Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

Sorry if I missed it, but what percentage bear vs human DNA was present? If this story is true then likely a bear found the body and consumed some of it on site, dragged off the rest and left behind a steak. There would have been bear slobber all over the steak. At least as much as human DNA from Smeja handling it. I'm surprised there was enough human DNA to be amplified. The question then was it Jason's DNA? That shouldn't be hard to determine. And if this steak was the remains of a feeding then where is the animal's DNA that fed off the bear corpse?

I know, I know..Smeja fed off it.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest]

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.

"My bad, I thought Justin was SURE or 100% positive this was a piece of the BF."

Edited December 30, 2012 by AaronD
to remove attacking the arguer

[Rockape]

I'm surprised there was enough human DNA to be amplified. The question then was it Jason's DNA? That shouldn't be hard to determine..

I'm pretty sure the report said it was Smeja's DNA.

[Guest slimwitless]

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.

Good recollection, bipedalist. There were many comments about the very unusual smell of the sample and how it would supposedly stick with you. Mionczynski's initial reaction was that the odor reminded him of his own encounter.

Probably a bear too, I guess.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure the report said it was Smeja's DNA.

Thx, sorry for being lazy but did Justin actually give Melba a sample of his DNA?

And if no other DNA was found then a scavenging animal likely wasn't involved. Only the bear & Justin. In which case Justin's only out left is that he unwittingly submitted a bear sample because he either mixed up the sample with a bear in his freezer or someone swapped his sample during the break-in unless he submitted it before then.

[sarcasm]

So Justin kills a baby bigfoot and his hunting buddy is witness. The buddy wants a piece of the action but it's not his kill. He convinces Justin to bury the body and come back later. The buddy comes back sooner and retrieves the body. Then he breaks into Justin's house and steals a bear steak from his freezer and puts it in the bigfoot grave. Justin eventually comes back and finds the steak, which can be directly traced to Justin's freezer with his DNA. Justin's story is kaput. Now the buddy has to claim that he went back out and shot his own baby bf or found the body. By this time it's finders keepers. He's home free except for 1 small slip up. The bloody boot.

[/sarcasm]

ETA: Thx CTfoot

Edited December 30, 2012 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest]

It's Justin.

[Guest Theagenes]

One of the problems with the idea that it is a BF sample contaminated through predation by a black bear is Sample 2. Sample 1 was a combination of tissue and hair blended together, so maybe the "contamination with bear saliva" hypothesis could work for that. But Sample 2 was just from a hair and it came back as bear. It's hard to imagine this could have been contaminated by bear saliva to the point that 10% of the mtDNA was bear. Compare this with the 0.1% of contamination from Justin.

I think the idea that is a BF sample that Trent U. couldn't recognize as BF due their lack of MK's primers and/or methodology and that the bear DNA is just contamination is just untenable at this point.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Theagenes

[Guest VioletX]

Thanks for putting that out there so clearly Theagenes.

It does seem to be a long shot that the labs could have mis-identified a bear hair or not tested it thoroughly enough to make that determination.

[Guest slimwitless]

Did Randles ever make the statement he promised on Facebook? I was hoping he could shed more light on why he still believes the sample Ketchum tested is from a Bigfoot.

This has to make for an interesting dynamic at The Olympic Project holiday party.

"My bad, I thought Justin was SURE or 100% positive this was a piece of the BF."

I'm not sure he put a percentage on it. I will say anyone in contact with him will tell you he was extremely confident.

[Guest]

In Ketchum's recent C2C AM interview she claims:

(1) all samples in her study were carefully vetted to be confident they were purported bigfoot; and,

(2) she washed all samples to rid any external contamination.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that Trent did either (1) or (2). Tyler and Bart had hair microscopy done with uncertain results, except that none of the analysts apparently concluded "presumptive bigfoot" or "unknown primate." Thus, per Ketchum, this sample would not have been included in her study. The Smeja tissue sample has hair on it, so one must assume Ketchum likely had her hair microscopist examine it. If it passed Ketchum's hair screening, then what Tyler and Bart have analyzed is a different tissue sample.

