Bigfoot News February 15, 2013

Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper is good. I have now read a bootleg copy of the 63 page paper I obtained a few days ago. At the same time, I obtained a number of supplementary charts, graphs and whatnot that go may or may not go along with the official version of the paper that you get for $30.

The paper is good. I like it a lot. I thought she did an excellent job on it. It is also very well written. The conclusions are as we discussed earlier on this blog. The MtDNA is human, and the NuDNA is some sort of a archaic  hominid in the genus Homo.

Particularly interesting were the extreme measures taken to guard against contamination of the DNA with human DNA by handlers and other animal DNA. There was no DNA from any other known animals present in any of the samples. None of the samples had any human DNA contamination that would explain the results. The samples were very, very pure DNA, purer than one usually gets from humans.

From Bigfoot Forums:

“The team, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, DVM, of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX, sequenced the three whole nuclear genomes using the next-generation Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform at University of Texas, Southwestern from a tissue sample, a saliva sample, and a blood sample.

The three genomes all attained Q30 quality scores above 88 on the Illumina platform, significantly higher than the platform average of 85, indicating highly-purified, single-source DNA with no contamination for each sample. The three Sasquatch genomes align well with one another and show substantial homology to primate sequences.” (from the PR release).

NOTE: The Three Q30 Scores of the three Genomes,with over 90 GB of Raw sequence 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 of 85).

Therefore, not only were the 3 sequences submitted from a single source, but the quality of the sequences were FAR ABOVE the average 85 Score on genomes sequenced using the Illumina Next Generation Sequencing Platform AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Southwestern in Dallas, Texas”.

A Further comment was: “The high quality of the Genomes can be attributed to the STRINGENT EXTRACTION PROCEDURES UTILIZED WHEREBY THE DNA WAS REPEATEDLY PURIFIED”.

The MtDNA results, while human, were odd, with some SNP’s (mutations) and other variations not present in any known human samples. The NuDNA samples were very odd, with a combination of human and archaic Homo DNA of a very novel type. Many NuDNA genes had SNP’s far in excess of the known human standard. Further, the NuDNA codes far away from any known humans on this Earth. In distance from humans, it is further away than Neandertal and even from Denisovans. This implies a split in the NuDNA line of possibly up to 1 million years ago.

The NuDNA results look nothing at all like what one would get from human contamination. The paper goes to great lengths to rule that out and explain the reasoning behind it. Nor are the NuDNA results what one would expect based on contamination with known animals. The paper also explains that very well.

Nor were the samples degraded. Degraded DNA has a particular appearance to it that this DNA lacked. Ketchum utilized a degraded human DNA control to test her sequences against it.

One geneticist said that the results look like what you might get if the sequences failed to amplify well. Ketchum explains in the paper that she had a great deal of difficulty getting the sequences to amplify with many failures to amplify, partial amplifications and whatnot. This is because the primers she was using were designed for humans. She had to utilize next generation, very modern and cutting edge sequencing methods to get this very interesting DNA to amplify at all. Whether the results can be explained by “failure to amplify well” is not something I am capable of commenting on.

Another geneticist said that the odd results including the bizarre mixture of single and double strand DNA (apparently not seen in any other known species) can be explained by artifacts of the testing process. I am not competent to comment on that. Apparently this very odd looking DNA (when observed under electron microscope) is what people were talking about when they said that the DNA was from aliens or angels or was “not of this Earth.” Wally Hersom and David Paulides have been very big on this explanation. Surely, this bizarre DNA is very odd, but Bigfoots are very odd creatures. It’s certainly possible that they might have a novel DNA structure.

Other attacks on the paper are much sillier. Most center around the notion that Bigfoots are apes and therefore they could not breed with humans. But Ketchum’s paper states emphatically that Bigfoots are not apes. They are hominids, probably Homo Heidelbergensis (that is my opinion and not Ketchum’s – nowhere in the paper does she name the archaic Homo that they think is in the NuDNA line). Obviously another hominid could have bred with humans.

Another compliant is that Melba has not uploaded her sequences to GenBank yet. But apparently she is waiting to do just that.

I do not feel that this paper is a failure at all. What is occurring is what I predicted would occur. The scientific community refuses to accept the existence of this very real species, and they refuse to accept this DNA evidence for that reason. I have been predicating for a long time now that science would not accept the DNA evidence no matter how good it was.

Is it possible that Melba botched the paper and screwed up her proof of Bigfoot? We all know that she had real Bigfoot samples she was dealing with in the study, so all that remained was for her to successfully isolate the DNA and then prove that it was from Bigfoots and not something else. I feel that she did this, but I am not a geneticist. But perhaps she did botch it. I don’t have the expertise to make that determination.

Much has been made of the fact that Melba published in her own journal. However, she did say that it passed peer review in a journal called the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology. However, Melba stated that the journal’s attorneys said that if they published the paper, it would destroy the journal’s reputation, so they said they would not publish it. Melba responded by purchasing the journal and renaming it DeNovo Journal.

Melba describes in detail her tribulations at the altar of modern science. Many journals refused to even so much as look at her paper. Others leaked the names of her peer reviewers and did all sorts of unethical things. This is what Melba has been putting up with for 16 months now at the hands of the “scientific community.” They simply flat out refuse to believe that her findings are true, so they won’t even read or pass via review her paper no matter how valid her findings are.

Given these circumstances and the fact that she did finally pass review at an obscure journals, Melba was right and proper to purchase the journal named above when even it refused to publish her findings despite passing them via review. She did the right thing. The findings are correct, Bigfoots exist, and Melba has proven it in my opinion. This information had to get out to the public, and she persevered and did the right thing.

I think the community should all get behind Melba right now, whatever her moral failings. She has been up there on the cross suffering for all of us, for our entire community, for 16 months now, while the legions of science poked her with their lances and jeered at her. She did it for us. She suffered for all of us. All of the pain we all suffer from skeptics – she took all of our pain and bundled it up for us into one giant mass and took it up there with her on the cross of Bigfootery, where she been slowly dying, being tortured to death, for over a year now. Our pain is her pain. Our torture is her torture. She took our pain and made it hers so we wouldn’t have to suffer it too.

This whole episode has been very hard on Melba. You can see it in her face and hear it in her voice. She says if she had to do it over again, she wouldn’t do it. But she did it. She took it on the chin for us all, falling on the grenade so we might live. And how many of us have her back? Basically none of us.

Adrian Erickson Project video released. An Erickson project video of Matilda the sleeping Bigfoot has been released. It is about 18 seconds long and shows what looks like a bundle of fur on the ground in the forest. It takes one giant breath during the footage. The camera then switches to Dennis Pfohl explaining that analysis of the footage showed the Matilda was breathing at 6 breaths per minute.

Matilda is an adolescent female Bigfoot that was part of the Erickson Project. She, her mother and her father were residing in the woods near a property on Mann Road in Crittenden, Kentucky. She was filmed as part of the study, and in addition, blood and tissue from her fingers was obtained and tested as part of the DNA paper. This was obtained by super-gluing glass shards to a paper plate and then putting food on it. Matilda went for the food and cut the tips of her fingers on the glass. Amazing she still came back around for more pancakes after that.

Later in the study, Matilda become pregnant and then had a little baby Bigfoot. It’s not known who the Mack Daddy was who knocked her up, but it was probably not her father as it is hypothesized that Bigfoots have an incest taboo. Probably the presence of a curvaceous, hormonal, nubile, boy-crazed teenage Bigfoot hottie in the woods attracted some Bigfoot gangsta G who homed in on the hairy teen sexpot and knocked her up.

The 18 second video is only part of a longer 6 minute video. At the end of the video, Matilda wakes up.

There is indeed another video of Matilda walking towards the camera. Matilda has small, “perky,” uplifted breasts that are typical for adolescent female Bigfoots. As you can tell from the Patterson footage, as Bigfoot chicks age, they get a serious case of the sags. Fans of 1970’s porn will be happy to see Matilda, as unlike most young women these days, she refuses to shave even in the slightest.

In the video, the wary and wily feral teen then spots the camerawoman. Upon spotting the human, the defiant teen Bigfoot snarls and growls at the camera, then turns and walks away. When she growls, the hairy hottie reveals black gums and two long fanged incisors. I knew teenage girls were snotty little brats, but this is taking things to a new low. That beats Mean Girls by far!

