Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Tyler H]

I'm disappointed that this site would even debate this; these people are not credible at all. The video of the lie detector test is a joke.

Anyone that shot a BF by mistake, or on purpose, would come forward and solve one of the greatest mysteries of all-time, become famous and make the talk show circle a new home.

Anything that is referred to here as science is doing real science a bad name in my opinion.

When you say that anything referred to here as science is doing science a [disservice], are you aware that you are saying this about a report by Phd's from one of North America's most reputable forensic DNA labs, and that that lab made no extraordinary claims at all? That they only concluded that the sample was bear? Do you read the source material for this discussion first, or just wade in on the discussion, completely unaware of the context?

Edited December 28, 2012 by Tyler H
1A, 1B, Signature Policy

[Guest mitchw]

So, the way I should interpret the figures of 10% and 15% is that these are values for biofluorescence that were detected upon exposure to a specific frequency of light. The figures do not imply how much of Tyler's sample was bear or human. Here is a link to the article I have read. http://www.topac.com/picogreen.html

[dmaker]

When you say that anything referred to here as science is doing science a [disservice], are you aware that you are saying this about a report by Phd's from one of North America's most reputable forensic DNA labs, and that that lab made no extraordinary claims at all? That they only concluded that the sample was bear? Do you read the source material for this discussion first, or just wade in on the discussion, completely unaware of the context?

I don't think he is suggesting that the Trent University is incapable of identifying bear DNA.

Edited December 28, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC
To edit quoted content

[Guest Tyler H]

http://bigfooteviden...ved-justin.html

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

You state that I made a conclusion. I did not - I put forward a hypothesis, and am testing the evidence surrounding it. I said in the quotes you used: "left me with the impression that the possibility that these witnesses telling the truth was greater than the possibility for the other conclusions" and "feel quite strongly that the preponderance of evidence supports the credibility " Those are not definitive statements. I have gone where the evidence has lead, such as that evidence may be.

When I get an email or a phone call from 2000 miles away, exactly what physical evidence should I judge by? When a cop gets a tip over the phone, what physical evidence should they judge by?

As an investigator, you take in the evidence available - at first, that evidence was just a conversation. Justin will tell you that I still felt there were red flags from just the conversation. But as time goes on, you vet the other information available to you. In this case, physical evidence was sparse, so you parse the other evidence available - which was largely limited to character and behaviour.

If an investigator does not INVESTIGATE as I have, then what are they? You MUST form a premise first. If that premise is that the guy is a liar, you stop - you do no further investigation. If you think he MAY be telling the truth, you need to investigate further. You MUST investigate until the evidence proves there is no more use investigating. If you become so jaded that you never take a risk and investigate ANY extraoridnary claims, then you are no longer of use, and you will miss out on the "holy grail" if and when it does come. If you are afraid to expend effort IN CASE someone is lying, you are not as good of an investigator as you could be. If you WAIT until someone hands you a body, you are NO LONGER AN INVESTIGTOR - you are now a PRESENTER of someone else's product.

Think about your circular reasoning before you spew it.

[Guest BartloJays]

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

reelback-

No, I'm ashamed to say not yet as I filmed them at 1:30Am on Aug23rd catching them quietly spying on our camp as they got within 36 yds of the fire tucked just inside treeline. I did not have a laptop with me (was being fixed) and could not review the 40+ minutes of footage until I got home (5 1/2 hr drive) believe it or not. I immediately cancelled out on my annual WA expedition (location of my only other visual from 2007), put a team and expedition together quickly for the same Sep dates back to the site and put my primary field partner, Rgr Robert Leiterman (a scoftic) in charge of the investigation and my instructions to him were to attempt to destroy it. It took us 30+ hrs, 4-5 guys and 8 nights to re-create many elements and perform all due diligence, analysis and measurements.

We've been consolidating that information (lot of work at busy time) and will be sharing it soon. I also did as a favor to my dear friend Mike Rugg, a prelim presentation on the footage at his Felton event along with Jeff M and Munns who presented there as well.

