Guest slimwitless Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I totally understand that decision. Justin was beginning to give your project a bad name, I think that's pretty clear. I think he could have shown more class in that interview. I was completely stunned by some of what he said. And not in a good way. He really didn't say much he hasn't said before....except for the part about the having the sample tested at a prominent lab. And here I didn't even think he had money for gas. Anyway, here's hoping we have something more profound to discuss in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I think Justin has always been nothing but honest, and now he's getting crucified for it. I think Justin's harshness only adds to the reality of what happened. He hunted a long time and shot many animals, not every hunter has the same hunting views. I share Derek's thoughts on hunting ethics, but the reality is that there is hunters that don't have a code or lawfully need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Norseman, my point stems from possibility they are members of the genus homo. You know this. The only defense for shooting one at this time is ignorance. It is impossible to make an argument for an ethical shooting when not threatened because one can't prove they knew what they were shooting at. Not knowing what your shooting IS unethical, you'll have no argument from me there. But you'll never get me to believe that harvesting a type specimen in the name of science is unethical........ I don't expect someone to be legally in trouble due to the fact they can claim ignorance without BF being proven to exist. At the moment, there is a good argument that it is simply unethical unless ones life is threatened. If proven to be from the genus homo, At this point? I'm becoming very frustrated with our debate. Let me get this straight..........shooting one is unethical IF it's PROVEN to be from the genus homo!!?? Without shooting one in order to provide a type specimen to science which will then establish it somewhere on the tree of life? Your NEVER going to likely have your answer.......... What separates the main pro kill camp from the redneck minions is the simple fact that I HOPE that one is found on the road dead and we could use that as a type specimen. There is no blood lust along this line of reasoning.......only impatience with the "mainstream" of bigfootery that takes on a much more passive approach to the mystery that has thus far failed to end it. it will also be illegal and immoral, even if they aren't homo sapiens sapiens. I'd be delighted to hear they aren't from the genus homo, but when I hear your wolud be hero "Justin Smeja" say they are "very very human" I have serious doubts that my hypothesis is far from the truth. Shoot ONE..........establish it as a species and then place it on the endangered species list so that it can be properly protected forever more..........that's all I ask. Resin tracks and camera trap pictures are very cool and all, but none of them are going to convince science of anything. Who knows.........this species may not have another 50 years left in the tank. As far as Justin Smeja? I stopped watching the video after he claimed he thought it was a dude in the suit and shot anyhow because it "Served the (implied expletive deleted) right........". While I agree that someone who thinks it is funny to dress up in a gorilla costume and go hiking around the forest during deer season definitely deserves the Darwin award? I certainly do not want to be THE person that smokes them, and live with that for the rest of my life. When I do a call/decoy setup? I make sure that I'm within 50-60 yards of the decoy so that I could make a positive identification, that allows me to pull the trigger without regrets. And if I have doubts.........it walks, it's that simple. But this simply limits a person as to what sort of setups they can do. I own a rifle that can make a lethal shot out to 300 yards, which also places the shooter farther from harms way and also hides him better from detection. BUT, at 300 yards from your target can you really make a positive identification through a rifle scope? I wouldn't want to try it. Edited July 18, 2012 by MikeG .......Implied expletive deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) General ever reply on here anymore? Edited July 18, 2012 by Hoosierfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rolando Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) From his first post on this forum as "General" right up to this video, Justin has come off as nothing but genuine and honest. He's not a natural story teller. He a real person with a real story. His attitude about hunting and killing reminds me of my brother: He has no emotional connection with his prey. I don't think this is unusual at all for hunters, at least from what I've seen. I think perhaps Derekfoot has to realize that he can't control Justin and that Justin's coarse way of speaking bears no reflection on Derekfoot or the Olympic project. On the contrary, Justin's very real and candid style is exactly what is needed to help bring credibility to the whole topic of Sasquatch. I would rather NOT watch a video of carefully scripted, politically correct, BS. It would detract greatly from the believability of Justin's story and also the existance of Sasquatch itself. Also, after reading the reactions to the video, I see that an unusually high percentage of respondents come away with a strong belief in Justin's story. In fact, whether the story is true or not has become a side issue. The discussion has become more about ethics. For me as a long time lurker and reader of this forum, that is very impressive. Edit: Just an extra comment: See-Te-Cah NC, your observations regarding how the subject of the "kids" was dealt with is very intriguing. When I think about how he describes putting the kid in the bushes and covering him with some stuff, it just seemed incomplete; like not really well described and not a really good way to hide and preserve a body. Edited July 18, 2012 by rolando Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 18, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 18, 2012 General ever reply on here anymore? I'm sure he is tempted. He was reading the thread last night shortly after Derekfoot posted. He got the messages that were intended to be