I assume if T&B's sample had been washed at Trent, the Smeja contamination would have been expunged, as well as any saliva from any predotor or scavenger that dined on the hide prior to it being collected.

Unfortunately, until Ketchum releases her paper, we can't be certain of her protocol; thus, no one can be sure they can replicate her findings at this time.

[southernyahoo]

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.

I take note here that none said it looked human and also gather that one of them noted no undercoat? Bear hair should be a snap for bear experts to ID. This reminds me of my own dealings with morph exams. Fahrenbach thought my sample was bear then when it was sent to WRI in Eli Minn. (Bear experts) they said it wasn't.

[Guest VioletX]

SY,

What method was used to examine your hair?

[Guest FootDude]

1. The original story just doesn't make sense, unless you substitute bears for Bigfoot.

Semja is hunting for bear when sights one in the meadow. He shoots and scores a probably fatal hit but the bear runs over the lip of the hill before he can get the definitive kill-shot. He and his partner get out of the truck to locate the bear and though they cannot find it, they run into a cub. Smeja decides the cub cannot survive on it's own after the fatal bullet to it's mother and he then kills the cub. After further searching they cannot locate the bear and head back home. Not only does this make sense but it's supported by the DNA evidence.

At some point they decide to bullsh*t some of their friends and weave the Bigfoot tale (maybe over a few beers one night). With the passage of time the tale grows and Bigfoot researchers hear about it. They contact Smeja and he becomes a somewhat willing participant as the tall tale immediately gains traction and it's audience grows exponentially in a very short time over the internet through the Bigfoot community. Though this is definitely not what Smeja foresaw when he first told his story, he goes along for the ride as the intoxication of instant internet fame is just too much and he becomes addicted to the attention his story has brought him. Already past the point of no return it is only a matter of time before this all comes to a crashing halt. Until then Caveat Emptor.

2. What I find odd is how the bear DNA is not helping to bring into focus the flaws of and undermining Smeja's amazing tale. To the contrary Tyler and Bart continue to believe Smeja though Smeja retrieved the bear sample from precisely the spot where he said he left a dead Bigfoot. Instead Trent's DNA analysis is being used to focus on and tarnish Ketchum's report and undermine her conclusions.

3. Is Ketchum's report and DNA analysis based solely on the Bigfoot steak that was given to her by Smeja? If it can be confirmed that it isn't, and from what I understand her report is based on 20 types of samples confirming presence of human mtDNA, (3 samples with complete genomes) than imo with regards to Ketchum and her report, something is very fishy and wrong here with Smeja and his camp of handlers possible motives.

[Guest Nalajr]

Were some of you all on the OJ Jury?

Nalajr

[Guest BartloJays]

Footdude-

Tell you what, I’m not going to nitpick and point out all the false assertions, misinformation and conjecture in your post and waste our time clarifying what we’ve already stated repeatedly (the whole thread) on almost every point you make and either you didn’t bother reading before commenting or you’re ignoring our answers purposely because you have pre-conceived our motivations. Instead I’ll simply remind you that if your points one and two are correct, in which you seem rather confidant, and it’s a hoax, then please tell us how your conclusion (number three) doesn’t fail? Unless, you want to explain to us how this whole peer review thingie works where two out of three genomes under the same “hybrid†premise is sufficient? Pardon my ignorance (not my expertise) but I was under this crazy illusion where it may not be ok to just toss out the “inconvenient†genome at this point. Should we presume you didn't know that the Sierra's tissue is absolutely one of the three genomes "you" mentioned in her report that you spoke of rather definitively? If that's the case you should really read ahead before commenting as you would've known that.

Also I don't appreciate the insinuations when we've taken a lot of time to explain our position and have repeatedly stated we'd like nothing more then for Dr. Ketchum's work to transcend the work of our labs.

Edited December 30, 2012 by BartloJays