Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler,As far as transparency, I appreciate you desire to be transparent, but when manuscripts are being developed for publication in scientific journals the rules for referees and the peer review process require confidentiality of both the referees and the authors. This is why Melbas study with her co-authors has remained confidential.

With respect to integrity, I can speak to my relationship with her. As a submitter she's always been straight forward with me. I'm sure things were said that shouldn't have been said and so on, but in no way does that effect the science done.

The burden of answering your last question is with you. Your report states that there is a "major" contributor of bear along with human contamination. Are you certain and can you provide evidence that no other mammalian amplifications occurred? The study is unclear and unsubstantial in terms of providing raw data. If you really want to be completely transparent you should post the complete report including all "raw data".BTW, this is not just "jargon".DR

I didn't say it was "just jargon" I said that in the end, the jargon doesn't trump the logic - that I need more than 'just jargon' to trump the logic. I have asked Trent U to provide me the FASTA files, and any other raw data. Because Bart's report is not final yet, we will attempt to get more data included in it prior to release. The feedback from the community and others, has been insightful as to how we can make the presentation of our evidence even more reliable.

As for "The burden of answering your last question is with you." um... how does that make sense? I don't believe, (and the PhD's involved don't believe) that there was anything that was NOT amplified... so how could I prove how they failed to amplify the presence that your camp says was there, when I'm not of the opinion that it IS/WAS there? It's like asking an atheist to DISprove that God ISN'T there.... (and a little like saying "I know you are but what am I?") The Melba camp claims the process was too ineffective to amplify the most prominent presence, but that the same process somehow dramatically amplified two trace/minor/contaminant presence. Why should the Melba camp not be the one to show how that is possible? How is the burden on me to prove or disprove that whacky claim? Again, I'm hopeful I'll be as wrong as can be, once her study comes out, and she provides the rest of Justin's tissue that is still in her possession to other labs to corroborate her work, but at the moment, I would really like someone to explain how these accusations are possible - that the universal mammalian primers missed the major mammal presence completely, yet amplify the trace elements dramatically. (Assuming the FASTA files don't shw otherwise.)

It's fairly obvious that when the lab labels the bear as the major contributor, and human as the minor, that they mean the bear is the tissue. I'd like to think or hope otherwise, but we just don't have evidence of that fact, to date (and believe me, I argued it with the lab). GenesRus says the images in the report show that with clarity.

As far as Melba's confidentiality - I actually DO get that. I never asked to see her report - I respect that part of the scientific process. I only asked for some corroborating evidence of the conclusions she is making very publically (on radio, TV and the internet) that Justin's samples are from an uncatalogued primate. I did not ask for any divulging of information she has not already made very public. It only had to be a verbal reassurance from someone who had worked on the tissue, and supports that public conclusion.

PS - it's "phylogenetic", not "phylogenic". When you relay information you are being fed from other sources, maybe rather than sound like you know all of this yourself, you could say "the way I understand it" or "the way I am told." Some here see the polysyllabic words (which just mean "evolutionary tree"), and equate them to more confidence in Melba's results.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

whole Gnome sequencing is essentiol when developing phylogenic trees.

Phylogenetic trees were developed long before anyone new what DNA does or even that it existed. And, a lot of good genetic phylogeny was done with gel electrophoresis on a few loci before genome sequestration became feasible. One doesn't need an entire genome to identfy a species, even a new one. I've always wondered why Ketchum chose to slow down her research by sequencing three complete nu-genomes when she could have more quickly gone with a higher number of partial genomes and still demonstrated the uniqueness of the purported bigfoot tissue samples.

After all, the initial genetic analysis that showed Neandertals to be a separate species did not involve whole genome sequencing. And, it sounds like purported bigfoot nuDNA is likely more different from ours than is Neandertal nuDNA.

[BobbyO]

To top it off, Bart possibly recorded a small group a few hundred yards from the site that Smeja made up as part of his hoax. That's one h*ll of a coincidence, too. The video is very compelling,

Great post PAC as usual, and what you've just said here too is, in my opinion, something that adds so much more to this whole thing.

I personally have no issue whatsoever with the entire sierra stuff and its authenticity and the fact that Bart went and filmed what he did gives things so much more clarity.

One thing I will say thought is that Justin is one brave man, or maybe foolish, if he was part of the group of Humans that Bart was with when he filmed them out there that night.

Rather him than me, he shouldn't stray too far when he wants a leak if you ask me.