Disposition of Erickson Project footage. I broke the news a while back that Erickson had sold out of Bigfootery and that Melba now has access to his footage. As the release of Erickson’s video in tandem with the study indicates, Melba indeed has access to Erickson’s material. In addition, I believe that National Geographic TV also has access to Erickson’s material. I know for a fact that Nat Geo has some of Erickson’s material at this very moment, acquired via Melba.

Ketchum tried to get Justin Smeja to tamper with his Bigfoot sample! Amazing story that is just breaking right now. Smeja is the man who shot and killed two Bigfoots in the Sierra Nevadas of California in 2010. A source has informed me that Melba asked Smeja to tamper with his sample after she realized that she was not going to get any more of it. She had been bothering him for all of his sample for some time.

No one knows why she wanted all of the sample, but the folks around Smeja thought she wanted it so that no one would be able to replicate her results. When Justin refused to hand over the remains of what he had, in January 2012, Melba told him over the phone to tamper with the sample. Several people were in the room – including at least Justin, Justin’s wife and the driver who was with Justin the day he shot the Bigfoots – when she said that, and they all heard her make that statement via a speakerphone.

It’s not known why she wanted Justin to mess with his sample or how she wanted him to tamper with it. One theory was that by tampering with it, it would make the sample, possibly not from a Bigfoot, appear to come from a Bigfoot. But that does not seem to be possible. How do you tamper with a piece of bear meat to make it look like it came from a Bigfoot?

What is more likely is that she spitefully wanted him to tamper with his sample to make it damaged and unusable by any other researchers. Apparently she wanted to be the only researcher to have access to that sample. She was afraid that if he sent it off to someone else, they could publish and usurp her with the Bigfoot DNA data, stealing her thunder.

Melba is all about pure raw ambition, 100%. She has the morals of Bill Gates when it comes to doing or saying anything or using anyone in any way to achieve her single-minded ruthless goals. This type of sleazy behavior – trying to get Justin to basically destroy his sample so no one could one-up her – is exactly in line with what we have come to expect from this viciously competitive and morally stunted woman.

Justin did not take her up on her offer to tamper with his sample. It was this offer that seriously soured Justin and Bart Cutino on Melba. As Bart put it (not in these exact words), they both thought she was a sleazeball and a morally suspect person. Asking Justin to damage his sample was so sleazy and shady that they began to wonder whether this amoral behavior had shaded over into her study. In short, they both began to wonder whether she was morally reputable enough to conduct the DNA study. This was the main reason why they took Justin’s steak to an outside source, where it bizarrely tested for Justin’s DNA and Black bear, results that I cannot explain.

In Ketchum’s defense though, see the comments from Caz in the comments section of this post. Caz suggests that perhaps Ketchum was merely making a request to alter the sample so it could store more properly.

In regard to Ketchum and Smeja discussing modifying the sample, I know nothing, but you should leave open the possibility that the comments were well-intentioned. If a layperson held a sample that I deemed valuable, then I would be very concerned about its storage. Regular freezers (-20 C) are completely inadequate for biological storage. You need to store it in industrial-grade -80 C freezers.

Also, contamination can be problem not just for sequencing, but also because it degrades the sample, even when frozen at -20C. I would ask that the outer edges of the sample be cut away and the core stored properly. I don’t have any insider knowledge about the project. I am just saying the world has not yet heard the other side of the story.

Smeja’s Bigfoot steak in Ketchum’s DNA paper. Having read the paper, a fair amount of the paper is devoted to Justin’s piece of Bigfoot from the Sierra Kills. Not only were the hairs on the steak not aligned with any known animals, they did not look like human hairs either. A piece of the steak was sent off to a forensics lab in Texas where the team noted that superficially the skin, hair follicles and dermal layer appeared human, however all of these things differed from human beings in a number of ways.

In addition, the steak was one of three samples in which the full NuDNA gene was sequenced. The result for the steak was approximately 2.7 billion base pairs. In short, the description of the steak in the paper does not in any way support the findings of Justin Smeja (human)/Black bear that was found by the Canadian lab. The reason for the differential findings is not known.

List of labs Ketchum blind outsourced her material to. From the paper:

Analysis for Hire Laboratories Used in the Blind Study:

The following laboratories provided sequencing and analysis of samples in the study on a work for hire basis and were not initially told the origin of the samples being tested until after the samples were tested:

Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center, 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX

SeqWright, Inc., 2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054

UT Southwestern Medical Center, 6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093

USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033

Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station, TX 77843-2257

Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, 2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207

Why not make the Ketchum paper available? I have been asked to make the entire Ketchum paper available for free. However, it is Dr. Ketchum’s copyrighted work, work for which she is now asking $30 a pop for people to purchase. As an author myself, I do not particularly like people stealing my work. Out of respect for Dr. Ketchum and because I am an honorable man, I will not put the entire paper online. That is another reason I have not been direct quoting much from the paper. I don’t want to seem to be violating her copyright.


Filed under Animals, Apes, Bigfoot, Genetics, Mammals, North America, Regional, Science, South, USA, Wild

87 responses to “Bigfoot News February 15, 2013

  1. realist

    What does she mean “bigfoot” is not an ape. An ape is defined as any sub-human hominoid, so that would seem to include “big foot”. Or perhaps she’s defining ape as a non-hominid hominoid. At when she says “bigfoot” is part human, how is she defining human. Terms like “ape”, “human” and “monkey” are far to imprecise for scientific discussion.

    I’m skeptical of this woman because (1) a sub-human primate would probably be too stupid to survive in a climate as cold as North America, and (2) didn’t she claim she was raped by a “bigfoot”? If so that sounds really nutty.

    But I would be happy to be proven wrong, and I commend her for her courage.

    Why do you suppose the scientific community is opposing her. Is this just healthy skepticism or are you implying more sinister motives.

    • The subhuman primate is sort of a Neandertal type thing. Bigfoot like a Neandertal. That’s all it is. Of course Neandertals are intelligent enough to survive in the cold NA forests.

      The scientific community simply refuses to believe it. Their minds are closed, and they have made up their minds completely.

      • realist

        You said MtDNA is human and the NuDNA is some sort of a subhuman hominid. So the sub-human part is some neanderthal-like creature? A known creature or something scientists have not yet discovered in the fossil record? so what is the human part? An anotomically modern homo sapien? An archaic homo sapien? How human is human?

        This woman claims to have DNA proof…is she willing to let anyone else examine in?

        • The human part is just us, Homo sapiens sapiens. The other part is some Homo more ancient than Denisovan. I think it is Homo Heidelbergensis, but we don’t have DNA for it.

          Yes she is willing to let others look at it. That just came out today.

        • Dean

          Realist et al. —
          mtDNA is maternally inherited and does not undergo meiotic recombination. Males get their mothers, grandmothers,etc., mtDNA, but cannot pass it to their offspring. Females get their mothers mtDNA and do pass it on to their offspring male and female alike.
          nuDNA is bi-parental DNA, half of which you get from you mom and half from your dad….it makes us who we are.
          So, if BF is a product of a hybridization event and one parent was a human female, the offspring (BF) would carry the human mtDNA. However, that offspring would also carry half of the human female nuDNA and half from the other side of the mating, the unknown primate. This would after several generations result in nuDNA that would be basically human but with the ‘novel sequences of unknown origin’ inserted into the double helix resulting in a unique DNA profile to varying degrees depending upon the region of DNA assayed. This is apparently what Ms Melba has documented, although I didn’t shell out the 30 dollars to read the paper. mtDNA lies in the mitochondria, outside of the cell nucleus, while nuDNA lies inside the cell nucleus and thus is subject to meiotic recombination…or the mixing of base pairs to create variation, such as blond haired children from parents that have black hair..although it’s much more complex than that.
          SUb-human was a poor choice of words, but understandable from a non-scientist perspective, but the reference to Neanderthals or Denisovans does provide the proper context, at least for lay folks. You get the idea.

        • realist

          I looked up Heidelbergensis on wikipedia and apparently they looked like this:

          They look a little too human to be sasquatch, especially if 75% hybridized with modern humans. What race of modern humans does she think contributed their genes, and how long ago?

