Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest tomafoot]

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.

Actually that is where the real power of the platform stands out. It gives you the ability to find a multitude of needles in the haystack, characterize them and identify them (if they are identical to or related to known entities). The software will allow the researcher to organize the information so that it is possible to determine the significance of the data.

Basically, you would look at the number of times a particular sequence (or group of related sequences) occurred relative to all other sequence groups in the mix. So, with this sample, if nucleic acids from 3 mammals were present, you should be able to put them in order as to their level of contribution. You would also most likely see sequences related to bacteria, fungi, and viruses, as well. It's really the computing system that multiplies the synergy between nucleic acid amplification and DNA sequencing to organize the massive volume of information. You couldn't get through much of it performing manual analysis and organization of the data.

This technology can be used to breakdown and thoroughly assess a very complex sample. For example, a study involving sewage samples would allow for the development of a genetic profile of the community, what it was consuming (plants and animals), and what was plaguing it (parasites, bacteria, viruses).

That's basically what Derekfoot has said - I've just elaborated a little.

[southernyahoo]

Thanks, tomafoot and Derekfoot, This sounds like the ultimate tool in bioinformatics. It seems that it would be difficult to argue with that kind of data, and very unlikely that someone could fool the system into writing novel sequences woven into an entire genome.

[Guest]

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

Time saver so I don't have to go back and find the same old names again and again. Pinker and Moore are the two big findings but there are others.

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.

Would that change the conclusion? I'll freely admit I don't have access to their direct findings.

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.

And once again you throw some smoke and ignore the fact that the proving of the theory is IN the statistics. Unnatural datasets (a collection of "fakes", etc) would have an unnatural distribution map. This is basic statistical science as it is applied to wildlife.

None proven to have originated from a sasquatch.

None DISproven to have originated from a sasquatch either, and with some highly indicitive findings that suggest they indeed could be (see the NIDS thread).

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

Because the classifiers are still sitting in their labs waiting for their "slab monkey" instead of working to authenticate the evidence to hand.

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

RayG

On the contrary, some of them are VERY good, but (as usual) the good ones are immediately trashed with the "fake" label. Skeptic Playbook #101 tactics.

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.

Please provide that info.

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

No, I'm outright SAYING that you are implying the link and you have used as your basis statements you claim to have heard, but cannot link to source, and you even admitted as much in the post I was responding to.

You have a bunch of claims and hearsay, and no proof that the Smeja sample is one of her "unknown" samples. Take ownership of your claim and back it up or withdraw it.

[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. .....

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.

Well, they did use two independent labs and got same results. The take home points for me are:

1) We didn't get a confirmation of UNKOWN non human hominid (AKA BF) from Smeja sample

2)* IF* ketchum used a sample from Smeia in her study, she may a serious problem in that it may have Justin's DNA on it and she apparantly never asked him for a sample of his DNA.

Edited January 5, 2013 by ronn1

[southernyahoo]

ronn1, Dr Ketchum is known to use the amelogenin locus in her testing of samples. This is used to determine gender. This report lacks a gender determination, and thus it is not known what gender the human signal is from. There is no allele report or electropheragram showing the human signal alleles which could either show multiple human signals or an absence of a Y chromosome which would rule out Justin.

[Guest]

ronn1, if they only tested 16 loci, and we are dealing with a close cousin, then their results would potentially tell us nothing. The same type of result that keeps coming back to human. If they only used 16 loci, and specific primers, then they did not even test for enough to achieve any other result, than what they came to. You would have to start with 50 or more loci, ran with a much broader set of primers,and start from there.I personally do not take any real stock in these tests, the approach seems flawed. Let me know when the run broader primers, more loci, many more samples, then report back to me that nothing new was found. If Ketchum's claims hold true, then I would expect exactly the results that where recieved from such limited testing.

Like I said, I applaud the effort, but to me there was obviously some sort of communication break down on giving these labs the information they needed to test for something like this, or it was a money problem, not sure, but I would not take the results as to mean much. There is a reason why Dr Ketchum's study has taken so long, shortcuts wont work.

If you go by Dr Ketchum, we already know the mitochondrial DNA will come back Human, so you have to focus on the nuclear DNA, but you have to ask it the right questions, from a broad angle, then follow the path. I do not see any reference to that happening here.

Just my humble uneducated opinion, but I have discussed it in depth with people much more educated than me, so I can understand better, and to them, the testing approach was flawed. Not saying they are not right, but saying they are right is nothing more than an assumption, not supported scientific fact.

Edited January 5, 2013 by JohnC

[Guest Tyler H]

No, I'm outright SAYING that you are implying the link and you have used as your basis statements you claim to have heard, but cannot link to source, and you even admitted as much in the post I was responding to.

You have a bunch of claims and hearsay, and no proof that the Smeja sample is one of her "unknown" samples. Take ownership of your claim and back it up or withdraw it.

My implication was that you didn't understand the difference between infer and imply. I'm now outright SAYING that you don't understand it.

And I DO take ownership of every last word I have said on this forum. Done and Done.

I do not see any reference to that happening here.

Just my humble uneducated opinion, but I have discussed it in depth with people much more educated than me, so I can understand better, and to them, the testing approach was flawed. Not saying they are not right, but saying they are right is nothing more than an assumption, not supported scientific fact.

So, I've talked to and can name no less than 8 Phd's now (many of whom are convinced of the existence of this animal - and all of them support the approach taken, and none has found any flaws in the report I released. (That, despite the fact that I do personally feel it is a bit lacking in at least the aspect of having only mtDNA to compare against Justin.)

So, I must say, I'd be interested in knowing who those "more educated" people are.

My lab originally forecast that they could have an answer for me in 3 weeks, yet it took 7 months, and over 7 times the original estimated dollar amount. I'm not saying it was the most extensive study in the world... but I'm not sure how it was a short-cut.

I have yet to see anyone provide a resonable explanation of how the single strand hair test can return results of essentially ONLY bear contributor, and do so in expected masses, how the univeral mammalian primers can turn up only 2 known contributors, and how those results can be corroborated by an independent lab. While there have been some fantasy descriptions of scenarios that have less than a .00000000001 percent chance of ever happening for any ONE of those senarios, I have not heard one that can cover all of them.

[Hairy Man]

Can I ask a question for those that are more knowledgeable about DNA than I?

Ketchum said in her press release that the mtDNA for the sasquatch originated in Eastern Europe around 15,000 years ago.

According to Tyler's DNA report on the sample, they tested Justin's mtDNA and it too originated in Eastern Europe.

What are the chances of that?

[southernyahoo]

There are a number of human haplotypes that migrated here from Europe through Asia and over the Atlantic Look them up learn about them.

I have yet to see anyone provide a resonable explanation of how the single strand hair test can return results of essentially ONLY bear contributor, and do so in expected masses, how the univeral mammalian primers can turn up only 2 known contributors, and how those results can be corroborated by an independent lab. While there have been some fantasy descriptions of scenarios that have less than a .00000000001 percent chance of ever happening for any ONE of those senarios, I have not heard one that can cover all of them.

You could just show us a micrograph of the hair, if it matches the example I gave, it's a bear hair. If it doesn't then you can find out if there was a root present on the hair, It can make a difference.. It is also explained that bear contamination can be present. Some animal hairs can be tough to extract from too, which would leave your results reflecting the contamination only

[Guest]

Tyler H, I am not going to argue or debate the issue, you have confidence in your report, and the people involved, and that is just fine by me. You are welcome to it, but I also have very strong confidence in the people I talk to,and they feel the testing was not done in a way that can properly test for an unknown primate's DNA contained in the sample. No biggie,we can all just sit and wait, and see what comes of it all as more information becomes available. In the mean time, I am more than satisfied that the results are correct for what they tested for, but they did not test for "Bigfoot", they don't know how to, or did not go far enough. That is not an attack, or an insult. I am not disputing their findings, I simply stating I do not think they looked far enough. Again, Dr. Ketchum has indicated she had to look farther,and if the "leaked" information is accurate,then there is a real potential that they are right.

I personally don't think a whole lot of it overall, I don't see there being a lot of realistic hope places on a piece of something found on around the kill site months later. If there was going to be anything at all left, that would be it?

Edited January 6, 2013 by JohnC

[Hairy Man]

There are a number of human haplotypes that migrated here from Europe through Asia and over the Atlantic Look them up learn about them.

I'm a professional anthropologist - I know all about haplotypes. I specifically was asking what was the chance (statistically) of Melba's sasquatch mtDNA matching Justin's - especially since Justin is known to have contaminated the sample that is the center of Melba's study. Please only DNA specialists respond.

[Guest Scout1959]

Without knowing exactly which haplotype it actually is I doubt one can nail down the statistics. You need to know which one it is and the prominence in the population. Without this I don't see how you can get very close to an accurate number.

[Guest]

Fifty million US citizens are of German descent regardless of what race they fall in, that might give you some idea of how common the eastern european haplotypes are in this country.

[southernyahoo]

Without knowing exactly which haplotype it actually is I doubt one can nail down the statistics. You need to know which one it is and the prominence in the population. Without this I don't see how you can get very close to an accurate number.

It is asserted that the Sas haplotype and Justin's haplotype are both Hap A. So the question is what are the odds of that? We would have to know how many different Haplotypes can be found in the Sasquatch for one part of that equation, and the other is how many humans in the US are Hap A. We might also have to get into the subclades and figure all those in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_A_(mtDNA)

A

• A3
  
• A4
  
  • A4a
    
    • A4a1
      
      • A4a1a
        

    [*]A4b

    [*]A4c

    • A4c1
      

    [*]A2

    • A2a
      
      • A2a2
        

      [*]A2b

      • A2b1
        

      [*]A2c

      [*]A2d

      • A2d1
        
        • A2d1a
          

        [*]A2d2

        [*]A2e

        [*]A2f

        • A2f1
          
          • A2f1a
            

        [*]A2g

        [*]A2h

        [*]A2i

        [*]A2j

        • A2j1
          

        [*]A2k

        • A2k1
          

        [*]A2n

        [*]A2p

      [*]A2q

    [*]A6

  [*]A5

  • A5a
    
    • A5a1
      
      • A5a1a
        
        • A5a1a1
          
          • A5a1a1a
            
          • A5a1a1b
            

          [*]A5a1a2

        [*]A5a1b

      [*]A5a2

    [*]A5b

    [*]A5c

  [*]A7

  [*]A8

  [*]A9

[Guest]

But you don't know everyone's haplotype because not everyone is in GenBank, bigfoot goes without saying, unless of course the Hap A type for bigfoot was a misidentified human.