Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[Guest BartloJays]

I thought I'd clear a few things up as some of you might be understandably confused when they read my recent article and were surprised I was pessimistic in regards to the DNA study, while Derek (who's obviously my close friend/colleague) is much more optimistic.

First, as briefly mentioned, I'm not under NDA, nor privy to any preliminary results (though I respect & adhere to many of the terms of the NDA out of respect for my friends involved). I like it that way as when it comes to this field especially, I'm extremely conservative & cautious (though I know these animals exist from personal experience, those that really know me know, I think 80+% of this field is BS) & I always prefer to take a "cup half empty" approach and maybe, just maybe.... get pleasantly surprised. However, if I knew what Derek does, I might have a different opinion as I've become more confident in the alleged event happening as stated due to the relationship I've developed with both of the boys. I feel strongly from my perspective, having been concerned from day one with the circumstantial manner in which the flesh sample was collected & Meldrum's initial opinion on site (limited examination) in which I'd defer to him in regards to expected & anticipated hair morphological differences and deviations, that to try and be as non-biased a researcher as possible, (admittedly hard sometimes) I must block out any positive leaked info I hear and just focus on what I see (red flag-wise) & experience with my own eyes. I'd suggest anyone & everyone do the same when it comes to anything to do with this respective field.

Having said all that, I'm of course hoping all goes well and as mentioned on Derek's recent interview, there does in fact exist potential non-circumstantial evidence that's remained untested and there's **** good reasons for that I can't get into right now. I assure you it will be tested eventually (preferably "blind" if I have my way) and is being appropriately preserved since reaching our custody. In the interim, I can promise you a few things (sorry it's not much), regardless of what Derek or myself agree or disagree on (we agree on much, trust me... and I give him a lot of credit for recognizing the potential in this alleged shooting event & having the guts to pursue it), I assure you both of us care only in trying to do the right things & most importantly... about the "truth" and will go wherever "truth" leads us..... with no fear.

So to summarize in a nutshell, for those confused about where I stand exactly after reading my recent internet article on our July 2011 "recovery effort" & correcting some false information out there-

1) Although he doesn't need me defending him, If truth does matter to you......Meldrum was absolutely correct & accurate in his statements regarding his participation in the body recovery effort & initial examination of the sample. At "NO TIME" did Meldrum make presumptuous or positive statements in support of the sample based on his initial observations, nor did any other person present during that particular examination for that matter. He was professional, patient, disciplined & sincere in both methodology and sharing of his opinion(s) based on morphology deviations recognized by him while analyzing the hair under magnification. The examination was documented on video and although I'm unsure if and when that will be publicly released (not my property) I assure you that my information will be 100% confirmed when it is.

2) My story about Justin's complete interactions with the CA-DFG is 100% accurate as I was there and involved or advised him for everything other then their unannounced daytime visit in which he contacted me immediately after in a concerned state. I believe this issue with DFG is dead as of now and truthfully I'm disappointed as I would've liked to have this incident on record and Justin was ready to walk in there and formally tell his story if they were still interested in hearing it.

3) My concerns regarding Melba Ketchum's anticipated study are based on the limited information I have, what "I" (my researcher hat) see as "potential" red flags based on her actions, or lack thereof up to this point, and of course is only "MY" subjective opinion in which I really hope I end up being dead wrong with some of my personal, and some would argue, "paranoid" (LOL) concerns.

4) My support and confidence in the Sierra shootings story (which is again, only "MY" subjective opinion and not something I would ever attempt to shove down somebody else's throat) and the parties directly involved, is based solely on my countless interactions with them over many personal interviews with themselves and their respective families. I will say that after leaving the body recovery effort last July I was intrigued and open to it, but still highly unconvinced at that point.

From a personal standpoint, I'll share with you that what eventually got me over the top into the 90% area of believing this event did in fact happen, was overhearing an intimate & detailed conversation between both Justin and the driver about "that day" under circumstances in which they had absolutely no possible way in hell of knowing I was eavesdropping on them...and I guarantee they still don't know when that was. I've also noted minor inconsistencies in their stories in which I'd absolutely expect from both stress & two different perspectives (and experiences, as you'll recall, they did get temporarily separated). The inconsistencies consist of minor details and "timing" based more on their perceptions, not "facts" or major details. If there wasn't minor deviations between their stories present, I'd be more concerned of their stories potentially having been rehearsed.

But again, it doesn't matter what my subjective opinion is about the story being real or not, if the evidence (flesh and or non-circumstantial) doesn't end up backing their story it all becomes anecdotal...period. May've happened, may not have, it wouldn't matter because it won't be proven at that point, nor have a chance to. Although I'm confident, could I be wrong....yes of course I could, I wasn't standing there with them that day as I can only guarantee what I've personally experienced in my own life.

I will also say that at this point, if I was on the outside looking in and periodically following the story, not having the information and or experiences I've had with my involvement, I would be highly suspicious and take a "wait and see" approach on everything regarding this alleged incident or any incident like it for that matter. From my standpoint, I'd have some confidence (if I was on the outside) knowing the character of both Derek and Wally, both of whom I have a lengthy trust and respect relationship with I cherish...but that would be from my perspective only, "knowing them personally."

As far as I'm concerned, Derek has done a tremendous job at this point while walking a very, very fine line (remember he never asked for this to prematurely become public). His job, as a volunteer investigator for a subject he's passionate about, is to assess viability of the claimed incident & get the alleged evidence in for appropriate processing, deferring to the assigned, chosen, or in this case, "available expert" for examination. He has..... and in my opinion, the ball is now in "her" court, so let's see how it plays out.

Edited February 8, 2012 by BartloJays

[BobbyO]

to try and be as non-biased a researcher as possible, (admittedly hard sometimes) I must block out any positive leaked info I hear and just focus on what I see (red flag-wise) & experience with my own eyes. I'd suggest anyone & everyone do the same when it comes to anything to do with this respective field.

Amen to that and thanks for the Post Bart..

Edit : Oh & amen to the 80% is BS bit too.

Edited February 8, 2012 by BobbyO

[Guest]

I thought I'd clear a few things up as some of you might be understandably confused when they read my recent article and were surprised I was pessimistic in regards to the DNA study, while Derek (who's obviously my close friend/colleague) is much more optimistic.

First, as briefly mentioned, I'm not under NDA, nor privy to any preliminary results (though I respect & adhere to many of the terms of the NDA out of respect for my friends involved). I like it that way as when it comes to this field especially, I'm extremely conservative & cautious (though I know these animals exist from personal experience, those that really know me know, I think 80+% of this field is BS) & I always prefer to take a "cup half empty" approach and maybe, just maybe.... get pleasantly surprised. However, if I knew what Derek does, I might have a different opinion as I've become more confident in the alleged event happening as stated due to the relationship I've developed with both of the boys. I feel strongly from my perspective, having been concerned from day one with the circumstantial manner in which the flesh sample was collected & Meldrum's initial opinion on site (limited examination) in which I'd defer to him in regards to expected & anticipated hair morphological differences and deviations, that to try and be as non-biased a researcher as possible, (admittedly hard sometimes) I must block out any positive leaked info I hear and just focus on what I see (red flag-wise) & experience with my own eyes. I'd suggest anyone & everyone do the same when it comes to anything to do with this respective field.

Having said all that, I'm of course hoping all goes well and as mentioned on Derek's recent interview, there does in fact exist potential non-circumstantial evidence that's remained untested and there's **** good reasons for that I can't get into right now. I assure you it will be tested eventually (preferably "blind" if I have my way) and is being appropriately preserved since reaching our custody. In the interim, I can promise you a few things (sorry it's not much), regardless of what Derek or myself agree or disagree on (we agree on much, trust me... and I give him a lot of credit for recognizing the potential in this alleged shooting event & having the guts to pursue it), I assure you both of us care only in trying to do the right things & most importantly... about the "truth" and will go wherever "truth" leads us..... with no fear.

So to summarize in a nutshell, for those confused about where I stand exactly after reading my recent internet article on our July 2011 "recovery effort" & correcting some false information out there-

1) Although he doesn't need me defending him, If truth does matter to you......Meldrum was absolutely correct & accurate in his statements regarding his participation in the body recovery effort & initial examination of the sample. At "NO TIME" did Meldrum make presumptuous or positive statements in support of the sample based on his initial observations, nor did any other person present during that particular examination for that matter. He was professional, patient, disciplined & sincere in both methodology and sharing of his opinion(s) based on morphology deviations recognized by him while analyzing the hair under magnification. The examination was documented on video and although I'm unsure if and when that will be publicly released (not my property) I assure you that my information will be 100% confirmed when it is.

2) My story about Justin's complete interactions with the CA-DFG is 100% accurate as I was there and involved or advised him for everything other then their unannounced daytime visit in which he contacted me immediately after in a concerned state. I believe this issue with DFG is dead as of now and truthfully I'm disappointed as I would've liked to have this incident on record and Justin was ready to walk in there and formally tell his story if they were still interested in hearing it.

3) My concerns regarding Melba Ketchum's anticipated study are based on the limited information I have, what "I" (my researcher hat) see as "potential" red flags based on her actions, or lack thereof up to this point, and of course is only "MY" subjective opinion in which I really hope I end up being dead wrong with some of my personal, and some would argue, "paranoid" (LOL) concerns.

4) My support and confidence in the Sierra shootings story (which is again, only "MY" subjective opinion and not something I would ever attempt to shove down somebody else's throat) and the parties directly involved, is based solely on my countless interactions with them over many personal interviews with themselves and their respective families. I will say that after leaving the body recovery effort last July I was intrigued and open to it, but still highly unconvinced at that point.

From a personal standpoint, I'll share with you that what eventually got me over the top into the 90% area of believing this event did in fact happen, was overhearing an intimate & detailed conversation between both Justin and the driver about "that day" under circumstances in which they had absolutely no possible way in hell of knowing I was eavesdropping on them...and I guarantee they still don't know when that was. I've also noted minor inconsistencies in their stories in which I'd absolutely expect from both stress & two different perspectives (and experiences, as you'll recall, they did get temporarily separated). The inconsistencies consist of minor details and "timing" based more on their perceptions, not "facts" or major details. If there wasn't minor deviations between their stories present, I'd be more concerned of their stories potentially having been rehearsed.

But again, it doesn't matter what my subjective opinion is about the story being real or not, if the evidence (flesh and or non-circumstantial) doesn't end up backing their story it all becomes anecdotal...period. May've happened, may not have, it wouldn't matter because it won't be proven at that point, nor have a chance to. Although I'm confident, could I be wrong....yes of course I could, I wasn't standing there with them that day as I can only guarantee what I've personally experienced in my own life.

I will also say that at this point, if I was on the outside looking in and periodically following the story, not having the information and or experiences I've had with my involvement, I would be highly suspicious and take a "wait and see" approach on everything regarding this alleged incident or any incident like it for that matter. From my standpoint, I'd have some confidence (if I was on the outside) knowing the character of both Derek and Wally, both of whom I have a lengthy trust and respect relationship with I cherish...but that would be from my perspective only, "knowing them personally."

As far as I'm concerned, Derek has done a tremendous job at this point while walking a very, very fine line (remember he never asked for this to prematurely become public). His job, as a volunteer investigator for a subject he's passionate about, is to assess viability of the claimed incident & get the alleged evidence in for appropriate processing, deferring to the assigned, chosen, or in this case, "available expert" for examination. He has..... and in my opinion, the ball is now in "her" court, so let's see how it plays out.

The next time I have to speak publicly, you have to come with me Bart! Man I wish I could articulate like that.

Thanks for keeping it real, I love ya man.

DR

[Guest MikeG]

Many thanks Bart for taking the time and trouble to write such a lengthy and helpful article. I'm gladdened to hear yet more support for Dr Meldrum's position regarding the initial inspection of a piece of flesh. Although, of course, the test results are the only thing that really count, it would be nice if those who are sniping at Meldrum's reputation and actions on the day, even though they weren't there, would now just shut up.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts in walking the thin line of what can be said and what can't.

Mike

[gigantor]

BartloJays, thanks for that, you should seriously consider a career in politics.

Edited February 8, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

@ gigantor

Please don't cast such evil at a good man.

Edited February 8, 2012 by zigoapex

[Guest slimwitless]

Thanks Bart. I'm glad to hear attention is being paid to the blood evidence from the juvenile. I've been asking about that for some time now. I found it odd that little or no attention was being paid to its value. Obviously, that's not the case. But yeah, it really is the only non-circumstantial evidence in this saga. In a crazy world, someone could even argue the boys are lying about the event but somehow still managed to find a piece of genuine Bigfoot.

I'll be honest though. I'm not sure how to square some aspects of what you've written. I think the odds of finding a piece of animal with hair matching the reported color of the adult near the very spot they heard it crash into the woods are remote. I'm also sure (and I apologize if this didn't come from the forum), that Justin doesn't think the flesh he recovered looks canid from a "macro" perspective. Multiple sources also suggest the sample has a unique, unidentifiable smell. My personal opinion is that no one knows the morphology of BF hair attached to skin. We can look at existing primates and make guesses but the fact of the matter is we can make similar pronouncements about nearly every other piece of physical evidence (including footprints).

If I were Hersom, I'd shell out for some corroborative testing. For obvious reasons, I'd also keep the results secret but find some way to back out if the testing showed canid or some other known animal. It can't be that hard to jump off an out-of-control freight train! (To be clear, that's not my characterization of all this.)

Just my two cents (adjusted for inflation).

Edited February 8, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest]

I have taken the liberty of posting excerpts from Derek's fine interview, so that it can reach a bit of a wider audience.

