Sunday, October 27, 2013


November 17th, 2013

Tonight on the National Geographic Channel the two hour US version of the Icon Films/Channel-4 three part special airs under the title "BIGFOOT: THE NEW EVIDENCE" and from all the evidence so far it looks like they will be going right ahead and including the lies of commentator Mark Evans, which I discuss below.

I can see from the caption under Justin's picture on the Nat Geo site that they are still spreading the falsehood that Justin claimed the hair sample he submitted to Dr. Sykes came from the juvenile that he shot, when he never made any such claim.

Dr. Sykes KNOWS this, and never claimed any such thing himself. So much for ever believing a damned thing that comes out of National Geographic again........

I posted comments under the Nat Geo website for this show (Bigfoot: The New Evidence) and I encourage anyone else who believes in the truth to do so also. Why make the effort? Because lies, untruths and misinformation, and those who spread them, should not be allowed to go unremarked upon, especially when the research subject is as controversial, fraught with hoaxers, unsupported subjective experiences, and tenuous evidence as that of Bigfoot. Whether it is Daisy's in Boxes, Frivolous Lawsuits brought by those with Fraudulent Copyrights, or worst of all Pseudoscientists claiming Angelic Origins for something that seems to act an awfully lot like a very real, top of the food chain, predatory species to this Zoologist, the truth matters.  Yes "truth" is often subjective, and different for each perceiver, but in a case like this, where a person's experience has been documented over and over again, in print and recorded media, letting someone else come along and twist it to suit his own mocking ego gratification should not be allowed.  It is not right and it should not be allowed no matter what you think of Justin and his story.  

If we ever want the real truth about Bigfoot to be known, or the subject to be taken seriously, we can not stand idly by and allow credible institutions like National Geographic to be allowed to air such drivel..............................   

Update:  I have finished watching the U.S. version which has been edited down from 3 hours to 2, and while still glossing over any evidence that did not fit into the "bears are responsible for everything paradigm" they did at least edit out most of the mocking and ridicule Mark Evans displayed in the U.K. Trilogy. But the lie that Justin claimed his hair sample came from the juvenile he shot was still front and center, so hopefully National Geographic, if not Icon or Mr. Evans himself can issue a retraction and apology before it airs again.  Because that would be the right thing to do.


OCTOBER 27th, 2013

Well I just got done watching the 2nd installment of the Icon Films/Channel-4 Bigfoot Mockumentary, and the host, Mark Evans, pretty much dismissed us all as "Fanatical Believers"....
Dr. Bryan Sykes

And this is what I have to say about the part involving Justin Smeja:

Presenter Mark Evans outright lied TWO TIMES when he stated that Justin claimed the hair sample, found 3 weeks after the shooting incident, was from either of the Bigfoot he shot, let alone the juvenile.  He has never claimed it was from the baby and has only, repeatedly, said that it was found in the general vicinity of where he shot the ADULT, three weeks later and under the snow where it was sniffed out by his dog.  I was there during the filming of Justin's segment and during the interview later between Professor Sykes and Justin, and he never claimed any such thing about the hair sample, it was only the boots that he claimed had the blood of the young one on them.  And I want to make it clear that what Dr. Sykes told us was that whatever was on the boots was too degraded to give viable DNA or to even show up as blood by Spectrophotometry.  He never claimed there was nothing on the boots to begin with. Justin wore those boots for approximately a year after the shooting incident, including all his subsequent hunting trips and the additional blood deposits those produced, before he turned them over to Bart Cutino of the Sierras Evidence Initiative for analysis, so what could have been viable evidence if the boots had been turned over immediately, was made nonviable after a years passing.  Commentator Mark could not even manage to get Justin's age right, he is 27 not 31 as Mr. Evans claimed...........

Sierra Evidence Initiative
I can only imagine that Dr. Sykes is not pleased with the way this "documentary" series engaged in skimming over scientific facts that support the idea that there is still an unknown hominid running around in the Himalayas, and instead claimed the exciting discovery of a new hybrid bear species disproved the possibility of anything else, as well as the way the host mocked the subjects of episode two. As I stated above I was there during the interview between Professor Sykes and Justin Smeja, and at one point the good Dr. had to stop the cameras and reprimand Mr. Evans and remind him that he was not going to tolerate disrespectful lines of questioning that implied the witness was being less than truthful. And Dr. Sykes conveyed to me after the interview that he believed Justin's story and was disappointed he could not help to back it up with any DNA corroboration.

I know many of you have dismissed Justin as a liar, or an amoral Bigfoot murderer, but I would just like to go on record as saying I have spent a considerable amount of time with him and do not believe he is a liar. I believe that Justin believes what he is saying is actually what he experienced. I have spent days and nights in the field with him and I have watched him under very adverse and emotional conditions and I do not believe he is lying. He has gained nothing from going public with this story except grief and threats and financial loss. I know him to be, from over a year of personal interaction with him, a person who tells the truth, no matter how hurtful he knows that truth will be to others. And the only reason he went public with his story is that he believes in the truth, and he wanted to understand what it really was that he shot. It would have been much easier for him to stay quiet, as so many others who in the past who have had a sighting or may have killed one have done. Believe what you want, that is what everyone in Bigfooting does anyway despite any evidence that refutes erroneous ideas, or supports those they don't want to be true...

I was there when Dr. Sykes gave Justin the results of his boot analysis, and his tears where genuine, because it was the last hope he had for getting people to believe what happened really happened.  He was genuinely shaken and upset.

Bigfoot Evidence
Do I agree with Justin's current desire to shoot another one?  HELL NO!  But I understand that the reason he now feels the need to do so is because no one, not even some members of his family, are going to believe him until he does.  And after the flippant, rude and mocking dismissal of the host Mark Evan's, you can understand why some people do believe that a body is the only way anyone is ever going to prove they exist, "that no one is going to believe they exist until someone does kill one."

And I will add that on the second day Justin and I met up with the Icon Film crew it was within a few hours of them experiencing the "wood knock response" that took place during another segment of the show, and they were all genuinely excited and convinced that it was not due to any other humans in the area, as there was no sign of anybody else around.  This did not stop Mark Evans from then dismissing it in retrospect as "just some other bigfooters in the area knocking back"....

Bigfoot DNA Sequenced In Upcoming Genetics Study
I do feel guilty that I told Justin that he could "trust this film crew" based on my erroneous belief that they were from the BBC, a belief in turn based on the misinformation being spread at the time by a certain self-promoting "ologist" / Pseudo-scientist who attached himself to Dr. Sykes study early on, and who had been throwing his good name and that of the BBC around in numerous public statements of self-promotion on his own and other's blog sites. The film crew was British yes, but that is about where any similarities to the esteemed reputation of the British Broadcasting System end.

My friend Adam Davies had this to say after we had watched the first installment of this series which contained Dr. Sykes revelation of his data that supported a new "Bear Hybrid" existing in the Himalayas: 

"I think it's exciting. It’s just one type of the `Yeti` though. I have interviewed people in Nepal who know the difference between a Yeti and a bear. The anatomical analysis done by the presenter was also very superficial. The explanation given for the divergent toe found in Yeti prints was wholly inadequate. The analysis of records was also flawed. I chose not to appear in the program myself. There are accounts of Yetis written many centuries earlier that describe a `wildman`. I could go on. I do think Professor Sykes is a decent honourable man. That is why I have said that people should wait to see all the results gathered and his experiences which will be detailed in his book. I know there is plenty more to come yet. But I don't hold my breath for the second episode personally. Sykes analyses the evidence as he finds it. This is an exciting find but it's just one part of the explanation of the Yeti, not the whole."  Adam Davies

Pictures from the 2 days we spent with the film crew:

Icon's less than forthright host pretending to meet Justin
 for the 1st time in my truck

"Recreating" the blood on the boots using hot sauce.......

Justin and Professor Sykes were filmed talking for over an hour, too bad they didn't include most of this footage as it would have been very enlightening.

Good Company, good conversation, a beautiful vista, 
and my favorite, Newcastle, what more could a Zoologist long for?


  1. This is very enlightening, thank you. I appreciate getting the context of the interview. They seemed to have done quite an agendized hatchet job, sadly. Hot sauce?!? Geez. Anyway, thank you. Actually I was an Anthro major at UCD myself! I have been obsessed with Bigfoot ever since. I'm not in the field at all now, but I follow the studies and the research closely. Thank you for your blog. Glad to have found it.

    1. Thank you so much for your appreciation, I am glad you found my opinion helpful and agree that this production was far from a balanced, scientific documentary. And I am glad to know there is a fellow Aggie out there who is also on the side of truth in Bigfooting :)

  2. Excellent stuff Nadia!!

    Good for you that you sent that email, I was appalled at the treatment this field had at the hands of that nit-wit Evans and think that Sykes' agenda is still very obvious.

    Keep up the good work Nadia, there is much more to come of Sykes' Hominid Study, I'm sure of that!

    Oh, and in relation to Sykes' alternative theory regarding Zana being an archaic/relic modern human (in light of investigating the physical evidence to back up her legend in the skull proportions of her son Kwit)... Please check out the following link;

    Much respect,

    1. Thanks Joe! I am glad to know there are others out there who were disgusted with the shoddy commentary and personal bias allowed into what should have otherwise been a fascinating and informative delve into the new insights and analysis of Professor Sykes. And I think you are right in feeling that he has much more to offer in the near future.

      Thank you so much for the link to more information on archaic hominid interbreeding! It is a facilitating subject, and I think we have only scratched the surface up to now.

    2. Thank you for your response Nadia, your approachibility speaks volumes. Here is another link you may find interesting;

      ... It is now being theorised that early homos had major differences in skull proportions within the same species. Could this be somewhere we might end up leaning about relic Homo sapiens? I am very intrigued as to why Dr Sykes would be investigating such an avenue, if there was nothing to be concerned about the proportions of Kwit's skull?

      Though I understand I may be clinging to some remnants of hope that Zana was indeed what the accounts suggest of her, I am eagerly anticipating these findings from Dr Sykes every day.

      Thanks again.