SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Quick Bigfoot DNA Update

by Daniel Loxton, Feb 14 2013

The internet was buzzing yesterday with the long-anticipated1 release of a paper purporting to present DNA evidence that “conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin and are a direct maternal descendent of modern humans.”2 With DNA sourced, according to the paper, from among “One hundred eleven samples of blood, tissue, hair, and other types of specimens,” this is the most prominent Sasquatch DNA case to date.

Full expert review of the team’s data and methods should emerge in the coming days. In the meantime, science writers identified several serious red flags within hours of the paper’s release.

To begin with, it seems that the paper was roundly rejected by mainstream science journals. “We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review,” complained lead author Melba Ketchum.3 So how did the paper get published? Although Ketchum insists that this fact did not influence the editorial process, it seems she bought the publication.4 In fact, her paper is the only paper included in the inaugural “Special Issue” of the DeNovo Scientific Journal. Benjamin Radford notes that no libraries or universities subscribe to the newly minted DeNovo, “and the journal and its website apparently did not exist three weeks ago. There’s no indication that the study was peer-reviewed by other knowledgeable scientists to assure quality. It is not an existing, known, or respected journal in any sense of the word.”5 Invertebrate neuroethologist Zen Faulkes notes further that DeNovo lists no editor, no editorial board, no physical address—not even a phone number. “This whole thing looks completely dodgy,” he writes, “with the lack of any identifiable names being the one screaming warning to stay away from this journal. Far, far away.”6

Beyond these irregularities, there are also signs of serious problems with the paper’s data, methods, and conclusions. Ketchum et al found, for example, that all of the mitochondrial DNA recovered from their samples tested as “uniformly consistent with modern humans,” but argued despite this that anomalies in their nuclear DNA analyses “clearly support that these hominins exist as a novel species of primate. The data further suggests that they are human hybrids originating from human females.”7 This scenario, in which “Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species” (as publicized in a 2012 press release about the then-unpublished paper)8 is not especially plausible. As Steven Novella explained, “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.” Novella added, “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.”9 These problems are only multiplying now with the release of Ketchum’s paper and data. Ars Technica Science Editor John Timmer, experienced with genetic research,  offers the preliminary opinion that “The best explanation here is contamination.”

As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn’t. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you’d expect when the reaction didn’t amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn’t. All of this suggests…that the sasquatch hunters are working on a mix of human DNA intermingled with that of some other (or several other) mammals.10

Time will tell. For more on the story as it develops, may I suggest following the #sasquatchdna hashtag on Twitter? You’ll already see it full of reactions like this tweet from the great Carl Zimmer:



  1. Lead author Melba Ketchum’s DNA evidence claims have been bouncing around the mainstream press since at least 2011 (and even earlier in the cryptozoological corners of the blogosphere). See for example, Monisha Martins. “Sasquatch: Is it out there?” Maple Ridge News. August 16, 2011. (Accessed February 14, 2013.)
  2. Ketchum, M. S., Wojtkiewicz, P. W., Watts, A. B., Spence, D. W., Holzenburg, A. K., Toler, D. G., Prychitko, T. M., Zhang, F., Bollinger, S., Shoulders, R., Smith, R. “Novel North American Hominins:​ Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies.” DeNovo Scientific Journal. Special Issue 2/13/13. pp. 1–15
  3. Sharon Hill. “Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper released: Problems with questionable publication.” February 13, 2013. (Accessed February 14, 2013)
  4. Craig Woolheater. “Ketchum Sasquatch DNA Study Update: Questions Answered…” February 13, 2013 (Accessed February 14, 2013)
  5. Benjamin Radford. “Bigfoot DNA Discovered? Not So Fast.” February 14, 2013. (Accessed February 14, 2013)
  6. Zen Faulkes. “Sasquatch DNA: new journal or vanity press?” February 13, 2013. (Accessed February 14, 2013)
  7. Ketchum et al. (2013.) pp. 1, 11
  8. “Dr. Melba Ketchum’s Press Release About Bigfoot DNA.” November 24, 2012. (Accessed February 14, 2013)
  9. Steven Novella. “Bigfoot DNA.” November 26, 2012. (Accessed February 14, 2013)
  10. John Timmer. “Bigfoot genome paper ‘conclusively proves’ that Sasquatch is real—And it only took founding a new journal to get the results published.” Ars Technica. February 13, 2013. (Accessed February 14, 2013)

Like Daniel Loxton’s work? Read more in the pages of Skeptic magazine. Subscribe today in print or digitally!

