. Apparently they went to the Sierra Kills scene with Justin Smeja in an attempt to film the area. Seems they got some BF action as well.

Thought about it for a second and it occurred to me how authentic a BF sighting is with JS around. Think about it... If you were a hoaxer , would you put on a suit and try to fool the guy who claims to have shot one ? If you would, there is a darwin award waiting for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest VioletX

I think most people would be nervous to take a lie-detector test, maybe the examiner is contrasting his demeanor to other more nervous people she is examined, or merely relying on the results of his physical reactions during the exam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I couldn't help but notice Justin has kinda fallen off the map. I was thinking he should have his dna samples back pretty soon if not already. Remember he said he would make them public when he received them.

Edited by squatting squatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

Derek Randles has the results from the steak. According to a radio interview, the results were what convinced him Justin is telling the truth :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFE said they would be letting people in on what was going on, but on one of the recent radio shows,( I think that is where I heard it?), they mentioned that they could not talk about what was going on at the moment. That annoys me since they were adamant about NOT making people wait without a clue. I hope they have some integrity and give some info soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violet,

Do you think it possible that they could "have some integrity" by not releasing information they agreed with the involved parties not to discuss at this time? You (or me, or anyone) don't have the right to know any details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violet,

Do you think it possible that they could "have some integrity" by not releasing information they agreed with the involved parties not to discuss at this time? You (or me, or anyone) don't have the right to know any details.

I don't mind not knowing, but they did make a point that they were going to share everything... I wish I remembered who, where , and what this came from. I would have to search...

I believed they spoke of sharing info. as it happens.

Not trying to start a Ketchum debate, but reminds me of NDA and embargo. Shh, I didn't say that out loud did I?

No, I did not hear nothin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but perhaps they were asked not to divulge anything after making that statement. If so, I think it shows more integrity to side with the originators of the information and not a third, uninvolved party.

Of course, we're both just spit-ballin' here, so who knows what was said to who? I'm content to lace up my waitin' boots and watch how it all shakes out.

Edited by Bonehead74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but perhaps they were asked not to divulge anything after making that statement. If so, I think it shows more integrity to side with the originators of the information and not a third, uninvolved party.

Of course, we're both just spit-ballin' here, so who knows what was said to who? I'm content to lace up my waitin' boots and watch how it all shakes out.

Right, but perhaps they were asked not to divulge anything after making that statement. If so, I think it shows more integrity to side with the originators of the information and not a third, uninvolved party.

Of course, we're both just spit-ballin' here, so who knows what was said to who? I'm content to lace up my waitin' boots and watch how it all shakes out.

Yeah, that may be what happened, I wish they would tell us that they cannot tell us then. ; )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...