Bigfoot News June 8, 2012 Part 2

Here is the huge post that we promised earlier. This post will contain a few world exclusives, photos and drawings published for the first time ever in Bigfoot history. The post will contain three graphics, 2 drawings and 1 photo. They are:
1. A full body drawing of the adult Bigfoot from the Justin Smeja Sierra Kills incident. This is the first full body drawing ever of a “confirmed by DNA evidence” Bigfoot.
2. A drawing of the head of the juvenile Bigfoot from the same incident. This one has a lot going for it because Smeja cradled the dying Bigfoot in his arms for a minute or two as it died, so he got a good look at it. In addition, in the 10-15 minutes prior, the juvenile and its sibling had trailed Smeja and his partner into the woods off and on.
In terms of detail, this is the best drawing of a juvenile Bigfoot the world has ever seen. It is also the first drawing of a juvenile Bigfoot by someone by a human who actually had long physical contact with the creature.
3. A photograph of a portion of the actual Bigfoot steak, or slice of Bigfoot, from the same incident. This is the first photograph ever of a slice of actual “confirmed by DNA” Bigfoot tissue.
This is not actually a photo of the steak itself. Instead, it is a photo of a piece of Bigfoot hide sliced off the steak. The hide has been defleshed with a knife. In this process, sometimes bits of flesh or fat from the meat below can be seen in the hide. If you look at the upper portion of the photo, you can see a bit of white fat in the hide. This is fat from the flesh that was below the hide. There is a curious portion of the hide in the lower left that looks like blood or bloody flesh.
The photos below must be reproduced with the watermark on them. Although I don’t know who exactly holds the real copyright on these graphics, I am copyrighting them for now with my own copyright as a sort of placeholder for the true copyright owners. I am not trying to steal the copyright from the real holders or anything like that. I am mostly concerned with people trying to steal the graphics and copyright them themselves, and that is what I am trying to prevent with the placeholder copyright.
The true copyright holders are free to contact me at any time regarding these graphics.
There was an ethical issue about publishing these graphics. I have held onto them for a few months now and was holding off publishing them. However, the way I see it is I now have a green light to publish, and I am no longer prevented from doing so by ethical concerns.

Here is the fascinating drawing of the male killed in the Sierra Kills. Note how built he is. Note also how human he looks. He also appears to have little or no neck. He is not fat at all; in fact, he seems almost slim but very athletic. Some say the males look like swimmers, and he does have a swimmer body build to him.

The fascinating drawing of the juvenile Bigfoot. Yes, it does look a lot like a chimpanzee. However, the eyes, ears and mouth are not correct for a chimp. It seems that Bigfoots start out looking like chimps when young and then grow into much more of a human like creature as they reach adulthood.

Here is the photo of the Bigfoot steak. This is the one that was misidentified as coming from a coyote. But if you know animals very well, you can readily tell that it’s not from a coyote. If that hair looks like anything at all, it might look somewhat like a bear. However, that’s not from a bear. A bear looks different. Pretty amazing photo!

What is up with Melba Ketchum’s DNA study? No one knows. She took her Facebook page down, but that has nothing to do with the study. People were speculating that she took it down due to the impending publication of the study. That’s not correct. Instead, she took it down because it was attracting too many imposters and trolls and she didn’t have time to answer questions anymore.
When will the study publish? No one seems to know. Ketchum recently said it will be out within the year. It is indeed at a journal, and that journal is a major journal, a huge journal. The journal has a big reputation to uphold, and they have a lot at stake in publishing such a wild article as this. In other words, if the science is bad, it could make the journal look pretty bad. So the reviewers want the article to be as perfect as possible so it will nothing will come back to haunt them later. They are always asking for more changes, even little changes. They have sent back requests for rewrites of as few as a 2-3 paragraphs or as little as a single paragraph. Ketchum recently had to do another small rewrite.
I honestly don’t know when the study will publish, if ever. I am tired of waiting and I am very cynical about this study by now.
Olympic Project gives Bigfoot samples to Dr. Jeff Meldrum for alternate DNA study. There is an alternate DNA study that is being done by Brian Sykes of Oxford University. Meldrum was the one who got him interested in it. I bet this study publishes before Ketchum’s does. The OP recently gave this study a hair sample of possible Bigfoot hair that they collected lately.
See a statue based on the Bigfoot Derek Randles saw. In 1985, on the Olympic National Forest, Randles saw a Bigfoot for a few seconds. They were off trail hiking when something began throwing rocks at them, not trying to hit them, but instead throwing rocks near them. Finally they glimpsed the thing just before sunset. It was so huge and frightening that Randles and his company took off running away from it as fast as they can. Photo here.
Ketchum DNA project wants you to know Bigfoots are dangerous. People within the project have been trying to prepare the public for the release of the paper with a number of press releases about Bigfoots. The Ketchum team believes that Bigfoots are potentially very dangerous, and some can attack or even kill you. After the paper publishes, the team expects there to be a huge rush out to the woods by folks hoping to contact, capture or kill a Bigfoot. The team wants to warn people away from this by pointing out that these creatures are potentially very dangerous.
Ketchum team preparing press releases about Bigfoots. They started preparing these about 6 weeks ago, if I am not mistaken. They have a small team that has been working on them. So you can see that the Ketchum team really does believe that they are going to publish something, and probably pretty soon, if they are preparing these releases.
Ketchum’s travel itinerary. If you go to her Facebook page, you can see that Ketchum has been traveling all over the globe lately. There are complaints in the Bigfoot world by some who think that she is taking advantage of Wally Hersom, her main funder. The accusations are that she and her allies are “treating him like an ATM,” and “bleeding him dry.”

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

144 thoughts on “Bigfoot News June 8, 2012 Part 2”

  1. Thanks for the story Robert. Much appreciated. I must say that the juvenile and adult look VASTLY different. Its almost as if there’s no logical way the juvenile would end up looking like the adult which is EXTREMELY human-like. That’s the only part about this thing that troubles me. Waaaaay to different.

      1. Waaaay weird. Almost unbelievable actually. If I had not heard Smeja tell the story (convinced me) I wouldn’t believe it. It is what it is I guess. Thanks again.

  2. Meldrum NEVER got Sykes interested in doing Bigfoot DNA. Sykes was doing it years before Meldrum was in name recognition. Meldrum only seeks the recognition Ketchum is receiving – in other words, Meldrum wants a piece of the pie he was denied by the Erickson/Ketchum alliances.

  3. One question. Why as a baby does it have a open ape type nose but in adult hood it has a more human hooded nose? Its small things like this that make me call BS on Smeja story. Just saying

    1. And what about a black dude actually taking care of the children?Like that ever fucking happens even in the woods? Where was Gramma? Getting her hair straightened?

    2. Cheers Stephen! I’m with you, never believed a jot of Smeja’s wish fulfillment fantasy. In a nutshell — the DNA studies are hugely important but they’re definitely a means, certainly not an end . . . Cheers!

  4. Thank you Robert! I was drifting off into some other form of entertainment which I’m too uncomfortable to discuss in front of your colleagues. The baby should look strange as do human children at early ages,some just down right odd looking. I see negro-human and a touch of chimp.I teach High School and my do I see these same traits often in my students faces!
    I’m afraid Ketchum is done.She says “honestly don’t know when the study will publish, if ever.” To me that says finished and if that’s the case all these folks are going to be cast down as hoaxing sodomites as they should be.Thank you again………

  5. Oh God… THIS is not “evidence.” This is more supposition. Those two drawings could have been from space men from the planet Alpha-1324 for all we know. They cannot be substantiated with any objectivity whatsoever.
    And the Bigfoot “steak”…really? Where’s the *objective* evidence that this is anything other than some animal flesh, now claimed to be from a new species? If there’s DNA evidence, some PhD should be telling us as such. This would be HUGE news, and a boon for any journal that publishes it. Yet the story is that Ketchum has now pushed it back for as much as a year? You’re kidding with this stuff, right?
    I see nothing to indicate anything other than some artist’s rendering of what a Bigfoot is purported to look like, and a piece of (what appears to be) a piece of mammalian tissue with hair. And then there are the reported DNA results.
    Right. What was that I was saying before about a self-fulfilling prophecy?
    I’m sorry Robert, I truly am, for being so skeptical on this stuff. But nothing I’ve seen or read pertaining to these supposed Bigfoot killings by Mr. Smeja offers even a shred of *objective* evidence to support the existence of such a creature. If there are results or objective evidence, even if it’s open to debate, let’s see it. And now we are getting pushed back again for as much as a year?
    I’m not sold yet…not at all. People who WANT to believe will be all over these things as “irrefutable” proof of the existence of Sasquatch. Hardly. I should of course point out that people who disbelieve will just as easily claim that this is all a bunch of BS. And in fact it does seem a bit like the old Jedi mind trick to me…
    “This IS the Bigfoot steak you’re looking for.”
    Yea, right. Show me the DNA results, then we’ll talk.

    1. Don’t misunderstand me here… I really do want to see irrefutable evidence of the existence of such a creature. I think it would absolutely INCREDIBLE! But I’ve just not seen anything of the sort yet. If it does exist, then someone needs to present it. Otherwise, it’s fine to postulate and hypothesize all day long about the presence of Bigfoot. I’ve got absolutely no problem with that. However to present data that (at best) is highly subjective in nature, and claim “it is what I say it is, because I said so” is NOT science. And while this is not a formal scientific forum, the owner of the blog presents himself as a very educated, well-spoken fellow, possessing the faculties for sound, objective reasoning–which I fully agree with, by the way. However the same yardstick being applied to other data presented in this blog is pretty clearly not being applied in this case…at least by all appearances.
      So if there IS objective data, then share it. If you cannot share it, then don’t expect us to blindly follow without asking for a reality (or sanity) check from time to time. Skepticism is very healthy in science and if something cannot pass even the most basic test(s) of objectivity, then we have to ask ourselves if it really is too good to be true…

        1. Very convenient, banning a guy who questions you. How objective of you. Makes me wonder just how good your data is.

  6. Robert, I’m afraid the only thing that will get me jumping up and down is if someone has photography and/or video/film of sasquatches that have the clarity of a National Geographic documentary or magazine article. The drawing and photo-simulation of sasquatches in this news item doesn’t do it for me. I hope that the sample depicted actually can be connected to an on-going/occuring DNA test….can you talk to that? Is that happening right now?

    1. Well until then James, I can think of something that excites you. How about instead of pizza, we order two hookers to come over to your house and work you from both ends?
      Robert, is this kind of humor allowed on here?

      1. Nominay,
        I doubt very much we can conflate a lack of enthusiasm over a drawing and a photo-simulation of a sasquatch with the suggestion to raise such level of said enthusiasm with extra-curricular, questionably legal, horizontal recreation via two paid hookers….
        I do have cognitive dissonance…..sasquatch discussion >= hooker participation….not equal in weight

        1. Oh sorry, I thought you were looking for excitement. You had nothing to contribute to the discussion, so I thought I’d offer you “hors d’oeuvres”, on Robert’s tab. It’s the best we can do since you just want to be entertained.

    2. James, My understanding is that there are excellent videos which will be released after the Journal publishes the DNA results. The videos will back up the DNA reports and will help prove the reality of this species.

  7. It’s amazing how much of a difference body hair makes. Had it been clean shaven, Smeja may well have asked it, “Are you lost? Where are your clothes? Why you have two baby chimps with ya?”

      1. LOL, You got that right!
        Sadly that is true..Smeja was told *not* to shoot by his spotter, but decided to shoot, and I quote Semja here: “What the hell, I”m going to kill it anyway even tho it could be a human in a suit.” Why that man still has a hunting license and is now rich and famous is totally beyond me.

    1. Chimps?
      I thought he was quoted as saying they looked like a couple of little black kids…

  8. Pardon me, but – DNA results published where? Seen by what independent scientist? Without that, this is just another story accompanied by drawings (Visually, the “steak” could be from any number of mammals.) .

  9. Not to go all ape-geek on you, but the infant looks more like a gorilla baby than a chimp. In fact, I’m willing to bet they used a photo of a gorilla baby as the foundation for their recreation.
    Smeja had said the baby had a snout like a boxer. Would that mean we would see more of a protrusion of the nose in a profile image of the baby?

    1. In other words, a baby gorilla looks like a baby Bigfoot, a baby gorilla looks like an adult chimp, a baby gorilla does not look like an adult gorilla, a baby chimp looks like an adult chimp, and all four of these don’t look like an adult Bigfoot who looks like a man whose baby only looks like a baby man.

    2. I do not know what they used as a recreation in the drawing, if anything. He did say it looked like a cross between a boxer, a Black kid and a chimp. I have seen other artwork of baby Bigfoots and they look a lot like this, real monkey-like. I think they look real monkeyish when they are little.

  10. Wow. Thanks Robert.
    While of course as others have said, these could be fabricated from less than true true source subjects, they very well could be true representations. If they are genuine, then they are a step toward what we are all wanting to see. There are definite questionable characteristics and features on the representations, realize that these are artistic recreations and the medium used may be maniplations of pre-existing photos and figures revised to simulate what the original observer recalls. We hope these are represetations generated with sincerity. Very exciting
    Thank you

  11. Thanks for the updates and, especially, thanks for calmly and objectively reporting Dr. Ketchum’s study’s current status. It seems the fact that she has wisely shared findings with a legitimate and respected science journal instead of any cryptozoological organizations is simply too much for the Squatch-Trekkies to handle. They’re not used to how professional organizations and institutions operate, they think things should be blurted out indiscriminately like someone with Tourette’s. Whatever, when the study is released they’ll all be going on about how they “supported her” from day one. Yeah, I’m tired of waiting, too, but if you’re going to put your publication’s reputation on the line by proclaiming the existence of Bigfoot, you’re probably going to want to vet the material about 1,000 times more rigourously than, say, a study on sexual dimorphism of Patagonian tree frogs.

  12. That fluffy kinky hair would seem to me like a decent adaptation for running through the woods. Limp thin hair like humans would let you get pretty scraped.

    I’m fed up with the worthies at the journal and with Ketchum. I reminds me of the saying in business, that the more time you allow for a job to be done, the more time that it will take.

    Great images, Robert.

  13. Lindsay, you are one of the biggest bullshitters in sasquatch history. But you sure like the attention, right, you fuckin sad rockstar wannabe?!

  14. Robert, It’s good to see you here. I had to leave the other BF topics you posted earlier today due to the comments being rather somewhat impolite. I’ve never been called so many rude names in my entire life as happened today, blush. But you are here so we are safe. Wonderful well written article, and thank you for providing new info that I did not know about.

      1. You know who I am correct? This is Linda, Susie was my pen name when I wrote reviews professionally. I used a pen name rather than expose myself to the world by using my real name. My middle name is Susan, my nickname has been Susie, but I ended up on Facebook using my first name. At this point I answer to anything including “Hey You”! Your articles written today were all wonderful. I really learned a lot from them. You have some excellent sources who know a whole lot more than I do:(
        However, thanks to you, I’m able to keep up with current events in the world of Bigfootery.

  15. Will someone help me understand how it is that Dr. Bryan Sykes can publicly talk about doing Bigfoot DNA but Melba Ketchum has to keep quiet, covert and require NDA’s and her faithful flock to keep their mouths shut??
    What is the different between Sykes & Ketchum in the DNA world?

    1. Woops sorry…Trying again
      Ketchum has talked ad nauseum about doing the DNA study…radio shows, facebook etc once her folks leaked it to Robert here. What she will not talk about is the RESULTS…and neither will Sykes when he gets that far.
      Its not rocket science…Journals are not charities. They make money and allowing authors to just to talk about the actual results of a study as sensational as this makes no sense. As for the other poster Ted, you clearly have little experience with scientific journals if you believe everyone can talk about everything prior to publication….then why I might ask are there embargoes?
      Sykes whole process looks to be at least 12 to 24 months, Robert can confirm…and thats before they even see the DNA and figure out how to sequence it etc, so could be longer…if Ketchum is for real she is much further along although clearly not with quite the reputation or credentials as the Oxford study will apply IMHO.

      1. Actually let me correct myself….she has absolutely uncategorically hinted 🙂 that the results indicate Sasquatch is real….she has said numerous times her research and DNA study will prove it. She has not shared the scientific methods she has used to come to such a conclusion which to me is a good sign because frankly they should be so complicated that most of us would get quickly lost!
        For goodness sakes she has said she sees them regularly on her leased property and has set up a Bigfoot Protection Society…why? Because her research indicate they are real. I wish her facebook was up then I could add some quotes here but I am sure Robert has many of them.
        I am with Robert….she started to lose credibility even with us who want to believe but arent sure when she talked about stick structures they built, how they braided her horses manes….ugh…I wish she would not have done that as in my view that lack of restraint is the main cause of the ridicule she currently suffers. She may indeed either be scamming or just mis interpreting results…then again, this could be the real deal. I hope for the latter and bet on the former.
        This could be the perfect storm…a relatively questionable but insightful and interestingly suggestive published paper by Ketchum followed by a solid deeply scientific highly credential authored Oxford study even utilizing some of the same samples. This should be a fun journey either way especially if Robert stays in for the long haul! thanks Robert!

  16. Hey Robert,
    Do you know the name of the journal Ketchum supposedly submitted her paper to? I ask because I’ve edited academic journals before, and no journal that I know of requires this level of secrecy from submitters.

    1. It is at some big name big deal scientific journal, has been there for quite some time now, is in a very long peer review, and the name of the journal is a closely guarded secret known only to 3-4 people in Ketchum’s inner circle, and we do not have access to those people.

  17. How about “The Journal of Sciency Stuff?” Or the “Journal of Poseurs, Fakes, Hoaxers, and Hangers-on?” Or how about “The Journal of Those Who Have Nothing to Do with Anything but Are Using Sensationalism to Act like they are really involved so they can feed off misdirected attention?”

      1. bad news robert, i have had to ban you from my blog. i’m sorry to do it, but you leave me no other choice.

  18. Well as someone who has developed a certain understanding of how facial structure works I must say that there is something off about the adult.
    Mostly in the jaw region but also in the proportions in general. Even if it’s based on a real Bigfoot I’d be willing to bet that the artist based a few errors in some places. Significant errors.
    My guess is that the adult would in truth be somewhat closer to the Chimp-like baby then the artist portrayed it as. The adult face really looks like it needs a larger more protuberant jaw to properly correct the balance of the face.

    1. I can see there are others like me that are grateful we have someone to keep us updated. I have to say that when my wife shows me a baby and says its adorable I smile and agree. I must admit im not always honest with her. That young Bigfoot picture makes total sense to me. It looks nothing like it will when it matures. Thanks again Robert for all the time you put in to keep us informed.

  19. Robert, is the Erickson project still actively going on in Kentucky? Are they still in the field collecting evidence? How could someone shoot something that looks so human?

    1. No, Kentucky Project is over.
      Yes, they just collected some more evidence from Golden Ears Park in British Colombia.
      Well, he knew it wasn’t human. He wanted to kill a new species.

      1. Why did the Kentucky project end? Did the researchers just tire of spending time with the bigfoots? Thanks for all of the time you spend on this blog and your research. It is invaluable to me as a long time believer from Kentucky!!

          1. Cheers yourself Maurice! All is well here. I hope all is well in CO with you and yours! I will e-mail you soon my friend!

    2. Hes apparently a little trigger happy. Surprised he didn’t let a round or two go at his buddy’s face, a la Dick Cheney. It will all be in his new book, tentatively titled, ‘Smegma unloads’

  20. The Male rendition looks way more human than the average male bigfoot report (short arms, small sagital crest, slim buid, semi-human facial features). If you check out pics of very young chimps, they look more human-like than the adults (in the kisser) – THE OPPOSITE OF THE CLAIMED FORENSIC DRAWINGS. hmmmm
    Male if related 1/4 human… if his offspring may have mated with a female with very little human ancestry. therefore the young juveniles are closer in appearance to the source megafauna – which looked even more ape-like. Nothing more than a bipedal mountain climbing simian ape from the mountains & jungle plains of Asia… raping human women.
    end of

  21. Hi ! After reviewing what you’ve “released” here I find this to be a bad example of someone who has never seen anything themselves & now you’re going to tell those of us that have seen these creatures what they look like ! The baby pic is wrong & the adult is all wrong,to me, after what I’ve seen, looking at you’re art work ( & I’m not trying to be mean ) is kinda like looking at a cartoon creation ! The head,arms,muscles , everything is wrong.

      1. One question for your Robert…actually two questions, why aren’t you giving credit to the author then? Did you get permission from her to post these?

        1. I was given these drawings and the photo by a third party. They are being passed around all over the place. I don’t know who the artist is, and they are only rough drafts for a book.
          If the artist wants me to take the drawings down, I will take them down, no problem.

  22. benjerman1
    How could Smeja justify killing the baby bigfoot and the juvenile? What was his motive for doing this? Yes, the world needs a specimen but to deliberately take 2 inocent lives seems to great a price to pay. How would he feel if something killed 2 of his children if he has any? Why did he leave the little ones lie instead of taking them for proof of bigfoot?

  23. “Ketchum DNA project wants you to know Bigfoots are dangerous. People within the project have been trying to prepare the public for the release of the paper with a number of press releases about Bigfoots. The Ketchum team believes that Bigfoots are potentially very dangerous, and some can attack or even kill you. After the paper publishes, the team expects there to be a huge rush out to the woods by folks hoping to contact, capture or kill a Bigfoot. The team wants to warn people away from this by pointing out that these creatures are potentially very dangerous.”
    Check out from beginning @1:14:00 (one hour & a quarter in) onward in this 3 hour audio interview of Bigfoot reports where they slaughtered USA hunters & entire bounty possees & entire squads/companies of American troops in Afghanistan.
    Use .505 gibbs, 50 BMG or 460 Weatherby or 577 tyrannosaurus only in bolt guns in possees of 3 to 4 shooters minimum.
    or 50 Beowulf using brass monolithic solids only in high capacity magazine semi-autos (aim for head or neck or .308 or 338 lapua full auto machine guns only and aim for the head & neck only for consistent results dummies
    A gorilla is 10X the strength of a man… a large male Bigfoot of 10′ to 14′ in height is 10X the strength of a large male silverback gorrila.

  24. If you really know who I am then you would also know that I have a lot of information that you would love to have and you would regret making an enemy of me. I merely asked you a couple of questions that many other people have also asked and for that I get hostility….

    1. You’ll never give me anything because you’re under NDA. You asked a pretty hostile question. I didn’t appreciate it. You’re from Bigfoot Forums and you weren’t very friendly on there either.

        1. I know who are you are BF Forums, and as I recall, you were not very pleasant on there.
          Perhaps I am mistaking you for someone else. I thought you were associated with the Erickson Project.

    2. Do you have permission to publish that artwork? Did you get the artist’s permission? Those are hostile questions. I don’t even know who the artist is. How can I get permission from someone if I don’t know who they are?

      1. The person who gave you the artwork knows who the artist is, did you ask him? I am only trying to protect an artist’s right to her artwork..

        1. Nope. The person who gave me the artwork does not know who the artist is. I posted this stuff a long time ago, and the artist never came forward to tell me to take it down. The artist’s work has been flying all over the upper echelons of the BF community for a long time now. If they want me to take the stuff down, I will take it down, no problem.
          PS I really don’t like your tone at all. It’s not pleasant.

  25. I, for one am really excited to see a release of ANYTHING from Smeja! How long have we waited for a photo, a drawing, anything?? It still bothers me that the ‘Bigfoot’ community still feel a need to question the motives of Ketchum and Meldrum. Yes, we have all been burned by hoaxers, hucksters and egonuts wanting their 15 minutes of fame, attention or whatever they get out of it. Do we really have to become a group of bashers and back stabbers??
    I’m all for skepticism, and for calling out the big fat liars and hoaxers, but must we fight amoung ourselves?? BTW, thanks for posting, Robert.

    1. The Bigfooters are flat out the worst people on Earth, bar none. I’m a part of this community because I love the Bigfoots. The humans, not so much.
      The motives of Jeff and Melba are both good. They are both scientists who adhere to the scientific method. Neither are hoaxers in any way, shape or form.

  26. Wow. I was going to leave a comment concerning the ‘proof’, but after reading the behavior of the author/site owner, I know I would be banned for disagreeing. As a person that blogs professionally I have to say- good job on creating controversy. Good job on pulling on trolls to rack up your traffic. But, really, banning people from your site for pointing out that you need solid proof before making any claim? Not only is that poor site management, it makes first time visitors like me decide to look elsewhere for credible writing from someone that isn’t going to act like a moody teen. Go ahead and ban me, I wouldn’t waste my time here again, anyway. First time visitor, first time commenter, last time too.

    1. You can disagree all you want on here. People do it all the time on here. But you have to do so pleasantly. The people getting banned are simply not being pleasant. That’s all there is to it. And it looks like you would not have been pleasant either.
      If you want to talk to me on here, you need to be friendly. Real simple rule.

      1. “You can disagree all you want on here. People do it all the time on here. But you have to do so pleasantly.”
        What, you mean like the racist high school teacher further up the comments? Why didn’t you ban him?
        BTW, the baby one is a photograph. Artists can’t draw eyes that perfect. Just doesn’t happen.
        Also why are you saying it is a world exclusive and then in the comments you say you don’t know who gave them to you but they have been flying around everywhere. Why is it a world exclusive then? You made up the words right. As with others I can’t see the

  27. Thanks for all yur work. As a certifiable BF geek I thoroughly enjoy yur BF posts and a lot of yur other work . I hoist a glass of cabernet in yur honor. .

      1. With such a long process to reach a final product, I enjoy having updates. I personally believe Bigfoot is a real animal but also like to listen to others intelligent reasoning why it doesnt exist. Robert has done nothing wrong in showing us those drawings. Don’t shoot the messenger. Please Robert continue and don’t let a few sour grapes spoil the wine.

  28. I have a couple more questions – if anyone has knowledge?
    Question 1: Wasn’t it Smeja that was on the taxidermist forum looking for someone to stuff a Bigfoot body? If that was him, wouldn’t that indicate that he had a body somewhere?
    Question 2: If he had or has a body, who has possession of it? Randles?
    Question 3: Didn’t Randles say on a recent BTR that he had physical evidence of a Sasquatch, above and beyond hair? So who has this dead sasquatch? (if anyone knows?)
    Question 4: Why don’t they just show gross pics of the dead corpse instead of sketches? Or will that be in Mike Greene’s book?
    All this covert hokus pokus is confusing to me.

  29. 1. Not proven that was Smeja asking to stuff a BF on
    2. No one knows if anyone has a body.
    3. Not sure if Randles said that.
    4. No pics of dead BF’s in the book to my knowledge.

  30. Hi Robert,
    Your post mentioned we could see a statue of the Bigfoot that Derek Randles saw. Do you have a link for that?

  31. When I was 9 yrs old, I watched from a cliff as BigFoot strolled in that era, Bigfoot was not a media subject. I thought it was a deformed orangutang. It had more of a topknot on the top of his head and he was an auburn color. Even though I didnot know what it was, I KNEW it would kill me if it discovered me. He stunk, his hands hung below his knees; and he grunted with every other step. I hope that the only way I will ever see Bigfoot again is with pictures. I hope that mankind will leave them alone.

  32. dear wonderful robert… kind, sweet, genteel robert…i hope you don’t mind if i ask you a question, and i will be sure to ask you in the most kind, sweet and genteel manner…what are you doing putting a copyright symbol and your name on original art work that was given to you by someone other than the artist?

    1. I already told you. The copyright is simply a placeholder so that someone else won’t steal the photo and try to copyright it themselves. I put that on there to keep others from stealing the copyright from the true holder. The real copyright holder can get ahold of me at any time and talk to me about whatever. I discussed all of this right there in the article.
      PS you’re getting on my nerves.

  33. i’m just asking because my Indo-Hittite blog readership is concerned…as a nation they are keen observers of the Berne Convention copyright accord, and since almost all Indo-Hitties (or at least the ethnically pure Indo-Hitties) are artists they take umbrage at this sort of thing.

  34. ok…so you’re claiming copyright so someone (else) doesn’t “unfairly” claim the copyright………………….you’re actually protecting the artist’s rights. well, that clears that up, and thanks, robert, on behalf of Indo-Hittites everywhere.
    p.s. if i’m not getting on your nerves, i’m not doing my job….i read that on a blog once.

      1. From the bigfoot forums? That’s enough of a reason to ban him right there. Buncha jerks and nincompoops over there.

  35. +The whole story, the drawings, the fact that Ketchum is involved, and Smeja himself, it all smells like tabloid bullshit to me. Been around this BF thing a long time now, and in cases like this, the shit smell is ALWAYS there.

  36. Hey! We at our neighborhood occult club greatly appreciate the diligent effort you’ve spent on this post. Actually, we’ve actually been working on a site covering alien activity. Your blog’s info is a great model for our own website. Please keep up uploading the good content! Looking forward to reading more information on this amazing site! We just added your site to my bookmarks. =)

  37. Who made the drawings? Why should I believe they are what Smeja saw. DIdn’t he think that what he shot was a bear? Is Smeja also an artist? By the way, sasquatch babies are very light in color, almost white.

  38. Thanks for the pics, not exactly what I expected, the adult looks kinda like a Klingon lol but good to finally see something.

  39. I have a question :- If the sketch is a reference to the adult Smeja killed then why is it not a female ??

  40. It is bad enough that Smeja killed an adult bigfoot and a child. Now there is to be a book about it!!??? Is there no end to trying to make money from the subject of bigfoot? Now Smeja expects to receive compensation for what biologically amounted to murder! Since Smeja, other bigfoot organizations have decided it is OK to try to collect a specimen. This is because some are afraid someone will beat them to the punch. Smeja’s actions were very bad. Because of him other bigfoot are more in danger than they had been.
    Smeja deserves our disdain and condemnation, not praise and compensation.

  41. At the risk of offending Mr. Morley with whom I agree on most of his post, the phrase “…biologically amounted to murder….” is meaningless. Not only does it hinge on which biologist you ask (most won’t risk ridicule by conceding the likely existence of Bigfoot or even acknowledging the overwhelming evidence of same) but the term “murder” is too often used by animal activists (and abortion foes) and the term simply does not apply. (in either case)
    The CA Penal Code section 187 is my preferred definition; “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus with malice aforethought”.
    As a matter of law one cannot murder a deer or even a Bigfoot no matter how reprehensible the killing may be. (The penal code makes an exception for lawful abortions performed under lawful clinical conditions.)
    And the wrongful use of the term promotes moral confusion in the same way that Walt Disney did with talking critters (Bambi) and many other examples of anthropomorphism. Too many children were raised to believe that animals not only crave human affection, but they possess other human virtues. The result is those children grow up to be parents who try to put their kids on the backs of golf course alligators, and who try to hand feed bears at garbage dumps and other viewing sites. (A black bear Mumsy will not tolerate any unseemly interest in her cubs, and she is hardwired to kill any potential threat to her unsuspecting little fuzzballs) Even elk are showing up on college campuses and they are powerful and unpredictable. Needless to say they don’t mix with sympathetic folks who want to channel the elks’ inner most feelings.
    Children should be taught to respect animals as wild and to be responsible stewards of our natural resources. Wild animals don’t need hugs, counseling or lawyers. And if they can be” murdered” then all of us could go to jail for “involuntary deerslaughter”, assuming we survive an animal collision in our vehicles. (deer kill more people than all other wild animals combined. They either come through windshields and crush, antler or hoof unfortunate motorists to death or people crash into trees trying to avoid them)
    Now, I would not be opposed to legally protecting Bigfoot from senseless, negligent, depraved abuse or killing. But, until such time as they are A) acknowledged to exist and, B) are granted equal protection under the law (which would impose an equal obligation to comply on them-picture Bigfoot carrying ID with thumbprint and being the target of a rhythm stick party like Rodney King for “contempt of cop”) ) the only protection we should afford them is wildlife and habitat protection laws like other animals. (BIG TIMBER will pose serious obstacles to this for obvious reasons)
    IF Bigfoot does not have a baculum which all apes including our closest relative the chimpanzee has, then Bigfoot could be more human than any other creature, and it would certainly not be a member of the ape family. (All apes have a penis bone, but humans do not)
    This discovery coupled with their likely high intelligence would certainly validate Mr. Morley’s somewhat premature use of the term, “murder”. And even if Ol’ Mr. Stinky cannot read or comprehend the booklet well enough to pass a driving test, “He” should be afforded protection from criminal abuse just as we’d protect humans with diminished capacity, i.e., savants, children with Down Syndrome, banjo players, Republicans from Texas, etc.,.
    We may someday make an exception to the murder statutes for Bigfoot. But it must not open the door for wild eyed activists who wish for criminal laws against “squirrelicide”.

    1. “Murder” — not? Except for one important detail:
      The mito of at least the adult checked out “within modern human ranges”. I have personally analyzed the complete mito genome of three other specimens, and all three were within human ranges.
      Every other researcher (other than Ketchum) have unequivocally declared that if the mito is “human”, the creature is human, based on dozens of other mito sequences only. Whether or not these were hoaxes.
      So if the mito of Smeja’s adult sasquatch (assuming for a moment it was clearly a sasquatch) tested within modern human ranges, and all scientists I know of apart from a handful of us who believe the nuclear dna has to be tested as well to determine wether the creature is fully 100% human, is it by definition by the “experts” human?
      If so, well then it is by your own definition murder of a modern human — albeit a large, hairy one.
      See: for further details.

      1. At the very least I don’t see how under our Justice code Smeja would not be guilty of 2nd degree murder. He didn’t know what exactly he was shooting at. Bigfoot is not an acknowledged species, and he did know it was possible that it was a man in a disguise, whether he determined that to probable or not. The more credible accounts of the incident, starting with Justin’s first telling of it and corroborated by his friend who was there, was that he intentionally shot it to kill it, deciding on his own that it was not human, and it was done with no provocation by the Bigfoot. His judgment that this wasn’t an unstable man dressed and acting like a mythical Bigfoot was a gamble, ridiculous as that may sound, just as his judgment that it was devoid of rights and legal to kill too, was a gamble. He may get away with it. He might be right, that there was a good chance he could do this and not get arrested for committing a crime, but by definition, he could not determine that what he was shooting at was not human, and thus was not reckless homicide. The “letter of the law” and spirit of the law” are legal terms, and one exists so that the other is followed. A Judge could still rule against Smeja in judicial arbitration and juries vote in favor of the spirit of the law over the letter of the law all the time.

        1. I should correct myself. He did determine it was not a man; I meant he could not confirm that it was. The subject looked surprisingly human-like, enough so that apparently Smeja’s had second thoughts over the wisdom of his actions, and he has been investigated over this by at least two agencies that make arrests.

        2. I’ll correct myself one more time. I meant he could not confirm that it wasn’t a man. And that Bigfoot will be proven to share the same genus as us will not bode well for Justin Smeja.

        1. nominay wrote: “I meant he could not confirm that it wasn’t a man.”
          You know the part I find most disturbing?
          Smeja obviously knew that he was killing at least one very young offspring of a bipedal creature. (Considering my read of his character he may have killed them all and he simply didn’t want to admit to his bloodlust, or an immature desire to test his rifle on living critters. He could arguably explain his rationale for killing one cub scout but not both. And, he’d never admit that he didn’t want the survivor to “finger him in a lineup”)
          He had no way of knowing if the younguns could even survive as orphans. Could an orphan have found his/her way home and was there a Daddy coming through the door after a hard day to discover that he was a widower? Or, were the three already alone in the world prior to the grim shootings? Could the remaining youngster survive alone? BIGFOOT reportedly sleep in shelters and places selected for their warmth. Did a young survivor have the skills to survive and enough body heat without snuggling with others?
          It’s rather difficult to see Smeja’s point of view no matter how generous and broadminded I try to be.

        2. The adult killed was a male, the father. One baby apparently survived. Afterwards the tracks of a juvenile and an adult were found in the area, so apparently the mother and a baby survived and are still out and about.

  42. In response to nominay, any discovery about BIGFOOT’s human similarity after the fact still would not result in a criminal prosecution of Justin Smeja because of the ex post facto provision of The US Constitution. Simply put, one cannot be prosecuted for a crime that was not a crime at the time the offense was committed. This provision was a protection against the abuses of European royalty who would criminalize acts of which they disapproved, and then torture and/or execute those who committed the “offenses” before there was a law to break.
    Our founders wisely anticipated that future politicians would abuse us the same way if we didn’t “bind them down with the chains of the constitution.” (Thos. Jefferson)
    Assuming that BIGFOOT was already classified as human and entitled to legal protection as such and that Smeja wove the noose with his big mouth in a similar fashion, then hypothetically, he could indeed be convicted of 2nd degree murder. (In CA) However, it’s just as likely that he’d claim that the beast was attacking him and he could quite possibly beat the rap in a jury trial. Or, he may not have fired at a creature that he knew was entitled to legal protection from trigger happy criminals masquerading as hunters in the field.
    We may have to accept that he escaped legal consequences for his actions, but I wouldn’t want to carry his shame for the remainder of my life.
    It is my belief that BIGFOOT is an intelligent being, and, the reason there were several reported attacks before and after the turn of the 20th century is that everyone was armed back then and many people likely shot at every fur bearing critter. And, the reason we aren’t torn to shreds so much these days is that BIGFOOT probably isn’t routinely wounded, crippled and in pain after human encounters. BUT, LET THIS BE A WARNING: If the reckless wounding of these creatures continues then it could result in the deaths of innocents whenever a previously wounded BIGFOOT or a relative of same encounters a peaceful individual or group of folks. And, those who go armed and are inclined to shoot anyway, you should consider that BIGFOOT can reportedly soak up a lot of energy is very fast, and he or she may live long enough to kill everyone in your party including those who advise against squeezing that trigger. So if you can’t trust your hunting partner not to hose down the woods in the quest for fame and fortune then let him or her go alone.
    If we do our part and act responsibly then BIGFOOT may not expend energy on attacking anything that isn’t a threat and isn’t yummy good to eat.
    Live and let live. Hunt lawful game and don’t shoot unless you can humanely harvest it. (And that means no 500 yd shots at a deer with a .30-06. Not only is shot placement crucial but a min. of 1,000 lbs of muzzle energy is considered the humane minimum, and the .30-06 is inadequate beyond 275 yds. Know you game and your tools)

    1. All of which assumes that Smeja was telling the truth in the first place. I appear to be one of only a very few commenters on Robert’s site that doubts the validity of this story, at least to the point of offering a modest rebuttal to a phenomenon that has taken a breathtakingly brief period to pass from tall tale to orthodoxy. It is worth noting that Smeja has been dismissed(released, sacked, given the heave-ho) — whatever the expression it is cause for concern — by the O P, who amongst them should have possessed enough common sense to not have had anything to do with him in the first place. But that’s another story . . . Cheers!

      1. Plus the fact that when Ketchum called me, she asked me to confiscate the adult sample for her, since she knew it would test “human” using the common mtDNA testing the authorities do in such cases.
        I said no, I wouldn’t do that with the knowledge I had about every vetted sasquatch sample coming out “within human ranges”.
        Ketchum proclaimed herself as personally non-kill, but pro-choice if someone else pulled the trigger (read: Smeja in this case). I am so-to-speak pro-life as far as sasquatch is concerned. This difference cased a rift between Ketchum and myself.

        1. Yo Richard S – I don’t have a grasp of the DNA lingo because I’m not very smart.
          Boil it down for me – did this cat shoot a bigfoot, and if so, is it likely that he’s got the body on ice?

          1. Assuming one of his versions of the same story is true, I believe he or someone else has the body of the toddler on ice. It is just too lame to believe otherwise.

  43. assuming it is true, is it too lame to believe otherwise because it’s not plausible he’d gun it down and split without taking it? or is it because the nature of the samples he submitted were such that it’s most probable he has the whole thing? both?
    i also have another question about non-disclosure agreements. my reading online suggests that people involved with the study who signed these things are scared to talk for fear of being sued. how realistic is this? would a judge not laugh at (a) the fact that it involves sasquatch, and until a study is actually released, a judge would be inherently skeptical of its existence, and (b), what are the damages associated with talking about such stuff online? I can’t see how somebody yelling from the treetops online has cost anybody anything in a way that a court would award money …
    thanks in advance.

  44. Robert Lindsay wrote: “The adult killed was a male, the father. One baby apparently survived. Afterwards the tracks of a juvenile and an adult were found in the area, so apparently the mother and a baby survived and are still out and about.”
    Thank you for the refresher information. It seems to me that I read that at the start of this blog. Sadly, my memory (which was once a source of pride because of my vast recall of worthless minutia) is no longer what it once was.
    And, I’m somewhat reassured at the possibility that a young one wasn’t left alone.
    And, Maurice Cloud makes a salient point which I failed to allow for-the possibility that Smeja is a daydreaming Walter Mitty.
    For some reason the story rings plausible to me, perhaps because by the time I read it the outrage was in full blossom. But, I was taken in by a pair of clowns and a rubber mask a few years back, even though the dead Sasquatch had perfectly even teeth and a gleaming, dental bonded smile.
    In any case I should thank you Robert, for graciously hosting my thoughts on this and ancillary subjects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)