Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest BartloJays]

Eagenes and footdue-

Excuse me? I asked CTfoot a question because if you were paying attention, he's discussing something very similar and that's something I've very curious about and will come up in our email communications back and forth with Trent. You guys need to relax and not jump to a conclusion like that

Edited January 1, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest VioletX]

@ Bart & Tyler,

The problem I have is that I find both of you, Justin and MK to be credible.

What I am inferring is that somehow there was a communication that led someone to believe that Justin's "story" was being used with a sample, (his?), to establish provenance and to firmly link good Sasquatch DNA to the study.

This left Justin with doubts, half thinking his sample was Sas, half thinking it was not...not sure who to believe...

Am I correct at all?

[Guest Theagenes]

Eagenes and footdue-

Excuse me? I asked CTfoot a question because if you were paying attention, he's discussing something very similar and that's something I've very curious about and will come up in our email communications back and forth with Trent. You guys need to relax and not jump to a conclusion like that

I really don't think it's jumping to conclusions to think that you've been implying that she is lying about her results, or the status of her study. You were expressing concern about Wally Hersom investing in her project. You keep hinting that you have some information that has led you to distrust her. If you have some evidence that she's a fraud I'm sure we'd all like to see it so we can assess it for ourselves.

Everyone here can go back and read your posts and judge for themselves. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say but that was impression I was getting. I have no doubt that you have the best of intentions, I really do, but this whole thing just feels like it's become personal with your comments. I don't get the same feeling from Tyler to be perfectly frank.

Look, I'm not a MK sycophant by any means, but I don't see the benefit in trying to undercut her study at this stage. I have no doubt that if there is a problem with her study (willful or otherwise) it will never pass review and if it doesn't pass review then it is meaningless. I also, don't doubt the results of your tests---they seem very straightforward to me. If you had just released the results and left it at that I think it would have been a better approach, imo.

@ Bart & Tyler,

The problem I have is that I find both of you, Justin and MK to be credible.

What I am inferring is that somehow there was a communication that led someone to believe that Justin's "story" was being used with a sample, (his?), to establish provenance and to firmly link good Sasquatch DNA to the study.

This left Justin with doubts, half thinking his sample was Sas, half thinking it was not...not sure who to believe...

Am I correct at all?

I kind of get the feeling that this may boil down to JS and MK having a miscommunication and misunderstanding that led to distrust and then it snowballed from there.

[Guest slimwitless]

Whoa, VioletX! I love/hate it when someone else comes up with an intriguing scenario!

Edited January 1, 2013 by slimwitless

[Guest]

If a black bear were to feed on another animal and that animal was tested for identification via DNA, couldn't black bear show up as a result especially when black bear was used as a primer? I not an expert but if there was human contamination(Smeja's) then the sample could have been easily contaminated by a foraging black bear on a carcass.

Also, has the hair on the steak been tested? Identifying black bear hair, I assume, must be quite easy. If the hair on the steak doesn't match black bear but a result of DNA testing a sample of the steak is black bear, then this incongruity must be addressed.

More questions than answers....

[southernyahoo]

I kind of get the feeling that this may boil down to JS and MK having a miscommunication and misunderstanding that led to distrust and then it snowballed from there.

Thats what I expect also, remember Dr Ketchum may not be able to fully explain herself due to her own NDA concerning specifics of findings. She has the investment of her Co-authors to consider along with the integrity of the entire study.

[Guest VioletX]

Thats what I expect also, remember Dr Ketchum may not be able to fully explain herself due to her own NDA concerning specifics of findings. She has the investment of her Co-authors to consider along with the integrity of the entire study.

That has been my feeling as well...

[Guest Tyler H]

I don't think we know enough to rule it out completely Tyler, personally.

The animal would be very capable of doing bad things to people, if it so wishes, and I'm not sure anyone can disagree with that given its physical make up and obvious intelligence.

But maybe them recognising him would be a bit too much to think they'd be capable of, I don't know if that would be possible.

Ps, sorry for going a bit off topic.

Capable, sure - just as bears and lions and gorillas ae too. And so are people. But any animal, intelligent or otherwise (and including people) tend to look after their own survival first. Loyalty is great, but in the face of a gun, survival usually wins out.

Tyler H.. I had and oppurtunity to watched the video and I understand no pictures or physical evidence was taken during the first encounter of the creatures being shot. But the Gentleman did state in his video he picked up the small creature and looked at it and threw it at the other gentlemen and the second gentlemen also picked it up so how did they clean their hands from the blood and for the lack of better words the meat from the gunshot wound from the description they both had their hands underneath the upper arms to hold the creature so they could look in the eyes and if the used rags to clean their hand that would help them prove there story also unless they cleaned there hands prior to reentering the vehicle the keys, door handles, steering wheel, gear shifter should have some type of blood DNA or some other material on their equipment.

That's actually a good question that I have never asked of Justin. The animal was shot through the throat, and then held by the chest hide, by Justin, and not sure how it was held by Justin's hunting partner. Yes, it would seem likely they may have wiped their hands on something afterwards. I'll check into it, but it could have just been their jeans or something, and that was likely washed. Actually, as I type this, I remember Justin referring to all his clothes havnig been washed. But it's possible there was a stain or something.

[Guest Theagenes]

Blood can be tough to wash out completely. That could worth following up on.

[Guest slimwitless]

I kind of get the feeling that this may boil down to JS and MK having a miscommunication and misunderstanding that led to distrust and then it snowballed from there.

That said, we have a problem. Smeja's sample tested as bear. Those with a genetics background (including yourself) insist the science is sound while proponents suggest an error in testing. We haven't seen Bart's tests yet but clearly they reached the same conclusion. On the other hand, Randles is privy to Ketchum's results and claims they are completely different. I've been over all the scenarios that might explain this discrepancy and I can't find one I like (one that's both plausible and fits with the known facts). VioletX suggested something interesting worth mulling over, IMO. I'm open to all suggestions.

Edited January 1, 2013 by slimwitless

[Guest Tyler H]

Thank you very much for the lengthy response Bart.

Seeing that Smeja is according to you going to be making a statement I personally believe it would have been best for you and Tyler to wait before posting.

In light of the DNA analysis done by Trent I definitely would have re-evaluated the relationship with Smeja as well.

Your investor friend and Ketchum backer I'm sure has a certain level of financial sophistication with regards to risk, and I am sure before he made the investment analyzed the risk/reward associated with this project.

Any advice you tried to give your 'friend' through this thread indeed could have been given privately and am sure already has so that really can't be the reason for your attacking Ketchum now can it?

Though I appreciate what you have released, no conclusions can as yet be reached due to a lack of hard and testable data currently in the public domain directly related to Ketchum's study.

Due to that lack of evidence and data, at this time I really don't understand the necessity of this particular debate, especially in light of the fact that Ketchum's report is currently proceeding through peer-review.

Do your accusations undermine and cloud this process? I believe they do. IMO they do virtually nothing to serve the community and our pursuit of Sasquatch and the truth here. In fact I believe they confuse the issue which I believe at this time should be the truthfulness of Justin Smeja.

[/color]

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Ketchum's study shouldn’t be challenged (I know I haven't) due to peer-review protocols. Indeed it will be those same strict protocols that will either be her study's undoing or support in the end. Seeing that this is ongoing I really don't see the need to have the debate your camp is starting. The only thing accomplished by the current debate is to keep certain people in the spotlight. IMO Justin is the last person that should be challenging anyone's truthfulness or veracity.

Since your sample and testing is outside of the Ketchum's study's testable controls protocols, who or what purpose does this debate really serve since the questions you're asking are going to be answered by experts operating within the guidelines of established scientific peer-review?

IMO at this time the most logical course of action your tests data and conclusions lead would be to further scrutinize Justin Smeja and his story. In fact that Smeja originally said he shot the young Squatch so he would have proof than never took the body, never went back to get it like he said he would before he left makes absolutely no sense. There’s too many fundamental inconsistencies with Smeja here Bart.

[/color]

Bart my remark about 'amateur researchers' was never meant to disparage you, just to contrast to the community here the true panel of expertise and field related PHD's that this study is currently going through the gauntlet of peer-review with.

1. On a separate note I think you will agree that the inevitable PHD's in the related fields are eminently more qualified to be discussing the merits of Ketchum's study than either you or Tyler.

2. If you disagree, than IMO in order to support your conclusions you should post the direct and incontrovertible evidence that would convince myself and others here that at least with regards to Smeja's provided samples you are indeed as qualified as they.

[/color]

One problem I see on your side is the lack of coordinated control protocols agreed to by you and Ketchum with regards to Ketchum's sample and the one you tested.