The footage is not damning by any means because they are distant (tree gap is 105 yds) and blurry thermal bipeds. However, what makes it compelling besides the location, is that you have 6 witnesses (4 awake), over 40+ min of footage with activity in about 5 min of it, real-time audio-which will have all dialogue between us as event went down and is very intense, all measurments and analysis confirmed by third party. There's rock throwing and intriguing group behavior in the footage... Can go on and on.

Everyone there that night doesn't have a question in their mind what's in that footage and either to the people who came later to participate in re-creating it, including Leiterman who's still shaking his head ...initially believing somehow, someway I may've had it wrong.

I had an internal battle with ever releasing it as my biggest fear was that oneday I'd get them (took 5 yrs to see one again) and it wouldn't be defintiive enough to share. I decided to share it because 1) both visuals for me, this one recorded, were catching them via thermal quietly poking around obvious vantage points on camp and human activity and I want others to be aware of this strategy as I was one decision (because nothing was happening that night) from totally missing them. And 2) it's an opportunity...an opportunity to show how to appropriately document purported footage thoroughly on every aspect you possibly can, which you'll see.

Won't be much longer as the key for everybody will be "scale" and seeing human comparisons in treegap, especially during the "day" shots that I took for comparison.

[Guest slimwitless]

And how had he determined this Slim?

I assume Justin was making an educated guess about the kind of predator that might dispose of a large carcus in the woods. I suppose my only point is that it's possible bear fed on the remains. Perhaps that's meaningless. If the experts believe the degraded sample couldn't be contaminated by bear (whether through predation or common preparation and storage with bear meat) then I have to defer to their wisdom. If Ketchum releases her lab results, we'll have to re-evaluate. Right now, she's either in a bind or she has the ultimate excuse.

The simplest explanation is not that Justin shot a BF, went back and found a piece of bear, or that the labs failed to account for contamination, or that Ketchum had a fresher/different sample, etc. The simplest explanation is that the guys are hoaxing and therefore so is Ketchum (or she isn't up to the task and thinks Justin's maternal eve mated with Homo Whatsit). Perhaps because I'm dense...or for reasons I can't disclose, I haven't gone there yet. Still, it makes some of the indignation around here hard to take. Both sides are speculating here. The safe bet is that there's nothing to any of this (although it's extremely annoying that anyone would have to post that opinion more than once).

Edited December 27, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest reelback]

reelback-

No, I'm ashamed to say not yet as I filmed them at 1:30Am on Aug23rd catching them quietly spying on our camp as they got within 36 yds of the fire tucked just inside treeline. I did not have a laptop with me (was being fixed) and could not review the 40+ minutes of footage until I got home (5 1/2 hr drive) believe it or not. I immediately cancelled out on my annual WA expedition (location of my only other visual from 2007), put a team and expedition together quickly for the same Sep dates back to the site and put my primary field partner, Rgr Robert Leiterman (a scoftic) in charge of the investigation and my instructions to him were to attempt to destroy it. It took us 30+ hrs, 4-5 guys and 8 nights to re-create many elements and perform all due diligence, analysis and measurements.

We've been consolidating that information (lot of work at busy time) and will be sharing it soon. I also did as a favor to my dear friend Mike Rugg, a prelim presentation on the footage at his Felton event along with Jeff M and Munns who presented there as well.

The footage is not damning by any means because they are distant (tree gap is 105 yds) and blurry thermal bipeds. However, what makes it compelling besides the location, is that you have 6 witnesses (4 awake), over 40+ min of footage with activity in about 5 min of it, real-time audio-which will have all dialogue between us as event went down and is very intense, all measurments and analysis confirmed by third party. There's rock throwing and intriguing group behavior in the footage... Can go on and on.

Everyone there that night doesn't have a question in their mind what's in that footage and either to the people who came later to participate in re-creating it, including Leiterman who's still shaking his head ...initially believing somehow, someway I may've had it wrong.

