Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 He stated he doesn't see anything wrong with poaching, which is a bit of a red flag. Anyway, I'm pretty sure he's telling the truth up to the part where he shot the little one. The part where he recovered the steak sounded weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Lights Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 As far as being callous, sorry but there are many, many, many hunters who have the same exact temperament. I believe you. One more reason in my long list why I won't be taking up hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scooterdad Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) The only part that seemed like he was holding back was a bout going back to find the little one. Seems like its not correct, like he wasn't giving all the details and really the more I think about it the more I think he was holding things back Edited July 16, 2012 by scooterdad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 He first said he shot both "kids" then realized what he said and said, "I mean kid." I found that odd. Not a natural mistake to make from what I saw. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'm a hunter and can assure you that this guys viewpoint is in the minority of hunters I've dealt with in my 52years. The only time I've ever had any dealings with hunters that disregarded the season is people who were subsistance hunting. While it might be a hard concept for a none hunter to understand but most hunters don't enjoy killing but obviously some do there's a description for that type of behavior and disregard for life in general but the rules of this fourm would inhibit me from using it in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 While I certainly don't condone the thinking or attitude of Justin at the time of the shooting, I do have some understanding of it. As a youngster I used to hunt quite often, up until I had a "bad kill" (it didn't die immediately and I couldn't get to it in the bushes for the coup de grace). That moment for me was an eye opener that what I was doing caused pain. While I'm not anti-hunting now, I just haven't hunted in decades. If you want to know more about the attitude of Justin, just watch a few hours of the Outdoor Channel... some of the hunting shows. It rankles me when I see hunters high fiving and celebrating over a kill rather than showing respect to the animal they shot, it is kind of the new age of taunting in professional sports taken into the field IMHO. In defense of Justin I think one thing I took from the interview is that the shooting did impact him, and likely changed his attitude. However, it does seem to me that there are elements of the story that haven't been told or told with complete honesty that might be of further embarrassment to him. I commend him for doing the interview and spending his own money for additional DNA study. Another thing that struck me from the interview is that he said the big one looked "like a guy in a bear suit", kind of like the same way the PGF looks like "a guy in a suit". It is very interesting that the children looked remarkably different than the adult. It may be that the adult was the mother, and maybe the kids "took after" the father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Cervelo thank you for speaking up for us hunters, I also felt the need to defend the majority of hunters who hunt ethically. I am a long time hunter and hunt to feed myself and my family. I feel that part of the weight problem going on in the US right now is that people no longer look at food as fuel for the human body but as something to stuff in their mouth when they get hungry. I know no onw with a kill'em all attitude and don't care to. I honestly feel closer to the earth than ever hunting in the woods with my bow and arrow. Always in my mind is the thought that I am doing something that man has done since the begining of time. So as not to get completely off topic I would like to address the video. I was speaking with my boss today about it. I don't believe he is telling the truth. Did he kill some bigfoots? More than likely as derekfoot has vouched for him several times and stated he believes him. I do as well on that point but I would bet my last dollar that it went down different than the story he is telling. I just really have a hard time believing some one who spends that much time on a taxedermy website and who stated himself that he killed the little one(s) because no one would believe him didn't take a body out of the woods with him, Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I just really have a hard time believing some one who spends that much time on a taxedermy website and who stated himself that he killed the little one(s) because no one would believe him didn't take a body out of the woods with him, Just my opinion. This is a very cogent point. Why would a person not carry a 35 lb kill out when they had the chance? Of course, he indicated that his mindset at the moment was that he just killed a "child", so it may be that he was more interested in hiding the evidence. But as you say, if he knows that it really wasn't a human (and I have a hard time believing he would think otherwise since it was so much like a gorilla face and nose), then as a taxidermy hobbiest then it would make more sense to take the small one with him. But one other thought might be the motivation of the Driver. Would the drive have objected to taking the body, therefore Justin decided to just hide it in a place he could find later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I recall he said as he held the little one in front of himself something happened. Whatever it was changed his attidude about what they were and he suddenly realized he had killed a "Cousin". Then he got scared and hid the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 16, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 16, 2012 I just really have a hard time believing some one who spends that much time on a taxedermy website and who stated himself that he killed the little one(s) because no one would believe him didn't take a body out of the woods with him, Just my opinion. This is the first thing i said when the story broke. & i still don't " get ", like you say, how someone who was spending time on a taxidermy site prior to what happened, wouldn't have took more than just a piece of flesh and i don't care what the circumstances were and the