Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest slimwitless]

Slim which sample is this from, the Ketchum study or Barts/Tylers as it does look quite a bit different in terms of color and density from the other "steak " photos that have been published and circulated.

Apparently I'm not allowed to post a link to the source (which includes other pics) but you can get there indirectly from this page:

LINK

[Guest]

So Smeja and his accomplice concocted the whole story of him killing a baby bigfoot, submitted a bear steak to several people for DNA analysis, passed 3 polygraphs (according to Smeja), spent lots of money he didn't have without a hope of recompense unless the analyses came back bigfoot. For what..15 mins of derision? What exactly was his motive?

I fail to see anything positive for him from this hoax. If this was an elaborate hoax involving Smeja shrewdly passing several polygraphs, then he would have known a bear steak wouldn't cut it. Or was he too stupid to know that DNA analysis would ferret him out? Why bother unless he was confident he would be vindicated after the DNA analyses? Something definitely smells like rotten steak regardless. Polygraphs may not be 100% reliable, but they are likely more reliable than people's "gut feeling". Smeja comes across more like a dupee than a duper, IMO.

The steak was circumstantial and wasn't even verified as a piece of bigfoot, however, the blood on the boots apparently was definitely from the baby bigfoot. Supposedly, no one knows where the bear steak came from, including Smeja. Why weren't the boots analysed 1st?

[Guest Scout1959]

What motivated him? What motivated Rick Dyer? Dyer had to know somebody would figure our that was a BF suit and animal guts...

[Guest BartloJays]

That just seems so implausible.

To find bear specimens in that spot where the squatches were.

If other bigfoot drug off their dead which is the prevailing theory I guess.

Justin being a tracker/hunter and all why didn't he follow the tracks to their den?

Or, I guess they covered their tracks too?

Surely even the staunchest bigfoot believer can't take this seriously.

Let's take the dramatic explanations out of this and stick for one second to what was initially claimed and never changed by both hunters.

The hunters went back 5 weeks later thanks to the prodding of Derek, and they confidantly (according to them and wives) left their houses drove the 2 1/2 hrs there (which now has several feet of snow) and went right for the juvey's body which had been placed on the bottom of a hill decline at the edge of mountain alder bushes which are predominantly bottomed with running spring water towards downhill drawer and body was buried under a mound of sticks and bark (the remnants of which are still there btw and was re-excavated by myself, Leiterman and Justin last Sep on re-creation thermal footage trip). At some point during or likely after (can't remember offhand) the attempted excavation of the juvenile's remains, they were alerted to an area by their bloodhound, uphill near a stump and just below the secondary line of trees the wounded adult subject ran up into after impact. The bloodhound, who was informally trained to scent for bear, was digging and they discovered the fat/tissue piece(s) and other remnants a few feet down, obviously assumed it must be related due to color and location nearby to shooting and called Derek to report it. If story is true, they didn't conveniently walk into tissue without the dog.

Now, consider the area is a dead end from a rounding spur road hunted pretty regularly (legally and illegally) though it's special permit only on that side of the highway and it was bear season or just outide the parameters thereof.

Even if this scenario is accurate I would concede the odds are pretty astronomical but now consider this from "my" position(not "yours," because you're asking "us" why?)

If I put time spent with Justin aside (which is extensive in the last yr) where I would contend "character" would be unmasked and at least give me some clues, reasons for pause or pessimism etc...

I put aside the fact he passsed a poly 100%, "he" insisted on taking and I know although "I" understand perfectly from my respective educational background (Bachelor's in Crim) they are primarily used a psychological tool to elicit confessions, "he" believes he can't lie and beat it, and I tried very hard to detect deception through the questioning we offered (with Tyler's help).

