Jump to content

Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample


Guest Tyler H
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Tyler H

I understand that a lot of you are going to engage in conjecture - it's only reasonable. Please understand that for us who have been involved from the start, that conjecture gets bothersome when it is clear that it is not based on any of the facts that are available for you to read.

The chances of this being a complete hoax by Justin and friend are very slim, for reasons I've hashed over many times, and posted a link to at the start of this thread, and in my release statement.

The chances of it being a partial hoax, where the incident happened, but Justin didn't retrieve any physical evidence, so resorted to submitting some bear, are much better. On that front, I have had to trust the polygraph, all my interactions with Justin, and some evidence regarding his locations at certain times.

Thermalman - you said "Ketchum has everything on the line. Why would she concoct or falsify results?"

I believe you asked and answered your own question - she has everything on the line. That IS usually exactly when people resort to all sorts of things to keep themselves alive.

The way to support her conclusions and her claims that her tissue is different, would have been for her to provide tissue to an independent lab. I offered this at the start, and offered again after my results. She refused. So, then I asked that I just be allowed to speak with any single PhD involved in her study, just so that they could say "I worked on Justin's tissue sample, and I support Ketchum's conclusions" - again, that offer was rejected.

We can't speak to her body of work, and the "108 OTHER samples", or the "12 labs" involved or what have you. But we can say that opportunities to corroborate her results and her claims have been spurned, and that there has been some behavior that really raises some red flags.

I will wallow in how ever much egg gets on my face, if my results are proven to be inaccurate. I'll gladly eat the humble pie, since we will then finally have some great proof, which is what so many of us have been after for decades. No one will be happier than me if her results get verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wudewasa

Wow, so the DNA results are released, the answer is clear, and now people speculate as to why the sample is bear instead of bigfoot?!

I guess some folks want to keep the controversy BRUIN, but can BEARLY comprehend that the results are clear. They can STEAK their claim of cover ups, but no CLAWS indicates such actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's keep track of the important thing here: multiple scientists engaged the bigfoot evidence. They "followed up" as it were. I've been told by some folks here - quite adamantly in fact - that this never happens. Scientists analyzing bigfoot data are more rare than the bigfoots themselves, I've been told.

Yet here we have another lab of scientists, this time at Trent University, who were perfectly willing to analyze the greatest bigfoot evidence of the century- the Smeja bigfoot steak! It's almost as if they were genuinely interested in analyzing physical data that was submitted to them for testing, and that they were potentially interested in participating in one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Hmmm, but that can't be right, 'cause that's the kind of crap Saskeptic's been writing about here for years . . .

Meanwhile, back at the BFF: Can we all agree now that the Smeja steak was never bigfoot evidence to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tyler H

As for the concerns that "how on earth could Justin have left without any proof?" - believe me, we've all shared them. Justin beats himself up almost daily over this.

Since not one of us has ever been in that situation, we need to look to the reasons given by the two people present.

The first one was shot from a distance and never found. Never seen up close.

The second one was killed up close. Once they saw the face - saw what had been killed, they understandably got a little freaked out, and left. People don't behave rationally when they think they may have just killed something human. - I can buy that. And Justin had no real knowledge of Sasquatch at that point.

What I have had the most trouble with, is how the heck did bear flesh turn up right where he thought one of the bipedal animals expired? There should be near zero chance of that. Again, I have to go back to the polygraph, and interactions with Justin. Also, Justin's dog was trained for bear and was instrumental in locating this tissue.

Unfortunately, there is no ONE scenario in all of this that is either palatable or easily accepted. We just have to go with the evidence available, and choose which of the improbable scenarios has the least contradictory evidence, or whithold judgment until more evidence is processed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

I understand that a lot of you are going to engage in conjecture - it's only reasonable. Please understand that for us who have been involved from the start, that conjecture gets bothersome when it is clear that it is not based on any of the facts that are available for you to read.

I won't break a confidence but I will say that from my perspective, something doesn't add up. That's not conjecture.

That said, I do know how to speculate. How's this? A whole lot of people have wasted a whole lot of time and money coming up empty handed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mabee the Sasquatch was wearing a bearskin jacket...mabee um... ah ....uh..

(sorry, thats just my belief in all of this kicking around in its death throws)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

If Smeja can't keep one sample distinct from another or doesn't have friends that can, why should we believe any findings coming from such a crazy mixed up accounting?!

.

...What I have had the most trouble with, is how the heck did bear flesh turn up right where he thought one of the bipedal animals expired? There should be near zero chance of that. Again, I have to go back to the polygraph, and interactions with Justin. Also, Justin's dog was trained for bear and was instrumental in locating this tissue.

Let's just say somebody busted the bust, probably Biscotti. I always blame it on Biscotti. He's got his footprints in everything BF. :keeporder:

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

To Tyler or Bart. If I'm reading your statement on the Sierra Site Project correctly, there were two labs (American and Canadian) involved in your testing.

Was the sample sent to any other labs?

If someone hadn't recently stolen the bear and game meat from Smeja's house, it might be possible to determine if he accidentally sent in one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tyler H

Not sure if I understand why it is important if any more was sent to yet more labs?

How many labs do we need to contract, to come up with the same result? One AMerican and one Canadian both say the only human DNA present matches Justin, and the rest matches bear. I for one don't want to keep paying beyond that.

WOuld anyone feel better if I said there was a third lab that receieved tissue? WHy would we expect any different?

Slimwitless - there is also no reason that Justin would have unintentially had bear tissue of the size and shape that he used for the samples, stored away to be sent off to labs.

Slabs of meat? sure.

A hide scrap - not likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

I'm not saying you should have sent it to more labs. I'm asking if you guys did. I take your response to mean no. Is that right?

And I was sort of joking about the unusual burglary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that a lot of you are going to engage in conjecture - it's only reasonable. Please understand that for us who have been involved from the start, that conjecture gets bothersome when it is clear that it is not based on any of the facts that are available for you to read.

What conjecture? It came back as bear, that's fact. No way he went back to where he says he killed the BF and instead found a piece of bear. This stinks to high heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thepattywagon

Tyler and Bart, Can you think of any reason that Justin might have passed a bogus sample off to you for testing?

I can think of several possible scenarios under which he might do that. I can also come up with a few reasons why Dr K might turn down your offers to corroborate her data.

Now that your tests have been returned as bear, are you currently relying more on Justin's testimony, his polygraph results or just your gut feeling about his truthfulness from time spent with him, as "corroborating evidence" to the veracity of his story?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...