Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest LAL]

I saw his interview. He wrapped the sample in tin foil (then in some other package) and put it in a freezer for storage. If his wife shipped it out, it was already wrapped up and packaged.

So, we have Smeja's word for it. I suppose there's no chance Ketchum could have confused Mrs. Smeja's DNA for hybrid hominid DNA even if the wife did help butcher the bear.

Of course we don't know Ketchum found female DNA and therefore didn't need to check Justin's.

I think I'll go take an aspirin now.

[Guest]

Spoke to Justin yesterday and he still strongly thinks the sample he sent was from a Sasquatch, and also knows that his home environment is very contaminated with bear DNA, from his clothes to his cutting block, freezer and the knife he used to cut it with.

Gnomes need love too!! Genomes ..I need to slow down!

[Doc Holliday]

somebody say gnomes?

[Guest]

That is one big batch of gnomes!

[Guest LAL]

Make that two aspirins.

[Guest]

Spoke to Justin yesterday and he still strongly thinks the sample he sent was from a Sasquatch, and also knows that his home environment is very contaminated with bear DNA, from his clothes to his cutting block, freezer and the knife he used to cut it with.

Well all this seems to be moot, since the sample won't confim anything but bear and Justin.

[Guest]

genuine question here (i'm not science-minded) - is the argument reconciling the divergent results boil down to the Trent lab not knowing how to properly test for BF? i.e. they found 2 of the 3 characteristics associated with the sample, but didn't find the third because they don't know how to look for it?

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Assuming they were sent the same sample that Ketchum received, that is where many are pointing as to why the Trent results did not include anything exotic.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

If what Dr. Ketchum says is true, then expecting anything exotic from basic testing will lead to disappointment. Every good Bigfoot sample ever tested had modern human mtDNA. This includes all the ones Todd Disotell admited to testing, the snelgrove lake sample, pretty much everything. Yes, everything.

While "unknown primate" may seem like the ideal DNA finding from a Bigfoot sample, it's becoming clear that it won't be the case.

Edited January 7, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

Cheech44,

With the risk of being redundant, I don't think there's anything wrong with what Trent did, but the amount of analysis is not comparable. 400 BPs to 2.7 million for instance. Also the high probability of much more contamination can't be ignored. Melba got the sample at it's most pristine state, and she extracted from the center of it. Next Generation sequencing was also performed yielding a massive amount of information, not just identifying, but categorizing and measuring volume.

If the samples Trent tested were in a more contaminated state, and more degraded as they almost certainly were IMO, then it's very possible results would look very different. Then take into consideration the amount of testing done and it's pretty feasible that the results at this point don't resemble each other.

DR

[Guest]

It should be possible to do the following:

1) Extensively cleanse one or more hair shafts and perform mtDNA tests for bear and human.

If, say, 10 individual tests are run on separate hairs and you get ten positive results for bear, but get fewer positives for human, then you can be pretty sure that these are hairs from a bear. You might also further want to consider the haplogroup results in order to better understand the contaminant, if any.

By contrast, if the tests give 10 +ve's for human and less for bear then that makes life very interesting indeed.

2) Perform a morphological study of the hair shaft and follicle. I'm pretty sure an expert in this area could easily identify the characteristics of bear hair medulla, cortex, etc.

If these further tests are not performed, I don't see how we are going to get out of this circle of speculation and counter-speculation.

Edited January 7, 2013 by corvus horribilus

[bipedalist]

Cheech44,

With the risk of being redundant, I don't think there's anything wrong with what Trent did, but the amount of analysis is not comparable. 400 BPs to 2.7 million for instance. Also the high probability of much more contamination can't be ignored. Melba got the sample at it's most pristine state, and she extracted from the center of it. Next Generation sequencing was also performed yielding a massive amount of information, not just identifying, but categorizing and measuring volume.

If the samples Trent tested were in a more contaminated state, and more degraded as they almost certainly were IMO, then it's very possible results would look very different. Then take into consideration the amount of testing done and it's pretty feasible that the results at this point don't resemble each other.

DR

Along these lines, wasn't the B&T sample shipped frozen but received in an unfrozen state? Correct me if I'm wrong on that. If it was already degrading, unthawing perhaps could have done further damage.

[southernyahoo]

It should be possible to do the following:

1) Extensively cleanse one or more hair shafts and perform mtDNA tests for bear and human.

If, say, 10 individual tests are run on separate hairs and you get ten positive results for bear, but get fewer positives for human, then you can be pretty sure that these are hairs from a bear. You might also further want to consider the haplogroup results in order to better understand the contaminant, if any.

By contrast, if the tests give 10 +ve's for human and less for bear then that makes life very interesting indeed.

2) Perform a morphological study of the hair shaft and follicle. I'm pretty sure an expert in this area could easily identify the characteristics of bear hair medulla, cortex, etc.

If these further tests are not performed, I don't see how we are going to get out of this circle of speculation and counter-speculation.

Include with and without root for #1. #2 reportedly did not give a straight and repeating answer from experts, yet it should be a good match in all aspects of morphological examination to bear if it is bear.