I put aside both the definitive treeline stalking incident precipitating my getting thermal footage there, unexpectedly experienced by Justin and 5 others (none of them possessing self admitted prior confidance in either his story or even of bigfoots existing at all for that matter) on site after passing the polygraph and my thermal footage (also unexpected to the 6 of us there on Aug 23rd) at the same spot 23 months later and 300 yds from where he claimed to shoot them

In addition, we put aside all consolidated points carefully laid out by Tyler (se "why I believe Justin Smeja")

What I still can't reconcile and get around and I believe neither would any of you had you been privy to listening to it, was "my catalyst" in believing them in the first place, the conversation between the two I easvesdropped on here (they still don't recall) that took place at a local property brewery my father co-owns on Cannery Row that I took them out to (Justin, Jack and his wife) the night they stayed and brought me the boots and a piece of emergency tissue. That conversation between the two very intimately touched on the actions of each that day and even leaving the juvey's body. For a second I really believed I would catch them making a comment indicating a deliberate hoax they perpetrated in which I would've joined them for one last quick drink before telling them to take a hike and hopping online to expose them publicly immediately.

To further elaborate on the context of that discussion between them, which they had no reason to believe wasn't private (especially by tone), if they were suspects in say, a murder for instance, instead of a "bigfoot," and as an investigating officer I taped that conversation and it was all the DA had to convict in absence of a body, to say it was highly, highly incriminating would be an understatement. To you, this is understandably hearsay, from my reality being privy to overhearing it directly, it's undeniable.

Again, that's from my experience and I don't expect it to have the impact it does on me to others, but hopefully that will help you understand why "I" felt from that point the whole Sierras incident was worthy of further investigation and participation.

Edited December 29, 2012 by BartloJays

[Guest]

What motivated him? What motivated Rick Dyer? Dyer had to know somebody would figure our that was a BF suit and animal guts...

The difference is that Dyer got his money 1st. Plus he had a hate on for bigfooters and was in cahoots with Biscardi. No comparison.

[Guest Scout1959]

Well maybe in your mind but money and revenge aren't the only motivators in the human mind. Neither of us are qualified to determine just what makes another 'tick'.

The story is just too far fetched for me. And I'm not a skeptic either.

[Guest slimwitless]

Is that salted meat?

It kind of looks like fish with hair on it. There wasn't a stream nearby by any chance? Seriously though, apparently only one of the three experts positively identified the hair as bear? I thought that kind of analysis was pretty accurate. I guess not. Anyway, it would be really cool if we could see any available microscopic pictures of the hair.

BTW, I do understand the experts all said it was non-primate. Ginger3 (if that is his real name) was privy to inside information and said the same some time ago (back when the current thinking was that the hair was canid). I think I saw Meldrum and Fahrenbach's names somewhere on the report. Are either of them the hair experts mentioned?

I just thought it odd that their report included pics of the gels from the bear and human primers, but not the universal primers.

Thanks, Genes. Leave no stone unturned. That's my motto.

Just idle curiosity but I was wondering if anyone would expect whatever predator that fed on this chunk of meat to show up in the analysis (even if it's another bear).

Anyway, thanks for climbing aboard my train of thought. All tickets non-refundable.

Edited December 29, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler,

It's cool with me if that's your interpetation.

I'll be sticking with my conjecture (facts as I see them), unless one of us is a mind reader, I'm thinking its all up for interpetation.

Except for the DNA of course.

Some aspects are up fpr interpretation, for sure.

But if you are going to assert that Justin asserted that his samples were from a Sasquatch, as opposed to optimistic that they were from a Sasquatch, then you need to back up your assertions. Find a quote from Justin wherein he said that.

Tyler, first I want to thank you for coming forward with the results even though they were not what you and most people were hoping for. I do have a question though.

With the number of bear that Justin clamis to have taken while hunting, how is it that he didn't reconize the sample as bear right off the bat? I know tissue would be hard to reconize as it could be from many different animals but I would think the hair would have been something he would have known once he studied it. Has this been asked of him by you or anyone else?

I am not trying to accuse him of doing anything dishonest. This is a question that occured to me and I thought I would ask. Thanks for all the time you have spent answering questions here also.

I had three "hair experts" and 5 taxidermists all look at this "hide sample" - we got assertions that it was definitely NOT bear, and I got two confirmations that it matcehd bear, and I got everything from elk, to wolf, to bovine, to anything canid. So I would not expect that Justin would be any more sure of its appearance than any of these folk - some of the taxidermists were bear taxidermy specialists.

That is why we had to go to the DNA - expecially when a scrap is "out of context" it appears to be very difficult to identify, visually.

[Guest Cervelo]

The difference is that Dyer got his money 1st. Plus he had a hate on for bigfooters and was in cahoots with Biscardi. No comparison.

