x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Bigfoot is part human, DNA study finds
Researchers used 'whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples' to determine Bigfoot's ancestry.

By

Benjamin Radford, LiveScience
Tue, Nov 27 2012 at 10:10 AM
Bigfoot illustrated collage

Image: Karl Tate/LiveScience

Genetic testing confirms the legendary Bigfoot is a human relative that arose some 15,000 years ago — at least according to a press release issued by a company called DNA Diagnostics detailing supposed work by a Texas veterinarian.
 
The release and alleged study by Melba S. Ketchum also suggests such cryptids had sex with modern human females that resulted in hairy hominin hybrids, but the scientific community is dubious about her claim.
 
"A team of scientists can verify that their five-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called 'Bigfoot' or 'Sasquatch,' living in North America," the release reads. "Researchers' extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago."
 
For her study, Ketchum obtained three "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." (Mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, is the DNA that resides in the cell's energy-producing structures, and is typically passed down from mothers, while nuclear DNA, nuDNA, resides in the cells' nuclei and is passed down from both parents to offspring.)
 
"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," the statement reads. [Infographic: Tracking Belief in Bigfoot]
 
Any proof?
It's a fascinating theory.
 
So where's the evidence? Well, there is none. Not yet, anyway: Ketchum's research has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and there's no indication when that might happen. If the data are good and the science is sound, any reputable science journal would jump at the chance to be the first to publish this groundbreaking information. Until then, Ketchum has refused to let anyone else see her evidence.
 
Of course the history of Bigfoot is rife with exaggerated and premature claims about proof of the creature's existence. For decades, various types of evidence have been offered as final, definitive proof, ranging from Bigfoot hair to blood to dead bodies. Without exception, the evidence has always been hoaxed, misidentification or inconclusive.
 
Because Ketchum has released no information at all about her findings (nor have they been examined by outside experts), it's impossible to evaluate the validity of her conclusions. But an important clue can be found in her statement that "Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens."
 
If the mitochontrial DNA is identical to Homo sapiens (i.e., modern humans), then this suggests one of two options. The first, endorsed by Ketchum, is that Bigfoot ancestors had sex with women about 15,000 years ago and created a half-human hybrid species currently hiding across North America. [Rumor or Reality: The Creatures of Cryptozoology]
 
There is, however, another, simpler interpretation of such results: The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough. No one outside of Ketchum's team knows how this alleged Bigfoot DNA was collected, from where or by whom. It could have been collected by the world's top forensics experts, or by a pair of amateur Bigfoot buffs with no evidence-gathering training.
 
Confirming it's Bigfoot
How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from a Bigfoot? Did they take a blood or saliva sample from a living Bigfoot? If so, how did they get that close, and why didn't they simply capture it or photograph it? If the samples were found in the wild, how do they know it wasn't left by another animal — or possibly even a hunter, hiker or camper who left human genetic material?
 
Previous alleged Bigfoot samples subjected to DNA analysis have been deemed "unknown" or "unidentified." However, "unknown" or "unidentified" results do not mean "Bigfoot." There are many reasons why a DNA sample might come back unknown, including that it was contaminated or too degraded by environmental conditions. Or it could simply mean that the animal it came from was not among the reference samples that the laboratory used for comparison. There is no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it with, so by definition, there cannot be a conclusive match.
 
Ketchum also issued a statementrequesting that the U.S. government immediately recognize Bigfoot 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." Since no Bigfoot has ever been hunted, trapped or killed, it's not clear that the creatures — if they exist — require any special federal protection.
 
Ketchum's is not the only genetics-based project intended to find Bigfoot. Earlier this year, researchers from Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology announced they were collecting samples of alleged Bigfoot and Yeti hair for genetic identification. Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes collected materials from the public from May through September, and is currently conducting DNA analysis. Once the results are in, he plans to submit his results to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
 
If Ketchum has the definitive proof she claims, the world will soon know about it, and Bigfoot will be proven once and for all. On the other hand, if the evidence never appears, or is inconclusive and flawed, the search will continue.
 
Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books, including "Tracking the Chupacabra and Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries." His website is www.BenjaminRadford.com.
 
Related on LiveScience and MNN:
 
This story was originally written for LiveScience and was republished with permission here. Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 2
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
Ncm5522LHM's picture
Charles Bootjer Feb 21 2013 at 6:36 PM
I encourage anyone who is even slightly interested in this subject to go the Sasquatch Genome Project website at http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/, and become aware of more knowledge than you could ever expect to get. I believe that everyone, Skeptics included, should take serious notice of the often overlooked fact that it was not Dr. Melba Ketchum that sequenced the Three Bigfoot Genomes from the Blood, Saliva and Flesh samples that she had submitted.. That task was done by the DNA Lab at
.... More
the University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas, under the control and guidance of the Staff of that Laboratory, using the Illumina Next Generation Platform which is State of the Art. They are experts in Human Genome Research. I do not hear any comments to the effect that this institution was at fault. To the contrary, the results published indicate that the three samples that were sequenced had Q30 scores of 88.7, 88.4 and 88.6, and this proves conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these samples were uncontaminated, each was from a single source, and the probability of their being correctly sequenced was 1000 to 1. Now we have Scientific evidence, produced by a major, well respected University DNA Lab that amounts to 2.7 Millon base pairs worth of proof. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Skeptics, you need to develop some tasty recipes for CROW! I would imagine that it has a very bitter taste. Get used to it. Bigfoot Believer
|
anonymous
Charlie Raymond Nov 27 2012 at 11:02 AM
See the answer to the question, "How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from a Bigfoot? Did they take a blood or saliva sample from a living Bigfoot? If so, how did they get that close, and why didn't they simply capture it or photograph it? If the samples were found in the wild, how do they know it wasn't left by another animal — or possibly even a hunter, hiker or camper who left human genetic material?" A five-year study lead by Adrian Erickson and a team of scientists
.... More
in Kentucky studied a family of three Sasquatches which obtained blood by leaving a plate with broken pieces of glass glued to the plate. Apple wedges were placed on top. When one of the bigfoots took the apples, blood was obtained. Excellent video was also taken of the young female Sasquatch named Matilda which will come out in a documentary. Negotiations with a network are still in the works. Charlie Raymond KentuckyBigfoot.com
|

EDITORS' PICKS

tease BBQ grills

line

tease bees

line

tease road trip

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement