Member of The Crypto Crew:

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

And Kyle Germann's Blog

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

Saturday, 11 February 2012

Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting Story

Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting Story

[Reposted from Robert Lindsay's Blog]

Alleged Bigfoot Shooter From Robert Lindsay's Blog

Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting Story

I know most of the players in this story, and I believe that it is true. At least the shooting part. Here is what happened.
1. The shooter shows up on and starts a thread saying I just shot 2 Bigfoots, now what do I do? The shooter is well known on the site and is a frequent contributor.
2. Thread quickly spins out of control going to 60 pages. The story is revealed on the thread.
3. Mods get messages that shooter is being harassed and threatened by people as a result of the thread, apparently mad that he killed two BF’s.
4. Thread is shut down.
5. A man named “Bear Hunter” from gets involved, calls up the shooter and questions him at length. The story outline results:
The 25 year old shooter, a transplanted Texan who left Texas nine years ago, was a passenger in a truck near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge on the Plumas National Forest west of Frenchman Lake in the Sierra Nevada on the border of California and Nevada. It was mid-November 2010, and they were bear hunting. There was already snow on the ground. They hoped to find a bear just before it went into hibernation.
They came around a bend, and there was a dirty white female Bigfoot in the road 80 yards away. The shooter grabbed his 25.06 rifle and jumped out of his vehicle. As he jumped out, the Bigfoot started running towards him waving her arms. When the Bigfoot saw the gun, she turned as if to start to run away. The shooter’s companion yelled, “Don’t shoot! It’s a man in a monkey suit!” But he shot anyway. The shooter shot her in the side of the chest, and the bullet penetrated her lungs.
The shooter says he shot her because he thought she was a bear, but that’s not true. He knew what she was. The reason he shot her is because he thought she was threatening him.
She went down, then got to her feet. She ran off, sometimes on two legs and sometimes on four. After a while, she crashed off into the brush and died.
The men went to go look for the female Bigfoot. Suddenly two small, strange creatures appeared, sometimes on two legs, sometimes in four. They looked like a cross between a bear and a gorilla. The creatures had very large heads. They were on either side of the hunters, communicating back and forth.
The shooter raised his gun, fired and shot one of the creatures dead. The other small creature apparently escaped. As the shooter cradled the dying creature in his arms, both men realized that it was a young creature of the same type the shooter had just shot. At this point, they figured out that he had killed two Bigfoots. The juvenile Bigfoot died in his arms.
The shooter says he shot the young Bigfoot because it was threatening him. This is not true. He just shot it for some unknown reason.
The other man with the shooter was so hysterical and upset about the shootings at this point that he took the shooter’s gun away from him and pointed it at him, threatening him. He told the shooter that if he tried to shoot another one of those animals, he would shoot the shooter instead.
The story is that they both were so upset by that point that they left the area. The shooter said that they left the animals in the field and that he was not going back to the area until next fall.
The basic outline of the story is uncontroversial and is acknowledged by everyone who believes the story. The only differences are about the motivations of the shooter and what was or was not left behind.
6. Bear Hunter puts the shooter in contact with the Olympic Project (OP) in Washington State. The OP says, “We’re just trying to keep the shooter out of jail!” The shooter is very frightened of going to jail over the killing of the two Bigfoots. At this point, the story seems to die.
7. Suddenly Bear Hunter realizes that the shooter is deeply involved in the OP. This seems odd. Why is a guy who just shot two Bigfoots suddenly a major part of this organization?
8. Mysteriously, the OP appears on various Bigfoot forums, bragging that they have enough Bigfoot DNA samples to last for years. Bear Hunter regards this as curious and suspects that the shooter may have harvested one or both of the killed Bigfoots or parts of them and is keeping them on ice somewhere and giving the OP access to them.
9. Bizarrely, someone in California, apparently the shooter, submits a very strange sample to Melba Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA project. It resembles a large slice off the thigh of a human cadaver, except that it is very hairy. The slice is about seven inches long by four inches wide by two-three inches deep – it’s a Bigfoot steak. The color of the hair is the same color as that of the killed mother Bigfoot. It appears to have been carved off of a body with a knife or some sort of a tool.
Dr. Ketchum freaks out because she thinks she is in possession of tissue sliced off a dead Bigfoot. She is worried that police will raid her lab to take away the sample and everything else she has, because that’s what the government does with Bigfoot evidence. She tries to get others to hold it for her instead. The others decline to take it off her hands.
11. The Bigfoot steak tests out as “no known mammal.” However, the DNA (probably MtDNA) tests as “human.” Nevertheless, according to a recent radio show, two men associated with Ketchum’s DNA project implied that the Bigfoot steak tested out as coming from a Bigfoot by DNA.
12. I break the story.
13. Pandemonium ensues.
14. The OP appears on forums, agreeing with the basics of the story: that the two Bigfoots were shot in the time and place where they were killed. They differ on the motivations of the shooter and certain other relatively non-important things.
They also reveal that the shooter went back to the site two weeks later, dug through the snow and found a nice chunk of the dead Bigfoot mother. Someone, apparently the shooter, sent the Bigfoot steak to Ketchum’s lab from California.
Adrian Erickson, Melba Ketchum, the Olympic Project, Bear Hunter and the shooter all think that the Bigfoot shooting story is true in its basic facts. They also agree that a chunk of one dead Bigfoot was sent to Ketchum’s lab.
Adrian Erickson, Richard Stubstad and Ketchum agree that Ketchum freaked out when she got the sample because she thought it was from a Bigfoot, and she thought the authorities would raid her lab to seize the Bigfoot steak and the rest of her samples, since this what they do with Bigfoot evidence.
People associated with agree that the long thread existed until it was shut down.
Possibility of a hoax: The general conclusion on the Net is that the story itself is fake.
Let us look at that possibility.
We know that the thread is real.
What if the shooter just made up the whole story? It’s possible, but I do not think he made up this story. His character is open to debate, but he’s not a faker or a hoaxer. On the other hand, some say that he is a very unreliable person and that at one point at least, he did not believe in Bigfoot. So it’s conceivable he made up the story as a gag, since that is what non-believers do.
What if the OP is making up the story? They don’t make stuff up. They are good researchers with excellent integrity. They don’t hoax. However, it is possible that they were hoaxed by the shooter, although I don’t believe that this happened.
The hunk of flesh adds credibility to the story. The OP says it’s a chunk of Bigfoot flesh from one the killed Bigfoots. Could it have been hoaxed? Possibly.
However, someone would have had to have had access to a human cadaver and then sawed off a chunk of the thigh. How likely is that? Further, this would have had to have been a very strange human cadaver, one covered with hair. And the hair would have had to have been the exact same color of the hair of one of the Bigfoots that got shot. How likely is that? In addition, two men made statements on a radio show implying that the Bigfoot steak tested out as coming from a Bigfoot by DNA.
Conclusion: As you can see, there is a great deal about this incident that seems to point away from a hoax or a lie. In fact, I believe it is neither, and I believe the basis for the story is true.
The two Bigfoots were indeed shot dead in California in November. At least one piece from one of the Bigfoots was sent in by the OP to Ketchum’s DNA lab for testing. The director thought that it was a slice of a killed Bigfoot, and she requested others take it off her hands in case the police raid the lab and seize the sample as they tend to do with Bigfoot evidence.
There you have it.

by | July 7, 2011 · 9:25 AM

Update to the “Sierra Kills” Story

Updating the story of the two Bigfoots shot and killed in California in November 2010, we can now report that the shooter appears to have taken one or more of the bodies or parts of them with him on the day that he shot them.
Shooter may have taken bodies with him. Although the shooter has never admitted that he took the bodies that day, the evidence seems to indicate that he did.
There is a rumor flying around that the shooter said he cut the bodies into small pieces and hid them in a large number of different places or possibly with different people, scattered all around. They are on ice if this is true. This lines up perfectly with the timeline where the Olympic Project went around to Bigfoot forums soon after the killings saying that they had enough samples to last for years. The reason they said that, presumably, is because they have access to two dead Bigfoot bodies.
The shooter said he went back to the site two weeks later and found a small piece of flesh by digging through the snow, which was then sent in to Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA project. However, the piece of flesh sent in was 7 inches long by 4 inches wide by 3 inches deep. That’s as big as a steak!
There is no way that a gunshot would have sawed off that big of a chunk of flesh. There is also no way that a chunk of flesh that big would be left from animals eating the body. Further, Bigfoots bury their dead. If the two Bigfoots were left there, then other Bigfoots would have probably come soon after to carry off the dead and bury them somewhere else. Bottom line is that the story about going back two weeks later and finding the Bigfoot steak in the snow may not be true.
Is it possible that the shooter carved off the steak before he left that day? It’s possible, but I talked to taxidermists, and they told me that that story does not ring true. The shooter is a taxidermist himself. The taxidermists told me that no taxidermist would just saw off a piece of a thigh of an animal. A taxidermist would want to take the whole thing. They told me that he must have taken both bodies with him that day, probably putting them in the back of his truck.
One argument is that if the shooter really did kill two Bigfoots, why didn’t he go to the media with the news and get famous? Or why didn’t the Olympic Project do the same thing? The word from my sources is that everyone is afraid of going to jail, and that’s why they didn’t go to the media. A lot of people say they don’t believe that would stop anyone, but that’s the typical dynamic in these Bigfoot shootings. People shoot these things, then they look at the body and see how much it resembles a man, and they are afraid they are going to go down on homicide.
Friends tried to stop him from shooting the Bigfoot. We can also now report that the other man with him tried to stop the shooter from shooting the first Bigfoot. He yelled, “It’s a man in a monkey suit! Don’t shoot!” But he shot it anyway.
Shooter comes out of hiding. The shooter himself appears to be posting on internet forums lately. Here is one thread that appears to be from the shooter. Compared to writings from the shooter’s Internet pages, the writing style seems quite similar.

The probable area of the "Sierra kill" Bigfoot shootings is circled.
Shooter is a “maniac hunter”. The shooter caused quite a stir on in a thread about wolves by showing up and saying he would personally kill very single wolf in North America if he was given a chance to. This statement made a lot of people mad and caused a minor furor on the site. This goes in line with the general line about the hunter that he’s a “maniac hunter,” as we described earlier.
Shooter needs amnesty, or else. Sources also tell me that unless the shooter is offered amnesty for the shootings, whatever dead Bigfoot evidence he has stashed away from the shootings is going to disappear. In that case we will have to wait until another Bigfoot is killed, and it will happen again.
I believe that this is true. The shooter should obtain an attorney and begin negotiations with law enforcement in order to obtain an amnesty for the killings, possibly in the name of science or for whatever other reason they can come up with. I strongly support an amnesty for the shooter, if only in interests of science.
“Bigfoot steak” from the Sierra Kills tested 100% human. Yes it is true, the slice from the Sierra Kills tested 100% human. However, probably only MtDNA was tested, in which case the result would make sense. However, there could be legal issues, as according to DNA, the “thing” in the Sierra Kills was 100% human. Nevertheless, on a recent radio show, two men associated with the DNA project implied that the Bigfoot steak has since been proven to be from a Bigfoot via DNA testing.
Endless delays in Ketchum DNA Project. We can also report now that as of June 11, 2011, Melba Ketchum’s DNA study had still not been completed. The paper has supposedly been written, but they are waiting for the last few samples to come in. After that, the paper will go out for peer review. Why don’t they close enrollment on the samples and say they won’t accept any more for the study? That would seem to be the reasonable thing to do.
In December, on a radio show, Ketchum said exactly the same thing. That the paper was written, but they were waiting for the last few samples to come in. Here it is 5 1/2 months later and she is still saying the same thing. In the early part of the year, we were told that the paper was already out for peer review. Now, 4 1/2 months later, it hasn’t even gone out yet.
These delays are insane. I really don’t think that Ketchum is ever going to publish her paper. I’ve given up hope.
Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot discussion on the web.

--Now as I see it, if there is a piece of genetically human flesh in a laboratory's possession, the coroner's office has the right to sieze it upon presentation of the proper writ. No excuses, please, just hand it over and if it leads to an inquest over a possible murder, be prepared to make yopurself available to give testimony as a witness. And of course IMHO, the type of "Bigfoot" that was shot was very likely human and in fact is the same type of human as the Pangboche preserved hand is, a Neanderthal. This is one of the perils of killing a "Bigfoot": at least one of the basic creature categories is a "Wildman" and that one is universally acknowledged in Folklore to be basically a hairy form of human being. And so if you shoot one it really is MURDER. And whoever shot the Iceman was likewise commiting a MURDER.

As to the "Bigfoot" creatures trying to escape sometimes on the hind legs and sometimes on all fours, that can be attributed to the wounded creatures crawling on all fours when the strength to continue on hind legs alone failed them. The young ones could even have been toddlers.

IMHO the whole affair can be equated to some old-fashioned cowboy types going out to shoot some Indians for fun. Or what the Nazis used to call a Judenjagd, a Jew-Hunt, where fugitive Jews were actually hunted down through the forests while trying to escape.

And I can't blame Melba Ketcham for not finishing the paper she promised because whatever happens next, she's in for it.

Best Wishes, Dale D.


  1. Hi Dale, thx for running this. I am 100% sure that this shooting took place. However, I am not certain of what happened afterwards in terms of gathering evidence.

  2. Robert, if what you and I think is so, then we have a serious problem here. When somebody shoots something that is 100% human, legally that's murder no matter how you slice it. Something very bad is going down here, you can't just have people going around shooting unarmed mothers with children just because they say they are shooting at "Animals"

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

    1. This really upsets me. The guy's a monster. When is someone going to turn these people in?

  3. Apparently according to the genetics study soon to come out, the Bigfoots are not 100% human. They are some sort of subhuman or prehistoric human. You know those things like Neandertal or Java Man? Well, they never went extinct! They just turned into these things, these Bigfoots. So I'm not certain that it's murder. But I think you are correct that we can't have people killing these things that are so close to humans. Once we get confirmation, it is going to look a lot like homicide, correct. And needs to be treated as such.

  4. Well robert We are getting to see yoour name around here quite often! I am thinking of putting a link to your blog on the companion blog, Frontiers of Anthropology: I just borrowed a couple of your genetic family trees from Cavalli=sforza because your copies were cleaner than the ones I had.

    Well you see Robert, that's not quite the way the law should take it. What we have here is a direct statement that Justin shot an unarmed mother and chile with the expressed motive of selling their body parts at a profit, followed thereafter by the statement that the body parts tested out to be 100% human.

    Now think about just that part without bothering with the rest of the bells and whistles. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY OBSCENE. And law enforcement authorities should have just cause to take everybody remotely associarted into custody under suspicion of murder or as accomplices, seize the samples and hold a coroner's inquest, probably not in that exact order.

    As to the legal staus of persisting hominines, that probably depends on making an absolute ruling, but Neanderthals at least are generally thought to be clasified as a type of Homo sapiens . And killing a member of our own species is just plain murder, whether or not that population has any recognized legal status or citizenship. And whether or not there has been a legal ruling on the case, these so-called Bigfoots are de facto Native Americans and should be treated as such.

    BTW, feel free to browse around the site and look at some of the skull material I have posted: my specialization is in measurement, comparison and analysis of human (and Hominid) skulls.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

    1. Hi Dale. The word is that the NuDNA is NOT 100% human at all. In fact, it is far off, anywhere from 10% - 37.5% of the way from a human to a chimp. If I had to guess, I would think that the NuDNA is either Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Erectus, but I'm not sure. So Bigfoots are hybrids between humans and subhumans, which is really bizarre.

      You have done superior work on the hominid skulls, etc. Kudos to you.

      Please feel free to link me. And if you have an email contact, I would like to email you too if you don't mind. If not, you can find my email on the contact page.

    2. Hi Dale, LE authorities were told all of this stuff, but they more or less laughed it off. They were told that the MtDNA tested 100% human and this could therefore be a possible homicide, but they thought that was ridiculous.

      They tossed it aside and eventually referred it to CA Department of Fish and Game as an animal matter. CA DFG did indeed investigate the case in December. I think they were looking for a body when they went to Smeja's house.

    3. Hi There Robert, good to see you back again.

      I am afraid that if the authorities took that attitude they were being negligent in their duties. And I'm aftraid that if, after announcing a test result of 10% human DNA, there is a second announcement of "We don't know what the DNA is, we were screwed when we said that before"-it won't wash, it isn't good enough: They SAID it was human DNA and the Authorities MUST treat it as a case of possible homicide. At the very least the authorities need to seize the sample as ALLEGEDLY human and have the coroner do the tests on THAT.And they need to keep a weather eye on the shooter whatever else. Sounds like he has no scruples WHO he shoots and cuts up.

      The Fish and Game people would be involved if it were a case of poaching as Tyler suggests. My own inquiries have come back to me stating "The FBI knows about the case and they are investigating". Could be they were lying to me to give me the brush-off, but that sort of misrepresentation is also considered unethical.

      But this thing is not over yet, not by a long chalk.

      Good luck on your blog, I had not known before how extensive your information was over there.

      Best Wishes, Dale D.

    4. Only the MtDNA tested human, and we know that for a fact. It's rumored that the NuDNA is quite a bit different. I believe that the DNA of the entire sample is 10% of the way from a human to chimp, whatever the Hell that means. Actually, I was told it was 90% human, but as that makes no sense, I assume they mean 10% of the way from a human to chimp.

      About my blog: Yes, thank you very much sir! About our extensive information. Well, we are just the best Bigfoot blog out there, especially for scooping new stories. For overall information though, I have some excellent competition.

    5. Well, Robert, Let me put it this way:

      When Melba Ketcham announced initially that the sample in questuion tested out as 100% human, she had already generated her own worst-case scenario. At that point, the case was legally murder and no two ways about it. Subsequently sghe has retracted her initial findings, which means at the time of her first announcement, she was being completely inept in her profession and irresponsible in her judgement in making the announcement.

      NOW, IMHO, there are TWO basic sets of creatures being sampled and two different sets of DNA in the database. 10% of the way back between human and chimpanzee DNA is still in the Neanderthal range of tests: 25% of the way back is still in the Neanderthal range. When the Neanderthal results came out, we were already in the peculiar situation that the Neabnderthals were are next-nearest kin and the given rang for their DNA blocked out a large chunk of that coveted genetic terratory: we could maybe fit in Homo erectus at around the 50% mark but it would be a very tight squeeze and little genetic differentiation between Neanderethals and erectus. And the Australopithecines (of which there were supposed to be several grades and several species in between) have hardly any space apiece and all end up as being dangerously close to ordinary chimpanzee DNA. And of course this is talking mtDNA because that is the only part of Neanderthal DNA we have actually sampled and the only kind of DNA that is preserved in fossils. We have no idea what Neanderthal nuclear DNA was like and no way of finding out-and the same goes for all fossil types.

      I have no problems with any of the DNA results I am hearing but I think the PNW sasquatch is something very different from the Eastern Bigfoot and that is part of where the problem arises. In any event, I surely would not want to be in Melba Ketcham's shoes now, whatever the outcome turns out to be.

      Thank you for your input, Robert and as I mentioned before it is always a pleasure to have you here.

      Best Wishes, Dale D.

  5. There's still another way he could be arrested: poaching. If I remember correctly, several states have given legal protection Sasquatches and any other primates indigenous to North America. The fact is that he shot a protected animal with the intention of selling it's parts, which is by definition poaching. Poaching of course is illegal.

    Best regards,
    Tyler Stone

  6. I have just got back a message from the FBI saying that the matter is indded being looked into and that there is no need to be alarmed or concerned.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

  7. Yeah, um... just one thing-- how on earth could anything test positive for bigfoot dna if there isn't any other proof the thing even exists?
    I say B S.

    1. It tested "presumptive for Bigfoot" because we have no known type specimen. So far they have nearly 100 specimens that have tested "presumptive for Bigfoot," including one Yeti sample from Bhutan. And the entire genome has now been sequenced. That was done in November.

  8. Well, you see, that doesn't signify and it isn't even an issue in this case.

    WE CAN test for HUMAN DNA and the sample originally TESTED AS 100% HUMAN.

    So it's still legally MURDER, and it doesn't mean a blessed thing what your opinion is about "Bigfoot" one way or the other.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

  9. I just got an anonymous posting to this blog entry. I shall excerpt parts of it below so you can see what was going on with that one.

    "i didn't know it was so easy to shoot a bigfoot, just drive off into the woods and you'll run into one or three and be able to kill them...although i guess in lieu of that i could just go digging in the snow and i might find a piece of one lying around. Maybe all the bigfoot 'researchers' should just take that approach...hey it's easy. somebody tell double mm he's putting waaaayy to much effort into it. If i found a piece of a bigfoot lying around i'd take it to a semi discredited dna lab. then, before the results were published, or even released, i'd post a lot of nonsense on racist blogs and throw around words like mitochondrial and most people wouldn't know if i knew what i was talking about but they would pretend they did because if they didn't other people would think they were dumb."

    OK, already we can see what's up with this poster. The poster is taking a sarcastic, high-handed, snotty attitude about the situation. The poster hasn't a clue as to what "Mitochondrial" even means. The poster has no right venturing any opinions whatsoever because the poster doesn't know what he is talking about and even if there was a valuable result announced, they wouldn't know what the tehnical language meant and hence they wouldn't know if it WAS a valuable result or not.

    "other people might get all caught up in the story by the sheer heartlessness of it and demand the arrest of the perps and some might get all paranoid about Big Government confiscating the samples, because you know the feds are really into suppressing bigfoot evidence and constantly raid all these labs that have all these samples. i guess it just depends on the personalities involved...if they are suckers or suspicious bastards."

    Furthermore the poster does not recognise the concept of suggesting previously established legal protocols in hypothetical circumstances. The poster appoarantly does not understand the concept of hypothetical circumstances and assumes that people discussing a hypothetical situation must therefore necessarily believe it to be a real situation. On top of that, the poster now begins to become openly hostile and insulting as well as being snide and sarcastic, begins calling names and making ad hominem attacks.

    "i'd keep the story going too, because by now, even though i didn't really have anything to do with it i'd be getting lots of hits on my blog by pretending to be an expert on the story. i'd publish timelines and emails i sent to other noninvolved experts and we'd all pat each other on the back and act like great chums and like we actually knew something or had something worthwhile to add. anyway, that's just what i would do......"

    Meaning probably Robert's blog since I only just started running the story here. Also the poster seems to be both jealous about traffic on the blogs and is hostile to the sight of co-workers in the same field (which is apparantly all Greek to them) sharing a common interest in a topic that involves their field of interest and even what they have college degrees to advance opinions on. The poster is a surly, nasty sort who also would not have got his original message posted in its original form simply because the poster was being a loudmouthed ignorant jackass about it all.And while we are at it, let me add that having a hunk of meat with human DNA is not a difficult concept to believe. It is of course all too easy to see how one COULD get a chunk of flesh that tested out as human DNA. The part where it becomes hard to believe is when the flesh does NOT have human DNA in it. If you can't believe in Bigfoot, probably you might find the notion of a psychotic killer easier to swallow.That's all, and if you try something of this nature again, let me reassure you it WON'T get through.

  10. Another anonymous comment:

    "I don't know if this is a for real story or not, but here is what I think about this thread. Dale stop being a ******** and endlessly stating 'its murder'. The man may have unethically shot some unknown type of human-like apes, but it stops at that. I don't even believe someone could be ultimately convicted of poaching in this case because regardless of any "laws" about killing a bigfoot-at the time of the shootings it remains an animal that is unproven to exist officially. An animal must be officially and scientifically proven to exist before there can be any legally enforceable laws protecting it."

    OK, you are also so blinded by your preconceived notions you can't see what is plainly stated. Once again, it means nothing that the story goes that "Somebody shot a Bigfoot" FORGET THAT PART, IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
    We have had a flat statement that somebody shot something of basically human appearance, an unarmed mother and a child, and that this person was so irresponsible that the gun had to be forcibly taken away from them afterward. NOW PAY ATTENTRION: pieces of whatever was shot were sent to the lab and identified as HUMAN. THAT makes it murder, smartass, no two ways around it. THAT is the ONE PROVABLE FACT of this whole sordid mess, the rest is only allegations and assumptions. Your own scenario is only a mass of allegations and assumptions and overlooks the established fact thay something that looked human was shot and the test results that were announced said it was human.

    AND FURTHERMORE, no other official statements have been forthcoming that definitely do NOT say that it could have been some nutcase saw a Mexican woman out alone on the road with two small children, shot her and SAID she was a Bigfoot, cut her up and thought he was going to sell her body parts at a profit.

    Julia Pastrana was a Mexican and we have posted her photo here before. If somebody saw Julia Pastrana running around with her clothes off they could very well call HER a Bigfoot. Google Julia Pastrana and then tell me it couldn't have been so.

  11. Ok-When we finally get to see the actual bodies, that is if they exist, if they look to be 7ft. tall and hairy as a bear would you then still say that the man had intended to kill so-called "humans". I do agree that the guy is a jerk, and I myself would have stopped him from these claimed actions had I been present. Furthermore, if the bodies look to be actually human in appearance, then I agree that he should be prosecuted for murder. But the DNA evidence even if it says "human" doesn't prove that the man had intended to shoot humans. It all depends on what this appeared to be to him. If it had really been a guy in a gorilla suite, I would even say that that was not murder since that person would not have appeared to be a human being. What I am saying is that even if his intentions were to kill bigfoot creatures, and the creatures turned out to be some type of human being- they have to actually appear to be human beings in order to prove that the guy wanted to "murder" human beings.

  12. You would be mistaken. Shooting a man in a gorilla suit would be murder, although I suppose a good lawyer would get that reduced to Accidental homicide or something.

    The basic fact is that you don't know if the scenario you present is true, you don't know if anything the man said is true, all you DO know is that he says he shot something and here is a piece of it, and the first thing the lab says is "it's human"

    THAT is all you can prove legally in a court of law, everything else is mere presumption of events that occurred outside of your personal experience and therefore is only hearsay

    And under THOSE circumstances you have what the court would call a reasonable assumption of murder or at least enough for the coroner to hold the inquiry. And the sample becomes the corpus delecti, so there is no question about hiding it or locking it away from prying eyes.

    And I would appreciate it if you fellows bothered to look these things up before you come to me telling me I am wrong just because you do not recognize what is demonstrable evidence in this case and what is unsubstabntiated allegation and unwarranted surmise. We have a real piece of evidence in question, a hunk of human meat. And we have a lot of people claiming it represents some form of an unknown primate and the person who shot it is blameless of any wrongdoing. That isn't so. We have not got sufficient evidence to introduce an unknown primate into the case at this point antd we shall not have sufficint evidence to invoke an unknown primate UNTIL an official report is released which says it is an unknown primate. Until then the nearest likely candidate is still a human source, no matter what anybody believes about the stories one way or the other.

    The stories are in question but the hunk of meat is not in question. And the presumption is that it is human until proven otherwise. We are not starting from the standpoint of assuming there is an unknown primate involved but starting from the standpoint of what is actually demonstrable at the present time and the presumption that the sample is human far outweighs any possible claims made to the contrary.

    1. I understand the viewpoint that you are taking. Technically, according to what has happened so far- this guy has claimed to have shot and killed something in the wild, a "claimed" piece of which has "supposedly" been tested in a lab and came up "human". I get it. But, the law cannot suppose that a murder has been committed until there is a body to match to the piece of flesh. A piece of flesh on its own could have cone from something, or someone, still alive or even long dead before this guy found it. I too believe that an investigation should take place in order to establish exactly what, if anything, has been killed.
      Also, I am a resident of the Black Hills of South Dakota and have been hunting all my life. People occasionally get shot and even killed in the wild and I have never heard of murder charges being filed unit intent was established. In other words, a hunter must actually know that he or she is shooting at a person, or be woefully negligent in their judgment before taking the shot. Most of these are officially dismissed as accidents. If you are foolish enough to run around in the woods up here in a gorilla suite during hunting season you may very well be shot and I gaurantee that no charges will be filed.

    2. I have just put a reply into the system and it failed to go through. Your statement includes several errors including the last "I can guarantee no charges will be filed" for shooting somebody in a gorilla suit. Wrong, the presumption of the law would be you were not supposed to have any idea there were gorillas in the woods in the first place.

      In the case of the sample of flesh, it was stated to be human after laboratory analysis. That does indeed make a cause to suspect foul play and does indeed give the law the right to step in to seize the sample for further testing by the coroner's office. But it is the coroner who has to determine if it is a murder based on the results of an inquset, and that is a separate necessary step.

    3. Yes Dale, by the way I am Tim, I know someone isn't supposed to think that there would be gorillas in the woods. But, that person would no longer resemble a human being. Therefor, if a hunter mistook them for a game animal, and shot them, the blame would fall upon the guy in the costume, not the shooter. Also, the shooter could claim to have felt they were threatened or under attack and fired under self-defensive duress. This would be perfectly legitimate. No murder charges would be filed.
      When it comes to the flesh sample "stated to be human after lab analysis", I believe that the state has to test the sample themselves and then do an investigation in order to find a body. Remember, the burden of proof rests upon the state. They need to prove that a murder took place, the accused does not need to prove that it did not.
      Aside from all this, what do you think is going on here? Did this guy shoot what people have come to call "bigfoot" creatures? Did he kill legitimate, modern human beings? Or is this a publicity stunt being drug out in order for him and his collaborates to get a book out?

    4. I agree that it should be some degree of murder. This poor creature was likely waving signals to its young to stay put. It's bad enough the parent was killed I'm unable to wrap my head around how a child that just witnessed its parent murdered could also be shot. If this comes out that justin plotted the hunt for a documentary being filmed to be the first to document the existance of BF.

  13. To Mr "Oh I Do believe in Sasquatch, I Do, I Do I Do..." sober up until you can make an intelligible and rational comment and I shall allow it through. Otherwise if all you're going to do is enter childish blubbering, I am going to squash you like a bug.

  14. And then I get yet another rant about "How can you presume Bigfoot is real Blah Blah Blah".
    Listen once again and read my words this time. We are not talking about anybody's opinion about Bigfoot, we are talking about a chunk of meat cut off a woman's thigh that the lab said was human. Period. If it WAS human, we have a problem and we have a crime. Has nothing to do with Bigfoot other than the person who shot the woman said he shot a Bigfoot. And a junkie high on dope can shoot his old man and claim afterward he was shooting at a bear. ALL the theorizing about Bigfoot is irrelevant at this point. The local coroner's office has got to get ahold of that chunk of meat to see if a crime has been committed and then act accordingly. It is irrelevant about what anybody says about "Bigfoot" one way or another. We don't know what's going on and we don't know if the guy that shot at a hairy woman was in his right mind or not: the story could be legitimate or it could NOT be legitimate. The one hard fact we have is a chunk of meat, presumably human, of an unarmed subject shot down in cold blood with the sole purpose of making money out of selling the body parts, which the shooter admitted to and proceeded to do accordingly.

    Now if you DON'T believe in Bigfoot then you have GOT to believe foul play was involved from that scenario alone and it does no good to poke fun and jeer at the notion of Bigfoot. THAT is completely irrelevant. And the idea that the shooter was in anyway justified in shooting an unarmed mother and child because he SAYS he thought he was shooting at a Bigfoot is irrelevant, and saying that "Anybody running around in these woods dressed in a gorilla suit deserves to get shot" is even more irrelevant. ALL of that is presuming without any real evidence at all that there was something to the story. We don't know if there was anything to that story, the guy could have gone over to his next door neighbor, a woman whose pubic hair grew over onto her inner thighs, which sometimes happens, kills her and her kids and cuts off a chunk of her inner thigh, the hairy part. And THEN he can get a friend to tell a wild scenario about they met a wild Bigfoot woman and he shot her. Do you find that any easier to believe? It is entirely possible, every step of the way.

  15. Thank you Tim. I much prefer it if people use their names: we have a couple other "Anonymous" posters here that are frankly wasting their time even posting here.

    And Blogger still has a problem with allowing me to post "in reply to replies" in this message board. So I must post again as if it is a new message beginning.

    No, as a matter of fact I have it on the word of local law authorities here in Indiana that shooting a person in a costume is still homicide unless there are strongly mitigating circumstances. Shooting at a person in a sheet because you mistook them for a ghost, for instance, would not be a valid excuse in a local court of law. The rule of thumb in force in other areas could vary, I'm well aware of the fact. I really don't know what it might be in California.

    Yes, I am awre that the coroner's office has to determine that a murder has been committed before prosecution can take over. I have pointed that out in the answers to earlier posts. BUT the Coroner's office can easily seize such an object as an alleged hunk of human flesh at any time on the merest suspicion that a crime might have been committed, by producng the proper warrants. That would be deemed necessary in this case because a private business now has possession of said sample

    As to what i think is really going on, that part is irrelevant also. Right now I am reserving opinion and allowing other information to come in. It seems a sure thing to me that if we have a human piece of flesh involved, there should definitely be an inquest into the matter and then criminal charges should be filed. And because I do not wish to hinder due process of the law, I am withholding any further opinions because that due process is far more important than the opinion would be at this time.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

  16. Dale- I think we are in agreement that an investigation should take place. Be it a coroner'e inquest or what-have-you. If this piece of flesh is in existence, then it needs to be tested by an authoritative lab-not just the one associated with the shooter. If it then tests as absolutely 100% human, a full -on murder investigation needs to take place. If it isn't 100% bonafide human, then Game, Fish & Parks authorities, and possibly federal wildlife officials, need to step in and find out what exactly this guy did shoot. It would be their job to determine whether or not there is an unkown and unclassified indigenous species residing in North America so that protective laws could be put into place. However, as I stated earlier (in response to another anonymous poster's comment) the shooter in question could most likely beat any poaching charges because the animal was not officially in existance at the time of the shooting. After all, almost every known species had to fall as the hunter's or scientist's prey in order to become "real".
    Though I am no hard-core beliver, I think bigfoot creatures may exist. If they do, then it is my humble opinion that some very small number of them must be sacrificed in order to protect the majority.
    Thank you for the lively debate-Tim

  17. Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I think you've made some truly interesting points.Keep up the good work. curiel and runion dui attorneys


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.