Ketchum DNA report revisited

[Twist]

1 hour ago, Branco said:

I have yet to to see or hear anyone suggest the very logical reason the clump of bear hair may have been found at the site where Justin thought he had concealed the BF.. It was cold weather. Bear country. Bear working hard to find and eat enough to get them through the winter. They can smell dead animals from miles away. A bear finds the hidden body, another bear tries to steal it, and a knock-down drag-out ensues, One bear loses the fight, along with a clump of hide and hair. The winner drags the Bigfoot body of to a good place eat and guard it. 

If there had been a bear killed and/or cleaned at that location by a legal or illegal hunter, there would have undoubtedly been more evidence of such a kill at that site, especially if was an illegal kill. 

There is absolutely no reason that bear hair would have to be subjected to DNA analyses to determine the source animal. Somewhere down the line someone either messed with that clump of  hair, or  its analysis. 

It is my understanding that Dr. S made at least one, and maybe two trips to the F&W  DNA lab in Ashland before he presented his "findings" to Justin and the others. Why? So the folks there could explain what they were obligated to do by "little o's" memo. Since it was a sample from the USA, Dr. S was under the gun, big time!

 

 

 

The above post's "scenario" requires a lot of mental gymnastics to be considered "logical".   A suspected poacher was caught shooting and killing something unknown to him....yet it was all by accident. Riiight.   

[bipedalist]

10 hours ago, norseman said:

Whoa.

 

a) Justin claimed to have shot two bigfoot. Instead of dragging out the greatest discovery ever he chose to leave the bodies where they lay. 

 

b ) Upon having a change of heart many months later he returns to the scene and collects samples. Ruling out the Ketchum samples as goobly gook. The other samples tested where bear. What are the chances a random old bear decided to lay down and die at the exact spot Smeja shot his bigfeets?

 

c) Smeja has been in trouble with the law over poaching bears and other wildlife.

 

d) Was Smejas motivation to shoot a bear, let it decay for a year and then come back and claim it was a bigfoot? Hoping maybe the dna would have been contaminated enough to be inconclusive in a test?

 

e) Regardless of his lie detector test results. We have absolutely NO proof that Smeja shot two bigfeets on the day in question. If he had cut off just a finger or a toe and kept it? Game over.

 

This is the same tired old game of Ketchum, Biscardi, Standing, Dyer, and all the rest......promises, promises but not deliver the goods. And then excuses, excuses and finger pointing and name calling. Smoke and mirrors.....

 

Wake up people!

 

Remember.... you dont have to defend the creeps looking to cash in on this subject, to defend the subject itself. 

 

 

 

 

You forget the part where he goes saltwater fishing in the bloody boots making the dna from blood on them totally useless..  He destroys or tosses the bloody clothes.  Rationale was supposedly F&W visits to his home and fears he could be investigated for offenses. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by bipedalist

[MIB]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I'm not at all convinced that the "steak" is the result of a bear fight.

 

Correct.   Bear yes.  Bear fight, no. 

 

 

[Branco]

10 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Correct.   Bear yes.  Bear fight, no. 

Your guess as to how the bear "steak" was loosened from it's owner?

 

[MIB]

52 minutes ago, Branco said:

 

 

Yep.  Skinning knife.   Normal part of "processing" dead game animals.   Don't think it had anything to do with Justin, just something some other hunter dumped.  Apparently it's a spot commonly used for that.  Makes sense .. got a couple spots like that here, too.   More of a surprise not to find hunks of hide, bone, etc than to find 'em.

Edited October 21, 2017 by MIB

[norseman]

The pictures I saw the "steak" had 90 degree corners.

10 hours ago, bipedalist said:

 

 

You forget the part where he goes saltwater fishing in the bloody boots making the dna from blood on them totally useless..  He destroys or tosses the bloody clothes.  Rationale was supposedly F&W visits to his home and fears he could be investigated for offenses. 

 

Which is valid....the guy IS a poacher!;)

 

His actions are not that of someone who is trying to crack the bigfoot mystery at all costs. 

 

And I think its because there was nothing there to begin with.

[ShadowBorn]

As being a hunter I see him as poaching since he already had his rifle ready while they were driving. But what I do not see from this is why he had to hide these bodies if he thought in his mind that they were monsters. He had the proof in hand but he that they were monsters and there should not have been a reason to hide them from no one. My logic is if he shot these creatures and he had to hide them from who ever then they were to close or resembled us as Humans in some way that he was scared that he would be prosecuted for murder. The other side of this is that if he was poaching which could be the case and shot a mother bear and her cub then that would be the other reason of hiding the bodies of these bears . Here is why the DNA turned out the way it did due to what he did. 

 

Either way he screwed up by not retrieving the evidence at hand that could have proved he was right to what he shot. It would not matter of the prosecution cause either way he probably would not have been prosecuted for killing some thing he considered a threat to his safety. In my honest opinion he encountered some thing that was unusual that changed him ,that changes most of us as well.

 

All I can say is that a lot of mistakes were made and should not be repeated . If one does get shot and brought in for study it should be treated with the most alt right respect possible. It should remain anonymously.  

Edited October 21, 2017 by ShadowBorn

[norseman]

I will say this. If I ever shot one? I would not leave the carcass without ample proof going with me in all its bloody glory.

 

And if I absolutely knew I could not accomplish that? I wouldnt take the shot!

 

The death would be an absolute waste. The act of shooting one can only be justified for the sole purpose of PROVING they exist.

 

If you have no plans of proving they exist? You have no business of shooting not one but two.....supposedly. Unless its self defense of course.

[hiflier]

Would some of you please take the time to start plugging some science into this?

[norseman]

We already have....you simply will not accept what science has stated.

 

https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/tag/todd-disotell/

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The adult supposedly came out into the open and for some reason waved both of its arms over its head. Smeja claims it reminded him of a guy in a costume, but he could tell it wasn’t, and it gave him the impression that it’s some sort of monster. That’s when he shot it in the chest with his rifle. It fell, got up, and ran on all fours over a small hill where it crashed on the other side. Smeja wanted to take another shot as it was running up the hill, but his friend convinced him not to. 

 

When they were looking for the body, two juveniles appeared. Smeja supposedly shot one of them, which then rolled down the hill down to his boots. Smeja then choked it to finish it off. Right after that, he felt a great deal of guilt, and thought he killed some sort of human child. That caused him to leave the body, and get out of the area.

 

Bart Cutino and other researchers eventually went there and had a close encounter with several adults during the night that they camped there. One of the researchers that was there had a nervous breakdown as a result of the encounter.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[hiflier]

 

3 hours ago, norseman said:

We already have....you simply will not accept what science has stated.

 

https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/tag/todd-disotell/

 

I have read that article now for a third time. And I still see nothing damning in it. In fact, Dr. Disotell actually did say this:

 

"I’m not saying the conclusions in the paper are right or wrong,"

 

And then went on to say that at the time he wrote the article he had only read the Summary and Conclusion parts of the paper. His complaint seemed more to focus on mainstream protocols regarding publishing than anything else.

Edited October 21, 2017 by hiflier

[norseman]

However, geneticists who have seen the paper are not impressed. “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University told the Houston Chronicle. “Instead, analyses either come back as 100 percent human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts.”

 

 

I'd say thats pretty damaging towards the substance of the study.

 

I mean what are we talking about here? Has main stream science announced a new primate species in north America?

 

No of course not.

[Twist]

This issue even still being debated is a black eye on BF research.  It's a detriment to the subject if something so you obviously flawed is still getting traction.  It weakens the argument as a whole that BF is a living breathing hominid.  Before the "results" ( notice I won't say published ) were released I was very optimistic about what they could reveal.  Most of this DNA stuff is well above my pay grade but listening to other scientist chime in and say the work is shoddy is enough to tell me there is nothing of worth here.   We should put this in the pile with other hoaxers and move on.  The quicker it dies the better for true BF research IMO. 

[hiflier]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

However, geneticists who have seen the paper are not impressed. “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University told the Houston Chronicle. “Instead, analyses either come back as 100 percent human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts.”

 

 

I'd say thats pretty damaging towards the substance of the study.

 

I mean what are we talking about here? Has main stream science announced a new primate species in north America?

 

No of course not.

 

I bolded (with red text) the last line of the quote from the Houston Chronicle. Why is it tht these kinds of statements seem to always have some kind of non-definitive in them? To me the word "suggest" is not definitive. Why didn't Leonid Kruglyak just simply say, "Instead, analyses either come back as 100 percent human, or fails BECAUSE of technical artifacts.”??

 

I'll tell you why, because scientists always hedge their bets just in case they are wrong. Then they can say, " I never said the study failed because of technical artifacts; I only suggested it."

Edited October 22, 2017 by hiflier