Jump to content


Photo

What Ever Happened With Justin Smeja's Story?


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#1 SoFla

SoFla

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:59 PM

Why don't we hear much of anything about it anymore? I know we have been inundated with an unnamed professional hoaxer for the past 6 months or so but Justin's story was big and sounded plausible.Perhaps his claim got a bit overshadowed by Tightey Whitey's tale, but now that THAT has (again) been proven to be BS maybe we can figure out if he really did shoot two beings that we know as Sasquatch. 


  • 0

#2 apehuman

apehuman

    Yowie

  • Inactive
  • 1,614 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:12 PM

The thermal floating around (Sierra Project website I think, but it's here too)  was taken about 100 yards from the claimed shooting site and Justin on that trip...you should take a look if you haven't...the website I think also mentions sending a boot sample along with Dr. Sykes..

 

perhaps even other labs....

 

maybe someone has more...


Edited by apehuman, 07 May 2013 - 05:13 PM.

  • 0

accidental Bigfoot researcher - purposeful idealist 


#3 wudewasa

wudewasa

    Yowie

  • Inactive
  • 1,925 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:56 PM

Ummmmmm.....

 

bigfoot-dna-bear-human.jpg


  • 0

#4 bananasquatch

bananasquatch

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:43 PM

And there is this coming out soon:

 


  • 0

#5 WRabbit

WRabbit

    Bukwas

  • Sésquac
  • 362 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

What Ever Happened With Justin Smeja's Story?

 

Things quieted down after the November 2012 release of a DNA study from Trent University on a sample of Justin's Bigfoot steak.  The report identified the primary contributor as Ursus americanus (Black Bear), and the secondary contributor as Homo sapiens (Human). 

 

Click to see the full DNA report

 

Meanwhile, Justin sticks to his story.


  • 0

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

"Science has yet to validate my disbelief in Bigfoot.” - Jarod Kintz

 

 


#6 1980squatch

1980squatch

    Oh Mah

  • Sésquac
  • 711 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:22 AM

It is now just another story, added to the pile.  To be believed or not, does not really mater.  If the story is true, a real shame that something good could not have been salvaged from such an awful event...


  • 0

#7 OntarioSquatch

OntarioSquatch

    Yeti

  • Inactive
  • 2,962 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:38 AM

Unless something comes out of the boots he gave to Dr. Bryan Sykes, I think like 1980 says, it'll be the same as any other Bigfoot story. Though there are quite a few researchers who now believe Justin after visiting the shooting site. If I recall correctly, Bart Cutino's thermal is from there.


Edited by OntarioSquatch, 08 May 2013 - 07:58 AM.

  • 0

#8 JiggyPotamus

JiggyPotamus

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,036 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:24 PM

I did not know about the Trent study. Quite interesting. I have been learning more about DNA analysis recently, and with the knowledge I have gained I am actually surprised that researchers would feel any sort of confidence about identifying an undocumented animal. This is because I did not know much about primers. I thought they could simply look at what was present, and determine what the sample originated from, but this is not really the case. Quite intriguing  but the more I learn the more I realize it is going to take a body. No more, no less, to prove the existence of the animals to the world.

 

But even if this story really did happen, I would not expect much to come from it. We know there were some samples sent off, and we heard the interviews and whatnot regarding what happened. We know there was apparently no bodies left to be found, so what more is there really to do? Like someone else already mentioned, it is just another story added to the pile at the end of the day. Whether one believes it to be true is actually irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Maybe I just believe this because I am confident it is going to take a body. Many have been saying this for a long time, arguing with those who think DNA is the most viable option, and I think the former are correct. Not only will a body be better than DNA for learning about and identifying these animals, but the process will be much quicker. When you have a body laid out on a slab there is not any room for argument about scientific processes, or whether those doing the analysis are qualified or know what they are doing.

 

So a body will be definitive. I would much rather have a sasquatch who had died naturally, but I belong to the "kill" camp. I would be overlooking my own biases if I thought this simply for the benefit of the animals themselves. I know a part of me believes in killing a single sasquatch for science because of my own determination to get the rest of the world to believe. It just really bothers me to know something so definitively, while there are others claiming I am wrong. So part of it is "revenge" in a sense, but luckily that is only a small part. I am just thinking out loud here really, but I hope this will prompt others to examine their own motives. I can completely understand the point of view of those who do not think we should kill a sasquatch for science. But it should also be known that I have very strict requirements for the killing of one of these majestic animals. For instance, there would have to be 100% certainty that the animal could be gotten out of the woods in the first place. The shooter would also have to know exactly what to do with the body, etc.

