SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Bigfoot DNA

by Steven Novella, Nov 26 2012

The Bigfoot community (yes, they still exist) is abuzz with the announcement that Bigfoot/Sasquatch DNA has been analyzed with interesting results. Bigfoot is the alleged large North American furry hominid that roams the deep forest, largely in the Pacific Northwest. It is known only from sightings and ambiguous trace evidence (blurry photographs, footprints, hair samples), but is most famous from the Patterson-Gimlin film (touted by believers, but highly criticized by skeptics).

After decades, however, what we lack is a physical specimen. No one has captured a bigfoot, killed one, found a dead body or skeleton. There is also no fossil evidence supporting the existence of such a creature. Researchers have found biological samples (such as hair or skin) that they claimed were from a bigfoot. The big news today is that a five-year study to sequence and analyze DNA from these samples has now concluded. I predict that the results will be touted by believers but highly criticized by skeptics.

The results have not yet been peer-reviewed or published, so there will definitely need to to be follow up when this occurs. The work was headed by Dr. Melba Ketchum, a geneticist working in Texas. Apparently she was scooped by a Russian collaborator, Igor Butsev, who released the results on his Facebook page. Ketchum was then forced to put out a press release confirming the findings. The press release indicates:

“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.

Ketchum further indicates that this alleged hybridization occurred no more than 15,000 years ago. The press release also further clarifies:

“Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.”

Until these results are peer-reviewed and published it is difficult to give a definitive critique, but from what is being reported a few things are clear. First, the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is unambiguously human. I suspect these samples come from hair, which retains mtDNA but not nuclear DNA (nuDNA). (Mitochondria are the energy factory of cells, likely evolved from primitive bacteria, and still retain some of their own DNA. Nuclear DNA comes from the nucleus of cells and is the main genetic code of the organism.)

The nuDNA also contains human sequences but also unknown sequences. We are told these do not match Neanderthal, other known early hominids, or any known ape. They are simply unknown. So, in short, we have human DNA (not human-like, but human) mixed in with some unknown sequences. Ketchum concludes from this that the samples are from a hybrid between a human and an unknown primate occurring less than 15,000 years ago.

Let me offer a preliminary alternate hypothesis. The hair samples that contain only human mtDNA are from a human. The samples from which the nuDNA is isolated are also from humans but with some contaminants or some other animal source mixed in. That seems to be a more parsimonious interpretation. I would like to know more about the source of the DNA, but I guess that will have to wait for the full details to be published. The fact that the human DNA is modern human (hence the need for the alleged hybridization to have occurred so recently in the past) is most easily explained as the source simply being modern humans.

Let us also consider the scenario that Ketchum is suggesting – in the very recent past (less than 15,000 years) an unknown primate bred with modern human females (mtDNA comes almost exclusively from the female line) producing the creature we now know as bigfoot. What, then, must the original unknown primate looked like? The result of this pairing then produced fertile offspring, enough to generate a new stable population of bigfeet. It is highly doubtful that the offspring of a creature that looks like bigfoot and a human would be fertile. They would almost certainly be as sterile as mules. Humans could not breed with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, or any living ape. It is probable that we could produce fertile young with Neanderthals, but it gets doubtful the further back in our evolutionary history we go – and how far back would we have to go to reach a common ancestor with bigfoot?

The bottom line is this – human DNA plus some anomalies or unknowns does not equal an impossible human-ape hybrid. It equals human DNA plus some anomalies.

Yet Ketchum (somewhat prematurely) suggests:

Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them.”

What can be recognized is the process of pseudoscience – anomaly hunting and then backfilling to the desired conclusion. What we don’t have is compelling evidence for a new species.

GD Star Rating
a WordPress rating system
Bigfoot DNA, 4.8 out of 5 based on 15 ratings

Recommended Reading

64 Responses to “Bigfoot DNA”

  1. S. Hill says:

    Better than a dubious site like Beforeitsnews, interested folks may want to follow doubtfulnews.com for information on this topic and other paranormal and pseudoscience news. There are typically some good skeptical comments with additional information on the story. This one, along with some of the history, is covered in this piece posted on Saturday.
    Melba Ketchum announces Bigfoot DNA results. Without the data.
    http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/11/melba-ketchum-announces-bigfoot-dna-results-without-the-data/

  2. C says:

    The samples are not exclusively hair. Some are blood. One is flesh. One is a toe nail, I believe. The sequences will reveal whether the DNA is deformed modern human or archaic. My guess is that there really was a late, relic population of primitive erectus in China and Siberia before the end of the ice age, and that they hybridized with modern humans, just like denisova and neaderthal. But in this case, the children were assimilated into the relic population. I eagerly await the full publication, and the many more papers that will surely follow.

    • Kelly says:

      As do I. Once these findings are reviewed by objective scientists, this creature should be immediately protected to the fullest extent of the law. This is very exciting news indeed.

  3. Trimegistus says:

    Wait until the casino industry gets word of this. If they’re “indigenous” that means SLOTS AND CHEAP SMOKES!

  4. Other Paul says:

    … stable population of bigfeet?

    I suspect you, sir, of not taking this seriously.

  5. tmac57 says:

    In light of this ‘finding’,I propose that a fund raising effort be started to protect the Sasquatch. A charity gala perhaps.
    We can call it ‘The Foot Ball’.

  6. tmac57 says:

    They would almost certainly be as sterile as mules.

    Correct me if this is wrong,but I am pretty sure that I heard a story on NPR where they said that a female mule can have offspring,although it is pretty rare.

  7. Kelly says:

    Even when science is being scientific, the skeptic refuses to open their closed minds to the fact that they may be wrong. It’s more about ego and being contrarian that drives the typical skeptic. The skeptic no more cares for the scientific method than he does fantasy if it goes against that which he does not want to believe. Too bad Steven, looks like you may have a new cousin.

    • MarcusA says:

      Are the Bigfoot researchers being scientific? That’s the question that hasn’t been answered. The study hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet. Something is not scientific just because technology is involved. The results must be scrutinized for a multitude of possible errors. That’s what science is about –trying to falsify hypotheses. If the study stands up to such rigorous scrutiny, then, and only then, should it be tentatively accepted. Non-skeptics should not bandy about the term “scientific method” unless they understand what it entails.

      You say –”The skeptic no more cares for the scientific method than he does fantasy if it goes against that which he does not want to believe.”

      I’ve been following Bigfoot stories since I was a child, and nothing would give me greater intellectual pleasure than the discovery of a new species of great ape living in my backyard. But anecdotal evidence, blurry videos, and sloppy DNA evidence, aren’t enough to make me accept such a creature’s existence. I want to believe, but what I want and what reality is are often two different things. A good skeptic sets aside his desires.

    • Cameron says:

      It’s not about not accepting that they may be wrong. It’s about accepting the most plausible explanation, and contamination is still the most plausible. You may want to examine why you are so eager to believe before the evidence has yet to be peer reviewed.

    • tmac57 says:

      You talk about skeptics as though they are unified,with one ideological belief system. This could not be further from the truth.
      Of course,there are people who reject paranormal and cryptid news items out of hand.That is because these tales are a dime a dozen,and rarely amount to anything. But a true skeptic,while they may initially feel that way,will also leave open the possibility that evidence will prove them wrong.And,I might add,that they will accept that they are wrong,once the evidence is proven sound.
      So,let’s see the irrefutable evidence for a ‘bigfoot’.

      • tmac57 says:

        Quite an impressive list of anecdotal sightings.This obviously raises the question:
        If there has been that level of sightings and encounters,where are the clear,unambiguous,undoctored digital photos and videos?
        Where are the dead Bigfoot bodies hit by cars,or accidentally killed by hunters?
        Where are the skeletons?

      • Daniel says:

        Thank you so much for using the correct phrase “raises the question” and not “begs the question.”

      • tmac57 says:

        Yeah,I’m afraid that the horse is out of the barn on that phrase at this point.Oh well,language evolves.

      • Antares says:

        While I would find it mildly interesting to learn that North America has a native ape species, or even a non-human hominid, I honestly don’t care too much one way or another (I’m frankly much more interested to see what NASA is going to announce about Mars next week). But you raise a question which I’ve seen raised before, and I’d like to try to address it.

        I happen to live in the Pacific Northwest, and I spend a lot of time out of doors, hiking etc. Black bears are indigenous and common here, and I’ve seen or otherwise encountered them in the wild on numerous occasions. I’m not a photographer, but I usually carry a cell phone with me which has a camera wherever I go. I have never once successfully photographed a black bear in the wild, and I have never found a black bear skeleton or carcass in the wild, and I have never heard of anyone else ever finding a black bear skeleton or carcass in the wild. Presumably sasquatches (if they happen to exist at all) are rather more rare than black bears, so I can’t imagine why anyone would expect to find sasquatch skeletons just lying around in the forest. It just doesn’t work that way.

  8. Ronster says:

    Steve,

    The reasons why most hybrids cannot reproduce has to do with chromosome numbers. For example, horses have 64 chromsomes and donkeys have 62. When each provides a gamete with its haploid number to make a mule, the mule ends up with 63. When it’s time for the mule to try to make its own gametes, the 32 horse chromosomes don’t pair up easily with the 31 donkey chromosomes. So, meiosis fails and no gametes are produced, making the mule sterile. When hybrids are fertile, it is because the chromosomes are sufficiently similar that they can still pair during meiosis in the hybrid to make gametes
    Humans and the Sasquatch DNA match in the number of chromosomes. You understand the basics of how stuff works, but lack of detail.

    You also have a problem because you want to know what the BABY DADDY looks like. Well, it probably had similar looks to the modern Sasquatch, but that is just speculation.

    This is baseless:
    “It is highly doubtful that the offspring of a creature that looks like bigfoot and a human would be fertile. They would almost certainly be as sterile as mules. Humans could not breed with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, or any living ape. It is probable that we could produce fertile young with Neanderthals, but it gets doubtful the further back in our evolutionary history we go – and how far back would we have to go to reach a common ancestor with bigfoot?”
    Your statements seem to lack evidence to support your “theory”. You are arguing the DNA obtained (must be contaminated by other animal DNA) but results in a ancient human ancestor DNA?
    You are a MAGICIAN.

    • MarcusA says:

      Chimpanzees and gorillas — humans’ closest living relatives– have 24 pairs of chromosomes. And humans have 23 pairs. The point when humans lost a chromosome to fusion took place about 6 million years ago. The problem here is that Melba Ketchum wants to argue that Bigfoot is different from humans, but similar enough to interbreed with humans. She said, “Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences.” So the nuDNA is “novel” but similar enough to allow for breeding? It’s “non-human” and “non-ape”? Is she aware that humans are apes?

      If the mtDNA is identical, then humans and Bigfoot had to have interbred recently. But what about the divergent evolutionary history of the Bigfoot parent species? If the interbreeding was so recent, then we’re talking about two parent species and a daughter species. We don’t have fossil evidence for one Bigfoot species, let alone two. As Steven Novella said, contamination “seems to be a more parsimonious interpretation.”

    • gabe says:

      MUTATION???!!!! Like red hair, etc.

    • David Hewitt says:

      “Humans and the Sasquatch DNA match in the number of chromosomes. ”

      You state this as fact. It is not fact. No Sasquatch DNA has been demonstrated, ever. Your statement is a supposition, and therefore of little value in the discussion.

      Or, to quote you, ‘Your statements seem to lack evidence to support your “theory”.’

      And, no, Dr. Novella is not a MAGICIAN, he is a NEUROLOGIST. James Randi, Penn, Teller, and Jamy Ian Swiss are magicians.

  9. d brown says:

    Some time ago (20 years or so)a TV news show had a interview with a old timer who said he made the big foot prints from the time he was a kid. It showed a had a shed of old worn our wood prints that he said he had been making and using from the start of the bigfoot tails. Funny, nobody ever talks about that.

    • Ronster says:

      There are details in the footprints that eliminate the wooden fake foot lie. No one talks about that because that man was a crazy old man that never made real tracks. Real tracks have dermal ridges which his fake wooden feet could never produce

      • MarcusA says:

        Analyzing dermal ridges is highly subjective and open up to all types of evidence-collecting errors. Not to mention fraud. Dermal ridges are easily faked. It’s another distraction from the glaring fact that Bigfoot researchers haven’t found a single specimen.

      • Tim says:

        Tell me how one can fake dermal ridges? Prove it.

        Oh I see you are wearing your skeptic glasses that will say anything to serve your identity as a skeptic. Anything outside of this box is a non-perception.

        Time for a new eye exam.

        http://www.lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/Pages/BigfootBehavior.aspx

        “That doesn’t prove anything” you say?

        Then nothing, not even a real bloody Sasquatch will make you believe. Ignorance is bliss. Have fun while I check out the beauty of our planet and all of it’s diversity of life!

      • tmac57 says:

        A “bloody Sasquatch” would do it for me.Do you have one?

      • Daniel says:

        Watch the Bigfoot episode of Is It Real. A demonstration is given on how one can make fake footprints that have dermal ridges.

      • Tim says:

        I will take you to Canaan Valley WV around 3am in the dark of the mountains and we will see if you believe in dermal ridges being faked or not.

        The ability of a hoaxer who want his 15 minutes does not prove or disprove the existence of something that is purposely ignored by mainstream science and media in order to preserve the dogma of their holy theories.

        Think

      • tmac57 says:

        I will take you to Canaan Valley WV around 3am in the dark of the mountains and we will see if you believe in dermal ridges being faked or not.

        Why did I think of the song ‘Dueling Banjos’ as I read this?

      • Daniel says:

        Although you confined your original statement to “wooden feet” not being able to produce dermal ridges, the implication is that dermal ridges cannot be faked. I pointed you to a televised demonstration about how dermal ridges can indeed be faked, or more precisely be reproduced to look like bigger feet that have dermal ridges. You don’t appear to dispute this, other than to say that it doesn’t “prove or disprove” something that the mainstream isn’t talking about. That’s not the way it works. You’re making an argument that some creature of which anyone has yet to find a physical speciman is out there. The burden of proof is on you to prove what is in actuality your “holy theor[y]“, not those that doubt the assertion.

    • gabe says:

      That guy was from late 1950′s and was acting on Indian local legend. There is a retired cop who is famous for fingerprint and footprint expertise around world. Based on very detailed tracks he viewed in 2007 i believe, he stated that the prints are real, have detail of an unknown American species of animal, but much like a bi pedal primate, that is obviously yet found to exist. Look it up on youtube

  10. gabe says:

    The moron who killed an adult and baby took a large “steak” with hair and flesh. The baby supposedly died in his arms. I t looked so human in the face that the guilty idiot ran and left it in adults arms. He went back a week later and found that coyotes had taken both. He contacted this DNA company and the rest is ongoing, this was in northern Ca. in 2010. It looks like its not only real but everywhere in continental US and Alaska and Canada. About 500-750 are said to exist and be as intelligent as possibly a young teen human. Cool stuff no matter what!

  11. Tim says:

    Skepticism for skepticism’s sake is a bit like a religion isn’t it not? Now remove your blinders and encourage huh-hum…excuse me an objectice, unbiased (by skepticism) investigation into the phenomena:

    http://www.lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/Pages/BigfootBehavior.aspx

    That would include going into the deepest parts of the wilderness AT NIGHT (they are nocturnal) and performing a non-skeptical investigation. So far tell me skeptics, has this been investigated by any mainstream university? No. Because an objective finding would destroy all of the holy theories of the priestly scientific *cough* Inquisitors sorry community.

    And why the throngs of offended skeptics on this matter if it is not real? Has their been 1000′s of eyewitness accounts of the tooth fairy? I know not of one. Sorry. No DNA their lol.

    Now start thinking critically and go learn for yourself. I can see that it is real through my own experiences and reading.

    Tell me, how can you see something you don’t believe exists? If I skeptically believe you do not exist in my mind dear Skeptic, then in my universe you don’t. Max Planck – Quantum Theory

    • tmac57 says:

      A “non-skeptical investigation” is not an investigation.You are conflating skepticism with cynicism.Skepticism is an integral part of investigation.
      Since you presented your reference site for us to better understand Bigfoot,I will return the favor so that you can better understand what skepticism is:

      http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

      Read without judgement.

  12. Tim says:

    Thank you skeptics for being so predictable in your rejectionism of anything not under the accepted scientific dogma. You are so much fun.

    • Chris says:

      And thank you, gullible believer, for conforming to all the stereotypes of an uncritical thinker. I looked at your website – there’s not an ounce of critical thinking to be found anywhere. You accept every sighting as genuine, it seems.

      I like this line: “I am certain there are thousands of bigfoot shootings that have never been reported to for fear of legal prosecution and social ridicule.”

      Hmm, maybe •that’s• the reason we can’t find Bigfoot – they’ve all been shot.

      I don’t know, maybe your jerky is delicious.

  13. SUSAN says:

    So somebody has been out scooping Big Foot poop for its DNA huh?

  14. d brown says:

    “crazy old man that never made real tracks.” So why did he have a bunch of old worn out wood prints? His hoax was making phony wood prints for years to make it seem he was faking the bigfoot tracks for years? Say what.

  15. Max says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/scientist-claims-sequenced-bigfoot-dna-190947582.html
    “As it turns out, Ketchum says her DNA sample was obtained from a blueberry bagel left in the backyard of a Michigan home that, according to the owner, sees regular visits from Sasquatch creatures.”

    • tmac57 says:

      You’d think they would set up a camera. Wouldn’t you?

    • markx says:

      Max says: November 28, 2012 at 4:44 am

      “As it turns out, Ketchum says her DNA sample was obtained from a blueberry bagel…

      One thing we have learned about DNA over the years is that sample collection is a crucial process, and meticulous care is needed to avoid contamination.

      Why do I get the feeling this may not have been the case here?

      • Max says:

        Hard to imagine where the human DNA on a blueberry bagel could come from.

      • tmac57 says:

        I do think that I will henceforth keep my blueberry bagels in the freezer…just in case ;)

      • markx says:

        And don’t forget … wheat (flour) has DNA too… in this case likely disrupted by heating.. seems you have to get over about 200 F to ‘unzip’ the tow strands, but it takes a lot to actually break up the backbone of the strands – although if there are DNAases still present in the flour, they may do so.

        “….The reason for the delay in analyzing wheat’s genetic code, Hall said, was that the code is massive – far larger than corn or rice and five times the length of the one carried by humans….”

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/27/wheat-dna-cracked-by-scie_n_696801.html

        The camera would have been useful. What chance other animals and insects also took a nibble in the night?

      • Max says:

        Don’t worry, bigfoot didn’t even finish eating the bagel, so he evidently doesn’t like it, at least without coffee.

      • markx says:

        heh! Just picturing bigfoot as a dainty eater … pretty amusing that he just took a nibble at it…

        I think you are right, any sensible person would have put out a pot of coffee and a cup.

        Far cleaner DNA samples, for a start.

      • tmac57 says:

        Bigfoot probably has a paleo-diet,and mistook the bagel for a mushroom cap.Being gluten intolerant,it suddenly needed to run back to the woods.That’s the only logical conclusion I think.

  16. Loren Petrich says:

    She ought to compare her sequences with some big database of gene sequences, like at PubMed.

    Since she claims that she had gotten her samples from a blueberry bagel, some of the local fauna might have come by, and that should be easy to test for.

  17. Tobias says:

    Best comments section to date! My fallacy-o-meter is closing in on what I previously believed to be the un-attainable quotient of 1. There is still hope, if we could only prove the link between this and chemtrails…

  18. Donald Prothero says:

    @Antares: As Daniel Loxton and I discuss in our upcoming book on cryptozoology, both of us have spent many years tramping the woods of the Pacific NW, and Loxton has spent most of his life there. Both of us have seen black bears on numerous occasions, and we have both seen their bones and fur and other tangible traces as well. In our Bigfoot chapter, we debunk the myth that “no one finds black bear bones”–only Bigfooters can’t seem to find them! Wildlife biologists in the field see them all the time, but seldom bother to report it, since it’s no big deal. That is one of MANY strong biological lines of evidence that they don’t exist.

    • Antares says:

      There is no question that black bears, which happen to be very large vertebrates, have skeletons which are occasionally found in the wild. However, anyone who has in fact “spent many years tramping the woods of the Pacific NW”, whether as scientists or as hunters or as hikers or whatever, would probably agree that one is much, much more likely to encounter a living black bear in the wild than they are to encounter the mortal remains of the same. Coyotes, raccoons and other scavengers simply don’t leave such things undisturbed for very long. Black bears encounters are very common, bigfoot encounters are very rare, if they occur at all. So the fact that one is not typically in grave danger of tripping over a sasquatch carcass during a given day-hike is not altogether surprising, or conclusive of much of anything.

      For the record, I do not happen to “believe” in bigfoot, or unicorns or Bertrand Russell’s invisible orbital teapot for that matter. But there are no (none, zero, nada) “strong biological lines of evidence that they (any of the aforementioned, it turns out) do not exist.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot prove a negative, nor it is your burden to do so. The burden of proof lies with the individuals making the claim for the existence of the thing.

