Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Tyler H]

Given the presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in populations of current humans, their opinion would seem to fly in the face of actual fact. We already have at least two documented HSS/non HSS hominid hybrids...why not 3?

Melba claims her "unknown" has 100% human mtDNA, that means the immediate mother is human, no? (I'm speaking in response to the interpretation of this by one bilogist I spoke with). We are talking about recent interbreeding. As in "Hi, I'm a sasquatch - my dad is a full-blood sasquatch, and he raped (seduced if you prefer) my human mother. Don't ask me about any "full-blooded" sasquatch though, because we all have Sasquatch daddies, and human mommies. None of my cousins have any sasquatch mtDNA, 'cuz all of their dads prefer human women to their own kind (can't say I blame them). All of our women just wither up and die old-maids. None of them get to bear children, as our Sasquatch men just love them human ladies too much"

Argument from authority and possibly argument from consensus, in it's naked form.

Oh no! you caught me defering to the expertise of knowledgable experts with years of specific applicable learning and experience, rather than spouting my own opinion. I know, it's very 'un-sasquatch-enthusiast' of me. Guilty as charged.

We certainly haven't seen any for YOUR claim that your findings in any way indict Ketchum's study.

You are familiar with what spawned this thread, right?

Please compare the amount of evidence I have made available for your viewing pleasure, with the amount Melba has made available for your viewing pleasure. Honestly - I'm sincerely interested in your estimation on this. I want to see how deep the anosognosia goes. Do you think those two amounts are on par, or have I provided less, or have I provided a modicum more, or a lot more, or what?

So your 8 PhDs support "bear". So what? You can't link that to the Ketchum study in any way that you are willing to support with examinable evidence.

Well - let's use the benchmark you cited earlier - Justin's remarks. Justin says the samples I tested are the same samples she tested. Either believe him and use his quotes, and accept them when other people use them; or call him a liar, and don't use any of his quotes to support yourself again. Then let's see where Melba's claims stand if you say Justin is a liar.

That's a straw man fallacy.

I am not attacking the 'science' behind Trent's report. Based on the PCR analysis trent did it seems that you most likely have bear meat on your hands.

No argument there.

It's your conclusions with regards to the Ketchum report that based on the evidence I find almost completely unfounded.

There are simply too many unknowns about Ketchums data, methods and conclusions at this point to make to make a sound analysis of the facts.

But I've made ZERO conclusions about Melba's study. I can only go on what my lab says and on what Justin says. Even accepting both of those things, I have still maintained that we will only know once Melba allows other labs to replicate her methods on the remaining tissue she has in her possession.

Thanks for asking this PW, I was just heading there myself. I have seen this referenced numerous times, yet it has never been expanded upon. I get the impression that this is the "clincher" for Bart to believe the story as told by Smeja and friend. No offense to Bart or Tyler as I think you all really are being honest with what you have been told or what your perceptions are, but it seems to me that it would be all too easy to pull a fast one on a BF researcher (read, someone who wants to believe) who could possibly be within earshot. I doubt that you all secretly planted an electronic bug in their house to eavesdrop on them; and if you were an expected visitor of, or being visited by the shooters it's not a big stretch that their stories had been worked out to jive. So in the interests of transparency and clarity, how exactly how did you come to overhear this conversation?

To be honest, I, and I suspect most other people, have a much easier time accepting that you were lied to by Smeja and friend, than I do that anyone shot two bigfeets...but left the bodies, or found comparatively pristine squatch (or bear) meat five weeks later under three feet of snow. I've felt for a long time now that something smells rotten with all this, and it ain't five week old squatch steaks.

I'd think the same as you actually - so I don't get offended by this question. What I would like you to think about is the fact that Bart and I are the only two people involved in this that had enough skepticism and backbone to step up and do independent testing. We did NOT accept Melba's claims at face value. To me, that speaks of personalities that are skeptical by nature. We have rehashed every word Justin has ever spoken, and attacked it from every angle between the two of us. While we don't have all the conclusive answers, I would say we have become "convinced" of Justin's truthfulness, rather than "believe" in Justin's truthfulness. Personally, to this day, I would not be convinced of Sasquatch's existence, if it weren't for my own encounter. I'm a skeptic by nature. Faith is difficult for me. And believe me, I'm not bragging about that. I envy people for whom faith comes easily - it brings a lot of great success to your life - and not just in religion.

I wanna say thank you to everyone who's participated on this thread.

Thanks to Tomafoot for his very informative posts.

To Derekfoot for sharing his perspective and opinion on the the Ketchum study and especially to both Tyler and Bart for doing what they are doing for the community by spearheading the research that they are are involved with.

I've been made privy to some information that has caused me to rethink my position here, and although the jury is still out for me because Ketchum's paper has not yet been made public, I no longer question Bart and Tyler's commitment to our community, their approach to research nor their reason for posting what they have here.

Cheers to everyone and Happy Birthday Bart!

And then there was 1....

Dang - not sure if I should be happy, or disappointed - I love a good argument, and I really was looking forward to you answering what you would have proposed we should have done in our situation.

Thanks for the kind words though FD.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

I also have Justin's recounting at the site on video. I'm just saying that it sounds like Justin has decided in subsequent visits to the site, that that stump is not where he thought the biped expired?

Playing devil's advocate here somewhat ... but if Justin shot the creature from approx 100 yards away and didn't see it fall or expire, then an attempt to precisely locate it would seem somewhat tenuous, and less than watertight as a basis for other conclusions.

[Guest]

Melba claims her "unknown" has 100% human mtDNA, that means the immediate mother is human, no? (I'm speaking in response to the interpretation of this by one bilogist I spoke with). We are talking about recent interbreeding. As in "Hi, I'm a sasquatch - my dad is a full-blood sasquatch, and he raped (seduced if you prefer) my human mother. Don't ask me about any "full-blooded" sasquatch though, because we all have Sasquatch daddies, and human mommies. None of my cousins have any sasquatch mtDNA, 'cuz all of their dads prefer human women to their own kind (can't say I blame them). All of our women just wither up and die old-maids. None of them get to bear children, as our Sasquatch men just love them human ladies too much"

People keep on looking at this inner breeding in today's terms. 15,000 years ago, people were much different then they are today. It's possible they lived

in close quarters with the other species and could have been actually admired by the humans, and in turn offering their women to them, and could have been considered to be a scared act to breed with them. Look at some of the bizarre offerings centuries ago, like cutting a heart out and offering it to the gods.

receiving some lovin' for a big hairy guy, even for a man, would be a welcomed alternative

[Guest FootDude]

And then there was 1....

Dang - not sure if I should be happy, or disappointed - I love a good argument, and I really was looking forward to you answering what you would have proposed we should have done in our situation.

Thanks for the kind words though FD.

Haha!

Yeah I was enjoying the give and take as well.

I really appreciate your guys hard work and research, as well as the transparency and date you've shared with us all. Work like this helps us armchair 'squatchers' (armchair for now bu hopefully not forever) feel like part of the effort and 'Team'. I very much look forward to hearing about more of the research you are doing in the Sierras and wish you and Bart the best of luck with it!

[Guest Theagenes]

Melba claims her "unknown" has 100% human mtDNA, that means the immediate mother is human, no? (I'm speaking in response to the interpretation of this by one bilogist I spoke with). We are talking about recent interbreeding. As in "Hi, I'm a sasquatch - my dad is a full-blood sasquatch, and he raped (seduced if you prefer) my human mother. Don't ask me about any "full-blooded" sasquatch though, because we all have Sasquatch daddies, and human mommies. None of my cousins have any sasquatch mtDNA, 'cuz all of their dads prefer human women to their own kind (can't say I blame them). All of our women just wither up and die old-maids. None of them get to bear children, as our Sasquatch men just love them human ladies too much"

Hi Tyler, just a minor clarification. It doesn't neccessarily mean that the sample's mother is human, but it does mean that the sample's female ancestors would all have to have that human mtDNA going back in a unbroken line to a human female "Eve" somewhere in the past. In other words, let's say there was a hybidrization event 10,000 years ago or whatever, between a male BF and a female human. They have three kids, 1 male and 2 females. The son would have human mtDNA, but couldn't pass it on to his kids. Both the daughters would have it and would pass it on. If those two daughters then mated with unrelated BFs their female children would also have the human mtDNA and could pass it on. Within a couple of generations the outward "humaness" might be bred out of the population and they would all look like BFs again, but the females in that lineage would still be carrying that human mtDNA and their female descendents would continue to carry it. When one of the females with the human mtDNA has no kids or has only sons then that particular line would be cut off, but as long as some of those lines have an unbroken chain of females then the human mtDNA could be carried down to the present.

It seems to me that the only way you could have all the BFs in NA showing this human mtDNA is if the hybridization event took place in the Old World and then only a small clan of BFs, with all the females in the clan having the human mtDNA migrated over---and no BF females without the human mtDNA made it over. Under this hypothetical scenario, all the surviving NA BFs today would be descendents of that original clan and all should have the human mtDNA.

I'm not sure that MK gets all this though and she seems to think that she needs continuous interbreeding to explain the results that she has, thus she keeps referring to BF as a hominin/human hybrid. But that's really misleading as all those results really need is a hybrization event somewhere in the past. It would be like calling Europeans Neandertal/Human hybrids. Technically that might be true, but it would be very misleading.

[Guest Tyler H]

Hi Tyler, just a minor clarification. It doesn't neccessarily mean that the sample's mother is human, but it does mean that the sample's female ancestors would all have to have that human mtDNA going back in a unbroken line to a human female "Eve" somewhere in the past. In other words, let's say there was a hybidrization event 10,000 years ago or whatever, between a male BF and a female human. They have three kids, 1 male and 2 females. The son would have human mtDNA, but couldn't pass it on to his kids. Both the daughters would have it and would pass it on. If those two daughters then mated with unrelated BFs their female children would also have the human mtDNA and could pass it on. Within a couple of generations the outward "humaness" might be bred out of the population and they would all look like BFs again, but the females in that lineage would still be carrying that human mtDNA and their female descendents would continue to carry it. When one of the females with the human mtDNA has no kids or has only sons then that particular line would be cut off, but as long as some of those lines have an unbroken chain of females then the human mtDNA could be carried down to the present.

It seems to me that the only way you could have all the BFs in NA showing this human mtDNA is if the hybridization event took place in the Old World and then only a small clan of BFs, with all the females in the clan having the human mtDNA migrated over---and no BF females without the human mtDNA made it over. Under this hypothetical scenario, all the surviving NA BFs today would be descendents of that original clan and all should have the human mtDNA.

I'm not sure that MK gets all this though and she seems to think that she needs continuous interbreeding to explain the results that she has, thus she keeps referring to BF as a hominin/human hybrid. But that's really misleading as all those results really need is a hybrization event somewhere in the past. It would be like calling Europeans Neandertal/Human hybrids. Technically that might be true, but it would be very misleading.

Appreciate it Theagenes...

OK... So then the male she is referring to had to have come from an unbroken line of female lineage. So not only is getting a squatch a one in a million chance, but Justin shot a one in a million squatch with this queenly lineage?

You bring up Denisovan and Neanderthal. I don't think any human has been found that has anywhere close to 100% mtDNA from either of those. So, just seems ridiculously unlikely to have the scenario she claims. But again, I lack education in genetics. Keep meaning to get Sykes' 7 daughters of eve - though I am told it's already been somewhat disproved.

Playing devil's advocate here somewhat ... but if Justin shot the creature from approx 100 yards away and didn't see it fall or expire, then an attempt to precisely locate it would seem somewhat tenuous, and less than watertight as a basis for other conclusions.

Agreed - that's why we needed to test the tissue carefully - Because any claims surrounding it mean nothing (neither for, nor against 'Squatch), once you have genetic identification.

[Guest Primate]

I don't know if it's that farfetched . I remember reading that they recently traced all polar bears ancestry to a single female black bear mutation..

[Guest]

Primate- don't mean to be picky, but I just saw a Natl' Geo special on the polar bear two weeks ago and they said that the polar bear is/was a brown bear that had adopted to colder climate.

[Guest Tyler H]

FASTA files are available from pretty much any genetic testing - including the PCR methods we used (at least, that's my understanding). The phylogenetic tree is available for any given animal. We can produce that for our bear and our human - but that doesn't make it any more legitimate or accurate. I can make up a lineage saying I descend from Henry VIII. Again, we have to wait for more than her word.

I note this, because all you would have to do is pick ONE progenitor prior to the current unknown species. Once you have that, you have the whole phylogeneitc tree, since it has already been defined for that known progenitor. And we of course have it for the HSS side of that tree. So, we can't go thinking this was some huge ground-breaking undertaking. Just choose one ancient hominin and you have a pre-formatted phylogenetic (evolutionary) path or tree to attach to this "unknown".

I don't know if it's that farfetched . I remember reading that they recently traced all polar bears ancestry to a single female black bear mutation..

that's not the point - the point is you've found a hybrid species, and happen to find one animal that has uninterrupted femail lineage - If I understand correctly.

That is what this subject would have to have, if it has "100% human mtdna"

[Guest Theagenes]

Appreciate it Theagenes...

OK... So then the male she is referring to had to have come from an unbroken line of female lineage. So not only is getting a squatch a one in a million chance, but Justin shot a one in a million squatch with this queenly lineage?

You bring up Denisovan and Neanderthal. I don't think any human has been found that has anywhere close to 100% mtDNA from either of those. So, just seems ridiculously unlikely to have the scenario she claims. But again, I lack education in genetics. Keep meaning to get Sykes' 7 daughters of eve - though I am told it's already been somewhat disproved.

Agreed - that's why we needed to test the tissue carefully - Because any claims surrounding it mean nothing (neither for, nor against 'Squatch), once you have genetic identification.

Well, my knowledge of genetics is limited too. I'm coming at it from a anthropological background and not a technical one so I could be misunderstanding how this works as well. So if GenesRUs or tomafoot or one of the other genetics experts could correct me if I'm mistaken I'd appreciate it.

At first glance it would seem that it would be a 1 in a million chance, but if something happened like the scenario I proposed above where a genetic bottleneck was created (in this case by the Bering landbridge) so that only a small group of BFs, all with the human mtDNA, migrated in to North America, then it wouldn't be chance at all. All of the BFs in NA would be descended from that "queenly" line.

Comparing this scenario to the Neanderthal one isn't a perfect analogy. A better one would be if a population of surviving Neanderthals were found in the Pyrenees or someplace and you could trace their female ancestors back in an unbroken line to a coupling between a male Neanderthal and female modern human, say 20,000 BP, then their mtDNA would be human even though their nuDNA (which is what matters) would be Neanderthal (with maybe 2-3% human just like our nuDNA is 2-3% Neanderthal).

BTW, when I use the term "human" here I'm using it in the popular sense of anatomically modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens. Technically Neanderthals are "human" too.

Getting back to MK's results, if she is showing multiple human Eves, then that would require the continuous inbreeding that some have suggested (or more likely contamination from multiple human sources).

I'recentyl reread Stubstad report on her early results, I have to say there are a lot of problems with it that suggest to me that she may not understand paleogenetics very much at all. I hope that some of her co-authors are experts in this area.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest slimwitless]

I'recentyl reread Stubstad report on her early results, I have to say there are a lot of problems with it that suggest to me that she may not understand paleogenetics very much at all. I hope that some of her co-authors are experts in this area.

In her C2C interview, Ketchum basically said Stubstad's analysis was all wrong, adding she gave him "busy work" because he was ill and wanted to help out. I'm paraphrasing.

Edit to add: She didn't actually use Stubstad's name but it was clear from the context who she was referring to.

Edited January 11, 2013 by slimwitless

[Guest BartloJays]

I don't know if it's that farfetched . I remember reading that they recently traced all polar bears ancestry to a single female black bear mutation..

Yep this came out the week prior to our Sierras remains search in July 2011 and Jeff (Meld) was surprised when I told him this as he hadn't seen it yet.

It was all living polar bears today were traced back through mtDNA from a maternal Irish black bear.

I need to go check but I could've swore someone is contending now this was an error but don't quote me on that as I'll try and look it up later.

[Guest Theagenes]

In her C2C interview, Ketchum basically said Stubstad's analysis was all wrong, adding she gave him "busy work" because he was ill and wanted to help out. I'm paraphrasing.

Edit to add: She didn't actually use Stubstad's name but it was clear from the context who she was referring to.

That's good to know, because it really didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Is there anyone that hasn't signed a NDA who knows which haplotype she is associating with BF? We know it's not A.

[Guest]

there are those that will reject any evidence of BF out of hand, and there are those that will believe any account of BF without verification.

then there are those that seek the truth without bias - this is where we should aim to be rather than constantly engaging in spin doctoring on either side.

Edited January 11, 2013 by cheech44

[bipedalist]

Yep this came out the week prior to our Sierras remains search in July 2011 and Jeff (Meld) was surprised when I told him this as he hadn't seen it yet.

It was all living polar bears today were traced back through mtDNA from a maternal Irish black bear.

I need to go check but I could've swore someone is contending now this was an error but don't quote me on that as I'll try and look it up later.

So Bigfoot bearman has got a color change and size change since the first Irish Bigfoot Bearman, when did that mutation occur in generations btw?