Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

^Because she cannot discuss the details of the tests pending the release of the paper. You know that rockie, having been told that often enough

Actually Mulder she seems to pick and choose what she feels like talking about. She reveals intimate details about a hybridization event 15000 years ago but can't talk about a single sample?

Weak sauce!

[Guest]

Bart,

you have a lot of class, and I have much respect for you and your research. I also feel very fortunate that we're great friends. I do think you don't give yourself enough credit. You are one of the most driven, and intelligent researchers I've had the pleasure of working with, and I look very forward to much more field work with you. Thank you sincerely for the kind words. No matter how crazy this debate gets, or already is, I know at the end of the day we'll be back out there doing what we do and we won't miss a beat. Can't wait actually!! That will be WAY more fun than this.

Mulder,

I'm not exactly sure what's unclear. Yes, we are talking about the Sierra sample. The sample was signed over to me and I submitted it to Melbas study through myself and the Olympic Project via Justin. It IS one of the 38 samples we have in her study. I know this because it's my submission.

DR

[Guest]

Going all in I see Mulder.

If you think Tyler and Bart have shown you all their cards i am betting you are in for a surprise. If you can read between the lines you might have picked up a bit of what they are saying.

It seems pretty obvious to anyone who has followed this thread.

What "cards"? They're trying to claim the pot with empty hands. I'm asking no more of them than your side keeps demanding for every word uttered by proponents: evidence. They got evidence that the sample they sent is "bear". Great.

What they DON'T "got" is evidence that Ketchum found her piece of the Smeja sample to be from her "unknown". Until they pony that evidence up, (NOT hearsay, NOT "trust us") they got nothing to connect their "bear" finding to Ketchum's study.

Not. A. Single. Thing.

IF it turns out otherwise, so be it. Even if it did, that's ONE sample out of ~20 with at least 2 other full genomes as determined by multiple independent labs.

So it doesn't make any difference. Ketchum will not fall on the "Smeja sword" either way.

When Melba's camp wanted to discuss my lab's findings, I was asked if there was any sort of evidence that would convince me to rethink the release of my data. There was discussion of Melba allowing further testing on the tissue samples she still has left from Justin's submissions. Unfortunately, those overtures were never followed through on, so that has not happened to date.

I said some time ago that that ultimately would have to be done IF there is a difference between her results and your 3rd-party results.

Since you, as yet, have provided ZERO evidence that she found Smeja's sample positive for the "unknown" genome, it's not yet relevant.

But it IS good to know she retained a portion pending future testing, if it turns out to be needed.

Why won't you do what I suggested? Why won't you ask the person responsible for Justin's sample getting into Melba's hands, and who was the direct liaison that conversed about her efforts, to comment on whether or not Melba claims that Justin's sample is this novel primate/hominid?

Just ask Derekfoot to answer your question. Or is his word not good enough on this for you either?

I generally get along with Derekfoot, but in this case, yes, I would still ask him for an independent 3rd-party link to any claims that Ketchum made the statements you allege. Too much is at stake not to make sure all the "I"s are dotted and "T"s crossed.

Actually Mulder she seems to pick and choose what she feels like talking about. She reveals intimate details about a hybridization event 15000 years ago but can't talk about a single sample?

Weak sauce!

No, scientific details still under embargo. This has been explained repeatedly. If you are unhappy with that fact, I can't help you.

Mulder,

I'm not exactly sure what's unclear. Yes, we are talking about the Sierra sample. The sample was signed over to me and I submitted it to Melbas study through myself and the Olympic Project via Justin. It IS one of the 38 samples we have in her study. I know this because it's my submission.

DR

What is unclear, because you (all due respect) have not presented any proof of claim is that the sample from Smeja that Ketchum tested did in fact test positive for her "unknown". Tyler has claimed she said it did. It has been inferred that you have made similar claims.

All I'm asking for is documentary proof of those claims. We all agree that Smeja sent a sample to Ketchum. We do NOT all agree that Ketchum has claimed that the Smeja sample she tested is one of her "unknown" genomes.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

By the way, there is absolutely no such thing as an unknown genome. Or unknown DNA. Once DNA is sequenced, it's known.

Edited January 8, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest BartloJays]

Mulder- no offense but if I told you I and several other witnesses saw your house on fire while you were away I don't think you'd believe it until you read it in the paper the next day or they showed a picture of it on the news.

Besides This being common knowledge for every person internally involved with her to some extent or not, if this wasn't the case (Sierras tissue is one of three genomes), why would she and Tyler have several days of physical dialogue (phone, emails) just prior to our release and initiated by Melba (first initiated by interested third party) about testing, assertions by her of Justin taking piece off body and our labs results? Do you think she called Tyler for a pizza joint recommendation when she eventually visits Calgary sometime in the next twenty years? Do you think we're all lying here or could be confused? Although it's Tyler's discretion since he owns those emails containing the exchange with her I think him and I would agree that it would be inappropriate to violate Dr. Ketchum's expectations of some privacy at this point to satisfy one of the only people here in denial. Think about it, none of this would be taking place if there was never a significant claim (Sierras tissue is of a bigfoot and a successful genome performed).

Edited January 8, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest FootDude]

LOL - you kill me Footdude. You certainly don't know where to put your "Period"s ... And that's not 'the only thing that can be reasonably deduced so far. Period.' I guess when you say "Sound critical analysis reasoning demands that evidence and data be considered" you mean to not consider any firsthand knowledge we have from the Ketchum camp (because tha tis not your kind of "data"). You mean you just want to go by the heresay and lofty claims that you have from that camp, put full faith in them, and then attack the ONLY hard science that you have seen, in an effort to protect your savior.

You're quite a funny guy. Misguided but funny to be sure. Where have I ever in any comment I've made on the 'Bigfoot forums' made a determination about the veracity of or any comment on the data of Ketchum's study one way or another? Your comments on what you portend I believe are Non Sequitur. I've stated my reasons for not following your line of reasoning and asked that you produce proof if you wish me to do so. So far you've not provided anything except more here-say. On the other hand I have no opinions on the Ketchum study one way or the other, except that I do find it odd that she made the kind of political statement that she did at the end of her press release. I however reserve judgement on her report till I have read a copy of the study and have the facts regarding her data and conclusions.

If you want me to act like a complacent sheep, and just take what I'm being fed, and live up to the stereotype that the scientific community and the world at large has of us - sorry, you got the wrong guy.

More funny stuff. Please cut out the emo-drama. haha

I dug into the evidence and went where it lead. If it lead to support for Melba - I'm ecstatic. If it lead where it went instead, I'm super bummed. But I don't get to turn a blind eye when I see a risk to the community and the topic and the people that I care about.

Where the evidence leads at this time is your boy Smeja giving you a piece of bear meat and trying to pass it off as Bigfoot flesh. It seems you should be pissed at him instead of Ketchum.

Once the Ketchum report is released the community you speak of will be able to ask whatever intelligent questions it seems reasonable. Until then it's all just here-say unless you wish to provide hard evidence.

More LoLz at your comments inferring you being some kind of 'savior' to the Bigfoot Community here.

I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about and I'll be looking extra forward to having a public debate with you when "all" information is out.

Your logic is definitely contrarian. Disregard what we suspected internally (which you don't even know) based off mistrust and prophetic statements, bury conflicting results and wait indefinitely for a paper Tyler and I don't know is real or viable.

My conclusions are based on the data and evidence presented so far. Sorry but I actually like to have hard facts before I make determinations. I'm a little old fashioned that way.

Please see my post to Tyler above.

Stop hinting and insinuating something, have the guts to say it and put something of substance behind it if you think you have anything

Why shouldn't we question motive since it's one of the only logical things to question atm seeing that Ketchum's report isn't even out yet?

You both voluntarily walked into the kitchen so don't be afraid of the heat and fire.

Edited January 8, 2013 by FootDude

[Guest]

Mulder,

proof of claim?? Didn't know that was a requirement to be here talking about this. I've said publicly many times that the Sierra sample..my submission is one of the genomes, and I'm pretty sure I've said that here as well, or at least implied it obviously . Pretty sure that's what we've been talking about for days unless I missed something. Yes, you and I generally are on the same page with most of the stuff that goes on here, but I have no obligation to prove anything to you or anyone here, nor do I feel and obligation to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a forum is a place to get together and discuss things right? That's what we're doing, and most of us are keeping it pretty civil. Funny thing is the two opposing opinions here..Bart, Tyler and myself are staying more civil then some of the others involved in this thread. Hmm..

Please understand, I'm not trying to be combative, but I have more important things on my plate right now then trying to make sure I can prove my research and opinions here on this forum. Melbas paper will speak for itself, that i know for sure.

DR

[Guest]

Mulder

I don't think anyone is going to argue against the other samples being separate from the Sierra sample. But i really think you need to drop the assertion that the Sierra sample has no play in the entire study because Derek, Bart, and Tyler all seem to agree that it does.

Is there something you know that everyone else doesn't?

Edited January 8, 2013 by rockiessquatching

[Guest slimwitless]

It's arguably the best defense against critics using the bear finding to discredit Ketchum. In the end, the defense will be proven demonstrably false (although I can't prove it at the moment).

Edited January 8, 2013 by slimwitless

[Guest Tyler H]

What "cards"? They're trying to claim the pot with empty hands. I'm asking no more of them than your side keeps demanding for every word uttered by proponents: evidence. They got evidence that the sample they sent is "bear". Great.

What they DON'T "got" is evidence that Ketchum found her piece of the Smeja sample to be from her "unknown". Until they pony that evidence up, (NOT hearsay, NOT "trust us") they got nothing to connect their "bear" finding to Ketchum's study.

Not. A. Single. Thing.

IF it turns out otherwise, so be it. Even if it did, that's ONE sample out of ~20 with at least 2 other full genomes as determined by multiple independent labs.

So it doesn't make any difference. Ketchum will not fall on the "Smeja sword" either way.

I said some time ago that that ultimately would have to be done IF there is a difference between her results and your 3rd-party results.

Since you, as yet, have provided ZERO evidence that she found Smeja's sample positive for the "unknown" genome, it's not yet relevant.

But it IS good to know she retained a portion pending future testing, if it turns out to be needed.

I generally get along with Derekfoot, but in this case, yes, I would still ask him for an independent 3rd-party link to any claims that Ketchum made the statements you allege. Too much is at stake not to make sure all the "I"s are dotted and "T"s crossed.

No, scientific details still under embargo. This has been explained repeatedly. If you are unhappy with that fact, I can't help you.

What is unclear, because you (all due respect) have not presented any proof of claim is that the sample from Smeja that Ketchum tested did in fact test positive for her "unknown". Tyler has claimed she said it did. It has been inferred that you have made similar claims.

All I'm asking for is documentary proof of those claims. We all agree that Smeja sent a sample to Ketchum. We do NOT all agree that Ketchum has claimed that the Smeja sample she tested is one of her "unknown" genomes.

Are you familiar with court proceedings Mulder? Heck, even the bible says that the word or two witnesses establishes a claim. Derek and I both have it direcly from Melba's mouth that Justin's sample is one of her uncatalogued primates. We've both spoken with her. Have you? Why do you want to die on this particular hill? Derek and I are at odds on many things, but we agree on this - so.... you like to ask "why" type questions... "Why" would we both be asserting this in error?

You're quite a funny guy. Misguided but funny to be sure. Where have I ever in any comment I've made on the 'Bigfoot forums' made a determination about the veracity of or any comment on the data of Ketchum's study one way or another? Your comments on what you portend I believe are Non Sequitur. I've stated my reasons for not following your line of reasoning and asked that you produce proof if you wish me to do so. So far you've not provided anything except more here-say. On the other hand I have no opinions on the Ketchum study one way or the other, except that I do find it odd that she made the kind of political statement that she did at the end of her press release. I however reserve judgement on her report till I have read a copy of the study and have the facts regarding her data and conclusions.

Portend? hmmm check google before you go using ostentatious words.

More funny stuff. Please cut out the emo-drama. haha

Yes... I'm the emo - silly me talking about hard science instead of whacky claims... I'm so emotional that way. Happy to amuse!

Where the evidence leads at this time is your boy Smeja giving you a piece of bear meat and trying to pass it off as Bigfoot flesh. It seems you should be pissed at him instead of Ketchum.

When did I say I was pissed at Ketchum? What evidence says Justin tried to pass stuff off as Bigfoot to me? Whatever that evidence is, I guess it has to apply to Melba's claims too, so please feel free to provide it.

More LoLz at your comments inferring you being some kind of 'savior' to the Bigfoot Community here.

Lord... one would have to be really obtuse to think that I "implied" that. (Not saying that you are, of course... just saying that one would have to be, to think that). The "implication" (not "inference" ... the listener "infers" and the speaker "implies") I made was regarding Melba - so if you want to "infer" otherwise, I guess you can... but I didn't "imply" that at all - It's clear as day that I was referring to Melba as your perceieved saviour that you put blind trust in.

name='FootDude' timestamp='1357639447' post='681319'][/b]

You both voluntarily walked into the kitchen so don't be afraid of the heat and fire.

Yep - and we're still here - guess the ovens in this kitchen just aren't nearly as hot as I expected.

[southernyahoo]

Blind trust keeps coming up, who are you implying is blindly trusting? Who is it that has sent samples to Sykes, and would blindly trust his results when they could test them themselves?

[Guest BartloJays]

You both voluntarily walked into the kitchen so don't be afraid of the heat and fire.

And walk in with heads held up high and no regrets.

Gotta tell ya though, if you think this is a hot kitchen for Tyler and I you're either a ) giving youself way too much credit (which I suspect may be your objective, or b ) you really need to get out more.

What you see is what you get, so instead of making little insinuations, man-up and make a direct assertion with or without evidence and give us an opportunity to confirm, deny and or prove how ridiculous it is so we can move on.

Edited January 8, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest BartloJays]

You're quite a funny guy. Misguided but funny to be sure. Where have I ever in any comment I've made on the 'Bigfoot forums' made a determination about the veracity of or any comment on the data of Ketchum's study one way or another? Your comments on what you portend I believe are Non Sequitur. I've stated my reasons for not following your line of reasoning and asked that you produce proof if you wish me to do so. So far you've not provided anything except more here-say. On the other hand I have no opinions on the Ketchum study one way or the other, except that I do find it odd that she made the kind of political statement that she did at the end of her press release. I however reserve judgement on her report till I have read a copy of the study and have the facts regarding her data and conclusions.

Remarkable and hypocritical of you as you've made specific and definite claims regarding the Ketchum study throughout this thread, not on results or confirming data, but on where this paper stands "currently" in the review process without any substantiation whatsoever. I've requested evidence from you on this and you've simply ignored the request.

Unless you can provide evidence that her paper is in peer review right now as you previously stated, in addition to providing evidence that both Tyler and I should have complete confidence this is factual information (which still wouldn't make a difference of what we've done and why) you are depending on here-say and speaking as if it's definite. Even worse, you're trying to use this information as if it's a universal fact against us by insinuating we knew this and must have ulterior motives for independent testing. Are you going to continue to dance around this fact?

Where the evidence leads at this time is your boy Smeja giving you a piece of bear meat and trying to pass it off as Bigfoot flesh. It seems you should be pissed at him instead of Ketchum.

Once the Ketchum report is released the community you speak of will be able to ask whatever intelligent questions it seems reasonable. Until then it's all just here-say unless you wish to provide hard evidence.

Couldn't be more untrue as Justin has stated from the beginning he "believed" (due to circumstances) the tissue was from the large subject shot, not that he was certain (actually both hunters claimed this). That's a big distinction. The suggestion that he took flesh from the body was initiated "by your girl," Dr. Ketchum only after (to our knowledge) she was confronted with the prospect of transparency of conflicting results from two reputable labs.

Why would we be pissed at Justin when he's done everything I would've expected and more at this point. Doesn't make him automatically vindicated as we've both stated clearly and repeatedly our mutual and individual "personal" reasons for believing there's a good chance the incident happened as described (and stated we could be wrong). In reality, we don't have to justify what we "feel" or "believe" to anybody, only what we state as facts.

When all facts are out, rather Justin is lying or not doesn't mean the lab results prove he's being deceptive as his actions (protecting the tissue in careful packaging and hiding emergency pieces, including willing to provide the CA Dep of F&G a sample after a "formal" interview...they didn't think was necessary) are consistent with someone who "believes" (including requesting and beating a poly) the tissue is something it may not be. If this was the case, and let's say hypothetically him and Jack are telling the truth 100% with respect to recovering the tissue in manner they claimed, they would've been better off either never sending it in to test or disregarding the information by Dr. Ketchum which precipitated the sense of urgency to test independently. Speaking of which, that alone is intriguing and pretty unprecendented for a hoaxer is it not? Your hoax is protected by the person processing your circumstantial evidence, why would you do anything other than just shut your mouth

Tyler and I have provided evidence from our position and there will be much more to come. A matter of fact, I challenge you to prove one thing we've said and definitively stated that is inaccurate or untruthful.

My conclusions are based on the data and evidence presented so far. Sorry but I actually like to have hard facts before I make determinations. I'm a little old fashioned that way.

So at what point do you take your own advice?

Edited January 8, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest COGrizzly]

FootDude - "Go Foot yourself San Diego!"

ETA - Nothing.

Edited January 8, 2013 by COGrizzly

[Guest FootDude]

Some food for thought, let me give everyone a scenario here not many have understandably not thought through because they haven’t been privy to our email communications yet. Let’s say hypothetically Dr. Ketchum’s study is successful and validated with next generation sequencing being the game-changer for example. In that case, I think the email communications back and forth with both labs (especially Trent) may contain significant clues with respect to some of their “difficulties†through processing which could ultimately help substantiate Dr. Ketchum’s study even more, particularly if she circumvented those same issues. Just something to think about and one of many reasons why I’d contend it was better this information was shared now as opposed to later.

Based on some of the things Tomafoot has discussed that scenario seems reasonable.

Though in my opinion it still would have been better to wait and not have these debates especially since Derek is your good friend and has had much more access to Ketchums's report and has shared his perspective on the soundness of the report and data.

The posts you and Tyler have made with regards to whether or not Ketchum indeed 'has a viable report' directly contradict what Derek has publicly posted about it which when considering your close relationship to Derek make me logically question yours and Tyler's motives here.