bipedalist Posted December 2, 2012 BFF Patron Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) You'd have to reread the thread or the early interviews prob. to discriminate the differences. But my understanding was what I posted IIRC, YMMV, but I'm not gonna go reread 350 pages personally. I saw his statements along either line as purely distancing, rationalization (add your psychobabble soup du jour if you want) and nothing more personally. Edited December 2, 2012 by bipedalist
Rockape Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 Notice I'm non-commital because I'm working from memory which I found is a dangerous thing for me to do. But I've only heard his interview with Ro Sahebi and the 25th hour program, and both times I'm pretty sure he said he just hadn't given it much thought, not that he had never heard of BF.
Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 I don't specifically remember him saying he had never heard of Bigfoot, but I could be wrong. I remember him relaying that he never thought about Bigfoot or talked about it before and didn't think about BF during his "encounter." I remember him specifically referring to it as a "Monster" several times and that it didn't belong. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or patience to go back and listen to any of these in depth interviews today to confirm or disprove my memory.
bipedalist Posted December 2, 2012 BFF Patron Posted December 2, 2012 I usually don't "forget" something that ironic. But it is a fly on the ass of the dead bigfoot if the "story" is true regardless.
Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 I'm thinking the Ro interview is where he may have said something like that at first and then after subsequent questioning he meant he never thought about it before. Who knows anymore, regardless of his wit or intelligence, I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt to the shooting. I just can't believe he left the baby. Also, was the "Questions you'd ask Justin" thread merged with this thread? I never remember commenting in this thread but I did comment on the questions thread.
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Yeah, what happened to that topic? Usually they tell you if they move it or whatever.....? OH now i see it, it was merged. Thought I was imaging it for a minute...... Edited December 3, 2012 by Kings Canyon
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Bigfoot evidence blog today--> So, it was a black bear then?
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/tyler-huggins-and-bart-cutino-shares.html My first impression is really? This lab is worried about contamination from such a large sample? Edited December 26, 2012 by apehuman
Northern Lights Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Bear 1, Bigfoot 0. Does anyone else find it awfully coincidental that they were able to find a bear carcass in two to three feet of snow?
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Reactions, General? We would all love to hear them.
Guest reelback Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) http://bigfooteviden...ino-shares.html My first impression is really? This lab is worried about contamination from such a large sample? Are you an expert on the topic of DNA? I'm not, so I would guess the expert who provided this analysis would know. He specifically says the DNA matches that of the claimed shooter. Bear 1, Bigfoot 0. Does anyone else find it awfully coincidental that they were able to find a bear carcass in two to three feet of snow? I don't. Pretty straitforward. Its likely someone planted some bear meat or shot a bear. IMO, the shooter shouldn't get any more attention on the topic. Better to move on. Unfortunately this will get milked for a while for attention. Reactions, General? We would all love to hear them. Personally, I am glad a BF was not killed. This pretty much discredits the guy's story 99%. There is still this 'boots' angle which will probably prove false. Wouldn't be surprised if someone put a bit of human blood on whatever may be on the boot, if anything, is there to keep the water muddy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvLFAOabqs&feature=player_embedded @ 1 hr 53 mins Ketchum says "I want to stay away from that one". There is a comment in that blog's comment section which claims Ketchum confirmed the sample was a BF. I dont know if that's the case or not, but here she says the opposite. Edited December 26, 2012 by reelback 1
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Don't worry guys, Rick Dyer shot one. He said so. And he has the body. Mmm hmm. Yep.
AaronD Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 I have the body! Here ya go Just wanted to show ya'll the gillie suite the wife bought me for Christmas Carry on
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 The researchers in the Smeja case deserve great credit for transparently reporting the lab results. The lab tests do not confirm Smeja's story, but it must be pointed out that they also do not dispute it. Smeja's account remains just that: an account. Neither proven nor disproven.
Guest reelback Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) It seems they were transparent. I dont know the backstory on why they tested it, but its good to know. While they dont dispute the story, they are in no position to dispute it either. Unless there are factual errors in tha blog post, I'd suggest the account is 99% disproven with what I read. Edited December 26, 2012 by reelback 1
Recommended Posts