          Heidelbergensis had an average IQ around 50 (way too low to survive North American winters), though 75% Native American admixture might have raised their IQ’s to 80, and that combined with evolving thick fur, might have been enough to cope with the cold.

          Apparently there was a race of Heidelbergensis in Africa that was over seven feet tall, which fits the sasquatch phenotype.

        • That is not what Heidelbergensis looked like. All of those reconstructions are just wrong.

    • realist

      correction. Just heard an interview with Ketchum and she denies she was ever raped by sasquatch. She sounded reasonable, and apparently has just been the victim of a lot of ridiculous on-line smears.

  2. Robert, It sounds like you may have seen images or video. Is that the case or did you read descriptions of the video?

    Once again good sir, appreciate what you do

  3. Nat Geo has all of Erickson’s stuff and so does Melba. They have access to it and some sort of rights to it. That is all that I know.

  4. Mac Encheeze

    Flaming cats! This gets more interesting by the minute. Thanks once again, Mr. Linsday, for knocking it out of the park with your coverage. This is amazing stuff.

  5. Skylar

    ..Robert i think your honest and thoughtful, but youve been fooled in the past .. there have been so many false rumors and stories i will reserve judgement..but am hopeful

  6. Durr

    Thanks again Robert! It looks like Melba’s study won’t be accepted by the mainstream, but if it really is solid I don’t see why an actual reputable scientist wouldn’t reproduce her findings on their own to become famous. Perhaps Sykes got wind of her results and decided to do just that?

    And what are the chances the Erikson video will get released? I can’t understand why such a supposedly clear video would not be released in some way unless it doesn’t really exist. If it’s really as good as you say, leaking it will shut up a lot of Melba’s critics (including me).

    Looking forward to more updates!

    • Melba has access to all Erickson’s stuff, and Nat Geo has access via Melba. Do not know why they are not releasing it now. They have already released some of it.

      • bigfoot56

        Robert, I’d love to see some old farm couple show up at FOX or CNN with a video that would blow the socks off the PGF video (which btw I believe is bigfoot) and one up all these ”researchers” who play constant mind games with their supposed videos and whatnot. Better yet… show up with a body dead from natural causes.

  7. JustAskin

    Back around Jan 10 you had posted that sources told you Ketchum was going to have press release or somthing to that order. This turned out to be false. Can you now explain what happened there? And better yet, does the time frame line up with the Journal pass peer review but refusing to publish. Cuz that would make a lot of sense. I wonder how long we have to wait on the “independents” and will she release who they are. My hopes still resting with Sykes, he will make or break everything. Great read RL.

  8. Dean

    If ketchum will share her sequences directly as well as deposit them on GenBank, then independent analysis can take place pretty quickly. If she shares her DNA samples with others, it will still take place relatively quickly…certianly not the 5 years she took to do the original anlyses. The methodology has been worked out, her methods ostensibly are repeatable, and so independent confirmation should take place quite guess would be less than 6 months, certainly less than a year. But much of that is up to her.

  9. J

    Great review in layman terms Robert! We appreciate your perspective and look forward to the rest of the rollercoaster ride this has been.
    Keep up the Good Work!

  10. Ketchum as a misunderstood martyr. I’m so glad I read this before bedtime. It was a wonderful tale.

  11. Joyce Gettys Wagner

    Awesome read, thanks Robert. I live about 20 minutes from the Crittenden, KY site. This really makes me want to invest in a decent camera and start looking for myself. I wonder if this family of bigfoot is likely to stay in the general area or if they’re more likely to move on?

    • The Bigfoots apparently left that location. However, I talked to a neighbor recently, and she was absolutely terrified. She said, “All I know is that THERE IS SOMETHING ON MANN ROAD!” They left the property, but whether they left the general area or not, I have no idea. All I know is that the neighbor is scared out of her head about these things.

  12. Joerg Hensiek

    Robert: Does the paper mentions at which independent laboratories her results were blind-tested and confirmed?

  13. Robert yours is the most contrary review that I have read on the subject thus far. Everyone else is tearing it to shreds for being sloppy and poorly reasoned and argued. How do you account for that? Do you have contacts with a scientific background that might weigh in?

