Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest slimwitless]

Yep, it's a real problem. So it seems to me the best thing to do is wait to see what to see what her results and what her paper says after it's passed review.

Agree 100%. Sometimes I should pass on throwing anything else on the speculative heap (which is now an insurmountable mountain). On the other hand, what else does one do in a BF forum?

[Guest]

Wow, fascinating, insightful post Pteronarcyd. Thanks

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.

Actually I believe he wasn't attacked because for whatever reason there wasn't any others around if events happened as JS state.

[Guest Scout1959]

In the end you'll find that somebody either innocently misunderstood something (likely the leaks coming from Melba's study imho) or somebody or somebodies purposefully lied and mislead. If it's the later I hope their name or names go on the rolls alongside Dyer's. Unfortunately it seems in the world of bf that no matter how big a ruse you perform there are those who still buy everything you throw out there.

IMHO it is actually a combination of things, I think there is both a misunderstanding (likely several) and at least one deception involved. But that's just me and I agree we will just have to wait and hope Ketchum's report comes out and clears the waters a bit. (let's hope it doesn't stir the mud up even more!)

Actually I believe he wasn't attacked because for whatever reason there wasn't any others around if events happened as JS state.

That would seem more likely if it had been a lone male. The claim that it was a female with two little ones would seem to make it less likely to be alone. Of course who really can claim to know bf behavior.

[Guest]

What kind of hunter would kill a helpless young animal? None.

[Guest Scout1959]

What kind of hunter would kill a helpless young animal? None.

Not one I'd hunt with that's for sure.

[Guest]

Back on page 5 the "If it came back 10% bear and 15% human, what was the other 75%" question came up, and I don't know how much of a DNA expert ajciani is, but they seemed to give a couple of good reasons why Tyler and Barts results don't jibe with MK's.

I'd like to understand why everyone keeps ignoring this? If 10% was bear and 15% human................WHAT WAS THE OTHER 75%!!! Do we just have 3/4 of nothing?

[Guest BartloJays]

I really don't think it's jumping to conclusions to think that you've been implying that she is lying about her results, or the status of her study. You were expressing concern about Wally Hersom investing in her project. You keep hinting that you have some information that has led you to distrust her. If you have some evidence that she's a fraud I'm sure we'd all like to see it so we can assess it for ourselves.

Everyone here can go back and read your posts and judge for themselves. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say but that was impression I was getting. I have no doubt that you have the best of intentions, I really do, but this whole thing just feels like it's become personal with your comments. I don't get the same feeling from Tyler to be perfectly frank.

I kind of get the feeling that this may boil down to JS and MK having a miscommunication and misunderstanding that led to distrust and then it snowballed from there.

There's no misunderstandings.

You were jumping to major conclusions and I asked a perfectly valid question in the context of what CTfoot was already talking about.

However, I do agree on one thing, the focus on this thread should be on the first report and frankly I'm tired of rehashing the same info.

[Guest RayG]

We are the only ones who have MULTIPLE PhD's weighing in that what we did was correct...

Where might one read, in a non-bigfoot-related venue, the conclusions of these multiple PhDs?

RayG

[Guest]

All the more educated people here tackle the difficult DNA issues. Laymen like myself just ask where is an actual Squatch? Or where is there a real picture or video of one? How about bones or a carcass? Every animal leaves some evidence of it's existence, no?

Dinosaurs left evidence. DNA is great, but where is the simple proof?

[Guest]

Tyler,

sorry but you really make me laugh..out loud. If you think for one minute that I haven't spent the last four weeks cramming info into my brain the then you're sadly mistaken. Yes I'm a lowly dirt worker and wilderness guide, but I might actually know more than you give me credit for. It's cool, and yes I've had a lot of help trying to learn as fast as I can for all the right reasons, just as you have, but I'm not going to try and belittle you here, on this front. It shows maturity level don't you think?. Does it make you feel better to issue your snide little PS comments? Lets look at the facts. I worked hard trying to connect you with someone who knows vastly more than you do in this field, and I did just that..for your benefit. I didn't connect those dots so I could say "I told ya so". I wanted you to know as much as possible, just as I want to know as much as possible. I understand you're bitter over spending that much money, I get that, but truth be told, at the end of the day this can be easily compared very shortly. This thread while entertaining, is just talk and opinion. I'm willing to bet that you think I have a huge agenda because I have a dog in this fight. Truth be told I just want the truth, nothing more, nothing less.

My efforts and correspondence with you are done. And you're welcome.

DR

[Ike]

In the end you'll find that somebody either innocently misunderstood something (likely the leaks coming from Melba's study imho) or somebody or somebodies purposefully lied and mislead. If it's the later I hope their name or names go on the rolls alongside Dyer's. Unfortunately it seems in the world of bf that no matter how big a ruse you perform there are those who still buy everything you throw out there.

IMHO it is actually a combination of things, I think there is both a misunderstanding (likely several) and at least one deception involved. But that's just me and I agree we will just have to wait and hope Ketchum's report comes out and clears the waters a bit. (let's hope it doesn't stir the mud up even more!)

This I can agree with completely. I have no vested interest in this about who is right, who is wrong, who is telling the truth, who is lying, whose report is right, whose report is wrong except as it adds to the obfuscation of the issue. I just want to prove the existence of the creature if it's possible. Quite frankly, all the DNA talk makes my head spin. I can't sort it out that way nor do I suspect many others on here can. Likewise, I suspect the only "inside track" to information that 98% of us on here have is provided by this forum and a few key other sites on the web.

It does seem to me that based on what I've read, remembered, and/or comprehended is that someone somewhere is lying or at best, being misleading. From what I can tell, that is likely either Smeja or Dr. Ketchum and everyone else involved is being misled, or deliberately or inadvertently compliscent.

What I do know is the Bart and Tyler test came back as "bear." It really is beyond me that this result could be in error. What I have never seen though is irrefutable, definitive proof that the Sierra sample is part of the Ketchum paper. I might have missed it in all the clutter around this, but at best I have only seen rumor and speculation that it is. Never once have I seen it stated by MK that "yes, the Sierra kills sample is the centerpiece of my study" as seems to be bandied about as fact. I believe I have seen Mr. Randles comment that it is part of the study, but what if he was lied to by MK or just misunderstood? What if at the time he became privvy to that information, it was true, and then MK decided later (perhaps after her contact with Smeja) that she didn't want to use it in her study. Is it not possible that Ketchum after speaking to Smeja decided the whole Sierra kills saga was so distasteful, she wanted nothing to do with him or his sample and took it out of the study?

Overall, it just looks to me that we're going to have to wait it out (as much as we don't want to) and see what happens. Until then, I guess we can have fun speculating, guessing, and playing whodunnit, but I'd say we all need to keep our tempers down, not choose sides, and see how it all plays out.

[Guest Theagenes]

Ike and Scott, I agree completely. I think you've both described the most likely scenario. I would just add that there might be some misinterpretations of how the review process works and that has led people to interpret certain things as nefarious when they aren't at all.

[Guest gerrykleier]

Yep, it's a real problem. So it seems to me the best thing to do is wait to see what to see what her results and what her paper says after it's passed review.

Maybe she still has some of the original Smeja submission material unused so as to be able to run more tests. She would probably neither confirm nor deny, but someone in the know can ask her.

Also, did Ketchum every state to Derek Randles, or anyone else in the know that the SIERRA KILLS sample tested positive for BF, or was it IMPLIED. One could see someone asking about the Smeja sample and Ketchum giving back a generalized answer to the effect that they had irrefutable BF DNA and the questioner reading that answer as a direct response, when in fact it only implies the Smjea sample was positive, and is really just somewhat boilerplate reassurance. If the Smeja sample came back right away as bear, I could see Ketchum deciding to give lawyerly answers so as to not show her hand and risk offending others.

Just wild speculation, but more to the point, has anybody here had Ketchum tell them categorically that the Sierra Kills sample tested positive for BF? Or that they did a complete genome of the SK samples?

GK

Edited January 1, 2013 by gerrykleier

[Guest Theagenes]

Edit: Weird, I think I just had a post disappear and reappear

I

Edited January 1, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest]

Morning all,

Sorry I don't post more often, but work and family take precedence, and it takes me a while to catch up with all the posts between the last time I visited the BFF and now. Here's a few more thoughts.

Can you spike a sample to get the results you want? Yes, but it's not easy. To do it right, you would have to spike or manipulate a sample and then test whether it gives the results you want. That would be a very long and expensive process. Possible, yes, probable, no. From reading CNN daily, I understand that there are individuals who do things for incomprehensible reasons, but I am still working on the assumption that all parties in this situation are following general moral guidelines. YMMV.

The sole reason for my recent posts was to say that as someone who does PCR and genomic analysis on a daily basis, that the data in the Trent report is very compelling and convincing. Are there still some questions - yes. It is my understanding that we have not seen all of Tyler/Bart's data, and that they are still in contact with their respective labs to fill in the gaps. But, the data in their report, especially the universal primer data, is very convincing. If there is a difference between the results from the Tyler/Bart camp and the Ketchum group, I am convinced that it is NOT due to the methods and reagents used by the Trent or other lab chosen by Tyler/Bart.

I remain completely openminded to whatever the Ketchum camp has to offer. Until I see their data, I can draw no conclusion on the veracity of their conclusions.

Since I am comfortable with the Trent report, I am looking for other reasons why the 2 groups have reached different conclusions.

The very happiest of New Years to all.

Genes

Edited January 1, 2013 by GenesRUs