Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[bipedalist]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1182122/

Note 15,000 years.

So H is common Franco-Cambrian since it's largely a continent of Europeans that lit the candle here from Which many of us descend.

Edited January 6, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest]

I have no desire or intention to take sides in this debate, but shouldn't we keep in mind that Ketchum ran mtDNA tests on multiple samples submitted to her?

Without the Smeja sample, she still has over a hundred pieces of purported BF 'evidence' to work with.

[Guest wudewasa]

Just checking in.

The DNA analysis is still bear, yes? The rest is still just hearsay and speculation, correct?

[Guest]

My feeling is that your single hair analysis provides the strongest case, but the universal primers provide the weakest, as their ability to succeed against unknown sources is untested. Indeed, I have provided you with 2 reasonable examples of how the amplification of an unknown DNA could be inhibited. I provided those, because they were the easiest to illustrate here. However, I can also envision about a dozen examples of sequence degeneracy that would also significantly reduce yield of amplified DNA.

Well said.

As I have written before, why not get a cheap mtDNA test run on the sample hair(s) you have? $100 will tell you if it's human or bear.

[bipedalist]

Without the Smeja sample, she still has over a hundred pieces of purported BF 'evidence' to work with.

Right and right. In the long run what is the difference if only two nuDNA complete genomes were run from three different samples or just two from two different samples with ten backups that were viable for complete sequencing nu-wise. She said three and one of the three was Smeja's or at least that is the popular retell from multiple people involved..... just hearsay all the same.

Edited January 6, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest Cervelo]

Just checking in.

The DNA analysis is still bear, yes? The rest is still just hearsay and speculation, correct?

Roger roger or something like this....

[Guest]

Funny, I think I'm a fairly smart person, but when I read this thread I don't feel so smart. The DNA stuff is quite confusing and every time I read this thread I can't help but think of Keyrock, unfrozen caveman lawyer.

Anyway, can I ask if Justin is waiting for Bart's test results to come out before he releases his information or is there something else holding that up? Does he have absolute proof of something or will it be a he said/she said situation? Thanks very much

[Guest]

I have to commend Tyler H. for a job well done.

[Guest tomafoot]

Tomafoot, if your ideas are appropriate to this situation do you think we would see a past incidence of BF researchers submitting hairs that they were certain were BF and getting a Bear result?

I wonder if that has happened here with anyone?

Well, maybe if they got their results from the Trent Lab - lol. Tyler's test results are the only results that I have seen. To be clear, I am not actually calling them into doubt. Other labs will most likely have slightly different tests. I would assume what other labs may call "universal primers" are most likely different than what the Trent Lab uses. They would also be constrained by the issues I have outlined. However, if the test designs across labs are independent from one another, then the probability that all would miss the unknown source is significantly decreased.

I think the answer to your question is "no," because this discussion is not about whether the bear identification is false - there is most likely bear DNA present either from the tissue or from contamination. This is about whether an unknown contributor could be missed by the PCR test. I would think a retest would be in order only if the submitter was an eyewitness and felt confident of the linkage between hair sample and sighting AND the result had come back "indeterminate" or something like that.

Is bear even a common result for these kinds of submissions?

Edited January 6, 2013 by tomafoot

[Guest VioletX]

Well, maybe if they got their results from the Trent Lab - lol. Tyler's test results are the only results that I have seen. To be clear, I am not actually calling them into doubt. Other labs will most likely have slightly different tests. I would assume what other labs may call "universal primers" are most likely different than what the Trent Lab uses. They would also be constrained by the issues I have outlined. However, if the test designs across labs are independent from one another, then the probability that all are wrong is significantly decreased.

I think the answer to your question is "no," because this discussion is not about whether the bear identification is false - there is most likely bear DNA present either from the tissue or from contamination. This is about whether an unknown contributor could be missed by the PCR test. I would think a retest would be in order only if the submitter was an eyewitness and felt confident of the linkage between hair sample and sighting AND the result had come back "indeterminate" or something like that.

Is bear even a common result for these kinds of submissions?

Thanks, duh, I should have thought about the contamination factor that would have to factor into this. Yes it sounds like it would be specific to the Trent lab.

I wonder what the common result is, good question.

[Guest wudewasa]

Soooooooooooooooooooooo, people don't like the results and therefore come up with arguments to cast a possibility that the DNA may have squatch sequences by some untested means?

Pages and pages to descibe every scenario as to why bear DNA just doesn't cut it, and some possible secret squirrel sample waiting to be tested that will prove all disbelievers wrong. Smeja doesn't deliver, so you throw him under the bus. Stories don't match up, but when it's all hearsay and speculative conclusions, anything's game I guess. You folks are creative, I'll give you that!

[Guest VioletX]

It would be nice if there was an explanation that allowed everyone's story to make sense, that is all, maybe that is a fairy tale Wudewasa.

I guess we can wait until the other lab vets the sample and Ketchum weighs in.

Either everything is cleared up then from that point or further arguing resumes,lol!

[Guest]

Soooooooooooooooooooooo, people don't like the results and therefore come up with arguments to cast a possibility that the DNA may have squatch sequences by some untested...

Just another normal day in the life and times of Bigfoot.

[southernyahoo]

If it's true Justin's wife sent the sample while he was away hunting wouldn't she need her DNA?

She might if she knew who actually handled it. The sierra sample is apparently like a perfect storm of contamination possibilities, and a perfect test of next generation sequencing. If she had sequenced Justins DNA or his wifes then she would have their entire genomes plus any other contributors. None of which should be particularly novel. They would all be within normal range of variation for each species.

[Guest wudewasa]

I guess we can wait until the other lab vets the sample and Ketchum weighs in.

Yup, but that's not good enough for some. They want the info NOW, and while they aren't paying for the analysis, feel privy to EVERYTHING that the research finds. I find this blatant display of instant gratification to be disgusting, if not stretching into realms of bullying. Some believe that it's perfectly appropriate to assassinate Ketchum's charcter when they don't get what they feel they deserve. This isn't Burger King where they can have their Whopper their way and become irate when the they have to sit in the drive through for more than 5 minutes.

People can find something else to do while Ketchum does things the way she wants to on her own dime. I'm getting that way as this forum degrades into threads such as this.