[Guest Tyler H]

Phylogenetic trees were developed long before anyone new what DNA does or even that it existed. And, a lot of good genetic phylogeny was done with gel electrophoresis on a few loci before genome sequestration became feasible. One doesn't need an entire genome to identfy a species, even a new one. I've always wondered why Ketchum chose to slow down her research by sequencing three complete nu-genomes when she could have more quickly gone with a higher number of partial genomes and still demonstrated the uniqueness of the purported bigfoot tissue samples.

After all, the initial genetic analysis that showed Neandertals to be a separate species did not involve whole genome sequencing. And, it sounds like purported bigfoot nuDNA is likely more different from ours than is Neandertal nuDNA.

Wow, fascinating, insightful post Pteronarcyd. Thanks

Great post PAC as usual, and what you've just said here too is, in my opinion, something that adds so much more to this whole thing.

I personally have no issue whatsoever with the entire sierra stuff and its authenticity and the fact that Bart went and filmed what he did gives things so much more clarity.

One thing I will say thought is that Justin is one brave man, or maybe foolish, if he was part of the group of Humans that Bart was with when he filmed them out there that night.

Rather him than me, he shouldn't stray too far when he wants a leak if you ask me.

A bit off topic, BobbyO, but I'd like to run with this a bit - to me, this just demonstrates one more thing that is speculated on about this animal, and appears to be false. Why wasn't Justin attacked at the time of the shooting? The mythology goes that there would have been several others of his troop around that would have torn Justin to shreds. I just think we attribute too many fantastic abilities to this animal.

[BobbyO]

A bit off topic, BobbyO, but I'd like to run with this a bit - to me, this just demonstrates one more thing that is speculated on about this animal, and appears to be false. Why wasn't Justin attacked at the time of the shooting? The mythology goes that there would have been several others of his troop around that would have torn Justin to shreds. I just think we attribute too many fantastic abilities to this animal.

I don't think we know enough to rule it out completely Tyler, personally.

The animal would be very capable of doing bad things to people, if it so wishes, and I'm not sure anyone can disagree with that given its physical make up and obvious intelligence.

But maybe them recognising him would be a bit too much to think they'd be capable of, I don't know if that would be possible.

Ps, sorry for going a bit off topic.

[Guest sprayanpray]

Tyler H.. I had and oppurtunity to watched the video and I understand no pictures or physical evidence was taken during the first encounter of the creatures being shot. But the Gentleman did state in his video he picked up the small creature and looked at it and threw it at the other gentlemen and the second gentlemen also picked it up so how did they clean their hands from the blood and for the lack of better words the meat from the gunshot wound from the description they both had their hands underneath the upper arms to hold the creature so they could look in the eyes and if the used rags to clean their hand that would help them prove there story also unless they cleaned there hands prior to reentering the vehicle the keys, door handles, steering wheel, gear shifter should have some type of blood DNA or some other material on their equipment.

[Guest FootDude]

Thank you very much for the lengthy response Bart.

First off, I’ve been assured by Justin that he’ll be making a lengthy statement soon covering exactly what you’re questioning and wondering and will explain the catalyst in us having an “extreme†sense of urgency and concern to vet this sample. That concern from my end was for potential repercussions for the person who financially backed her and is one of my best friend’s, Wally Hersom, Justin (who again, never claimed the tissue was from what was shot, but him and Jack suspected it was) and the whole bigfoot community. I ask that when Justin makes that statement in whatever format he does, you listen carefully because not only is it the truth 100% (and that’s regardless if Dr. Ketchum’s study is successful or not btw…you’ll understand why I’m saying that) but it’s something he’s needed to get off his chest for a long, long time.

Seeing that Smeja is according to you going to be making a statement I personally believe it would have been best for you and Tyler to wait before posting.

In light of the DNA analysis done by Trent I definitely would have re-evaluated the relationship with Smeja as well.

Your investor friend and Ketchum backer I'm sure has a certain level of financial sophistication with regards to risk, and I am sure before he made the investment analyzed the risk/reward associated with this project.

Any advice you tried to give your 'friend' through this thread indeed could have been given privately and am sure already has so that really can't be the reason for your attacking Ketchum now can it?

For Tyler, there is one primary reason for screening this sample (though he shared my other concerns as well to some extent) and it was to make sure the sample was what it was being proclaimed to be as he didn’t want to see a potential black eye for the field. That also goes without saying that Tyler was supposed to receive a piece from Justin to test back from the beginning as he was the other researcher (besides DR) who initially talked with Justin.

I had two primary concerns with one being suspicion towards Dr. Ketchum based on this “catalyst†exchange to protect those close to me, in addition to an absence of “checks and balances†coupled with the desire by Justin to have someone test the sample he could trust.

Though I appreciate what you have released, no conclusions can as yet be reached due to a lack of hard and testable data currently in the public domain directly related to Ketchum's study.

Due to that lack of evidence and data, at this time I really don't understand the necessity of this particular debate, especially in light of the fact that Ketchum's report is currently proceeding through peer-review.

Do your accusations undermine and cloud this process? I believe they do. IMO they do virtually nothing to serve the community and our pursuit of Sasquatch and the truth here. In fact I believe they confuse the issue which I believe at this time should be the truthfulness of Justin Smeja.

To those who suggest Dr. Ketchum should not be challenged with conflicting evidence because she’s handcuffed by study protocols is asinine when you have an opportunity to consider what the catalyst of urgently getting independent examination is in the first place…and you will but I think it’s appropriate it comes from Justin. Again, we're sharing results in a transparent manner, this is not a "direct" or "personal" challenge to her.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Ketchum's study shouldn’t be challenged (I know I haven't) due to peer-review protocols. Indeed it will be those same strict protocols that will either be her study's undoing or support in the end. Seeing that this is ongoing I really don't see the need to have the debate your camp is starting. The only thing accomplished by the current debate is to keep certain people in the spotlight. IMO Justin is the last person that should be challenging anyone's truthfulness or veracity.

Since your sample and testing is outside of the Ketchum's study's testable controls protocols, who or what purpose does this debate really serve since the questions you're asking are going to be answered by experts operating within the guidelines of established scientific peer-review?

IMO at this time the most logical course of action your tests data and conclusions lead would be to further scrutinize Justin Smeja and his story. In fact that Smeja originally said he shot the young Squatch so he would have proof than never took the body, never went back to get it like he said he would before he left makes absolutely no sense. There’s too many fundamental inconsistencies with Smeja here Bart.

On a positive note, the trials and errors we experienced as two “amateur†researchers (which is self-proclaimed btw, so the attempted condescending reminder by you in tone in a prior post was unnecessary) is well documented and others can learn from them looking towards the future.

Bart my remark about 'amateur researchers' was never meant to disparage you, just to contrast to the community here the true panel of expertise and field related PHD's that this study is currently going through the gauntlet of peer-review with.

1. On a separate note I think you will agree that the inevitable PHD's in the related fields are eminently more qualified to be discussing the merits of Ketchum's study than either you or Tyler.

2. If you disagree, than IMO in order to support your conclusions you should post the direct and incontrovertible evidence that would convince myself and others here that at least with regards to Smeja's provided samples you are indeed as qualified as they.

Furthermore, Tyler and I take significant issue with those who would suggest making results from these two reputable labs transparent was some kind of coordinated attack on Ketchum as we even tried (initiated by her) to get some third party verification in 11^th hour to delay these findings in case of some proven error. We did not test the tissue ourselves, and we’re not responsible for the findings, but we’ll take responsibility in sharing them because although being the bearer of bad news may not be the ideal place to be, we know it’s the right thing to do…. without question. I wished to god the findings were different but according to our labs that’s not the case and I can tell you right now, from what I’ve been told by the other lab director, the second report (which is due any day) is even more definitive in their conclusions and they specialize in “human†dna.

One problem I see on your side is the lack of coordinated control protocols agreed to by you and Ketchum with regards to Ketchum's sample and the one you tested.

Unless there is something documented and observed and confirmed by multiple independant and unaligned parties, everything Smeja and your side releases is merely hear-say which is why it would have been best to merely release your findings and let the rest play out through peer-review and limited (for now) question and answers.

Tyler carefully documented protocols that I think are imperative for future researchers who are laymen with respect to diagnostics. I’m sure that's something we can all agree that is a potentially positive thing for this field that desperately needs some direction with respect to standards.

Hmmm...

Edited January 1, 2013 by FootDude

[Guest]

Justin sent a sample to Sykes as well, correct?

[Guest BartloJays]

Thank you very much for the lengthy response Bart.

Seeing that Smeja is according to you going to be making a statement I personally believe it would have been best for you and Tyler to wait before posting.

In light of the DNA analysis done by Trent I definitely would have re-evaluated the relationship with Smeja as well.

Your investor friend and Ketchum backer I'm sure has a certain level of financial sophistication with regards to risk, and I am sure before he made the investment analyzed the risk/reward associated with this project.