[Guest]

The sample has been thawed and frozen a few times. This does indeed accelerate degradation.

[Guest Tyler H]

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?

Via hearsay, I had believed Melba had at one type said her study pointed to a haplotype that matches Justin- haplotype A.

The latest word from Melba herself though, and from some near her, is that that is inaccurate, and the genome she has does not match Justin's haplotype A.

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?

K, I'm sorry guys.

I believed in the "science can't test for bigfoot, because they don't know what it is" theory for years. But any geneticist, or even biologist with a PhD will tell you that a universal mammalian primer will detect DNA from any mammal. (Provided there is adequate DNA present. IE, it is not too degraded, etc.) There are areas of DNA that are common (conserved) in all mammals. No magic bullet or mystical primer is needed to be able to tell how many mammalian contributors were present. There may be other reasons that our labs did not get the results we desire - but that reason is not likely to be it.

Supposing Dr. Ketchum could have determined the gender linked to the human DNA, and it was female, would she need Justins DNA? According to Ketchums release it is the male lineage that is novel. Justins DNA wouldn't qualify as novel on the Y clan just because he's not in Genbank.

Ketchum claims the DNA from Justin's sample is male DNA

Tyler,

Your report is not flawed. The results are consistent with the design of the tests used. These tests would have been designed, developed, and validated using known sources. Therefore, one can expect them to perform well against known sources especially the more common and anticipated ones. , because they would be omitted from the process of design, development and validation.

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.

Your confidence interval appears a bit overstated by several orders of magnitude, especially given the fact that you do not have the ability to audit the processes and procedures of your contract lab.

I've vetted your proposals with people whose area of expertise are more closely aligned with genetic testing than yours seem to be, Tomafoot. NO insult, just seems to be the case.

"However, this may have little relevance with regard to unknown or unanticipated sources"

Perhaps we have different understandings of how the mammalian primers work. In my understanding, if BF is mammal, then it has certain conserved areas that are the same in ALL mammals. Why would this one mammal be the only exception?

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.

Agreed that if that claim can be supported, Justin's results should not mean that much. Other samples will carry the discovery. I can tell you that the Sykes study has garnered considerably fewer submissions than that, so not sure how Melba was able to gain so many. But again, this aea of speculation is outside of what I have knowledge or evidence of.

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.

ummmm - have you read the report that this whole thread is based on? Or am I mis-understanding your question?

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

I think only Justin can fully answer that, but my understanding is that he is not awaiting Bart's results, specifically. Each will be released independent of the other.

Spoke to Justin yesterday and he still strongly thinks the sample he sent was from a Sasquatch, and also knows that his home environment is very contaminated with bear DNA, from his clothes to his cutting block, freezer and the knife he used to cut it with.

Gnomes need love too!! Genomes ..I need to slow down!

We are in agreement on this.

Again, this was addressed in condersations with Trent U. Again, a single strand of hair yielded bear DNA in expected amounts for the mass of hair.

No, she has ~20 mtDNA findings with 3 of those supposedly yeilding whole genome sequences.

And there's still no evidence to show she claimed that Smeja's sample tested positive for her "unknown".

Mulder PLEASE put this to rest. This is the last time I will comment on it. Not even Derekfoot is trying to say that Melba hasn't claimed that Justin's sample was an important part of her study, and one of the 3 genomes she had mapped. You are defending something which no one close to her is defending. Ask Derekfoot point blank if Melba ever told him that Justin's sample was one of the three genomes that is this novel hominid she has identified. I believe he will answer "yes" or no comment.

If what Dr. Ketchum says is true, then expecting anything exotic from basic testing will lead to disappointment. Every good Bigfoot sample ever tested had modern human mtDNA. This includes all the ones Todd Disotell admited to testing, the snelgrove lake sample, pretty much everything. Yes, everything.

While "unknown primate" may seem like the ideal DNA finding from a Bigfoot sample, it's becoming clear that it won't be the case.

And only I can turn water into gasoline. Every other chemist that tries it will just get bum results. Trust me, only I know how to do this. I know some don't believe me, but honestly, I will be much happier, for much longer, if Melba turns out to be right. But there are just SO many red flags. That is what brought us here. Derek, you know I'll happily take a big bite of crow off the plate you can serve it to me on, when the time comes - and I'll shake your hand for it. (Just make sure it's plucked and cooked). Just tough to stretch my faith beyond the evidence I have at hand.

It should be possible to do the following:

1) Extensively cleanse one or more hair shafts and perform mtDNA tests for bear and human.

If, say, 10 individual tests are run on separate hairs and you get ten positive results for bear, but get fewer positives for human, then you can be pretty sure that these are hairs from a bear. You might also further want to consider the haplogroup results in order to better understand the contaminant, if any.

By contrast, if the tests give 10 +ve's for human and less for bear then that makes life very interesting indeed.

2) Perform a morphological study of the hair shaft and follicle. I'm pretty sure an expert in this area could easily identify the characteristics of bear hair medulla, cortex, etc.

If these further tests are not performed, I don't see how we are going to get out of this circle of speculation and counter-speculation.

Those bases have been covered, and are continuing to be covered.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Tyler H