Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Bonehead74]

Cerv,

The sample(s) were obtained 5 weeks after the claimed shooting 'incident'. I'm surprised you don't have the timeline sussed out yet.

[Guest FootDude]

EHHHHHH! WRONG! He submitted samples that he (and the researchers) thought might have come from one of the bigfoot.

Let's be a bit more precise shall we?

Smeja went back to the exact spot where he claims he shot a Bigfoot, and found some type of cadaver that had the same color hair he said the animal he shot had.

That cadaver turned out to be a bear.

Now what does that seem to suggest about Smeja's story?

[Guest Cervelo]

Cerv,

The sample(s) were obtained 5 weeks after the claimed shooting 'incident'. I'm surprised you don't have the timeline sussed out yet.

Sure do what does that change about it?

I would suggest if it came back unknown hominid that wouldn't be part of this discussion.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Cervelo

[bipedalist]

...Now what does that seem to suggest about Smeja's story?

I'm not sure but I think it means also that the bloody boot pool stake-a-rama is gonna be outside of the even odds parameters against our favorite hairy biped.

But all bets are off, I'm not a betting man in this contest.

[Guest FootDude]

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.

Please point us where it can be shown that whatever it was Smeja provided to B&T was definitively from the same sample that was given to Ketchum?

Because what they tested was never technically part of Ketchum's study, it was completely outside of the necessary control protocols, and most everything B&T are posting is here-say.

Ketchum's research paper is currently under peer review to determine suitability for publishing.

That peer review will examine all aspects of the study itself including the protocols used as well as the data derived from it and the conclusions she makes from that data.

The review will be quite exhaustive and exacting.

Since Ketchum's paper is already under review by members of the scientific community with the education and skillsets necessary to properly evaluate what her study did or did not do, we should really ask ourselves why are 2 amateur Bigfoot researchers spending the time they are crucifying her? We should also ask ourselves who do their actions serve and who has the most to win and lose by what they are doing...

Edited December 31, 2012 by FootDude

[Rockape]

Let's be a bit more precise shall we?

Smeja went back to the exact spot where he claims he shot a Bigfoot, and found some type of cadaver that had the same color hair he said the animal he shot had.

That cadaver turned out to be a bear.

Now what does that seem to suggest about Smeja's story?

Well, I agree the story is fishy, but what he actually said was, he went back to the spot where he left the juvenile, but there was snow and everything looked different, so he couldn't be completely sure. So they spent nearly the entire day digging around at different spot finding nothing, and finally dug where his dog was indicating. That's where they found the sample.

Like I say, I know it's all fishy, but just thought I'd try to get the story out there as he told it.

[Guest Scout1959]

Please point us where it can be shown that whatever it was Smeja provided to B&T was definitively from the same sample that was given to Ketchum?

Because what they tested was never technically part of Ketchum's study, it was completely outside of the necessary control protocols, and most everything B&T are posting is here-say.

Ketchum's research paper is currently under peer review to determine suitability for publishing.

That peer review will examine all aspects of the study itself including the protocols used as well as the data derived from it and the conclusions she makes from that data.

The review will be quite exhaustive and exacting.

Since Ketchum's paper is already under review by members of the scientific community with the education and skillsets necessary to properly evaluate what her study did or did not do, we should really ask ourselves why are 2 amateur Bigfoot researchers spending the time they are crucifying her? We should also ask ourselves who do their actions serve and who has the most to win and lose by what they are doing...

Well stated.

[Guest]

This thread has really been all over the place. Simply put, there are some things we can conclude and other's that are left to speculation.

We can conclude that the samples that Smeja sent out are for BEAR and have Smeja' s DNA laced in. We can't conclude anything else. Was that SAME sample he sent to Ketchum? We don't know. Did Smeja kill something OTHER than what in his sample? We don't know. What we do know is that nothing Smeja has will confirm he killed a so called BF (unless he's hiding something). That's it folks..pure and simple.

My take...until Smeja can produce something definitive...he never killed a so called BF. This doesn't imply the Ketchum study is flawed, since there is no NEXUS between Smeja and Ketchum results....But it does *open the door* to speculation...that's what 99% of this thread seems to be all about.

Edited December 31, 2012 by ronn1

[Guest]

Let's be a bit more precise shall we?

Smeja went back to the exact spot where he claims he shot a Bigfoot, and found some type of cadaver that had the same color hair he said the animal he shot had.

That cadaver turned out to be a bear.

Now what does that seem to suggest about Smeja's story?

No, he found a sample of flesh that appeared to have the same color hair. Tyler has spoken about this several times already.

Sure do what does that change about it?

I would suggest if it came back unknown hominid that wouldn't be part of this discussion.

If it came back "unknown hominid" it wouldn't matter if it WERE the same one he shot or not...it would still prove an "unknown hominid".

Bit in this case it came back "bear", which leaves Smeja's story exactly where it stood before the results came back: without physical supporting evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

[georgerm]

We are all playing detective yet the truth is still evading us. I'm going to play Columbo. All people involved need to be cleared, or they are suspects...................so.............oh by the way.................

Who is the only person who knew exactely where the shooting occured other than Justin?

Did this person have access to bear meat?

Was this person angry with Justin or jealous of his fame?

Did this person leave town for a day or two during this time frame?

Is this person capable of sabotaging Justin?

Did this person know in advance that Justin was going to make another trip to the site?

Edited December 31, 2012 by georgerm

[Bonehead74]

The take-home here is that the link between the claimed shooting incident and the tissue claimed to be recovered is entirely circumstantial. I've not heard anyone involved in the actual recovery of the sample claim it to have definitively come from a bigfoot, based solely on it's location, appearance, and/or odor, only that these resemblances were suggestive that the flesh came from one of the animals Justin supposedly shot. The claim of steak=BF came from what Derek Randles and Justin claim to have been told by the good Dr. K regarding her analysis of said sample. These are the facts (or the closest approximation thereof) as they have stood for quite some time. Until we can compare Ketchum's procedures and methodologies side by side with those of the labs used by Tyler and Bart, this all is a bunch of navel-gazing, IMO.

[Guest FootDude]

No, he found a sample of flesh that appeared to have the same color hair. Tyler has spoken about this several times already.

Curious the lengths the B&T proponents are going to in order to keep Smeja from appearing deceitful...

[Guest slimwitless]

Until we can compare Ketchum's procedures and methodologies side by side with those of the labs used by Tyler and Bart, this all is a bunch of navel-gazing, IMO.

Guilty. As. Charged.

[Guest BartloJays]

Please point us where it can be shown that whatever it was Smeja provided to B&T was definitively from the same sample that was given to Ketchum?

Because what they tested was never technically part of Ketchum's study, it was completely outside of the necessary control protocols, and most everything B&T are posting is here-say.

Ketchum's research paper is currently under peer review to determine suitability for publishing.

That peer review will examine all aspects of the study itself including the protocols used as well as the data derived from it and the conclusions she makes from that data.

The review will be quite exhaustive and exacting.

Since Ketchum's paper is already under review by members of the scientific community with the education and skillsets necessary to properly evaluate what her study did or did not do, we should really ask ourselves why are 2 amateur Bigfoot researchers spending the time they are crucifying her? We should also ask ourselves who do their actions serve and who has the most to win and lose by what they are doing...

I think based on your unsubstantiated statements of fact we should ask who your actions serve?

Do you know Dr. Ketchum by any chance? Did Dr. Ketchum ask you to come here and perpetuate the suggestion that Justin gave her a "real" piece of tissue and gave us and others a bear piece,?

You claim everything we've said is "here-say" yet we can back-up everything we say with facts. Do you believe the lab reports we provided are "here-say"?" We said we were going to vet the sample and provide transparency and we have,including lab reports and soon emails. For you to suggest that what we've shared and provided evidence for is "here-say," is being intentionally deceptive. If you're going to insinuate we have ulterior motives then back it up with either evidence or a complete sentence explaining what they are.

You on the other hand have zero evidence or third-party substantiation of any definitive statement you've made, including and especially about what process Dr. Ketchum's paper is currently in. . If you do... prove it, since you stated it as fact.

In reality, we (Justin, Tyler or myself) don't owe you justification for vetting this sample independently, though for those asking, yes we had ample concern and reason to do so which will be shared by Justin at his discretion. We have a right to do as we please and to accuse us of crucifying her because we vetted a sample (with multi-legitimate concerns, several initiated by her) and provided transparency we promised prior to learning of results, is beyond comprehension. Especially when the results are inconsistent from what's been promised to the submitter, to the financial backer (who happens to be one of my best friends), the primary researcher and everyone else.

We even went above and beyond giving her an opportunity to validate those results through a third party and were willing to lower the bar down to less then what has even been stated publicly...and she approached us through a third party, we didn't approach her.

At the end of the day, Dr. Ketchum's work must stand on it's own and be validated...or it won't. There should be absolutely no fear regarding perception in the bigfoot community as if the science is there, that perception means absolutely nothing in the big picture.

Edited December 31, 2012 by BartloJays

[Guest]

I think Justin is not telling the whole story. I think he took some flesh the day of the kill. I think Dr Ketchum has a piece of that flesh. I also think they found the chunk of something on the return trip. I think that's the sample that was given to others. I think Justin is keeping his cards on there being two samples close to his chest. I do not think Justin fully trusts anybody, and is just smart enough to let this stuff run its course. If the bodies where gone, assuming the adult was fatally wounded, then I have no idea why a chunk of flesh would just happen to be left, unless it was planted,or a bear had a bad fight with a Sasquatch over the body of the young one, who knows?