Richard Stubstad recently released some new evidence on his blog site regarding a 3rd MtDNA sequence from Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA project. This sequence is quite a bit different from the other sequences.
Robert Lindsay: What is the significance of this new finding?
Richard Stubstad: This sample may reflect the original sasquatch female going back to southern Africa some 60,000 YBP – the sasquatch Mitochondrial Eve as it were.
Robert Lindsay: Is the sequence related to any human sequences?
Richard Stubstad Yes, it is related to the oldest known branch of the Khoisan people of southwestern Africa, who are the most ancient people on Earth by DNA, and it’s from a specific lineage of them called L1Aa2. The Khoisan are also called Bushmen or Hottentots. These are the oldest humans that we have been able to trace by DNA, with the L1a2 branch being the most ancient of all of them. The L1a branch represents one of the two oldest living humans after the chimp-human split long before.
Robert Lindsay: The Khoisan live in southwest Africa, somewhat inland, around Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. What about Neandertals and Denisovans?
Richard Stubstad: The Khoisan are the oldest living tribe or clan of extant humans. The DNA of the other hominids you mentioned is much older, correct. However, they are believed to be extinct, while the Khoisan are extant.
Robert Lindsay: Is this part of the group that left Africa?
Richard Stubstad: According to the literature, this is one of a handful of sub-Saharan clans that never left. I am not sure if they left Africa, because to-date there is no DNA evidence of them having done so or not.
Robert Lindsay: If they never left Africa, how did they mutate into sasquatch? Sasquatch was birthed in Africa?
Richard Stubstad: Good question! The is the very first evidence that, in fact, the L1a2 branch of the Khoisan did migrate into Europe, Asia and the rest of the world – “Out of Africa” as they say. But not as a modern human – as sasquatch. However, it may only be the maternal side of the DNA equation, since Sample 3 was a mitochondrial sequence, not a nuclear sequence.
Robert Lindsay: Do you have any idea where in North America this sequence came from?
Richard Stubstad: It came from a habituation site. A photo of the region where this site is located is shown on my website. But I can’t tell you exactly where it came from, no. Having said that, I can say it was not very close to the habituation sites of Samples 1 and 2.
Robert Lindsay: Ok, I think it came from Florida. How sure are you about this sequence, statistically speaking?
Richard Stubstad: I am not as certain about it as I was with the other two sequences, because it is a sample of one, and you can’t generalize from a sample of one. Thus I don’t have the statistical proof of this one that I had for the first two samples.
Robert Lindsay: How sure are you that this came from a real sasquatch and not some other animal or a human?
Richard Stubstad: The reliability of the source of this sample was every bit about as good as for the first two samples. I am familiar with all three of the sample providers, and I’m almost certain it was an actual sasquatch habituation site. This was a habituation site, and the sasquatch had become used to eating human food at the site, presented to it/them as “gifts” over the course of several years.
Robert Lindsay: How was the sample obtained, and what did the sample consist of?
Richard Stubstad: The sample was obtained by a food trap, and the sample was saliva.
Robert Lindsay: Since the sample is within human ranges, what is the possibility that the sample is from a modern human that came to the site and ate the food?
Richard Stubstad: I think the likelihood of that is very low. The creature was sighted and photographed on numerous occasions by very reliable habituators. Either these habituators are the cream of the crop of hoaxers, or the sample came from a real, living sasquatch.
Robert Lindsay: Is it possible that the sequence is from a human living in the US?
Richard Stubstad: That’s not likely. The chances that it came from a random human are almost zero. A “feral” human would have had to have been eating off the sample food – very unlikely. First of all, the sequence is not located in GenBank, and GenBank is the most thorough database of human DNA on Earth. The sequence is not in the database, nor is there any GenBank sequence close to it.
It is possible that a female slave could have come to the U.S. from Africa and then mated with a sasquatch. But that’s very unlikely – especially in light of the polymorphisms present in Sample 3’s sequence.
