Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest BartloJays]

Logic, reason, and sound critical analysis.

Ok sure thing, "logic and reason" in other words, blindly believe what you've been told and encourage others to do the same.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Besides Smeja giving bear steak just to claim the money Derek was intriguing him with, wudewasa's sketch is probably the most logical theory I've seen.

Edited December 31, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest wudewasa]

I didn't draw that sketch, but I made this!

[Guest Scout1959]

Now that was the best one yet.

[Guest]

One thing that needs to be considered, in this situation you need to compare 400 base pairs to 2.7 million. When you do the math here Melbas study is 1000% more complete and telling. It's simply like bringing a knife to a tank fight. Other things that need to be taken into consideration is the PCR amplification process as compared with the illumina process. With PCR amplification everything in the sample is amplified. When the sample has been stored at a "bear hunters" house, in a freezer that's seen untold bear meat, it will most certainly have bear and human contamination on it. With the Illumina process the volume can be compared beyond amplification.

The major innovation of the Illumina method is the amplification of template molecules on a solid surface. The DNA sample is prepared into a “sequencing library†by the fragmentation into pieces. across a solid surface - this is called a flow cell. So in a sense amplification still does occur in Next Generation Sequencing- but in a solid phase called "bridge amplification†PCR process (cluster generation). This creates approximately one million copies of each template in tight physical clusters on the flow cell surface. Hence the "volume" i was referring to (massive parallel sequencing). This has improved image analysis technology dramatically.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Derekfoot

[Guest Tyler H]

One thing that needs to be considered, in this situation you need to compare 400 base pairs to 2.7 million. When you do the math here Melbas study is 1000% more complete and telling. It's simply like bringing a knife to a tank fight. Other things that need to be taken into consideration is the PCR amplification process as compared with the illumina process. With PCR amplification everything in the sample is amplified. When the sample has been stored at a "bear hunters" house, in a freezer that's seen untold bear meat, it will most certainly have bear and human contamination on it. With the Illumina process the volume can be compared beyond amplification.

The major innovation of the Illumina method is the amplification of template molecules on a solid surface. The DNA sample is prepared into a “sequencing library†by the fragmentation into pieces. across a solid surface - this is called a flow cell. So in a sense amplification still does occur in Next Generation Sequencing- but in a solid phase called "bridge amplification†PCR process (cluster generation). This creates approximately one million copies of each template in tight physical clusters on the flow cell surface. Hence the "volume" i was referring to (massive parallel sequencing). This has improved image analysis technology dramatically.

While many of your points are valid Derek, there are a few other things to consider. And you know I'm open to finding holes in our lab's work, if they can be shown, so please take this the right way:

• Does Melba's study claim to be more advanced than ours? Absolutely. 109 samples v 1 sample, $400k v <$10k, terabytes of data v megabytes of data, full genomes v haplotypes.
  
• Has Melba proved herself to be transparent? No
  
• Has Melba shown a lot of integrity? Not according to sources (sorry, I realize that is repeating hearsay, but it's what we have for now)
  
• Do people have access to any of the alleged corroborating evidence Melba has to back up her claims? No
  
• Can people see the science (as juvenile as it may be) behind our claims? Yes
  
• Has anyone been able to address why these PCR universal Mammalian primers which will amplify minute amounts of Justin's contamination, and the alleged "bear contamination", have NOT been able to amplify the supposed mammalian presence of the primary DNA contributor - the source of the mass of tissue? Not that I can see.
  

I have no doubt that the Ilumina processes are more advanced than the processes we have used. But I have yet to hear anyone say why our processes would not amplify all mammal sources, but WOULD amplify trace contributors such as Justin and the bear. And all the cool sounding lingo, and Star-Trek level technology in the world doesn't seem to be able to change that. I'm open to changing my mind, but I need something other than jargon.

It seems to me that the only option is the one that Melba has claimed - that her samples have to be different than the samples Justin provided to us. I can't swear they are the same, I can only refer to Justin's word and polygraph that claim he gave us all the same samples.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Tyler H

[Guest]

One thing that needs to be considered, in this situation you need to compare 400 base pairs to 2.7 million. When you do the math here Melbas study is 1000% more complete and telling. It's simply like bringing a knife to a tank fight. Other things that need to be taken into consideration is the PCR amplification process as compared with the illumina process. With PCR amplification everything in the sample is amplified. When the sample has been stored at a "bear hunters" house, in a freezer that's seen untold bear meat, it will most certainly have bear and human contamination on it. With the Illumina process the volume can be compared beyond amplification.

The major innovation of the Illumina method is the amplification of template molecules on a solid surface. The DNA sample is prepared into a “sequencing library†by the fragmentation into pieces. across a solid surface - this is called a flow cell. So in a sense amplification still does occur in Next Generation Sequencing- but in a solid phase called "bridge amplification†PCR process (cluster generation). This creates approximately one million copies of each template in tight physical clusters on the flow cell surface. Hence the "volume" i was referring to (massive parallel sequencing). This has improved image analysis technology dramatically.

Derek, by way of clarification: am I to take the above as you saying that these new processes essentially amplify the "signal" (the DNA of the actual sample) so that it is "louder" than the "noise" (exterior DNA contamination)?

[Explorer]

Am I the only one here who would not have gotten excited if the DNA test had shown unknown primate or other (instead of bear)?

The fact that the sample was taken 5 weeks later and there was no evidentiary chain link to any of the two BF that were alleged shot, puts the sample in the very weak circumstantial evidence realm.

I doubt a scientist would publish a paper based on DNA evidence from a sample of unknown provenance and without a clear and unquestionable link to the species being studied.

BF forum folks are making a bigger deal on this DNA test than is warranted.

Notwithstanding what I said above, I have the upmost respect for the work that Bart and Tyler have done.

Their transparency with the results and their integrity is commendable.

After this experience, the BF community will have lessons learned and will be better prepared for the next body.

[Guest slimwitless]

Am I the only one here who would not have gotten excited if the DNA test had shown unknown primate or other (instead of bear)?

Probably not. There are others here that seem to think DNA can be faked or something.

[bipedalist]

....BF forum folks are making a bigger deal on this DNA test than is warranted.

Obviously, you have not followed this 3-ring Circus as many witnesses here have.....

or you wouldn't be making such pronouncements. But, in the interest of all things 2013 ........

think positive (not dispositive). Ketchum could easily be in the clear without Sierra's samples, it's been said repeatedly by the same folks for a year or more now.

Exactly what is it that you think the Sierra's samples now bring to the supper table that Ketchum didn't already have? Oh, that's right it can't be determined, like so much other stuff related to BF and BF research.

Edited December 31, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Curious the lengths the B&T proponents are going to in order to keep Smeja from appearing deceitful...

Smeja may be being deceitful, but people who lean 51% or > on him telling the truth have a process that they go through to determine it(which even then, they may have errored and are wrong), as opposed to skeptics, who believe BF isn't real, so right out of the gate any story or evidence is a lie, short of absolute proof. That's where the handicap lies in skeptics. Usually the skeptics here are pretty fact-based in their arguments, which tends to keep things even keel and brings up good points/counter-points for people to discuss, but in this particular thread there are some deliberate misrepresentations of 'facts'.(Not saying you, per se, FD)

To determine if Smeja is hoaxing, we'd need to start with his motives. Nobody decides to do anything random, so he'd definitely have some sort of motive for perpetuating this story.

Money? Monetary gain would be my only motive for ever pulling a hoax, personally.(Not that I would, however) I'm not really sure where the money would come from, aside from the story, itself, in book, news-magazine, or appearance profits, given the lack of evidence, but even at that, how much money is really to be made? I'm not sure what is going on with the OP book, or what, if any, royalties would be going Smeja's way, but it doesn't appear that he's attempted to cash in on this as of yet, so I can't really say that I'd think money is his motive. He's been spending money, with no return in sight, to perpetrate this hoax, if that's what this is. Seems like a pretty stupid thing for a person with a family to do, in these economic times.

Personal gain/fame/attention? Did he have aspirations to link up, and research with some of the top field-researchers, and scientists in BF research? It doesn't really appear that way. He originally posted in a taxidermy forum, and Derek Randles is the catalyst for him being brought into the BF community. Plus, if he had any knowledge of BF research, he, more than likely, would've been posting here, or the on the BFRO forum, initially. The fame part seems ridiculous to me. Who would think they'd become famous for claiming they shot 2 bigfoots with no proof, and knowing any proof they tried to put forth would be tested? Just a crazy story from another nut-job would be the general consensus from the non-BF crowd. This doesn't appear to be his motive either. JS doesn't really seem to care for the attention, or drama, according to people who see him quite often. He seems pretty straight-forward, and reserved. He's not out saying 'look at me', or anything. He doesn't seem to be pursuing any of the attention, either. If he's pulling a hoax, do you think he honestly thinks it's cool to be on web-shows, or video interviews talking about shooting Bigfoot? I seriously doubt it, personally. People who perpetrate hoaxes, or people who lie for attention/acceptance, or need acceptance are the follower, non-confrontational type. Justin appears to be a straight-shooting, unapologetic Alpha dog to me.

Mean-sprited hoaxer-type/trickster mentality? Was he simply trying to pull a hoax, was he trying to trick people to prove how gullible people are, or was he trying to educate people in the follies of believing that things are real, based on the evidence that they provide? If he is pulling a hoax, in it's infancy, it had no direction, and would have been an odd way to execute the unveiling of the event. He didn't know DR would be calling him. What was he doing? Making up a story on a taxidermy site to get a few cheap thrills that transcended into a huge event, and he just can't let it go? Maybe. It doesn't seem likely. To take on good buddies over it, and let them spend thousands of dollars, knowing that you are lying to them, doesn't add up to me, unless the subject suffers from a psychological disorder, or is just flat-out mean-spirited, which he doesn't 'appear' to be. Once MK releases her info, and verifies the sample, or quashes it, the ride will be over, so to speak, or it'll be proof. If it's proof, his story had nothing to do with motive, because something actually happened. If he is hoaxing, he is deliberately trying to damage people's trust and reputations and being false to anyone who has befriended him, at this point. This has gone way further than anything he could've anticipated when he originally unleashed his hoax. I'm pretty sure he'd be feeling the gravity of his lies by now. Yet, he presses on. Why? I believe what people have said about deliberate, or veiled threats towards him, and I can't imagine, being a father myself, that he would deliberately bring on uneccessary dangers/threats that could have a collateral effect on his family. His family is probably being hoaxed too, if he is hoaxing, so he'd be deliberately bringing uneccessary stress, and strain into their family life on purpose, which seems strange to me. He offered one thing to researchers that he attached a claim to. The boots. Why, if you're hoaxing, would you hand over evidence to back up your claim, knowing it will come back with something other than a BF? Proffering proof of your claim is something you would do if you were telling the truth. The fact that the boot hasn't been tested yet has nothing to do with Smeja. He says the little one died in front of him, and that the blood is from that event. He surely can't believe that no DNA could be extracted from the boot, and that it wouldn't be tested. It's a proven hoax once that boot blood comes back anything, but Bigfoot DNA, yet he gave them the boot. The steak is circumstantial, and doesn't apply to his boot, but if he planted it, he is diliberately bringing a negative attention element into his hoax, because he HAD to know they were going to test it, and find out it was a bear. It doesn't make sense, if you are trying to get people to believe you. Subjects don't just hand over evidence that proves they are guilty. His actions don't necessarily jive with someone pulling a hoax.

Is he hoaxing to cover something up poaching, or misidentifying something? First off, bringing attention to it probably isn't a good idea. If you've ever seen his hunting pictures you'll know that misidentifying a bear from 100 yards is a fallacy. He didn't misidentify anything. This guy is a savage hunter, and definitely knows his way around the woods. If he poached something, he went and posted on a taxidermy site to start the idea that he may have shot a BF. Why? Pre-emptively suggesting the idea that he shot a BF, so that when Fish and Game came to question him about poaching a bear, or one with a cub, he could pass off the idea that whoever witnessed what they claim mistook what they saw, and that he had shot a BF, and a juvenile, and can provide them with the post on the site? That's a pretty weird story that no game warden would ever believe, and he knows that. Or, would it be because he thought someone that also posted on there may have witnessed him poach, and he was trying to get that person to believe he had shot a BF to keep them from reporting him? Ummmm. Ok. So, he covered up a poaching, then segued it into a huge BF hoax? None of that makes sense, and is highly unlikely.

All Smeja proponents have to go on is what JS provides us, which is a story that like it, or not, could be true(because BF is real)in which he provided proof of his claim(boots), took a polygraph and passed(if police departments do it as part of their hiring process, then I give it some level of credibility), stayed consitent in his re-telling of the story, backed up his claims with receipts that he didn't know he'd be asked to provide, and has done everything asked of him. Like it, or not, that is behavior that people who are telling the truth display. He may be lying, but that is why the B&T proponents are keeping Smeja from looking deceitful.

To top it off, Bart possibly recorded a small group a few hundred yards from the site that Smeja made up as part of his hoax. That's one h*ll of a coincidence, too. The video is very compelling, IMO.

What indicators, aside from BF not being real, do skeptics see that he lying? What parts of the story can't be possible, and where has he changed it? What are his motives,?

Edited December 31, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher

[Rockape]

Plussed from me PacNWSquatcher. After listening to several Smeja interviews, I get the feeling from Smeja that he doesn't care enough to try to hoax. I believe him when he says he never gave BF any thought before this, I know plenty of other people who are the same way.

[Guest]

Derekfoot,

We use the Illumina system routinely, as well as simple PCR analysis. Both work fine and are great for answering specific questions. Because the Illumina system provides genome-wide coverage it allows you to ask phylogenetic questions using a large number of genes. But, basic PCR is used internationally for forensic and genotyping purposes, and is clearly admissible in legal settings. And, I can tell you from experience that the Illumina system has headaches of its own.

Tyler and Bart were using basic PCR to ask whether a tissue sample was from uncataloged primate or something else. The universal mammalian primers returned a clean PCR product with no evidence of contaminating sequences. When sequenced, the PCR product match black bear.

So you have....

1. well-characterized primers that produce single PCR products,

2. sequencing of the PCR products shows no evidence of other contaminating sequences,

3. sequencing of the PCR product matches bear.

There's nothing wrong with Tyler and Bart's report.

Genes

[Guest Tyler H]

I was thinking about the ongoing discussions as it appears to have been blown way out of proportion.

So, I asked myself; ....

Hindsight being 20/20, I think B&T should have waited to reveal their sample until after MK's study came out.

Cisco, you've demonstrated some moments of clear thinking, but I can't disagree with this statement more. If Melba came out claiming success (IE I have prooof of bigfoot), then we would have had to play "gotcha" and let out our results then - People would claim we were riding her coat tails and stealing her thunder, and only did it to undermine her, and 'why didn't they just release their results when they got them' yadda yadda yadda. Melba is a very small (albeit very public) part of this work. There are many good researchers and witnesses who have put their trust in her. Justin and Randles included. We have no desire to discredit the whole study - once again, we want the existence of these animals proved. Releasing our data now gives her the chance to re-examine her data and make sure she still feels she can stand by her conclusions. If she feels she can't it (fortunately, or unfortunately) allows her some small chance to reposition her stance (as wanted or unwanted of a side-effect that may be.) Had we waited, people may also have wondered why we sat on our results while 'presumed hoaxing' continued to be perpetrated (not calling it that, but some may have called Melba's undertaking that) - in effect, we may have looked complicit while people continued to hang their faith on her results. Now people can see our data, and decide for themselves how that informs their opinions.

Because what they tested was never technically part of Ketchum's study, it was completely outside of the necessary control protocols, and most everything B&T are posting is here-say.

Since Ketchum's paper is already under review by members of the scientific community with the education and skillsets necessary to properly evaluate what her study did or did not do, we should really ask ourselves why are 2 amateur Bigfoot researchers spending the time they are crucifying her? We should also ask ourselves who do their actions serve and who has the most to win and lose by what they are doing...

Exactly where have I been crucifying her? I have not repeated 99% of the hearsay I have encountered. I'm giving transparent opportunity to all camps to examine our results and make up their own minds. I'm even saying this all amounts to nothing, and unfortunately, we still have to wait for her report. ANy personal encounters that members of "my camp" may have had with her are up to them to delineate. I'm not wading in on hearsay, other than to say that those encounters played a role in how I finally got the green light to test my samples from Justin.

Logic, reason, and sound critical analysis.

Only seemed fair - if someone was questioning our motives, why can't Bart question their motives for disparaging us?

My grievances with this thread is that there is infortmation still witheld. We don't have statements from Justin about the provenance of the samples submittied to both Ketchum and T/B.

Yes we do

The entire chain of custody has not been tested.

What would that prove? The only two contributors have been identified.

It is not confirmed the human DNA is from Justin/ atleast not in a report we can read.

DId you not read the very first page of this thread and read the report that is attached there?

The samples seem to be tested without removal of any contamination. If this were done, there would be a single contributor and no rollercoaster ride.

Not true - As GenesRUs pointed out - it's quite normal to start with a homogenizing of the whole sample. The second round of testing has clearly been stated (many many times) to have attempted to remove contamination, by doing a single strand hair test. In said test, there was essentially only one contributor - Bear. The minute trace of human contamination still present at that point, was so small that they could not even get a viable sequence out of it to compare against any other human DNA to try to match it.

Am I the only one here who would not have gotten excited if the DNA test had shown unknown primate or other (instead of bear)?

The fact that the sample was taken 5 weeks later and there was no evidentiary chain link to any of the two BF that were alleged shot, puts the sample in the very weak circumstantial evidence realm.

Notwithstanding what I said above, I have the upmost respect for the work that Bart and Tyler have done.

Their transparency with the results and their integrity is commendable.

After this experience, the BF community will have lessons learned and will be better prepared for the next body.

It doesn't matter to what degree the evidence was circumstantial, in the event that the testing resulted in "unknown primate" - If it was an unknown primate, it is a BIG DEAL whether science accepts it or not. And it would have all but proved Justin's claims, and we would all know that we had an unidentified primate (presumably in North AMerica). I mean, Genbank has pretty much every mammal and primate categorized, so something that is not in Genbank is pretty big news.

Maybe wouldn't have been enough to declare a new species, but would have been hard evidence for skeptics to refute.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Tyler H

[bipedalist]

Why is this thread not updating posts that are seen in the forum index? I

Never mind with that post of mine they now all pop up..... very weird behavior for sure.

Edited December 31, 2012 by bipedalist