Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Cervelo]

....

Edited December 31, 2012 by Cervelo
Removed inflammatory content.

[Guest]

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT DNA SAMPLE THAT TESTED POSITIVE FOR A BEAR!!!!!

It STILL must be squatches that Smeja shot. BELIEVE without forthcoming physical evidence!

*media snipped per forum rules*

Same question I keep asking, wude: how does the "bear" finding prove Smeja is lying?

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?

You forgot to add: risked the possibility of civil and/or criminal charges

.

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?

At the time, the "steak" would have been the best thing to test, given the limited resources.

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.

Oh yes you do. You made the specific claim that the steak was directly claimed by the researchers and/or Smeja as having come directly from one of the BF. You have since been made repeatedly aware of the fact that your claim is wrong.

Do you have any evidence to submit that either Smeja or the researchers are lying? If yes, post it.

[Cisco]

I was thinking about the ongoing discussions as it appears to have been blown way out of proportion.

So, I asked myself; what is the problem?

Is the problem JS and his story?

Is the problem Bart & Tyler?

Is the problem the result of the DNA analysis?

In my opinion, the problem lies in the conflict between the results obtained by B&T and the ones that MK has in her study.

Bart and Tyler promised they would reveal the results of their study, many months ago, and they have.

However, MK's study is anchored by the sample that JS sent her and it presumably shows that the sample is from a Bigfoot. So, it's very simple, the sample came from a black bear or it came from a Bigfoot.

Hindsight being 20/20, I think B&T should have waited to reveal their sample until after MK's study came out.

I wonder if MK will stand by her claim that her sample shows Bigfoot or will she make changes to the study and show that the sample came from a black bear?

I guess we'll have to continue with our holding pattern until MK releases her study.

[Guest]

Unless Ketchum has retained a piece of the tissue she received from Smeja.

True.

[Guest Orygun]

I apologize if I missed this somewhere in this foodfight, but is there any pics or video of the recovery?

Of course not. Because no one has cameras on their phones anymore...

[Guest]

GG,

If you haven't read the account you really should!

It's a fantastic story, very compelling.

His spotter was looking at it thru binoculars and said not to shoot.

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

Then the LAST thing he would EVER do is draw MORE attention to the situation by telling his story and trying to document it.

[Guest]

Edited

Edited December 31, 2012 by JohnC

[bipedalist]

I was thinking about the ongoing discussions as it appears to have been blown way out of proportion.

So, I asked myself; what is the problem?

Is the problem JS and his story?

Is the problem Bart & Tyler?

Is the problem the result of the DNA analysis?

In my opinion, the problem lies in the conflict between the results obtained by B&T and the ones that MK has in her study.

Bart and Tyler promised they would reveal the results of their study, many months ago, and they have.

However, MK's study is anchored by the sample that JS sent her and it presumably shows that the sample is from a Bigfoot. So, it's very simple, the sample came from a black bear or it came from a Bigfoot.

Hindsight being 20/20, I think B&T should have waited to reveal their sample until after MK's study came out.

I wonder if MK will stand by her claim that her sample shows Bigfoot or will she make changes to the study and show that the sample came from a black bear?

I guess we'll have to continue with our holding pattern until MK releases her study.

The problem is Meldrum* wasn't given each and every sample and allowed to 3-D visualize it and quantify weights and measures (*or some other neutral party such as the National Institute of Standards & Technology).

Caution: Extreme Sarcasm

Edited December 31, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

This thread ROCKS!!

[Guest]

Look what I found, it is possible to create fake DNA:

“You can just engineer a crime scene,†said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.â€

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.

http://www.nytimes.c...18dna.html?_r=0

So it seems possible that this might be one off the wall explanation for why the results are so different. Now how it got to be that way is speculative at best. It seems that nothing is legally decided about creating these artificial chimeras, only how would you enforce it, or prove someone did it if it happened ? It gets back to having a body every time.......ahhh well so much for my sci-fi spinning for today.

So might it soon be possible to create a monkey with a brain composed entirely of human neurons?

This includes the creation of a non-human primate with enough human brain cells to make it capable of "human-like" behavior. The creation and development of embryos formed by mixing embryonic or pluripotent cells from humans and non-human primates should also be banned for now, as should the breeding of animals that have human-derived sperm or egg cells and could generate a true animal-human hybrid.

http://www.scientifi...osed-for-animal

It's A Brave New World

It's one thing to transfer comparable DNA (such as human to human) from one cell to another, and another thing entirely to create from scratch a whole-chain DNA sequence that could stand up to scientific scrutiny.

And what would it cost? How many labs are capable of doing it?

If you want to go this route, and claim that faking DNA is not only "possible" but likely and/or easily do-able, then we all might just as well hang it up and find something else to do with our time, since NO non-dispositive evidence will be considered worth a darn thing.

I wonder if MK will stand by her claim that her sample shows Bigfoot or will she make changes to the study and show that the sample came from a black bear?

I guess we'll have to continue with our holding pattern until MK releases her study.

There has never been any showing of evidence that she has claimed it tested positive for her "unknown" in the first place.

[bipedalist]

"No non-dispositive evidence"

I'm going to have nightmares over that one Mulder, thanks!

[Guest Cervelo]

Same question I keep asking, wude: how does the "bear" finding prove Smeja is lying?

You forgot to add: risked the possibility of civil and/or criminal charges

.

At the time, the "steak" would have been the best thing to test, given the limited resources.

Oh yes you do. You made the specific claim that the steak was directly claimed by the researchers and/or Smeja as having come directly from one of the BF. You have since been made repeatedly aware of the fact that your claim is wrong.

Do you have any evidence to submit that either Smeja or the researchers are lying? If yes, post it.

Prove it

In the spirit of the season!

Edited December 31, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

"No non-dispositive evidence"

I'm going to have nightmares over that one Mulder, thanks!

Sorry, but think about it. There would be virtually no point in collecting ANYthing at that point, since all our resident Skeptics would have to do is play the "can be faked, therefore can't be trusted" card.

Prove it

Easily done:

Mulder,

What's required in your opinion a vid of Justin not shooting a Bigfoot?

Or some convoluted story of mixed up samples with bear meat or some weird plot to fake out Bart and Tyler.

He claims he shot Bigfoot and submitted samples he claims are from Bigfoot, opps it's a bear.

It's really that simple and those are the facts... DNA irrefutable proof right?

So, show us a citation where Justin said that he took the samples from one of the bodies. (or the researchers for that matter).

You can't, because they never made that claim.

Game. Set. Match.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mulder

[bipedalist]

Yep, sort of like staring at this.

[Guest Cervelo]

Sorry, but think about it. There would be virtually no point in collecting ANYthing at that point, since all our resident Skeptics would have to do is play the "can be faked, therefore can't be trusted" card.

Easily done:

So, show us a citation where Justin said that he took the samples from one of the bodies. (or the researchers for that matter).

You can't, because they never made that claim.

Game. Set. Match.

Unless I missed something he is claiming he shot two bigfoots and the samples where from that incident.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Cervelo
to remove baiting