[Guest Biggie]

Derekfoot I edited your posts #2313 and #2315.

My edit notes in your posts and my signature on the bottom of this post explain it all. Please remember that from now on. Thanks.

[Guest exnihilo]

Bart, are you still firmly in the "ape" camp or are you more on the fence?

[Guest BartloJays]

@Derek, love ya too brotha and thanks for trusting me to be part of it as I know I can be a devil's advocate pain in the ass sometimes....remember "the good cop, bad cop thang"

@Gigantor, thanks LOL, as one of the jokes here back home in CA is that coming from a fairly prominent local family thanks to my father 's hard work, success & family roots, I could win local office on a stinking Nazi or Radical platform if I wanted..... with one small caveat: Bigfoots must be proven to exist first or I wouldn't have a prayer in hell LOL. Between local articles, all the Rotary, Kiwanis etc.. lectures I've given, the whole town "knows," and my political fate & level of capital is completely tied to "discovery." Believe me, I'm in no hurry.........to run for any office that is I've got two beautiful young children who need me.

@Slim, you know, I've seen some of your written speculation about all of this and I must tell you that you're a very smart & rational person who's very much in the ballpark of truth when it comes to accuracy.

To answer your question, I think my concern was that the sample found could've coincidentally been canid/possible yote due to color similarities and the tapered ends (mentioned previously) immediately identified by Jeff. Logically, if the sample is from the large subject shot, I would assume that it bled out nearby and was consumed by predators...in which I would assume there should be identifying carrion predator DNA through saliva potentially present as well (if that's in fact what happened)

Through his words, it was clearly obvious Meldrum expected or hoped it was going to appear somewhat different, and I think more consistent with primate hair characteristics & the samples in Henner's collection that are considered by many as "the gold standard" because of unique matching characteristics. However, Meldrum did say on tape..... if the DNA is what it is, "then I guess it's a mute point or concern," (that's about the biggest endorsement stated by Meldrum after initial inspection). You make some good points as no one can say for sure and I think Jeff was making observations and sharing what he knows to be, which is considerable with his background (as Bobo was probing for answers from him every few minutes LOL). However, he absolutely left it open and wisely did not make any official or definitive pronouncements without further in depth evaluations off-site.

I would concur Slim that the smell was unique to me as well. Mionczynski, one of this field's biggest assets in my opinion, from a naturalist and forest service experience knowledge base, described it as a "burnt honey" smell that reminded him of one sample he examined a long time ago from WA state I believe.

@exnihilo, I don't know if I'd say I was in the "ape camp" per se as that's kind of become such a cliche & generalization in this field. I would concur with my good friend Matt Pruitt's excellent recent article (http://mattpruittonline.blogspot.com/) as it's very close to the way I feel and he did such a wonderful job of explaining it... it's great to just reference that for others.

Here's some insight from my perspective based on my best personal experiences. The subject I witnessed for almost 3 minutes in the Northern Cascades, WA State in August of 2007 through an X200xp thermal imager from approx 32 yds, had a life changing impact on me to definitively "know" for myself after almost 30 years of interest and passion at that point. I saw that squatch as clear as you can ask for under the circumstances and I'm admittedly discouraged at times that realistically, it's unlikely I'll get an another opportunity like that again even now possessing a handheld thermal unit that has push-button recording ability.

I saw that animal, which was obviously predominantly bipedal, transition much on all fours and get up and down more then once. I'm still amazed at its "animalistic," stealth & agile movements effortlessly executed using body leverage while possessing obvious uneven weight distribution (top to bottom). Anatomical features were also very distinctively different from ours in that it was very top heavy (massive shoulders), lacked a discernible neck & possessed exaggerated arm length. I've also come to realize looking back over the years that much of the behavior I witnessed (again from my perspective & considering it was in pitch black area on waxing moon & under heavy vegetative cover) taught me a lot, including what appeared to be acute hearing sense, potentially average nightvision (failing to appear as if it could lock in on me visually) & undoubtedly.... coordinated movements & behaviors. In other words, I'm absolutely certain the subject "I" witnessed was very different then "us" anatomically & behaviorally.

I'm also influenced by some of the other behaviors I've directly experienced (rock throwing, grunting/ growling, knocking, bluffing behavior etc...) without actually viewing the subject perform it, but through process of elimination, I'm confident was one or more of these animals. One example..... me and my frequent field partner Rgr Leiterman's NorCal coast tree destruction video last year, which was a progressive bluffing behavior going from immediate & initial knock response, and progressing to aggressive tree destruction response (impeccable timing) from continuing external stimulus (my intended provoking & instigative techniques).

These things I've personally experienced coupled with my own viability and inherent behavior research (for them to logically remain collectively unscathed today with a continent-wide distribution) leads me to a species that might be predominantly bipedal, may possess a foot structure similar to ours and even parallel some of us in facial appearance, but I believe still possesses more ape-like physical and behavioral traits.

Here's another thing though that really annoys me (certainly not referencing you exnihilo as I appreciate your question).... people being labeled for their beliefs and often misquoted, are commonly used as name-dropping leverage to strengthen another researcher/enthusiasts arguments who make such a big deal of their own beliefs and theories being correct. How often do we see that?

To be honest, I really can care less what they are and or turn out to be, as my objective has always been to either directly or indirectly, help facilitate discovery. If my theories on biological makeup for instance (which are based on ecology & overall viability) turn out to be completely off base one day, I guarantee you I will still be the happiest person on this earth that the pinnacle of discovery was reached and a lifelong passion has been realized. I certainly don't think I'm alone as I don't want to put words in Meldrum's mouth for example, but do some people really believe that if official scientific recognition happens immediately tomorrow from say, a sudden tragic event like the Sierra kills, that Jeff (myself or anybody else invested in this field to different extents) would be disappointed they shared their best guess within their knowledge base & limited information available and were wrong about many things?

I mean, think about it, if this happens and it turns out bigfoots grow wings & eat plastic, is the most recognized academic associated with the subject going to be sticking his respective head in the sand in shame? I'd confidently contend he wouldn't because he's going to be very busy from now on........and happy.

Bottom line exnihilo, to answer your question and I apologize for some lengthy run-on sentences (bad habit), I'm definitely in the "more ape-like" camp I guess. However, my experiences and beliefs do not influence my actual research, nor compromise my open mind and I could care less if I turn out dead wrong. Just think it's an exhaustive exercise not worth arguing over when we all have a lot more important work to do in the interim in my opinion.

[Guest exnihilo]

Bart, my impression of you is that you are an extremely diligent and methodical lay person, and that you have been extremely careful to document and recount your very exciting (indeed, I'm jealous) experiences with an unusual amount of rigor. In other words I take your observations and opinions about your experiences quite seriously, much more than I might with other firsthand witnesses. That said, from the comfort of my internet armchair and without the benefit of your experiences, my personal incredulity runs counter to yours. I really can't fathom that an ape could have stayed under the radar this long, with the intelligence and sheer culture that would be needed to stay there, so I tend to put my physical hypothesis into the Homo camp -- heidelberginsis for example, though far from definitively.

You have correctly sensed the thrust of my question -- is the "ape camp" that is in the know (Meldrum and yourself, for example) more inclined to be skeptical because the results were not what they expected? It would be very easy for an ape-centric researcher to be drawn to the 'here we go again... human contamination' interpretation since we've been through it so many times already. There's a lot of other smoke out there to suggest that the results were startlingly human, which supports my line of speculation. I won't ask you to answer or even hint at the truth, but heck... all most of us have ever had are speculative theories, and some of us are getting good at whipping them up in a pinch. I hope we can all have an open discussion about this -- and more than a few beers -- very soon. I'm tired of all this speculating, I'd like to KNOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ammAU-RKDhs

Edited February 9, 2012 by exnihilo

[Guest slimwitless]

Thanks, Bart. I get the feeling (based on comments from Ginger3 in the Henner Fahrenbach thread) that Meldrum's opinion on this is based on more than hair morphology. That's why I'm glad you brought up the possibility of predator DNA contaminating the sample. Am I out in left field? In any case, I won't deny the sliver could be exactly what Meldrum suspects. No doubt this would raise serious questions about the integrity of the study (and add greater importance to the non-circumstantial evidence). For now, I think it's only fair to give Ketchum the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, I'm glad Justin and the driver have found a good advocate. I'm looking forward to next Monday's MN.B.R.T. show.

[Guest can]

Derekfoot the reason I asked you those questions was I heard that Meldrum thought *** could have been coyote. That is one of the people you said you "work wiith" and the bfro leader seemed to think the whole thing is a hoax.

[Guest]

No problem can, I do work with Meldrum but he has his own opinions and I respect that. As far as Matt, ( the BFRO leader ) is concerned, I don't currently work with him. I have in the past but it's been a while. He can think whatever he wants to as well. He's is definitely entitled to his opinion, he's been doing this for a long time to. It really doesn't matter what anybody thinks. The science will hopefully speak for itself. If results come back flawed or misidentified, then I guess it's back to the drawing board. More research, more work. I have high hopes for all the researchers in this study, and the test results, but once a sample leaves our hands we are at the mercy of the scientific process.

DR