vinchyfoot Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 20 hours ago, Arvedis said: 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. He has been charged with poaching in an adjoining state I believe, I want to say Idaho.
norseman Posted June 5, 2021 Admin Posted June 5, 2021 11 hours ago, vinchyfoot said: He has been charged with poaching in an adjoining state I believe, I want to say Idaho. Idaho and California don’t touch.
vinchyfoot Posted June 6, 2021 Posted June 6, 2021 On 6/4/2021 at 8:22 PM, norseman said: Idaho and California don’t touch. could have been a different state, but he has an out of state poaching arrest, he's not credible.
norseman Posted June 6, 2021 Admin Posted June 6, 2021 11 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: could have been a different state, but he has an out of state poaching arrest, he's not credible. I thought it was in the state of California? Regardless? I don’t find him not credible because of a poaching charge. I do not find him credible because he did not produce the body. 1
Arvedis Posted June 6, 2021 Posted June 6, 2021 @vinchyfoot, you're thinking of the guy that was with Justin who had a poaching charge from some other state. Justin just had an entanglement with CA authorities as a result of him publicizing this, not before. So by your logic he's just not credible because he told people he shot 2 BF. 1
vinchyfoot Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 17 hours ago, Arvedis said: @vinchyfoot, you're thinking of the guy that was with Justin who had a poaching charge from some other state. Justin just had an entanglement with CA authorities as a result of him publicizing this, not before. So by your logic he's just not credible because he told people he shot 2 BF. No, he's not credible because so much of his story makes very little sense, as he is a potential poacher it certainly doesn't help perceptions.
BlackRockBigfoot Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 38 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: No, he's not credible because so much of his story makes very little sense, as he is a potential poacher it certainly doesn't help perceptions. What part about his story doesn’t make sense?
vinchyfoot Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 48 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: What part about his story doesn’t make sense? He had possession of the "body", and he left it there, he effectively admits to murdering the ones he shot, and has no prove, and in the later Melba study, his piece of BF is a bear steak. He very very very poached a bear cub. He is and was and will FOS forever more as far as I am concerned. He was never credible.
BlackRockBigfoot Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 3 hours ago, vinchyfoot said: He had possession of the "body", and he left it there, he effectively admits to murdering the ones he shot, and has no prove, and in the later Melba study, his piece of BF is a bear steak. He very very very poached a bear cub. He is and was and will FOS forever more as far as I am concerned. He was never credible. He poached a bear cub… and instead of shoveling it and subsequently shutting up, he decides to make up a fantastic story that is guaranteed to do nothing but attract attention. He then knowingly turns over a piece of that same cub to a DNA test of all things. Which again brings further attention to his poaching. That doesn’t make sense to me, but neither side here is going to convince the other of anything. 1
Arvedis Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 After he made the mistakes of the shootings, there were a few points where he could have spared himself all of the aftermath of exposure and hassle. The first was coming on here, opening himself up to questions. That led to deeper investigation. If he left well enough alone, end of story. Taking the poacher theory angle, what I don't get is what was a frozen bear carcass or part of one doing in the area of the BF kills? I don't know the first thing about poaching. Presuming that means the poacher carves up the carcass instead of taking the whole thing. Let's say Smeja and friend were not poaching, what are the chances of bear remains being in the same area they were looking for BF remains? I have heard various people say that area in particular was a place where hunters clean their kills. Why that area? I'm sure this has been talked about but never made sense to me.
vinchyfoot Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 18 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: He poached a bear cub… and instead of shoveling it and subsequently shutting up, he decides to make up a fantastic story that is guaranteed to do nothing but attract attention. He then knowingly turns over a piece of that same cub to a DNA test of all things. Which again brings further attention to his poaching. That doesn’t make sense to me, but neither side here is going to convince the other of anything. By his own version, I think he left it under a pile of brush or similar, I could be wrong on the detail. The sample he had in the study was a bear steak, so it's the likelihood that's what happened. He never shot a bigfoot, he LIED. 16 hours ago, Arvedis said: After he made the mistakes of the shootings, there were a few points where he could have spared himself all of the aftermath of exposure and hassle. The first was coming on here, opening himself up to questions. That led to deeper investigation. If he left well enough alone, end of story. Taking the poacher theory angle, what I don't get is what was a frozen bear carcass or part of one doing in the area of the BF kills? I don't know the first thing about poaching. Presuming that means the poacher carves up the carcass instead of taking the whole thing. Let's say Smeja and friend were not poaching, what are the chances of bear remains being in the same area they were looking for BF remains? I have heard various people say that area in particular was a place where hunters clean their kills. Why that area? I'm sure this has been talked about but never made sense to me. Fair point, but to beat the dead horse, 100% of his story never made sense to me so there ya go....
Huntster Posted June 9, 2021 Posted June 9, 2021 On 6/7/2021 at 6:13 AM, vinchyfoot said: No, he's not credible because so much of his story makes very little sense, as he is a potential poacher it certainly doesn't help perceptions. A poacher is exactly the guy we need to put this silly issue to bed. It damned sure isn't going to be resolved by a "scientist" or somebody who obeys hunting regs.
vinchyfoot Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 19 hours ago, Huntster said: A poacher is exactly the guy we need to put this silly issue to bed. It damned sure isn't going to be resolved by a "scientist" or somebody who obeys hunting regs. Unless the poacher doesn't fess up, or invents a story to cover their tracks. And if the thing turns out more humanish than ape, killing it is murder at some point. There's other ways to get DNA if handled right, which admittedly hasn't happened so far it seems.
Huntster Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 43 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: Unless the poacher doesn't fess up, or invents a story to cover their tracks. And if the thing turns out more humanish than ape, killing it is murder at some point.......... This is exactly what one would expect out of a sasquatch shooting by a person with a poaching attitude (like Smeja), and this is exactly how the Smeja storyline goes: his first reaction upon seeing it is to shoot it, he then has a young one die literally in his arms, and he then has the guilt of what he's done wash over him. He drops everything and flees. It all fits, and there's his partner there to witness it. It's very credible, but without proof, it's just another story. Quote .........There's other ways to get DNA if handled right, which admittedly hasn't happened so far it seems. Yeah, sure. "Science" to the rescue. Frankly, I was wrong. We don't need a poacher to prove sasquatches exist. We need a killer cop: somebody who will kill one at the drop of a hat, then drag the carcass in as proof instead of letting guilt overcome him and leaving the carcass behind. 1
Recommended Posts