sent, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2012 I think Justin has always been nothing but honest, and now he's getting crucified for it. He may have been nothing but honest which is always something i'd prefer even if i don't like the truth, but that doesn't mean you do have to like that same truth and in this instance, it most certainly isn't surprising after some of the stuff he said on that interview that he is getting crucified because certain parts of it was just downright shameful.. Even if he is full of remorse now and realised he made dreadful judgement calls on a few occasions and was completely truthful when speaking of it, that still doesn't mean people should or would be happy with the way things went down. From his first post on this forum as "General" right up to this video, Justin has come off as nothing but genuine and honest. He's not a natural story teller. He a real person with a real story. His attitude about hunting and killing reminds me of my brother: He has no emotional connection with his prey. I don't think this is unusual at all for hunters, at least from what I've seen. Having no emotional connection with Animals that you shoot is one thing, having no emotional connection with something you described as a " Kid " and then just tossing it at your Hunting Partner after it dies in your hands/arms after you've shot it for no real apparent reason, is most something else entirely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Rolando, Like I said your perception of Justin's behavior is much more fascinating to to me than Justin's behavior, his is pretty much run of the mill. I'm am well aware of the rules, if I where to suggest he is the type of person that runs over turtles just because they don't belong in the road or to hear them pop maybe then I might run afoul of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 You're all getting too close to the line here guys. Justin is a member here, so the rules about respecting fellow members applies. So, you have two options.........take it to the Tar Pit, or take it to PM. We might have to do a bit of tidying up in here....... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Not knowing what your shooting IS unethical, you'll have no argument from me there. But you'll never get me to believe that harvesting a type specimen in the name of science is unethical........ I'd have no issue with it if it were a new species of bear or whatever, but a great ape that alegedly speaks is off limits on pro-kill. It's that simple. At this point? I'm becoming very frustrated with our debate. Let me get this straight..........shooting one is unethical IF it's PROVEN to be from the genus homo!!?? Without shooting one in order to provide a type specimen to science which will then establish it somewhere on the tree of life? Your NEVER going to likely have your answer.......... Not so, Denisovans are established as hominin and genus homo despite the fact it's molar has distinct morphology and different from Neanderthals and Modern humans. The DNA was the clincher, and they know now that it also interbred with modern humans. So it is different, yet genus homo. I don't need a body and neither does science to know BF not only exists but is within a particular genus and has variants across the country. A single specimen won't do all that, but biological samples collected across the country can. What separates the main pro kill camp from the redneck minions is the simple fact that I HOPE that one is found on the road dead and we could use that as a type specimen. There is no blood lust along this line of reasoning.......only impatience with the "mainstream" of bigfootery that takes on a much more passive approach to the mystery that has thus far failed to end it. Well don't blame bigfootery for not finding a dead one on the road, thats on bigfoot for not getting hit, or on the innocent drivers who refused to clip him good enough. I think the end is coming though, science is catching up to old biggy, with or without a body. Science would still refrain from declaring a new extant species until they know what the DNA says, They have to find where it fits on the tree of life, and extract as much info as they can. It takes time to write all that up, but bigfoot isn't going anywhere in the meantime. Shoot ONE.......... You can't if it looks like a guy in a suit to you............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 ++++1 Derek! I am with you all the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I wonder if somewhere out there there's a woman waiting for the old man and kids to get home after trying out their new gillie suits... Seriously, I can't believe this epic tale. Not for a minute. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) You don't believe they retrieved DNA material that has been tested and analyzed? Edit for speeeling Edited July 18, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luckyfoot Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'd have no issue with it if it were a new species of bear or whatever, but a great ape that alegedly speaks is off limits on pro-kill. It's that simple. I don't need a body and neither does science to know BF not only exists but is within a particular genus and has variants across the country. A single specimen won't do all that, but biological samples collected across the country can. Again, don't agree with any of your arguments. A body IS the proof we need. Biological samples are a good beginning, but not enough proof. Also strongly believe the first person to bring one in will get off scot-free and prolly make hisself rich. He definatley won't go to jail. Or be charged with anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Again, don't agree with any of your arguments. A body IS the proof we need. Biological samples are a good beginning, but not enough proof. Also strongly believe the first person to bring one in will get off scot-free and prolly make hisself rich. He definatley won't go to jail. Or be charged with anything. Then you aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with science where proof is concerned. The Scientists who are doing the DNA studies aren't doing it because there is no hope of proving it's out there. Believe what you want about the legalities, the laws will follow the discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts