Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

I have posted here a few times before , have not in a while , but I do follow this story closely due to a large amount of interest. I hold a PhD in one of the basic sciences and spent many years working as a molecular biologist . However , having said this my focus is biomedical research and therefore, although I am well versed in PCR based approaches as well as other molecular biological methodologies and protocols, I am not familiar with the ins and outs of species identification , and am certainly not a geneticist by any means . I did read the report that was posted with great interest and I thank both Tyler and Bart for sharing the information they have . I do however have a couple of questions /comments on the data . Please know that my questions and comments may reflect a lack of knowledge of the particular protocols and trends in species identification and if this is the case , I do apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge and ignorance .

So , just to summarize , as I understand it the mitochondrial DNA analysis was performed by amplification with a universal mammalian cytochrome C , human specific and bear specific primer sets, subsequent sequencing of amplicons suggested strongly the presence of both human and bear DNA. The data are very nice and the sequencing looks absolutely gorgeous . However, this alone , does not rule out BF as it has been suggested that BF mitochondrial DNA is identical to human, whether this is true or not , does however remain to be seen .

The nuclear analysis was done by performing amplification of several microsatellite loci showing the presence of bear DNA , but not human to any degree . My question is this . Does this rule out a sample that is in fact, BF, but has been contaminated by bear DNA? I do realize that this may sound far fetched to some, , but Derekfoots post which stated that the tissue itself would have been stored in a freezer that had been use to also store bear tissue is a good one, and could definitely be a source of contamination . I have spent a lot of time in my life doing PCR based approaches, and a small amount of contamination can go a long way . Additionally, I think what also needs to be explained is that with PCR , more input does not necessarily mean better amplification . IN fact, often less is more . Since amplification of BF microsatellite loci is not possible due to a lack of sequence knowledge, can the data really tells us anything more than the fact that bear DNA is present in the sample? I dont think that it can be stated unequivically , at least not in my mind , that there is not another animal's DNA also present in the sample . I guess that it could be argued that BF DNA should amplify with at least some of the human microsatellite loci primers, but since only 16 were chosen ( and I do get that 16 is definitely sufficient for saying that a given species is present ) , I dont think it is beyond the realm of possibilities that these 16 are not similar in sequence whereas others that were not tested might be . To those that are familiar with species identification , what are your thoughts on this or were there perhaps other analysis that were performed , but not shown perhaps . Again , I apologize if this is short sighted and again, may just reflect my lack of knowledge regardign species identification protocols . .

Bottom line from a non PHD...

Bear contamination is within the realm of possibility. BUT we are left with one irrefutable fact>>> The sample in question (Smejia) will not confirm a BFe Smejia sample as analyzed will NOT CONFIRM a BF

[Guest]

Right and thanks . I do get that , your point is well taken, and I too was disappointed by that finding , but I do not see this as completely ruling out that Justin shot a BF on that day or being mutually exclusive with Melbas data should her data confirm that the same sample was obtained from a yet undiscovered North american primate .

Edited January 2, 2013 by crystal

[Guest]

What if Melba had the opportunity to draw blood from a BF before it died so she was able to sequence?

[Rockape]

^That would be truely outstanding...and where's the body?

[Guest]

^That would be truely outstanding...and where's the body?

LOL

Right and thanks . I do get that , your point is well taken, and I too was disappointed by that finding , but I do not see this as completely ruling out that Justin shot a BF on that day or being mutually exclusive with Melbas data should her data confirm that the same sample was obtained from a yet undiscovered North american primate .

HMMMM....*cough* *cough*

Edited January 2, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest Scout1959]

What if Melba had the opportunity to draw blood from a BF before it died so she was able to sequence?

Fox?

[Guest]

Just what I've been asking. Where is the body?

All the DNA talk in the world will not produce a body. I want to see a real Sasquatch, not a DNA report. No more grainy blobs or terrible video. No more howls and knocks.

[Guest wudewasa]

You people remind me of this-

[southernyahoo]

Actually to be accurate, the picture had been published by Lindsay quite awhile earlier before she made that claim. Justin immediately responded that it was absolutely the same piece and even discussed where he cut her piece off from the main tissue (described and pointed out cut marks).

That photo looks like a processed piece of bear hide, I can't see the bottom which should have fatty tissue.

[Guest]

LOL

HMMMM....*cough* *cough*

I am not quite sure what that is supposed to mean and not sure it is worth the time to figure out , but was trying to state that I think people need to be careful with the conclusions that can actually be drawn from the data as shown . Since there seem to be many people who are stating that these findings contradict and are mutually exclusive with things that Ketchum has claimed or was cited as claiming , that it needs to be brought up that they may not be .... and that the two groups can have differing findings without there being any deception or foul play involved on either side ... it is just how the data are interpreted that may be the issue . I have certainly had my doubts regarding Ketchum and her study for the time I have been following this , but as a scientist, I felt it necessary to state that there are only some conclusions that can be drawn from these data , and the fact that the sample does not contain BF DNA , is not necessarily one of them .

[Guest]

but as a scientist, I felt it necessary to state that there are only some conclusions that can be drawn from these data , and the fact that the sample does not contain BF DNA , is not necessarily one of them .

Please tell me what *conclusions* can be drawn from the Smejia DNA. I have only one...it cannot confirm anything at all as far as BF is concerened.

Thanks

Edited January 2, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

Wow , unbelievable ., it was already stated, but the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the sample contains bear DNA ,no quotes necessary as this is a true conclusion based on the data, so you are not correct that it cannot conclude anything. Additionally, your original statement that the data cannot confirm that it came from a BF would be true of any sample submitted as there is not a sequence to compare against . Therefore the only conclusion that could have been drawn in the best of circumstances in this regard is , that it came from an as of yet unidentified North American primate.

[Guest]

I take it you didn't read the linked articles. It answers all of your questions and also gives you a reason why it is easy to create, and why it would be easy to distinguish artificially created from naturally occurring DNA. But no, you can get an entire genome from one cell, all you need is a culture of a few cells of something created via in vitro fertilization in order to accomplish the deed, according to the article any postgraduate student can do this. I don't think it's a likely scenario in this case.

The real question then is why bring it up at all, CTfoot? All that does is give every Skeptic from here to the dark side of JREF another hammer to bash proponents over the head with. Which is the last thing we need.

That said, we have a problem. Smeja's sample tested as bear. Those with a genetics background (including yourself) insist the science is sound while proponents suggest an error in testing. We haven't seen Bart's tests yet but clearly they reached the same conclusion. On the other hand, Randles is privy to Ketchum's results and claims they are completely different. I've been over all the scenarios that might explain this discrepancy and I can't find one I like (one that's both plausible and fits with the known facts). VioletX suggested something interesting worth mulling over, IMO. I'm open to all suggestions.

The only way to resolve the question at this point is to hope that Ketchum either kept back part of whatever Justin sent her or at least sent multiple parts of it out to the "blind" labs.

We need either independent confirmation of the results of that particular sample or a new test needs to be done on it by an outside lab.

[Guest]

I've got a couple of questions. First, RL's photo of the hide....Did Justin give him that pic? Melba claims it doesn't 'appear' to be the sample she tested. By implication, it would seem the pic didn't get leaked from her camp. Who else had taken pictures of the hide, or had access to photograph it?

And as far as storage of the sample at JS's house. Was the freezer secured? Was a door to the room that housed it the only lock, or was there one on the freezer too? The fact that there was a picture of the steak, if that was actually the steak, puts the switch-a-roo in play, as stupid as that may sound, but is a possibility. When we gather/seize evidence it is always locked up in a secure location, with stringent key controls. We all know why that is. It's too bad that there wasn't somebody, initially, who was professionally qualified to escrow some of the sample.

Has anybody verified that Justin's place got robbed, or was that a rumor?

[Guest]

Where might one read, in a non-bigfoot-related venue, the conclusions of these multiple PhDs?

RayG

Suggesting bias, Ray?

Just what I've been asking. Where is the body?

All the DNA talk in the world will not produce a body. I want to see a real Sasquatch, not a DNA report. No more grainy blobs or terrible video. No more howls and knocks.

What you want and what is sound science may not turn out to be the same thing. DNA science is sound, and if a good, clean sample ever positively tests out for 'unknown primate/hominid" then it's 100% "game over" as far as doubt is concerned.