I had an internal battle with ever releasing it as my biggest fear was that oneday I'd get them (took 5 yrs to see one again) and it wouldn't be defintiive enough to share. I decided to share it because 1) both visuals for me, this one recorded, were catching them via thermal quietly poking around obvious vantage points on camp and human activity and I want others to be aware of this strategy as I was one decision (because nothing was happening that night) from totally missing them. And 2) it's an opportunity...an opportunity to show how to appropriately document purported footage thoroughly on every aspect you possibly can, which you'll see.

Won't be much longer as the key for everybody will be "scale" and seeing human comparisons in treegap, especially during the "day" shots that I took for comparison.

Thank you. I understand you want to be dilligent and present it as a 'complete package'

When will you publish it? And can we just see the raw footage, you know like a movie preview :-)

[Guest Cervelo]

So is this headed anywhere but numerous hyperbolic rants or are we all in agreement Justin submitted bear as a Bigfoot sample on purpose or by mistake?

[Guest BartloJays]

@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.

Oh...I'm not screaming and shouting, just pointing out your ignorance and blatant assumptions stated as facts as you're completely ignorant on MM & Tyler's history yet you clearly stated they are friend. Moneymaker is a good friend of mine but we've talked briefly once in the last 6 months. Maybe if you'd ask before making assumptions about people you don't know, you won't have to be corrected. In addition, because these results contradict Kecthum's "supposed" results (there's no data to compare in reality at this point) you're suggesting "we're pushing" results. If screening these samples with two prominent labs and sharing the results as we have a responsibility to do are "pushing" results, you're uncapable of having a meaningful conversation with. Here's your quote below BTW, if you're now stating these are just possibilities and not facts you suggested, then you're clearly contradicting yourself. Regardless you're a fountain of misinformation and it's hard to have discussions with people who think they know so much yet know so little (proven by their own words)

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.

Since, it's "odd" these results contradict Melba's are you suggesting that Tyler and I and Trent are part of a conspiracy of some sort LOL?

I guess the other lab that never had contact with Trent in the Midwest and got parallel results with minor deviations is in on all this too.

And BTW, we're not "bloggers."

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^

Oh I can see not quite....So back to the bear meat you guys got anything eles?

[Guest mitchw]

What we can say is that Trent was able to judge Black Bear and Human, using known primers. In sample 1, Trent judged solely Black Bear because the gender test amplifying human dna came out negative; this was a deductive conclusion. I'm still reading the report FWIW

[Guest wudewasa]

So is this headed anywhere but numerous hyperbolic rants or are we all in agreement Justin submitted bear as a Bigfoot sample on purpose or by mistake?

Shh Cervelo, they're speculating and splitting hairs to BELIEVE in the intangible. Stories matter more than physical evidence here. Dagnabbit, they're entitled to the whole shebang from Bart, lickety split, as he has paid for testing himself and the critics demand that he do it THEIR way. If they don't get what they want, then they cry "HOAX!" and assassinate the characters of all those who disagree with their perspectives. Bear DNA doesn't support their dreams, and so they explore other conclusions to jump to.

Bart, no quarrel with you as always, and I appreciate your candidness and transparency on the issue. I realize that this is not the end of the investigation, and that you have had other experiences in the area that make you believe Smeja's story. Fair enough.

What we know now is that the DNA submitted was from a bear. The rest is conjecture right now. I want this to turn out to be something amazing, but the race hasn't been run fully. Thanks for what you have contributed, and I look forward to more when you are ready to share.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

Instead of reading through all this, could someone tell me if there is any DNA evidence? If not, I won't bother with this.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Guys, I can see it coming. Therefore, I have to make the following statement:

Moderator Statement:

Do not make things personal - Discuss the topic and not other members!!!!

General Guidelines:

1. BFF has one rule above all else - Behave like adults!

What do we mean by this? Imagine the forum is run by a bunch of people who have invited you over for dinner - we expect sensible, well thought out conversation. If you start getting personal with other diners, you are likely to be ejected. This not your house after all, you don't have a right to sit at someone else's table and disrupt things.

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

We're not going to babysit another thread. You folks are grown. If you can't discuss without making it personal you'll be penalized.

See

[Guest Cervelo]

SNY,

Of a bear and we know Justins a human!

Edited December 27, 2012 by Cervelo