Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

I can't wait for the book. The truth is I very much want to believe that BF and UFOs are real. The problem is that hoaxers have ruined it for me. Now I will only believe my own two eyes.

[Guest Scout1959]

Well as far as UFOs go they are real, but they're (imho) military in nature and have nothing to do with aliens or time/dimension travel.

[Guest]

The only thing that shape shifts in this story is the story itself.

IMHO the Jacob's photo is obviously a bear cub and not a bf at all.

Yeah...I hope my sarcasm showed through. The Jacobs photo is misrepresentation at it's finest(he knows what it really is too, and it's not a BF)

[Guest]

I will now wait for the next unbelievable creature or event. BF and UFOs are becoming old news along with Nessie.

[Guest]

Why you here then?

[Guest]

I'm here just in case I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'll glady eat crow.

[Guest]

Ketchum has everything on the line. Why would she concoct or falsify results? She has stated, the science will prove her claims.

At this point, science is saying black bear.

[Guest crabshack]

Smeja.. He believed and still believes our labs may've gotten it wrong though he is willing to accept the results because he trusts reputable labs more then he trusts her

That's all I need to know, and I think the labs in question do not have the capability to unlock this dna properly.

Still think they may have bear drool on squatch flesh.

[Guest Scout1959]

At this point, science is saying black bear.

No science isn't saying anything. The labs have detected black bear. BUT none of us knows whether they conducted the analysis correctly.

That's all I need to know, and I think the labs in question do not have the capability to unlock this dna properly.

Still think they may have bear drool on squatch flesh.

I'd have to agree based on what I've read that there's a good chance they screwed up the tests.

BUT, honestly I'm not convinced that there was ever a squatch to get flesh from in the first place.

[bigbear]

That's all I need to know, and I think the labs in question do not have the capability to unlock this dna properly.

Still think they may have bear drool on squatch flesh.

They should be able to rule this out by running other control samples, and designing new primers to screen the DNA for particular markers specific for various animals.

Maybe they are already in the process? All i read was they tested for bear specific loci, and human specific, however they did not appear to show any negative controls in their results which is bush league at best. They need to show that the screen they used is actually species specific. I hope they did this but just didn't show it for some reason? At least this is the way it looks in the lab report one.

Higgins sample 2 did not test positive for human DNA, but did test + for bear DNA. all this proves is that this sample was not contaminated by humans and there is bear DNA but does not rule anything else out like if there is bear contamination. But by using different primers designed for loci shared by all great apes they would have a better chance of seeing if their was other primate DNA in the sample, however all of this is based on the idea that BF would be genetically related to great apes. By choosing markers shared by all great apes it would increase chances of picking up BF because if that portion of the DNA is the same in all great apes there would be a good chance that BF would have it as well. And since the sample already tested - for human DNA, if it did test positive for the new primers you would know that it is not human primate DNA. Then continue to screen narrowing your search each step of the way.

They do say at the beginning they did some screen to narrow down the species but they did not elaborate what so ever and showed now results so they might have already tested for other primates, but again if they are using species specific primers for each primate and there is DNA from an UNKNOWN primate, they would not get a + result so it might now work right.

Not full proof but potentially worth a shot.

Edited December 28, 2012 by bigbear

[Guest]

Tyler or Bart,

I don't know if you've answered this yet, but the "steak" has hair on it. Was the hair analyzed microscopically? If so, what species did such analysis point to?

No science isn't saying anything. The labs have detected black bear. BUT none of us knows whether they conducted the analysis correctly.

Try applying Occam's Razor.

[Guest Scout1959]

No Occam's Razor says nothing about if the tests were done properly or not. For what it's worth I don't think it could have ever been tested positive for bf since I don't think a bigfoot was ever involved in this story from the get go. BUT, that still doesn't mean they didn't muck up the testing.

[Guest]

No Occam's Razor says nothing about if the tests were done properly or not.

[Guest]

I have no problem with the report. And, further analysis with primate-specific primers would be a waste of time and money. The most telling results for me are those obtained with the universal mammalian cytochrome b primers. Those primers are truly universal. They will amplify cyto b from otters, mountain lions, cows, chimps, people, etc - literally any mammal. So unless BF aren't mammals, the primers will work.

What's interesting is that Trent sequenced the PCR products they obtained with universal primers and the sequence "matched" black bear only. Look at the sequencing chromatograms in figures A3 and A4. They're clean, that is there is no evidence of overlapping sequences. Since some human mito DNA was detected in Higgins-1 with human-specific primers, but not the universal primers, one can conclude that the predominant source of DNA in Higgins-1 and Higgins-2 is black bear. There's no reason to believe that there is "missing" non-human primate DNA in the samples (assuming BF is a mammal).

As far as the procedures used by Trent, they are standard throughout the industry. We use the same reagents and procedures as they do.

I understand why they homogenized the first sample rather than picking single hairs or chopping the sample into small portions. I wouldn't waste my time dividing the sample or plucking hairs until I was sure I could find DNA I could amplify by PCR. The fastest and most certain way to do that is simply homogenize the entire sample and test the purified DNA.

Based on my familiarity with the reagents and procedures used by Trent, I agree with their identification of the Higgins samples as black bear.

Just my $.02.

Genes

[Bonehead74]

Two quotes from NABS' "Bigfoot Blog #181" dated 11-23-12 (http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootblog.html):

• "Dr. Ketchum originally found the combination to unlock bigfoot DNA and utilized top scientists in various fields to validate her results."
  
• "The one person that was able to unlock the safe to understanding bigfoot DNA, Dr. Melba Ketchum. Where every other scientist gave up and claimed contamination, Dr. Ketchum continued to move forward."
  

If these statements are true, and they refer to the Ketchum camp's oft mentioned 'curve-ball' thrown by bigfoot DNA, then may it explain, at least in part, the differing results from outside labs not privy to Dr K's recently developed technique(s)?