Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Orygun]

• 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.
  

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/08/tyler-huggins-why-i-believed-justin.html

To me, an examination of the facts left me with the impression that the possibility that these witnesses telling the truth was greater than the possibility for the other conclusions. That was before I ever saw or came to be in possession of any physical evidence (either circumstantial or direct.) My hope is that our ongoing examination of the physical evidence will eventually completely negate the need to try to decide whether Justin is telling the truth or not. But in the meantime, I feel quite strongly that the preponderance of evidence supports the credibility of his claims.

You have stated that you support his claim. If you were as impartial as you say then you would have just presented the evidence without a conclusion. But you didn't. You have placed yourself in a position of now defending him. If he turns out to be lying (the likest outcome) then you will then need to defend yourself. You could have pursued this without taking such a position. Put it forth as a theory and then gather the evidence. But saying that you believe the evidence (which is quiet sparse at this point) is dangerous.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. -Truzzi

[southernyahoo]

Yes, the release statement says that I had three PhD's look at the morphology - all said "not primate"

Yet only one called the sample a bear? What were the other determinations?

[Guest slimwitless]

Okay, then. I guess Justin found a small chunk of bear that looks and smells like the creature he claims to have shot at the same location he heard the creature crash violently into the forest.

FWIW: In the interview of November 29, 2012 (apparently before he knew what Tyler and Bart knew), Justin said he felt a bear/bears had likely fed on the sample.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Didn't someone from the Ketchum camp mention "next generation" of DNA technology?

If so, (and I don't know what it means exactly) is it possible that she and she alone has found a way to extract BF DNA, and has not shared this expertise with any non participating labs?

That could account for differing results.

[bipedalist]

And how had he determined this Slim?

I'd like to know if the recent theft of bear meat from his home is really true, or if it's linked to these test results.

Does anyone know if there is a police report of the break in?

Anyone?

Edited December 27, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest BartloJays]

Too many thing here to address at once as I'm trying to catch up with limited time I've got right now, I apologize.

Looks like a mixed bag of posters here as some are genuinely trying to digest and discuss the report and potential ramifications (appreciate that), others are terribly out of date with the story but still insist on making definitive suggestions further muddying the details and making things appear more complicated then they really are, then you have a few who are behaving like class clowns, trying to take little subtle jabs to get noticed and offer absolutely nothing into the conversation. I'm happy to answer or clarify information for the first group.

Regarding the photo, "yes" Justin confirmed and called Ketchum out publicly regarding the photo that same day and explained that the piece was one and the same and even gave a tutorial on the striation marks where he cut her piece before processing the rest of it into smaller packaged pieces. When she questioned that piece it had already been posted for several months by Lindsay and I have to wonder today if suggesting it was a different was part of pre-planning an exit strategy as I can tell you right now, the strategy out of her camp now is that Justin sent her a real piece right off the body and sent us a bear piece because he fears prosecution due to the "human" element in her findings. This is what she claimed with Tyler, and her people are already passing along the point of "we can't comment on a piece we didn't test." The allegation is ridiculous as Justin is no dummy and understands fully he will never be retroactively charged for killing an "unrecognized" species (more worried about his hunting license for christ's sake) and he's clearly said he wishes there was some way she was right and the pieces were mixed up... he's convinced they weren't. However, he's also still shaking his head a bit at Trent's results as well.

There's still a few people that still hint that Tyler and I are part of some agenda to take her down. First off, I have an admitted dislike bias towards her I'm not at all ashamed of (hence I felt it prudent to have Tyler be the one to have physical discussions with her recently) and you will know very soon why, if you haven't already figured it out. Putting that completely aside, I would give anything for her to be right and have her trump both these lab reports we got. If someone thinks tomorrow that Tyler and I would have egg on our face for trying to do the right thing and she drops this unreal paper with a full genome on the Sierras tissue down (with all necessary validation) we're going to be disappointed or feel stupid, you're living in Lalaland.

You don't think I don't have a vested interest in these results being from an unknown primate? I got thermal footage (not damning, but very compelling with all circumstances and 100% legit)) 300 yds from where he shot them 23 months later for christ's sake. In addition, the guy has become a good friend through the process and since the day I eavesdropped on them, I don't believe they are lying. Could I be wrong, absolutely I could be wrong. Could our labs be wrong and Ketchum's work be correct, you tell me as some of you guys are more educated when it comes to diagnostics then I am.

The difference for me is, due to the "circumstantial" nature of finding the tissue, I didn't have high expectations on this sample. Any hopes were further diminished by the incident I reference in my statement that I believe will be touched on directly by Justin within days. I should also mention that Tyler and I always expected two additional contributors if the flesh was from the adult bigfoot shot. We suspected Justin's dna should be on some of the piece from handling (undoubtedly) in addition to a larger predator (ursus americanus top candidate for geographic & immediate biosphere) as the story couldn't be true without post-mortem predation with respect to state of recognition of tissue when collected....would anyone disagree with that? There had to be multi-contributor's dna present. Unfortunately, there was no presence of a third contributor confirmed by both labs.

