Justin Smeja Incident?

[hiflier]

I wrote this in my Sasquatch hunting manual:

 

"Some of the basic items listed below will be seasonally different but there are a lot of overlaps that will hold true throughout the year: This manual is about getting ONLY ONE BODY to science. If a skeleton or carcass is discovered first then the hunt ceases at that moment!

 

WINTER:

Good visibility in deciduous woods. Footprints in snow along running water, and around ponds- especially where ice is broken, tree anomalies, tree peeping, carcasses, depressions in snow, distant movement, and carrion feeders like vultures. Check slopes and

rock faces. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

SPRING:

Good to fair visibility in deciduous woods. Footprints around ponds, lakes, along streams, in wet areas with skunk cabbage, on muddy paths, and noting any narrow parallel trails, scat, tree anomalies, tree peeping, talus fields, carcasses left from winterkill, and bone piles. This is a critical time to look for dead Sasquatch that may have starved, succumbed to age or disease, or sustained a mortal injury in perhaps a fall. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

SUMMER:

Poor visibility in woods. Footprints just about anywhere after a rain and around berry patches, parallel trails, scat, tree anomalies, tree peeping especially around camp areas, talus fields. It will be harder to see distance but around bodies of water, in  clearings, along ridges, and power line rights of way are good places to look. Nature is making quick work of carcasses now so there may only be bone piles. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

AUTUMN:

Better visibility in woods. Footprints mostly in just muddy areas around and along bodies of water and after rains, scat, parallel trails, tree anomalies, tree peeping around camp areas, bodies of water, areas with nut trees, carcasses will most likely be only skeletal remains if found at all. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

REMEMBER! this manual is about getting only ONE body to science. If a carcass or a skeleton is discovered first the hunt ceases at that moment- it is over. Once the remains are delivered to science the mission is PERMANENTLY shut down."- The Sasquatch Hunter's Field Manual

 

Yes, it's a pro-kill book, but anyone who really paid attention to what I wrote would understand that, for a hunter, looking for that skeleton or carcass first and foremost would be a full time job, even if that hunter saw one!! To take the shot then if a hunter sees one get into the chapter on "To Shoot Or Not To Shoot which touches heavily on the person in the suit conundrum. But hey, throw the book in the trash and pick up an elephant stopping rifle and keep things simple?

Edited June 15, 2021 by hiflier

[BlackRockBigfoot]

9 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

 

UAP's have nothing to do with Bigfoot. They are a separate phenomenon entirely. More than likely top secret military aircraft. 

They are not directly connected, but share a few similarities…

 

A fringe topic that has been relegated joke status and public ridicule.  A phenomenon that has been soundly declared as ‘impossible’ by the scientific community…until it wasn’t.  Turns out that what was commonly accepted as being the domain of charlatans, liars, and frauds ended up being true…merely covered up.  
 

The hardcore skeptics, whose very identities are wrapped up in their skepticism, are still making videos talking about weather balloons and strange atmospheric conditions…cherry-picking and ignoring the evidence.  
 

The UAP topic has revealed that the world is not so mundane as we were lead to believe…that the official account of ‘that’s impossible’ is often wrong and self serving. 
 

We are supposed to think that this applies only to UAPs and not anomalies on the ground?  
 

We honestly don’t know what is possible or impossible anymore.

 

[vinchyfoot]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I wrote this in my Sasquatch hunting manual:

 

"Some of the basic items listed below will be seasonally different but there are a lot of overlaps that will hold true throughout the year: This manual is about getting ONLY ONE BODY to science. If a skeleton or carcass is discovered first then the hunt ceases at that moment!

 

WINTER:

Good visibility in deciduous woods. Footprints in snow along running water, and around ponds- especially where ice is broken, tree anomalies, tree peeping, carcasses, depressions in snow, distant movement, and carrion feeders like vultures. Check slopes and

rock faces. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

SPRING:

Good to fair visibility in deciduous woods. Footprints around ponds, lakes, along streams, in wet areas with skunk cabbage, on muddy paths, and noting any narrow parallel trails, scat, tree anomalies, tree peeping, talus fields, carcasses left from winterkill, and bone piles. This is a critical time to look for dead Sasquatch that may have starved, succumbed to age or disease, or sustained a mortal injury in perhaps a fall. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

SUMMER:

Poor visibility in woods. Footprints just about anywhere after a rain and around berry patches, parallel trails, scat, tree anomalies, tree peeping especially around camp areas, talus fields. It will be harder to see distance but around bodies of water, in  clearings, along ridges, and power line rights of way are good places to look. Nature is making quick work of carcasses now so there may only be bone piles. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

AUTUMN:

Better visibility in woods. Footprints mostly in just muddy areas around and along bodies of water and after rains, scat, parallel trails, tree anomalies, tree peeping around camp areas, bodies of water, areas with nut trees, carcasses will most likely be only skeletal remains if found at all. If a Sasquatch carcass or skeleton is found then shut down the hunt immediately! The hunt is over.

 

REMEMBER! this manual is about getting only ONE body to science. If a carcass or a skeleton is discovered first the hunt ceases at that moment- it is over. Once the remains are delivered to science the mission is PERMANENTLY shut down."- The Sasquatch Hunter's Field Manual

 

Yes, it's a pro-kill book, but anyone who really paid attention to what I wrote would understand that, for a hunter, looking for that skeleton or carcass first and foremost would be a full time job, even if that hunter saw one!! To take the shot then if a hunter sees one get into the chapter on "To Shoot Or Not To Shoot which touches heavily on the person in the suit conundrum. But hey, throw the book in the trash and pick up an elephant stopping rifle and keep things simple?

 

How does one justify a "Hunter's Field Manual" with no baseline specimen? Its all conjecture.

[Huntster]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........would it be worse if it was a woman in a suit?

 

Yes. First, it would prove that there are women who are actually as stupid as a man. Proof. That's "science", Dude.

 

Secondly, if I shot said suited woman, I would feel MUCH worse about it. Call me sexist, but killing women is just distasteful to me. Exceedingly stupid men? Pfft......... 

[Huntster]

4 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

How does one justify a "Hunter's Field Manual" with no baseline specimen? Its all conjecture.

 

How does one justify refusal to gain a baseline specimen because there no baseline specimen? 

 

What is the difference between conjecture, denial, and rigidity?

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

How does one justify a "Hunter's Field Manual" with no baseline specimen? Its all conjecture.

 

How TRUE! How does one justify ANY Sasquatch book or a conference full of speakers and vendors, or a even a website?

[Twist]

9 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

How does one justify a "Hunter's Field Manual" with no baseline specimen? Its all conjecture.

And while sitting here berating the pro kill camp.  

[hiflier]

10 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Yes. First, it would prove that there are women who are actually as stupid as a man. Proof. That's "science", Dude.

 

Secondly, if I shot said suited woman, I would feel MUCH worse about it. Call me sexist, but killing women is just distasteful to me. Exceedingly stupid men? Pfft......... 

 

QFT. Hits the nail on the proverbial head. It's a fact, stupidity gets people killed, male OR female. But that kind of waste would be inexcusable if, for whatever rationale, someone thought they were shooting a Sasquatch. It's happened before, it will happen again.

 

7 minutes ago, Huntster said:

How does one justify refusal to gain a baseline specimen because there no baseline specimen?

 

Good question.

[Wooly Booger]

27 minutes ago, Kiwakwe said:

I'll check that out.

What is the scientific approach to investigating a one-off "mindspeak" event? The typical response is to categorize as hallucination (though we have a word we don't really know what hallucinations are do we?) I get it, and it's what any sane individual does when confronting an oddity--find a "rational" answer based in the known. I don't think they always have sources from that databank, which is why we need Science, capitalized for the pureness of its pursuits. I trust in the truly inquisitive methods, I find fault with its scientism hubris. There are novel things out there, oodles of them I'm sure, they need to be allowed for. 

Telepathy can likely be explained by the use of infrasound by these creatures. A hallucination caused by the reaction of the human mind to a natural phenomena. 

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

QFT. Hits the nail on the proverbial head. It's a fact, stupidity gets people killed, male OR female. But that kind of waste would be inexcusable if, for whatever rationale, someone thought they were shooting a Sasquatch. It's happened before, it will happen again.........

 

People get killed every year because somebody else "thought he was a deer" or some such stupidity, because stupidity exists just as easily behind the trigger as it does inside a bigfoot suit. And such shootings are "inexcusable". Such a shooter faces both criminal and civil legal consequenses. 

 

I haven't yet seen such a case discussed in the news, but I submit that if an idiot got into an 8-point deer suit during deer season and got shot, the shooter might pay plenty in lawyer fees, but would likely escape criminal conviction and civil restitution.

 

The bottom line is that either a real sasquatch or an idiot in a suit had better pray that it's me they parade in front of and not norseman, because if it's Norse, they may well get all shot up.

[hiflier]

5 minutes ago, Twist said:

And while sitting here berating the pro kill camp.  

 

Not berating the camp. Just exposing it's misdirection. Mainly because I see little or no effort to confront the keepers of the truth with the same machismo as is there is when it comes to shooting one. Both avenues take machismo; one with no less courage than the other. And yet th non-violent approach gets shunned and virtually avoided. I want to know why that is. I want to know why confronting F&W point blank as a group insistent on the truth takes a back seat to a bullet. Why hunters armed to the teeth, won't put down the gun and walk into an agency and bravely pursue the question of existence. It's been my question from the beginning. Some answered honesty in the past, they are afraid. I find that to be a bit contradictory to the posture of a pro-kill hunter dressed in camo.

 

It's not making sense from the standpoint of the potential fallout of grassing one- which to me would be so much worse than simply talking to someone behind a desk and popping the question. I've done it, it's pretty danged easy and costs nothing. Did I get my answer? No, but I didn't get a "No" so I'll do it again, no problem.

[vinchyfoot]

44 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

How TRUE! How does one justify ANY Sasquatch book or a conference full of speakers and vendors, or a even a website?

 

A Field Manual suggests expertise, when again, its all conjecture.

[Twist]

31 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Not berating the camp. Just exposing it's misdirection. Mainly because I see little or no effort to confront the keepers of the truth with the same machismo as is there is when it comes to shooting one. Both avenues take machismo;

Probably because they have their idea on solving the problem just like you do. 
 

So if they are to hunt and write letters to the govt are you writing letters and hunting them?

 

No one here is obligated to do it your way.   This is a hobby for most so they are free to enjoy their hobby how they choose.   Constant berating by you is unnecessary.   

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, vinchyfoot said:

A Field Manual suggests expertise, when again, its all conjecture.

 

So doesn't NAWAC at a conference. As far as conjecture goes, I actually sat down with the guy who was with the sniper when he said the creature looked too Human to shoot. It's a first hand account from the man who was there. Face to face. The sniper left the group after that and never went back. That account was the backbone for the manual's approach, plus research into decades worth of witness reports, if not centuries. All of it paints a pretty good picture of the creature. Conjecture is little more than a broad sweep under the rug and a dismissal of accounts from F&W, LEO's, and other qualified people who have witnessed these things. And then there's Patty, debated even now regarding her reality. It was all certainly enough to lend some value to tha little 88 page book that I ended up writing.

 

All through it, I wrote "it has been reported that...," "they have been reported to...," etc which is perfectly acceptable and gives a basis for an author's own input and suggestions. The expertise was in putting all the information together as a methodology, or several methodologies for discovery. Even suggestions like grab a small table, a couple of chairs, and go have a sit down picnic lunch in a place that has reported activity. It doesn't take any "expertise" to write something like that. One quite simply just writes it. One doesn't have to be a hunter to learn horse body language, or learn about bats and caves, or electronics, or the dangers of being in an area in the aftermath of a wildfire. It's all in there. Plus the fact that the book wasn't going to be centered on the existence debate issue. Nothing get glossed over or embellished. It's a bare bones look at the subject with the aim of finding out if it's real. Period.

 

That's a lot to discard with the word "conjecture" even though I know what you are saying.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

Probably because they have their idea on solving the problem just like you do. 
 

So if they are to hunt and write letters to the govt are you writing letters and hunting them?

 

No one here is obligated to do it your way.   This is a hobby for most so they are free to enjoy their hobby how they choose.   Constant berating by you is unnecessary.   

 

Okay, but just don't keep on berating me either, Twist. Because that's what you are doing. And yes, to be clear, I am hunting them, too, but not with a gun. Even a photographer can "hunt" them for the purposes of shooting a photo. That's in the book, too, just in case you weren't aware. And lose the "your way" crap. I get pretty sick of reading that old oss that way.clap trap. You may not think it's an ignorant slant, but it comes across that way.