Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[southernyahoo]

The report clearly states that the sample is 10% black bear when using black bear primer, only.

Yeah, not sure how to interpret that, 10% bear, 15% human......75% nothing?

Edited December 27, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Ronnie Bass]

How bout this scenario...Smeja et al. having submitted genuine BF samples to Dr. Ketchum and her study, for whatever reasons becomes disenchanted/disillusioned by said study, and in an effort to torpedo her study, deliberately submits bear samples to another lab, knowing it will show up as bear thus discrediting MK? Not saying this is the case, but could be plausible.

I'm also pretty sure it's criminal too, you sure you want to go down this accusatory road?

Edited December 27, 2012 by Ronnie Bass

[Guest BartloJays]

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.go...alregs.aspx#250

http://brni-jhu.org/...ical-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 herefor individual countries.
  

Surely you can see how this would be relevant.

"Violating laws," bragging about it on the internet," You're kidding right grayjay? Who do you think you are?

I'll be happy to answer that for you...none of your business and please don't waste your time asking anything else as you're now a ghost as far as I'm concerned.

My time means something to me and I know it does Tyler as well, I'm more than happy to answer some questions people understandably have but I'm not going to waste one second on people that make irrational, undeserved, contentious statements. That also goes for owing anybody an explanation or asking us to speculate what we think happened. We clearly shared our thoughts on Justin and I thought each did a decent job of explaining why in-depth. All evidence must stand on its own and it doesn't really matter what we think at the end of the day. Know one expects everybody to see it our way as I would most definitely feel differently (understatement) looking from the outside in.

Bottom line is this, we had ample reason from the beginning to be concerned about the origin of the tissue, Ketchum amplified this in an exchange with Justin and three other witnesses to the conversation, we took the initiative to get tissue tested independently, we promised that we would provide 110% transparency (much more is coming) in addition to beneficial information based on our trials and errors from this experience to hopefully benefit others, we followed through. Period. We are not DNA experts nor are we pretending to be but we used the best labs we could...at our own expense. The process was much longer and grueling then you could imagine and there will be evidence of that when you see email exchanges with the labs (though I bet you a dime to a donut, many will comment without reading anything).

Thanks PacNWS-

I understand and appreciate your question but FYI, I've explained it multiple times in several of these threads as well as right in my supporting statement regarding the boots.

They were initially given to me (Justin turned down a monetary offer for them) because Justin felt I'd do the right thing with them when it was time and was genuinely passionate about the subject. I initially was playing keep away from her because frankly there's was some minor red flags that didn't sit right with me. At that time her supposed study was supposed to be out any day. Had she been successful and her work was "validated," I would've considered giving her the boots to put a nail in the coffin. You'll know soon why I wouldn't trust her with them then. After peforming some due diligence with forensic minds who know much more then I, I understood that the boot evidence wasn't transient (meaning further degradation after being stored in my custody was unlikely). From there we decided to test the tissue first and get a rehearsal of communication expectations and capabilities with both labs we utilized. We did not expect the process to take almost 8 months. In addition, "cost" which I feel will be substantial, is the biggest reason they haven't been tested yet. We are absorbing that unless circumstances change. We are vetting labs now.

Again for everybody who didn't know, the final determinations are disappointing but not a revelation to Tyler and I, hence to us, there was no shock or feelings of extreme letdown some people are feeling.

[Guest ajciani]

That is a excellent lab report - it clearly states the sample is female black bear contaminated by human DNA.

The human mDNA contaminating the sample and Justin's mDNA are of a halotype that originated in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus...exactly where Dr. Ketchum stated that her "bigfoot" DNA originated.

It's good that some people actually read the lab report.

With 10% of the mtDNA in the original sample being bear and 15% being human, it will make you wonder what the other 75% was, right?

An explanation: These mtDNA tests are amplification tests based on certain primers (think of them as keys) which are used as stub ends for DNA polymerase to start copying DNA. If a section of the sample DNA matches the sequence of the primer, then the primer will latch on and the DNA polymerase will duplicate the gene. Put simply, if some portion of the sample DNA matches the primer, then you get more DNA. If none of the sample matches the primer, you get no more DNA. The mtDNA test used three (3) primers: universal mammal, bear specific control region, and human specific control region.

• The universal and bear primers produced DNA sequences consistent with known bear.
  
• The human primer produced DNA sequences consistent with known human.
  
• By the amount of DNA copied, it was determined that 10% of the original DNA was bear, and 15% was human.
  

Which leaves two questions:

Why did the universal primer fail to amplify the human DNA?

Most likely, the universal primer was not as universal as the manufacturer claims or the lab thought. It may have still had some affinity for the human DNA, but at a ratio of 100:1, the human DNA would have been unnoticed compared to the bear DNA. Of course, it still leaves room that if the sample had any bigfoot DNA, the "universal" primer might not have been any good for that either.

What was the other 75%.

Simply put, something that neither the universal, bear or human primers could amplify. It may have been degraded fragments, different portions of the mtDNA, bits of nuclear DNA, or something unknown that the universal primer failed to work on.

The mtDNA test of the lone hair pretty much eliminates everything else. The only mtDNA that turned up was bear. It is a bear hair from a bear pelt. Morphological analysis of the hairs also suggested bear.

Could it have been a bear skin being worn by a bigfoot (i.e. bear pelt contaminated with human and bigfoot DNA)?

Anything is possible, I guess. There certainly have been reports of bigfoots possibly wearing animal skins. There are definitely reports of them wearing scraps of manufactured "textiles" (e.g. torn burlap or canvas tarps, nylon fragments [possibly tarps or tents]).

Ketchum has stated that bigfoot DNA requires its own unique set of primers.

This is somewhat interesting. It means that universal and human specific primers may not be capable of amplifying bigfoot DNA. Certainly, the "universal" primers used did not amplify the human mtDNA. There could have been another contributor. BTW, it also means that anyone looking for bigfoot DNA probably needs Ketchum's secret sauce, or a very large and well preserved sample.

Bigfoots did not originate in eastern Europe. They came from western Europe.

I am not aware of Ketchum actually identifying the geographic origins of bigfoots, but I know that Stubstad did. At least, Stubstad identified the geographic origin of the human haplotype that matched most closely to the bigfoot mtDNA. It came from the Pyrenees, which is between France and Spain.

As for the sample that Justin sent to Tyler: it was bear. Why was it bear? Maybe Justin will someday tell us. Ketchum seems certain that the sample Justin sent to her is bigfoot. They are different samples, so who knows. Maybe Ketchum should send a piece of her sample to Trent.

BTW, passing a polygraph only means that the person being tested honestly believes that what they have said is true. If Justin shot a bear that jumped funny, and then got charged by and shot a juvenile bigfoot, and concluded that he must have shot its mother bigfoot, and then went back and collected a piece of the bear, he would probably pass a polygraph, all the while being mistaken. If he was affected by hypothermia, shot a bear and its cub, but it moved and looked funny, and then through a delusion thought they were bigfoots, he would probably pass a polygraph.

[southernyahoo]

yes, the Trent University performed two rounds of testing for me. I will admit that I was disappointed that they did not do more to isolate the sample in their first round of testing. It would have reduced the time, the cost, and the roller coaster ride. But the second round of testing (from the same set of samples I had from Justin) did clean and isolate contaminating factors.

Not sure this matters now, but I'm wondering why there is no name for the haplotype in the report? Surely they would have identified it for you in the report. Also, I've not heard of using a blender as any part of an extraction method on hair and tissue. It makes me imagine an attempt to diminish any chance at getting a "clean" sequence from an "uncontaminated" portion of the sample. I would be livid if the sample represented all I had. Of coarse we all know not to send all, but it would raise a red flag for me. I think I would have dropped that lab in further efforts.

[Guest ajciani]

Just to add,

The sample Justin sent to Tyler could have been bigfoot contaminated by bear and human.

This is a possibility. If a bear had partaken of the bigfoot, or the piece of skin had been stored in a cooler with bear bits, it could have been well saturated with bear goo. If the primers used were incapable of amplifying the bigfoot DNA, then we are left with bear and human contamination.

I still think it is a piece of bear pelt. If the hair looked like bear, and the hair was properly cleaned so that only the inside contributed mtDNA, then it is probably bear. There is still a chance for contamination from bear drool, but probably bear.

The REAL test would have been to slice off a wafer, and then slice off a second wafer below that, and test the second wafer from the inside portion of the skin, which would probably be contaminant free, regardless of how poorly it was cleaned.

ed. sp.

Edited December 27, 2012 by ajciani

[Guest mitchw]

If a lab uses bear primers, and there is no bear in the sample, does that necessarily mean that the test result will be 0% for bear? I still don't get why the Trent lab used Black Bear primers in the first place Does the percentage figure indicate the likelihood of 'bear' or the amount of 'bear?'.

Edited December 27, 2012 by mitchw

[Guest BartloJays]

The whole point of testing mitchw wasn't to start our own study, it was to screen the sample and make sure it didn't orignate from another "recognized" mammalian species. If it did we had a responsibility to inform everybody right away and Justin insisted on that as well by the way. We went two labs to be sure, both very reputable

[Ike]

I'm also pretty sure it's criminal too, you sure you want to go down this accusatory road?

I haven't accused anyone of anything. Just throwing out idle theories like everyone else does on this website. I can play Perry Mason too, so let's explore criminality. Man supposedly shoots creature overwhelmingly scoffed at by the bulk of society but no bodies are retrieved. Man does take flesh samples and is approached by DNA scientist who (we are led to believe) incorporates these samples into her study. Barring contamination, it is believed this sample will come back as undocumented primate/proto human/whatever. Man becomes angry at scientist for whatever reason and decides to make a fool of said scientist. Man submits a sample of bear meat claiming it is a unproven species commonly called "bigfoot" knowing full well the result will come back as "bear." Scientist now has egg on face because her sample is "undocumented," and the independent tested sample from supposedly the same incident is "bear." Where is the criminality? Shooter is free to submit whatever samples he wants to whomever he wants. I can skin an iguana and send the meat to a lab and claim I got it from the Loch Ness Monster if I want to. If people want to draw their own conclusions that is their choice. I know the court system in CA is wacky, but I find it hard to imagine you could find a judge who would preside over a case with no legal precedence involving DNA samples from a beast that most of society considers a fairy tale to begin with vs. a man who knowingly submitted bear meat to a lab for testing. So do tell, unless shooter signed a contract that stated he relinquished all rights to DNA scientist involving any and all DNA samples shooter may submit to anyone at any time, what laws have been broken in this scenario?

Edited December 27, 2012 by Ike

[Guest]

"Violating laws," bragging about it on the internet," You're kidding right grayjay? Who do you think you are?

I'll be happy to answer that for you...none of your business and please don't waste your time asking anything else as you're now a ghost as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately this is now in the public realm, and these are valid questions. How you handled the sample go's to the validity of it's results.

[Guest mitchw]

BartloJays#128, I appreciate your prudence. I do not know how to interpret the results of the study.

[Guest reelback]

The chances of this being a complete hoax by Justin and friend are very slim

Unfortunately, I disagree with this, see my comment below.

What I have had the most trouble with, is how the heck did bear flesh turn up right where he thought one of the bipedal animals expired? There should be near zero chance of that.

Exactly. See the comment below.

What conjecture? It came back as bear, that's fact. No way he went back to where he says he killed the BF and instead found a piece of bear. This stinks to high heaven.

It does.

Do I believe Justin? - yes

Why? Again, see the whole article of logical reasons why. Couple those with the consistent unwavering behavior that is consistent with his claims, and I don't have much choice. As I say in that article: "Once you eliminate the most implausible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is likely the truth"

Tyler, I'm fairly new here. Who are you? Why are you involved in this? Not to threaten or challenge, just understand. You seem a reasonable fellow.

To your point:

"Once you eliminate the most implausible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is likely the truth"

What remains? Bear. So while you view him lying, passing a poly, whatever other evidence as improbable, I view them as implausable.

What remains is truth. There is near 0 chance of finding bear flesh near that spot, so while improbable, what remains is probably the truth: this is a hoax.

Look, you obviously are much closer to this than I am. I grant you that, but please grant my scepticism some weight! Its pretty unlikely what he's saying is true. It just doesn't make sense he'd walk away from a dead BF like that. And now we can't substantitate it. You WANT to believe him, I can relate, but ask yourself.... should you?

[Guest VioletX]

Has this been posted yet?

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/statement-from-justin-smeja-regarding.html

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler, will we get to see the second lab's work?

You bet - that one is Bart's baby.

How bout this scenario...Smeja et al. having submitted genuine BF samples to Dr. Ketchum and her study, for whatever reasons becomes disenchanted/disillusioned by said study, and in an effort to torpedo her study, deliberately submits bear samples to another lab, knowing it will show up as bear thus discrediting MK? Not saying this is the case, but could be plausible.

Understandable conjecture. I would love to think the same.

Had Justin not passed the polygraph, and had every vibe he gave off NOT been that of someone who was devastated by the lab results, who had trouble accepting or believing the lab results, and who was nearly desperate to find some other means of proof in the light of the failure of this tissue, then I might say it was an option. While plausible, just not very probable at all.

Tyler, not sure if you answered this, but how did Justin's DNA come to get on the sample? Did he think it was when he sliced some off for this study or earlier?

Justin's DNA could have gotten on the sample when he retrieved it at the site, when he packaged it, or when he segmented it for testing.

Yeah, not sure how to interpret that, 10% bear, 15% human......75% nothing?

Please see my last post - I believe I answered this but if I missed the nuance of the point, let me know.

Not sure this matters now, but I'm wondering why there is no name for the haplotype in the report? Surely they would have identified it for you in the report. Also, I've not heard of using a blender as any part of an extraction method on hair and tissue. It makes me imagine an attempt to diminish any chance at getting a "clean" sequence from an "uncontaminated" portion of the sample. I would be livid if the sample represented all I had. Of coarse we all know not to send all, but it would raise a red flag for me. I think I would have dropped that lab in further efforts.

I deliberately kept the lab fairly uninformed at the start - to see what they got for results with no bias. I do think they could have done things differently, but hindsight is 20/20. In the end, I don't see that that compromises the conclusions.

If a lab uses bear primers, and there is no bear in the sample, does that necessarily mean that the test result will be 0% for bear? I still don't get why the Trent lab used Black Bear primers in the first place Does the percentage figure indicate the likelihood of 'bear' or the amount of 'bear?'.

Your question, if answered in great, detailed accuracy would require more genetic testing knowledge than I have. I'll try to give a short answer in my layman's terms, based on how I got educated throughout this process. All of creation shares the vast majority of our DNA. There are small areas of differentiation. The primers capitalize on the areas of differentiation. If the primer is very specific, and only targets the areas of differentiation, then it will not amplify areas of DNA in other mammals, because it does not match properly. Think of tuning in a radio station - if you are not at the right frequency, it won't amplify clearly. As far as "why" Trent used bear primers - they started with extremely generic primers - they had difficulty getting ANY DNA to amplify - trouble getting any viable sequences. That seems to indicate the small amount of DNA present. But the more generic a primer is, the more notorious it is for not getting "hits" off a sample (If I understood Trent properly). As the primers get more finely tuned in to certain species they tend to be more reliable. My guess would be that Trent likely kept working its way down the chain across all the most likely suspects.

*I also think it is very important to note the Melba claims the mtDNA is identical to human, and the genomic is almost identical. So there is no reason to believe that there would not have been a hit/match/amplification of any sasquatch DNA if it was present. While possible, it just does not fit with her claims of hybridization.

grayjays - keep posting questions all you like - you are dead to me, mr. 11 yr old hall monitor who already had his question answered. You are done.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Tyler H

[Guest reelback]

I still can't, for the life of me, understand why the boots still haven't been tested.

Yes, and respectfully, can the respondents please provide some clarity? Was it cost?

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.

This. Please don't take our commentary as anything but what it is: genuine surprise and curosity.

How bout this scenario...Smeja et al. having submitted genuine BF samples to Dr. Ketchum and her study, for whatever reasons becomes disenchanted/disillusioned by said study, and in an effort to torpedo her study, deliberately submits bear samples to another lab, knowing it will show up as bear thus discrediting MK? Not saying this is the case, but could be plausible.

Am I the only one here with a math background? Do some probability, but roughly speaking, your odds approach 0 after about the 4th conjecture.

I'm also pretty sure it's criminal too, you sure you want to go down this accusatory road?

Lets leave this alone. Its pretty worthless banter and does little to forward the real discussion. Do you really care if there was any paperwork? I really don't anymore than I care if he ripped a matress tag off.