 

It would be quite a waste to shoot a sasquatch and take a life in this manner only to have it mean nothing. I do not want to see that happen. So I do not want just anyone out there with a weapon looking to shoot a sasquatch. The shooter needs to be someone who is a good shot and knows what they are doing. I do not want to see a suffering sasquatch either, and would want one shot to cause one clean kill. I apologize if this post bothers some of you, the more pacifistic people, but I too am a pacifist the majority of the time. I simply recognize that violence can at times be the most appropriate form of action, although rarely, and I truly believe that the sasquatch will benefit from being scientifically documented. They are not going to benefit in the short run most likely, but definitely in the long run. I have made arguments in other threads outlining my beliefs as to why their discovery would benefit them, so I will not get into those arguments in this thread.


  • 0

#9 Wag

Wag

    Yowie

  • Sésquac
  • 1,096 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:05 PM

If it was a fake, he is one helluva story teller.

 

-Comming out in public about a BF

-Shot 2 of them, described how it ran when he shot the female etc-

-Descrbed how it kept waiving at him, (draws attention away from juvies, as it saw he had a gun)

-Talked about 2 juviniles 'jabbering' then one got angry and came toward him. (Helluva story)

 

This was a really good story, he would have to be really into BF stories, animal behavior, etc.

 

 

Anyway, it sounded credible to me.

 

One wonders if some BF came and put  a chunk of bear where the BF was. Thats where I'm at on this. BF put the bear chunk there. Ever hear of finding bear chunks, or chunks of meat laying around? That is total BS.


  • 1
"BF are spies. When people are around and they can, they spy on them, and learn the language. They also see magazines, television, pictures so they know what cameras are. They see people take pictures of other people "posing', they can figure it out and they have." Millions of people over 70+ years with cameras in the field, Bigfoot know what cameras are. - WAG

#10 Cotter

Cotter

    Sasquatch

  • Steering Committee
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:03 AM

^That right there is one huge question mark I have.

I mean, what are the chances that they would find ANY sort of carcass in the area, much less a hunk of bear.....

 

It's a coincidence of great magnitude.


  • 0

If organic farming is the natural way, shouldn't organic produce just be called "produce" and make the pesticide-laden stuff take the burden of an adjective? ~Terri Guillemets

 


#11 Wag

Wag

    Yowie

  • Sésquac
  • 1,096 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:24 AM

It was likely placed, was he dumb enough to put it there himself? (Smeja) But smart enough to tell such a nuanced story?


Edited by Wag, 09 May 2013 - 08:25 AM.

  • 0
"BF are spies. When people are around and they can, they spy on them, and learn the language. They also see magazines, television, pictures so they know what cameras are. They see people take pictures of other people "posing', they can figure it out and they have." Millions of people over 70+ years with cameras in the field, Bigfoot know what cameras are. - WAG

#12 Arrowhead

Arrowhead

    Booger

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:00 AM

Well what ever the case maybe, I took some big stones to go back near the scene to do multiple invetigations.  How does he know they won't recognize him and hold a grudge? 


  • 0

#13 Cotter

Cotter

    Sasquatch

  • Steering Committee
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:33 AM

I'm sure there were some self-defense precautions taken....

At least I sure hope there were!


  • 0

If organic farming is the natural way, shouldn't organic produce just be called "produce" and make the pesticide-laden stuff take the burden of an adjective? ~Terri Guillemets

 


#14 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 7,094 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:54 AM

What happens with all phony stories in this field.  Eventually it becomes too much for even the principals to keep going and....pfffft....