    Also it appears that she is quite a morally reprehensible person. From the attack of an artist, to threatening lawsuits, and now sample-gate with Smeja. I’ve suspected for awhile now that her ego is just massive. It explains the huge discrepancy btw her headshot and how she appears on TV.

  14. The Robbie Shaw

    Absolutely outstanding news!!!! Thanks for sharing this Robert. IMO,I hope what you stated will happen. Prehaps this will be a starting point. A spark. For the community to unite,,,put petty differences aside, the politics,,,and dig in,start contributing in any way we can to help this legacy be better understood.
    This amazing group of people including Dr Ketchum and all the individuals involved have,well,moved a mountain,so to speak. They have accomplished something never before done on this scale in human history,and to that I applaud them.
    Thanks again for the wonderful news!

  15. John Scott

    Great update Robert! However I think this new DNA paper has missed a huge trick by not showing the full Ericsson footage! For the world media to take notice the footage should have come out! This would have brought sasquatch back to the forefront and the paper would offer a explanation to science and skeptics. This footage could be the spark that the paper needs to be accepted or at least read by the skeptic scientific community.

  16. Mr. E2me

    Hi Robert.
    Through your reporting I feel like I’ve got to know Melba well. She reminds me of several menopausal (and about to be) women I’ve had to deal with professionally over the years. Something about the female psyche makes them behave ruthlessly and somewhat illogical in certain situations. I’m certain one associate will end up in jail, If a deal goes bad she is prone to physical violence. It’s an over the top style of aggresive behavior , that for some reason they think they can get away with because of their feminine wiles. Despicable people to associate with fur sure.
    Glad the report made it out finally. If I weren’t so frugal I would pay the $30. ( Actually no I won’t. I’ll steal it online when I can. Melbs can make her money back with the Elusive Hominid clothing line. Maybe I’ll buy a shirt.)
    Thanks again Senor Bob !

  17. Caz

    In regard to Ketchum and Smeja discussing modifying the sample, I know nothing, but you should leave open the possibility that the comments were well-intentioned. If a lay-person held a sample that I deemed valuable, then I would be very concerned about its storage. Regular freezers (-20degC) are completely inadequate for biological storage. You need to store it in industrial-grade -80degC freezers. Also, contamination can be problem not just for sequencing, but also because it degrades the sample, even when frozen at -20C. I would ask that the outer edges of the sample be cut away, and the core stored properly. I don’t have any insider knowledge about the project. I am just saying the world has not yet heard the other side of the story.

    • JustAskin

      Caz is right. What is it Melba said to smeja? I doubt she said “if i cant have the rest please tamper with it”. That info is not clear. Maybe they just misunderstood her. Did she tell them to salt it so it wouldnt rot?

  18. AZengineer

    Great job Robert. Now about that steak…. I have never seen a photo of the thick, fleshy steak. Just photos of a scraggly piece of skin with long hair. Do you think it possible that the guys who reported the sample was black bear were not looking at part of the steak, but somehow got hold of a
    bearskin (from a willing bear hunter/taxidermist) and used it as their red herring, “thus, proving that BF does not exist”. Yes, there are people stupid enough to make that conclusion.

    As for Ketchum herself, scientific skills and social skills do not always exist with a high correlation. I don’t care a whit about her presumed moral deficiencies. You are right. She was truly nailed to a scientific cross. There probably was a point of no return and she consciously persevered. I’ll buy you a beer anytime Dr.

    By the way, has there been any outrage from all the people and labs mentioned in the paper??? Just maybe they are saying that they stand behind their work. Can you imagine the devastation to your life’s work and
    Ph.D if you were complicit in a hoax? I love all the morons that said the samples were contaminated so, therefore, the results on the other side of Denisovan are fully explained. I’d bet on a BF IQ being higher than most
    people on the various web sites. Our large, hirsute neighbors are truly magnificent survivors.

  19. Sally Salad

    I think for her to gain back credibility, the Erikson footage needs to be released, but she has tried to make it very clear that she does not have the rights to release it. And I understand her not wanting the paper to be free to the general public (most people won’t understand it), but I hope she eventually at least gives institutional access to the paper so university students can access it. What’s the harm in that?

  20. Caz

    “Why not make the Ketchum paper available? …. As an author myself, I do not particularly like people stealing my work. Out of respect for Dr. Ketchum and because I am an honorable man, I will not put the entire paper online. ” 🙂

  21. Jacob

    Hey Rob! Another great read, cant wait for further news, I’M hoping that we get to see some Erickson footage sometime soon. I think you, I and alot of other bigfooter’s out their would like to see what they have caught so far. Cant wait for another update, Thanks Robert!

  22. James Chesal

    Mad props to you, Robert … for months you were saying she had ~120 samples included in the study and, sure enough, there were 111. Good job!

  23. realist

    The following is the most reasonable theory of sasquatch based on the available evidence:

    A small band of tthe giant race of African Heidelbergensis migrated to Europe,, probably sometime before the ice age. They had age an average around 50 and were over 7 feet tall. When the ice age occured, they were forced to adapt to a meat based diet, and the superior nutrition raised their IQ’s to 63. On top of that nutrition boost, they got a genetic boost as the intense natural selection to survive the ice age raised their IQ’s further to 84, just a touch lower than the IQ’s of modern humans living in Europe 15,000 years ago, who at the time had IQ’s around 88.

    However despite being almost as smart as modern human Europeans, these European giant Heidelbergensis never evolved the the physical ability to talk efficiently, and this physical vocalizing ability is what allowed modern humans to dominate. To compensate for their vocal impairments, European giant Heidelbergensis had to evolve thick fur since lacking efficient language, they could not pass on cultural knowledge such as how to make a fur coat.

    However being much taller than modern humans, they had little trouble killing modern European men and raping their women, and one of these mass rapes 15,000 years ago created a hybrid of the two species, known as sasquatch. This hybrid had an IQ of 88. and some improved talking skills, though not enough to pass on significant cultural knowledge. Through natural selection, this hybrid with improved talking skills quickly replaced the more vocally impaired full-blooded giant Heidelbergensis, though their advantageous genes for height and fur were preserved.

    However once modern Eurasians acquired agriculture, their populations and cultural sophistication exploded, and sasquatch were on the run, finally forced to hide in the North American mountains where modern human populations were small, and less intelligent than other modern Euraisans.

    Given their high IQ of 88, sasquatch were much better at avoiding and evading modern humans than other forest animals are, and they may have evolved other ways to avoid humans such as nocturnal life style, enhanced ability to smell humans, great height to see humans before humans see them, long legs to outrun humans, and long arms to beat to death the few humans who do witness them. But because sasquatch lack the language needed to organize against humans, they can only beat humans one on one, not in mass war, and thus have evolved to hide from them.

    • realist

      Whoops. Meant to say sasquatch has an IQ of 86 since they were a hydbrid of 15,000 year old giant European Heidelbergensis (IQ 84) and 15,000 year old European modern humans (IQ 88)

  24. AvrelSeale

    I’ve been thinking about this hybridization finding a lot since this was announced in November. In most of nature, it seems that hybrids are sort of averages of the two parents — the most well known example being donkey + horse = mule. If this theory of sasquatch ancestry holds, to me it implies that there was a modern human woman who was impregnated by something sometimes referred in cryptid research as a “true giant.” In other words, if the mother were 5-6 feet, what would the father have to be in order for the offspring (average) to go 8-9 feet? The father would have to be up in the 10 to 14-foot range. This human “daughter” mating with giants/gods to form semigiants (demigods) is quite suggestive of the scenario described in Genesis 6. Of course, one shudders to consider how hard that labor and delivery would have been… like a chihuahua giving birth to a great dane’s puppy. I personally find the “You Are Sasquatch” theory of self-domestication more compelling, but the science will tell soon enough. Curiouser and curiouser. Thanks!

    • JustAskin

      No the father would not need to be 10-14 feet tall. Look up a Liger. Its called hybrid vigor. The offspring can be bigger, smarter, stronger than both parents. Combine that with natural selection and imbreeding. Not to mention BF’s have not been proven yet so we do not know how tall they are. My guess is they are not near as tall as people report. Its just human nature to embellish a little.

  25. Brian

    There is a massive difference between a F1 (first generation) hybrid and a species that has a hybrid origin. I have studied hybridization in domestic animal origins and as one avenue through which evolution occurs (especially during times of environmental upheaval) for over twenty years.

