Sierra Shooting From A-Z (Continued)

[Rockape]

I was anti-kill for awhile, but now I am all for it, as it is the best way to prove without a doubt that BF exists.

[Guest]

I am leaning more to Pro-Roadkill as I have become quite adept and taking dog specimans in my Suburban with no effort at all !

 

Watch out Dogman !

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Sasquatch IMHO recognize US as being more like them than we recognize THEM as being more like us. It's the only reason that makes sense as to why small isolated Human groups are not decimated on Sasquatch turf. As wild animals go, pound for pound, several Humans at a campsite wouldn't stand a chance against even one 8 foot Sasquatch that weighs in at 6oo-800 pounds. My point is that it speaks of intelligence beyond that of mere animal. There's something else going on there. I'm leaning hard on the Red Deer Cave People concept. More and more I see much that steers my thinking in that direction.

My two rocks. And now, I return back under my own.

Edited November 15, 2013 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

 

Recently Justin Smeja was asked a tough question by Suzy Matiash, administrator of the Facebook group Bigfoot Community.

The question was:

Mr. Smeja, I mean this question with no malice toward you. But this is a no kill group. And given the chance, would you kill another Sas? Or have you changed your views and would not do it again.

Justin answered:

I believe Bigfoots are some sort of people – a wild man or archaic human if you will. They are not just some other animal to be hunted like deer – its immoral. They are intelligent.

For the greater good of the species whether it be in 

life or death

 or even extinction, I will pursue killing one. I do not love the species or the individuals. I feel it’s wrong to take a Sasquatch’s life, but who among us does everything right? You worry about the person you see in the mirror, and I’ll take care of me.

I will try to kill another Sasquatch to prove their existence.

The truth is most in the Bigfoot community are liars, especially when it comes to the subject. They preach this no kill gospel and pretend to be disgusted by the thought of killing one publicly, but behind closed doors I’m often (very often) approached by these same individuals – many of whom are highly respected pillars in the community – with a new strategy, location or idea on how to kill one. They often even offer to 

help fund

 an expedition to bring back a dead one.

Derek Randles was never like that. He always hated the idea of killing one. I respect him for that. He’s a better man than I am.

I’m not here to play politics, to be politically correct or to save face. I’m not looking for a place in the Bigfoot community. When I research, I often have a rifle, and if I see one, I will most likely shoot it. However, I also often research with no rifle at all. Make what you will out of that. My only goal is proof to validate my story.

This is a stupid argument – to kill or not to kill – if you’re that worked up about it, you have too much time on your hands. DNA is no longer good enough. Especially in this field. Let’s just assume that I know more about DNA results findings and protocols then 98 percent of you. I’ve worked first hand with countless labs and doctors on this subject over the last 3 years. If a body’s drug in by a researcher tomorrow, the blood of that individual is partly on Melba’s hands. It is because of her that we need a body. We need a body, not a sequence.

The truth is I waver back and forth and some days I’m 100% no kill. I’ve lost more sleep on the subject because of my actions then any of you. But I’ve made peace with my actions other than the occasional nightmare.

 

 

Pathetic, and I really have no postive feelings for the guy who needed to bag a second "child", I had him pegged right from the start.

 

Enough said.  Nice to know he thinks we are all liars.  Two-way street bro.

 

I will only agree with him about  one thing, Derek Randles knows what he saw and knows BETTER!

Edited November 15, 2013 by bipedalist

[See-Te-Cah NC]

My problem with shooting a Bigfoot is that I'm not the decider of what lives or dies. I'm not talking about killing for food or even killing known, well-established species of animals for trophy or sport. I see no reason for him to have fired on the first animal - the alleged adult - to begin with, since it was no threat to him or his hunting partner. The shooting of the young one indicates to me that the individual possibly had no respect for the creature, and is confirmed by the content bipedalist quoted.

 

I'm not pro-kill, but I admit that I'll be the first to click on any site that claims that a Sasquatch body has been taken, especially if it's from a creditable, scientifically-sound organization. I also admit that it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they were to peel one off of the grill of a logging truck. Not that I want one to die that way, but hey - even humans experience that misfortune from time to time.

