Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

My point is these are the results we're accepting until or unless it's proven differently by Dr. Ketchum's results. Although we aren't holding our breath based on the results we have, no one is shutting the door 100% and I pray she has something the folks we contracted don't.

Well if that wasn't your intent I sincerely apologize to you as I misunderstood your intent through your choice of words. I'm sorry and if it makes you feel any better, I already reported myself LOL.

I'm not surprised, nor intimidated in the slightest by any contentions and I don't think Tyler is either as it's expected. We know what our intentions are and there are many others on this forum who happen to be people I trust that I kept in the loop all through this process over the last year that took the ups and downs of information with us, so to them there's no question what our intentions are and those people matter most to me because if god forbid something terrible happened to me tomorrow away from bigfooting, they're the people who would be by my side and vice versa.

I think people questioning us in some manner is healthy because it also gives us a platform to bring out more information to the table, info we may've forgotten about or missed. There isn't one thing I'd do differently at this point and I sleep like a baby at night as I would challenge anybody to provide evidence of ulterior motives. What I don't appreciate is people spreading misinformation and making accusations without evidence or rationale like those who believe there's some BFRO agenda to take down Dr. Ketchum for instance. It's crap and perpetuated by a few with their own agenda.

Once again I apologize to you if that wasn't your intent as I honestly read it that way.

I understand. Thanks for the post. (BTW...meant to put "I'm NOT trying...")

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler , your PHD did not address hybrids, The cyto B locus is in the mitochondria, the mitochondria is human in bigfoot according to Ketchum,. therefore the universal primers will find human in every prospective bigfoot sample if she's right. This is her prediction, and so there is no resolution in the mitochondria unless she's wrong and there is a pure bred BF out there. Dr. Ketchum found resolution in the nuDNA.

Talk to a biologist Phd about Melba's claims - I'm not here to discuss them, but I am told by many PhD's that the claims make no sense biologically or genetically.

And PS - My PhD/lab, etc also did not address saber-tooth tigers, nor did they address the Higgs-Boson... I could pay them forever to investigate more and more things, but you need to stop at some point. The point where MULTIPLE PhD's say it makes no sense to go beyond.

You have to decide whether you are going to take your labs word for it, or make them show you there was a single human source in the sample and that it was Justin. Arguing about how adamant they were is no better than taking Ketchum's word for it right? Stick to the "believe it when you see it" mentality with your labs if this is a standard you really want to uphold.It looks hypocritical when you don't. The Trent report did not illustrate with electophergrams there was a single human contributor, and given your understanding of Dr. Ketchums claims, you let them slight you..

NO, it's absultely NOT the same. Have you seen ANY substantiation for Melba's claim?

Have you seen any substantiation from me? When I talk to 8 PhD's that support my lab's work, and have a lab report, I am convinced of their opinion.

When I talk to or hear from ZERO Phd's about Melba's work, I have nothing but blind faith available to give her. UNless you have talked to any of her PhD's, you have no substantiation. Night and Day difference.

Between the two labs we have used they have shown there is a single human source. If you choose not to believe that, so be it. If you DON't believe that, then you have to believe that Melba's study says that her unknown primate is Haplotype A, and that is not the case - I have that straight from her.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Tyler H

[southernyahoo]

Talk to a biologist Phd about Melba's claims - I'm not here to discuss them, but I am told by many PhD's that the claims make no sense biologically or genetically.

And PS - My PhD/lab, etc also did not address saber-tooth tigers, nor did they address the Higgs-Boson... I could pay them forever to investigate more and more things, but you need to stop at some point. The point where MULTIPLE PhD's say it makes no sense to go beyond.

You were testing the sample because of the claims of what it was. This whole thread is about the sample and to challenge those claims. Now you say that's not the point? How can you challenge the claim if you don't address it in the testing?

NO, it's absultely NOT the same. Have you seen ANY substantiation for Melba's claim?

Have you seen any substantiation from me? When I talk to 8 PhD's that support my lab's work, and have a lab report, I am convinced of their opinion.

When I talk to or hear from ZERO Phd's about Melba's work, I have nothing but blind faith available to give her. UNless you have talked to any of her PhD's, you have no substantiation. Night and Day difference.

