Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest wudewasa]

Yes, the reaction here is perfectly logical....

[Guest]

Bromance, Cerv:) Don't get it twisted. My ol' lady is dime-piece.

[Guest Cervelo]

Just checking that's what I thought you meant LOL!

Edited December 27, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

GrayJay:

Sorry - having trouble understanding what that has to do with any of this?

What I'm saying is there are regulations for shipping a biological sample into Canada, there are regulations covering the collection of bear parts in the state of California.

As far as I can tell none of which were observed making the testing of this sample, in violation of US federal Law, and Canadian Law. It is irrelevant what the results actually are in regards to Bigfoot. From what I'm seeing is a bunch of guys violated any number of laws, and are bragging about it on the internet, so in fairness I'm asking for the surrounding providence proving this ISN'T SO.

Hope that cleared things up.

Justin has reported both his bear meat and weapons recently stolen, yet I'm supposed to believe the thieve's left just the BF sample. I find that amazing. Equally so his failure to produce a legitimate tag for bear for the shooting.

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/current/mammalregs.aspx#250

http://brni-jhu.org/fedex-shipping-dry-ice-biological-rules.html

You should have copies of the declared material to cross the border into Canada, as well as a permit from California's Fish and Game department.

Exportation

• If your shipment contains live bats, fish, wildlife, or endangered species, you will need a permit from the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Services.
  
• A federal export license is also required when exporting infectious agents of human, plant, and animal diseases, including genetic material, and products that might be used for culture of large amounts of agent.
  
• Additional licenses may be required by the recipient country. See here for individual countries.
  

Surely you can see how this would be relevant.

[Guest slimwitless]

You guys are making it harder then it is. The answer is simple, he shot a sow with 2 cubs. The story's real, he just replaced the bears with bigfoot. That makes perfect sense for finding bear hide at the kill site.

That never occurred to me.

kidding

Justin would have to convince his friend Jack to go along for the ride. I suppose it might be easier to fool Randles if they were both talking about an actual event (only with bears). Clearly they're convincing though. Bart and Tyler still believe the guy(s) despite this extremely strange development. I'd love to hear what Randles thinks.

BTW, when did Smeja give that last lengthy interview? Before or after these results were known to the "team"?

[southernyahoo]

Yes, if you look at the actual report (not just my release statement) you will see the proportions they estimated.

I do plan to release a timeline/synopsis of my work with the lab - you will see a bit of a roller coaster. Much of the roller coaster resulted from the fact that during the FIRST round of testing, they essentially threw the whole sample in a blender and then tested to see what came out. On the second round, however, they did a single strand hair test - this greatly diminished any contamination. That gave a clear picture of what we had. It also corroborated at least one of the hair morphology conclusions.

Tyler Huggins

Tyler, was the first round of testing with the same Canadian Lab? Also, I'm not seeing any mention that they were cleansing the samples prior to extraction, unless that is covered in their mentioned protocols. If there was an effort to remove contamination, is there an explanation why it didn't work?

[Guest]

Here we go again! Breakin' the law, breakin' the law \m/.

So, the story about J.S's stuff getting stolen is true? Good lawd! Will Smith, and Tommy Lee Jones are still puttin' in work, huh?

You should see the look on people's faces when I try to tell them this whole story, and they see that I am actually interested in it.

Edited December 27, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest wudewasa]

History repeats itself.

http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp

[Guest mitchw]

If you read the report from Trent U., they used Black Bear primers to assay the samples provided by Tyler H. Why? What effect does primer selection have on the results. I ask because at one point on the Ketchum thread there was a discussion about how Ketchum had developed novel primers for her study.

[Guest crabshack]

If you read the report from Trent U., they used Black Bear primers to assay the samples provided by Tyler H. Why? What effect does primer selection have on the results. I ask because at one point on the Ketchum thread there was a discussion about how Ketchum had developed novel primers for her study.

Good questions, also Tyler H stated, they threw the whole sample in a blender and then tested to see what came out. Why would they do that?

What if it was a chunk of a squatch and had bear saliva all over it?

[Guest mitchw]

Someone smart, please correct me, but the Trent report says that they showed 10% black bear using Black Bear primer. Don't primers just cut the DNA at specific sequences, and then the fragments get drawn across a gel electrically? Why are we saying the results are Black Bear at all? The study doesn't. (publish, Melba)

Whence the number 10%, Tyler?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Don't forget, Bart saw several Sasquatch at the kill site. I think that gives Justin's story a huge boost in credibility.

[Rockape]

Thank you Bart and Tyler for presenting the results of your tests.

Agreed. I think despite what any of us might think of the situation, we should all thank Bart and Tyler for coming here to share the information.

[Guest VioletX]

Good questions, also Tyler H stated, they threw the whole sample in a blender and then tested to see what came out. Why would they do that?

What if it was a chunk of a squatch and had bear saliva all over it?

Why does it feel somehow familiar to write that it is obviously Sasquatch that has been contaminated by bear DNA,lol?

[Guest slimwitless]

Bart and Tyler, were you guys keeping Justin apprised of your findings? He gave this interview on November 29, 2012, almost two weeks after your DNA report is dated. Among other things, Justin says he believes the odds are the flesh was from the animal he shot...same color, same smell, same area. He does admit it is circumstantial though. He indicates that DNA testing was ongoing but as of yet, there were no "negative" results but a lot of hits on human. And "as of now" it was premature to say whether it was from the creature he shot.

Didn't anyone tell him about your back and forth with the lab?