40 Responses to “Quick Bigfoot DNA Update”

  1. Laura says:

    The hybrid theory for sasquatches actually makes sense in some ways. I watched a video “Best evidence of bigfoot” that has a lot from both pro and anti-sasquatch experts.
    One thing one of the anti-sasquatch experts said is, the prints show a midtarsal break like an ape. And repeatedly in videos, they say the legs can be seen to elongate when the creature runs, which also suggests a midtarsal break. But at the same time, the expert said, the tracks have humanlike toes. He said this doesn’t make sense, a foot with a midtarsal break like an ape should also have splayed toes like an ape.
    But if sasquatches were a human/primate hybrid, maybe that would make sense.
    The other thing that might make sense in light of the hybrid theory is that repeatedly, bigfoots in videos have a hooded nose like a human, not an open nose like an ape. You would think a respectable hoax ape costume would have an ape face.
    Wikipedia sez hybrid species are rare in mammals, but the red wolf may be a coyote-wolf hybrid, see

    • Dan says:

      Oh boy, “pro-sasquatch expert.” Is that like being a pro-vampire expert?

      • RCAF says:

        Well put.
        I think what she really means to say is she saw a senstionalist piece program featuring sceintists and cranks. I honestly don’t know what happened to the Discovery Chanel, but giving any weight to big foot, aliens, or the like, just shows that they will stoop to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.

  2. Jim says:


    People have done experiments to show that the metatarsal break could just be an artifact from flexible material used to make fake prints:

    Also, you need to keep in mind that there has never been a verified Bigfoot captured on tape. Sure, some people could argue that the Patterson-Gimlin film is authentic, but I’m not convince (nor are many others). Bigfoot films are just too ambiguous, meaning it could be real or, more likely, a person in suit or a misidentified bear. It is also important to remember that some scientific studies have shown hybrids of two closely related species don’t always look like a mix of the two. They can like one or the other:

    The human nose is quite different from the noses of modern great apes. I doubt a hybrid would have such a pronounced hooded nose.

    • RCAF says:

      You have to give credit to the people who take the cryptozoologoy videos and photos. Consider that for more than a decade there have been video and still cameras with image stabilization, 8+ megapixels, 720p and 1080p HD, and opitcal zooms that can see the pimples on a fleas butt from a football field away. Yet, these individuals still manage to take grainy, out-of-focus videos and photos from a few hundred meters away. It is indeed a talent.

  3. madscientist says:

    Hmmm … hybrids? Let’s add a hybrid creature to the list of “cryptozoology” creatures: the Quasimodo Dragon. It’s invisible and lives in suburban garages.

  4. Bruce says:

    DeNovo…. This “publication” does have an entry in WorldCat (OCLC: 824780565 for anyone following along).

  5. Donald Prothero says:

    Even if the genetic data looked good (which they don’t) and they were posted to a publicly accessible database like all genetic studies use (e.g. Genbank) which it isn’t, the bigger question not addressed in teh paper is: how did they decide they had tissues (hair, whatever) from a “Bigfoot”? Did they just collect random hair in the forest? And what about the report that they sampled DNA from a blueberry bagel supposedly munched on by a bigfoot? Without providing clear indications that their samples did in fact come from a bigfoot, the DNA analysis is irrelevant!

    • oldebabe says:

      Exactly, Dr. Prothero. Why is there even any, and continuing, discussion, when the basic data, on which everything is purportedly based, is apparently not available…

  6. Loren Petrich says:

    Yet more self-published crackpottery. Complete with “publication” in a “journal” that looks suspiciously fake.

    I did “whois” on and it was registered under the name “Domains by Proxy, LLC”, without any DeNovo-related contact info.


    on the command line for OSX or Linux or other Unix flavors; I don’t know about Windows.

  7. d brown says:

    BIGFOOT true believers sound a lot like other true believers.

  8. S DuBois says:


    Not to defend DeNovo, but in my Web design experience it’s quite common to have a third party register and manage domains for the site owner.

    Since WHOIS data is public many webhosts will offer domain registration to their customers for the sake of preventing the site owner from being bombarded with phone spam and such.

