Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

I just read on Justin's FB page that his place did, in fact, get robbed. I remember someone saying that they stole bear meat. Is this true? Did the sample get taken? If it did, red flags are popping up for me. JS referenced 'tweakers' as the probable culprit. People rob places out of necessity. They don't raid freezers, even if they are hungry, because they can just swoop some Mickey D's when they sell the X-Box. Tweakers don't have foresight. They don't waste time in the freezer pulling out frozen burger, in hopes they can fire up the grill later and eat. Their time would be better served tossing dresser drawers for jewelry and valuables, and rummaging through everything. Did his computer also get stolen?

Can someone say how they gained entry, what rooms were hit, and what types of things were taken?

Edited January 2, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I wonder if they'll eat the Bigfoot steak.

[BobbyO]

Cannibalism ?

Edited January 2, 2013 by BobbyO

[Guest]

You Have a conflicting report that was made public right after Dr. K did interviews and mentioned it will be weeks not mths before the study release. You don't wait until you have all of the data from the 2 reports, You post what will be in disagreement with Dr.K's study.

You guys keep saying that you want her to succeed, but the timing of your release doesn't seem to support that statement.

There is seems to be something going on behind the scenes, it's really odd on how guys that were involved for a big part of Justin's story,

can be so conflicted is peculiar to say the least.

You and Bart become agitated quickly when someone questions certain areas pertaining to the release of this information, witch can sometimes be taken as that no one should doubt anything you guys say or do, but when it comes to do with anything pertaining to Bigfoot, very few are beyond a skeptical review.

Edited January 2, 2013 by zigoapex

[Guest BartloJays]

I'll tell you what's agitating, having some people ask questions we've repeatedly answered through 15 pages because they are either a ) too lazy to read the thread and find their answers or b ) are not interested in our answers because they conflict with their own agenda. We come here to answer questions on our free-time for two reasons, because one, there's a lot of good people here (many I consider friends) following the details of this event and they've patiently waited for some answers and two, to prevent blatant untruths from being spread...you know, kinda like what you're trying to do right now and did earlier in a different thread with your BFRO agenda garbage.

Although we appreciate the gestures of support and thanks from many here as we did put a lot of time and energy into trying to get some answers on this tissue and provide transparency we promised before the process even started, we're not interested in drumming up support for some imaginary cause, or for some imaginary "camp." You can take the lab reports or leave them for all I care. It's also very ignorant to insinuate that Tyler and I can in any way hurt Dr. Ketchum's study if she has what she's claimed as do you really believe if she does, what a couple hundred or even thousand people in the bigfoot community perceive as opposed to what can be validated through science, really would matter big picture?

In addition, we had zero control as to when those lab determinations were final as do you really think we expected it take 7 months with Trent and 3+ months with my Midwest lab? The suggestion that we based our timing of a recent announcement by Dr. Ketchum is a false and ridiculous assertion as we've all heard the paper was going to be released in two weeks at least a dozen times in the last two years in addition to every other time and phase imaginable. In reality, no one has any evidence there's even a viable paper let alone when it's definitely being released and for all you know, she may not have control of when that is. Our timing was dictated by the results we of course hoped would turn out differently (obviously) and if it was up to Tyler the lab determinations would've been released even earlier (we also expected Midwest report by Xmas) I just felt it would be better that we're both available to answer questions and I wasn't prior to this week because I have a life and responsibilities outside of bigfooting.

And you think I need you to tell me anything we present should be presented with skepticism? We're being transparent and that's how it should be "always," when anything is presented and we'd love nothing more then for someone with a genetics or diagnostic background to come in and blow major holes through these lab reports and show these guys got it wrong.

I would also happily disagree with anybody who would suggest we should bury conflicting results for any length of time and for any reason. unless of course, we had a strong suspicion those results could be highly inaccurate. The strength of the parallel reports and the institution/facilities used give us no indication this is the case at this time.

Edited January 2, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest]

The real question then is why bring it up at all, CTfoot? All that does is give every Skeptic from here to the dark side of JREF another hammer to bash proponents over the head with. Which is the last thing we need.

The only way to resolve the question at this point is to hope that Ketchum either kept back part of whatever Justin sent her or at least sent multiple parts of it out to the "blind" labs.

We need either independent confirmation of the results of that particular sample or a new test needs to be done on it by an outside lab.

I was originally responding to Ronnie Bass. I have to agree with Bart that if anyone had read the articles linked you would have no questions and see how it pertained to the conversation.

I agree, I hope she has some of her original sample left but unless independent labs are looking for artificially created DNA they won't find it.

[AaronD]

Ok folks! Moderator statement: PLEASE keep this thread from getting shut down ok? I know there are a lot of opinions flying around here; some are topic related and some are not. Since nearly everyone seems to have something to contribute, I value all perspectives but let's not be making statements about each other. If you feel someone is making their posts personal, report them...... DO NOT RESPOND TO THEIR POST(S).

Thankyou,

AaronD

[Guest]

I was originally responding to Ronnie Bass. I have to agree with Bart that if anyone had read the articles linked you would have no questions and see how it pertained to the conversation.

I agree, I hope she has some of her original sample left but unless independent labs are looking for artificially created DNA they won't find it.

Fair enough.

[bipedalist]

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 . .

Nice summary of options. I did think that the mito. prep and id of human by itself did in fact not rule out nuDNA prospects for BF in that same sample. It is just that the cost factor would prob. have been prohibitive to run two side by side studies. So does this mean that Bart's lab and sample will be attacked on the nuDNA BF front as well as mito.? One and not the other? Just asking for extra info. in view of Crystal's questions. Thanks for the explicit knowledge in your posts.... B&T and Crystal.

Wow , unbelievable ., it was already stated, but the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the sample contains bear DNA ,no quotes necessary as this is a true conclusion based on the data, so you are not correct that it cannot conclude anything. Additionally, your original statement that the data cannot confirm that it came from a BF would be true of any sample submitted as there is not a sequence to compare against . Therefore the only conclusion that could have been drawn in the best of circumstances in this regard is , that it came from an as of yet unidentified North American primate.

Crystal, don't let the "chaff" keep you from getting answers to your questions. They are valid, well-formed questions.

I wonder if they'll eat the Bigfoot steak.

"Better to clone you with my dear"

[Guest Scout1959]

To those who are getting irritate at having to repeat themselves in multiple posts. Rather than getting snarky might I suggest cutting and pasting together a list of links to your previous posts and then cut and pasting that list into your replies. I'd suggest a more pleasant tone in your responses as well since sounding as some do makes others of us feel that you're being less than truthful and sound extremely defensive.

I'm going to hope it's just a matter of frustration but please realize many of these responses do not put one in a favorable view.

Just trying to help with free and full communication.

Blessings

[southernyahoo]

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 . .

Good post crystal, I tend to agree that the Trent report doesn't really slam the door shut on bigfoot. If there were tests run before and after contamination removal we would have a better understanding of what the origin of the sample was. The report says that bear was the primary contributor even though there was lower contribution levels. It is assumed the bear DNA was more degraded to explain this yet it provided nuDNA where the human DNA didn't. This is consistent with many past efforts at DNA extraction on putative BF samples. Bear contamination is still possible and likely even. We don't know how Justin handled the sample and whether it came in contact with his bear contaminated gear or more likely chewed on by a bear. If Barts lab finds Justin's complete profile with no other human contributor then it gets tough to support the sample being the same as Ketchums if she has completely different results.

[Ronnie Bass]

To those who are getting irritate at having to repeat themselves in multiple posts. Rather than getting snarky might I suggest cutting and pasting together a list of links to your previous posts and then cut and pasting that list into your replies. I'd suggest a more pleasant tone in your responses as well since sounding as some do makes others of us feel that you're being less than truthful and sound extremely defensive.

I'm going to hope it's just a matter of frustration but please realize many of these responses do not put one in a favorable view.

Just trying to help with free and full communication.

Blessings

Scout, I'm pretty sure this post violates Aaron's warning of making posts personal, calling someone out for being snarky and other things falls along those lines of making posts personal.

And considering how many questions Bart & Tyler are answering and the flack they are getting for being upfront I think they are holding up well and don't need lectures. But that is just my 2 cents.

[Guest Scout1959]

Scout, I'm pretty sure this post violates Aaron's warning of making posts personal, calling someone out for being snarky and other things falls along those lines of making posts personal.

And considering how many questions Bart & Tyler are answering and the flack they are getting for being upfront I think they are holding up well and don't need lectures. But that is just my 2 cents.

I'm not trying to insult anyone but I am pointing out how posts are coming across. And compiling a list of previous posts that address the comments would simplify things for them and require less time to respond in the end. Kills two birds with one stone.

They are holding up but did anyone really expect that the same questions weren't going to be asked over and over and over again? If so apparently one has not spent much time in internet forums. Rather than telling somebody to go back and search this growing thread why not simply be kind enough to give them a link to posts already made?

[Guest Tyler H]

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.

Sorry RockAPe - I've lost track of this at this point. If you like, re-phrase what is being asked, and I'll see what I can answer.

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.

I'm going to answer according to my understanding, but hopefully this is getting answered by others with better insight as well (I likely should have read to the most recent posts on this thread prior to answering your question)

1 - Not quite true. We can identify the sample as "primate" (which includes human) and then rule out all known primates (whether prosimian, or great ape, etc).

2 - Mostly true. But for instance, a universal mammalian primer would target areas of DNA that all mammals have in common (conserved areas of the DNA), and as such should be able to determine if any mammalian contributor is present. That being said, Dr. White did say to me that the more generic the primer, the less accurate it can be.

3- Again, it delends how generic the primer is, and how far up the phylogenetic tree it was designed to target - at what level of conserved DNA it was effective. If it is designed to just target the relatively small area of DNA that is unique to a specific species or subspecies,( or even just a particular family group, like a pack of wolves, for instance), then yes, it will only amplify that which it is designed for.

4- True. So, for instance if our sample had only been tested with bear and human primers, then yes, it would not pick up other contributors. That's why they start with universal mammalian primers, to identify how many mammalian contributors are present. Then they go from there. (Again, according to my understanding which is likely deficient.)

THe phrasing of your last question is tricky... But if you are going where I think you are going - this is the notion that I challenged the lab to disprove. We definitely started with the assumption that our piece of presumptive Squatch meat had been scavenged off a body. Therefore, we expected Justin contamination, a scavenger contamination, and a third presence. We were unable to find that third presence. Again, in the single strand hair test, the human contamination all but disappeared, but the hair still yielded expected amounts of bear DNA.

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.

Sorry - I was not offendd by this question - was just saying emphatically that I would not be pursuing a CSI effort on the inside of Justin's truck 2 yrs later.Working with chunks of flesh has proven difficult and costly enough.

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 . .

I did go down that road with the lab from a few angles. and with different analogies to try to make it clear. Unfortunately, I think the answer to all 3 questions lies in the single-strand hair test, coupled with the fact that the generic mammalian primers only identified 2 contributors. Generic or universal mammalian primers should have picked up all 3 contributors. Then, once it got down to the single strand hair test, the contaminants (bear and human) should have next to nothing, but instead we got what I am told are expected amounts of bear DNA from a single strand of hair.

I just read on Justin's FB page that his place did, in fact, get robbed. I remember someone saying that they stole bear meat. Is this true? Did the sample get taken? If it did, red flags are popping up for me. JS referenced 'tweakers' as the probable culprit. People rob places out of necessity. They don't raid freezers, even if they are hungry, because they can just swoop some Mickey D's when they sell the X-Box. Tweakers don't have foresight. They don't waste time in the freezer pulling out frozen burger, in hopes they can fire up the grill later and eat. Their time would be better served tossing dresser drawers for jewelry and valuables, and rummaging through everything. Did his computer also get stolen?

Can someone say how they gained entry, what rooms were hit, and what types of things were taken?

Justin and I discussed his situation at length. There are risks associated with any updates given on this situation. As such, I will not comment.

[Guest]

Wow , unbelievable ., it was already stated, but the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the sample contains bear DNA ,no quotes necessary as this is a true conclusion based on the data, so you are not correct that it cannot conclude anything. Additionally, your original statement that the data cannot confirm that it came from a BF would be true of any sample submitted as there is not a sequence to compare against . Therefore the only conclusion that could have been drawn in the best of circumstances in this regard is , that it came from an as of yet unidentified North American primate.

*but the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the sample contains bear DNA*

Yes..this is true..but what I said was this>>

"it cannot confirm anything at all as far as BF is concerened"

and that statement, in my humble opinion, is the real significance of the Smejia results that Tyler and Bart have given us.

Now, if those results are specious (which they don't appear to be), then we still are left with no confirmation as this sample being a BF.

*Therefore the only conclusion that could have been drawn in the best of circumstances in this regard is , that it came from an as of yet unidentified North American primate*

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the DNA results that were actually obtained from Smejia sample.

Edited January 2, 2013 by ronn1