Between the two labs we have used they have shown there is a single human source. If you choose not to believe that, so be it. If you DON't believe that, then you have to believe that Melba's study says that her unknown primate is Haplotype A, and that is not the case - I have that straight from her.

Who says I believe anything? We are dealing with evidence, claims and science reports. If the report doesn't show and illustrate a claim is false, I'm not obligated to accept that it has been proven false. BTW, there should be plenty of Phd's that accept hybridized hominins, they are right under your nose. If Melba says she didn't get Hap A then we'll see what she got in her paper. Not every part of the sample would necessarily be contaminated by Justin.

[Guest Tyler H]

You were testing the sample because of the claims of what it was. This whole thread is about the sample and to challenge those claims. Now you say that's not the point? How can you challenge the claim if you don't address it in the testing?

I don't know that I would go beyond "the undertaking was to identify the species of the tissue that comprised the sample." I feel that was done.

YOu keep going in cricels, and I keep saying the same thing.

This will be my last response to this - the single strand hair test identified munite, negligible traces of human DNA, and produced expected amounts of bear DNA. The appropriate amounts of Bear DNA were there, and amounts of human dna that were only consistent with contamination, were also present. I won't comment on that again until Bart releases his report, and/or Justin releases his statement. You can interpret those results as you see fit.

[Guest]

I except your labs results Tyler. It seems pretty obvious to me that the sample is bear, and you have the lab report to prove it. Ketchum supposed results is just a bunch of hearsay and should be viewed as suspicious now until she shows some results to counter yours. If she got bigfoot DNA from a bear then her testing procedures are messed up and every sample she tested is highly suspicious.

People can make all the excuses for Ketchum all they want but the fact is a purported sample from the Sierra kill was tested and came back bear with the lab report to prove it and Ketchum has offered no evidence to refute it.

[Guest]

Do we yet have that further promised soon statement from Justin Smeja?

Perhaps I've missed it because I don't pay near as-close attention to this stuff these days as it mostly serves only to frustrate, irritate, and aggravate repeatedly.

Excerpts from Justin Smeja's statement from December 26th:

Thank you all who have followed my story the past 2 years. "Its been a fun one"...

I am relieved that now you all know the truth about the sample recovered in the Sierras on November 10th 2010. I was giving false confidence in that sample just like the rest of you. To be totally honest I've been kind of excited about this release knowing the truth can't hurt."

I can assure you with only my word this changes nothing about what happened on the eighth day of October in 2010.

For now I'll spare you the lengthy details. I will have plenty to say in the next few days when I do a release of my own.

Truthfully I don't feel like I'm the one who owes you all an explanation for the results released today.

People in this circle have said things in private and done things behind closed doors that they will have to be held accountable for very soon.

...I'll look forward to sharing more with you soon.

Any word from the witness?

Edited January 10, 2013 by Sojourner

[Guest slimwitless]

That's actually a good question that I have never asked of Justin. The animal was shot through the throat, and then held by the chest hide, by Justin, and not sure how it was held by Justin's hunting partner. Yes, it would seem likely they may have wiped their hands on something afterwards. I'll check into it, but it could have just been their jeans or something, and that was likely washed. Actually, as I type this, I remember Justin referring to all his clothes havnig been washed. But it's possible there was a stain or something.

Tyler, did you ever follow up on the clothes? I ask because in November, 2011, Justin posted the following in the Sierra Shooting thread:

...yes there's bloody clothes. Their in a safe place.

That doesn't sound like something he would knowingly wash. Someone might want to check with him.

You also said my questions about discrepancies with the shooting timeline were reconcilable. I absolutely understand how mistakes can happen but now I'm curious about the very first polygraph question Justin was asked last August:

In late October 2010, at the site you brought for a "body Search" in July 2011, did you directly fire on two animals; one adult and what you believe one juvenile of a species others would logically term as BIGFOOTS" or "SASQUATCHES"?

Answer: Yes Test Result: Passed NO DECEPTION INDICATED

Bart, didn't you say you wrote those questions? It says "late October" but the shooting supposedly occurred on the 8th. Is that a mistake? Is it significant at all that Justin still passed the question? Just curious.

[bipedalist]

If the bloody clothes exist it would obviate the need for a "hail mary" on boots that's for sure.

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler, did you ever follow up on the clothes? I ask because in November, 2011, Justin posted the following in the Sierra Shooting thread:

That doesn't sound like something he would knowingly wash. Someone might want to check with him.

You also said my questions about discrepancies with the shooting timeline were reconcilable. I absolutely understand how mistakes can happen but now I'm curious about the very first polygraph question Justin was asked last August:

Bart, didn't you say you wrote those questions? It says "late October" but the shooting supposedly occurred on the 8th. Is that a mistake? Is it significant at all that Justin still passed the question? Just curious.

From my recollection, at one point Justin had thought he was out on or about October 20th. He now thinks it was earlier. Beyond that, you'd have to ask him.

Bart?

If the bloody clothes exist it would obviate the need for a "hail mary" on boots that's for sure.

I still have to go over this with Justin, to refresh my memory, but I thought they had been washed, but were still stained. Problem still is that they have been worn hunting. They will have Justin's DNA and likley other animal DNA. Plus, they've been through detergent IF they were washed - whereas the boots have not, and the boots had a greater volume of blood on them. But definitely need to get clear on this topic.

[Guest]

Sorjourner,

Justins words can easily be taken the wrong way in his above statement. He still strongly thinks that the flesh recovered is indeed from Sasquatch. I talked with him about two days ago. He thinks the odds of finding a piece of bear flesh there in direct proximity the same color is ridiculously unlikely. Actually the odds are astronomical. In all the time that I've spent hunting, researching and hiking I've come across bear remains one time, and one time only.

DR

[Guest Orygun]

...He thinks the odds of finding a piece of bear flesh there in direct proximity the same color is ridiculously unlikely. Actually the odds are astronomical...

DR

This is the kind of logic that drives most people reading this thread crazy. Logic dictates that if a piece of flesh is reported as being found and it tests for bear it's probably...

bear.

The odds of it being anything but bear are... astronomical.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Even from an extremely skeptical perspective, I'm not convinced that these new DNA reports settle the debate on the Sierra Kills once and for all. It would be good if someone can get the exact same sample that Dr. Ketchum received tested.

-How do we know for sure that Justin gave Bart a sample from the same animal he claims to have shot.

-How do we know the sample Bart and Tyler received weren't contaminated to the point where DNA testing isn't conclusive.

-And how can we know without a doubt what haplotype these "Sasquatch" beings were.

[Guest]

Well,

I guess points have been made. I'm quite sure I've made mine. I feel very confident that Melbas study will be out soon, and I also have complete confidence in the data accumulated by her and the labs and universities the samples were out sourced to, so that's it for me here.

See ya on the next interesting thread.

DR

[Guest BartloJays]

From my recollection, at one point Justin had thought he was out on or about October 20th. He now thinks it was earlier. Beyond that, you'd have to ask him.

Bart?

I still have to go over this with Justin, to refresh my memory, but I thought they had been washed, but were still stained. Problem still is that they have been worn hunting. They will have Justin's DNA and likley other animal DNA. Plus, they've been through detergent IF they were washed - whereas the boots have not, and the boots had a greater volume of blood on them. But definitely need to get clear on this topic.

If memory serves me right the clothes were washed several times way before I ever came into the picture.

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler, did you ever follow up on the clothes? I ask because in November, 2011, Justin posted the following in the Sierra Shooting thread:

That doesn't sound like something he would knowingly wash. Someone might want to check with him.

You also said my questions about discrepancies with the shooting timeline were reconcilable. I absolutely understand how mistakes can happen but now I'm curious about the very first polygraph question Justin was asked last August:

Bart, didn't you say you wrote those questions? It says "late October" but the shooting supposedly occurred on the 8th. Is that a mistake? Is it significant at all that Justin still passed the question? Just curious.

Re: timeline - my understanding is, that if Justin considered the intent of the question to be surrounding his claim of the appearance of what he shot, he would not have any feelings that would trigger deceipt when answering that question, even if he knew that date was off. This may be one example of how some of the questions could perhaps have been more succinctly worded, so that each question is only testing/addressing one piece of information, rather than 2 or more.