Bigfoot hand - DNA news

Correa Neto said:
DNA can be ruined if the propper care with sample collection and preservation are not taken. Among the things that called my attention, a particular item is the nature of the fluid in which the "hand" is immersed. Check http://www.forensicdna.ca for some more detail.
Click to expand...

Do you think that's why the DNA from the hand was unusable?:

....Our slot blot result indicates that there is no DNA present in the tissue samples that you submitted to DNA Diagnostic Center on 5/23/06. We also performed a 1% agarose yield gel to determine if the DNA from items 01.A and 01.B is degraded. Based on this test the DNA from items 01.A and 01.B is highly degraded and, therefore, a DNA profile cannot be obtained.....
Click to expand...

I found the failure of the DNA testing to be yet another frustrating dead end, and cite situations like this as proof that DNA testing is no magic bullet (as well as the "no match to any known species" results in other situations) when it comes to identifying an unknown species.

Anyone familiar with Tube's posts should be aware of whats he's talking about. Its more than enough to raise some red flags, at least for my standards of evidence quality. Lets say there are parallels with Ivan Marx story.
Click to expand...

Are there "opinions" out there in Skepticsville that the DNA from the hand was purposely compromised by placing it in a preservative solution that would destroy it's DNA value?
 
Huntster:

I believe Correa was remarking on the fact that the "hand" appears to have been preserved in formaldyhyde, which destroys DNA (makes it unuseable for testing).

Might have been purposely compromised, or not. I make no claim either way. I would suggest that the sample would not have been submitted unless the submitter knew it was compromised, however. And, unless the submitter was completely ignorant of the process, he should have known of the problems liekly to occur.

Sorry, but DNA can be extermely useful, and would provide, if not the magic bullet, at least the smoking gun. Assuming you get someone who can gather some sort of evidence that has not been tanned, dried, stored in formaldyhyde, or pulled off an elk.
 
Huntster said:
Do you think that's why the DNA from the hand was unusable?:
Click to expand...
Huntsman understood my point.

Without knowing what is that fluid, for how long the "hand" was stored on it, and what were the conditions, its hard to say. But yes, I think its a possibility.

The link I provided includes instructions on collecting and storing samples for DNA tests. Check the role, for example, of humidity on DNA deterioration. All it takes is to seal a wet sample in plastic. Some googling with the following keywords will provide additional information if you are really interested: DNA sample deterioration preservation

Huntster said:
I found the failure of the DNA testing to be yet another frustrating dead end, and cite situations like this as proof that DNA testing is no magic bullet (as well as the "no match to any known species" results in other situations) when it comes to identifying an unknown species.
Click to expand...
I can not say that I was surprised by the outcome.

I can not agree with the rest of your statement. It is far from being accurate. DNA testing will be useless when identifying unknown species only in the following cases:
(1) Sample contamination;
(2) Sample degradation;
(3) Assay problems;
(4) Species has no DNA.
(1) and (2) are related to care on collecting and handling the specimens, and can be responsible for the results we are discussing. (3) would most likely be addressed by the lab, and (4) would be, well... Quite unlikely for multicellular species from this planet. Even you would agree with that.

Inconlusive in this as well as in the other cases, is by no means indicative of an unknown species.

Huntster said:
Are there "opinions" out there in Skepticsville that the DNA from the hand was purposely compromised by placing it in a preservative solution that would destroy it's DNA value?
Click to expand...
The solution may have been one of the possible reasons for degradation of DNA. Other possible (non-exclusive) reasons were cited above. A person with the best possible intentions may indeed ruin DNA evidence if she/he has no idea on how to collect and preserve the specimen.

I also failed to find any further information on the sample sent to DNA testing. Important -actually essential- informations are missing. For example:
How was the sample taken? The recomended methodology for collection and preservation was followed?
What exactly consitituded the sample? It was from muscle? Skin? Fat tissue? Bone marrow (best possible sample, taking in to account the preservation conditions)?

Here in Skepticville, we, after evaluating the presented evidence, concluded that the whole story stinks as much as the "hand". Unfortunately. And, from what I read at Cryptomundo, many folks at Beliverville reached a similar conclusion.
 
Just how in the hell does Biscardi keep getting money?
Why isn't he standing in line at the shelter clutching his frisbee/plate and pondering his navel?
 
desertyeti said:
Just how in the hell does Biscardi keep getting money?
Why isn't he standing in line at the shelter clutching his frisbee/plate and pondering his navel?
Click to expand...

That's just it.......I don't think he is.......I think these numbers he's throwing around are exaggerrated much like everything else he claims...I think GABRO owes him around $25.63 for a pizza he sprung for one night, and they forgot to give back three of his notebooks full of schizophrenic Bigfeet ramblings that Tom scribbled down in crayon over the years.
 
I think it is very clear that Hunster is a forensic pathologist with some zoology training as that's exactly what he'd need to claim this hand MUST be from a not-bear.

What I'm curious about is where the rest of the bear is. Did it get a hook replacement? Will our nation be overrun with pirate bears? Steven Colbert was right!
 
Dark Jaguar said:
I think it is very clear that Hunster is a forensic pathologist with some zoology training as that's exactly what he'd need to claim this hand MUST be from a not-bear.
Click to expand...

You're right.

And since I'm not a forensic pathologist, and I didn't claim that 'this hand MUST be from a not-bear", I wonder what the hell you're talking about.

I have, however, skinned out several bears. And I hate turning toes...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom