Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

Weird, my post about the snow and the scat just disappeared. Maybe it will pop back up because on the main page it even says I was the last one to reply to this thread.

Thepattywagon, I've been wondering that same thing for awhile and keep forgetting to ask it. Thanks for the question.

[Guest]

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.

Given the presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in populations of current humans, their opinion would seem to fly in the face of actual fact. We already have at least two documented HSS/non HSS hominid hybrids...why not 3?

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.

Argument from authority and possibly argument from consensus, in it's naked form.

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

We certainly haven't seen any for YOUR claim that your findings in any way indict Ketchum's study.

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.

So your 8 PhDs support "bear". So what? You can't link that to the Ketchum study in any way that you are willing to support with examinable evidence.

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.

Links?

[Guest]

Given the presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in populations of current humans, their opinion would seem to fly in the face of actual fact. We already have at least two documented HSS/non HSS hominid hybrids...why not 3?

Argument from authority and possibly argument from consensus, in it's naked form.

We certainly haven't seen any for YOUR claim that your findings in any way indict Ketchum's study.

So your 8 PhDs support "bear". So what? You can't link that to the Ketchum study in any way that you are willing to support with examinable evidence.

Links?

Does it do the bigfoot community good to expose hoaxes? Or to make excuses for them? I'm glad there are folks doing checks and balances on the claimed evidence. The bigfoot community should be thankful there are people putting the effort, and the money up to do it. Without it, where would you be? The post above seems to ignore actual results in favor for some that cannot be verified. The imagined, or fantasy results seem much tastier than the actual ones. You don't even have an idea of when Ketchums data or DNA will be released, if it ever will be. The source of the samples said directly that it came from the same piece of "steak" yet this seems like the last thing you'd want to accept. Why?

Are you against the Ketchum study being exposed as a sham? (if it should be shown to be one)

[Guest slimwitless]

I do have that whole day and Justins thoughts on video tape, I'm not making this up.

I pointed out somewhere else that Smeja described the dog as acting "embarrassed". That's a different behavior than described in this thread, IMO.

But yeah, I know you're not making this up. One thing though...wasn't the recovery expedition in July?

Edited January 10, 2013 by slimwitless

[Cotter]

Good question Slim.

I'll ask my 'stupid' one again.

How does a piece of flesh, described as gray/brown and possibly identified as coyote, come back as black bear?

Or are the photos we were shown NOT the sample, and the sample really has black hair on it?

[Guest LAL]

^Apparently black bears in the area are that color (and one chocolate). Black bear is a species name, not a color.

The piece of hide may just have been left by someone field dressing a bear and have nothing to do with the alleged kill or kills at all.

[Cotter]

^ Interesting, I guess I didn't know that black bears in California can have grayish fur.

I do see some brown california black bears on the net, but none quite the color of the sample photo (if it is indeed the sample).

Question for those that had it tested.

Were there any hair analyses done on the hair from the sample to confirm it is indeed bear hair?

Will there be?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Does it do the bigfoot community good to expose hoaxes? Or to make excuses for them?

A couple of different ways that can be answered or explained.

I think the average Joe that is interested in the truth about BF should be working to find the facts behind every claim, no one should be exempt from scrutiny when claiming any sort of BF related evidence, sighting, pictures, etc, the goal is to weed out the hoaxers and concentrate on what could be positive evidence, it makes for a much healthier environment for those that dislike the rumors and drama.

Now on the other hand those that profit from BF in any way or form, might not be interested in exposing any type of hoax, they would possibly be helping to keep the news in the public eye and spreading misinformation throughout the BF community anyway they could, they're possible only concern with the average Joe BF enthusiast is only to keep them interested in what the current events are, the longer the story is in the news, the longer they profit from it, that makes for a poor environment and promotes mischief.

[Ike]

Bart, can you tell us how you are 100% sure neither Justin or Jack knew you were eavesdropping on their 'incriminating' conversation?

Are you open to the possibility of a prior agreement between them that ANYTHING spoken between them while in the proximity of you all would not deviate from their 'story'?

The reason I ask is because if this whole thing is a lie, and they did shoot a bear, my guess is they would have agreed to stick to the story at ALL times, particularly if there was a remote chance of someone or something eavesdropping on them.

Thanks for asking this PW, I was just heading there myself. I have seen this referenced numerous times, yet it has never been expanded upon. I get the impression that this is the "clincher" for Bart to believe the story as told by Smeja and friend. No offense to Bart or Tyler as I think you all really are being honest with what you have been told or what your perceptions are, but it seems to me that it would be all too easy to pull a fast one on a BF researcher (read, someone who wants to believe) who could possibly be within earshot. I doubt that you all secretly planted an electronic bug in their house to eavesdrop on them; and if you were an expected visitor of, or being visited by the shooters it's not a big stretch that their stories had been worked out to jive. So in the interests of transparency and clarity, how exactly how did you come to overhear this conversation?

To be honest, I, and I suspect most other people, have a much easier time accepting that you were lied to by Smeja and friend, than I do that anyone shot two bigfeets...but left the bodies, or found comparatively pristine squatch (or bear) meat five weeks later under three feet of snow. I've felt for a long time now that something smells rotten with all this, and it ain't five week old squatch steaks.

[Guest FootDude]

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.

That's a straw man fallacy.

I am not attacking the 'science' behind Trent's report. Based on the PCR analysis trent did it seems that you most likely have bear meat on your hands.

No argument there.

It's your conclusions with regards to the Ketchum report that based on the evidence I find almost completely unfounded.

There are simply too many unknowns about Ketchums data, methods and conclusions at this point to make to make a sound analysis of the facts.

BTW their is only one savior and he is surely not Melba Ketchum...

4) Two weeks later on Au 23^rd almost 23 months after the purported shootings and from 300 yds from where the purported shootings took place, I got 40+ minutes of thermal footage unexpectedly at 1:30 AM with Shawn right by my side, of multiple subjects that are definitively bipedal and taller than anyone in our party (all accounted for) who loitered just inside the tree line on a vantage incline and within 36 yds of a sleeping Justin and two of our companions (Ro & Todd) for over 90 minutes without making a sound and without the benefit of a light source. All six of us present are 100% positive what the subjects are (no viable alternatives) as are the people not present that night who were invited by me to come investigate the incident independently and participate in the extensive re-creation process.

Have you publicly released the thermal foot taken in August?

If not why not???

Edited January 11, 2013 by FootDude

[Guest]

^Bart,

^{There was other physical evidence collected at the site later on, right? (This last sumer....) Has any of that been tested yet? I hope that's not a repeated question................}

^{[see, you didn't scare me off but I sure got a whooping from someone else. ]}

[Guest BartloJays]

Thanks for asking this PW, I was just heading there myself. I have seen this referenced numerous times, yet it has never been expanded upon. I get the impression that this is the "clincher" for Bart to believe the story as told by Smeja and friend. No offense to Bart or Tyler as I think you all really are being honest with what you have been told or what your perceptions are, but it seems to me that it would be all too easy to pull a fast one on a BF researcher (read, someone who wants to believe) who could possibly be within earshot. I doubt that you all secretly planted an electronic bug in their house to eavesdrop on them; and if you were an expected visitor of, or being visited by the shooters it's not a big stretch that their stories had been worked out to jive. So in the interests of transparency and clarity, how exactly how did you come to overhear this conversation?

To be honest, I, and I suspect most other people, have a much easier time accepting that you were lied to by Smeja and friend, than I do that anyone shot two bigfeets...but left the bodies, or found comparatively pristine squatch (or bear) meat five weeks later under three feet of snow. I've felt for a long time now that something smells rotten with all this, and it ain't five week old squatch steaks.

Thanks for your question Ike (at least the first part) and that is a perfectly fair assessment which I agree with to some extent.

I’ve said from day one, and please don’t take my word for this now, go back months and months, follow the trail and you’ll find various statements I’ve made previously when asked, that “caution†should be applied to this story as it will only be substantiated with physical evidence….period.

What I believe personally, has no bearing because I could be dead wrong and I wasn’t standing with them that day. In addition, what I "think" or "believe" doesn’t cut it at the end of the day.

You see, what happens when you discuss facts or detailed pieces of information you know to prevent potential misinformation, the readers sometimes can’t separate the mere discussion and even justification of a position without correlating it with someone is trying to convince or “sell me†on something. This is unfortunate because the bias perception unfairly increases whether it’s true or not.

In reality, we’re having a discussion and I’m sharing facts that I think most here aren’t privy to so they can at least speculate with more accuracy (if nothing else). In addition, if you’re wondering, from your position, I wouldn’t believe anything without physical evidence substantiation. I’m sharing because some are asking from “my†position.

In addition, please don’t take offense to this as I’m being honest here…. because of your unfamiliarity with us, do you really think it’s appropriate to generalize both of us as some blind believing rookie bigfoot researchers that couldn’t distinguish a rehearsed or genuine conversation? In addition, neither Tyler or myself don’t need to “believe†in anything. I’ve seen enough to “know†(regarding existence) and as far as I’m concerned, every incident is not what it’s purported to be with respect to this subject until proven otherwise (to a reasonable extent). Is that a high enough standard for you? I also find this a bit offensive as you come in after 30 pages and instead of just asking me “Hey Bart, do you mind sharing with us how you came to overhear their conversation, thanks?†Instead you use very manipulative language as if I must tell you something you’re entitled to. “In the interests of transparency and clarity?†Excuse me, but we’ve given you nothing but transparency and clarity, on our time.

Now I’ll go and enjoy my birthday dinner with my family, right now that’s a much bigger priority to me

[AaronD]

Happy Birthday Bart!!!

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Have a good one, Bart!

[Ike]

I wouldn’t believe anything without physical evidence substantiation.

Not to worry, I don't.

do you really think it’s appropriate to generalize both of us as some blind believing rookie bigfoot researchers that couldn’t distinguish a rehearsed or genuine conversation?

That's an interesting interpretation of my posting. Somehow I don't see anywhere that I used or implied the term "blind believing rookie bigfoot researchers" or anything remotely like it. I do however question your ability to judge character. Not saying you can't, but I don't have any way of knowing that now do I? Arguably though, you are putting it into better focus for me as you seem to have already determined that I am trying to take a swipe at you when nothing could be further from the truth.

In addition, neither Tyler or myself don’t need to “believe†in anything. I’ve seen enough to “know†(regarding existence)

And this has to do with anything in my posting how? Nowhere have I questioned whether you "know" or "believe" in the existence of BF.

I also find this a bit offensive as you come in after 30 pages and instead of just asking me “Hey Bart, do you mind sharing with us how you came to overhear their conversation, thanks?†Instead you use very manipulative language as if I must tell you something you’re entitled to. “In the interests of transparency and clarity?†Excuse me, but we’ve given you nothing but transparency and clarity, on our time.

Perhaps my writing style is just different? Manipulative? Hardly. BTW that term "transparency" comes from you and Tyler...not me. Repeatedly you have referenced how up-front, honest, transparent, wanting to be clear you all want to be about this topic. I've never felt you have been anything else...until this post. You've typed a modest response to lash out at me, while not so subtly sidestepping the main question both myself and another asked. So I'll ask it again, in the Bart approved format since you demand it:

Hey Bart, do you mind sharing with us how you came to overhear their conversation, thanks?