Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest]

Photo? Bones? Carcass? Anything? 50+ yes of searching and what do we have? 0 nada zilch

Forensically typed hairs (Pinker, Moore, et al), cast tracks with consistent and distinct biometrics that map to a legitimate distribution curve (Meldrum, Howe, Fahrenbach) some audio recordings with analyzable acoustics (NIDS)

Far from 0/nada/zilch. Not 100%, but not "nothing" either.

*ETA* And lets not forget plenty of photos of varying quality.

No Mulder, YOU claimed she DENIED saying it - those are your words. So it's up to you to provide proof that she denied it.

Already done, and you admit it below, though you try to spin it to say she's not saying what she says.

I never asserted that she DID say it,

Between this thread and the Ketchum thread you did indeed say it, and that is on record.

I heard her choose her words very carefully on a radio interview, when asked. She said 'some people think that' but she never DENIED having made claims about extraterrestrial sources, or angel DNA, etc.

Wordsmithing on your part.

I'm just asking you to provide proof of your claim that she has categorically denied saying that.

Already answered. I'm still waiting for YOUR proof that she said it.

If I had ever claimed that she said it, then I should provide proof of my claim. I only claim heresay on that one, and admit it.

There. You admit it. Now stop repeating the claim.

But it was heresay from prominent players in this story.

But not Ketchum, which is what you and many others have been trying to infer.

A major benefactor, a major sample provider, and a major research contributor as well as Stubstad and a more recent advisor and contributor. They all claimed it, but I admit I can't prove it. You however claim she denied it - please provide the denial.

1) Already did.

2) Shouldn't have to, as it is your (and those others you won't name by name)'s claim to prove.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest]

That single insertion, which would result from a proofreading error in the DNA replication of some ancestor yeast, significantly disrupts the pairing of my primer and the target DNA. ...

A deletion (also due to a proof reading error in DNA replication) would cause a similar type of misalignment between primer and target. Hopefully, that helps.

In other words - assuming I am not oversimplifying the post - primers can be caught out by mutations (unexpected nitrogen base sequence(s)) and will not bind.

It should follow then that the greater the # of primers one has available and does use, the better the chance of a hit for what one is looking for.

[Guest]

I wonder if Todd Disotell would issue a FB statement saying that there are no paranormal aspects of a paper that he is writing? Why does she even address it?

Because people keep bringing it up. If she doesn't actively deny it, then people start assuming that it's true.

I wonder if Todd Disotell would issue a FB statement saying that there are no paranormal aspects of a paper that he is writing? Why does she even address it?

Because people keep bringing it up. If she doesn't actively deny it, then people start assuming that it's true.

[Guest]

I agree. If i were in her position my only response would have been to have an attorney send RL a C&D letter.

I would prefer that she send him a large box full of very agitated spitting Cobras.

I've only been paying attention to the human/researcher/enthusiast aspect of the Bigfoot phenomenon for a relatively short period of time. RL's name comes up again and again, but it is always attached to controversy, never anything constructive. At the recommendation of another forum member I popped over to his blog to have a look around. It took me just a few minutes to form a very poor opinion of him. Offhand, I cannot think of one other human that I dislike for more numerous reasons. He goes on and on about how much smarter he is than everyone else, his particular brand of righteous racism, how "most young girls who claim they are raped are just liars", and repeatedly makes creepy comments about young teen girls. He points out that he has more than one friend who have been accused of inappropriate conduct with teens. Nice thing to brag about. I am not saying anything that isn't all there in the open at his pathetic blog. It would appear that he enjoys just stirring up trouble for troubles sake. If I were a guy like that (God forbid) I would be very concerned about retribution from people whose reputations were tarnished by completely fabricated nonsense.

I wish I had not repeated something that was false, especially when it originated form that sack of excrement steam. I do not wish to pass on misinformation. Is his site the origin of the other bizarre statements as well?

Edited January 4, 2013 by Irish73

[Cisco]

I'm not a big fan of RL. However, to his credit, he did break the DNA study story and has been the one to bring a lot of Bigfoot news to the public. A lot of his info is pure speculation but, every once in a while, he does hit some home runs.

Like him or not, he still has some interesting stuff to offer.

[Guest tomafoot]

Tomafoot,

Here's a simple question:

Given what you just explained; is it possible, with this technology, MK could have detected Bigfoot DNA from the same sample that was tested by B&T and came back as black bear?

Please try to answer in layman terms so it's easy to understand. I'm just barely starting to understand DNA so don't lob it over my head. Thx

Yes, that's right. But, at the moment I am just relating this to Tyler's information. I assume that the 2nd lab will have a slightly different approach to their testing. It seems that they should confirm bear and probably human. The 2 sets of results could close the door on the scenario that I have presented.

Great post tomafoot, that does explain how other DNA wouldn't amplify. Could the short primers in next generation sequencing, eroneously assemble bogus sequences to fill in gaps created by degradation?

No question that artifacts such as you describe may occur. However, the process generates a massive amount of redundant information and the software uses those redundancies to define and sort unique sequences. It also requires expert review to verify that there aren't such problems. With unknown sequences a lot of effort will go into painstaking verification.

In other words - assuming I am not oversimplifying the post - primers can be caught out by mutations (unexpected nitrogen base sequence(s)) and will not bind.

It should follow then that the greater the # of primers one has available and does use, the better the chance of a hit for what one is looking for.

Yes. The approach you bring up can be used to shore up deficiencies in detection when target variation is high. Some mismatches can be tolerated by primers, but the efficiency of the amplification may be lower and the sensitivity of the test decreases.

Edited January 4, 2013 by tomafoot

[TimB]

Two or three minutes passed after he shot the juvenile where some "stuff happened" that he still hasn't revealed publicly.

This is the nail in the coffin for the truth of lie of the story. Once he details this, I think it'll be easy to evaluate the truth of the story...

Tim B.

[southernyahoo]

Two possibilities that I can think of: 1) the "special" primers may be the short primers that are used in the Next Generation Sequencing approach - they are short and will latch onto target DNA somewhat indescriminately so that just about everything in the mix gets amplified and then sorted out by genetic sequence information - and 2) she may have generated sequence information and then designed very specific primers that would allow her to do quick and easy assessments of incoming samples. I thought she has said that her sequences are different from known hominid (e.g. neanderthal and denisovan) sequences.

tomafoot, I'm also curious what happens when contamination is in the mix when using next generation sequencing. What does the software do with the known secondary animal sequences? Sorry if I missed the answer if already given.

[Guest]

I know that's a question for TOMAfoot, but I think I kinda know the answer. From what I've learned, (and again I could be way off) the Next Gen sequencing brings volume into play. PCR amplification amplifies whats there but NG brings the volume out of each, so volume can be compared across the board. Massive amounts of information.

DR

[bipedalist]

..... Two or three minutes passed after he shot the juvenile where some "stuff happened" that he still hasn't revealed publicly. ....

And I'm assured in my thinking that if such is the truth, then there are a whole lot of other truths to be revealed in the paperback version.... maybe even in the copyrighted/trademarked dna that could be revealed on further testing. Who knows really?

[Guest RayG]

Forensically typed hairs (Pinker, Moore, et al),

Can you expand on the 'et al' part Mulder?

Where might one read the actual analysis of Pinker, Moore, and these others? Not second or third-hand retelling of something, but the actual analysis they authored.

...cast tracks with consistent and distinct biometrics that map to a legitimate distribution curve (Meldrum, Howe, Fahrenbach)...

We argued about that distribution curve before. I still fail to see how Fahrenbach arrived at some of his conclusions. It's not a whole lot different from Ivan Sanderson concluding that a 15-foot penguin had left giant tracks on the beach, based on nothing but the footprints and stride. From my understanding, Fahrenbach never examined the actual tracks or all of the actual casts, he just used the database of sizes to put together his untested and unproven hypothesis. At least Sanderson examined the actual tracks, even if he did arrive at the wrong conclusion.

some audio recordings with analyzable acoustics (NIDS)

None proven to have originated from a sasquatch.

