What Ever Happened With Justin Smeja's Story?

[BobbyO]

 

To answer you Najlr, I've always thought that too and I've always thought that he maybe did take a part of the little one.

There's also a very good reason in my opinion why he hasn't come clean if he did too, he doesn't know what it was, if it WA shaman or whatever and therefore, if there would be charges against him.

That's a good enough reason right there to keep it under wraps.

Remember, he had his house broken into quite recnently and whoever broke in went for the Bear meat on the fridge !!!!!!!'!!!

I'm sure there's a lot we don't know about this whole episode, I entirely understand why we don't or at least am cool with not knowing anyway.

 

I have a few problems with this scenario.  If he was concerned with charges in the past,  then why not now?  

 

He hasn't showed a body or a piece of one has he ?

 

If he had then i'd agree, why would he not be concerned now ?

 

But without doing so, i don't see how it's any different to his initial concerns personally.

 

If he is worried about finding a body, anyone who knows the location or was a witness would then be held as complicit and prosecuted also.  I doubt that they would stay quiet rather than tell what they know.  

 

 

 

This isn't what i'm saying at all.

 

What i had in my head was that he took a body, not worrying about people finding one at the location of the shooting.

 

& who knows re the driver guy, hasn't he given an interview anyway ?

 

No one knows what type of character this guy is, so assuming about what he would do or wouldn't do is pointless. 

 

 

I have heard about the break in of his house, but who do we have to corroborate this story?  I tried to find anything on line about it, and came up empty.  If in fact his house was broken into, how do we know it wasn't an inside job for some reason.  Maybe to do away with or "contaminate" the said evidence.  There's just too much that doesn't add up at this point.

 

 

He wrote about it on FB.

 

There is no corroborating.

 

& it's tough to get things to add up when all you're doing is assuming stuff and guessing.

Edited May 27, 2013 by BobbyO

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I find it to be odd that Justin is still in the game if he has nothing of substance to test. Why would Dr. Sykes involve himself with someone that had provided a previously-dismissed sample for him to test? To me, the fact that Justin is still in the game shows me that there's something else... something we may be shocked to find that he has.

 

It has always been my position that this tale is either the biggest whopper in the entire history of lies, or it is the very truth we've all been looking for. To me, anything else would be just another urban tale from just another guy making unsubstantiated claims. Yet there he is, having his picture taken with Bart, Dr. Sykes and Rhett Mullins. What does that say concerning any possible evidence he's provided?

 

I have always thought that Justin kept a body (possibly the small one) or a significant body part from the adult. Heck, he broke the story on a taxidermy website, for cryin' out loud.

 

I admit I may be reaching, but it's about time someone put something of significance on the Bigfoot table, and I wouldn't discount Justin just yet. JMVHO.

[chelefoot]

Good point.

 

Two separate labs discounted the "Bigfoot Steak" as bear meat, yet Dr. Sykes is still willing to listen and test the boots?

 

Makes you wonder...

[Old Dog]

BobbyO  ~ "it's tough to get things to add up when all you're doing is assuming stuff and guessing."

 

It's not so much assuming and guessing as it is asking for clarity instead of taking things on face value and uncorroborated statements and claims.

 

I do put a lot of reliance on my built in BSmeter.  So far nothing posited by JS has proven any of his statements.

[Guest SoFla]

BobbyO  ~ "it's tough to get things to add up when all you're doing is assuming stuff and guessing."

 

It's not so much assuming and guessing as it is asking for clarity instead of taking things on face value and uncorroborated statements and claims.

 

I do put a lot of reliance on my built in BSmeter.  So far nothing posited by JS has proven any of his statements.

 

I'm the same way Old dog. I called Dyer's BS pretty quickly and Musky Allen's moments after his interview on FB/FB  finished. Justin just doesn't "seem" like a tall tale teller to me and I think the stuff he gave to Dr Ketchum was a big F-you to her and her work. He clearly doesn't like the woman so maybe he thought he could help put an end to her work by screwing her over with a hunk of bear meat

[Guest Junior]

So it appears that they say Sykes report will be out December and they are shooting the bbc documentary as I type this at the sierra kill site (allegedly kill) seen some pics on a Bigfoot dirt sheet.

[BobbyO]

 

I'm the same way Old dog. I called Dyer's BS pretty quickly and Musky Allen's moments after his interview on FB/FB  

In my opinion, that was way too slow as it could and should have been called the moment RD opened his mouth about the whole thing.

I'm cool with the JS account personally,although for all different types of reasons, so much of what happened that day, including in regards to a quick scientific acceptance of the species, was clearly done wrong.

Again I'll say, as a witness, I have less reasoning to call something BS than someone who hasn't seen one ( except Dyer of course ), its just human nature.

I am fully aware that someone, somewhere, some day can shoot one of these things so I don't initially think BS on these accounts, again all except Dyer of course.

[1980squatch]

So it appears that they say Sykes report will be out December and they are shooting the bbc documentary as I type this at the sierra kill site (allegedly kill) seen some pics on a Bigfoot dirt sheet.

 

Saw that too, more pics of Sykes hanging out with Justin and company, and now film crews with cheesy recreations.  Smiling shots at cafe tables over beers, maybe a filthy boot as a centerpiece.  Whole thing strikes me as a descent into circus land aka Ketchum and Erickson.  Would have a lot more confidence in all this is Sykes just studiously supervised the lab work and had nothing to do directly with any bigfooters or associated characters.

[Cotter]

^ Agreed, but if he's got the goods and can prove it, roll 'er out at once.

But it is sure beginning to smell like an Erickson/Ketchum fiasco.

[Guest Junior]

I can't help but agree... I m new to all this but wasn't dyer and ketchum involved with this smeja dude as well?

[1980squatch]

^^^ Well, I am no Smeja fan but I am pretty sure there is at least no Dyer link (Ketchum yes).  Welcome to the BFF by the way Junior!

[Guest Junior]

Thanks 1980squatch... My bad was sure I read dyer had links to smeja mind the place I read it on wasn't the greatest source..hahaa

[Guest]

I'd say the whole story is a hoax...and not a very good one! And being an experienced hunter doesn't always amount to much. I know people who have hunted all their lives that are really  just dudes wandering around in the bush a few weekends a year. Most 'hunters' only go out once or twice a year, and a lot of those 'hunters' rarely even leave their trucks, they just cruise logging roads looking for something to shoot. The whole idea that someone claims to be an experienced hunter often doesn't amount to a hill of beans. A lot of hunters just play the role, buy the gear, outfit their trucks, buy a quad, and then it's 'hey, look at me, I'm a hunter'!' 

 

Anyway, I always thought this entire story was made up. Not just because I'm a skeptic in general, just because the whole thing smells of 'ya right'! 

 

Weak sauce!

Edited June 6, 2013 by summitwalker

[Guest PoPsicle]

Nalajr, on 10 May 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

    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.

 

Except for pathological liars. I've been around way too many PL's in my life, and I'm pretty good at spotting them.

They tend to be VERY good liars because "it's what they do".

But it's not easy to spot them. And it generally takes time and semi-long-term contact.

(I usually try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, regardless)

 

Plus you can't really hold it against them because it's an illness, like kleptomania.

They literally cannot help themselves. They MUST lie. (just like klepto's MUST steal)

Although it depends on what level or degree they have the illness.

Some can control it more than others... if they choose to.

And they can get help though counseling and such.

 

It's more of a gut feeling with me, nothing I can really point out specifically.

Mostly through experience and awareness and understanding.

So you have to take that for what it's worth. (and/or research the subject -- it's fascinating)

It's also much harder through non-direct contact, and also exacerbated by text-only contact, as well.

 

There are ways to ferret out liars. (pathological, or otherwise)

One of the best is to have the person tell the story in reverse, either

"item"-by-item, second-by-second, minute-by-minute, etc.,

depending on the circumtance. If they are telling the truth, they will

have no trouble telling the story backward. If they are lying, they

will have obvious trouble, hesitate, use the eye direction look test

to show they are having to stop and think about it to try to keep

their story straight, not make mistakes, etc.

Law Enforcement use that a lot because it works so well.

Even PL's fail it. It's some psychological memory thing.

 

Read this and Google for more:

 

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/how-to-tell-when-someone-s-lying-202644.aspx

[Guest PoPsicle]

I'd say the whole story is a hoax...and not a very good one! And being an experienced hunter doesn't always amount to much. I know people who have hunted all their lives that are really  just dudes wandering around in the bush a few weekends a year. Most 'hunters' only go out once or twice a year, and a lot of those 'hunters' rarely even leave their trucks, they just cruise logging roads looking for something to shoot. The whole idea that someone claims to be an experienced hunter often doesn't amount to a hill of beans. A lot of hunters just play the role, buy the gear, outfit their trucks, buy a quad, and then it's 'hey, look at me, I'm a hunter'!' 

 

Anyway, I always thought this entire story was made up. Not just because I'm a skeptic in general, just because the whole thing smells of 'ya right'! 

 

Weak sauce!

 

Although the story sounded "hoaxy" to me, and kind of sad, in more ways than one,

the way the storyteller tells it is interesting.

 

But there were at least a couple of "red flags" that bothered me.

 

One being, if he held the juvenile in this arms while it died, how does he not have ANY blood on his clothes,

which could, of course, be tested for DNA? (I think this is MUCH stronger than the "boots issue" mentioned elsewhere)

He also acts like he had no idea there was such a thing as a bigfoot or a sasquatch, which really stretches credulity.

It is such a large part of our combined culture and society that I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone

who didn't know what you were talking about if you did a random on-the-street poll, pretty much anywhere in North America.

That's two that jumped out at me. There are others, as well.

 

I guess it will never be "proved" at this point, one way or the other.

(probably beyond a reasonable doubt, much less beyond a shadow of a doubt)

If it was the true tragedy described, it's unfortunate that something "good" didn't eventually come out of it.

Although I don't know if BF being absolutely verified would actually end up being a good thing, or not.

You could make very strong, credible arguments for both sides of that scenario.