  19. Loren Petrich says:

    Yes, it’ll likely be hard to find *Triticum* or *Vaccinium* genes in that bagel because of its baking. But if it attracted common North American backyard critters, one might find some *Canis lupus familiaris* or *Vulpes vulpes* or *Procyon lotor* or *Mephitis mephitis* or *Didelphis virginiana* genes on it.

  20. kermit says:

    I can’t help but notice that the evidence for bigfoots (?) so far is the epistemological equivalent of alien spacecraft. That is, thousands of claimed eyewitnesses, but any photographic evidence so far is hazy and inconclusive at best.

    I would *love for there to be a living, non-human hominid. Or intelligent spacefaring aliens for that matter. Please make my world even more fascinating than it is, and give me verifiable evidence for sasquatch.

    I agree, BTW, that size and hairiness are no indication of barriers to interbreeding. As is well known, some humans are born and live their lives covered in long hair. and some of us are pretty big. The other differences could be insignificant. But generally, when we die, we leave substantial bodies behind. Interbreeding with cousins who do not seems unlikely.

  21. Albert Ralph says:

    Skeptic does not mean “against”. Skeptic means requiring proof. Many skeptics would love to find out the Bigfoot is real, but to date, there is NO PROOF. We will see the results of the peer-review, and go from there.
    If I thought there were Bigfoots in my back yard, you can bet that the first thing I would install is a “BAGEL-CAM”.

    Skeptics don’t have any special “Priestly knowledge”. Only facts.
    Believers are afraid of changing their beliefs. Skeptics aren’t afraid of changing their beliefs, because their beliefs are based on facts, and therefore only change as new FACTS become available. Skeptics are actually more open to change than anybody for that very reason.

  22. D says:

    i dont think dna can mix like your saying. if there is another species dna mixed in the sample it would show up as something else but not mix with the human dna and show that as a result. I saw a video about it explaining how it works im sure its easy to find online but yeah she explains away the contamination issue. looking forward to reading the paper myself.

  23. Laura says:

    I don’t find the arguments against the existence of sasquatches convincing. New mammal species are discovered all the time, even in densely populated areas. For example the saola, a 200-pound bovine that lives in Vietnam, was only discovered in the 90′s.
    Unfortunately if there are sasquatches, the skepticism about their existence is likely to be self-fulfilling. If there are only a few hundreds or thousands of them, they may soon go extinct and the skeptics will be right.
    It would be such a terrible thing to discover the body of the last sasquatch … with no kin left to do some deathrite of theirs that disposes of the body … Just on the chance that such creatures exist, some serious effort should be put into spotting them. What about surveillance satellites? there are probsbly satellites that overfly the areas where sasquatches are seen. Surely if they exist they would amble out into the open when they think noone is watching, and pictures could be taken from a satellite?
    It’ll be lovely if this DNA research turns out to be the real thing, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Laura says:

      Jeff Meldrum, a Bigfoot specialist who is a physical anthropologist at Idaho State Univ., is trying to raise $300,000 for a blimp to float over sasquatchy areas, watching with thermal imaging, hopefully this year.

  24. darryl pearson says:

    i am a hard core skeptic when it comes to saying that bigfoot exists. there has never been any evidence to support ANY claim of a bigfoot. and a piece of hair is not going to convince me that there is now an apelike creature walking on the planet. there has never been any bones found; or skin; or a skull; or droppings. bones and skulls have been found for humans and animals that were thousands of years old. and yet, no one has found anything for bigfoot. even a small bird leaves droppings; so does an elephant. when the spaceship lands on my lawn, i might start to be a believer.

