Bigfoot News November 21, 2011

Nuclear DNA: As I promised in an earlier post, we can now release preliminary data on Bigfoot nuclear DNA from Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA study. I have had this nuclear DNA information for months now but have been unable to release it because it was given to me off the record. I just now got the go ahead to run it.

Three samples were tested for nuclear DNA, and we have results from all three. Subsequent testing concluded that all three samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA. To understand what I mean when I say “tested positive for Bigfoot,” see here.

One of the samples was Larry Jenkins’ Bigfoot toenail from Arizona, the other sample was from the blood collected on a plate at a habituation site in Crittenden, Kentucky and the third was blood from JC Johnson’s Bigfoot skunk kill in the Four Corners area of New Mexico. Images of all three were on the Internet at one point, and some images can still be found on the Net, despite many takedown orders.

We have results for a single gene, the MC1R gene. According to Wikipedia, MC1R is one of the key proteins involved in regulating mammalian skin and hair color. This gene was described to me as the “hair color gene” and sources said, “In Bigfoot, the default hair color is red.”

All humans have a distinctive marker on this gene. All share a single polymorphism that differentiates them as humans from apes and even primitive hominids like Neandertal. In Neandertals, one polymorphism is different from humans.

Out of the ~1000 polymorphisms in this gene, all three Bigfoot samples differed from humans in a single polymorphism.

Sources told me that this polymorphism in two of the three Bigfoots was exactly the same in each one, a shocking finding. The third polymorphism was different. When dealing with single gene, it doesn’t make sense to use phrases such as “within the human range”. Terms like that only make sense when discussing, say, an entire MtDNA sequence.

The two polymorphisms were not in GenBank, nor were there any human results even remotely close in that database. It is barely possible that either of these two strange polymorphisms could show up in any one random modern human, but I do not believe that is the case.

That either result would show up by chance in three separate random humans is for all intents and purposes statistically impossible. Further, I do not believe that it occurred at all. That is, statistically, the odds are against it are so extreme that we can be reasonably sure that these were not three random humans.

One thing that we do not know, unfortunately, is whether or not the Bigfoot samples contained the single polymorphism that is diagnostic for humans (see above).

However, if you look above, you can see that this gene is very well studied in humans. In fact, it seems to be studied to death. So far, 20 different polymorphisms of the MC1R gene have been identified in humans. As far as I am concerned, that is all the polymorphisms of this gene that exist in humans. The fact that two unique and brand new polymorphisms of this gene were found in Bigfoots, polymorphisms that do not exist in humans at all, means only one things to me: that the gene is from a non-human.

I would assume that these bizarre nuclear DNA results on this single gene are what made the Ketchum Study conclude that we were dealing with something non-human in terms of the nuclear DNA.

We do have the 4-letter DNA alphabetic codes for the polymorphisms, but we will not print them as we do not want to upset Ketchum’s findings. For now, let us call them XXXX where each X is an alphabetic letter in the genetic code.

There are concerns that this revelation will jeopardize Ketchum’s study. Because we are not publishing the four letter code itself, we do not believe there is any risk of that.

The nuclear DNA findings above are extremely tentative and are based on conversations with sources over a period of months. To be honest, neither my sources not I understand genetics very well.

My understanding of the final results of the DNA of the entire nuclear genome, not just the MC1R gene, of various Bigfoot samples is that it is quite a bit aways from human. How far away is uncertain.

From three different sources, we heard something along the lines of “1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp.”

However, another source thought it was closer than that. Two different sources referred to Neandertal and Denisova. They both said something along the lines of, “Whether it is closer to Neandertal or Denisova, I am not sure.” One source also referenced late Erectus trending into archaic or early Sapiens. An example of that would be Heidelberg Man.

If the nuclear side is 1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp, the split between Bigfoot and man took place 2.2 million YBP (years before present). If it is instead closer to Neandertal – Denisova – Heidelberg Man, we are looking at a Bigfoot – human split of ~750,000 YBP.

At the moment, we just don’t know how far away the nuclear side is from humans. We have statements from people close to the Ketchum project, but we don’t know how accurate those statements are. In the end, all we have is conjecture.

Ketchum’s peer reviewed study. The study has been out for peer review for about 9 months now – February 2011 to November 2011. Websites are quoting me as saying that Ketchum is unwilling to make the changes that the peer reviewers want. That’s a misquote. My sources are simply speculating that, based on her “bullheaded” personality, Ketchum may be unwilling to make the changes the peer reviewers request.

Truth is we have no knowledge whatsoever of how the peer review is going, but it does seem to be taking awhile. This implies a long and drawn out process.

We are also not certain of Ketchum giving a May 2012 publication date. That date is simply being thrown about because Ketchum will be appearing at a Bigfoot conference in the Pacific Northwest on Homo sapiens hirsutti on that date.

“Human DNA means humans.” This is one of the charges against Ketchum’s DNA findings that is being bandied about on skeptic sites. The allegation is familiar: all of the samples have been contaminated with human DNA. However, sources have informed me that if there is one thing that is not going on in Ketchum’s findings, it human contamination.

Ketchum has gone to extreme lengths to guard against human contamination of her samples. If findings are coming back “human” on MtDNA, it either means that Bigfoot MtDNA is human, or it means that the samples are of Homo sapiens sapiens. The notion that the samples are contaminated can be completely ruled out.

That the samples are actually of humans cannot be ruled out on MtDNA basis alone, but the implications if this is true are staggering. It means, for one thing, that Justin Smeja’s Bigfoot steak is actually a slice of human being!

How will Adrian Erickson release his video? Erickson will probably release his video upon the release of DNA findings, either Ketchum’s or the Erickson Project’s possible European study, depending on which of the two studies releases data first.

The form of release will probably be a DVD. After that, there may be negotiations with Hollywood for sale of partial rights on television.

Larry Surface’s Ohio Bigfoot video. Sources indicate that preliminary analysis by video experts on the Surface video has began. Initial findings indicate that the bipedal hominid figure in the video is “hairy.” This suggests that the figure may in fact be a Bigfoot.

Justin Smeja’s original post on Taxidermy.net. We already discussed this finding in our previous post. The original thread from Taxidermy.net is almost impossible to get. Only a few people have it, and they won’t let anyone else see it. Nevertheless, our team* got ahold of a copy.

In the post, Smeja admits to shooting the Bigfoot in the back as it was running away. In addition, Smeja repeatedly refers to the creatures as “bears,” though he says over and over that they are the strangest bears he had ever seen. He also refers to grizzly bears a few times when talking about the Bigfoot he shot, possibly due to the huge size. Nevertheless, he titled the post, “If You Saw Bigfoot, Would You Shoot It?”

Keep in mind that the thread was only one month after the Sierra Kills. Smeja did not believe in Bigfoots at all at the time of the shooting. Even after talking to several people who told him he just shot two Bigfoots, part of Smeja still cannot wrap his mind around that fact, so he keeps trying to rationalize that somehow he shot two of the weirdest bears on the face of the Earth. He theorizes that the Bigfoot he shot may have been a bear that got two of its legs shot off and then learned to walk upright on only two legs.

The concept of Bigfoot is still so weird to him that his mind refuses to believe it, and he is backing up into bizarre bear explanations to make sense of the insensible.

There is a possibility that we may be able to post all of Smeja’s relevant comments from the Taxidermy.net thread in totality, word for word, sometime soon. This should add much to the debate swirling around the Sierra Kills.

*One or more persons, which may or may not include me.

Smeja’s Bigfoot steak is for sale. First of all, we do not believe that Smeja has a single small Bigfoot steak. By his own admission, we calculated that he has 7.5 pounds of steak. He gave Ketchum 1/4 of that, which was a ~2 pound slice. So he still retains ~6 pounds of steak. We recently received word from sources that Smeja has been trying to sell some or all of that steak. Asking price was reportedly ~$10,000. We believe that there were no takers.

22 Comments

Filed under Animals, Anthropology, Apes, Bigfoot, Genetics, Mammals, Physical, Science, Wild

22 responses to “Bigfoot News November 21, 2011

  1. apehuman

    Up in the middle of the night..sure I didn’t sleep well b/c I am confused…:)
    I am very excited to see some actual data claims..wrt to DNA and really just want a damn paper! So, it also indicates to me that all of this should be in the Ancient Human Migration Genome Project….and the attention of all those minds..(and in my mind it is…:ever idealistic)
    On personal claims against you Robert..that is the MO of the BF crowd…and reflects their mean nature and misunderstandings about science. it is about the data in the end, regardless of who likes who and whose website gets more hits.
    I also feel today, that the time I have spent in genuine concern about BFs among the profit seekers was destructive., as it affected how I felt/feel about the entire “BF community” which is a misnomer in itself..there is no community… but there are some great BFers out there ..but the din of the mindless and unethical rolls over them
    Just a bunch of overly ambitious sometimes poorly educated BF nuts and self appointed critics! I could not believe the animosity towards Larry’s effort (night vision video) even before analysis or they saw the high res copy! Names like Matt Moneymaker, and “TOM of Cryptographers (who are they?) accusing him of hoaxing and so on? Why so vitriolic? (consider to the “anons” comments). I have corresponded with larry since early 2010.. I have complete faith he seeks the truth only. The guys that diss him? They have the “for-profit” goals… Larry has nothing – he just got high speed internet last year!… mean mean crowd these BFers..and a guy like you Lindsay is required.. I don’t have it – to fight that kind of battle… I prefer the court room with rules and a Judge.
    Whenever they ever decide to organize a professional society of Sasquatch Research or something..with order and so forth…the less ambitious, might just hang around… but I don’t think those types want that…I think they run people off….as far as I can tell…people come and go rather quickly in the BF world (or stick for long suffering decades! ) …..

    So _ a most interesting few years..and especially summer… I won’t go away – not now, not with what I know…but I might effectively (LOL) disappear like the rest of the survivors who care about BFs.//

    So if you need encouragement (I think your blog success is probably enough for you) on this very difficult story, that apparently no one really wants us to know, well thanks!
    .

  2. apehuman

    I like seeing those names tancred! Bindernagel was exceedingly kind to this confused newbee!

  3. apehuman

    A strange post I am making indeed!
    But, i, after several concerted efforts at communicating my “discovery” (LOL – the naivety of a newbee for sure!) to the University and then BFers..I finally turned to the “public YouTubes” and put up a few vids…with a shocking number of hits and little constructive help.
    So, I took them down and again thought I would just walk away! But, I am continuing efforts on sound files – that part – the fascinating night world in the wilderness, alone was just wow…when I listen to the recordings I am back there!
    Anyway..when I “shut-down” the Youtube effort I put up one Vvdeo on the “channel”…I am sure by now everyone has seen, but worth a reminder (a Germany company bought the music rights and it is gone commercial..but this the original video). I think it expresses for many who/what we want in our hearts. So lovely really. (I want to be the old lady in the background clapping, smiling, swaying, laughing, and loving the children, the men, the humanity., and stroking Izzi”s hair)
    Izzi who carries in his very body (for all of us to judge) the pain and difficulty of living and also the beauty. So sappy? Ahh,
    I like the video also for the BF community b/c in it is a portrait of human variability…skull shape, hair, etc..as well as one of compassion….
    And again just, well after my experiences out there. I think we could all benefit by accepting and exploring our own wild nature and culture….the opportunities are so many and so beautiful to consider…
    Can’t wait for Phase II anthropology…!
    Okay so here goes…http://www.youtube.com/user/apehuman?feature=mhee.

    (gee i hope I got the right link)

  4. Omg….I think I’m going to run screaming through the house with a pair of sharp-pointed scissors! :)

  5. While i do not always agree with your personal views Robert, I still appreciate the info and all the updates on the bigfoot stuff. As someone stated the, Bigfooters are a kind of mean bunch and I have been a victim on several occasion. So take it with a grain of salt and keep pumping out the bigfoot info. Some of These researchers seem to be trying to keep bigfoot a secret.
    Thanks again for all the info and have a good Thanksgiving!

  6. apehuman

    Ok, I’ll follow tom’s name to his site….nice post Tom

    • Ok..thanks Apehuman..as for Larry Surface..i think he’s a good guy …I just don;t see a bigfoot in his video…I see a person..I would love for him to show me more evidence that it was a bigfoot . I think he has had some real encounters with bigfoot.
      thanks again.

  7. OK, Robert, one main thing:

    You certainly do NOT piss me off one iota. I think you are doing your best, and you are certainly willing to stick you neck out where no one else dares to do so in this business.

    Rather than criticize the take you have on the nuclear DNA of MC1R, I will merely state it is partly true and partly not true.

    Firstly, I heard that the sequencing revealed a “red” hair color; I did not check this statement, though. It was told to me by the ever-reliable Melba Ketchum herself, and I had no reason to believe she was NOT telling the truth at the time.

    A single polymorphism on the nuclear side is generally reported as follows:
    X/Y, where “X” is the normal (in this case human sequence), and “Y” is the new sequence that does not appear to exist in humans, at least those represented in the GenBank database. “X” is either “A, C, G or T” and “Y” is also either “A, C, G or T”, not all four at the same time. Also, obviously, X does not equal Y. This nomenclature simply indicates a mutation has occurred in the specific creature, whether human or otherwise.

    Two of the three samples exhibited the exact same polymorphic site within the MC1R gene; the third one was a different polymorphic (mutation) site. Neither of these were documented within GenBank in any known human. This doesn’t mean, though, that there are no modern humans with one of these two polymorphisms. There may be; one would have to test every living human on earth to know for sure. What is known though is that such a polymorphism (either or both of them) are VERY unusual and highly unlikely amongst modern humans. I cannot do any statistical analysis on this aspect, though, since I have no data where these polymorphisms exist, other than the purported sasquatch sequences.

    Ergo, I believe (but do not know) that all three of the samples tested for MC1R are from extant sasquatch (pl.). This conclusion is based on far more information than merely the MC1R sequence. This only added more confidence to my statement that sasquatch exists as a living, extant hominid, obviously very close — but certainly not identical to — any tribe or race of extant modern humans — most likely as more than one subspecies or haplotype.

    The testing of the nuclear genome simply has to be completed to know “squat” about anything more at this point. We’re working on that as we speak, sir!

    Reporting the above, from both of us, is OK as far as I’m concerned, because we still have not revealed the exact polymorphic sites; I think that should be Melba who releases this information to assist her in writing and passing peer review with her paper.

    Thanks, Robert.

    Richard

  8. PUA Guru Comes Out of Closet

    The latest news to rock the PUA world and take game to the next level.

    David De Angelo aka Eben Pagan, CEO of DoubleYourDating and the singlemost financially successful PUA guru in the history of game, has simultaneously come out as bi-sexual AND married a physically unattractive bi-sexual Caribbean woman who happens to look like him!

    Eben’s “coming out party in NYC” photo is the 7th one down on the first row here;

    http://www.weddingwire.com/wedding/UserViewWebsiteToolPhotoAlbum?wid=c84f40cf75a2e7ce&pid=1e09b7a5e3a77904

    The couple will have an open, polyamorous marriage;

    As espoused in their “co-created positive wedding affirmations” in this video:

  9. I thought there were some 100, or 200 (depending upon whom you listen to) samples in the Ketchum study? What has become of all of these, and were they consistent with each other? How many were from known animals? It would be grand to have the actual report released sometime this century. And wasn’t it the story that Mr. Stubstad was only “in” on the initial stages of this DNA project? I think we must reserve conclusions until the full spectrum of information is known. I’m no geneticist, so I remain open-minded to and hopeful for the results, whatever they are. Hopefully it will not be a contradictory and inconclusive morass. I especially hope the results will challenge all of the premature conclusions and ideologies out there with their carts out way before the horses.

    • There are 20 separate Bigfoot creatures who have been isolated by DNA in the testing. I don’t know how many samples that boils down to. Many of the samples were of known animals. Yes, Stubstad was only in on the initial phases of the study, correct. The results should be good, I believe.

  10. apehuman

    very clear post Richard, thanks!

  11. Personally, I am only familiar with the DNA results from the first 4 samples.

    I have heard everything from “20 samples” to “over one hundred” samples. I have no idea which (if either) is true.

    When I left the project, to me knowledge there were eight potentially viable samples.

    In my opinion (not knowledge) based on several pieces of evidence, but mainly DNA-based evidence, all four were from real, extant sasquatch (pl.).

    You are right; we have to wait for the rest of the results to be sure.

    Meanwhile, we have a number of NEW samples, for our parallel DNA study. I’d really like to concentrate on that, now.

    Over and Out,

    Richard

  12. Pingback: DNA Report: Preliminary Proof Of Bigfoot (Homo sapiens hirsutii)? | Ghost Theory

  13. Mateo

    Well Im new to the politics of BFs and this blog, but from what I can see so far from Robert is that even though he shares his own opinion (separately) he makes sure to include all sides of the situation and stories leaving biased opinion out, which is important because then it allows the rest of us the grantee to make our own informative decisions, so thanks Robert!

    P.S. This new DNA revelation is very exciting! Cant wait to hear more!

  14. Yes indeed; thanks Robert for what you’ve done, even though we don’t always agree 100%.

    In fact, after doing a little more research on MC1R, I’ll be the first to admit I’m no where near as up-to-date on this gene’s DNA sequencing than I am mito DNA. All I know is that the MC1R results we got were unusual to say the least.

    While they are unusual & two out of three of these unlikely results were identical to boot, this alone does not prove they are from sasquatch (pl.).

    In fact, what we have at this point–all things considered–is a plethora of circumstantial evidence that doesn’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are dealing with four sasquatch samples (out of four), but the evidence at this point makes the existence of sasquatch certain beyond any REASONABLE level of doubt.

    If this were a murder trial, where these four creatures were accused of murder with the evidence we have, they would by found guilty by unanimous vote of the jury.

    Still, this isn’t scientific proof, which has to be beyond any SHADOW of a doubt.

    The evidence, meanwhile, is spearheaded by the DNA findings (both mito and MC1R), but is also supported by a whole lot of other, “crime-scene” evidence as well.

    Richard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s