Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

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

Interesting that NA would have figured this out well before DNA was even a concept. That is exactly the story I was thinking of, thank you Wude.

[Guest wudewasa]

Thanks bipedalist, but I'm still shaking my head about the faulty DNA testing argument. ANY angle that people can take to discredit the fact that bear DNA was indentified is simply grasping for straws.

This current spin is reminiscent of the Johnny Cochran's argument about contaminated DNA analysis that helped acquit OJ Simpson in the 1990s.

[Guest]

The failure to get a DNA sample from JS, and worse, the failure to test the boots, is incredible to me. I cannot think of an honest reason as to why these two basic procedures weren't done.

[southernyahoo]

SY,

What method was used to examine your hair?

Fahrenbach used his microscope, I assume others did as well. I own a microscpoe myself, and a patch of bear hide to do my own comparisons.

[georgerm]

It is possible that simple mistaken idenity took place? The bear went up on two legs immediately after spotting the two men in the pick-up. In an angry manner, the bear approached the pick-up quickly? All they saw was a tall furry animal that was walking like BF. Due to foggy conditions, fright, intoxication, dirty windshield etc........... it was mistaken for a bigfoot which is shot. They shoot a smaller one/BF and speed off totally freaked out. The part about it rolling down the hill is fabricated. This explains his story, and why Justin submitted tissue from the site. Simple mistaken idenity and this explains everything. Hunters shoot cows, people, goats, moose, etc..................while thinking they are shooting a deer each year.

[Guest Tyler H]

Good recollection, bipedalist. There were many comments about the very unusual smell of the sample and how it would supposedly stick with you. Mionczynski's initial reaction was that the odor reminded him of his own encounter.

Probably a bear too, I guess.

I interpreted Mionczinski's reaction as that it reminded him of another sample he had encountered, I believe. Not a personal encounter.

[Guest Cervelo]

GG,

If you haven't read the account you really should!

It's a fantastic story, very compelling.

His spotter was looking at it thru binoculars and said not to shoot.

Now to play what ifs, all hypothetical before everyone goes bonkers ...what if he shot a person, that would explain alot.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest Tyler H]

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

Cervelo - May I suggest you stop punishing yourself?

[Guest]

I like your style Yeti.

[Guest Tyler H]

The failure to get a DNA sample from JS, and worse, the failure to test the boots, is incredible to me. I cannot think of an honest reason as to why these two basic procedures weren't done.

The boots question has been explained multiple times - we will ONLY get one shot at the boots. It will NOT be a simple process. We have been vetting labs. I feel we are being very responsible in not just submitting the boots to any old lab. It will take a very demanding skill set, and it needs to be somewhere that people won't question.

I'm already seeing doubts about Trent U's abilities, and processes, from many sources - some of them legit. So that just reinforces to me, that we made the right decision to NOT submit the boots to Trent. Once we find the best lab possible, we'll submit there.

We DID get a DNA sample from Justin. I assume you are referring to Ktchum camp's failure to do so.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

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

Isn't that what Ketchum did when she incorporated several other independent labs to 'blind' test her samples? I don't see how that would be any different, unless they were told to use a specific protocol when testing.

Do we know if Bart and Tyler's labs were given any indication as to what they might be searching for? My guess is probably and hopefully not, in fact it may have already been addressed. But if 'primate' was hinted at, would not that make their testing even less "independent" than Ketchum's?

Bart and Tyler, do you all have any idea what the term "next generation" with regard to DNA study refers to or means?

Thanks for hanging around and indulging the rest of us.

[Guest slimwitless]

I interpreted Mionczinski's reaction as that it reminded him of another sample he had encountered, I believe. Not a personal encounter.

That may be the case. The blogger that shall not be named or linked reported that Mionczinski said it reminded him of a personal encounter in 1972. Obviously, that doesn't mean it's true but in this case I put it out there because I heard it from another person in the know. (I do realize that still doesn't mean it's true).

Fahrenbach used his microscope, I assume others did as well. I own a microscpoe myself, and a patch of bear hide to do my own comparisons.

I'm extremely interested in seeing microscopic images of this hair.

[bipedalist]

Where is the proof that the Ketchum camp did not request and test a control swab of dna from Justin? Is this fact or presumption?

[Guest Tyler H]

In Ketchum's recent C2C AM interview she claims:

(1) all samples in her study were carefully vetted to be confident they were purported bigfoot; and,

(2) she washed all samples to rid any external contamination.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that Trent did either (1) or (2). Tyler and Bart had hair microscopy done with uncertain results, except that none of the analysts apparently concluded "presumptive bigfoot" or "unknown primate." Thus, per Ketchum, this sample would not have been included in her study. The Smeja tissue sample has hair on it, so one must assume Ketchum likely had her hair microscopist examine it. If it passed Ketchum's hair screening, then what Tyler and Bart have analyzed is a different tissue sample.

I assume if T&B's sample had been washed at Trent, the Smeja contamination would have been expunged, as well as any saliva from any predotor or scavenger that dined on the hide prior to it being collected.

Unfortunately, until Ketchum releases her paper, we can't be certain of her protocol; thus, no one can be sure they can replicate her findings at this time.

"Thus, per Ketchum, this sample would not have been included in her study." But the results our labs came up with, and some other info that Justin may release put Ketchum's word into question ... you've got a bit of circular reasoning going on, or are overlooking some of those facts.

Did you notice in the report that the second round of testing was on a single strand of hair that had so little human DNA present, that they could not even get a proper sequence? Yet that same hair yielded what I am told are expected amounts of bear DNA. (I am trying to ascertain what an expected amount of DNA might be for a single hair. The lab report cites 3ng of DNA from the hair).

[bipedalist]

Obviously that "single hair" did not have a follicle or skin tag attached or was not capable of being amplified based on quantity of material submitted. I can't get my mind around why they could not have amplified for quantity given the amount of samples allegedly floating around. They did destructively test everything you provided correct Tyler H.?