Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I don't see why everyone is outraged that there may have been some talk of a man in a suit, then Justin still proceeded to fire. If a guy is wearing a bear suit in bear season, Justin just handed him his Darwin Award. I heard the whole interview myself, and with regards to the younger one, I heard Justin say it kept getting closer and closer and he didn't know what it was going to do, so he shot. That doesn't sound quite as murderous as it's being made out to be. I guess since none of us were there, we don't really know exactly how it went down.
bipedalist Posted January 5, 2012 BFF Patron Posted January 5, 2012 BBF Members- OK so here we are, even Justin has admitted to a bad time of desision making. We still have a man who can be redemded here. When we make a mistake sometimes we can hang our head and try to carry on the best we can. Sometimes we are accountable to a boss, a wife a judge a friend. I can't buy totally in to the story 100% but what is done IS done. Nothing will bring the two Sas back. Nothing we can do in "judging" Justin will change the past. However my question still stands which I have asked Justin is this- would you consider some sort of restitution for the loss of a viable and child bearing Sas. Would you consider speaking to a hunting club letting them know to watch out for something that may strike a hunter as something certainly out of the ordinary? Would you consider re telling your testimony in front of a legislative commitee if you knew it may help in the protection of Sas? just wondering Justin if any healing can take place in the aftermath of this incident? Do you feel in any way that a restitution would be worth while? Just wondering if you might consider that path ; if it would possibly make you feel a little better at this stage. ptangier You my man have got the biggest pair on the thread and win the daily prize. The only voice of reason in the whole thread. It would make alot of us feel better if the bloodbath could stop with Smeja via Ketchum. I hope Justin (if the story plays out as described in thread/book) will rue the day that he made a decision such as that he made and perhaps take you up on the sentiments as espoused above. Hands over head at that distance and juveniles chattering as if "they were talking about what to do next" says it all for me. There will be a need for an organized protective effort (whether they need it or not---seems like they may) and I hope that cusp day is on the immediate horizon.
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Ditto Bonehead!!! I think all of you who are grieving, crying, threatening, and calling your congressmen over two dead bigfoot probably need to pause for a moment and ask yourself, " At what point in my life did I lose sight of reality?". reality...on a bigfoot discussion site...talk about an anachronism...who woulda thunk it prior to having seen one? I supposed I lost sight of mine about the time I realized the only thing Justin is truly sorry about is that he didn't finish the job and collect even more evidence. If anyone thinks he is genuinely sorry for shooting the critters I have some air in the bed of my truck I'd like to sell you cheap. After listening to the interview 4 times I can honestly say he reminds me of my old uncle Duncan. The man was a great woodsmen, a slayer yes, hunter...not really. He was the type that would club a baby fur seal to death with a California Condor and laugh about it afterwards. Edited January 5, 2012 by Tautriadelta
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 My problem lies not in "collecting" a specimen. If you are going to kill one just grow a pair after the deed is done and do the collecting part of the task. And spare me the DDT lecture in this thread at least. I'm a marine biologist, I've spent hundreds of hours pouring over her "data" researching my dissertation. Well I'm with you on the collecting part. What you missed apparently was that it was not a DDT lecture. It was an arbitrary example about being able to examine the root of a problem within a species by examining the specimen. If we have no bf specimen, it will be extremely difficult to know anything along these lines for sure. I'll use another comparison if "DDT" puts you off. How about these red-winged blackbirds in Arkansas that drop dead on New Years Eve? Should we just leave them alone or examine them and look into the theory that we killed them? I think the fireworks startling them theory is a pretty good one. There were less fireworks this year and less deaths in the same area where they had twice as many last year. I think examining the problem (and specimens) was beneficial here. They looked at the specimen and ruled out variables. They also found certain variables that were present and at least formulated a plan (whether it was right or wrong). If you are an ornithologist too, I apologize in advance for the bird-death homework reminder that you may have just endured. He didn't get a specimen, but he claims have to recovered a piece of one. If this is proven to be true, it would lead to a whole one in short time - no doubt (If this really happened). I understand people get upset because this might also lead to hunting or the taking of specimens for science, but the benefits could far outweigh the harm.
Guest slimwitless Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 General, I've scouted ahead and I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is your enemies are divided; half think you're a fraud and the other half think you're a maniac. The bad news? They never attack each other (so forget about "Divide and Conquer" and read a proper translation of "The Art Of War"). Take care, General. There's just no room for your ragtag squad on the tip of this very large iceberg. (It's too bad the driver isn't an Admiral).
Guest rolando Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I listened to the youtube link to the interview. Once again, the General comes off as very believable. It is clear from listening that re-telling this story seems to be a pain in the a$$ for him. He simply not a natural storyteller. Its like torture for him. Also, when he says something to the effect of "we came to the woods today to kill animals....", that comes off as totally real. This guy is a hunter. He kills things, end of story. Not a hoaxer in my book.
Guest Strick Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I agree, Bonehead. I don't know why they haven't tested the bloody clothes Justin has stashed in a "safe place". That clothing is the only evidence with a "chain of custody" to the shooting. If the blood was revealed through genetic testing to be somehow related to the other sample, it would pretty much confirm the central premise of the story. Excellent idea. Why didn't anyone else think of that? Maybe they have, but a point for opening up a new avenue of enquiry and not going round and round in circles like the rest of us.
Guest Dr. Boogie Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 General, I've scouted ahead and I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is your enemies are divided; half think you're a fraud and the other half think you're a maniac. The bad news? They never attack each other (so forget about "Divide and Conquer" and read a proper translation of "The Art Of War"). Take care, General. There's just no room for your ragtag squad on the tip of this very large iceberg. (It's too bad the driver isn't an Admiral). I realise that your post is tongue in cheek and I don't know if I'd be classed as one of the 'enemies' as I'm not convinced by the story but I'd sure as hell love to be wrong, wouldn't that make our world a whole lot more interesting?
Guest Strick Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) .................. having been an elk hunting guide in Colorado, a Texas farm boy, growing up in the shadows of the Big Thicket, a career Marine with requisite righting of wrongs...I can tell you with utmost confidence and authority that I know when I see a fellow with a rifle that just wants to shoot something different. I can smell a million miles away and even through cyberspace and I am certain I'm not the only one. Hey fine, free country and all that, but I'm just calling a spade a spade. Every hunter knows the type I am talking about. There's no shame Justin, just admit it, no need to sugar-coat and tip-toe around the truth. Here I will even as we say in the Corps "Break it down Barney-Style" for you. Simple, fast and to the point, honest. The truth shall set you free as they say. I think you're right. I'm trying to avoid moralizing about the alleged shooting incident and just concentrate on his words as heard in the interview. I'm not big on moralizing in general (no pun intended) and to do so about an incident that may not have occurred at all would be a misplaced waste of my compassion. You are correct that what comes over most tellingly in the transcript is that Justin really, really wanted to shoot that big hairy thing he saw on that day. I accept Jodie's point that he might not be the most articulate bloke in the world and unused to speaking on the radio and all that, but what really comes over is his desire to take the shot, even though he's casually mentions that it looks just like a guy in a bear suit and that he expects to see a film crew at any moment come round the corner and he has no idea what the target is. He's not so much ignoring the hunting rule book as merrily ripping out the pages, while chucking them out of the window laughing hysterically..... Edited January 5, 2012 by Strick
slabdog Posted January 5, 2012 Author Posted January 5, 2012 Guys, I have some bad news... on my way to work today... I saw... vultures circling in the sky over some trees. We all know what that means; another animal has died *lip quivers* (oh yeah and also thousands upon thousands of people were ripped from their families, tortured, and murdered in hundreds of different atrocities happening presently all over the world) Let's get a grip people! Dude! Funny stuff!
Guest slimwitless Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Excellent idea. Why didn't anyone else think of that? Maybe they have, but a point for opening up a new avenue of enquiry and not going round and round in circles like the rest of us. Maybe they have and it's the feather in their cap.
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 A few minutes ago Cliff Barackman was interviewed on FNC's *Fox and Friends* morning show. Pretty good overall interview although he made a statement that there were roughly 9000 BF across the US and Canada. Not sure where he got that finite number. Said BF was undoubtedly an *as yet* undocumented NA primate. They asked him about the PGF and he said there was no doubt it depicted a real creature and that 7-8 people had claimed to be the *person in the suit* but were not credible since they were unaware of the true location of the PGF filming and had failed to bring the suit forth. Just ironic that I was prepping to respond to this thread and could hear the interview with Cliff in the background on FNC. BF needs to be documented, and it is my firm belief that no eyewitness testimony, photo or film, or any other evidence sans a *body/or parts of one* will be sufficient to meet the scrutiny it will assuredly face. Not sure what to make of the story regarding General. Some parts sound plausible, others not so much, and I guess the final determining factor will be the DNA analysis. I'm certainly in the Pro-Kill camp. I realize that is a touchy subject with some, and I respect the position of the opposing camp. I think it boils down to a personal decision more than anything else. I don't think one side of the argument is on any substantial measure of *moral higher ground* than the other is. Most of those in the Pro-Kill camp have no measure of blood-lust as their motive. More a case of collecting an as yet undocumented sample to establish the species so protections for both the species and habitat to support it could be provided. 99.9% of we proponents of a Pro-Kill stance would immediately become No-Kill after the first specimen was collected. I guess the personal problems I have with the story regarding the *Sierra Shootings*, (providing it has merit), revolve more about what actions were taken after the fact. Perfectly legitimate as MikeG alludes to take a BF if there is a personal threat or for the collection of a scientific sample. I guess I don't get the need to shoot the juvenile unless it presented a threat or was too young to survive without its mother. I also don't get the fact that the proper authorities weren't called and/or measures not taken to preserve the bodies. So, that leads me to believe there were no thoughts about providing a specimen. Doesn't sound like there was an immediate personal threat either. In the end, I guess I don't understand the reason for pulling the trigger in this case if things went down as related. I state that from a stance of Pro-Kill for the first one and first one only. But the apparent handling of the aftermath of the situation concerns me much more than the event itself. The perfect scenario in my mind would have been to take measures to document and preserve the body/bodies so the sacrifice of the life/lives could have been used to benefit the species. I'd break my neck to rush to the No-Kill side and join their ranks if it had been handled properly. Of course, that is assuming that there is merit to the story.
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Well I'm with you on the collecting part. What you missed apparently was that it was not a DDT lecture. It was an arbitrary example about being able to examine the root of a problem within a species by examining the specimen. If we have no bf specimen, it will be extremely difficult to know anything along these lines for sure. I'll use another comparison if "DDT" puts you off. How about these red-winged blackbirds in Arkansas that drop dead on New Years Eve? Should we just leave them alone or examine them and look into the theory that we killed them? I think the fireworks startling them theory is a pretty good one. There were less fireworks this year and less deaths in the same area where they had twice as many last year. I think examining the problem (and specimens) was beneficial here. They looked at the specimen and ruled out variables. They also found certain variables that were present and at least formulated a plan (whether it was right or wrong). If you are an ornithologist too, I apologize in advance for the bird-death homework reminder that you may have just endured. He didn't get a specimen, but he claims have to recovered a piece of one. If this is proven to be true, it would lead to a whole one in short time - no doubt (If this really happened). I understand people get upset because this might also lead to hunting or the taking of specimens for science, but the benefits could far outweigh the harm. Should we have just left the bald eagles alone when we were inadvertently killing them off by using DDT? Or should we have tried to learn what was going on by examining them? It's a good thing we tried to learn what was going on because we saved them. hould we have just left the bald eagles alone when we were inadvertently killing them off by using DDT? I didn't miss the point, you predicated your response by issuing the above as a blanket statement of fact, not supported by actual facts; and that many scientist and actual ornithologist consider a myth. As for birds and fireworks....it doesn't take a nobel laureate to realize that fireworks effect birds. Walk down any military flight line in the morning and listen the ground crews popping flares to scare away birds on the tarmac, or goto the city dump in Houston and watch the workers pop flares to frighten hoards of gulls away in a panic. I hope he has his specimen, I hope it all pans out, they do require habitat protection, but NOT management. Edited January 5, 2012 by Tautriadelta
Sasfooty Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 but what really comes over is his desire to take the shot, even though he's casually mentions that it looks just like a guy in a bear suit and that he expects to see a film crew at any moment come round the corner and he has no idea what the target is. He's not so much ignoring the hunting rule book as merrily ripping out the pages, while chucking them out of the window laughing hysterically..... That's one of the points that bothers me so much. He doesn't even try to pretend to have a good reason for what he did, other than he wanted to kill something, anything, apparently. A bear, a man in a bear suit, a monster, or whatever happened to be standing in front of him. The little one might have survived if they had found the first one to gloat over, but there was no bloody body, so he decides to shoot another one. He claims to be an experienced hunter, but calmly does something that is this irresponsible??? How can people condone this???? Never mind that two innocent lives were taken for NO reason whatsoever, except his blood lust. I think the state needs to look into stopping him from ever again having a hunting license. To me, the only part of the whole sordid mess that redeems him in any way is the fact that he didn't take the body. He, at least realized that he had done something terribly wrong, & would probably be in big trouble if caught with the body. Not much conciliation to the dead & their families, but at least he saw the error of his ways.
Guest Jodie Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 No one is condoning what Justin did, what I have a problem with is the "witch hunt" that has progressed on this thread based on assumptions that aren't confirmed. As far as I'm concerned, if this is the sanitized version of the story I would hate to see the more detailed version. If someone were going to lie, I think you could come up with something better than this story. I can't imagine anyone putting themselves through this kind of scrutiny unless they weren't somewhat remorseful. What motive would there be for telling this version of the story? I can't think of one that really makes sense, people usually tend to put themselves in a better light. I think someone ( was it Lindsay?) a some kind of background search on Justin, once they dug his name up, and there was no criminal history found. Whatever you might think of his actions, it's not looking like it is a symptom of some serious underlying issue that has been ongoing. I do have some questions that got lost in the shuffle, though, dates are kind of fuzzy after the shooting, but when was the sample mailed to Dr. Ketchum's lab? I and a couple of other forum members were looking at the past weather reports for the area where the shooting took place. There was no heavy snow recorded until Thanksgiving in the vicinity. So if the shooting took place on Oct. 8th, and it was 2-4 weeks before Justin and Driver got up there, then they might have found flesh/hide/hair, but it would not have been under snow. If the snow was only on the mountain top for those weeks, not necessarily in the valley, then the predators would not have gotten to the bodies and their would have been more of the sample present, in better condition. I can't seem to find a specific weather report for that mountain and elevation so I was wondering about it. Or do I need to wait on the book for these details?
Recommended Posts