So says you, I think it's a great example of how someone with a lot more on the line than Justin do stupid stuff.

Justin IMO was hounded by researchers with their own motivations to go back to the site.

Is it not correct he never sought any of this out even from the beginning on the taxidermy site, someone directed researchers to him.

So IMO he's had people pushing him along the whole time, that have their own agendas.

There are only two people that know the truth and both seem to be and have been reluctantly involved in the "research".

So at this point we'er back to people that vet his story who weren't even there and a piece of bear meat, that doesn't exactly support the story so much.

It's an awesome story but that's all it is at this point.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest Tyler H]

Bear parts must rain from the sky in that area.

Or if he did find a chunk of bear flesh just how did that get there.

This can only be speculated on crabshack, and has been several times now.

The forest floor is LITTERED with animal remains. if you look hard enough in a square foot, you will likely find bone remnants and hairs.

As to how chunks of this size got to be in this spot, we don't know. Justin's dog IS trained for bear, and Justin was responding to the dog's behaviour when he searched this spot.

There was also what I believe to be a chunk of deer bone and hide and hair found at this spot, so perhaps it is a spot where a predator frequently consumes its food.

[Guest Cervelo]

Tyler,

I don't have to back a dang thing up it's my opinion/interpetation of what was presented as evidence of him killing a Bigfoot and it failed.

[bipedalist]

It kind of looks like fish with hair on it. There wasn't a stream nearby by any chance? Seriously though, apparently only one of the three experts positively identified the hair as bear? I thought that kind of analysis was pretty accurate. I guess not. Anyway, it would be really cool if we could see any available microscopic pictures of the hair.

BTW, I do understand the experts all said it was non-primate. Ginger3 (if that is his real name) was privy to inside information and said the same some time ago (back when the current thinking was that the hair was canid). I think I saw Meldrum and Fahrenbach's names somewhere on the report. Are either of them the hair experts mentioned?

Thanks, Genes. Leave no stone unturned. That's my motto.

Just idle curiosity but I was wondering if anyone would expect whatever predator that fed on this chunk of meat to show up in the analysis (even if it's another bear).

Anyway, thanks for climbing aboard my train of thought. All tickets non-refundable.

I think it was Mionczynski and Meldrum that both were present. One or the other thought Coyote, then there was a no-comment stage due to guard hairs found on the sample or some such thing as I recall. The discussion changed to couldn't be primate because no known primate except Snow Monkey (or golden snub-nosed monkeys) had guard hair or something along those lines. Hair experts would discuss the medulla as well (the center tube in the hair that is sometimes pigmented).... Fahrenbach did do some early hair work. There was also talk of the smell of the sample as being diagnostic leading to certain opinions as I remember.... and the opinions were subject to change as I also recall.

Edited December 29, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest Tyler H]

slim,

Well, the bear and human primers each give a single PCR product (often referred to as bands) as seen on the gels. But, I can't any pics of the gels used to resolve the PCR products generated from the universal primers. What if there was more than one PCR product one the gels. Perhaps the lab only sequenced the most intense or predominant product, which came up black bear. Sequencing of less predominant or fainter bands might reveal something else.

This is a big long shot! The PCR products from different species would be almost the same size and therefore would not be separated from each other by gel electrophoresis. Since sequencing of the universal primer PCR product didn't show evidence of overlapping sequences, it's fairly safe to conclude that the DNA in the sample was predominantly from black bear. However, if there were other fainter bands, it would be very interesting to sequence those as well.

I'm not trying to diminish the fine work performed by the Trent group. I just thought it odd that their report included pics of the gels from the bear and human primers, but not the universal primers.

I am beginning to think that the evidence from most major crimes never receives the scrutiny that the BF community affords BF evidence.

Genes

Interesting insight, Genes, and I'll see if anything can be found out - unfortunately Trent and I are still um... 'discussing' why the bill ended up to be so much more than initially quoted, so getting more information while that aspect is still being debated, may be difficult.