  9. S DuBois says:


    To play devil’s advocate,
    These “hunters” (for tv ratings) do all their work at night in heavily forested areas, or in pitch black buildings.

    Night Vision isn’t magic. It still needs some light, and if it’s too dark and too warm, it’s going to give terrible quality images.

    FLIR cameras and thermal imaging would be much better suited to this kind of work, but they’re more expensive than a $300 handycam that has a setting to turn off the IR filtering highpass on the CCD and a little IR bulb built in. And besides, they’re looking for “evidence” of bigfoot, not confirmation of raccoons, owls and other various and sundry varmints commonly found exactly where they’re looking for cryptids.

    • RCAF says:

      Actually, night vision is one of my areas of specialization. We do a lot of this work, in my shop. My gear is military grade and is a lot more than $300 – of course, I think my coffee maker is about that. ;)
      However, I two points. First, I’m referring to the “evidence” taken in daylight. There is no reason that a cameraman can’t take a clear shot in the daylight.
      Second, why in the world would they be doing it at night? If these are suppose to be a higher-primate then they would be diurnal, not nocturnal. If they’re out during the night, then they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

  10. C. Van Carter says:

    Ketchum is scheduled to be on Coast to Coast tonight.

  11. Charles says:

    I was pleased when I became aware of the ongoing DNA research that was underway and the new groundbreaking efforts that were being made by Dr. Melba Ketchum in Texas. I followed the numerous websites and radio interviews that were commenting about this research, and was very gladdened by the December 24th Coast to Coast AM Interview with Dr. Ketchum.

    I have taken note of the fact that numerous highly opinionated individuals, who are Skeptics, have almost always made derogatory comments to the effect that the DNA findings must necessarily be flawed by some form of contamination for the results of the research to have shown the presence of Human Mitochondrial DNA in the samples that were in the Study
    Dr. Ketchum spoke in reply to the matter of sample contamination many times, and detailed the efforts that were being made to forestall that problem. The Skeptics were obviously not listening clearly, because they continued to rail that there absolutely must have been contamination of the DNA Samples that were used in this Study, all 109 of them.

    The true facts seem to be that an enormous amount of care had been taken by Dr. Melba Ketchum and her highly skilled associates, who used State of the Art Forensic Techniques to prevent even the remotest possibility of that happening, and my reading of the Study confirmed the rather obvious conclusion that most of the skeptics had unquestionably jumped to their conclusions without any real factual evidence, as usual.

    The work done by the University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas has revealed that the three samples that Dr. Kertchum had submitted for Nuclear DNA sequencing were of very high quality, and highly purified, and capable of providing very valid results, using the Illumina Next Generation Sequencing Platform, with a statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced.
    Obviously these were not “Contaminated Samples” as the Skeptics contended that they must have been.

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, As reported in the PRweb Seattle WA at, :

    “The team, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, DVM, of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX, submitted a tissue sample, a saliva sample, and a blood sample to the DNA Laboratory at the University of Texas, Southwestern, who then sequenced the Three whole Nuclear Genomes using the Next-Generation Illumina HiSeq 2000 Platform. The University lab reported that the three genomes all attained Q30 quality scores above 88 on the Illumina Platform, which is significantly higher than the Platform average of 85, indicating highly-purified, single-source DNA with no contamination for each sample. The three Sasquatch genomes were reported to align well with one-another and show substantial homology to primate sequences.”

    NOTE: The important fact to observe is that the three Q30 Scores of these three Genomes, with over 90 Gb of Raw seqence for each sample, (Comprising greater than 30x coverage), were 88.6, 88.4 and 88.7 respectively. The Q30 is the percent of reads that have the statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced. According to Illumina, a pure single source sample would have a Q30 score of 80 or greater, with an average Q30 score of 85. Contaminated or multiple source samples would have Q30 scores of 40 to 50.

    Therefore, not only were the three samples that were submitted for sequencing, each determined to be totally UNCONTAMINATED and were from a single source, and the resultant quality of the sequences that were obtained from them was FAR ABOVE the average 85 score of the Genomes sequenced using the Illumina Next Generation Sequencing Platform at the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. A Further comment made about the samples was: “The high quality of the Genomes can be attributed to the STRINGENT EXTRACTION PROCEDURES UTILIZED WHEREBY THE DNA WAS REPEATEDLY PURIFIED”. Dr. Ketchum obviously did a very good job of providing high quality samples that were capable of providing scientifically valid results.

    NOTE: It would appear that the University of Texas Southwestern’s DNA Laboratory is rather sure that these are good Genomes, and that they were tested to be of very high quality.
    How could you ask for much more than that?
    One Genome would be more than adequate to prove the existence of a new species. Three Genomes is gross OVERKILL. It is a NEW Species.

    You will not be able to find any qualified Geneticist who can argue with the spectacular results produced by the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DNA Laboratory. NOT WITH THOSE HIGH Q30 scores.

    New species have been accepted by Science with as little as 16 Kb.
    Just a very small number of base pairs. The sample size here was 90 Gb for each of three samples. See the Supplementary Data 7-10

    I believe that this groundbreaking DNA Study was done with very great care and that the resultant findings are now thoroughly capable of proving to even the most diehard, outspoken Skeptics, that there is incontrovertible PROOF that there is an unclassified Biped roaming North America.
    This evidence is backed up by the substantial work that has been done at instituions like The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas A & M University, and several other academic institutions and Professional Laboratories.

    Dr. Ketchum and her esteemed colleagues are to be heartily commended for the dedication that they have shown in the face of derision from the mass attacks by huge numbers of Naysayers, Skeptics and Fools.

    I urge everyone interested, and especially hardcore Skeptics to take the time to read this amazing DNA Study and to become aware of the incredible quality of the Science behind it.

    Being a skeptic does not require that you cannot accept valid Scientific studies, that are done with a great deal of care and appropriate attention to detail by highly skilled professionals, at highly accredited institutions of Higher Learning!

    My kudos to the BRAVE DNA researchers who refused to give up and quit. They will go down in History! The Skeptics will have an eternal meal of CROW PIE. I hope they enjoy it. I would imagine it has a bitter taste!

    Bigfoot Believer 3/18/13

    • I removed a personally insulting reply to this comment—that’s not what we do here. However, it is important to realize that a critical, skeptical response is the goal of all honest scientific or scholarly research. Criticism, identification of possible methodological problems, discussion of alternate explanations, and yes, even the consideration of the possibility of fraud or incompetence—these are not “mass attacks by huge numbers of Naysayers, Skeptics and Fools,” but the normal operation of science in the face of the publication of controversial new evidence. If Ketchum et al are serious about their research and confident in their results, then they should accept nothing less.

      • RCAF says:

        I applogize that the response was a bit more kurt than it should have been. I’ve been pressed on deadlines, and a bit frustrated on this post, as well as others.

        Transferance of emotion is not a good thing, and you are correct for removing my post. I would have done it if I could about 30 seconds after the fact.

        However, I would point out that my main point is that this is not a proper scientific rebuttal, but a PR shilling of Ketchum’s work. The poster, does nothing more than parrot what he heard off “Coast to Coast” (not exactly know as a bastion of scientific information), and then link to the front page of a Seattle news site. He then triumphantly claims that this “proves” something. At least he could have the decency to provide a link to the actual article, but I digress.

        He then makes several unwarranted statements to the accuracy of the tests, even though he provides no peer-reviewed eveidence, meerly hand waving, and more parroting. He then tops it off with an unwarranted an ad hominem attack on those who have the audacity to question the research. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not using the “he started it” argument, but I did reply in kind to his statements.

        None of what was written is honest, let alone scholarly.

      • I can’t say that I think his (mostly cut and paste) comment is terribly fair, robust, or convincing. Does it honestly reflect his good faith understanding of the case? I prefer not to speculate.

      • RCAF says:

        Fair enough. He could be doing this as a true believer, or it could be both a beliver and a paid rep, I don’t hold it to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps, I could use the term “boilerplating”?

        I’ve been around blogs, and message boards a long time, and this is exactly the boilerplate post you get when someone does a search, and hits on a key phrase. They are always an here-to-fore unknown poster who publishes a large, glowing post on the topic. The post never references any other post in the topic, and is disparaging to anyone who doesn’t hold the same view. I’ve actually witnessed threads resurrected form over a year after they died.

      • RCAF says:

        Not to belabour the point, but I tracked down the actual release that Chuck was talking about.

        Note that it doesn’t come from a Seattle Newspaper, but from PRWeb – a company that is used by corporations to send out paid press releases. I have an investment account that picks up on their feed, so I’m familar with them.

      • Perhaps, I could use the term “boilerplating”?
        I’ve been around blogs, and message boards a long time, and this is exactly the boilerplate post you get when someone does a search, and hits on a key phrase.

        Yes, that’s a good description. I’d noticed that the web is now littered with comments more or less identical to the one Charles left here. Searching phrases from his comment such as “NOT WITH THOSE HIGH Q30 scores” turns up a heap of them. Not terribly good etiquette.

      • Gustav says:

        What strikes me about your response, Charles, is that you present not data that says the samples tested were from Bigfoot, which I believe is the crux of the matter here.

        I am not a scientist i am just curious about matters such as this.

      • Gustav says:

        Sorry that such read “no data” not “not data.

    • tmac57 says:

      I will be quite surprised if any of the above mentioned “highly accredited institutions of Higher Learning!” stand behind these DNA findings and conclusions with the integrity of their universities.

      • Charles Bigfoot Believer says:

        I would like to know if you think that the DNA Laboratory at the University of Texas at Dallas would not stand by the accuracy of the Scientific Investigation that they performed in the sequencing of the 3 genomes they produced.
        I do not believe that you are dismissing their efforts out of hand, but you declare that you would be surprised if they did stand behind their findings and conclusions. Is that true?
        I would be quite surprised if they would NOT stand behind their work, considering the fact that they claimed to have highly-purified, single-source DNA with no contamination to work with. The High Q30 Scores prove this point.

  12. Dave Rockwell says:

    Wouldn’t life be so much SIMPLER if the validity of an argument increased WHEN WE SHOUT LOUDER??!!!! And use lots of exclamation points? I’M QUITE sure I’m right about this and everything else. and if you are not INSTANTLY CONVINCED then you must be a SIMPLETON or WORSE!!!!!

    Anyway, whenever one sees this style of writing one instantly knows that there’s no point in taking the writer seriously. The content will be meaningless.

    • tmac57 says:

      Yeah,as soon as I see the format,I just go on to the next comment without reading.You’d think they would learn,but that’s a bit optimistic I suppose.

    • RCAF says:

      You remind me of a joke about law – “if the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”.
      Seems they are of the same mind.

  13. Charles Bigfoot Believer says:

    I appreciate the replies to my comments, which I do not apologize for.
    The key point that seems to have been forgotten by everyone, is that Dr. Melba Ketchum did not sequence the Genomes. That very important task was handled with Scientific precision by the Staff of the DNA Laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern, who are experts in Human DNA Genetics, and who used the Illumina Next Generation Platform to produce 3 Genomes with Q30 scores of 88.4, 88.6 and 88.7
    No one has had the unmitigated gall to accuse this academic institution of any wrongdoing in the performance of their work. I doubt anyone ever will.
    The words of PHD Biochemist, David H. Swenson of Green Resources Redux, Inc. says it all, in very straightforward, unambiguous statement. “Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis”.

  14. Expulsion says:


    Can you please provide a link to your absolute assumption that “the University of Texas at dallas” had even conducted such a study?
    You see, there’s no mention of that study on their website. Do you know something they don’t?

    Add to that fact that the data has been rejected by most scientists, and all scientific journals whom have said that the data shows obvious red flags.
    Are you such a believer that you’ve allowed yourself to become so blind?

  15. Russ Dobler says:

    I love this story. It just goes to show that no matter how much the dress it up, Bigfoot “research” just isn’t science.

    Mr. Loxton, I still think your refutation of Bigfoot “evidence” in Junior Skeptic is the most succinct I’ve ever seen, as I mentioned in the piece below.

    Please keep up the good work!

  16. R. Keane says:

    It is of interest to note that DNA Diagnostics, Inc., of whom Melba Ketchum is founder and director, apparently is known for having a bad reputation with it’s clients and a continued pattern of consumer complaints. The Better Business Bureau serving East Texas counties has stated that DNA Diagnostics, Inc. have “failed to correct the underlying reasons for complaints. “ and that, “Consumers say they have paid for services that have not been delivered or have not been delivered within a reasonable time. Further, they have not received a refund when services were not provided.”
    That having been stated, and facts are what should be dealt with here, there is an obvious and glaring question which, for some reason, seems not yet to have been adequately addressed. The answer to this question plainly negates the conclusions regarding the identification of DNA in Ms. Ketchum’s research. Simply and logically, how could Ms. Ketchum identify material obtained for testing as having come from a Bigfoot since the existence of such a creature is not yet proven? Since such proof as to whether Bigfoot definitely does or does not exist, how can it’s DNA material exist? Assumption and belief does not equal the necessary proof to sustain the claims made by Ms. Ketchum. Is it really any wonder such research not be worthy of peer review?

  17. Kristin Carlsen says:

    I’ve always placed Bigfoot and Yeti in the same box as Nessie and dragons and trolls. But I stumbled upon a series on Discovery Science, no less, about some “Bigfoot Hunters” who take it all very seriously. You may have seen it, it’s quite illuminating in its own way. What they haven’t said anything about, though, is
    1- If they do find a Bigfoot or Sasquatch, what are they planning to do with it? (Aside from making money from any footage they may be able to shoot, of course.) Ask it for a DNA sample?
    2- They repeatedly tell us how shy this creature is, and how it will evade humans at all costs. So why do they pester the poor thing? If they really believe in this creature, they are treating it rather cruelly, I find.

  18. joseph says:

    sounds like some are human hybrids and others are sasquatches and others are contaminated so. it is a mess capture some . one from south other from the north. then if they match both human hybrids then you either have contaminated dna from the one or, you found two species

  19. Mark Zaskey says:

    After reading the above posts I have some thoughts on the issue.
    I was a “Skeptic” about the existence of this species although I was curious how it was that so many credible people including Policeman and even Anthropologists and Archaeologists could say they had seen such a thing and then report it. I figured if there was such a thing as Bigfoot our modern day reports would not be the only ones in existence right? So instead of denial I chose to investigate for myself. I read thousands of reports from all over the world. I even studied Native American Indian tribal Folklore. It turns out most of our Native Tribes here in the U.S. don’t regard this subject as folklore, but rather seem convinced that they are a real tribe of wild people. Who was I to argue since they were the ones having to live in the wild all those centuries back then. Even now they have a lot more to do with nature as a race than most Americans including myself. I spoke to many eyewitnesses and spent many hours developing a map on where, in my area I should go investigate these “Ridiculous” claims for my self. Eventually I faced the reality that I had to set a date to begin my “Expedition” to see if I could prove it was real for myself.
    I will only say this about Bigfoot….Here in Florida, just outside the rural areas that we inhabit if you arm yourself with the right information on where to go look…You will find tracks of proportions that are not in the human range, yet they are similar to a human track. The tracks I have found range from 13-17 inches. They are wide and very flat without an arch. The tracks are clearly not faked as the area I went into was way off the grid and there are to many, all showing obvious signs of the foot reacting to varying substrates, toes gripping and so on, some in mud that have dermal ridges that do not compare to man or other primates. I was so shocked when I found the first tracks, I thought someone was playing a joke on me. However…I was promptly Yelled at by what I can only describe as a very, very large man. The shouts were primal, but obviously human. They were so powerful that my chest vibrated. What yelled at me then ran off smashing down trees, on two legs. Thump! Thump! Thump! Thump! The sound of a very heavy man running off. I had a moment of clarity right then about this place we call earth. Since that day I have had one other encounter and it was my son the “Skeptic” that got to see “Who” made the tracks. His description was reported to a ranger station and the park biologist who stated that they were aware of It’s presence in the park and where did you see it? All I know is….I am not a skeptic anymore…But I actually did the work that was necessary to have an educated opinion on the subject. You may be reading this and you may be a genius and hold 5 degrees but you don’t know about this if you think they don’t exist. I say that knowing that most of you if not all of you who choose to prod and poke or make fun of the subject have never really done a thing to educate yourself on this aspect of reality. It’s a pity too…because what this subject really represents is; We are not the only Human-type Being here on earth. What could be more relevant a topic to explore with eager minds. I know what I have seen and heard, I feel for any one that hasn’t had the notion to do the work before they comment. GO SEE FOR YOURSELF…You will find evidence of something with big feet that want’s you to leave the area immediately.