Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I think I've stated pretty clearly in the past my position on this and it has nothing to do with the moral/ethical issue of shooting a Bigfoot fire away just don't leave the body next time! It's two issues for me, the most recent please see above explanation. The second would be... No I could not have shot anything that was on two legs walking towards me with its hands up, while my spotter was telling me not to shoot. He was not a spotter! Geez why don't u get that! Snipers have spotters for range,wind etc! Justin will also tell u he was not spotting! He was the driver an he was hunting from the truck as well which is LEGAL on a non public road where they where at! Plz stop sensationalizing these points an focus on the event cause that's what really matters! Not weather road hunting is legal or not an not what he ate for breakfast or how much of a redneck he is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) @ZIG- But again, it's we are going to release this or that soon. More hyperbole to decrease the credibility of the BF community to the general public.Why not wait until they have thoroughly gone over it and release it with with the facts as they know them. I don't disagree that some type of experience would likely stimulate their interest and cause them to go back. Especially after so many people have called BS on them. Hopefully they can bring something good. Edited October 30, 2012 by mdhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 There are a lot of holes in the se 2 guys stories, I am not saying the shooting didn't happen, but to leave the bodies hyst doesn't sound right. Justin contacted a taxidermy site after the shooting, so I am guesssing he has a nody or part of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Chad, He was not looking through binoculars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 ^ LOL, You said you didn't like wasting your time with semantics a couple posts ago, but here you are, doing just that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Ummm how so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) , while my spotter was telling me not to shoot. He was not a spotter! Geez why don't u get that! Snipers have spotters for range,wind etc! Justin will also tell u he was not spotting! Chad,He was not looking through binoculars? Edited October 31, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 ^^^^* Still don't get your point (if you have one) I'm not the one with the problem defining the driver as a spotter, since I'm pretty sure that was part of his role...to identify what they were shooting at right? If I'm wrong please help me understand what you or Chad would like me to refer to his actions as in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 31, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted October 31, 2012 Well since Ken is a member here, I guess if he chooses to respond, he WILL respond to that little gem. Can you back up your suspicions with facts regarding why you can't take a taxidermist for his word? Or are you just going to throw innuendo out there and see what sticks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy_simpson Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Well since Ken is a member here, I guess if he chooses to respond, he WILL respond to that little gem. Can you back up your suspicions with facts regarding why you can't take a taxidermist for his word? Or are you just going to throw innuendo out there and see what sticks? I dont have suspicions... I know what i know. And the fact that hes a taxidermist has nothing to do with his character.... or the character of his associates. What a person does for a living, has no bearing on what hes like as a person. see below.... ken and one of his associates was banned from another sasquatch site.... I dont take people at face value, especially when their claims are outrageous. I was threatened with legal action from them because they felt they were being bullied by me. All I was doing was telling them to back up their claims....if someone is going to make outrageous claims and not back them up I think they are full of crap. Just like you expect of me bipedalist, I like people to back up there claims... It was a long history of them coming and going from the site before they were finally banned. Without boring everyone with details, below is a small sample of the bizzare emails that came to me... this one is not from ken himself , but from a member of his "fraternity" Something else I'll let you know. I'm NOT as banned as you or they think I am. I'll always be with YOU. Kinda like HEAVEN. GS that small portion of an email is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this group ... if you think thats normal bipedalist , then carry on.... My problems with Kens crew evolve around the whole smeja, erickson, standing and ketchum club, and the fact that they like to portray themselves as being on the inside of that club, with lots of insider info and concrete proof......and we all know the dots between those aforementioned 4 can be connected . I dont have anything to prove when it comes to this sasquatch mystery. No sir, quite on the contrary actually..... im looking for proof.... Not looking to cause problems.... im just cautioning those who think its legit just because a taxidermist or 2 are involved... i want to at least trigger some objective scepticism .... I also dont want to go go to far into my issues with these guys.. but you wanted some proof of my innuedoes bipedalist, i thought id give you a bit. At the end of the day, people are going to think what they are going to think , and believe what they are going to believe..... im not concerned with what people think of me, and i certainly dont care if people believe me... Jimmy Edited November 1, 2012 by jimmy_simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 1, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) All I know is that the gentleman reads here, may occasionally respond but is approachable to questions and will provide opinions. I've never gotten the opinion that he was trying to twist my arms behind the scene and actually I treat him like I treat everybody else, I listen/read respectfully, evaluate what I'm seeing/hearing, if there are any red flags or previous disrespect I take it in stride and formulate my own opinions if there are patterns of misbehavior or things that don't add up. Anyway, since this one is about Sierra incident I will ask this. Ken (as the transcript at the taxidermy forum and this thread indicate) was a player. What is so wrong with him being involved if somebody comes to a forum asking questions and he responds as an expert? Heck the guy even responds to PM's. RE: bullies they are a dime a dozen and this forum eats them for lunch. RE: somebodies past forum history.... as long as they conduct themselves appropriately on THIS forum and do not inappropriately share BFF2.0 or 1.0 content.... they are a member in good standing until proven otherwise. That is the way it will ALWAYS be. Thanks for you response. Edited to add: I don't always agree with everything that has been recounted from a research perspective with this gentleman but I do at least give it a run-by. Edited November 1, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 How do you post a long drawn out sigh? Man, I try to avoid this stuff but here we go. I never knew anything about where Justin shot the creatures. I don't know California at all when it comes to backroads locations. He told me it was a couple hours from where he lived and was near the Nevada border. I can tell you this. Justin shot 2 Sasquatches. As far as the above poster, I had nothing to do with the emails he received from Gary Schaefer. Btw Bipedalist, thank you. I am a few minutes from leaving to put a nosler in a 200 inch Whitetail. so I will check in later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy_simpson Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) I would agree you with bipedalist, that there is nothing wrong with him being involved if someone came to him as an expert taxidermist... My thoughts on that however would be that his expertise would only begin once the creature has been brought to him for the purpose of taxidermy. My understanding is that Ken is an amazing taxiedermist, and well respected for his craft... but his expertise would also end once his work was complete. If he was giving advice on how to keep the creature fresh until work could be performed on him, that also would fall into Kens category of expertise IMO. Outside of that im not sure where else Kens expertise would lay. There are no real "experts" when it comes to bigfoot, as we have not proved it exists. And Ken was not with Smeja at the time of the shooting, and Smeja himself, by his own words, doesnt have faith in Kens fact keeping ability anyway. My gut instinct is that Smeja posted on the taxidermy sight , and Ken being an avid sasquatch researcher jumped on it. I would think if Smeja specifically wanted to talk to Ken he would have approached him directly. What I do know is that Ken and company wanted it to sound like they were on the inside of the smeja shooting and the Erickson Project. I also think Kens posse started to get weirder and in his defence he distanced himself from them. But I also know that Ken publicly stated he would no longer reply to posts. Im not sure why... but my take on it was because i was calling BS on their stories, and since they have no proof to back up their claims, it was easier to try and make it look like im not a key player ( which im not) and , meh, im just not going to talk to you. I received an email from Ken once stating the Smeja case was only one of several dead bigfoots he knew of ... Again... ok proof please. Your going to make those kind of claims as an "expert" then quit talking to me because i ask some hard questions. IMO that doesnt make your case look very strong. They were even passing threats on to me from the Erickson camp... or at least using the Erckson name for some punch.....but this is the AZ shooting thread not the Erickson thread so ill try and stay on task... How do you post a long drawn out sigh? Man, I try to avoid this stuff but here we go. I never knew anything about where Justin shot the creatures. I don't know California at all when it comes to backroads locations. He told me it was a couple hours from where he lived and was near the Nevada border. I can tell you this. Justin shot 2 Sasquatches. As far as the above poster, I had nothing to do with the emails he received from Gary Schaefer. Btw Bipedalist, thank you. I am a few minutes from leaving to put a nosler in a 200 inch Whitetail. so I will check in later. You sent me an email claiming this wasnt the only shooting you know of. Again Ken its your wording , I mean the long dragged out sigh is awesome, its good for theatrical purposes. "you can tell me justin shot 2 sasquatches"... oh thank you. Case closed. Edited November 1, 2012 by jimmy_simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 ^^^^* Still don't get your point (if you have one) I'm not the one with the problem defining the driver as a spotter, since I'm pretty sure that was part of his role...to identify what they were shooting at right? If I'm wrong please help me understand what you or Chad would like me to refer to his actions as in the future. how about what Justin and the the friend calls himself, THE DRIVER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 "pretty sure"? Really? "pretty sure" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts