The ‘Sierra Kills’ episode – Bigfoot individuals shot?

The Bigfoot community has been abuzz the past year regarding a story about Bigfoot individuals, described as an adult and two juveniles, that were shot with at least one presumably killed by two hunters. The event supposedly took place in the Northern California Sierra mountains in fall of 2010. The website Bigfoot Evidence provides a rundown of what has become known as the “Sierra Shooting” or “Sierra Kills” incident.

The figure was standing on two legs with it’s arms above it’s head. It took roughly eight to ten steps toward the vehicle. The arms were moving a little either because it was walking, or it was intensionally swaying them. It was dirty grey in color with some black mixed in. The figure was very large. Hunter 1 decided it had to be a bear…

The shot was fired hitting it’s mark in the chest region. The figure went down. It got back up immediately and started running on two legs, and then on all fours. It went from two legs to four legs a couple of times before it left view.

When they reached the spot where it was standing they noticed movement in the nearby brush. Two smaller figures appeared from the brush and started circling around their position. The smaller ones were totally hair covered, but were much more black in color. They would go back and forth from two legs to four. They were exhibiting some type of chatter back and forth to each other. Hunter 1 and Hunter 2 described them as a cross between a gorilla and a bear…Hunter 1 started to get the feeling he might be attacked. He made a quick decision, turned and fired. The figure went down and rolled right down to Hunter 1’s location. He lifted it up, and then placed it in the brush. They then decided that they needed to leave, now.

It’s a wild story and it gets wilder with additional details about the hunters, the return to the location, the retrieval of samples (but no bodies) and other people involved, as well as allegations of various sorts thrown about. Results of testing of the samples has not been made public.

UPDATE: It’s just gotten even WEIRDER! Latest rumor is that a sample was taken from a fetus of the creature that was shot.

So, what’s the evidence? Tall tales. That’s all so far.

There is big hype regarding “projects” related to finding and proving Bigfoot exists – the Erickson project and the Olympia project are examples. We can be certain of one thing : Bigfoot and its kin are a hot topic all over the world. With so many reports of encounters, expeditions and investigations, if the big story doesn’t break in the next year (with better evidence than mystery hair, footprints, poor visuals, and more stories), that’s solid support for the idea that the creatures just aren’t out there at all.

  9 comments for “The ‘Sierra Kills’ episode – Bigfoot individuals shot?

  1. October 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM

    The story is totally bogus: hunters NEVER shoot Bigfoot because it looks too human.

  2. Massachusetts
    October 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM

    They say DNA testing is pending on this and many other samples, by Melba Ketchum, DVM. The word is that she will publish a peer-reviewed article in the journal Nature on the results, which she claims will definitively prove the existence of the Sasquatch. It does sound far-fetched. If such a paper does appear in a journal of such prestige, that would definitely give me pause. But the clock is ticking, and if no paper is forthcoming, that would be a rather embarrassing for all involved. Bigfoot believers are pinning their hopes on this story. Bigfoot skeptics are rolling their eyes and predicting the story will go no where. I’d love for it to be true but I’m not holding my breath. I think it’s not enough to want the animal to exist, you have to actually prove that it exists, which hasn’t happened to date.

  3. idoubtit
    October 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM

    Totally agree. As the clock ticks…. and the story keeps getting stranger.

  4. Massachusetts
    October 18, 2011 at 6:25 PM

    Yes. According to the stuff published on different boards, the mitochondrial DNA is supposed to be completely human, but from a varied group of people of different ethnic backgrounds. The nuclear DNA is supposed to be a hominin much further from us than Neanderthal, like mid-way to a chimp or something like that. The claim is there’s interbreeding going on (at least some time in prehistory). Which makes for a rather strange story indeed!

  5. Gary B
    October 20, 2011 at 10:32 AM

    To use the word ‘published’ to describe what is being offered on those other boards is nonsense. They are just the same old stories that pass for bigfoot evidence. These are people who SAY they have dna reports but never produce them, who say that samples come from habituation sites but have no pictures of the critter itself. They all pre-condition the audience to what they won’t do to have an out when they are unable to produce anything. The morality regarding the mortality of bigfoot is simply amazing. There is great handwringing currently going on involving the shooting of two bigfoots in California last year. These would be the source of samples being tested by Melba Ketchum and, supposedly, others and the results will be published in the journal Nature “quite soon”. I think Dr. Ketchum also recently purchased the Brooklyn Bridge.

  6. Massachusetts
    October 20, 2011 at 9:29 PM

    The fetus story is pretty freaky, and I believe it contradicts earlier accounts that said the hunters freaked out and fled the scene immediately, only to return weeks later to find a bit of flesh left under a fresh layer of snow (and that story seemed pretty freaky at the time.) Hmmm…changing stories–never a good thing.

    I agree that Bigfoot enthusiasts need to produce these DNA reports or back off. People are treating these second and third hand reports as though they are proven science when, in fact, no science has been produced through acceptable academic channels. The principals involved to claim the science is coming.

    However, if they do produce reports, which are accepted and published by a reputable journal (a rather big “if”, I understand) they should be given serious consideration and not dismissed a priori.

    Hmmm…what would be a better word than “published” for some of the crypto boards–“posted” perhaps?

  7. Gary B
    October 20, 2011 at 11:49 PM

    Well thought out and stated opinions and thanks for that. I admit to being frustrated with much that has gone on with bigfoot lately and the nonsense that is particularly evident on the Robert Lindsay blog. It just seems to me that a concerted effort started some time ago to consrtuct barriers to fend off questions regarding bigfoot in general and the dna testing specifically. I find that much of it coresponds with the formation of the Erickson Project and, more recently, The Olympic Project. I am sure they are chasing the zietguiest that is bigfoot and will, of course, never find it. My only questions concern who is doing the hoaxing and who is being hoaxed. My instinct is that Adrian Erickson is the Tom Slick of this era and is very likely becoming dis-allusioned as we speak. As for the rest of them, anyone’s guess is as good as mine. The idea that grownups can sit in a room and discuss a “bigfoot steak” taken from a site upon which two bigfoots were shot months earlier and sent to a vets lab in Texas is just amazing to me

    All the best

  8. Gary B
    November 9, 2011 at 9:36 AM

    Dr. Melba Ketchum has now stated that her dna study will not be published in the journal Nature. This was apparently on her Facebook page but did not reveal how or when any publication would occur. My opinion is that it will only be published on a bigfoot friendly website or publication if at all and will take all those mean scientists and skeptics to task for not seeing what is so patently ‘obvious’ to her.

Comments are closed.