Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[bipedalist]

Could the other 75 percent have been bacteria?

[Ronnie Bass]

Thank you Gene, just logic tells you it has to be near impossible to fake all of Dr Ketchum's samples. The cost and risk would be immense.

[TimB]

1) Can anyone document where Ketchum's results have been published, posted, or released by her? You'd need that before you can compare the two.

2) I've brought this up before, but how do you resolve the issue as to whether the sample that Ketchum has is related in any way to the sample that is the basis of this thread? We have Justin's report that it is, but when he published the picture of the sample he was sending out, Dr. Ketchum's immediate response was that it didn't look like the sample she tested. How do you resolve that in a quest to use the Trent study to disprove he un-released Ketchum study?

Tim B.

[Guest BartloJays]

2) I've brought this up before, but how do you resolve the issue as to whether the sample that Ketchum has is related in any way to the sample that is the basis of this thread? We have Justin's report that it is, but when he published the picture of the sample he was sending out, Dr. Ketchum's immediate response was that it didn't look like the sample she tested. How do you resolve that in a quest to use the Trent study to disprove he un-released Ketchum study?

Tim B.

Actually to be accurate, the picture had been published by Lindsay quite awhile earlier before she made that claim. Justin immediately responded that it was absolutely the same piece and even discussed where he cut her piece off from the main tissue (described and pointed out cut marks).

[Guest]

Actually to be accurate, the picture had been published by Lindsay quite awhile earlier before she made that claim. Justin immediately responded that it was absolutely the same piece and even discussed where he cut her piece off from the main tissue (described and pointed out cut marks).

Bart..

I agree with this. I read a transcipt from Smejia of that exact exchange where he was very chagrined at the fact Ketchum (in an interview) was shown that exact picture Linsay had and she said she didn't recognize that sample as comming from a BF!!! That's a MUCH BOLDER statement than simply saying *I don't recognize the sample in that pic*!!! Smejia went on to say he could see the exact area in the pic conforming to the section where Ketchum took a slice!

Edited January 1, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest Scout1959]

But that's just his word against hers. One or the other must be lying but his stating that is far from any form of proof that she's the one lying... it could just as easily be him that is misleading us all.

[Guest Tyler H]

I'd like to understand why everyone keeps ignoring this? If 10% was bear and 15% human................WHAT WAS THE OTHER 75%!!! Do we just have 3/4 of nothing?

THis was not ignored - I have addressed it twice, and other posters have as well. If we can take the time to write it, please take the time to find it and read it.

[Guest wudewasa]

Edited January 1, 2013 by wudewasa

[Guest Tyler H]

sprayanpray, on 31 December 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Tyler H.. I had and oppurtunity to watched the video and I understand no pictures or physical evidence was taken during the first encounter of the creatures being shot. But the Gentleman did state in his video he picked up the small creature and looked at it and threw it at the other gentlemen and the second gentlemen also picked it up so how did they clean their hands from the blood and for the lack of better words the meat from the gunshot wound from the description they both had their hands underneath the upper arms to hold the creature so they could look in the eyes and if the used rags to clean their hand that would help them prove there story also unless they cleaned there hands prior to reentering the vehicle the keys, door handles, steering wheel, gear shifter should have some type of blood DNA or some other material on their equipment.

Good question. I hope it gets answered.

I have addressed it.

But if you think that I am going to pay a CSI to go through Justin's truck looking for a few cells that may come back 'squatch, while we pursue tissue chunks and boots with copious amounts of blood on them, you must think that I am made of money, and that I have no job and no family.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

But that's just his word against hers. One or the other must be lying but his stating that is far from any form of proof that she's the one lying... it could just as easily be him that is misleading us all.

I think it's more likely he's telling the truth and she simply didn't recognize the sample. *Problem* was that she didn't want to comment on whether she got ANY SAMPLE from Smejia at all. As far as I know, I don't think that she has commented on Smejia providing a sample . Maybe bart can chime in on this?

Edited January 1, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest Tyler H]

Where might one read, in a non-bigfoot-related venue, the conclusions of these multiple PhDs?

RayG

In my infinite short-sightedness, I did not record my conversations with no less than 7 PhD's as I tried to find the best lab, and processes to accomplish those goals. I DO have the report from the one lab, and Bart will have the report from a second lab. We also have the word of people on this forum who have their PhD, and are involved in genetics, saying there is nothing wrong with my lab's report. (But I do agree that it is not as conclusive as Bart's will be, since his lab matched Justin's DNA genomically, while my lab only did it mitochondrically to essentially just a haplotype.) May I ask, as I went through the initial interview process with Doctors and labs that I ended up not using, what should I have done and what venue would you like to have seen that presented on, wherein they said "I support the actions taken by this nobody named Tyler Huggins, after he phoned me last year, and we talked on th ephone for 15 minutres. and he paid me no money. I really felt it was a good use of my time to make a statement in writing for him though, just in case someone asked for it one day down the road after they refused to accept the actual lab report. Signed, Dr. Likesbeingjerkedaround"

Tyler,

sorry but you really make me laugh..out loud. If you think for one minute that I haven't spent the last four weeks cramming info into my brain the then you're sadly mistaken. Yes I'm a lowly dirt worker and wilderness guide, but I might actually know more than you give me credit for. It's cool, and yes I've had a lot of help trying to learn as fast as I can for all the right reasons, just as you have, but I'm not going to try and belittle you here, on this front. It shows maturity level don't you think?. Does it make you feel better to issue your snide little PS comments? Lets look at the facts. I worked hard trying to connect you with someone who knows vastly more than you do in this field, and I did just that..for your benefit. I didn't connect those dots so I could say "I told ya so". I wanted you to know as much as possible, just as I want to know as much as possible. I understand you're bitter over spending that much money, I get that, but truth be told, at the end of the day this can be easily compared very shortly. This thread while entertaining, is just talk and opinion. I'm willing to bet that you think I have a huge agenda because I have a dog in this fight. Truth be told I just want the truth, nothing more, nothing less.

My efforts and correspondence with you are done. And you're welcome.

DR

Alright - it was a bit of a low-blow. But when we both know that me and this source have been working through these issues, with you cc'd, and you then go and quote this source who is much more educated than either of us on this topic, and drop it on this forum like it's your original thoughts, I guess it just rubbed me the wrong way. If I take something that someone else has articulated better than I have (like something GenesRUs brought out) then I acknowledge that in my post, instead of trying to sound like I am a geneticist. And for the record, for the last 7 months, since I did not give all control over to Melba, I had to become somewhat educated myself as I dealt directly with the labs. But I'm not trying to showcase all the terminology I learned, here on this forum.

How do you resolve that in a quest to use the Trent study to disprove he un-released Ketchum study?

Tim B.

To be clear, that is not my quest, and I'm not sure how we will resolve it. I guess if her conclusions stand up to scrutiny, then we will be left with no other conclusion than that Justin gave out different samples. Unless Trent U's work, and Bart's lab's work can be shown to be somewhat grossly deficient.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Tyler H

[Rockape]

I have addressed it.

But if you think that I am going to pay a CSI to go through Justin's truck looking for a few cells that may come back 'squatch, while we pursue tissue chunks and boots with copious amounts of blood on them, you must think that I am made of money, and that I have no job and no family.

Did you quote the wrong post or something? I saw where you answered about it earlier, and haven't asked anything about it since. Besides, it was merely asked if it had been done, no one suggested you go back and do it, other than yourself, of course.

But I will seek to follow that up.

[Cisco]

OK, please be patient with this question as I know VERY little about DNA testing. So anybody that can answer this; Bart, Tyler, Derek, Genes, etc, please do so and, again, please forgive my ignorance.

Here are some assumptions that I'm making in order to form this question.

Assumptions:

• You need a special primer to test positive for Bigfoot DNA.
  
• A DNA test would only recognize DNA as a direct result of the primers being used.
  
• If there were several types of DNA present on a sample, only the DNA being tested with specific primers would show up.
  
• The remaining DNA, that was not tested with a specific primer, would not show up as anything.
  

QUESTION:

If the sample provided from Justin was from a Bigfoot, had been partially consumed by a black bear and then handled by Justin; would the result still show black bear and human DNA, without a specially designed Bigfoot primer being used as well?

Thank you for your answer and please answer and explain in as simple terms as possible.

[Guest sprayanpray]

Did you quote the wrong post or something? I saw where you answered about it earlier, and haven't asked anything about it since. Besides, it was merely asked if it had been done, no one suggested you go back and do it, other than yourself, of course.

Mr Tyler H: Personally I dont care what you do from what I have read and the videos I have observed there are a few people that have no clues on gathering evidence or what it takes to do SO. A little hint for those that try using the internet you can buy INEXPENSIVE kits to preform this action or get the training it can be had a very little expense of for free try contacting a local law enforcement agency's crime scene tech personally and ask for guidence and do this in person but make friends first it does help find someone that knows a law enforcement officer and get introduced that way or thru a fire fighter

Mr Tyler if I had offended you're person by just asking a question so be it but I did not accuse you or anyone of anything from what I gather there are a few folks involved in this area that lacks lets just say there testimony may have problems in this community.

If this washes out to prove positive as to the sample well thats a good thing but if it proves to be a joke, hoax, or a fraud just to have a good laugh people tend not to forget this type of action. I am not saying that you are involved in any type of the above. I was just suggesting a new avenew to explore to help prove you're point.

Granted I am new to this Bigfoot sight but I have a few years in the woods so good luck of youre project.

[Guest]

I have posted here a few times before , have not in a while , but I do follow this story closely due to a large amount of interest. I hold a PhD in one of the basic sciences and spent many years working as a molecular biologist . However , having said this my focus is biomedical research and therefore, although I am well versed in PCR based approaches as well as other molecular biological methodologies and protocols, I am not familiar with the ins and outs of species identification , and am certainly not a geneticist by any means . I did read the report that was posted with great interest and I thank both Tyler and Bart for sharing the information they have . I do however have a couple of questions /comments on the data . Please know that my questions and comments may reflect a lack of knowledge of the particular protocols and trends in species identification and if this is the case , I do apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge and ignorance .

So , just to summarize , as I understand it the mitochondrial DNA analysis was performed by amplification with a universal mammalian cytochrome C , human specific and bear specific primer sets, subsequent sequencing of amplicons suggested strongly the presence of both human and bear DNA. The data are very nice and the sequencing looks absolutely gorgeous . However, this alone , does not rule out BF as it has been suggested that BF mitochondrial DNA is identical to human, whether this is true or not , does however remain to be seen .

The nuclear analysis was done by performing amplification of several microsatellite loci showing the presence of bear DNA , but not human to any degree . My question is this . Does this rule out a sample that is in fact, BF, but has been contaminated by bear DNA? I do realize that this may sound far fetched to some, , but Derekfoots post which stated that the tissue itself would have been stored in a freezer that had been use to also store bear tissue is a good one, and could definitely be a source of contamination . I have spent a lot of time in my life doing PCR based approaches, and a small amount of contamination can go a long way . Additionally, I think what also needs to be explained is that with PCR , more input does not necessarily mean better amplification . IN fact, often less is more . Since amplification of BF microsatellite loci is not possible due to a lack of sequence knowledge, can the data really tells us anything more than the fact that bear DNA is present in the sample? I dont think that it can be stated unequivically , at least not in my mind , that there is not another animal's DNA also present in the sample . I guess that it could be argued that BF DNA should amplify with at least some of the human microsatellite loci primers, but since only 16 were chosen ( and I do get that 16 is definitely sufficient for saying that a given species is present ) , I dont think it is beyond the realm of possibilities that these 16 are not similar in sequence whereas others that were not tested might be . To those that are familiar with species identification , what are your thoughts on this or were there perhaps other analysis that were performed , but not shown perhaps . Again , I apologize if this is short sighted and again, may just reflect my lack of knowledge regardign species identification protocols . .

Edited January 2, 2013 by crystal