shock of it all etc. I recall he said as he held the little one in front of himself something happened. Whatever it was changed his attidude about what they were and he suddenly realized he had killed a "Cousin". Then he got scared and hid the body. It was the look in its eyes he said, before it died. The only thing i'd say that would have stopped him from taking it, if anything did in fact stop him from taking it, was the worry that he may have been on first degree murder charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighunter43 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I also think he just flat put panicked.....about the Game & Fish maybe being in the area & coming to the shots! One thing im confused on, and maybe someone can clear up....am I right in that he said that while going back for the body of the little one (which was covered in snow & they couldn't locate)....they just happened to find the piece of fur/skin/steak laying around?? And....was this piece was from the adult or young? Help me out here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 My official BFF hat is now off. The story seems to be believable in many aspects, but I agree that there are things he's not ready to reveal. Maybe the host and Justin should have started drinking about two beers sooner. We might know a bit more. Seriously, I liked the relaxed atmosphere and the personal "friend over having a beer" interview style. I found it was actually more than I was expecting. One reason I feel that he is believable is the fact that he doesn't seem to be sugar-coating his story. It would be mighty easy for Justin to add a few embellishments and modify certain accounts to seem more likeable and more appealing than he presented himself in the video. When someone gives an account of something they were involved in, they usually present themselves in the best possible light, leaving out details that might lead others to see them as less than right or truthful. Justin mentioned a few details that he could have probably left out of the interview, or at least described them differently. Yet he presented the account in a way that left you wondering why he'd do such a thing in the situation with the young one. As bad as I hate to say it, his unflattering statements and descriptions add a degree of credibility to his account. Whether that account is actually factual... well, we'll just have to see how it plays out. I feel like something here just isn't right, though. Something big is missing. I don't want to speculate to cause him trouble, but I believe that there's much more to this story than is being presented. My main doubt - besides the fact it may turn out to be a hoax - is the premise of the account as a whole. Listen to Justin's account again. Pay particular attention to when he's discussing posting his question on the taxidermy website. Let me ask you a question - Why would an experienced hunter ask a question akin to "So if you saw a Bigfoot would you shoot it?" if he didn't know what a Bigfoot was, as he claimed? Logic says that he certainly knew what a Bigfoot was at the time he posted on Taxidermy.net. Granted, he may not have known when he shot them, but he certainly knew when he posted his question on the forum. So, why do people visit taxidermy websites? The same reason you visit any other website - Because you enjoy the subject, want to learn more and possibly learn techniques and opinions from others to assist you with a project or endeavor. To me, it seems that an experienced hunter asking a question like that on a taxidermy website is a bit odd, but so is possibly shooting a Bigfoot. This post may not have been in the "Stuff It" sub-forum, but it was at a taxidermy website nonetheless. I can see the post as a test of the waters... Feeling out the situation, if you will. I have no proof of this, but I propose that the reason for the visit and question could have been because he was in possession of the small Bigfoot at the time. Hunters stuff things, especially odd and rare things. It's an ego thing... I see it every year. Think about it... If he knew what it was when he posted on Taxidermy.net, he could have posted on the BFF or any number of Bigfoot forums - All easily found by a Google search. It is entirely possible he didn't post that way because that's not where the information he needed was or where his interest was. If he knew what he had, why wouldn't he go to a source where there would be more information, more qualified opinions (well, as qualified as they can be) and more resources to claim some loot? I know it is a bit of a stretch and I may be completely wrong. I freely admit that. However, there's a part of me that just has a feeling that this could be that missing piece of the puzzle. There's a reason why the samples, videos, scientific papers and the stories accompanying them are taking so long. I theorize that it could be because there is an actual juvenile specimen of a creature - or a part of a larger creature - that needed to be examined, categorized and, as seems to be happening while waiting, protected in the future. These things take time, and the scientific journals could be waiting to publish in an effort to help facilitate these things... Especially the protection part. Then again, I could be along for the ride just like everyone else. I hope there isn't another "freezer" moment. Just putting it out there. Your mileage will probably vary. I'm now putting on my BFF hat again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Just from the sense of looking at where the empty spaces in the story are (i.e. that which was left unsaid), I get the feeling that he has the baby bigfoot body. Who was the driver by the way? Does he get an interview too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I don't buy the story, but if true I as well believe he has the body and it most likely "spoke" to him when it was dying. Edited July 16, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 So, I talked myself into watching it. Two things surprised me. Firstly, I think he seems like an ok kinda bloke, and not a complete toss pot. Secondly, and sadly, I believe his story. Sadly, because he's clearly affected by it, and two very rare creatures died. I also feel like there is a larger sample. Certainly enough to be sending to various labs. Possibly the body of the juvenile. I wonder if Prof Sykes has had any, and if that's the lab he's referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts