Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

Theagenes, on 03 January 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

MKs problem is not that she should be sharing her data with you before it's published. That would not be appropriate. Her problem is that she never should have commented at all. The press release, the. FB posts, etc. were huge mistakes. She should have followed Sykes lead and kept her cards close to her vest regardless of how much the BF community pouted and stamped its feet.

I can't tell you how spot on you are with this observation as it's a no-brainer.

Plenty of people have said just that. That says nothing about her credibility on the science however.

I'm continually amazed that this is a thread about "bear DNA" but it winds up being about Ketchum, and since it DID come back bear DNA, that there was really 24 pages that could be said about it.

It's called "thread drift", Guy. It happens.

[TimB]

Was it a brown bear or a black bear?

Tim B.

[Guest]

I was trying to put the letters B and C in parentheses in my post and ended up with a "sunglasses smiley" and a copyright mark. Just in case you were trying to interpret those, it was not intentional.

@GuyInIndiana

Almost all threads eventually end up being about Ketchum or whining because people don't agree on kill / no kill.

I don't think the vast public masses ever consider much of the subject matter that is hotly debated by Bigfoot "enthusiasts". I think that hoaxing is what made it such a joke to the public. The one hardstance that I hope everyone can agree upon is that confirmed hoaxers should be completely ignored, at the least. I wouldn't urinate on a hoaxer if they were on fire.

[Guest Tyler H]

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.

Not sure when I have become defensive, outside of repeating myself. Other than that, I've answered pretty much every question I've seen. just don't want to have to spend redundant efforts answering the same ones multiple times is all. To that point, if you are asking why we released our data at this time, AGAIN, then please see where I gave a lengthy answer to that question. There is virtually no way to argue that releaseing our data now, rather than AFTER Ketchum's release, was the responsible way to go, and that it lets everyone in the community act in a way that best protects themselves.

Now, as far as Melba's interviews, it's interesting to me that those came AFTER I made people in her camp (and even Melba herself) aware of our data and potential conclusions.

[Guest]

Plenty of people have said just that. That says nothing about her credibility on the science however.

IMO it says something about her personality though. When I am "courting" a prospective client, I wouldn't start off by making declarative statements about Bigfoot, ghosts, or UFO's, or anything else that would cause them to doubt my reason, logic, skill, sanity, or credibility. All of these things may very well be real, but it makes you look "odd" to your peers. With the rarest exceptions, all well adjusted successful adults understand the type of behaviour that is expected of them or considered professional, in almost any career field. ESPECIALLY when you are trying to prove that Bigfoot exists. I dare say her approach was far more detrimental to her efforts than the actual data. If someone doesn't have the clarity of judgement to see things from this perspective, I have to wonder where else in their work might they have applied similar decision making skills.

Of course, she could just attach that stunning HD Video to the paper, and 99% of her critics might see the err of their ways.

[Guest Tyler H]

I have to disagree with this. Remains disappear very, very quickly in a forest.

Is that possible at this point? Didn't JS state everyone got the same sample? If so, its impossible someone is not lying.

To me, the talk of roberies are a killer blow to the potential of this being true. Sorry, but I'm just not willing to believe someone cares enough about this to commit a felony. Or some govt agency does. Its just too fantastical.

Your post contains a lot of opinion. But that is about it.

It's a fact that if you examine an piece of forest floor closely, you will find hair and other physical evidence of animals. ANy field biologist will tell you that. While bodies disappear quickly, bone remnants and teeth and hair stick around much longer. It's just very rare that anyone sifts through a cubic foot of forest soil to actually see that.

It's not impossible that no one is lying. HIghly unlikely... but not impossible. Justin asserts that he gave the same tissue to Melba and to us. While I 100% believe this, I suppose it is possible that he made a mistake that he is unaware of. As I've said 3 times now, the onus will be on Melba to proivide the tissue she still has remaining, for further testing and comparison. Not saying she has to provide it to us - just has to get independent testing on it in comparison with the tissue Trent or OK used.

Regarind the robbery - again, your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

[Cisco]

Tyler,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I now perfectly understand what happened with the testing and how the conclusions were reached. As you suspect, I was attempting to see if there was room for other "existing" DNA that may not have been picked up or amplified by the primers used. However, the lab did use a "universal" primer for mammalian DNA and that should have picked up any other DNA contributor. Lol...at least any possible mammals.

So, now that the question has been settled; what options does that leave?

Option 1: Bigfoot DNA cannot be detected by universal mammalian primers or primate primers.

Option 2: There was no Bigfoot DNA contained in the sample by JS.

Now it really all depends on what MK can put forth when her much anticipated study is released. She has insinuated that the JS sample is a big part of her study and I'm assuming that she means it tested positive for Bigfoot DNA...

If so, I'm very curious as to why her results would be different from the ones that Bart & Tyler received?

I'm open to suggestions. Anyone? Anyone?

[Guest Tyler H]

I think I've read everything that you've posted, so forgive me if I missed it somewhere, but can you talk a little bit about these samples? Was Huggins_1 submitted frozen or was it dried? What was the liquid component of Huggins_2? Water? Saline? Alcohol? Buffer provided by the lab? How were these samples related to each other? How were they processed by you?

Also, for the analysis of Huggins_2, was the single hair plucked from the hide or was it a loose hair in the sample container?

• Sample was received in unfrozen form, but my understanding is that Justin had been storing it frozen, prior to shipping.
  
• Preservative for the shipping of samples was lab-supplied ethanol for the first batch, and Everclear for the second batch (which I am assured is almost identical to the lab's ethanol. I think the everclear actually has a higer percentage of alcohol.)
  
• Justin's swabs were shipped in a buffer provided by the lab.
  
• Lab receieved the samples in 2 shipments. First round of testing homogenized the sample (in layman's terms, essentially threw it all in a blender). It became evident that more work had to be done to isolate and/or decontaminate the sample, so a second round of tests was ordered wherein a hair was takedn from the hide sample. I am trying to find out if it was plucked or snipped, but it was not loose.
  

[Guest]

Tyler,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I now perfectly understand what happened with the testing and how the conclusions were reached. As you suspect, I was attempting to see if there was room for other "existing" DNA that may not have been picked up or amplified by the primers used. However, the lab did use a "universal" primer for mammalian DNA and that should have picked up any other DNA contributor. Lol...at least any possible mammals.

So, now that the question has been settled; what options does that leave?

Option 1: Bigfoot DNA cannot be detected by universal mammalian primers or primate primers.

Option 2: There was no Bigfoot DNA contained in the sample by JS.

Now it really all depends on what MK can put forth when her much anticipated study is released. She has insinuated that the JS sample is a big part of her study and I'm assuming that she means it tested positive for Bigfoot DNA...

If so, I'm very curious as to why her results would be different from the ones that Bart & Tyler received?

I'm open to suggestions. Anyone? Anyone?

Without seeing her data/results that is impossible to do. However, there are many possibilities to account for the discrepancies.

1) Fabricated interpretation of results. (or complete fabrication if there are results, has anyone seen them? not saying there aren't just saying nothing is "visible" other than fantastic claims)

2) Contaminated results interpreted wrongly. (this could happen many ways, due to degradation of samples, or due to contamination during the amplification process, or a chimera)

3) She has Modern human not in genbank.

4) She has Bigfoot/Alien/Human sample.

[Guest Tyler H]

I hope someone can show me a micrograph photo of one of the hairs from the Smeja sample clearly showing the vacuolated uniserial ladder medulla which is diagnostic to black bear hairs. This is something that should have been done at the very start of any investigation on prospective samples from ursus americanus. It sure could save amatuers alot of money playing gotcha too.

2 PhD's examined the hair. No official report was made, as I was told repeatedly (and have expressed on here repeatedly, and do believe) that hair analyisis is relatively subjective and much less conclusive than DNA results.

That being said, one of the PhD's is preparing a hair analyisis report. May still be a week or two.

In the meantime, here are some hair pics from one of the informal analyses. This particular analysis seemed to base most of it's opinion on scaling patterns. It came from Dr. Martyn Obbard of Canada's Ministry of Natural Resources. He is considred a "bear expert"

Angel DNA

Denied by Ketchum. Rumor started by third parties.

Mulder - could you provide evidence where Melba denied this? The closest I heard her say is "well, some people have said that" and "some people may have believed that" But I have never heard her say she never said that. I DID hear assertions directly from people involved in her study, that Melba used those terms - that she felt it was 'something not of this world'.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

It's all in the brand that you choose to follow.

You mean as in Authentic Sasquatch Wildwear vs BFRO?

[Guest slimwitless]

If so, I'm very curious as to why her results would be different from the ones that Bart & Tyler received?

Here are all the conceivable possibilities in no particular order. Feel free to add your own.

1. Smeja sent a different sample to the independent labs (accidentally or on purpose).
   
2. Ketchum tested a different sample (accidentally or on purpose).
   
3. Someone did the old swithcharoo on Smeja's sample (in-transit or otherwise).
   
4. Ketchum is being deceitful about the result.
   
5. Ketchum has wrongly interpreted Smeja's maternal eve as the mother of all bigfoots.
   
6. Both Bart and Tyler's labs somehow made an error (bear contamination unified field theory).
   
7. Smeja's sample was contaminated by sasquatch in Ketchum's lab.
   

Any others? I left out the Bigfoot Knights Of Templar. Anyway, don't cut yourself with Occam's Razor.

Edited January 3, 2013 by slimwitless

[Guest tomafoot]

It became evident that more work had to be done to isolate and/or decontaminate the sample, so a second round of tests was ordered wherein a hair was takedn from the hide sample. I am trying to find out if it was plucked or snipped, but it was not loose.

Okay, thanks. No need to check. It would not be snipped. It must be plucked to obtain the tissue at the root. The shaft of the hair is protein (keratin) only and will not yield results related to nucleic acid. I guess what I am really trying to get at is how sure are you that there was not a loose (I.e. contaminant) hair in your 2nd sample?

A contaminant hair could create a scenario whereby all 3 parties are providing truthful information. I can think of 2 scenarios in which universal primers would fail miserably in the detection of an uncharacterized species, but there is no point in going there, if you are 100% certain that the hair used in the test had been attached to the hide.

[Guest Theagenes]

Black bear hair sample for comparison:

[Guest BartloJays]

Now, as far as Melba's interviews, it's interesting to me that those came AFTER I made people in her camp (and even Melba herself) aware of our data and potential conclusions.

Good point Tyler I had completely forgot about this.