 

I've always thought the shooting events to be strange. Something just doesn't make sense with it. Either he was not being forthright with his account, or he has something that just hasn't been presented for whatever reason. The recent DNA studies have sort of lessened that likelihood, but there could still be a surprise or two remaining. I always thought that if the account as told was the truth that he kept the small one's body, or possibly a piece of the adult.

 

He claimed that he wasn't aware of Bigfoot in the beginning, but maybe he was and saw an opportunity to take a specimen. That's if the account was accurate, obviously.

 

Of course, in the end, I never discount the possibility that it was a hoax, even if it was just a tall tale in the beginning. The movie deal - without supporting evidence - is an indication that it might have eventually ended up being about cashing in on a sensational tale. It wouldn't be the first time someone attempted to capitalize on sensational claims. Yet it could be that the movie is an attempt to persuade others that there may be something more to the story. We'll have to see about that, but, as we all know, the track record of sensational claims of Bigfoot evidence, especially claims of shooting and killing one. Not only have they come up short, but are partly responsible for the fact that there are few that take the subject seriously.

[Guest]

There are those who are "no-kill" because it is the cool thing to do. They identify themselves with the "no-kill" stance based on their view that they are on the moral high ground and others who disagree with them are wrong and evil. But they the big point they are missing is that "pro-kill" does not equate with a sensless, wasteful act of killing a Bigfoot. The TBRC is "pro-kill" because they believe it is the best way to protect and provide future conservation of the species (by first proving it exists). There are also those who are "no-kill" because they believe that the same protection and conservation can be achieved in other ways (video, DNA, Bigfoot hari-kari, etc).

 

The biggest issue I see right now is the huge damage that the MK study has done to any future chance of DNA being taken seriously. Combine that with the ever present hoaxing attempts of the youtubers and we find ourselves in the current state where there barely any options left than collecting a speciman live or dead.

 

This is reality.

A great line from the movie"unforgiven" starring Clint Eastwood,

"It's a hell of a thing killin' a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."

I think that holds true with this subject also,you kill one,your not only killing that one,but it's unborn offspring.From what is told,they live in groups,probably siblings and the like.so why do it? to prove to the skeptical public? if they truly are flesh and blood animals,the government and science knows about them,so it wouldn't be for that reason.

Look at it this way,how would you like if someone killed one of your family members,took the body,just to prove to a bunch of people that your family lived in the area.

It seems like they are doing fine without the public knowing about them.If a body is found already expired or in a life threatening encounter were to occur,that would be understandable,but to kill one just to prove to the public,would be a terrible waste of life.

 

Edited November 15, 2013 by zigoapex

[Rockape]

My problem with shooting a Bigfoot is that I'm not the decider of what lives or dies. I'm not talking about killing for food or even killing known, well-established species of animals for trophy or sport. I see no reason for him to have fired on the first animal - the alleged adult - to begin with, since it was no threat to him or his hunting partner. The shooting of the young one indicates to me that the individual possibly had no respect for the creature, and is confirmed by the content bipedalist quoted.

 

 

I've hunted with people like that before, they just want to kill anything that moves. I only hunted with them once. One guy wanted to shoot a Nutria that swan down a creek and later wanted to shhot a vulture that was circling. I stopped him both times and when I asked why he felt the need to shoot them, his answer was, "I don't know". That's just the mindset some have.

 

From what I have heard Smeja say afterwards though, it seems he has changed, at least I hope he has.

 

 

 

<A great line from the movie"unforgiven" starring Clint Eastwood,

"It's a hell of a thing killin' a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.">

 

 

Love that movie. I like

 

"I guess they had it comin'"

 

"We all got it comin kid".

Edited November 15, 2013 by Rockape

[Guest]

My stance...

[chelefoot]

Justin says:

I believe Bigfoots are some sort of people – a wild man or archaic human if you will. They are not just some other animal to be hunted like deer – its immoral. They are intelligent.

