Justin Smeja Incident?

[NatFoot]

40 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

Upon further research and reflection, I have come to believe that the Justin Smeja incident is most likely a hoax. The reason being is that if he did in fact shoot and kill a Bigfoot and only wound the other, it is unlikely that he would have made if out of the woods alive. 

 

I am basing this conclusion on both the Native American legends of these creatures, and on the fact that every indication points to them being a highly intelligent apex predator. A wounded brown bear is deadly enough, but a wounded Bigfoot takes danger to a whole new level. 

 

If they are that intelligent, and 99.9% human, they also have the ability to choose to run and not take on a fight.

 

There's no way, IMO, to make a blanket statement like that. It may have decided the best course of action was to escape.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

24 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

 

If they are that intelligent, and 99.9% human, they also have the ability to choose to run and not take on a fight.

 

There's no way, IMO, to make a blanket statement like that. It may have decided the best course of action was to escape.

Agreed.

[Wooly Booger]

28 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

 

If they are that intelligent, and 99.9% human, they also have the ability to choose to run and not take on a fight.

 

There's no way, IMO, to make a blanket statement like that. It may have decided the best course of action was to escape.

I am dealing in terms of probability, not making a "blanket statement." I said it is "unlikely" that he would have made it out of the woods alive if he had actual shot and killed a Bigfoot, not that he definitely would not have made it out of the woods alive. 

 

A creature with near human intelligence will also more than likely exhibit the human tendency for revenge. Neck even known great apes such as chimpanzees are known to avenge one of their own. Old Indian legends also describe these creatures as potentially dangerous, even going so far as to raid villages to prey on their inhabitants. 

 

Again, while there are certainly variables involved in any encounter, terms if probability and likelihood can be deduced from a number of factors. Not the least of which would be the nature of an apex predator with near human intelligence. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[Wooly Booger]

I am also basing my hypothesis on the fact that there were reportedly two creatures present at the shooting, only one of which was apparently killed. Which would leave one very enraged adult Bigfoot. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[Arvedis]

According to the sequence of events reported, there were 3 creatures. 1 ran away presumed critically injured, 1 was shot dead point blank and the other left the area. More were discovered in the area, I forget if it was weeks or months afterwards by an investigative team.

 

Hoaxers need a motive. What's the motive here?

[CelticKevin]

Some need no motive other than just a sick craving for attention. Look at Smeja...podcast interviews, gets on t.v., probably free beer at the local if he tells the tale of the great Bigfoot hunt...

 

I'm squarely on the "this is a hoax" side.

[Arvedis]

15 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

Some need no motive other than just a sick craving for attention. Look at Smeja...podcast interviews, gets on t.v., probably free beer at the local if he tells the tale of the great Bigfoot hunt...

 

I'm squarely on the "this is a hoax" side.

 

If you had read at least some of this thread and the others buried on this forum covering this topic then you would see what you wrote right there is untrue. You don't know the guy and you just made what I would call stereotypical judgements to suit your view. We all drink beer so get over it as a motivation.

[Doug]

If you shoot me and I am unarmed, I'm going to put as much distance between us as I possibly can. My intelligence tells me that if you can shoot me once, the probability of you shooting me again is high. What if I decide to retreat and I'm not smart enough to know that you probably have the power to shoot me again, but I succumb to my injuries before I can retaliate? I have a hunch that revenge would be out of the question. He supposedly killed a little kid outright and its sibling of similar age was just a scared kid wanting to get away alive. I see no correlation with intelligence and lack of revenge = hoax.

 

I've been in on enough bear hunts and kills to know that 9 times out of ten, the bear flees unless cornered. I have had only one wounded bear stand it's ground as I tracked it into an alder thicket. I was hunched over moving through the thicket  when I came upon him. He hunkered down and popped his teeth rapidly. We were face to face at no more than 15 feet and I slowly backed out. No retaliation occurred.

[Doug]

I didn't shoot him then because I couldn't shoulder the rifle in all the alder limbs. My rifle was at my hip with the safety off incase he did charge. I worked my way around, came it at a different angle and finished him there. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

8 hours ago, Arvedis said:

According to the sequence of events reported, there were 3 creatures. 1 ran away presumed critically injured, 1 was shot dead point blank and the other left the area. More were discovered in the area, I forget if it was weeks or months afterwards by an investigative team.

 

Hoaxers need a motive. What's the motive here?

I guess maybe he was motived to be ridiculed by Bigfoot believers and non-believers alike...because that is all that he seems to have gotten from telling and then sticking to his story.

 

 

[CelticKevin]

6 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

If you had read at least some of this thread and the others buried on this forum covering this topic then you would see what you wrote right there is untrue. You don't know the guy and you just made what I would call stereotypical judgements to suit your view. We all drink beer so get over it as a motivation.

But i have read all of this thread. You asked what would be the motive. I was simply offering what i see could likely be the motive. A need for attention. And fabricating a "I shot Bigfoot" story would do it. But, as with all hoaxers, its difficult to guess motive as they all have their own reasons. 
And you are quite correct. I don't know the guy. But if I did, I would tell him straight up that I think he is a liar. I believe him as much as I bought into the whole "Bugs" narrative on Art Bell years ago whem i first heard it.

[Arvedis]

57 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

But i have read all of this thread. You asked what would be the motive. I was simply offering what i see could likely be the motive. A need for attention. And fabricating a "I shot Bigfoot" story would do it. But, as with all hoaxers, its difficult to guess motive as they all have their own reasons. 
And you are quite correct. I don't know the guy. But if I did, I would tell him straight up that I think he is a liar. I believe him as much as I bought into the whole "Bugs" narrative on Art Bell years ago whem i first heard it.

 

This thread is pretty clear that he never had a convincing story because he was unsure of what he shot. He never sought out attention for what happened. Once word had spread he had to deal with the after affects of that which included publicity and interviews, which you can still see today after a decade of beating a dead horse, that he doesn't want to talk about it but does anyway. In fact, he got himself in legal trouble because of the attention. A hoaxer would have a different plan than taking on legal fees he can't afford. A hoaxer would at least pretend to be convincing.

 

I would think if someone had a need for attention, then they would embrace attention. It seems a lot of work for a beer guy to invent an unexplainable, weird tale that only a handful of people would find interesting.

 

 

[vinchyfoot]

8 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

This thread is pretty clear that he never had a convincing story because he was unsure of what he shot. He never sought out attention for what happened. Once word had spread he had to deal with the after affects of that which included publicity and interviews, which you can still see today after a decade of beating a dead horse, that he doesn't want to talk about it but does anyway. In fact, he got himself in legal trouble because of the attention. A hoaxer would have a different plan than taking on legal fees he can't afford. A hoaxer would at least pretend to be convincing.

 

I would think if someone had a need for attention, then they would embrace attention. It seems a lot of work for a beer guy to invent an unexplainable, weird tale that only a handful of people would find interesting.

 

 

 

In the end, he didn't shoot shoot a bigfoot in all likelihood, my bear cub poaching theory stands, and the one downvote I received for it is representative of those who simply want to believe for the sake of belief. That's not how mysteries get solved.

[Wooly Booger]

Just now, vinchyfoot said:

 

In the end, he didn't shoot shoot a bigfoot in all likelihood, my bear cub poaching theory stands, and the one downvote I received for it is representative of those who simply want to believe for the sake of belief. That's not how mysteries get solved.

Agreed. That is honestly more plausible than the hoax theory. Well done. 

[Arvedis]

4 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

In the end, he didn't shoot shoot a bigfoot in all likelihood, my bear cub poaching theory stands, and the one downvote I received for it is representative of those who simply want to believe for the sake of belief. That's not how mysteries get solved.

 

Other than anecdotal, It's unconfirmed that he shot anything since there is no carcass or part of one. Has he poached? Probably but it's been pointed out a few times now, what value would there be for a poacher to a) not have poached on that day and have no carcass, then announce that he shot something, wasn't sure what he shot but it got away? And b) indirectly telegraph his actions to the authorities who instantly pounced on him for whatever presumed infractions.

 

That angle has been covered. No other vehicles or hunters in the area to identify their presence. They could have left with their kill or just left and not said anything. It is assumed they were too mentally distressed or effected in some way to consider throwing the baby Bigfoot in the truck bed and get out of there with the carcass. If he wasn't effected, then there is no reason for Justin to have said anything. He would have slept fine and never would have come on this forum scoping for clues to what he may have seen.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Arvedis