Bigfoot Killer Passes Lie Detector Test. What Does it Mean?

Justin Smeja passed a polygraph test 

Justin Smeja claims to have killed Bigfoot. He recently passed a lie detector test, or more properly, during a polygraph examination, there was no deception indicated. Does it progress Bigfoot research? What impact will these results have on the community. I was able to ask these very questions of four of the principle players; Bart Cutino, Shawn Evidence,  Ro Sahebi, and Carl Olinselot. Below is:

1. The documentary directed by Ro Sahebi
2. The seventeen questions/answers/results published in the examiner's report. Original documents at Bigfoot Evidence
3. And then the answers to the three questions I asked Bart, Shawn, Ro and Carl. What was your role? What does this mean to the Bigfoot Community? And, What does this mean to you personally?

1) In late October 2010, at the site you brought for a "body Search" in July 2011, did you directly fire on two animals; one adult and what you believe one juvenile of a species others would logically term as BIGFOOTS" or "SASQUATCHES"?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

2) Was the first shot fired on-site, a direct hit to a bipedal animal you have never seen before?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

3) When you first saw this "animal", did you recognize it as a species you had never seen before or even knew existed?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

4) Did you encounter two animals that you believed were relative juveniles of the adult subject you shot?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

5) Did You shoot and fatally wound a juvenille "animal" that appeared to be a species that you have never seen before or ever knew even existed
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

6) Did you or Jack stop and purchase cigareetes in Sierra City on your way home after the "Sierra Kills" shootings?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

7) Are all of the statements you are making in regards to you shooting two bipedal primates, which incident is now being called the "Sierra Kills", true?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

8) Is this entire "Sierra Kills" story a Hoax
Answer: No Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

9) Would there be or do you have any reason why you would "make-up" or lie, about statements you have claimed to be true in regards to the "Sierra Kills"?
Answer: No Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

10) After conversing with Derek Randles, were you excited and confident about returning to the shooting site to succesfully collect the remains odf the juvenile subject killed, for monetary reward?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

11) Were you frustrated about not being able to to locate the carcass on your first return trip to the site?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

12) Do you truly beliueve that the piece of flesh you have processed, cut into pieces, and sent to various lab, is a piece of flesh from the unidentified animal you claimed to have shot from the "Sierra Kills" incident?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

13) Is the piece of flesh given to Wally [Redacted] from the same source as the piece of flesh you were instructed to send to a [redacted] lab by bart Curtino?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

14) has the Department of Fish & game taken interest in this "Sierra Kills" incident and questioned you on several ocassions?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

15) Do the artist renditions accurately depict the animals that you shot in the "Sierra Kills"?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

16) After the shootings of these strange animals, did the Department of Fish & Game show up at your house?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

17) Did the strange animals you shot in the "Sierra Kill" incident, look like a large human dressed in a bear suit?
Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

(The order of the the interviews below are in the same order each was introduced to Justin Smeja)

BART CUTINO

What was your role?
My journey into internally investigating this "Sierra Kills" event began in July of 2011 at our "body/remains recovery effort" orchestrated by my great friend and researcher, Derek Randles, and has carried through today, partnering with Tyler Huggins and Justin to initiate independent testing of both the circumstantial (tissue) & non-circumstantial (boots) evidence retrieved from this event. In that time, I've gone from initially believing this event was surely a hoax (with some curious aspects) to now believing strongly the event happened as described by "both" witnesses consistent and unwavering accounts.

What do these results mean for Bigfoot research in general?
 In regards to how we, the proverbial "bigfoot research community," should perceive the results of Justin's polygraph, I think we should respect the fact that the lead witness in arguably the most unprecedented event claim in the history of the subject, aside from the Patterson/Gimlin film, had the courage to follow through and pass a significant challenge to his assertions that he's responsible for having shot two sasquatches on a late afternoon, in October of 2010 in the CA, Sierras. At the same time, we should recognize & respect some of the limitations and contentions of the medium used (polygraph) and keep appropriate "perspective," reserving judgement for the diagnostic testing and determinations (for both "circumstantial" & "non-circumstantial" evidence) currently taking place in multiple labs and now, initiated by multiple parties. I think other positives we can take from this completed polygraph process as researchers with shared a goal of "discovery," is that although we may represent different organizations (Ro with Team Tazer & myself with BFRO, AIBR & The Olympic Project) we can collaborate & work together by raising the standard and providing much needed transparency to this field. 

What do these results mean to you personally? 

With all evidence currently being processed at multiple North American labs, I was admittedly tentative on Justin's behalf regarding him taking a polygraph at this time as I felt there was very little to gain by perception and much to lose in the way of more hardships for him and his family. However, Ro was very proactive in initiating this process and requesting my help with the questioning because of the intimate knowledge I had internally and Justin insisting he always wanted this opportunity. With the assistance of Tyler Huggins (BFRO), we formulated questions that weren't meant to protect Justin, they were meant to catch him being deceptive as we are under no illusion that for this process to have any objective value it needed to be completely unbiased and with an emphasis on transparency. Although I preach "perspective" with the understanding from my collegiate background and experience that polygraph examinations are not 100% foolproof, come highly contended and are used primarily by law enforcement to elicit confessions out of suspects, I'm very proud of Justin for both his full cooperation in the last year and courage to step forward and clear his name at any cost. Based on my familiarity with polygraphs, the experience of a reputable examiner, the machine and questions used, and with consideration how well I know Justin on a personal level, I'd be lying if I said I thought he could beat this test lying. The true test now will come in the form of determinations from highly reputable diagnostic labs and their directors.....nothing to hide... let the chips fall where they may.

SHAWN EVIDENCE

What was your role?

When I went out to the Sierra Kills site with Ro Sahebi, Carl Olinselot, Nadia Moore, David Badorf, and Justin Smeja, I didn't truly understand what my role was until we were actually there. I was there as a journalist and it felt good to part of something that could possibly turn the world upside down.

What do these results mean for Bigfoot research in general?

The polygraph results will help move the discussion forward, and hopefully remove some of the doubts people have about Justin's story. He has been as open as he can, and I believe he's being honest about what happened in October 2010.

What do these results mean to you personally? 

I started to befriend Justin Smeja to see who he's really like as a person. I have visited him at his home numerous times and each time, I get blown away by his honesty. He has been extremely open and forthcoming about everything that I have asked. For example, when I asked to see a piece of the Bigfoot tissue in his freezer, he had no problems with it. Honestly, I don't know what else a guy can do to prove to that he's telling us the truth. I'm at the point now that I really have no choice but to believe the guy.

Do I believe in Bigfoot? Yes. If I'm going to believe Justin, I have to believe that there is a bipedal hominid lurking in our woods.

RO SAHEBIWhat was your role?
My job is to tell Justin's story. It's the most fascinating story I've ever heard. No matter how this ends, or how much of it you believe, the story is incredible. In the Bigfoot world, people want content, and there's not enough good new content out there. I'm just trying to fill in a little bit of that huge hole.

What do these results mean for Bigfoot research in general?
The results are important to those who understand the whole situation. To most, the polygraph by itself, is not much. Now if the DNA study come up with something and you listen to the drivers story, then add credible players like Bart Cutino, James Bobo Faye, and Derek Randles to the situation... you start get something. Sure none of it is definitive, but at the very least, you have to stop and take a look.

What do these results mean to you personally?
The results were the icing on the cake. I had started to spend a lot of time talking to the players involved and it slowly changed my view on the situation. Before the polygraph test took place, I had already told Justin that I believed him. The problem, it is a hard story to defend. So this just gives me a little bit more ammo to fight with.

CARL OLINSELOT
What was your role?

My role on this trip was to assist Ro Sahebi in the filming and documenting as both a cameraman and organizer. My job was to film all the behind the scenes footage. When Ro's camera was turned off my camera would turn on. I recorded the casual moments in between the polygraph, before and after, the conversations about when to release the results, and everything that was not a structured part of the documentary but still important to understand how events in between occurred. I also assisted in paying for the polygraph, coming up with the phrasing of questions for the polygraph, and overall just assisting Ro with equipment, charging batteries and anything that needed done.

What do these results mean for Bigfoot research in general?

For the people who already know the existence of Sasquatch it will only reinforce their confidence and resolve to do fact based research. For the skeptics it probably won't mean anything. People are prone to not trust polygraph results and that's fine, but it is a shift from the typical bigfoot "research" where someone tells a story with no evidence. The polygraph focuses on more objective and fact based results rather than just taking a persons word for it - and that's a major step.

What do these results mean to you personally?

For me personally I was very skeptical about Justin's story. After talking with him and spending time with him I was much more convinced he was telling the truth before the polygraph. Knowing that he had no time to prepare for a polygraph and that many of the questions were added just minutes before the test was administered added to the credibility and greatly reduced the chances of Justin being able to lie his way through one. After passing the test and discussing the results with the Polygraph administrator I was 90% certain that Justin is telling the truth. His reaction to being told he was taking a test and his reaction to having passed the test. Being there to witness these events and then having him pass completely was strong confirmation that Justin and the driver are telling the truth about the events of that day.

We would like to thank Bart Cutino, Ro Sahebi, Shawn Evidence and Carl Olinselot for providing their perspective. Stay tuned later this afternoon as we publish our interview with the examiner herself. 

Matt Moneymaker Argues with "Girl" 140 Characters at a Time

Meet @HayleyStevens, a skeptic blogger

Matt and my nephew

Let me say from the outset, the few interactions I have had with Matt Moneymaker have been completely positive. My 12 yr old nephew is a big fan of his and Matt was very kind when I introduced them to each other. Matt had the utmost time and patience for the kinds of questions a kid would ask, all while during the filming of an episode.

And while I disagree with some BFRO's methodologies, I think Matt and BFRO have made some great contributions to the community.

With that said, there is a kind of comedy that can happen when tweeting back and fourth, tweet battles seem to force a reactive quality to the conversation on both sides, there is never quite enough characters to put any type of phrasing in context. I don't think either side comes out the winner on twitter.

This is most likely the case in the twitter conversation between skeptic Hayley Stevens and Matt Moneymaker. The whole conversation goes weird when Matt assumes Hayley is a "little girl," a realistic assumption, in our opinion, based on her twitter profile picture, that doesn't condone the tone of Matt's tweets, but I would not guess Hayley is, in fact, 27. Of course, that's us assuming an assumption was made based on the pic. 

Hayley has her side well documented on her blog, HayleyIsAGhost.com. Unfortunately her documentation of the the twitter conversation is one-sided showing Matt Moneymakers tweets out of context. Also unfortunately it seems that Matt Moneymaker has deleted his tweets. And beyond these two unfortunate events, there is a third unfortunate event, I have spent WAY too much time trying to piece the whole conversation together.

For what it is worth, here is the twitter conversation between Matt Moneymaker and Hayley Stevens that was shared and retweeted among the skeptic bloggers (as best as I could piece it together). Hopefully it does not look like I'm trying to pick a winner, I just wanted to give the conversation more context. If you think either side ended up with a constructive outcome let me know.

9:16:00 AM Matt Moneymaker
Often when ppl get hit by rocks thrown by squatches the rocks are thrown from a distance in total darkness. Ppl dont even see the squatches.

9:17:00 AM Hayley Stevens
 it [sic] that's true, how do you know they're there?

9:30:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
how do you know it is them that makes those noises? If you don't see them?

9:37:00 AM Matt Moneymaker
A dog is barking but u cannot see it. How do u know it is a dog? If u know what squatches sound like u know when they r near.

9:42:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
dogs are a documented species of animal. As far as I'm aware there's no documented and verified record of sasquatch.

10:04:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
and your answer didn't make sense

10:26:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
because the answer you provided didn't make sense.

?????? Matt Moneymaker
It didn't make sense to you because you are too young. Ask your parents. Seriously. They will explain things 2 u.

10:33:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I'm 25, I've been researching anomalous phenomena for a decade. I know about this than my parents. Try me.

10:41:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
it seems like a leap of logic to me, is what I was pointing out.

10:41:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I don't understanding how you know the sounds are sasquatch when previously nobody knows what they sound like.

????? Matt Moneymaker
So if I explain how I and others recognize their sounds then why bring up official classification? You missed the point.

10:54:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
in that case why not show me where they're documented? So I can understand your point?

????? Matt Moneymaker
Hayley, many elusive species made recognizable sounds before thety were officially documented. Sounds helped w/ the discovery.

10:55:00 AM Endless_Psych
You know what I don't think grownups generally do? Use youth as an excuse not to answer a question.

10:55:00 AM Endless_Psych
Indeed far from grown up some might actually call that childish

???? Matt Moneymaker
What children do is ignore when their question has been answerd repeatedly if they really just don’t comprehend

???? Matt Moneymaker
Hayley my point is that I usually speak with older people and the answer I gave would make sense to them just fine

10:57:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
How do you know that is a sasquatch making those noises?

11:00:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
Your answer doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so I asked you to clarify. That isn't me ignoring your answer.

11:04:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
and my point is that you can't identify an animal by sound if there's no pre-existing record of what it sounds like.

???? Matt Moneymaker
U can identify an animal by it's sound if you have heard them many times, regardless of pre-existing records. Ask an ecologist

11:08:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
The first time you heard a sasquatch you knew it was a sasquatch how?

???? Matt Moneymaker
I actually didn't know what I was hearing the very first time I heard them in the field, almost 30 years ago. Long story

???? Matt Moneymaker
Someday u can treat me to tea and scones and ask me whatever you like about squatches. A twitter box is too limited for that

11:20:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
at some point you decided you'd heard Sasquatch though. What evidence did you base that decision on?

11:20:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I'm writing up my thoughts, you can address them then, in your own time and perhaps without attacking me personally.

11:22:00 AM Matt Moneymaker
Hayley stevens Just don't make child-like assumptions about what exists and what doesn't exist. Others may know more than you do abt things.

12:37:00 PM  Hayley Stevens
 the only impressive thing here is your arrogance

12:23:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I suggest that says more about your logic than it does about your professionalism though.

12:25:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I don't really have anything to say to you, if you can't answer the points I wrote out without being patronising then fine.

New Human Species Gives Bigfoot More Plausibility

Multiple hominids lived side by side and even interacted with each other

"There was plenty of opportunities ecologically to accommodate more than one hominid species."
-- Fred Spoor at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany

Scientist are becoming more interested in the possibility multiple hominids living side-by-side. A drastic contradiction to the old theory that there was only room for one hominid at a time, each one replacing the former. New fossil evidence increasingly tells us that there were many more hominid species then we first assumed and it is likely they lived side-by-side.

This side-by-side hominid interests began to catch fire with the Hobbit (Homo floresiensis) and has gained further traction as new hominids are discovered to coexist. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an anthropology professor at Idaho State University suggests the advent of new coexisting hominids gives greater weight to the possibility  of a modern relict hominoid living among us. Dr. Meldrum recently shared as much earlier this year during his presentation in Richland, WA. (See the short excerpt from Dr. Meldrum's presentation below.)

The multi-hominids coexisting trend continues as recently as this month (August 2012). A LiveScience.com article reports a possible newly discovered human species may have roamed the planet at the same time Homo erectus and Homo habilis.

New Flat-Faced Human Species Possibly Discovered

Charles Choi, LiveScience Contributor
New fossils from the dawn of the human lineage suggest our ancestors may have lived alongside a diversity of extinct human species, researchers say.

Although modern humans, Homo sapiens, are the only human species alive today, the world has seen a number of human species come and go. Other members perhaps include the recently discovered "hobbit" Homo floresiensis.

The human lineage, Homo, evolved in Africa about 2.5 million years ago, coinciding with the first evidence of stone tools. For the first half of the last century, conventional wisdom was that the most primitive member of our lineage was Homo erectus, the direct ancestor of our species. However, just over 50 years ago, scientists discovered an even more primitive species of Homo at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania they dubbed Homo habilis, which had a smaller brain and a more apelike skeleton.

Now fossils between 1.78 million and 1.95 million years old discovered in 2007 and 2009 in northern Kenya suggest that early Homo were quite a diverse bunch, with at least one other extinct human species living at the same time as H. erectus and H. habilis.

"Two species of the genus Homo, our own genus, lived alongside our direct ancestor, Homo erectus, nearly 2 million years ago," researcher Meave Leakey at the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, told LiveScience.

The bottom line is, as academia finds more and more hominids living side by side in the past, it may not be such a far stretch for them to contemplate it is still happening today.

You can read more details of the possible new species at http://www.livescience.com/22198-new-human-species-discovered.html