Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 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
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Moderator Statement Please refrain from speculating about the psychological makeup of another forum member. Some posts have been hidden for moderator review.
Guest Luckyfoot Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 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.
Guest Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 The reason I asked is I've heard comments that he was nervous but the examiner said he was calm. I'm a little confused.
Guest VioletX Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 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.
Guest gershake Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I hope the polygraph industry isn't a member here. Hahaha, plussed.
Guest Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) 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 September 30, 2012 by squatting squatch
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 Derek Randles has the results from the steak. According to a radio interview, the results were what convinced him Justin is telling the truth
Guest VioletX Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 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.
Bonehead74 Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 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.
Guest mdhunter Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 Not trying to start a Ketchum debate, but reminds me of NDA and embargo. Shh, I didn't say that out loud did I?
Guest VioletX Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 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'
Bonehead74 Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) 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 September 30, 2012 by Bonehead74
Guest VioletX Posted September 30, 2012 Posted September 30, 2012 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. ; )
Recommended Posts