Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest slimwitless]

Now to play what ifs, all hypothetical before everyone goes bonkers ...what if he shot a person, that would explain alot.

Early on I suggested their behavior reminded me of someone who thought they shot a person and didn't want to get caught. The turning point in the story seems to be the moment Smeja closely examined the juvenile. That would explain why they hid the body instead of leaving it in the open or putting it in the truck and why they didn't take other "incriminating" evidence like cell phone pics. I don't think any hunter could ever be convicted for shooting the adult. Hunting accidents happen all the time and if it was a person in a bear suit, no jury would convict. It would be a little harder to explain the second shot however and this could have led to a panic. Especially if he suddenly realized it might be a person. That was speculation of course....unlike say, DNA.

Edited December 30, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest VioletX]

deleted

Edited December 30, 2012 by VioletX

[Rockape]

I'm already seeing doubts about Trent U's abilities, and processes, from many sources - some of them legit. So that just reinforces to me, that we made the right decision to NOT submit the boots to Trent. Once we find the best lab possible, we'll submit there.

Tyler, I want to again thank you and Bart for continuing to answer tough questions. I hope you both understand it's just part of the process.

I would like to ask you to review the question I asked here (which was a follow up to another question I had asked and you answered).

I ask this because I have seen professionals in a semi-related field not want to get involved in a controversial matter and therefore simply shine someone on.

[Guest Tyler H]

Bart, I think we all appreciate you and Tyler being so forthright, but Footdude makes some legitimate points here. You're taking issue with Footdude questioning your motives, but that's exactly what you are doing with MK. You've insinuated that you have more information that we may see in a week or two that will show why you have a problem with her and her study, but none of us have seen that. At this point those of us on the outside looking in are seeing a "he said/she said" situation. And it's basically JS vs. MK. For those of us who don't know either one of them and aren't privy to all the inside info, which of them do think would appear more credible at this point, at least on paper? Personally, I have problems fully believing either of them. It's probably hard for you to step outside the situation since you're so intimately involved, but if you try you might see that Footdude's concerns are fair and legitimate for those of us not privy to all the information.

Even you weren't trying to intentionally sabotage MK's study, that doesn't meant that your comments and actions don't create the perception that that might be the case---fairly or unfairly.

"For those of us who don't know either one of them and aren't privy to all the inside info, which of them do think would appear more credible at this point, at least on paper?"

To me, for those of you who don't have all the information, you DO have this information:

• Justin passed apolygraph, Melba has not
  
• Melba has many articles dedicated to a shady business past
  
• Justin submitted his samples for additional independent testing
  
• That testing casts doubt on Melba's claims
  
• Nothing other than the failure of this tissue to test as 'Squatch (which he has always acknowledged was a possibility) casts any doubt on Justin's forthrightness.
  
• Bart, Justin and I have a HUGE vested interest in Justin's sample proving to be squatch (and that is why we are hopeful Melba will prove our results wrong - every Squatcher will take positive proof rather than being able to say "my lab was right and yours was wrong), so I would think that when we put out results that dash our hopes, and dash our claims, it should SUPPORT our (including Justin's) credibility. TO me, it's a no brainer who looks more believable here.
  

Now after having said all that, I will once again include the curve-ball I have mentioned a few times now. Someone very knowledgeable and seemingly trustworthy has shared some info with me that challenges the Trent results, and makes me more open to accepting the veracity of Melba's claims. I am hopeful that this will contribute clarity to the picture. As I know more, I will share more.

Besides - Since "Daisy" has been captured, this will all be settled anyways.

[Guest BartloJays]

It is possible that simple mistaken idenity took place? The bear went up on two legs immediately after spotting the two men in the pick-up. In an angry manner, the bear approached the pick-up quickly? All they saw was a tall furry animal that was walking like BF. Due to foggy conditions, fright, intoxication, dirty windshield etc........... it was mistaken for a bigfoot which is shot. They shoot a smaller one/BF and speed off totally freaked out. The part about it rolling down the hill is fabricated. This explains his story, and why Justin submitted tissue from the site. Simple mistaken idenity and this explains everything. Hunters shoot cows, people, goats, moose, etc..................while thinking they are shooting a deer each year.

This is always one very rational possibility (though it would leave many questions in my mind), albeit with some severe changes to reflect accuracy of what we do know is factual. The "intoxication" was not part of the process as was explained a while back in an old thread (you could've missed that and Justin addressed it). The truck wouldn't have started if the person driving had had a sip of alcohol.

In addition, if the tissue was collected on Nov 13th as claimed (it would've at least been when it needed to be produced by request), my opinion is it's highly unlikely "the bear" would've been in same state of recognition as sample collected, hence whatever was shot that day on Oct 8th I didn't personally "believe" was likely represented in the tissue sample from the beginning. That was an additional precursor to testing because the definitive claim was being made. Could I be wrong, yes, that's my opinion from being to the site and knowing the circumstances and again, why those who insist the tissue evidence was contradictory in nature aren't concerned about details. These results were disappointing (lab created periodic hope through process) but not a revelation to me.

[Guest slimwitless]

I thought I had posted this earlier, either I did not hit post or it disappeared,haha! Maybe this idea has been discussed here all ready...

Tyler, any thoughts on this comment that I just found?

It could be because we're not allowed to link to the blogger that shalt not be linked.

[Guest BartloJays]

"For those of us who don't know either one of them and aren't privy to all the inside info, which of them do think would appear more credible at this point, at least on paper?"

To me, for those of you who don't have all the information, you DO have this information:

• Justin passed apolygraph, Melba has not
  
• Melba has many articles dedicated to a shady business past
  
• Justin submitted his samples for additional independent testing
  
• That testing casts doubt on Melba's claims
  
• Nothing other than the failure of this tissue to test as 'Squatch (which he has always acknowledged was a possibility) casts any doubt on Justin's forthrightness.
  
• Bart, Justin and I have a HUGE vested interest in Justin's sample proving to be squatch (and that is why we are hopeful Melba will prove our results wrong - every Squatcher will take positive proof rather than being able to say "my lab was right and yours was wrong), so I would think that when we put out results that dash our hopes, and dash our claims, it should SUPPORT our (including Justin's) credibility. TO me, it's a no brainer who looks more believable here.
  

Hit the nail on the head exactly Tyler

[Guest VioletX]

It could be because we're not allowed to link to the blogger that shalt not be linked.

lol, thanks SW, that explains it! At least it wasn't that I was going completely mad,haha!

Edited December 30, 2012 by VioletX

[Guest Tyler H]

Isn't that what Ketchum did when she incorporated several other independent labs to 'blind' test her samples? I don't see how that would be any different, unless they were told to use a specific protocol when testing.

Do we know if Bart and Tyler's labs were given any indication as to what they might be searching for? My guess is probably and hopefully not, in fact it may have already been addressed. But if 'primate' was hinted at, would not that make their testing even less "independent" than Ketchum's?

Bart and Tyler, do you all have any idea what the term "next generation" with regard to DNA study refers to or means?

Thanks for hanging around and indulging the rest of us.

The testing was independent. The fact that I chose to relay to the lab that it may be 'uncatalogued primate' may have influenced bias, but could not have influenced independence.

Where is the proof that the Ketchum camp did not request and test a control swab of dna from Justin? Is this fact or presumption?

How do you prove a negative. Melba was unsure with me, as to whether they had Justin's DNA, and Justin asserted he had no knowledge of ever submitting his DNA to them. Now, if they had P.I. trick him with a soda can, to get his DNA, who knows.

Obviously that "single hair" did not have a follicle or skin tag attached or was not capable of being amplified based on quantity of material submitted. I can't get my mind around why they could not have amplified for quantity given the amount of samples allegedly floating around. They did destructively test everything you provided correct Tyler H.?

Obviously how? how can you obviously know that? I'm sounding a bit testy here, but I'm actually sincere - I've been trying to find a way to determine what an expected amount of DNA would be from a 2-3 inch hair sample. But as far as I can tell, it's NOT obvious as to whether the follicle/bulb was in tact or not. I am hoping to find that out.

Tyler, I want to again thank you and Bart for continuing to answer tough questions. I hope you both understand it's just part of the process.

I would like to ask you to review the question I asked here (which was a follow up to another question I had asked and you answered).

http://bigfootforums...360#entry675500

I ask this because I have seen professionals in a semi-related field not want to get involved in a controversial matter and therefore simply shine someone on.

Always a possibility, but I made sure the lab knew their results would be vetted by ravenous bigfooteres, and by other labs. I think their reputation was/is more at steak by taking any easy way out, than it is by being thorough and truthful regardless of results. The lab director agreed with me, in email conversation.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Tyler H

[Guest BartloJays]

The failure to get a DNA sample from JS, and worse, the failure to test the boots, is incredible to me. I cannot think of an honest reason as to why these two basic procedures weren't done.

Tyler covered this on securing Justin's dna as we certainly have, I feel like I've watched Justin swap his mouth more this year then I've had a chance to watch the Dolphins (might be a good thing right Ronnie Bass ). In addition, this will be addressed in the "Protocols" Tyler has kindly taken the time to write-up and share for everybody working with labs in the future and based off our trials and errors.

Sorry guys, I'm about done with the boots questions as you want the boots done yesterday or today, give me a lab with the specs we need in addition to a blank check or go home. Rest assured they are the top priority.

Edited December 30, 2012 by BartloJays

[Guest slimwitless]

Sorry guys, I'm about done with the boots questions as you want the boots done yesterday or today, give me a lab with the specs we need in addition to a blank check or go home.

How much are we talking?

Have you considered using kickstarter for funding?

[Ronnie Bass]

We are prone to be tortured as Fin fans Bart, its what we live for!

[bipedalist]

The testing was independent. The fact that I chose to relay to the lab that it may be 'uncatalogued primate' may have influenced bias, but could not have influenced independence.

How do you prove a negative. Melba was unsure with me, as to whether they had Justin's DNA, and Justin asserted he had no knowledge of ever submitting his DNA to them. Now, if they had P.I. trick him with a soda can, to get his DNA, who knows.

Obviously how? how can you obviously know that? I'm sounding a bit testy here, but I'm actually sincere - I've been trying to find a way to determine what an expected amount of DNA would be from a 2-3 inch hair sample. But as far as I can tell, it's NOT obvious as to whether the follicle/bulb was in tact or not. I am hoping to find that out.

Always a possibility, but I made sure the lab knew their results would be vetted by ravenous bigfooteres, and by other labs. I think their reputation was/is more at steak by taking any easy way out, than it is by being thorough and truthful regardless of results. The lab director agreed with me, in email conversation.

Thanks for the answers to my questions. That is all they were..... questions. Testy is part of the surf here, no harm no foul. I still don't understand why a single hair was "all" that was tested? Is that all you wished to have tested? Is that all the sample you had? Just simple questions looking for facts.

[Guest BartloJays]

Based on the articles linked by Apehuman, all it is saying is that when trying to describe a hybridisation event, mtDNA has limitations for establishing time lines because it usually isn't a one time event and occurs in a back and forth gene flow direction if the two species are compatible. If not, the picture is further clouded by fertility issues thus to get any kind of idea of how related something is you need nuclear DNA. So far, Tyler has discussed what they found in the mtDNA, which was bear and contamination from Justin. If Bigfoot is a primate it would not test out as a current known species of black bear in the process of idenifying a known species.

I'm just throwing this out there as a "what if" and don't seriously consider this to be an explanation, just "woo", but the NA legends of the Cherokee do refer to what we think is bigfoot in that they talk aboout the bear people. But Ketchum has refuted that by saying her samples indicate some kind of hominid, so much for that thought. We will have to see what she did to know. I think not acquiring Justin's DNA sample is a good indication of what misinterprtation might have happened along the way. I don't see how you could rule out contamination, i.e. Justin became the bigfoot in her results, IMO of course, all just speculation.

Good post!

In addition, "bear people" I don't know? I think native american shapeshifters explains it all myself (including all the Reservation sightings in varying terrains), Justin just happened to catch them right when they were changing darn it!

You know I'm kidding right?

[Rockape]

On the other hand the fact that you still presume that Smeja is telling the truth strikes me as odd. IMO that you ignore the Bear DNA evidence with regards to Smeja, and at the same time use it to crucify Ketchum defies common sense.

The fact that you go out of your way to continue to defend Smeja's truthfulness regarding his tale, despite the only physical evidence provided pointing toward him shooting something else other than Bigfoot seems, 'at the very least' to demonstrate flawed logic on your side. Since your DNA analysis of something Smeja has provided technically lies outside of the Ketchum study and it's control protocols, IMO it would have been best to let this play itself out through the peer-review. Since you didn't I will weigh in with my thoughts just has you have with yours on Ketchum's study.

IMO your actions seem to fly in the face of this statement.

In the end I posit the things I do because I think it reasonable to question aspects of both Ketchum's study as well as the positions you have taken regarding both Smeja and Ketchum.

A couple of great posts there Footdude, and I know Tyler and Bart might not like them, but I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I too find it a bit odd that they still support Smeja, but I don't really see anything nefarious in them doing so. I think they like the rest of us still hold out hope that this could still turn out to be the big break we are all looking for. And I myself have saw several interviews with Smeja, including the one by Ro Sahebi's several times, and I have reason to at least give Smeja the benefit of the doubt on this.

I also think some need to keep in mind that we on the outside looking in could think there could be an effort by BFRO members to discredit MK. MM's twitter tirade about Ketchum a few weeks back could lead some to believe there is an ulterior motive at play here. I don't really want to play that card, but I wasn't the one who dealt it, it was MM.

That is why I said at the time that MM did no favors to himself or the BFRO by his actions. He was a bit too strong in his words, in my opinion. Perhaps he knew Tyler and Bart's results were not looking good for BF, but if so, he should have just kept quiet until the results came out. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like this, looking like there is a concerted effort to discredit MK, and raise questions about their motives.

That said, I don't see why they would. But I do see why some could think it.