For the greater good of the species whether it be in life or death or even extinction, I will pursue killing one. I do not love the species or the individuals. I feel it’s wrong to take a Sasquatch’s life, but who among us does everything right? You worry about the person you see in the mirror, and I’ll take care of me.

I will try to kill another Sasquatch to prove their existence.

 

So we've got::

 

Bigfoot are a sort of people, not just some other animal. It's immoral to kill one.

 

It's wrong to take a Sasquatch life, but I will try to kill for proof - even though I don't care about them.

_________________________________________________________________

 

Kind of confusing. But I realize he was responding on Facebook.... it's not  like he was writing a blog or answering in an interview.... Just saying what he was thinking off the top of his head....  

 

I've always believed his story. I guess part of the reason is the respect that I have for some of the researchers who he has convinced, without a doubt, that he is telling the truth. It's definitely more for that reason than just going by Justin himself (No offense to Justin, I just don't know you).

 

Kill or no kill? I don't think we have a right to decide - like See said - who lives or dies.  But I do worry that it may take a body to prove the species.  Hey, some days, I still ask myself whether or not they even should be proven to exist.  They seem fine without us knowing (although, some do know).  What might happen if they are proven? Can we really make life better for it? I'm just not sure.

 

But I still want to know!  I haven't lost hope in DNA ....  I think it can be done and hope it works out that way instead of the other.

The biggest issue I see right now is the huge damage that the MK study has done to any future chance of DNA being taken seriously. Combine that with the ever present hoaxing attempts of the youtubers and we find ourselves in the current state where there barely any options left than collecting a speciman live or dead.

 

This is reality.

Sad, but true.

[Guest]

Chelefoot the more I get involved with BF and BF'ing the more I think they would be much better off if they are never proven to exist.

[chelefoot]

Honestly, I don't even wonder anymore - I KNOW they would be better off without us "discovering" them officially.

 

Some say -    We can protect their habitat.

                      What indication do we have that that is even necessary?

Some say -    We can protect them.

                     They can protect themselves - they have so far.  Besides how can we protect them by proving them. That will bring the previous non-believing trophy hunters out of the woodwork searching for that ultimate trophy. Not to mention the money hungry crazies and what they might do....including TV producers.

 

I can't think of one realistic thing we could do that would better their lives- that they would want from us.   They don't want/need our help, or they would have made contact by now and asked for help.

 

 

 

But I still want to know.  Which is very selfish. But I am just human and the curiosity is killing me!

[Bonehead74]

Justin says:

 

So we've got::

 

Bigfoot are a sort of people, not just some other animal. It's immoral to kill one.

 

It's wrong to take a Sasquatch life, but I will try to kill for proof - even though I don't care about them.

_________________________________________________________________

 

Kind of confusing. But I realize he was responding on Facebook.... it's not  like he was writing a blog or answering in an interview.... Just saying what he was thinking off the top of his head....

Kind of a tangent here, but as someone who has read just about every post that Justin has made here, and has talked with him in chat on more than one occasion, that post does not sound like it was written by him. I am not saying he didn't, but it doesn't match his other writings in style or syntax.

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

10-4 on that.....he's a member

Justin did you write that?

[chelefoot]

Kind of a tangent here, but as someone who has read just about every post that Justin has made here, and has talked with him in chat on more than one occasion, that post does not sound like it was written by him. I am not saying he didn't, but it doesn't match his other writings in style or syntax.

I also have read everything he has wrote and thought the same thing Bonehead.

 

Good idea Cervelo. I will ask him to come and answer that question.

[hiflier]

Hello Cervelo,

 

Kudos to you for that post. That's the true spirit of going and getting at the truth of matters such as this. I'm never shy about emailing people or digging at the source of something and bypassing everything I can in the effort to circumvent hearsay and rumor. I strive to give opportunity for an individual to either clear up some messy gossip or dig the hole deeper LOL. May I follow your lead here? Anyone have a direct avenue to ask Mr. Smeja to address the subject firsthand?

 

Hello chelefoot,

 

Thanks, just saw your post.

Edited November 16, 2013 by hiflier