  25. Charles Bigfoot Believer says:

    I am very ashamed to admit that as a “Card Carrying Skeptic”, that over a period of many years, I had unmercifully ridiculed everyone I met that had opinions contrary to any of my views on the subject of Bigfoot or Sasquatch. I did everything to insult their lack of intelligence and rampant stupidity
    Eventually, my curiosity was the cause of many years of research that followed, as I became much more knowledgeable about this subject. For hundreds of years, Native American peoples, along with many other eyewitnesses, have been ridiculed, harassed and scorned because of their personal or cultural belief in the reality of Sasquatch! I used to live very near the Ogalala Sioux Indians in Nebraska who were believers.
    In searching the 42 linguistic groups of Native American languages, I stopped counting after 500 or so. Each of these linguisitic groups had numerous names for what we call Sasquatch, (which is actually not among those historic names). The name “Sasquatch” was coined by J.W. Burns, an American schoolteacher in British Columbia in the 1920′s, and is derived from “Sesqac” (c=ts) , which was a Chehalis word meaning “wild man”, (in the Chehalis dialect of Halkemeylem).
    It is sadly a time honored tradition of Mainstream Science to refuse to rarely ever believe the testimony of the many Indigenous Tribespeople worldwide regarding the fauna that are present in their environment.
    Well, in this case, Dr. Melba S. Ketchum has put that refusal firmly in the garbage heap along with the flat earth theory, after she submitted the three samples to the University of Texas DNA Laboratory for Next Generation Sequencing on the Illumina Platform by their experts.
    That successful effort resulted in sequencing three Nuclear Genomes that possessed consistent homology, although their DNA samples came from three individuals, from three areas, and submitted by three different researchers. This fact is very much more convincing than any proof that has ever previously been available. The Genomes that came from a Blood sample, a Saliva sample and a Flesh sample all had DNA that was judged to be high quality, very pure, and totally uncontaminated.
    Now there is no sane person alive who can truthfully say that there is no scientific evidence available for proving the existence of Sasquatch.
    I believe that the Sasquatch Genome Project data has been been made available to none other than the esteemed Bryan Sykes, a Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, who is collaborating with Dr. Michel Sartori, Directeur Musee de Zoologie, Switzerland, who are now in the process of collecting and studying cryptid DNA samples under the banner of the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project.
    I suspect their findings will surprise us all, and will definitely vindicate Dr. Ketchums work. Her efforts will go down in history for all time!
    Congratulations to you and to Dr. Melba Ketchum and her colleagues!

  26. CJP says:

    In another 30 years – people will still having this same debate even though there will be not one bone, dropping, skin or body found but there still will be believers.

  27. Jake says:

    big foot isn’t real

  28. Charles Bigfoot DNA Believer says:

    To CJP: Very interesting that you brought up the subject of bones.
    Dr. Melba Ketchum has mentioned that she is now in the process of attempting to extract usable DNA from a bone provided to her by David Paulides of NABS (North American Bigfoot Search).
    This could provide a valuable follow up to the information already published by the Sasquatch Genome Project.
    I have noted that there has been very little reporting in any of the Media of the fact that Sasquatch now has a bona fide Species name.
    Dr. Melba Ketchum and her esteemed colleagues with the Sasquatch Genome Project have the distinct honor of naming the first living relative of mankind that shares our planet. All other species have become extinct. As evidenced by an enormous number of eyewitness sightings throughout the lower 48 states, Alaska, and all of the Canadian Provinces, sometimes by Biologists or Law Enforcement Officers, Sasquatch, now properly known as Homo sapiens cognatus, is quite obviously extant in North America.
    The ZooBank Data is:

    Homo sapiens cognatus Ketchum in Ketchum, Wojtkiewicz, Watts,
    Spence, Holzenburg, Tolar, Prychitko, Zhang, Bollinger, Shoulders
    & Smith, 2013

    LSIDurn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:40E2FA1F-10A1-4D42-8B02-A007347F1B43

    Rank: Subspecies

    Parent: Homo Sapiens
    Linnaeus, 1758

    Specific Name: cognatus

    Authorship: Ketchum

    Publication: Ketchum, Melba, Patrick Wojtkiewicz, Aliece Watts, David Spence, Andreas Holzenburg, Douglas Tolar, Thomas Prychitko, Fan Zhang, Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders & Ryan Smith. 2013

    Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies.

    Denovo, Accelerating Science 1(1, Supplemental).

    The Team listed above under “Publication”, includes the following experts:
    led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX:

    Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz, Director of the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory;

    Dr. Douglas G. Toler of Huguley Pathology Consultants in Fort Worth, TX;

    Dr. Fan Zhang of the University of North Texas Health Science Center;

    Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg, Director of the Microscopy & Imaging Center at Texas A&M University;

    Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Helix Biological Laboratory in Michigan;

    Ms. Aliece Watts of Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless, TX;

    Mr. David Spence, Trace Evidence Supervisor at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences;

    and Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith of DNA Diagnostics.

    In my personal opinion, I believe that the next time you may see this list of highly
    distinguished scientists may well be on the nomination for the Nobel Prize.
    I think that it is richly deserved.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE