Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

If nothing else, you have to give Bart and Tyler credit for sitting here and answering every question put to them (often answering the same questions multiple times). That does show a level of transparency that appears to be unusual in the bigfoot research community. I can only hope that others follow their example in the future.

[Guest FootDude]

Footdude-

Tell you what, I’m not going to nitpick and point out all the false assertions, misinformation and conjecture in your post and waste our time clarifying what we’ve already stated repeatedly (the whole thread) on almost every point you make and either you didn’t bother reading before commenting or you’re ignoring our answers purposely because you have pre-conceived our motivations. Instead I’ll simply remind you that if your points one and two are correct, in which you seem rather confidant, and it’s a hoax, then please tell us how your conclusion (number three) doesn’t fail? Unless, you want to explain to us how this whole peer review thingie works where two out of three genomes under the same “hybrid†premise is sufficient? Pardon my ignorance (not my expertise) but I was under this crazy illusion where it may not be ok to just toss out the “inconvenient†genome at this point. Should we presume you didn't know that the Sierra's tissue is absolutely one of the three genomes "you" mentioned in her report that you spoke of rather definitively? If that's the case you should really read ahead before commenting as you would've known that.

The peer review is one thing, but that's a whole separate issue if indeed the Smeja Bigfoot steak provided one of the 3 genomes.

Unlike you I will let the peer-review 'thingie' play itself out. If it indeed shows that there is a problem with Ketchum's study than so be it. That is one of the things peer-review is designed to do.

Indeed the Ketchum study could be extremely flawed or worse, but that doesn't mean my initial question regarding motives by the Smeja team of handlers is necessarily incorrect.

On the other hand the fact that you still presume that Smeja is telling the truth strikes me as odd. IMO that you ignore the Bear DNA evidence with regards to Smeja, and at the same time use it to crucify Ketchum defies common sense.

The fact that you go out of your way to continue to defend Smeja's truthfulness regarding his tale, despite the only physical evidence provided pointing toward him shooting something else other than Bigfoot seems, 'at the very least' to demonstrate flawed logic on your side. Since your DNA analysis of something Smeja has provided technically lies outside of the Ketchum study and it's control protocols, IMO it would have been best to let this play itself out through the peer-review. Since you didn't I will weigh in with my thoughts just has you have with yours on Ketchum's study.

we'd like nothing more then for Dr. Ketchum's work to transcend the work of our labs

IMO your actions seem to fly in the face of this statement.

In the end I posit the things I do because I think it reasonable to question aspects of both Ketchum's study as well as the positions you have taken regarding both Smeja and Ketchum.

Edited December 30, 2012 by FootDude

[david75090]

2. What I find odd is how the bear DNA is not helping to bring into focus the flaws of and undermining Smeja's amazing tale. To the contrary Tyler and Bart continue to believe Smeja though Smeja retrieved the bear sample from precisely the spot where he said he left a dead Bigfoot. Instead Trent's DNA analysis is being used to focus on and tarnish Ketchum's report and undermine her conclusions.

I've been wondering about this also. The sample tests as "bear" but Justin still shot a Bigfoot(?). And the person in the, possible, wrong is Dr. Ketchum because she might / possibly / maybe be claiming this bear is a Bigfoot in a study that hasn't been released yet. A lot of times in situations, I might say, "follow the money". In this case I might say, "follow the agenda".

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^^

It's is fascinating for sure!

Nice post Footdude!!

Edited December 30, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

I am re-posting a comment from RL's blog b/c it addresses directly the kind of info I am looking for, b/c I tend to believe both Ketchum and Justin ...in that the sample he sent is the same and also he did shoot two BFs and is not mistaken.

I can't say if this comment is right or wrong which is why I am dropping in here, I went back as far as GenesRUs post...and don't see similar, if there is my apologies in advance:

Caz said: I want to clarify the results Justin S got in Canada. There are several steps involved in the analysis, and the ‘error’ may not be where you think it is. I do NOT believe contamination was an issue with sample #1 (the hide). If this is a professional diagnostics lab, then they know how to cut and wash it to remove contamination. Ask the lab how many flesh samples processed by them in the past two years returned mixed results (i.e. contaminated). I bet the answer is near none. (Of course blood samples and hair are a different matter.)

Instead, I suspect problems with the PCR. I believe the two bands amplified, and subsequently matched to bear and eastern european are the result of imperfect primers and possibly also the targeting of an inappropriate gene. If the primers anneal poorly, then they can produce artifacts that differ from the native sequence. (Every molecular biologist has chased PCR fairies at one time!)

The fact that the two bands are distinct indicates different lengths of amplified sequence. Are bear and human cytochrome b genes really so different in length? I suspect not. (I don’t know for sure unless I look it up) If the lengths ought to be the same, then the appearance of the two bands is a dead give-away for PCR problems. (he then includes these two links below)

http://www.ridgenet....sage/v1i12n.htm

http://replicatedtyp...rthal-dna-pt-1/

I can't speak to this idea, but was hoping someone could.

Edited December 30, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest Theagenes]

Footdude-

Tell you what, I’m not going to nitpick and point out all the false assertions, misinformation and conjecture in your post and waste our time clarifying what we’ve already stated repeatedly (the whole thread) on almost every point you make and either you didn’t bother reading before commenting or you’re ignoring our answers purposely because you have pre-conceived our motivations. Instead I’ll simply remind you that if your points one and two are correct, in which you seem rather confidant, and it’s a hoax, then please tell us how your conclusion (number three) doesn’t fail? Unless, you want to explain to us how this whole peer review thingie works where two out of three genomes under the same “hybrid†premise is sufficient? Pardon my ignorance (not my expertise) but I was under this crazy illusion where it may not be ok to just toss out the “inconvenient†genome at this point. Should we presume you didn't know that the Sierra's tissue is absolutely one of the three genomes "you" mentioned in her report that you spoke of rather definitively? If that's the case you should really read ahead before commenting as you would've known that.

Also I don't appreciate the insinuations when we've taken a lot of time to explain our position and have repeatedly stated we'd like nothing more then for Dr. Ketchum's work to transcend the work of our labs.

Bart, I think we all appreciate you and Tyler being so forthright, but Footdude makes some legitimate points here. You're taking issue with Footdude questioning your motives, but that's exactly what you are doing with MK. You've insinuated that you have more information that we may see in a week or two that will show why you have a problem with her and her study, but none of us have seen that. At this point those of us on the outside looking in are seeing a "he said/she said" situation. And it's basically JS vs. MK. For those of us who don't know either one of them and aren't privy to all the inside info, which of them do think would appear more credible at this point, at least on paper? Personally, I have problems fully believing either of them. It's probably hard for you to step outside the situation since you're so intimately involved, but if you try you might see that Footdude's concerns are fair and legitimate for those of us not privy to all the information.

Even you weren't trying to intentionally sabotage MK's study, that doesn't meant that your comments and actions don't create the perception that that might be the case---fairly or unfairly.

[bipedalist]

I am re-posting a comment from RL's blog b/c it addresses directly the kind of info I am looking for, b/c I tend to believe both Ketchum and Justin ...in that the sample he sent is the same and also he did shoot two BFs and is not mistaken.

I can't say if this comment is right or wrong which is why I am dropping in here, I went back as far as GenesRUs post...and don't see similar, if there is my apologies in advance:

Caz said: I want to clarify the results Justin S got in Canada. There are several steps involved in the analysis, and the ‘error’ may not be where you think it is. I do NOT believe contamination was an issue with sample #1 (the hide). If this is a professional diagnostics lab, then they know how to cut and wash it to remove contamination. Ask the lab how many flesh samples processed by them in the past two years returned mixed results (i.e. contaminated). I bet the answer is near none. (Of course blood samples and hair are a different matter.)

Instead, I suspect problems with the PCR. I believe the two bands amplified, and subsequently matched to bear and eastern european are the result of imperfect primers and possibly also the targeting of an inappropriate gene. If the primers anneal poorly, then they can produce artifacts that differ from the native sequence. (Every molecular biologist has chased PCR fairies at one time!)

The fact that the two bands are distinct indicates different lengths of amplified sequence. Are bear and human cytochrome b genes really so different in length? I suspect not. (I don’t know for sure unless I look it up) If the lengths ought to be the same, then the appearance of the two bands is a dead give-away for PCR problems. (he then includes these two links below)

http://www.ridgenet....sage/v1i12n.htm

http://replicatedtyp...rthal-dna-pt-1/

I can't speak to this idea, but was hoping someone could.

#1 Who is Caz?. #2 If the suspect error alluded to is in fact a probability then I think the aha experience of just how difficult this endeavor actually is has just become confirmed.

It would be nice to have someone educated in the matter to respond.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

I don't really trust Smeja. From what I have heard, the whole Sierra Kills thing is shadyish.

[Matt Pruitt]

Independently testing a sample that is purportedly part of MK's study in NO WAY constitutes "sabotaging" that study.

This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen. To use the PGF as an analogy: It's akin to Bob Titmus, John Green, Rene Dahinden, etc. visiting the film site to take measurements and gather evidence. It would have been foolish to say "Just take Roger's word for it! Don't look into this! You're trying to sabotage their findings! How dare you investigate this for yourselves!"

Bart and Tyler were in a position to have the sample studied, and they did so with full transparency to Dr. Ketchum and the "bigfoot community".

No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.

[Guest Cervelo]

It's punishment alright 14 pages dedicated to Bear DNA.....LOL and alot of this....

[Guest]

Based on the articles linked by Apehuman, all it is saying is that when trying to describe a hybridisation event, mtDNA has limitations for establishing time lines because it usually isn't a one time event and occurs in a back and forth gene flow direction if the two species are compatible. If not, the picture is further clouded by fertility issues thus to get any kind of idea of how related something is you need nuclear DNA. So far, Tyler has discussed what they found in the mtDNA, which was bear and contamination from Justin. If Bigfoot is a primate it would not test out as a current known species of black bear in the process of idenifying a known species.

I'm just throwing this out there as a "what if" and don't seriously consider this to be an explanation, just "woo", but the NA legends of the Cherokee do refer to what we think is bigfoot in that they talk aboout the bear people. But Ketchum has refuted that by saying her samples indicate some kind of hominid, so much for that thought. We will have to see what she did to know. I think not acquiring Justin's DNA sample is a good indication of what misinterprtation might have happened along the way. I don't see how you could rule out contamination, i.e. Justin became the bigfoot in her results, IMO of course, all just speculation.

Edited December 30, 2012 by CTfoot

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^^

Couldn't agree more good post CT!

[Guest wudewasa]

Instead, I suspect problems with the PCR. I believe the two bands amplified, and subsequently matched to bear and eastern european are the result of imperfect primers and possibly also the targeting of an inappropriate gene. If the primers anneal poorly, then they can produce artifacts that differ from the native sequence. (Every molecular biologist has chased PCR fairies at one time!)

The fact that the two bands are distinct indicates different lengths of amplified sequence.

You people are STILL trusting anything from RL?

Ahhh yes, the primers were wonky and the testing process is flawed or the technicians are chasing ghosts and are therefore incompetent. Great googly moogly, now we have a new set of excuses to expound and exhault upon to spin things back to the unsubstantiated belief that the DNA MUST be a squatch!

CTfoot, the story that you are referring to comes from the Cherokee. An elder recounted it to me a few years back when I asked him if there were any Cherokee stories about sasquatches. He said that traditionally, bears originated from the people, but they were just bears, but because of the kinship, the tribe had strict protocols about killing and using the remains. Keep in mind that this gentleman is from the Eastern Band in NC, not the displaced and resettled Western Band in OK. I'm not sure if the western group have different traditions about this issue.

Here is one version of the story- http://www.indians.o...er/cherbear.htm

Edited December 30, 2012 by wudewasa

[bipedalist]

Wude, it is a commenter at the blog and not RL himself making the observations/supposition. Otherwise, the post if quoted from RL would have been against the rules of this forum as I understand it, since he is a banned entity, IIRC.

Edited December 30, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Wude, it is a commenter at the blog and not RL himself making the observations/supposition. Otherwise, the post if quoted from RL would have been against the rules of this forum as I understand it, since he is a banned entity, IIRC.

Ahh! Ty bipedalist for that reminder. There is an interesting response to "Caz's" comments over there, but pretty certain to continue to trot between sites to link apparent lab savvy comments would not be cool! At any rate, it does rest in the science, right? Excluding really depressing scenarios, I have more faith than that. Which oddly, even if let down wouldn't destroy the faith, we are witnesses.. and Oxford will weigh in. And I am prepared to accept that even if it were "No Bigfoots," even more oddly? No, maybe just getting realistic....?

Edited December 30, 2012 by apehuman