Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler, thanks for sharing the information you and Bart have paid for. I appreciate that. I have a question though not related to the test as much as your experiences there obstensibly with the close kin of the two Sasquatch which Justin says he shot. First, did you sense antagonism from the creatures watching your camp and where you fearful of the element of revenge possible being present there?

no and no

Tyler, do you happen to be the "Tyler H" that joined Smeja's taxidermy.net thread in December, 2010?

That thread is an interesting read. Smeja was largely ignored as the debate about BF raged on. For some strange reason, it seems they removed all of skywalker's posts from the discussion.

One more thing. Do you or Bart have any thoughts on my questions about the timeline?

Yes, that was me.

Um, sorry - can't tatke the time to analyze the timeline right now. But I'm convinced it is reconcilable.

[bigbear]

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).

Genes

It is hard to make out the sequencing in the photo on my computer but if this is the case then it does not seem like there is much more to be done, not that i thought there was much to be done in the first place, just kind of rambling out of boredom.

[Guest Tyler H]

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?

Well, bear - but to be honest, that was not done as a proper blind study. The lab approached a bear specialist, and said "is this bear hair" the Phd responded that it was a match, based mostly on the scaling.

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

thanks Genes - nice to have someone knowledgeable about the process here - I honstly can't comment on some of the things you touched on in your comment. (PS - It's HUggins, not HIggins.

Two quotes from NABS' "Bigfoot Blog #181" dated 11-23-12 (http://www.nabigfoot...igfootblog.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)?

While you could be right, bonehead - does that not reek of the people who claim to be "the only ones who can turn lead into gold" or "water into gasoline"?

I want to be clear on our efforts here folks - I hope this statement can be referenced often:

1. Bart's lab results are still to come,
   
2. Bart's lab has results based on genomic DNA which is more informative than mitochondrial DNA
   
3. We have faith in the work of the labs we contracted, but it is not infallible. I am currently working with someone who is a new face on the scene, from my perspective, and he is shedding some light on some questions surrounding the work that we have had done to date. As part of our ongoing commitment to transparency, I will share all insights, good or bad, as they pertain to the work I had done, if and when I have them made clear to me.
   

Edited December 29, 2012 by Tyler H

[Bonehead74]

It certainly does, Tyler. I only propose it because I wouldn't be surprised if it is given as an official explaination soon.

[Guest]

Tyler H

Sorry about the spelling errors.

It just occurred to me that I did not see a picture of a PCR gel for the universal primers. Did you a get a picture of that gel(s) from Trent? Was there one band in each lane, or more than one band?

Genes

[Guest slimwitless]

Um, sorry - can't tatke the time to analyze the timeline right now. But I'm convinced it is reconcilable.

Hopefully Mike Greene gets it right...if there's still a market for his book.

Edited December 29, 2012 by slimwitless

[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

I'd like your opinion on this information or suggestion:

Two quotes from NABS' "Bigfoot Blog #181" dated 11-23-12 (http://www.nabigfoot...igfootblog.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

[Guest BartloJays]

GenesRUs-

I appreciate your input and knowledge! And thanks alot btw, reminding me just how ignorant I am with respect to DNA processing LOL

Here's a duplicate of what I just posted in "Ketchum Report" thread as there's some parallel discussions happening and I regretfully won't be available until much later tonight.

Couple points for you guys.

Hard to see people still speculate about if the Sierras piece is part of Ketchum's study or not as I can tell you right now, links or no links...if it wasn't claimed to be then what in the hey did we waste our time desperately trying to screen it for? Justin, Wally, Derek, Tyler etc... have all been told from day one (it's common knowledge) that a full genome has been performed and "paid" for and is the centerpiece of her study. It's not even a question and I don't even think she'd contend differently at this point other then she intentionally received a "different" piece. I refuse to share private emails without Dr. Ketchum's permission, though technically it's at our discretion (I have a thing about sharing private messages publicly when "intent" was privacy), but let's just say if I had you over for dinner tonight, I wouldn't have to even show you more then two sentences on my computer in a recent exchange with Tyler before you'd say "yep, ok, got it."

On another note, I think the email communications we'll be consolidating and releasing soon back and forth with Trent will shed a lot of light on the whole process and the frustrations Tyler and I went through. You'll see and probably ask us "wow, you guys must've been excited that day?" ...or... "oh man, I can picture how frustrating that was to hear that after what you thought was good news." The die hards with a much better understanding of diagnostics then me will get a much better feel for what Trent did or didn't do and in what order.

I will tell you that my Midwest lab got a lot stronger report with ample bear, human (Justin) contamination (through genomic dna) and an absence of any third contributor unless something has changed since I last talked to the Doc......report due any time.

I also tested two samples to try and tie up any loose ends or questions as I sent in both the salted piece from the site during our body search in July 2011 informally examined by Jeff (Meld) & John (Mio), and a frozen piece of tissue (just like Trent) to determine if they are from same subject species. I tried to cover every basis I could to get preliminary determinations. We had a lot of concerns about this tissue.

I'm also looking forward to sharing all of these emails as some of these people questioning our motivations in the first place (many with an agenda themselves) will see the sincerity of our efforts..."if" they bother to read what we provide before commenting.

Edited December 29, 2012 by AaronD
to keep family friendly language

[Big Stinky]

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

Genes thanks for the in depth information. A question and a comment.

1. Why would such a large tissue sample require amplification as there must have been ample material to test from the attached skin/hide ?

2. Why are we all forgetting about the hair morphology as most hair/fiber experts have indicated that BF hair is quite distinct from other NA mammals. This could be easily cross checked. Also, black bears have 76 total chromosomes and humans have 46...

GenesRUs-

I appreciate your input and knowledge! And thanks alot btw, reminding me just how ignorant I am with respect to DNA processing LOL

Here's a duplicate of what I just posted in "Ketchum Report" thread as there's some parallel discussions happening and I regretfully won't be available until much later tonight.

Couple points for you guys.

Hard to see people still speculate about if the Sierras piece is part of Ketchum's study or not as I can tell you right now, links or no links...if it wasn't claimed to be then what in the hey did we waste our time desperately trying to screen it for? Justin, Wally, Derek, Tyler etc... have all been told from day one (it's common knowledge) that a full genome has been performed and "paid" for and is the centerpiece of her study. It's not even a question and I don't even think she'd contend differently at this point other then she intentionally received a "different" piece. I refuse to share private emails without Dr. Ketchum's permission, though technically it's at our discretion (I have a thing about sharing private messages publicly when "intent" was privacy), but let's just say if I had you over for dinner tonight, I wouldn't have to even show you more then two sentences on my computer in a recent exchange with Tyler before you'd say "yep, ok, got it."

On another note, I think the email communications we'll be consolidating and releasing soon back and forth with Trent will shed a lot of light on the whole process and the frustrations Tyler and I went through. You'll see and probably ask us "wow, you guys must've been excited that day?" ...or... "oh man, I can picture how frustrating that was to hear that after what you thought was good news." The die hards with a much better understanding of diagnostics then me will get a much better feel for what Trent did or didn't do and in what order.

I will tell you that my Midwest lab got a lot stronger report with ample bear, human (Justin) contamination (through genomic dna) and an absence of any third contributor unless something has changed since I last talked to the Doc......report due any time.

I also tested two samples to try and tie up any loose ends or questions as I sent in both the salted piece from the site during our body search in July 2011 informally examined by Jeff (Meld) & John (Mio), and a frozen piece of tissue (just like Trent) to determine if they are from same subject species. I tried to cover every basis I could to get preliminary determinations. We had a lot of concerns about this tissue.

I'm also looking forward to sharing all of these emails as some of these people questioning our motivations in the first place (many with an agenda themselves) will see the sincerity of our efforts..."if" they bother to read what we provide before commenting.

Bart,

I know I keep repeating this but I have not heard an explanation as to why incur the cost of multiple analysis if the hair was pre-screened and determined unequivocally to be black bear ?

Thanks for your tireless effort here

Stinky

Edited December 29, 2012 by AaronD
to keep the quoted post family friendly

[Martin]

So is this headed anywhere but numerous hyperbolic rants or are we all in agreement Justin submitted bear as a Bigfoot sample on purpose or by mistake?

After reading thru this as well as the Ketchum thread it has become obvious that Melba has developed advanced primers that no one has ever considered. Proving that all of the bears people have been seeing and shooting have actually been sasquatch. It would seem that bigfoot has been misidentified as bear for many generations.

I think the habituation people should examine their bears more closely. If a bear hunting expert like Smegle and sequencers like Trent U can get confused then maybe they could shift their paradigm and get a clearer picture.

I think the game cams have been working all along.

M

Edited December 29, 2012 by Martin

[Guest]

black bears have 76 total chromosomes

74, but who's counting?

[Guest Tyler H]

Genes thanks for the in depth information. A question and a comment.

1. Why would such a large tissue sample require amplification as there must have been ample material to test from the attached skin/hide ?

2. Why are we all forgetting about the hair morphology as most hair/fiber experts have indicated that BF hair is quite distinct from other NA mammals. This could be easily cross checked. Also, black bears have 76 total chromosomes and humans have 46...

Bart,

I know I keep repeating this but I have not heard an explanation as to why incur the cost of multiple analysis if the hair was pre-screened and determined unequivocally to be black bear ?

Thanks for your tireless effort here

Stinky

I did post somewhere on here, as well as in my release statement that hair morphology analysis is notoriously subjective. We had one suggestion of bovine, one suggestion of canid, and one suggestion of ursus. Dr. Meldrum has told me he will be doing a little hair morphology piece to accompany the report soon.

I also posted earlier that we initially thought we had really hit the jackpot in the Trent lab being the ideal candidate to take this testing all the way. When we started hitting hiccups early on, and also to support the conclusions of each lab, Bart engaged a separate US lab, to make sure we had two completely independent results.

As it turned out, Bart's lab was able to give us their conclusions just days after my lab gave me theirs. They used different data and techniques if you will, to come to the same answer. Because my lab did not give conclusions apart from the final report, I assumed Bart actually also had his final report, when I announced that we would release our results by Xmas. But we are still waiting on that - it should be anyday.

We have both been happy with the staggered release, as it lets each report get examined separately without competing with eachother at the same time.

Oh, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a chromosome count can only be compared in a (fresh?) blood sample.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Tyler H

[Guest BartloJays]

Genes thanks for the in depth information. A question and a comment.

1. Why would such a large tissue sample require amplification as there must have been ample material to test from the attached skin/hide ?

2. Why are we all forgetting about the hair morphology as most hair/fiber experts have indicated that BF hair is quite distinct from other NA mammals. This could be easily cross checked. Also, black bears have 76 total chromosomes and humans have 46...

Bart,

I know I keep repeating this but I have not heard an explanation as to why incur the cost of multiple analysis if the hair was pre-screened and determined unequivocally to be black bear ?

Thanks for your tireless effort here

Stinky

Thank you Stinky,

Hopefully Tyler will see this tonight/tomorrow and add more in-depth information regarding your question as the hair analysis didn't come until much, much later (after microsatellite testing) and it was actually requested by Tyler because of identification issues as to a primary contributor (at that point) as hair morphology and screening is not a higher priority to these labs (per their own words) as the science is not as fool proof from their position and they outsource this work. In our case it was the Canadian Ministry Of Natural Resources and a bear expert.

As Tyler mentioned previously, we weren't thrilled with them by phrasing the question to this expert as "is this bear hair or not?" The scaling was a nice match fo ursus americanus in his opinion but he questioned the lack of underfur for a black bear who would surely be on the doorstep of dormancy in October at that elevation in the Sierras (no doubt). That's something Tyler and I thought was a bit odd and believe me, was a topic of many late night calls between us as you could imagine.

well, there's Tyler he already beat me to it Stinky

Edited December 29, 2012 by BartloJays

[Guest Tyler H]

Two quotes from NABS' "Bigfoot Blog #181" dated 11-23-12 (http://www.nabigfoot...igfootblog.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)?

After reading thru this as well as the Ketchum thread it has become obvious that Melba has developed advanced primers that no one has ever considered. Proving that all of the bears people have been seeing and shooting have actually been sasquatch. It would seem that bigfoot has been misidentified as bear for many generations.

I think the habituation people should examine their bears more closely. If a bear hunting expert like Smegle and sequencers like Trent U can get confused then maybe they could shift their paradigm and get a clearer picture.

I think the game cams have been working all along.

M

All along, I had actually assumed that Melba had specialized primers and/or methodologies. In fact, I tried to advocate for the need for specialized primers with the Trent University lab. But, in recent conversations with Melba, I was very surprised that she essentially assured me that it had nothing to do with primers.

She DID claim that her tissue is different than ours, and I do have pretty reliable information that indeed, the methodologies used are quite different than the ones that my lab and likely even Bart's lab used. In time, only the science will tell, once she makes her release.

As Tyler mentioned previously, we weren't thrilled with them by phrasing the question to this expert as "is this bear hair or not?" The scaling was a nice match fo ursus americanus in his opinion but he questioned the lack of underfur for a black bear who would surely be on the doorstep of dormancy in October at that elevation in the Sierras (no doubt). That's something Tyler and I thought was a bit odd and believe me, was a topic of many late night calls between us as you could imagine.

After some thought I was able to reconcile that this way - yes, the hide was discovered in November, but we had no way of knowing when that animal actually expired. It could have expired long before that, when winter was not as imminent.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Tyler H

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler H

Sorry about the spelling errors.

It just occurred to me that I did not see a picture of a PCR gel for the universal primers. Did you a get a picture of that gel(s) from Trent? Was there one band in each lane, or more than one band?

Genes

Hi Genes

I believe everything I have is in the report - there is no documentation from trent outside of invoices and emails, that I did not include.