Guest shoot1 Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) I don't know if he hoaxed or not (who does?), but I do know that if his claim of killing two BF are true then he completely screwed up his responsibility to carefully protect and present the DNA evidence. Wearing the boots for a year under hard use including stepping in saltwater? Inexcusable. I am fully in the "kill" club, but only under the most planned, conscientious circumstances. This does not include wanton poaching of an unidentified species, failing to recover the specimens and then even screwing up the one vestige of hope that something could come of it. Whatever emotional distress he is under from this show is well deserved IMHO. Rant over. Yeah, Smeja obviously ignored that memo about having a responsibility to preserve the blood as if it came from a crime scene. He has NO EXCUSE! Shoot him! WTF, man, seriously. Assuming, of course, that he's telling the truth (which I am...) he didn't know the ramifications of what he did or know how valuable that blood could have been and there's no way anyone like him could have been expected to take the kind of precautions that you and I would. Normal people don't volunteer for the kind of scrutiny and ostracism that he is experiencing. Edited October 28, 2013 by shoot1
Gotta Know Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Yeah, Smeja obviously ignored that memo about having a responsibility to preserve the blood as if it came from a crime scene. He has NO EXCUSE! Shoot him! WTF, man, seriously. Assuming, of course, that he's telling the truth (which I am...) he didn't know the ramifications of what he did or know how valuable that blood could have been and there's no way anyone like him could have been expected to take the kind of precautions that you and I would. Normal people don't volunteer for the kind of scrutiny and ostracism that he is experiencing. I have no sympathy for the guy. See "poacher" comment above. Not only did his actions give bigfooters a bad name, so did he mar the reputation of honest hunters. WTF is right. But just directed at the wrong person. 1
Guest DWA Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 It certainly says nothing for a hunter to (say that he did indeed) shoot an upright ape thinking it was a bear. The 1941 Manitoba guy had a good excuse. One thing proponents have been saying for years is that you can't mistake a bear for an upright ape. And a hunter cannot identify bullet placement if he doesn't know what he's shooting at.
BobbyO Posted October 28, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 28, 2013 I don't know if he hoaxed or not (who does?), but I do know that if his claim of killing two BF are true then he completely screwed up his responsibility to carefully protect and present the DNA evidence. Wearing the boots for a year under hard use including stepping in saltwater? Inexcusable. . The circumstances were truly screwed, that's for sure. Am I right in saying that they thought they had gold where the steak was concerned but when initial testing showed that the steak could well be black bear, they then and only then started looking at other pieces of possible evidence, and that's where the boots came into play ? Up until then, the switch just didn't flick where they were concerned, hence him still wearing the boots and putting them through their paces including saltwater. We aren't talking about someone who thinks like a Scientist. He screwed up big time from the minute he pulled that trigger as he didn't know what he was shooting at, all through the evidence gatheringprocesses, but I think he'd be the first one to hold his hands up and say that he knows he screwed up. I've heard him saying it numerous times before. 1
Guest PoPsicle Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 {snip} When will people accept that we need to organize and fund long-term expeditions with the goal of shooting one to get a type-specimen? {snip} You are advocating murder.
Guest Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 You have to bear in mind that the boots had be worn for a year plus after what happened, they were then handed to Bart C after that kind of time and were obviously not worn any more until testing. Does that time frame rid the boots of enough stuff that can be extracted a year plus on when tested ? I don't know. But i do not for one second believe Justin Smeja is or has hoaxed anyone and i think you're out of order for suggesting he has just because Professor X didn't find any blood on boots without adding the context of how he obtained the boots and secondly, when we all know as Smeja has said himself, that the piece of " Steak " wasn't necessarily from what he shot. He has said numerous times that the sample was in no way certain to have come from what he shot. The only reason anyone would look like a " **** " is if they shout their mouth off about something they have no idea exists or not. I didn't, and i've seen one of these things and have no doubt at all, testing boots, hairs and tissue or not, that these things exist. Ok credit that the doc went into no backstory about what did or did not happen to the boots and made no mention of the hair samples coming from a possibly erroneous source. He definitely looked like a man that was broken by the results and not a person that is receiving the expected results. But the results were black bear and no blood on boots. It does look bad no two ways about it. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I could reread the old thread till the cows come home but the end productt will still be believe Smeja or believe the results. For those that know him as opposed to 'of him' (and all the controversy that brings) then maybe its easier to hedge on him. Thoughts on this Bobby - likely many people on this forum havent had an encounter but still have an opinion that they are happy to air - should we all be fearful of looking like idiots if we share our thoughts on the subject?
BobbyO Posted October 28, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 28, 2013 Looks like I was wrong about better contributions..
Guest crabshack Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 You are advocating murder. Yea um, some believe we humans were ordered to kill'em all. Its one reason they hide from us. Did not Smeja still have part of the "steak"? I thought someone did, what happened to that and why was that not tested?
BobbyO Posted October 28, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 28, 2013 Thoughts on this Bobby - likely many people on this forum havent had an encounter but still have an opinion that they are happy to air - should we all be fearful of looking like idiots if we share our thoughts on the subject? You and others can do what you like, I couldn't care less in all honesty what others do. And sorry to sound brutal but ill just tell the truth here, I am extremely wary of anyone in this field who hasn't had an encounter with one of these things yet " believes " they exist. If you haven't encountered one of these things, I don't believe there is any way in the world that you ( not you personally, but you know what i mean ) should be believing they exist, because there is very, very little available in the public domain that suggests they do and program's like last night should only reinforce that. With regards to the Smeja stuff, I've posted a couple oftimes today trying to add a bit of context to how I think events played out where the chronological order of events was concerned and even I don't think I'm being stupid giving slack where necessary on this and that's coming from a very cynical human being. I'm cool with myself anyway for my view on this, of course feel free to think otherwise about the Smeja stuff.
Guest Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) Good point. My husband would agree wholeheartedly that seeing is a believeing and im borderline nut job for thinking that they do butt thats a different story I think it would make me a paranoid fool if i believed Justin when i dont know him and the results came back negative. so even though part of me wants to believe him (and for what its worth he seems like a sound bloke aside from all this mess)but this time lol im going to opt for sanity and say that i cannot be sure and therefore fold. Edited October 28, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC Please don't quote the post directly preceding
Big Stinky Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I posted this on the Sykes thread....why were these hairs not first screened microscopically ...???? It would have saved work and $ ???? Would have liked to see Ketchums " un- catelogged animal" hairs tested ... Big Stinky
Guest Boolywooger Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Hey I thought Sykes was going to prove how the proponents were right all along? BTW, I think more and more this phenomina has a religious cult type aspect that is totally being ignored. I actually don't think we are ignoring the religious cult aspect. I would say that the skeptic/scofftic group displays just as much cult like behavior as any group on the proponent side.
Guest Darrell Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Why is the Smeja story even taken seriously anymore? At best the guy was illegally hunting, a slob hunter so to speak, and at worst he is a bonafide criminal.
Guest shoot1 Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) You are advocating murder. If it is human, then you would be correct and the murderer would get off scot free since they would have had no way of knowing it, so laws would quickly be passed ensuring that it wouldn't happen again. If it is not human then you would be incorrect and laws would (probably, soon) be passed ensuring that it wouldn't happen again. I see no ethical problem with either scenario (Edit:) - mostly because I think it will be closer to ape than human, I don't think that killing an ape is murder, and shooting one would generate a much needed global debate about the ethics of killing other sentient beings. Edited October 28, 2013 by shoot1
Recommended Posts