Sierra Kills Bigfoot Drawings
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 9th, 2012
Posted by Robert Lindsay at his blog:
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 Bigfoot that has been confirmed by DNA evidence.
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.
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.
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.
3. A photograph of the actual Bigfoot steak, or slice of Bigfoot, from the same incident. This is the first photograph ever of a slice of actual Bigfoot tissue that has been confirmed by DNA.
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!Robert Lindsay
We posted the drawing of the head of the adult Bigfoot previously here on Cryptomundo: Sierra Kills Bigfoot Drawing.
What do the Cryptomundians think about these drawings and the steak photo?
Don’t shoot the messenger. We don’t care (and won’t post) what you think about Robert Lindsay.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Unless it is stained with blood, the “steak” doesn’t appear to have the “consistent hair color” that researchers claim bigfoot has. If it is stained, then it is consistent and very interesting.
I’ll say it again, if this story is true, it is really a tragedy.
Since the shooting supposedly happened, has anyone else noticed that the the number of “authentic” videos and blobsquatch photos on line and in the news seems to have gone down? Which is odd because the animal planet show has been on during the same time, and you’d think that would spur a lot of activity.
I think its a horrible shame that if he went to the extent of shooting and killing two BF, and he didnt produce the bodies for scientific research and confirmation of the species, that the killings were EXTREMELY selfish! Why threaten the population of a rare species if you are too stupid to alert the scientific community to your actions?? Sorry.. but his insensitivity sickens me. If I had killed an undocumented “humanoid”, I would have SLEPT with the carcass until its existence was seen by every scientist, TV station, news paper and researcher had the proof they needed. What a waste of time in my opinion.
The artist’s conception of the juvenile bigfoot looks exactly a baby gorilla. The body isn’t very well drawn on the image of the adult, anatomy seems off.
This is the first full body drawing ever of a Bigfoot that has been confirmed by DNA evidence.
Um, how exactly can DNA evidence confirm a drawing?
These are pretty decent art, but that only means they were probably not drawn by the witness. Even if the artist had the skills and training of a police sketch artist, those police sketches often bear only a passing similarity to reality.
Finally the “kid” looks like a chimp, not like anything one would compare with “a little black kid”, as in the original story.
“Finally the “kid” looks like a chimp, not like anything one would compare with “a little black kid”, as in the original story.” –
Ah, but the story changes every time it is told!
If that drawing of the juvenile is accurate, and if someone shot that juvenile, there is something seriously wrong with that person. But, I guess that fact has been established already.
So, Smeja had enough compassion to “cradle” the young Bigfoot, as it died from him blowing a hole in it because he was so freaked out from the encounter?
That was the story! So, he feared the creatures, but cradled one in his arms. Then, he left the bodies behind because the entire episode was so upsetting that he just wanted to get out of the area. That’s quite a range of emotions!
Then they go back to the area and find one scrap of hide that is obviously trimmed around the edges! Who trimmed the edges?
And the DNA results, that no one will ever see, prove the story(s) true?
Just an amazing story! Biscardi has to be behind this.
I think there is general agreement that the coned scalp is a sagittal crest. In that case, it wouldn’t develop until the creature approached maturity. The ‘baby’ is clearly a photoshopped chimp.
What troubles me here is the differences between the ‘supposed’ Adult and Juvenile witness drawings – has anyone noticed how the nose on the the two drawings are so different? The adult drawing portrays a much more human nose – however the juvenile looks much more apelike, to me the difference looks way too big for them to be from the same species, which for me throws the whole encounter in doubt… I am a believer but this all smells of fakery to me….
I’d be interested to know more about exactly how the drawings were produced, and who actually drew them, because most artists train extensively with human figure study. It could be that we’re basically looking at a drawing of a human body with particular features modified to fit the witness’ descriptions. Also, many artists are more proficient in the stylized proportions of manga, fashion, or cartoons; that narrow waist in particular might be more of a stylistic interloper than precise realism.
With that caveat, there are some interesting details here. For the adult, the narrow waist, and the inward sloping torso, are quite unusual. Fit modern humans can get a slim abdomen, but most hominins have a larger gut, and even a tear-drop shaped ribcage and abdomen, because they need the extra gut space to process a rough diet. Carnivores can get away with a smaller gut, but then again the heavily carnivorous Neanderthals had a barrel chest.
The ‘no neck’ observation I think is off, what we’re really seeing is a thick mane about the neck and shoulders that obscures the shape of the neck. This mane also gives the impression that the upper arms are longer than they actually are. Accounting for a few inches of mane, the arms proportions seem precisely human. The leg proportions, though, are different, with a relatively short thigh and longer shin. It might be the hair that’s obscuring the true hip joint, though. Such proportions, though, makes me think the creature is not derived from the H. ergaster branch from whence we came.
As for the child, what’s really striking is the lack of broad cheek bones, with characterize most hominins, including us. Looking back at the adult, if you assume that she has some sideburns, the cheekbone likewise seem rather narrow. Other traits make the juvenile seem surprisingly ape-like, given how human-like the adult seems: the thick, wrinkled skin, forward-facing nostrils, thin lips, and protruding ‘muzzle’. Assuming that the juvenile is indeed more authentic than the adult, I think we need to infer some of these apish characteristics back into the adult. The adult nose is obviously hooded, but the adult muzzle might be mostly foreshortened.
Remembering that the juveniles were described as mostly moving on all-fours, I think we should hypothesize that young bigfoot start off mostly quadrupedal, and only grow into bipedalism as their long bones grow out. The orientation of the face might thus subtly change as they age, with the hooded, down-ward facing nose developing as the cartilage grows. These infants, like chimpanzee infants, are probably born more ready for the outside world, with thicker skin and fur than comparatively premature human infants.
After considering these details, I’m beginning to think that these creatures aren’t necessarily close relatives of humans, but might be derived from a collateral branch of hominin, or maybe even something on the Pongin line, more closely related to orangutans. That tight abdomen is still the most problematic feature, though, especially considering how closely they match bears in their ecology. Maybe they only eat lean meat, maybe we only see them when they’re half-starved.
I don’t buy this one bit! This story has gone on for way too long with absolutely no confirmed evidence. Plus the story isn’t consistent. This is starting to sound like one of those internet rumors that just gets out of control.
This is soooooo BS!
This has dragged out longer than the Georgia Hoax & The Caddy Footage fiascos! So Bigfoots (or is it Bigfeets) don’t have a human nose when infants/juveniles but grow them when they become adults? Ha ha ha!
Sooner or later this story will peter out like they all do. Right now it’s running on vapors in the tank. And meanwhile the faithful will still believe it. 🙁
“This is the first full body drawing ever of a Bigfoot that has been confirmed by DNA evidence.”
“In terms of detail, this is the best drawing of a juvenile Bigfoot the world has ever seen.”
Good grief…two completely meaningless statements presented as some sort of proof, just like the last time. And when exactly was the DNA evidence confirmed again? I guess I was absent that day.
Thanks to Cryptomundo for the latest developments, but once again, whatever is going on here is the complete opposite of science.
well no. 2 is no drawing. touched, sure… but it is a photo… of a baby gorilla. i don’t know why folks are getting hung up on it being a chimpanzee baby but nevertheless this is a major crack in the story: it is portrayed as an illustration, which is blatantly false. kudos to the author (not you Craig! lol) for doing a google search for gorilla baby?
I nearly jumped out of my seat as i scrolled down expecting another fantasy illustration and saw real eyes staring back at me. /facepalm
and willing suspension of disbelief for a second the next issue with that same “illustration”” nose.
it is a flattened and reduced ape nose.
sure, maybe squatches have such noses.
but the point here is the nose of the adult in the first illustration is a protruding “human” nose… i do not think it is reasonable to expect nasal development to that extent from infancy to adulthood- his septum grew three sizes that day! (apologies to dr. seuss).
absolute rubbish.
last point: the steak
all i see is a disgusting mat of hair. and I am glad for that because the site of a slab of ape meat is not something that I particularly want to see (a little too close to home). but how can a clump of dirty old hair be referred to as a steak?
perhaps there is a chunk o meat on the underside of what we are seeing, but if you ar going to bill a photo as “steak”, you better show the meat. otherwise let’s call it what it is, a dirty old clump of filthy matted hair.
next hoax please
That “juvenile bigfoot” sketch is a cut out actually. Look at the right side of it and you can see that sloppy cutting-with-photoshop job on the “juvenile” shoulder.
Twaddle ! pure twaddle,
Follow your Shakespeare boys and girls ` methinks the lady doth protest too much`
Is it just me, or does the great toe on the adult’s left foot appear to be on the OUTSIDE of the foot? I know it’s just a sketch but, c’mon…
Then, again, it sure would make for an interesting trackway!
Hi, Georgia boys! [waves]
Sheesh. Wake me up when there’s something serious to talk about, like a mangy coyotecabras.
I’m surprised that the adult bigfoot can even walk on those scrawny little knees.
I suppose *face palm* sums up my reaction pretty succinctly. And I apparently have a strange sense of humor as I decided to reverse search the images (results here ) and found it amusing that the image ‘looks like’ several electric shavers.
Wow, 6:50 in the morning and I’ve gotten more than my recommended daily allowance of B.S. already, amazing. How can DNA prove anything about a drawing unless there happen to be blood stains on the paper?
The “juvenile” looks like a baby bonobo.