Unless there is something documented and observed and confirmed by multiple independant and unaligned parties, everything Smeja and your side releases is merely hear-say which is why it would have been best to merely release your findings and let the rest play out through peer-review and limited (for now) question and answers.

[/color]

Hmmm...

"Seeing that Smeja is according to you going to be making a statement I personally believe it would have been best for you and Tyler to wait before posting"

Well, that's debatable (even after considering that hindsight is 20/20). Personally, I was never sure we were even going to go down that road - I thought the evidence would speak for itself, and that we wouldn't need to. But everyone is questioning both the evidence, and our motives behind it, so it seems necessary I guess. But I do believe that if Justin had posted that first, and then we posted our evidence, then people would have felt even more-so that this was all about attacking Melba's character, which it isn't. Justin's revelation would have set the tone. This way, I hoped the impartial evidence would set the tone.

"Due to that lack of evidence and data, at this time I really don't understand the necessity of this particular debate, especially in light of the fact that Ketchum's report is currently proceeding through peer-review."

I don't get how people seem to refuse to see that it's better for us as a community to have some semblance of self-policing. Nearly all credible people in our field and outside of it, had massive questions surrounding Melba. When we have ample reason to suspect that something is amiss (whether that be hoax, or incompetence, or what have you), if we would have sat on our hands and just hoped and prayed that Melba was right, and that no other scientists ever one day proved her conclusions to be fabrications, then we show we don't respect critical thinking, and that we don't sefl-police, and that we are a bunch of gullible people "believing" everything thrown our way with no ability to even do prelinary vetting on our own. Our community is not just made up of whackos - we have highly educated, capable, professional, intelligent people here - many with PhD's. So, if my results were at odds with Melba, then that protected the community to some extent, protected an investor from spending more of his money, and allowed the Melba camp to re-examine their conclusions and re-position as necessary so that any other good evidence/good science/good conclusions were less impacted.

If on the other hand, we could say "our results also found an unknown primate" then we would have bouyed everyone's hope, and supported Melba, and gave investors more certainty, and given Justin more certainty (Justin had gotten to the point that he firmly believed Melba actually had NO study or report underway.) And we still would have showed to the world that this community believes in one of the basic tenets of science - that good results are replicable. Not to mention that we were not sitting around waiting with blind faith.

"Since your sample and testing is outside of the Ketchum's study's testable controls protocols, who or what purpose does this debate really serve since the questions you're asking are going to be answered by experts operating within the guidelines of established scientific peer-review?" See above.

"just to contrast to the community here the true panel of expertise and field related PHD's that this study is currently going through the gauntlet of peer-review with."

But that is/was the problem, NO ONE had ANY proof that anything was happening with the samples. Melba controlled and diseminated ALL information, so everyone had to take her word for it. And Justin claims to have had ample reason to doubt that word.

"I think you will agree that the inevitable PHD's in the related fields are eminently more qualified to be discussing the merits of Ketchum's study than either you or Tyler."

Absolutely - but if this "study" was mythical, when would that have happened? How long should we wait for evidence that this study and peer review was underway, outside of Melba's say-so? And it WAS Ph'Ds that have worked on this. One of which was the director of Canada's foremost wildlife forensic lab, who happened to have also authored papers on the human genome too. In my mind at the time, it was going to be hard to find better credentials than that. I'm sure there are people and technology out there that are better qualified, but this is what was within my reach. I didn't have someone I felt like asking for 100's of thousands of dollars.

"One problem I see on your side is the lack of coordinated control protocols agreed to by you and Ketchum with regards to Ketchum's sample and the one you tested."

Are you kidding me? So... when cops investigate someone they think MAY be a fraud... they should confer with that suspect on what methods they can agree on to test that suspect? I conferred with MANY Ph'd's asking them what process would accomplish my/our goals - namely to identify the species and thus by extension, vet the assertions made by the Ketchum camp. They all agreed that what I did would accomplish those two goals. Then, once that was finished, I actually discussed with Melba how we could do what you outlined above - All I got were pleasantries, and stall tactics. Everything in science is vetted by other scientists. And when most things are true by one procedure, they will remain true if using other trustworthy, accepted protocols. If 3+3+3+3 =9, then 3x4 should also equal 9. Different, accepted, trusted processes lead to the same conclusions.

"Unless there is something documented and observed and confirmed by multiple independant and unaligned parties, everything Smeja and your side releases is merely hear-say which is why it would have been best to merely release your findings and let the rest play out through peer-review and limited (for now) question and answers."

Is that not what we just did? We are the only ones to have released info for public and scientific scrutiny. We are the only ones who have MULTIPLE PhD's weighing in that what we did was correct... but our results are just hearsay?

OK, I get the picture - you are articulate, but not rational.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest Theagenes]

That said, we have a problem. Smeja's sample tested as bear. Those with a genetics background (including yourself) insist the science is sound while proponents suggest an error in testing. We haven't seen Bart's tests yet but clearly they reached the same conclusion. On the other hand, Randles is privy to Ketchum's results and claims they are completely different. I've been over all the scenarios that might explain this discrepancy and I can't find one I like (one that's both plausible and fits with the known facts). VioletX suggested something interesting worth mulling over, IMO. I'm open to all suggestions.

Yep, it's a real problem. So it seems to me the best thing to do is wait to see what to see what her results and what her paper says after it's passed review.

[Guest Tyler H]

Blood can be tough to wash out completely. That could worth following up on.

Tough to wash out - I believe in that conversation, Justin did say he could even still see a mark that could be from that blood.

But, as I understand it, very easy to degrade to the point of not providing any viable info.

But I will seek to follow that up.

[Rockape]

That said, we have a problem. Smeja's sample tested as bear. Those with a genetics background (including yourself) insist the science is sound while proponents suggest an error in testing. We haven't seen Bart's tests yet but clearly they reached the same conclusion. On the other hand, Randles is privy to Ketchum's results and claims they are completely different. I've been over all the scenarios that might explain this discrepancy and I can't find one I like (one that's both plausible and fits with the known facts). VioletX suggested something interesting worth mulling over, IMO. I'm open to all suggestions.

Back on page 5 the "If it came back 10% bear and 15% human, what was the other 75%" question came up, and I don't know how much of a DNA expert ajciani is, but they seemed to give a couple of good reasons why Tyler and Barts results don't jibe with MK's.

Why did the universal primer fail to amplify the human DNA?

Most likely, the universal primer was not as universal as the manufacturer claims or the lab thought. It may have still had some affinity for the human DNA, but at a ratio of 100:1, the human DNA would have been unnoticed compared to the bear DNA. Of course, it still leaves room that if the sample had any bigfoot DNA, the "universal" primer might not have been any good for that either.

What was the other 75%.

Simply put, something that neither the universal, bear or human primers could amplify. It may have been degraded fragments, different portions of the mtDNA, bits of nuclear DNA, or something unknown that the universal primer failed to work on.

Ketchum has stated that bigfoot DNA requires its own unique set of primers.

This is somewhat interesting. It means that universal and human specific primers may not be capable of amplifying bigfoot DNA. Certainly, the "universal" primers used did not amplify the human mtDNA. There could have been another contributor. BTW, it also means that anyone looking for bigfoot DNA probably needs Ketchum's secret sauce, or a very large and well preserved sample.

Food for thought.

.

Tough to wash out - I believe in that conversation, Justin did say he could even still see a mark that could be from that blood.

But, as I understand it, very easy to degrade to the point of not providing any viable info.

But I will seek to follow that up.

What about a ball cap? I'm sure he was wearing one. I know I never leave home without mine on, and very seldom wash it, if ever, and am always grabbing the brim, no matter what is on my hands.

[Guest Tyler H]

Yep, it's a real problem. So it seems to me the best thing to do is wait to see what to see what her results and what her paper says after it's passed review.

Agreed, for this discrepency on the tissue samples, there's not a lot else to do.

I'll say it again for the 10th time, but to me, the answer is not to question the lab results obtained by two reputable labs using accepted protocols, with zero declared evidence of a third presence. The only thing that might make sense, is Melba's claim that Justin mixed up the samples. When she made that claim to me, I point blank said 'well then, hopefully you still have plenty of the tissue left, that supports your results, because the only way to know for sure, will be to compare to that tissue." She asserted she had plenty left, and that the tissue had not been consumed in testing. So we WILL be able to sort this out one day.

For now, just look at our releases as an interim update on Justin's samples by those who wanted to try to contribute some redundancy, some checks and balances, to the effort and the claims.

What about a ball cap? I'm sure he was wearing one. I know I never leave home without mine on, and very seldom wash it, if ever, and am always grabbing the brim, no matter what is on my hands.

Can check that too.