Jump to content
Guest SoFla

What Ever Happened With Justin Smeja's Story?

Recommended Posts

Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Just think IMHO that the sample probably was bear, however that doesn't discredit the story. I've talked personally to justin 3 times and over the phone several times and have not had one(1) contradicted part of the story. Justin comes off to me as a regular guy who is not lying and is dead serious about the story. I say true story, but am waiting to hear about further tests on samples submitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Stinky

Both Justin and the driver did pass a polygraph (for want it is worth). Also, how did this hair/tissue sample in MK study pass the forensic hair screen as it should have easily been identified as bear....no ???????

Big Stinky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This story went totally south for me with the "40 piles of poop" JS described.

Bigteddy - As far as Erickson - my answer would be "Maltilda".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nalajr

I didn't buy a single word of his story.  This guy is a VERY EXPERIENCED HUNTER.  He KNOWS what a bear looks like, he's killed MANY of them before.  We are asked to believe he nails a momma SASSY and hears it fall and then while out looking for the body he then plows a Baby SASSY that rolls right down the hill and lands at his feet where he takes it in his arms and watches it takes it last breath.  Then he just up and walks away.  He says the body of the Baby SASSY was tiny, easily carried by him or his pal that was with him, yet he doesn't get it and just leaves it or takes it and hides in in some thick brush.  Then they hightail it out afraid the game warden is coming.

 

I find it tough to believe a guy that grew up in, or close to the areas that SASSY was supposedly filmed in and sighted for hundreds of years that as an experienced hunter and outdoorsman he didn't know EXACTLY what he was looking at when he dropped the Momma SASSY.  He would've known that by bringing in a dead SASSY his money problems would be OVER, he would be a worldwide name in days.  Bringing in a Dead SASSY trumps a DEAD BEAR any day of the week, I don't care how BIG the bear is.  A WORLD RECORD BEAR  would be peanuts compared to a stuffed SASSY on your mantle.  He'd go down in history as the greatest hunter of ALL TIME.  Hell he'd be on the cover of endless HUNTING magazines.  Sports Afield would even have articles and covers shots of him.  That's an awful lot of bragging he could do....a lifetime of it and no one could trump HIS STORY.

 

Why would he be afraid of the game warden?  SASSY isn't listed in the hunting regs....for ANY STATE.  Therefore it wouldn't matter to them if he killed one....or a hundred of 'em.  Call any game warden and ask them and after they get done laughing at you, they'll tell you that.  There wouldn't be a **** thing to be afraid of.  He killed something that, up until that day, didn't exist.  What law could they POSSIBLY get him on?  A FRESHMAN law school student could fight that battle and win in about 45 minutes.  He'd had no shortage of top flight lawyers that would step forward to defend him too.  At the very least he could've secreted the Baby SASSY to his truck and simply put a coat over it or anything if he wanted to try and hide it, but there would be no reason to do so unless you didn't want a warden to see it and start blabbing about it and let the cat out of the bag.

 

People that LIE are GOOD at it.  I would think you all more than most would realize that after the last couple of months and 2008.

 

Nalajr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarkGlasgow

I've always found Smeja convincing but as we know too well that means very little round these parts.

So much doesn't add up however and as posted earlier it just does down as yet another tall tale. Unless of course the 'bloodied boots' yield something remarkable, however unlikely this maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

 

People that LIE are GOOD at it.  I would think you all more than most would realize that after the last couple of months and 2008.

 

Nalajr

No they're not.

People who lie, in general, the majority of the t one, are not very good at it and that's how we know and find out that they're lying.

If people lied were good at it, we wouldn't know they were liars in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

Then maybe the ones we think are telling the truth are just really really good liars ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

 

 

People that LIE are GOOD at it.  I would think you all more than most would realize that after the last couple of months and 2008.

 

Nalajr

No they're not.

People who lie, in general, the majority of the t one, are not very good at it and that's how we know and find out that they're lying.

If people lied were good at it, we wouldn't know they were liars in the first place.

 

And so......are you saying you buy the Smeja story or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

Me personally ?

I do, yes.

But that has nothing to do with what I just said.

For me its not completely unreasonable to think that someone would or could shoot a Sasquatch.

Its completely within the realms of capability and I haven't read or seen anything that suggests to me that the story is BS as of yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why would he be afraid of the game warden?  SASSY isn't listed in the hunting regs....for ANY STATE.  Therefore it wouldn't matter to them if he killed one....or a hundred of 'em.  Call any game warden and ask them and after they get done laughing at you, they'll tell you that.  There wouldn't be a **** thing to be afraid of.  He killed something that, up until that day, didn't exist.  What law could they POSSIBLY get him on?  A FRESHMAN law school student could fight that battle and win in about 45 minutes.

Sorry, but not true. Virtually every state in its Wildlife Codes (and the Feds to) somewhere has a provision that ONLY critters with a legally established season, size limit, bag limit, etc) may be "taken" (ie hunted). All other critters are off limits.

If Smeja shot a BF and it came to the attention of F&W in such a way that they could no loger ignore it, they would =have to take action against Smeja. At the bare minimum that would mean confiscation of the specimen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...