Far from 0/nada/zilch. Not 100%, but not "nothing" either.

Nothing that has led to the discovery/classification of a giant North American bipedal primate.

*ETA* And lets not forget plenty of photos of varying quality.

But none that are good enough to clearly identify the subject.

RayG

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler, to be fair she did deny that there was anything paranormal in her paper a few weeks ago on FB:

I really think we should absolutely stop using RL for a source of information even if he is a blind squirrel that occasionally finds a nut. He also just rips off speculation from posts here and and repeats it as "inside information." In fact if you go back to when the "Angel DNA" comments first appeared on RL's blog, it was right after there were some oblique "Nephilim" comments in the "Ketchum Report" thread.

Thanks Theagenes.

I wonder what her definitiion of "paranormal" is. I have spoken with people (3 to be exact) who have access to her report, and who have said to me that She claimed angel DNA, and/or that the DNA was 'not of this world' at some point in this process. Keep in mind, this is from three people who were "for her" not "against her." Anyways, this thread is not about her. But I am glad to see that particular statement.

Tyler - I never asserted that she DID say it,

Mulder - Between this thread and the Ketchum thread you did indeed say it, and that is on record.

Please provide that info.

Tyler - But it was heresay from prominent players in this story.

Mulder - But not Ketchum, which is what you and many others have been trying to infer.

No, you are trying to infer it... and you are implying that I am trying to imply it.

[Guest]

Tyler and Bart,

Any truth to the rumor that your findings have prompted Melba to create a new designer clothing line, Authentic American Black Bear Wildwear, to accompany her Authentic Sasquatch Wildwear line?

[Guest Scout1959]

I'm not sure if this angle has come up or not as I will confess I've not read every single post in this thread.

BUT...

What if the bear steak comes from the remains of a bear killed by a fourth bigfoot. If the bear had started feeding on the dead youth or adult and the male of the pack arrived I would think it might end badly for either the bear or the male bigfoot.. In the battle the bigfoot kills the bear (or at least tears a chunk out of him) but is injuried himself and either his blood or saliva contaminated the bear tissue. It's this contaminate that Melba has found but it wasn't either on the portion tested by the others or it wasn't there in sufficient quantities.

Now bear in mind that this is just a 'what if' scenario to me, because personally I'm still not at all convinced a bigfoot was ever involved.

[Guest]

I think there is potential here that the same old mistake has been repeated. They stopped short on the human DNA, and accepted the same old standard that was mistake of past test. I think you have to go deeper in the human results. If Bigfoot and Human mitochondrial DNA are the same, then you would expect a human result. Then if you go to nuclear DNA, and ask if you are seeing Human, or Bear, it can only answer one or the other, because if you believe Melba's claims, only the mitochondrial DNA is the same as human. So if you ask it Bear or Human, and it has been contaminated with Bear, it will tell you Bear, because it will not recognize Bigfoot as part of the question. If you only test 16 loci, from a species that is apparently closely related to Human, even possibly a hybrid, then you have a very good chance of coming back Human, because you did not look deep enough, or beyond that standard. Isn't that what Dr Ketchum has said in the past? She took the test farther, looked more closely, and potentially found a closely related species, that in primarily tests will tell you Human?

A friend of mine, very knowledgeable in how science approaches a question, explained this to me, in much more detail than I have stated here, and as I gained a simple understanding of it, I can see how these findings, especially from a scrap of meat found months after the fact, that could have been subjected to contamination in so many ways, could lead to this.

I applaud the efforts involved with taking the initiative to test these samples independently, but having been educated a little bit on the testing methods, and how the results are directly dependent on the questions asked,combined with only using 16 loci, I really don't think these tests went far enough to give us any substantial results.

I think there is a good chance Dr Ketchum, and her colleges are looking at all this thinking, this is exactly the same style of limited testing that led to all the other samples that came back Human, and therefore got tossed over the years. Its kind of like playing the tap once for yes, twice for no game, if you don't ask the right questions, you won't get a complete answer.