Robert Lindsay: What’s the likelihood that the sequence is from some random African-American human who had ancestors from Africa via the slave trade?
Richard Stubstad: There were few if any slaves who came from that (interior) region of Africa. Also, there are close to zero Khoisan people currently living in the U.S.
Robert Lindsay: What are the odds that hoaxing is involved?
Richard Stubstad: I would say less than 1% because of the associated evidence and the personalities involved. It’s not from Tom Biscardi. I don’t think that he would hoax either, but he would certainly be accused of hoaxing, or someone could fairly easily hoax him, as we all know by now.
Robert Lindsay: You have some results from nuclear DNA, correct?
Richard Stubstad: Yes, I have results from one gene from samples 1, 3 and 4. There is a polymorphism in that gene that is not present in any samples in GenBank, the most thorough human DNA database that exists in the world. If that polymorphism is not found in GenBank, it’s generally not found in humans.
Robert Lindsay: So the polymorphism is non-human then?
Richard Stubstad: Yes. So far we have six sasquatch DNA sequences, none of which were perfectly matched in GenBank.
Robert Lindsay: So you have three mitochondrial and three single-gene nuclear DNA samples that don’t match any in GenBank, and if it’s not in GenBank, it’s not human.
Richard Stubstad: It’s possible that some extant human samples may not be in GenBank. I don’t think the data in GenBank covers 100% of all extant, modern humans. The likelihood of a “new sequence” from a modern human drops as you get more and more consecutive samples not matching. The likelihood that all six of these samples that have no matches in GenBank all came from modern humans is as close to zero as one could imagine.
Robert Lindsay: The likelihood is infinitesimally small. So the samples are non-human?
Richard Stubstad: I believe so.
Robert Lindsay: Can you tell me the type of gene that was tested for NuDNA?
Richard Stubstad: I can’t tell you specifically, but the gene is called the “MC1R” gene.
Robert Lindsay: Can you tell me more about the Ketchum paper?
Richard Stubstad: There is a rumor floating about that she has still not been able to turn in a peer reviewed paper.
Robert Lindsay: That’s a disaster.
Richard Stubstad: Of course. This is a distinct possibility that I predicted around the beginning of 2011. Her paper quite possibly won’t be good enough to make it through peer review.
Also, I hear through the grapevine that a third party tested the so-called “bigfoot steak” from Justin Smeja and found “excessive contamination” of the sample.
Robert Lindsay: That’s too bad. But I still think that Smeja’s sample is from a sasquatch. Did they test the whole sample or only part of it?
Richard Stubstad: I’m sure they only tested part of it. But I still think there is something there that Ketchum has found in the nuclear DNA of that “steak” and several other samples. I believe this because she tested the whole NuDNA sequence of both the bigfoot steak and several other samples (including Samples 2 and 3). After that, we heard absolutely nothing from her at all, not one word.
Robert Lindsay: So you think she is onto something then?
Richard Stubstad: Yes I do. But she may never publish in a peer-reviewed format. That’s one reason we are going to Europe to have a second round of testing done. If we beat Ketchum to the punch or she never publishes, that is fine with us, all the better. If she never publishes, our findings will be good for science in any event.
If Ketchum does publish, she will need further studies to back her controversial findings up, and the European results can help add weight to her findings. Either way, it’s a win-win situation for both parties – and for our beloved sasquatch (plural).
Robert Lindsay: What is the name of the people doing the testing?
Richard Stubstad: I can’t tell you that, but it’s a public state research facility, so there is no profit motive, just scientific curiosity – in short, “good research”.
Robert Lindsay: The profit motive is what complicated things with Ketchum?
Richard Stubstad: You think? And probably fame as well. She would like to be remembered in all eternity as the “discoverer of sasquatch,” just like Einstein is revered for discovering that we actually live in a four-dimensional universe of space-time, not a Cartesian three-dimensional one.