Any advice you tried to give your 'friend' through this thread indeed could have been given privately and am sure already has so that really can't be the reason for your attacking Ketchum now can it?

Your welcome

You have your opinion, we have ours.

In reality, I don’t have to justify my relationship to anybody. Don’t confuse me wanting to keep facts straight and untruths being spread with needing approval from a few people merely following the developments.

With regards to “my friend,†whom I speak with 3-4 nights a weeks on average, you don’t really believe I’ve given him advice “through this thread?†Cmon now

Though I appreciate what you have released, no conclusions can as yet be reached due to a lack of hard and testable data currently in the public domain directly related to Ketchum's study.

Due to that lack of evidence and data, at this time I really don't understand the necessity of this particular debate, especially in light of the fact that Ketchum's report is currently proceeding through peer-review.

Do your accusations undermine and cloud this process? I believe they do. IMO they do virtually nothing to serve the community and our pursuit of Sasquatch and the truth here. In fact I believe they confuse the issue which I believe at this time should be the truthfulness of Justin Smeja.

[/color]

You see that’s where you and I see things very differently as you speak as if you’re in the know about her even having a paper “currently†in peer review. I’m not only not convinced that is the case (and why shouldn’t I be with only here-say) but I’m not even sure she has a viable paper. I’ve heard multiple things from those close to her including: not currently in peer review in the US only Russia.... to peer review in US, now or at anytime in the last two yrs.... to has already passed peer review etc… I've heard it all...."we've" all heard it all

As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist without some substantiation, I’ve not asked anybody to take my word for it on good faith, don’t expect me to take yours.

I also couldn’t disagree with you more as perception means zero with respect to the bigfoot community as opposed to the big picture (if she’s got it, she’ll be fine). What the bigfoot community needs is transparency and researchers to do what’s right as opposed to worrying about how they are perceived and accepted socially. That's part of the problem with bigfoot research today.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Ketchum's study shouldn’t be challenged (I know I haven't) due to peer-review protocols. Indeed it will be those same strict protocols that will either be her study's undoing or support in the end. Seeing that this is ongoing I really don't see the need to have the debate your camp is starting. The only thing accomplished by the current debate is to keep certain people in the spotlight. IMO Justin is the last person that should be challenging anyone's truthfulness or veracity.

Since your sample and testing is outside of the Ketchum's study's testable controls protocols, who or what purpose does this debate really serve since the questions you're asking are going to be answered by experts operating within the guidelines of established scientific peer-review?

IMO at this time the most logical course of action your tests data and conclusions lead would be to further scrutinize Justin Smeja and his story. In fact that Smeja originally said he shot the young Squatch so he would have proof than never took the body, never went back to get it like he said he would before he left makes absolutely no sense. There’s too many fundamental inconsistencies with Smeja here Bart.

[/color]

The debate is a consequence of the action we took, we didn’t initiate the action to spark debate, we initiated the action to get to the truth of the sample if there was a serious conflict in data based on the claim from Ketchum. The alternative was to turn a blind eye (not acceptable), the next alternative was to bury results even temporarily (not acceptable…to any of us). There is no guarantee any experts are looking at anything as far as we're concerned because again, there's no verification from a third party, only information from one source. If you can't provide evidence that this is in fact happening, why do you expect us to take your word for it and I'd recommend for your benefit, unless you're absolutely in the know for certain, not to state something as fact.

No one asked you or anybody else to accept the Sierra shooting event without substantiation, especially Justin. I think that’s where there’s a disconnect a bit. Some people, yourself included, assume that because we state our position and “belief†(based on our knowledge and experience internally) and want to prevent inaccuracies (Tyler and I are both perfectionists if you haven’t happened to notice) we need to convince you to believe or accept the same. That’s not the case, if I didn’t have internal knowledge and some of the other things that have happened I can’t simply ignore, I wouldn’t be close to believing the incident on its face. At the end of the day, what I believe doesn’t matter because it doesn’t substantiate the event and I could be wrong. That’s why I don’t make definitive statements about something unless I can prove it.

[/color]

One problem I see on your side is the lack of coordinated control protocols agreed to by you and Ketchum with regards to Ketchum's sample and the one you tested.

Unless there is something documented and observed and confirmed by multiple independant and unaligned parties, everything Smeja and your side releases is merely hear-say which is why it would have been best to merely release your findings and let the rest play out through peer-review and limited (for now) question and answers.

[/color]

As far as we’re concerned we hope our labs are wrong but she made the claim (complete genome on Sierras tissue) therefore, she’ll have to justify it rather it be through peer review or other evidence. That’s not our burden as we’re not in a “camp†making a claim, we tested the tissue, deferred to those with the expertise and are sharing their respective findings.

For those that want to believe he tore a piece off the body and then sent us samples out of his freezer out of concern for prosecution, sabotaging himself in the process and refusing a lifeline by refusing any opportunity for a mistake, mind you, then knock yourself out.

Oh and btw, we did do that, we released our findings and are letting the rest play out. If you’re trying to give us advice on taking limited questions and answers then make it easy and stop asking us to repeatedly clarify the same points over and over. Thank you and I'd also contend you're in the minority (actually I'd state as a matter of fact) of those who feel we shouldn't be available answering questions. I happen to know and care about a lot of people in this community and forum and I think they deserve to have some of their questions answered....especially with respect to this saga.

Hmmm...

Edited January 1, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest]

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 take it you didn't read the linked articles. It answers all of your questions and also gives you a reason why it is easy to create, and why it would be easy to distinguish artificially created from naturally occurring DNA. But no, you can get an entire genome from one cell, all you need is a culture of a few cells of something created via in vitro fertilization in order to accomplish the deed, according to the article any postgraduate student can do this. I don't think it's a likely scenario in this case.

[Guest BartloJays]

CTfoot-

I have a question for you as well as GenesRus and anyone else here with extensive knowledge in this area.

Do any of you feel it's possible to intentionally degrade, manipulate or "cleanse" a tissue sample and then successfully reintroduce foreign DNA into it. My understanding is to do this you can't essentially discriminate what you destroy but let's say all is destroyed or that was the goal to "start fresh," if you will. From your knowledge can it potentially hold the reintroduced genetic material after it's been "cleansed" in this manner?

Thank you in advance

[/color]

Bart my remark about 'amateur researchers' was never meant to disparage you, just to contrast to the community here the true panel of expertise and field related PHD's that this study is currently going through the gauntlet of peer-review with.

1. On a separate note I think you will agree that the inevitable PHD's in the related fields are eminently more qualified to be discussing the merits of Ketchum's study than either you or Tyler.

2. If you disagree, than IMO in order to support your conclusions you should post the direct and incontrovertible evidence that would convince myself and others here that at least with regards to Smeja's provided samples you are indeed as qualified as they.

Again, you have "zero" substantiation to share to make this claim:

"true panel of expertise and field related PHD's that this study is currently going through the gauntlet of peer-review with."

This is your hope and guess what...it's ours as well

In addition, you don't need to be a PHD to do some due diligence and contact a reputable lab to perform testing on a piece of tissue you have major concerns about.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, though I'd argue it wouldn't exactly be unjust considering some of the insinuations tossed our way in your prior posts, but I get the feeling you feel the appropriate thing to do would've been to ignore our concerns and not vet this sample because it could potentially interfere with Dr. Ketchum's paper and the supposed status we're supposed to believe it's in based on word of mouth?

Obviously that wasn't acceptable to any of us

Edited January 1, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest FootDude]

FootDude, on 31 December 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Bart my remark about 'amateur researchers' was never meant to disparage you, just to contrast to the community here the true panel of expertise and field related PHD's that this study is currently going through the gauntlet of peer-review with.

1. On a separate note I think you will agree that the inevitable PHD's in the related fields are eminently more qualified to be discussing the merits of Ketchum's study than either you or Tyler.

2. If you disagree, than IMO in order to support your conclusions you should post the direct and incontrovertible evidence that would convince myself and others here that at least with regards to Smeja's provided samples you are indeed as qualified as they.

Again, you have "zero" substantiation to share to make this claim:

"true panel of expertise and field related PHD's that this study is currently going through the gauntlet of peer-review with."

This is your hope and guess what...it's ours as well

In addition, you don't need to be a PHD to do some due diligence and contact a reputable lab to perform testing on a piece of tissue you have major concerns about.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, though I'd argue it wouldn't exactly be unjust considering some of the insinuations tossed our way in your prior posts, but I get the feeling you feel the appropriate thing to do would've been to ignore our concerns and not vet this sample because it could potentially interfere with Dr. Ketchum's paper and the supposed status we're supposed to believe it's in based on word of mouth?

Obviously that wasn't acceptable to any of us

I could care less about 'interference with Ketchum's paper and status'.

From what you've presented the only thing you can prove is that the piece of flesh Justin Smeja gave you for testing was from a bear.

Period.

You see that’s where you and I see things very differently as you speak as if you’re in the know about her even having a paper “currently†in peer review. I’m not only not convinced that is the case (and why shouldn’t I be with only here-say) but I’m not even sure she has a viable paper. I’ve heard multiple things from those close to her including: not currently in peer review in the US only Russia.... to peer review in US, now or at anytime in the last two yrs.... to has already passed peer review etc… I've heard it all...."we've" all heard it all

As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist without some substantiation, I’ve not asked anybody to take my word for it on good faith, don’t expect me to take yours.

I also couldn’t disagree with you more as perception means zero with respect to the bigfoot community as opposed to the big picture (if she’s got it, she’ll be fine). What the bigfoot community needs is transparency and researchers to do what’s right as opposed to worrying about how they are perceived and accepted socially. That's part of the problem with bigfoot research today.

Ahhh...

So the crux of this matter is you are inferring that Ketchum is a fraud.

Fair enough.

Post your evidence.

I am willing to listen.

Edited January 1, 2013 by FootDude

[Guest]

CTfoot-

I have a question for you as well as GenesRus and anyone else here with extensive knowledge in this area.

Do any of you feel it's possible to intentionally degrade, manipulate or "cleanse" a tissue sample and then successfully reintroduce foreign DNA into it. My understanding is to do this you can't essentially discriminate what you destroy but let's say all is destroyed or that was the goal to "start fresh," if you will. From your knowledge can it potentially hold the reintroduced genetic material after it's been "cleansed" in this manner?

Thank you in advance

Simply washing it wouldn't alter a sample based on what I read. I agree with Tyler that if the majority of the DNA amplified was bear, with such a small trace of human found, then bear was what it was. I also think it was always a shot in the dark for Justin to find anything on the mountain weeks or months after the shooting. That part doesn't bother me at all, since the DNA will tell you what it is you predominately have regardless of chain of custody.

The only way to manipulate the DNA itself is as described in the article I linked where they spun the woman's blood sample, removed the cells and added the male sample to the serum that was left. The other way described was through an in vitro fertilization process. I assume that if Dr. Ketchum was a vet that specialized in thorough bred identification, then she might be familiar with dealing with breeding issues in her vet practice. If so, then she would be capable of doing this procedure.

I have no idea what her scope of vet practice is or was and never saw anyone ever really ask about her training post doctoral. I also think it's a lot of trouble to go through to deliberately perpetuate a hoax. These processes can be easily detected if anyone specifically looks for it. I don't know that the confirmatory labs she used would have reason to do that, once again speculation. Someone reviewing the data would eventually think to check if they ever got a hold of some of her samples, or would draw that conclusion if unable to replicate her results, i.e, what you guys found.

It seems the most likely explanation to me is misinterpretation of the data on her part, combined with some wishful thinking. Once again, we won't know until we are able to review what she actually did. Like you, I hope the science is as iron clad as claimed, or if not, simply a matter of error. It infuriates me to think someone would deliberately mislead the sample submitters using the scientific method to obfuscate the results.

Edited January 1, 2013 by CTfoot

[Guest Theagenes]

[/font][/color]

I could care less about 'interference with Ketchum's paper and status'.

From what you've presented the only thing you can prove is that the piece of flesh Justin Smeja gave you for testing was from a bear.

Period.

Ahhh...

So the crux of this matter is you are inferring that Ketchum is a fraud.

Fair enough.

Post your evidence.

I am willing to listen.

Agreed. Bart, you're doing much more than suggesting that MK's study is flawed. You've been strongly insinuating that she is committing fraud. There's a big difference there and if you're making accusation I hope you have some evidence that goes beyond something that JS says.

[Rockape]

Why can't I see the latest posts in this thread? This happened yesterday also.

Edit: I make a post, and they appear.

Tyler H.. I had and oppurtunity to watched the video and I understand no pictures or physical evidence was taken during the first encounter of the creatures being shot. But the Gentleman did state in his video he picked up the small creature and looked at it and threw it at the other gentlemen and the second gentlemen also picked it up so how did they clean their hands from the blood and for the lack of better words the meat from the gunshot wound from the description they both had their hands underneath the upper arms to hold the creature so they could look in the eyes and if the used rags to clean their hand that would help them prove there story also unless they cleaned there hands prior to reentering the vehicle the keys, door handles, steering wheel, gear shifter should have some type of blood DNA or some other material on their equipment.

Good question. I hope it gets answered.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Rockape