Guest MikeG 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. I don't condone a witch hunt, certainly, but it appears to me that the condemnation has not been based on any assumptions other than that the chap is telling his story reasonably accurately. He is being judged on his actions as described by his own words. His own words have him killing something he didn't recognise (or have a licence to kill) essentially just because he wanted to. I'll bet that this little furore is as nothing compared with what he will face if it turns out he has lied. I sincerely hope he has lied, actually, and that there is a baby sasquatch in a freezer somewhere. But I'm not holding my breath. Mike
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 One of the things in the Blogtalk interview I find most interesting is when Justin says that the baby was alive at his feet, bleeding on his boots. Then he picked it up. He then says that "a lot of stuff that happened in there...but to summarize it - to make a long story short - it died" Well - he summarized and made short exactly what might be the most interesting part. Does anyone else feel this way? The time when it was dying, apparently in his arms, or at least right in front of him, are the details that I would like to know more about. Why would he "summarize" this part? Saving it for the book? Something disturbing that we didn't want to get in to?
Bonehead74 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Has anyone given thought to the possibility that instead of an unbridled blood-lust, Justin was motivated by curiosity? He claims to have not given thought to BF. From his statements, I don't think he believed the creature he was seeing was a man in a suit, just that that was his initial impression. By all accounts, Justin is an experienced outdoorsman who was suddenly confronted with something he had never seen before. Is it not a possibility that rather than kill for the sake of killing or for monetary gain, his primary motivation was to know what this thing was, and shooting it was the best way to find out? After not finding the adult, perhaps he believed his next best option was to shoot one of the juveniles. Despite what some here have implied or said outright, at no point after his initial impression does it seem that Justin thought these things were human. As far as why they didn't collect the dead juvenile, who knows? The driver seemed panicked or close to it. Panic is contagious. People do amazingly irrational things when they are under duress. Was there fear of an avenging adult? Fear of trouble with Fish & Game? Simply influenced by the driver? Unless Justin clearly articulates his emotional state, (I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps the upcoming book will address this.) we are left to interpret his actions through the lens of our own presuppositions. Maybe he is a reckless killer. Maybe he was swept up in a seemingly bizzare chain of events that got out of control. Until the whole story is known, I choose to suspend a moral judgment.
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Haven't weighed in much here but here goes. Derekfoot brought the story here. Everyone clamored for the General or Dereckfoot to tell the story. The General was basically invited to the forum. Not every experience is going to be pretty wrapped in rainbows and sunshine. Obviously the General knew telling his experience wouldn't be popular, but did it anyway. He hasn't run, or candy-coated anything. He's answered questions, been polite and is now just on this alone being treated unfairly. Whether I agree with his actions or not I congratulate him for his courtesy.
Guest Dr. Boogie 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? I fear that even if all of your questions were answered it would still boil down to how much of it you, or any of us choose to believe? At least for the time being. I am also puzzled by the witch hunt, I suppose that it can only mean that those who've decided to take a moral standpoint have chosen to believe the story (too soon for me but up to them).
See-Te-Cah NC Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Haven't weighed in much here but here goes. Derekfoot brought the story here. Everyone clamored for the General or Dereckfoot to tell the story. The General was basically invited to the forum. Not every experience is going to be pretty wrapped in rainbows and sunshine. Obviously the General knew telling his experience wouldn't be popular, but did it anyway. He hasn't run, or candy-coated anything. He's answered questions, been polite and is now just on this alone being treated unfairly. Whether I agree with his actions or not I congratulate him for his courtesy. +1 to you. This will soon end up with General and Derek staying away from the forums and not answering any more questions, which wouldn't surprise me. Everybody's an expert in hindsight. I know I can be. I wonder what we all have done wrong in our past... Things we should have done differently. Whether it's shooting a bigfoot or cheating on a spouse, we all have regrets and are powerless to change the events of the past. I find that berating someone for past events is both sad and cruel. Although we're quick to judge, we're not doing so to help the situation. We're doing so to show how much "better" we are than the one we feel has offended. I'm guilty as well, and have apologized to General for my judgement or, in my case, the lack there of. Seriously... What is the critique of General's action(s) accomplishing at this point?
Guest maximusnow Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Is it possible, that Impatience is responsible for our jump to conclusions? Some speak as if their convinced this happened or not. The truth with me is that, I want this to be true and can’t wait until the facts are revealed either way. It is like buying a lottery ticket, and making purchases before the drawing. I hope we win!
Guest tpick Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 One of the things in the Blogtalk interview I find most interesting is when Justin says that the baby was alive at his feet, bleeding on his boots. Then he picked it up. He then says that "a lot of stuff that happened in there...but to summarize it - to make a long story short - it died" Well - he summarized and made short exactly what might be the most interesting part. Does anyone else feel this way? The time when it was dying, apparently in his arms, or at least right in front of him, are the details that I would like to know more about. Why would he "summarize" this part? Saving it for the book? Something disturbing that we didn't want to get in to? (not replying to you specifically Harry) This thread cycles every few pages back to crucifying General. I think enough is enough. I've seen men who butchered children get more sympathy than this. You've all had your righteous rants. Give it a break. The guy has been here for OUR benefit and it has cost him dearly. I have been fascinated by his detail by detail explanation of bigfoot and the events of that day. The rest of you have been too or you are not really interested in the discovery of Bigfoot. Thanks again Justin for subjecting yourself to this.
Guest slimwitless Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Has anyone given thought to the possibility that instead of an unbridled blood-lust, Justin was motivated by curiosity? He claims to have not given thought to BF. From his statements, I don't think he believed the creature he was seeing was a man in a suit, just that that was his initial impression. By all accounts, Justin is an experienced outdoorsman who was suddenly confronted with something he had never seen before. Is it not a possibility that rather than kill for the sake of killing or for monetary gain, his primary motivation was to know what this thing was, and shooting it was the best way to find out? After not finding the adult, perhaps he believed his next best option was to shoot one of the juveniles. Despite what some here have implied or said outright, at no point after his initial impression does it seem that Justin thought these things were human. As far as why they didn't collect the dead juvenile, who knows? The driver seemed panicked or close to it. Panic is contagious. People do amazingly irrational things when they are under duress. Was there fear of an avenging adult? Fear of trouble with Fish & Game? Simply influenced by the driver? Unless Justin clearly articulates his emotional state, (I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps the upcoming book will address this.) we are left to interpret his actions through the lens of our own presuppositions. Maybe he is a reckless killer. Maybe he was swept up in a seemingly bizzare chain of events that got out of control. Until the whole story is known, I choose to suspend a moral judgment. Yes. This is exactly how I read it. No doubt there's more to the story.
Sasfooty Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I find that berating someone for past events is both sad and cruel. Although we're quick to judge, we're not doing so to help the situation. We're doing so to show how much "better" we are than the one we feel has offended. I'm guilty as well, and have apologized to General for my judgement or, in my case, the lack there of. Seriously... What is the critique of General's action(s) accomplishing at this point? You're right. All of this does no good at this point, & I have no justification for my part in it. My only excuse is that I think about the ones I have known, & how sad it would be to kill these beings for our own useless reasons. Although I can't truthfully say I'm sorry for what I have already said, whatever his reasons were, I will not have any more part in the witch hunt. Enough is enough. Edited January 5, 2012 by Sasfooty
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I've been interested in the squatch mystery since the mid 1970's. I don't contribute to research mainly because my trained profession doesn't overlap at all with squatch research and I just don't have the time to get into the field (i have 4 girls...i'm VERY busy raising them). But after listening to the interview on squatchdetective, i've found a way that my 15+ years of professional training and experience can actually contribute to research. In my profession I spend a ton of time listening to "stories" to determine if they are real, exaggerated, false, reasonable, etc. My assessments can be based off of the details of the story, the character traits of the teller, the consistency of details (or lack of), the tone of responses, the words chosen for responding, the pauses taken in response, does the info fit, does it make sense, are there independent corroborating data points, etc, etc. There are hundreds of clues that people give when speaking. A major part of my job is deciphering that information to make investment decisions. Usually I have some control over the questions asked and I can steer the situation to suit my aims. I couldn't do that for the "shooter" interview, but there was still good info in the interview. My initial take is not all, but the preponderance of data points I heard lead me to believe the probability the shooter was not telling the whole truth was materially greater than 50%. The shooter was evasive, ambiguous, searching, at times verbose and other times curt, etc. etc. I'm not saying I know it with 100% certainty, but I have a greater than 50% confidence that the story is materially different from the reality of what happened that day. Does that mean we are hearing a sanitized version of the killings? It's worse than what we have been told? If that is true, then I'm actually thankful because it is heartbreaking enough as it is being told, much less something even worse, possibly occurring. He is free to hunt as much as he wishes to hunt, I'm concerned that he gets pleasure from killing stuff because it makes him feel like a God passing judgement on what lives and what doesn't live, and if that were true, it could cause him future problems with accidental shootings of something that was not supposed to be killed at that time or place.
Guest Cervelo Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Just glad he doesn't hunt where I hike!!!
Guest MJ151 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I have been following this thread since the beginning. I don't know the General, Derek or any of the others involved in this incident. I do think the story is for the most part legit. I wasn't there, I didn't see it go down. I don't think the General is a maniacal blood thirsty killer. Some obviously disagree, and that fine. But to put something in perspective, the same has been said about hunters for years by anti-hunting groups and people. They have been called the same thing for killing poor old Bambi and Thumper. I get the impression he regrets having done what he did. I do know that if I was put in the position of having to shoot one I would. The same as I would with a bear or any other animal that I felt threatened by. I also know there is no way in hell I would come on this board and ever say one word about it. I think some of the things he has been called have been over the top, in my opinion. You can fall in to what ever camp you like, kill/no kill, but I think we all deserve the common courtesy of not being called names or implied names.
See-Te-Cah NC Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Just glad he doesn't hunt where I hike!!! I just hope you're not foolish enough to hike in heavily hunted areas during hunting season without a blaze orange vest and hat. 1
Guest MJ151 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Double post, sorry. Edited January 5, 2012 by MJ151
Recommended Posts