How many people in the history of BF have attached their name to a claim of this magnitude, been so on-point with the re-telling of such a complex event, been so transparent, even through serious threats, criticism, naysaying, legal ramifications, etc, taken a polygraph test and passed, and has attached certain documents and records to verify a story that he had already told and wouldn't be able to duplicate after the fact? I get why people believe him....He acts like someone that is telling the truth. Either Justin is telling a story that actually happened, or he is sociopathic beyond comprehension. I don't think there is a gray area. People trained in interview and interrogation, which given BC's prior work history, I'd imagine he is versed in, understand how hard it is to fabricate elaborate stories with intricate details, then masterfully repeat it ad nauseum, althewhile knowing that people are constantly looking for inconsistencies, and tells that it is a fabricated story. It's not easy! Lies are like the proverbial grapevine. If you have enough time with the subject, which Bart obviously does, you will eventually crack 'em....Unless they are telling the truth.

BF is real, y'all! The story may not be true, but it's not all that far-fetched. There are hundreds of people, who if they had their guns on them, or could dissolve the moral dilemma, would have proof. Period. Having an encounter is traumatizing enough. Don't pretend you can relate to someone's mind-set at the time, because you can't. That's an adrenaline rush that people probably feel when they're hitched to a post on a firing line. Why didn't he pose with it, lop a finger off, pull a tooth, give it a haircut, etc? How many people have truly been in fight, or flight mode? Standing in front of 2 or 3 guys that are going to jump you, but deciding to start checking chins instead of running. Unless you've done it, which some of us have, you can't even relate to how pure panic and adrenaline affect you, and your decisions. If you were fighting someone for 100K, would you think about that money once a punch is thrown? Nope! I keep seeing the same arguments levied against Justin, but those are usually the ones that I can understand him erring on. This is all saying that his story is true, of course.

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

And it had been 5 weeks past on top of it all.....

If I understand it right he found the sample while digging in the snow. What I don't understand is if he thought he was cutting something off a bigfoot corpse why he didn't try and find a skull or a bone of some kind.

Personally as I've said before his story is to me just too fanciful and I don't buy a second of it.

Lord, can we please get this part straight? Justin has CONSISTENTLY denied taking anything off a corpse. That has been espoused by his detractors, but he contends that is NOT what happened. We all wish it HAD been what happened.

[Guest]

Well maybe in your mind but money and revenge aren't the only motivators in the human mind. Neither of us are qualified to determine just what makes another 'tick'.

The story is just too far fetched for me. And I'm not a skeptic either.

I agree that money and revenge aren't the only motivators, but they were for Dyer. He knew it was a matter of time before the hoax was revealed and that was integrated into his hoax. This was obviously not the case for Smeja. I also agree that no one is qualified to determine what makes another 'tick', which is why I asked what was his motivation. Was he after the ridicule, the mockery, not making any money? What else was in it for him? It was a strange hoax any way you slice it.

Any story involving bf is far fetched from the get go IMO. Why he chose to include shooting an infant is baffling. He gets no sympathy from either side unless he has the proof. I'm not trying to defend Smeja nor claim he's telling the truth, but the only way this makes any sense is if he believes it to be true. I'd like to hear more from his accomplice and get those **** boots tested. THEN we can put a lid on this one. Otherwise, this whole scenario makes little sense as a hoax, let alone the story itself. It's right up there with Ostman's tale.

[Guest Tyler H]

The steak was circumstantial and wasn't even verified as a piece of bigfoot, however, the blood on the boots apparently was definitely from the baby bigfoot. Supposedly, no one knows where the bear steak came from, including Smeja. Why weren't the boots analysed 1st?

I have addressed this before - The tissue seemed like a dead ringer for what was shot, and it provided MUCH more accessible and convincing prrof of what wsa shot. After all, as soon as it was submitted, Melba confirmed that it matched unknown primate. So the boots seemed like a nice after-thought, but not necessary.

It's an awesome story but that's all it is at this point.

On this point, I think I have to agree with you. Until more evidence is vetted in finality, then this is just a nice anecdotal tale.

Tyler,

I don't have to back a dang thing up it's my opinion/interpetation of what was presented as evidence of him killing a Bigfoot and it failed.

Everyone who has dealt directly with Justin has said that Justin never asserted that these samples were from the Squatch. Again, he only hoped and felt confident that they were so.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Tyler H
Removed inflammatory remarks.