any updates on the DNA analysis of fecal matter?

Laura Gridley · June 07, 2013, 08:48:38 PM

Are there any recent updates on DNA analysis of the fecal matter collected? Last post I could find in the artifact analysis area of the forum was from 2011.

Gloria Walker Burger · June 09, 2013, 04:23:14 PM

I'm interested in the answer to this question, too. When reading up I found this from Andrew McKenna:

QuoteWe collected "fecal" material during both the 2007 and 2010 expeditions. The 2007 sample, which was not collected with sterile protocols, had what appeared to be Ric's DNA in it. I think it is the 2010 sample that has recently been tested that has the two different human DNA traces in it. Ric could set me straight on this.

This is the first I've read of 2 fecal matter collections. I read as much as I can, so pardon me of this has already been discussed.

Laura Gridley · June 09, 2013, 11:50:40 PM

That's where I ended up too Gloria. That was the first I heard about possibly 2 samples and I don't see anything more recent than that.

C.W. Herndon · June 10, 2013, 04:41:06 AM

Sure is good to see you ladies posting. It's been a while since there has been much input from the feminine side of our membership. Keep it up!

Laura Gridley · June 10, 2013, 11:02:13 PM

Thanks Woody! We're definitely somewhat swimming in testosterone here on the forum but there are a few of us women around. ;)

Gloria Walker Burger · June 11, 2013, 02:17:15 PM

QuoteSure is good to see you ladies posting.

Thanks, Woody! We sure are outnumbered, but we're here. Now, what about that 2nd fecal matter collection from the 2010 expedition...

JNev · August 21, 2013, 01:15:20 PM

Quote from: Gloria Walker Burger on June 11, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
QuoteSure is good to see you ladies posting.

Thanks, Woody! We sure are outnumbered, but we're here. Now, what about that 2nd fecal matter collection from the 2010 expedition...

This is the latest poop I could find on the matter...

Gloria Walker Burger · August 31, 2013, 08:11:54 PM

Quote from: Jeff Neville on August 21, 2013, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: Gloria Walker Burger on June 11, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
QuoteSure is good to see you ladies posting.

Thanks, Woody! We sure are outnumbered, but we're here. Now, what about that 2nd fecal matter collection from the 2010 expedition...

This is the latest poop I could find on the matter...

Thanks, Jeff. Love the double entendre! That thread is where I found the quote from Andrew McKenna. Where do we stand on looking for DNA from the 2 fecal collections? Without going back to Niku, finding DNA is the best chance for finding the smoking gun. Does TIGHAR need more money for more testing? Are more tests being planned?

Doug Ledlie · April 29, 2014, 09:24:49 PM

Some rough calculations on Number 2 production on Gardner Island from 1800's to present day attached, strictly a potential turd census for the island without consideration to particular toilet habits or facilities.

If the artifact does turn out to have Earhart provenance then it is one magic dookie amongst the other half million that didn't make the grade

JNev · April 30, 2014, 06:07:43 AM

Quote from: Doug Ledlie on April 29, 2014, 09:24:49 PM
Some rough calculations on Number 2 production on Gardner Island from 1800's to present day attached, strictly a potential turd census for the island without consideration to particular toilet habits or facilities.

If the artifact does turn out to have Earhart provenance then it is one magic dookie amongst the other half million that didn't make the grade

LMAO/ROFL/LOL!!!

Yer killin' me... and excellent postulation / arguable research (yes, it "must have been so", hard to argue against.

Now that's one big pile of...

Wait, you didn't factor in the possibility of Earhart possibly having dysentery, etc. as you seem to have assumed healthy stools and regular daily movements like British Army clockwork here... not that less than firm product might survive so well, of course...

How to cut this one? Not sure, but for sure we still need to chase it - who wouldn't want the poop on Earhart having gone there, not that we can say where no man (or woman) went before?

Butt if it comes down to one magic turd and a slogan like "Earhart ____ed here" (reader's choice), I'll take it! ;D

Never let it be said that TIGHAR doesn't have a sense of humor, even when rolling her sleeves up to seriously roll this kind of evidence around. It surely cannot be said that she's afraid of getting a little on her hands either.

Chris Johnson · April 30, 2014, 12:43:58 PM

There are a number of serious (honest) questions that need asking when looking at this table:

What were the typical 'movement' habits of the various types identified? For instance islanders usually used the lagoon via jetties to jettison their output.

Westerners in residence (not shipwrecked) would have had latrines.

IMO this would increase the chance of for the sample to come from another source.

JNev · April 30, 2014, 01:28:19 PM

Quote from: Chris Johnson on April 30, 2014, 12:43:58 PM
There are a number of serious (honest) questions that need asking when looking at this table:

What were the typical 'movement' habits of the various types identified? For instance islanders usually used the lagoon via jetties to jettison their output.

Westerners in residence (not shipwrecked) would have had latrines.

IMO this would increase the chance of for the sample to come from another source.

I am moved by the seriousness of your point, Chris, true.

I recall from somewhere that islanders tend to do as you've said, and surely the predominant western habit for military settlement would include latrines, not that a wayward troop might not make a deposit in any convenient spot.

Being as this particular dung beetle bait was found, and all alone, it does seem to point to something perhaps more unique. Even more humorous than what it is, to me, is the fact that it is indeed a relic most of us would scarcely have dreamt of - and one with the potential to display precisely the sought after DNA.

Doug Ledlie · May 01, 2014, 03:07:37 PM

I wonder if islanders subject to British influence wouldn't tend to pick up any "refinement" in toilet practices over 25 years.

After a daily regimen of God Save the Queen, tea and crumpets and fish and chips, taking a dump off the pier seems somehow out of place.

JNev · May 01, 2014, 03:36:50 PM

Quote from: Doug Ledlie on May 01, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
I wonder if islanders subject to British influence wouldn't tend to pick up any "refinement" in toilet practices over 25 years.

After a daily regimen of God Save the Queen, tea and crumpets and fish and chips, taking a dump off the pier seems somehow out of place.

When in Rome...

Chris Johnson · May 03, 2014, 03:24:49 PM

Quote from: Doug Ledlie on May 01, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
I wonder if islanders subject to British influence wouldn't tend to pick up any "refinement" in toilet practices over 25 years.

After a daily regimen of God Save the Queen, tea and crumpets and fish and chips, taking a dump off the pier seems somehow out of place.

No still common practice in Kiribati.

Should also add that even if they used an old 'crapper' they'd also need pipe to put it in either a septic tank or out into the lagoon so it would be far easier to go on the old pontoon.

BTW stereo typing colonial Britain or Britain in general is my job on this forum ;)