Guest Fanofsquatch Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 I value a prominent labs "inconclusive" result more than a regular labs. What is the result going to be? A no match? Is that proof enough? The line "I have good counsel" seems a bit menacing, as if he were going to expose something. Now if his results match Ketchums other samples then we will have something.
Guest slimwitless Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Today is the first time it's been reported that Justin is sending a sample to the Sykes study. If true, that means a piece from the Sierra incident is included in all three studies. (Although I hesitate to call the independent test a formal study - although it could be, I don't know).
bipedalist Posted July 25, 2012 BFF Patron Posted July 25, 2012 It's all a big puff of wind for now. Hope it is more than a "windstorm" later.
georgerm Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Here is some information about the CO1 gene and a group that plans to bar code all of the animal and plant species on earth. Interesting stuff. http://news.national...abarcode_2.html In addition, Hebert and his colleagues have already begun to compile a bar code database at the University of Guelph. Discussions are being held to make sure the two databases are complementary, Schindel said. To make the bar code database an economical, effective, and useful tool, the consortium is focused on a portion of a single gene common to all life, known as CO1, or cytochrome c oxidase 1. Variations in this segment of DNA distinguish species in much the same way that bar codes in a supermarket might distinguish brands of cereals. "What we have said is that the CO1 … gene seems to work very well for most animal groups," Schindel said. "So if you're going to use bar codes, start with that one." The CO1 gene is found in mitochondria, the energy-producing subunits of cells that are inherited only from an organisms' mother. (Most DNA is found in the nuclei of cells and is inherited from both the mother and father of an organism.)......................................................... The CO1 gene is also simple to isolate in a variety of animals, and a broad range of animal life has been shown to have distinct CO1 sequences, Hebert said. However CO1 does not work well for vascular plants (plants with tube systems for conducting fluid, such as ferns and flowering plants). Edited July 25, 2012 by georgerm
Guest slimwitless Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 It's all a big puff of wind for now. Hope it is more than a "windstorm" later. True. But this is Bigfoot. It's hard to expect anything else.
Guest Peter O. Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) CO1 does sound problematic, being a single gene, and being mitochondrial DNA. Since we have heard that BF might share human mtDNA. I don't know if I should buy that last one, though. I'm going to have to go over the Ketchum thread (yikes) to what people have said about mtDNA, I suppose. A quick "search & skim" shows that mtDNA has a high mutation rate, esp. in humans. It is used to determine phylogeny after all. With high mutation rates, one would expect some new mutations that were "outside of the human range" in an isolated population after some time regardless of species, though I understand that "new" stuff would be introduced at a slower rate. Maybe that question deserves its own thread now that we have multiple tests going on? But I don't know if we have enough scientists on board to give us a good educated guess. edit: by search & skim I meant Google, not the Ketchum thread. Edited July 25, 2012 by Peter O.
southernyahoo Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 This is a good Paper on the very thing this new guy is trying to do. if DNA primers work, and if the CO1 gene is enough to differentiate between mammals. Drew, it is well established that the CO1 gene can differentiate mammals (known mammals) but is sensitive to base pair count when dealing with primate sequences, not to mention that it is mtDNA only and can't find a hybrid if it were breathing down your neck. No disrespect. http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/7591/1/Hickey_Genome2006.pdf
TimB Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Sometimes you have to stick with the results that support your opinions... Tim B.
Drew Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 This is a good Paper on the very thing this new guy is trying to do. Drew, it is well established that the CO1 gene can differentiate mammals (known mammals) but is sensitive to base pair count when dealing with primate sequences, not to mention that it is mtDNA only and can't find a hybrid if it were breathing down your neck. No disrespect. http://spectrum.libr..._Genome2006.pdf His focus also included checking the famous truck window saliva for human DNA, which he did not find. He is going to see if he can get his DNA from a truck windshield, and also have some livestock lick a window and see if DNA can be obtained from such samples. If Bigfoot is a human, the CO1 gene, in the 440 BP band, should show up. Given the primers I was using, and the section of mDNA I was cutting out, i expected to see excellent results from the known human, with a strong band at 440 BP. I had hoped for some banding from the horse and dog samples, but did not have high expectations, given the primers I was using. and I had no idea what to expect from the faceprint samples.So the results: I did in fact get exactly what I was expecting from my human samples. A perfect 4 for 4, clear dark bands at 440 bp. i could therefore send in those samples and have them sequenced, with the sequences containing information on each individuals heritage, what part of the world their ancestors came from.
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Just a side note, may be of interest: Bigfoot evidence blog has posted a handful of PICS and TRACKS from the Sierra site today. Taken by Justin supposedly. Oh boy!
Midnight Owl Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 If indeed there are three different concerns conducting seperate DNA testing on tissue samples from the same source, and their findings come back typed to a previously unknown DNA sequence, that would make a calculated hoax or fabrication impossible wouldn't it? I just don't think main stream science is going to believe or accept anything from anyone concerning Bigfoot. They have overlooked and rejected physical evidence in the past. I just don't see them changing their position that easily and admitting a mistake in fact. JMHO.....
southernyahoo Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 His focus also included checking the famous truck window saliva for human DNA, which he did not find. He is going to see if he can get his DNA from a truck windshield, and also have some livestock lick a window and see if DNA can be obtained from such samples. If Bigfoot is a human, the CO1 gene, in the 440 BP band, should show up. Yes I looked at your link to his post. He sounds like a beginner in this stuff but I could be wrong. His comments about how a bigfoot proponent describes a human is not flattering since it is irrelavant to the study of DNA. He will be comparing the sequences he gets to modern human and other great apes if he gets a good sequence, and the matching is done based on similarity and read as a percentage match. Not a 100% match but within some established threshold of a known. So he would need a magic number to distinguish something new. Maybe he knows this number or has some hypothetical range he would find to be interesting and not modern human or other known ape, but he hasn't begun to express his thoughts on this issue yet.
Guest Transformer Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Yes, he said they visited his house without prior arrangement, asked for his consent to enter and search his house. Justin refused. They threatened to return with a warrant for the purpose of searching his home for evidence of a criminal act. Justin's characterization of the conversation contained elements that would probably cause the contact to be classified as a coerced search (essentially making anything discovered useless). Hmmmm....interesting story. I gleaned a bit about your background and experience from your posts so I'll take your opinion as factual regarding the attempt at a coerced entry. Thank you. I am still waiting for the answer that I have asked numerous times: What office did the Fish & Game officers come from that visited Mr. Smeja's house? I know Mr. Randles and Mr. Smeja read this thread and at least one or both of them know.
Guest MikeG Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Threads merged. The thread formerly known as the Smeja Report has been merged into this one as it covered the same territory. Mike
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Yes I know some of those questions have been, and I know for some answers one has to read between the lines. I suppose in my mind thats what I would have been asking Justin had I interviewed him. I dont care how many piles of poop he saw or what the weight or grain of bullet he used. Way to much time was spent on the latter. Like Detective friday in dragnet use to say...Just the facts please LOL I know we will have to play the wait and see game for the full story though I dont think JS will force us to wait AN WAIT like Adrian Erickson, or Ketchum have. Most of your questions are answered in this thread if you start from the beginning. Or you could go in the member search and pull up all of the posts that General and The Driver have made and that would give you most everything you're looking for. The Driver has been in this thread before and he gave he side of the story. I believe the Game and Fish got involved because Justin called them. General and The Driver. New series this fall on TNT.
Recommended Posts