Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Tyler H]

reelback:

If "He shot a bear/nothing. He's had a passing interest in BF, maybe even the FB show. The idea crosses his mind to perpetrate a hoax. He puts out a feeler. Finds a willing community. Gets taken with some fame. The story grows past his original intentions and he needs to provide proof, instead of just letting it go, he decides to fake proof"

He would then not believe anything he had said, and he certainly would not spend time off of work, which he cannot afford, or spend gas money he can't afford, or have a friend take off work when he can't affor it either, in order to return to the site multiple times, trying to find some physical evidence.

If we can show receipts and/or gps, dated photographs of his return visits to the site, would that render your potential conclusion less likely?

[Guest]

1. Smeja and friend both shared the same delusion. Pros – Doesn’t stretch anyone’s credulity or imagination. No one has to acknowledge that an unknown primate may exist in North America. Answers how polygraph tests have been passed, and why Smeja seems so believable. Counter-points – How do two people have the exact same delusion?
   

I doubt they would have even the same story if it was true. Humans make lousy witnesses. However it is entirely possible for two people to develop a similar story without even realizing it was false. Anyone remember Betty and Barney Hill?

Speaking as someone who has experience with hallucinations, it is very possible that this situation is a hallucination shared by both of them. Cold, hunger and exhaustion can wreak havoc on me and I can see and hear all kinds of things. Normal objects and even animals and humans can seem unfamiliar or even alien. If they were hunting for long time, they could start to perceive their environments oddly. Like most people do when they are together they would talk and little things they say would become magnified. After a while they would be confirming their altered perceptions with each other.

My possible scenario: he shot a bear but they were both so freaked out by the alienness of their experiences they panicked and ran without gathering evidence. After a while they talked and/or thought about what happened and eventually cobbled together a scenario that seemed to be true and explained (to them) their experience. No lying at all but completely false all the same.

Noone has mentioned possible drug use either. Drugs are common and some can certainly contribute to a sense of strangeness .Caffeine is often overlooked in tis regard. My father always took a thermos full of coffee with him when he hunted. I think coffee could easily amplify exhaustion or chill or hunger. And some hunters take caffein pills and apparently there is a liquid form of caffeine in tiny little bottles.

I'm not casting aspersions, but have they been questioned regarding possible drug use?

I've been amazed by this story Smeja tells. If what he says is the God's honest truth then he is remarkably stupid and blood-thirsty. However, he does say he doesn't know why he acted the way he did and this suggests delusion to me. I have been thinking this way about his story for a long time and this DNA revelation really seals it for me.

Ketchum has been very cagey about all this and I sense red-flags also. Her mentioning that his sample was part of the study and positive held my tongue but I don't think one has anything to do with the other now.

[Guest Orygun]

reelback:

If "He shot a bear/nothing. He's had a passing interest in BF, maybe even the FB show. The idea crosses his mind to perpetrate a hoax. He puts out a feeler. Finds a willing community. Gets taken with some fame. The story grows past his original intentions and he needs to provide proof, instead of just letting it go, he decides to fake proof"

He would then not believe anything he had said, and he certainly would not spend time off of work, which he cannot afford, or spend gas money he can't afford, or have a friend take off work when he can't affor it either, in order to return to the site multiple times, trying to find some physical evidence.

If we can show receipts and/or gps, dated photographs of his return visits to the site, would that render your potential conclusion less likely?

If you go on the premise that he anticipated financial rewards by perpetuating a hoax then the expenditures make perfect sense. Note that I did not say that financial rewards actually occurred, just that there was there perception of rewards. There are a few things that drive human behavior, greed being one of them. Fame being another.

Without scientific proof the evidence points to a hoax. The fact that you have publicity supported the story makes you a less reliable party as your reputation now is dependent on the trust you have put into someone without scientific proof. Your reputation is now actually more at risk than his.

At this point you have two choices: Continue to support him and risk your reputation when the truth is uncovered (it may be already) or reverse your support and try to save your reputation.

I wish you luck.

[roguefooter]

Ketchum has been very cagey about all this and I sense red-flags also. Her mentioning that his sample was part of the study and positive held my tongue but I don't think one has anything to do with the other now.

Where did she say this? I've been looking but couldn't find anything on it.

[Guest]

If you go on the premise that he anticipated financial rewards by perpetuating a hoax then the expenditures make perfect sense. Note that I did not say that financial rewards actually occurred, just that there was there perception of rewards. There are a few things that drive human behavior, greed being one of them. Fame being another.

Without scientific proof the evidence points to a hoax. The fact that you have publicity supported the story makes you a less reliable party as your reputation now is dependent on the trust you have put into someone without scientific proof. Your reputation is now actually more at risk than his.

At this point you have two choices: Continue to support him and risk your reputation when the truth is uncovered (it may be already) or reverse your support and try to save your reputation.

I wish you luck.

This is what it's starting to look like to me as well. I think well-meaning folks got suckered in by a duplicitous, lying individual seeking recognition.

[Guest]

Roguefooter, I may have mispoken (miswritten). I know that at some point in the sierra kills thread Derekfoot (derek randle) said that he was privy to the results of the steak and at the very least led us to believe the steak was not just a part of the study but was an important part of it. The way he wrote suggested the steak was bigfoot. Personally, Derek seems honest (to me and others) and may have been mislead or misinformed or mistaken. I really have no idea, but he did indicate that he had this inside knowledge. I took that to mean Ketchum told him it was bigfoot. Ergo, I thought ketchum said such.

[Guest Tyler H]

If you go on the premise that he anticipated financial rewards by perpetuating a hoax then the expenditures make perfect sense. Note that I did not say that financial rewards actually occurred, just that there was there perception of rewards. There are a few things that drive human behavior, greed being one of them. Fame being another.

The fact that you have publicity supported the story makes you a less reliable party as your reputation now is dependent on the trust you have put into someone without scientific proof. Your reputation is now actually more at risk than his.

At this point you have two choices: Continue to support him and risk your reputation when the truth is uncovered (it may be already) or reverse your support and try to save your reputation.

• If Justin was motivated by financial reward, why has he turned down many many many chances to make money off of this? (I actually advised him that he should be charging for interviews - it was taking up time where he could have been making income. To his credit, he chose not to.)
  
• If he was motivated by financial reward, that reward was only upon recovery of physical Sasquatch evidence. Why return to that distant site again and again trying to find some vestige of what he shot? If he knew he did not shoot a Sasquatch, then he could have gone in his own freezer, or 100 places closer to home, to get a chunk of bear flesh to submit.
  
• I'm not here to defend him, but I am here to challenge preconceived notions that may not have considered all the facts. I'm just asking questions that seem to be tricky to answer.
  
• My reputation is not at risk with anyone who cares to see what I have actually done. I have laid out the facts, and I am pursuing scientific verification of the evidence - Same as lawyers or police or scientist or any good investigator does. I have examined the potential conclusions and feel that there is enough rationale to make it possible that he is telling the truth. To that end, I have pursued verification of any claimed evidence. How is that NOT encumbant upon any good researcher? If I only wait until the proof is verified before I put out any effort to evaluate his claim, then who will do the initial evaluation? Sure, I may be a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread, but someone has to do the work to suss out this story prior to it being proved - someone has to help prove it before it is proved, or disprove it before it becomes disproved. That's what I have done objectively from the beginning - and to that end, I have refused to take everything Melba Ketchum has claimed, on blind faith. Melba, like it or not, is the only person making claims out of step with the scientific evidence at hand and Melba, nefariously or not, is the ONLY person to who has profited monetarily from this endeavour. Guess she's smarter than all of us.
  

[Guest]

Tyler,

Based on the entries in this thread and others, I'm not convinced that Justin's sample is included in the study as + for BF. If that is the case (Ketchum tested and determined that Justin's sample is NOT from BF), I would completely understand why she would refuse/reject your offer to provide tissue to an independent lab before and after your own lab submissions as well as your request to speak with a member of the study.

If she tested and determined the sample to be known, there would be no reason to go to length in honoring your requests - IMHO.

[Guest]

PLEASE NOTE MY OWN VIEWS REMAIN IMPARTIAL AND THAT

THIS POST IS TO FURTHER THE SHARING OF INFORMATION ONLY.

Seasons Greetings All,

Robin Lynne, Dr.Ketchums PR person has sent me the following link to share (I have been supporting the PR push on this side of the pond)

http://www.youtube.com/watch? feature=player_embedded&v=u-NGls9dVe4

Coast To Coast AM Bigfoot DNA December 23 2012

"....addressed controversies that have been stirred up in the Bigfoot research community about her findings. Part of the problem, she explained, was that some non-ethical people became involved in her project, though none of their research was ever incorporated into her final paper.While she was not at liberty to discuss all aspects of her Bigfoot DNA testing before her manuscript is published, she confirmed that analysis was done on over 100 hair and skin samples, sent in by eyewitness of the creature, or from researchers in the field. To maintain objectivity, some of the samples were sent "blind" to other labs-- that is they were not identified as possibly being from a Sasquatch. Ketchum outlined how her lab was able to prevent contamination problems, by checking against the DNA of her lab employees and the people who submitted the samples.Results revealed that the mitochondrial DNA was human, but the nuclear DNA was "unique," -- that is there were unknown sequences interspersed with human sequences..."

-------------

The team are also looking for feedback on the following (I have cut and pasted this part from her email which links to JREF)"...Has anyone else seen this, Dr. Meldrums science and they are saying most of his bigfoot tracks are hoaxed. I've seen him on Monster Quest, but never looked into all this... "

http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=125085

Could folks PM me if you have any info re this that you would like to share with the DNA DIAGNOSTICS team and I can forward it to them - just incase I miss your comments on the forum.Thanks. 

[Guest]

Tyler,

Based on the entries in this thread and others, I'm not convinced that Justin's sample is included in the study as + for BF. If that is the case (Ketchum tested and determined that Justin's sample is NOT from BF), I would completely understand why she would refuse/reject your offer to provide tissue to an independent lab before and after your own lab submissions as well as your request to speak with a member of the study.

If she tested and determined the sample to be known, there would be no reason to go to length in honoring your requests - IMHO.

It came back + for BF, and they even knew/know the sex of it. There is something amiss...Period! Maybe the NDA's were put in place to protect 'her' from sample submitters involved in the study sharing the information on what she had told them regarding their samples. If people leaked it anonymously, then there is no credibility, and if people attach their names to it, they get sued. I wonder if Derek still has any of his saliva samples? I hope she hasn't hookwinked everybody. SouthernYahoo...Have you had any of your samples independently tested?

I wonder what all of this information will do to the release of the paper?

Edited December 27, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

Thank you Tyler. That is a excellent lab report - it clearly states the sample is female black bear contaminated by human DNA. What I find very, very interesting is the section under the mDNA. The human mDNA contaminating the sample and Justin's mDNA are of a halotype that originated in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus...exactly where Dr. Ketchum stated that her "bigfoot" DNA originated. Hummmmm.....

I was wondering when this would be brought up. Yep - she did say that. Interesting.. So I wonder how she would account for this?

[Guest Cervelo]

So the bottom line is..

The sample recovered from the site of the shooting was bear

But there are people that really, really, really believe Justin's story

There is some sort of tiff with Dr. K

That about it........

[Guest reelback]

reelback:

If "He shot a bear/nothing. He's had a passing interest in BF, maybe even the FB show. The idea crosses his mind to perpetrate a hoax. He puts out a feeler. Finds a willing community. Gets taken with some fame. The story grows past his original intentions and he needs to provide proof, instead of just letting it go, he decides to fake proof"

He would then not believe anything he had said, and he certainly would not spend time off of work, which he cannot afford, or spend gas money he can't afford, or have a friend take off work when he can't affor it either, in order to return to the site multiple times, trying to find some physical evidence.

If we can show receipts and/or gps, dated photographs of his return visits to the site, would that render your potential conclusion less likely?

I would suggest the answer is in the post below by 'Orygun'.

Anecdotally, at age 19, I was hookwound into a MLM scheme which promised these grand paydays, but after a few months I realized I was just spending my own money (which I had very little to none of) in an effort win big. It was never going to happen. I was just making money for others. But I kept losing money in the process.

If you go on the premise that he anticipated financial rewards by perpetuating a hoax then the expenditures make perfect sense. Note that I did not say that financial rewards actually occurred, just that there was there perception of rewards. There are a few things that drive human behavior, greed being one of them. Fame being another.

At this point you have two choices: Continue to support him and risk your reputation when the truth is uncovered (it may be already) or reverse your support and try to save your reputation.

This. The signals point to a payday/attention getting, however odd the logic trail is, it would explain why he'd spend money... exactly because he doesn't have any or needs notoriety.

As for the 2nd paragraph, I don't agree. I don't believe Tyler H's reputation is damaged here, in fact he seems to be nothing but direct and straitforward. Its logical for him to be soul-searching based on this result as well. And doing it publically is pretty brave.

• If Justin was motivated by financial reward, why has he turned down many many many chances to make money off of this? (I actually advised him that he should be charging for interviews - it was taking up time where he could have been making income. To his credit, he chose not to.)
  

Let me reverse that: had he made $, wouldn't you be filled with doubt right now? Honor can take many odd forms. Or conversely, maybe believing the story and attention is more important than the $ gain.

• My reputation is not at risk with anyone who cares to see what I have actually done. I have laid out the facts, and I am pursuing scientific verification of the evidence - Same as lawyers or police or scientist or any good investigator does. I have examined the potential conclusions and feel that there is enough rationale to make it possible that he is telling the truth. To that end, I have pursued verification of any claimed evidence. How is that NOT encumbant upon any good researcher? If I only wait until the proof is verified before I put out any effort to evaluate his claim, then who will do the initial evaluation? Sure, I may be a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread, but someone has to do the work to suss out this story prior to it being proved - someone has to help prove it before it is proved, or disprove it before it becomes disproved.
  

Couldnt agree more.

[Guest]

@Tyler H, your obviously someone in the know and you spent extensive time with Smeja so what do you really make of he results? Do you think that a bear handled the sample after Justin left?, do you believe the Squatch was wearing a bear skin pelt or have any other theories? And, what would you say to all the people like me who believe that Smeja is just another hoaxer in light of the results?

[Guest]

Melba has said that Justin submitted a sample, but she never confirmed it being part of the study.

If the sample was the same one pictured that was posted on RL's blog, she also stated that was not the same sample that was sent by Justin.

Another known fact is that Moneymaker can't stand melba, and constantly says she is hoaxing, Burt and Tyler are good friends with moneychaser,

who would love to prove her of being a hoaxer. It just seems odd that it is being pushed that the results of the sample contradicts melba's study,

and then followed by, were are not saying that Justin did not shoot two bigfoot. Then other bloggers partial to money's camp, start right up with melba

and nothing to do with the shooting.