All I know, is the easy thing was to look the other way and we didn't. We took the initiative based off both checks and balances noticeably absent, and especially out of mistrust created (to Justin especially) and did what needed to be done. We hoped for different results as you won't have to take our word for that, just read the emails when they are provided with both the communications with the labs and each other and read into our motivations, then come back and say zigoapex for example, that we had some hidden agenda you dreamed up after performing zero due diligence yourself.

[Guest Theagenes]

I was there when that bone was found. I believe you are quoting Derek Randles there (forgive me if I'm mistaken).

My personal impression was that the bone was associated with hair/fur that was very deer-like in nature.

Yes, the release statement says that I had three PhD's look at the morphology - all said "not primate"

Thank you Tyler. Yes, that was a quote from Derek Randles. So this might have been deer, but still the bone was collected and not discarded, correct? Even if it appeared to be deer, I would hope that any faunal remains that close to what was purported to be sasquatch remains would be collected and subject to at least rudimentary analysis if only to rule it out. Do you know if any analysis was done or if not are there plans to have it analyzed? It shouldn't be too big of deal; most anthro departments will have a faunal person that should be able to ID it.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

The difference for me is, due to the "circumstantial" nature of finding the tissue, I didn't have high expectations on this sample. Any hopes were further diminished by the incident I reference in my statement that I believe will be touched on directly by Justin within days. I should also mention that Tyler and I always expected two additional contributors if the flesh was from the adult bigfoot shot. We suspected Justin's dna should be on some of the piece from handling (undoubtedly) in addition to a larger predator (ursus americanus top candidate for geographic & immediate biosphere) as the story couldn't be true without post-mortem predation with respect to state of recognition of tissue when collected....would anyone disagree with that? There had to be multi-contributor's dna present. Unfortunately, there was no presence of a third contributor confirmed by both labs.

Thanks, Bart. This is why I asked the question in #229

[Guest BartloJays]

Anytime Thepatty

I'll tell you, you guys don't know how torturous this was for Tyler and I at certain points in his communications with Trent. I say that I had very little confidence in the circumstantial tissue but in some of the periodic feedback or results from Trent, we really thought we were alive, enough so to do a few fist pumps. Then we'd be brought back to reality and it was becoming hard for Justin because every time we got something positive that appeared definitive, an update would come back and bring us all back to earth. The stress was palpable for Justin, and that's when he finally requested via email no more updates as it was severely affecting his life. If he knew it was bear I would imagine he'd accept the inevitable and actually enjoy the ups and downs...why the hell not..right?

In the interim over the course of testing, I'd periodically read people here and there make ignorant statements about how long it takes to test something (as if they were suggesting we were hiding results) and I'm just biting my tongue because I know that eventually you guys are going to get full access to our email communications that have time/date stamps and will justify exactly how long this process took. Which reminds me, our Midwest lab report is not complete (I though I know most of the findings) and we're waiting for it as it was supposed to be finished prior to Xmas. That's why there's a delay on that one.

Edited December 27, 2012 by BartloJays

[Guest reelback]

Okay, then. I guess Justin found a small chunk of bear that looks and smells like the creature he claims to have shot at the same location he heard the creature crash violently into the forest.

Question, was the act of finding this 'chunk' documented?

I got thermal footage (not damning, but very compelling with all circumstances and 100% legit)) 300 yds from where he shot them 23 months later

Has this footage been published, if not can you? I'd be curious to see it.

[Guest Tyler H]

Was the location at a natural spot (topography wise) for animals to cross the road?

If so that might explain how it is that a bear and a deer corpse were in the same area. Animals get hit by cars all of the time and struggle off and die nearby.

Even if it's not a common crossing point, finding dead critters along a road with woods on either side isn't particularly surprising.

Scout, your post speaks to one potential theory (not saying it's my theory, but it is one that has been bandied about). It is quite curious that that seeming deer bone fragment, and also the bear scraps were found in the same place. (Justin can correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Some could contend that a pile of animal remnants in one spot could be a sign of a large predator freqenting that location. If it were any sort of home base, it could also be logical that a wounded animal (ie, the large one that Justin shot first) would seek shelter there. So, Justin could have dug where he thought the alleged Squatch last was, and come up with remnants of what the Squatch eats. Again though, none of the samples that Bart or I worked with had any third contributor - Is it possible that that was because of degredation? I suppose so.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

So are you aware of any 'new' technology regarding DNA extraction that some might be privy to and not others? Was this asked of Trent or your lab as a possibility for the existence of 2 different results from the same sample (if indeed true)?

[Guest Tyler H]

Help me out, Tyler. I'm reading your report, and on page 2, the last paragraph they say there's a 100% match to humans. Other results in the report also indicate human origins, even as Black Bear results also occur. So why are we saying it's just a bear? (and let me thank you 1000X for doing this work)

What we had is a definitive result on the hair test that proved it was bear. But there were also results that showed there was 100% human (contamination) present.

[Guest]

@BartloJays

due diligence, please, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, they are possibilities put on the table, whether you like it or not, they are facts that open the door to those possibilities. you can scream,shout, yell until you turn all the colors of a rainbow, all that does is prove you are not happy when the cards don't read the way you want them to.

Edited December 27, 2012 by zigoapex

[bipedalist]

What we had is a definitive result on the hair test that proved it was bear. But there were also results that showed there was 100% human (contamination) present.

But wasn't this one hundred percent all Justin?