  • 1
Good science is always open-minded, and the history of science is one of surprises and overturnings. Science is nothing but careful thinking, and careful thinking encouraging an appreciation of the complexity of the world. The complexity encourages us to maintain several possibilities at once. In a single lifetime, we may have no way to remove the ambiguities from these possibilities. A scientist may tend to favour one story over the others, but will always be careful to concede uncertainty and maintain a willingness to change the balance with new, incoming information.  - David Eagleman, neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, "Why I am a ‘possibilian’," New Scientist, 25/09/10
What I often tell people is that if you immerse yourself in the field, you'd be blown away by the amount of evidence.  They just get pieces of the puzzle. There's a literal ton of eyewitness accounts, foot casts, hair samples and the like. It's a situation where from a mathematical standpoint, it's highly probable that these creatures exist in North America, but it's also statistically impossible that nothing is out there. It's a weird juxtaposition of highly unlikely realities, but one of them has to be right. - Ken Gerhard
 

#15 bigteddy

bigteddy

    Booger

  • Banned
  • 70 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:42 PM

I'm under the impression this was a hoax, Smeja claims that he killed two BF'S, finds a steak sample covered in hair that he could not identify, sends it off and it comes back bear, that's it plain and simple. We all got riled up and expectant over a hoaxer, why he sticks to his story so strongly, I don't know perhaps he'd rather be considered crazy than publicly admit he's a liar. Oh, and regarding the whole "planted bear steak" theory, I really don't see why a bigfoot would go to the trouble of removing one of it's own corpses, then either yanking a steak of a live bear or even from a dead one and meticulously place it in the same location, really don't see why'd they'd go to that extra effort when they could simply remove the corpse, unless of course you feel the bigfoot enjoy duping humans with false D.N.A evidence :P

 

In my opinion, Smeja shot and cached a bear, that's why he was so adamant about the corpses location, or they found a bear steak coincidentally in the search area, either way Smeja confirmed that the color of the fur on the steak matched the fear of the creature who's ass he put a bullet in, then it tuns out to be nothing more than a regular old bear. Talk about anti climax. 

 

Like the other members have stated, it's old news until the next history channel episode or independent film.

 

What I want to know is what happened to the Erickson project? That was all the rage last year, never head it mentioned since, what happened there?


  • 1

#16 Wag

Wag

    Yowie

  • Sésquac
  • 1,096 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:26 PM

They said they found human DNA in it also, so maybe he mixed something in with it (so it would combine and be a unique species?) - I could see that I guess. But his story was so good. And they did say there was eye shine from the same local.


  • 0
"BF are spies. When people are around and they can, they spy on them, and learn the language. They also see magazines, television, pictures so they know what cameras are. They see people take pictures of other people "posing', they can figure it out and they have." Millions of people over 70+ years with cameras in the field, Bigfoot know what cameras are. - WAG

#17 MIB

MIB

    Chiye-tanka

  • Members
  • 772 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:58 PM

I think you're getting it wrong.   I asked this question specifically on the Ketchum study thread.   Tyler or Bart, I forget which, said the location of the shooting, where the sample was recovered 5 weeks after the shooting, is at the end of a road where successful hunters will gut / skin their kill before returning home so it should surprise no-one who has paid attention that what was frozen under the snow that they cut a chunk from was bear rather than bigfoot.   This is why the Trent U test results don't undermine their confidence in Justin's story, they only undermine Melba's study.

 

Y' gotta pay attention if you're going to keep up. 

 

MIB


Edited by MIB, 09 May 2013 - 04:58 PM.

  • 2

#18 cheech44

cheech44

    Booger

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

if smeja didn't have some very respected researchers vouching for him, this story would've been outright dismissed once the sample results came in. 


  • 1

#19 Cervelo

Cervelo

    Bigfoot

  • Banned
  • 4,793 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 05:51 AM

I think you're getting it wrong. I asked this question specifically on the Ketchum study thread. Tyler or Bart, I forget which, said the location of the shooting, where the sample was recovered 5 weeks after the shooting, is at the end of a road where successful hunters will gut / skin their kill before returning home so it should surprise no-one who has paid attention that what was frozen under the snow that they cut a chunk from was bear rather than bigfoot. This is why the Trent U test results don't undermine their confidence in Justin's story, they only undermine Melba's study.

Y' gotta pay attention if you're going to keep up.

MIB

So a supposed experienced bear hunter/outdoorsman submits a piece of bear meat as Bigfoot and that somehow offers his story credibility and discredits some other malarkey?

Edited by Cervelo, 10 May 2013 - 06:03 AM.

  • 0

#20 Rockape

Rockape

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,075 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:23 AM

if smeja didn't have some very respected researchers vouching for him, this story would've been outright dismissed once the sample results came in. 

============================

 

True, and I have listened to him tell his story several times in different venues and he's consistent.

 

But still, a bear is a bear, you can't get around that.


  • 1

That's not a cow, it's walking on two feet.                                        

 

Dmaker -  There is very little human looking about Patty to me.

 

 





0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users