    The first generation hybrid (F1) is unique in that is usually falls intermediate to the parent species, but when there is fertility and thus the F1 backcrosses to either parent form or interbreeds with other hybrids, the genes begin to segregate and the resulting offspring (BC1 or F2, and on further) no loner are intermediate to the two original parent species. Once many generations have be bred up and the genome has stabilized, many things can occur. Dominant genes from either original species can become prominent, and recessive genes from either parent species can emerge that would not have been seen in the F1. Further, genes can recombine and express in a new manner. A gene from one species, that in that species’ genetic background behaves in a very specific manner, can behave in a very different manner in the genetic background of the other species or in the new recombinant background of later generations from F1 x F1.

    I have not seen any analysis of the origins of bigfoot that take any of this into account. The problem is that people are apparently so unaware of what happens when an F1 hybrid reproduces, and that those offspring are NO LONGER HYBRIDs. They are OF HYBRID ORIGIN. Those are two very different things! The only generation that can truly be called a hybrid is that first generation from the mating of two different species. After that, you begin to have a recombinant population OF HYBRID ORIGIN. After a given amount of time, you have a new SPECIES OF HYBRID ORIGINS. That is what the bigfoot is. It is not a hybrid, but a species of hybrid origins.

    Another thing to take into account is that the period at which this hybridization takes place is a very, very turbulent geological period, when the last ice age was ending, but just before the world-wide events that brought on the advent of the thousand year Younger Dryas period – the time when the Clovis culture becomes extinct and the Megafuana becomes extinct. This is the type of geological upheaval that is ripe for hybridization to produce a new species.

    Finally, I would have to suspect that the homonid species that interbred with the population of European Homo sapiens in their Southern French glacial refugia was H. heidelbergensis (or something very close to it). I also suspect that once the original hybrid(s) emerged, they backcrossed to the H. heidelbergensis species and in time stabilized as what we now know as bigfoot. All it would have required was one female offspring, an F1, carrying H. sapien MtDNA, who then produced daughters that for whatever reason had a survival advantage (possibly more language skills, higher iq or even simply being found more sexually attractive) and created a slightly altered form of the founder species. This is one of the more common type of evolutionary hybridization event, where an existing species is modified by a hybridization, but not completely supplanted by it. So bigfoot is neither h. heidelbergensis or h. sapiens, but something that emerged from an interbreeding of the two species that then went its own way. Could there have continued to be interchange of genetic material between the new form (bigfoot) and its two parent types on into modern times? Absolutely, and when a species arises from this type of event and both founder species are still extant, this occasional exchange of genetic material both ways tends to occur.

    In time, we will likely find modern humans with a bit of “bigfoot” DNA and we will find bigfoot with more or less h. sapiens DNA, and I would not be surprised if there might not be populations with much greater levels of the (possibly h. heidelbergensis) unknown (for now) homonid DNA or even pure lines of that homonid still in existence as well. Some of those “pure to purer” lines of the unknown progenitor homonid will possibly also show some small amount of sapiens DNA due to backcrossing with the “bigfoot” type.

    • JustAskin

      Thank you Brian. The point of some BF DNA lingering in some modern humans has been very overlooked. Just as we didn’t know we had some Neandertal/Denisovin in us until theirs was sequenced. Now they can screen world wide samples and see if the BF DNA shows up.

      • Brian


        Your welcome. I think it goes against our humans sensibilities, but if Neanderthal and Denisovan and others are there, then this will undoubtedly be too. I can think of a Russian wrestler or two that needs to be tested poste haste…

        • @Brian: You will find almost exactly the senarios you propose in two of my essays on Sasquatch or Bigfoot Origins that I published in 2011 and 2012 respectively. The essays are under REGISTERED copyright, which solidifies my claims. They are included in my book, Sasquatch Genesis. The e-book version for Kindle readers is now available on Amazon. I agree with your more precise distinction of Sasquatch as a species of hybrid origins versus the more simplistic “hybrid.”

    • rob

      Great post , Brian , you obviously know what you’re talking about!!

  26. realist

    one red flag with all this is why has she not tried to submit her paper to a MAINSTREAM journal; why is it always obscure journals?

  27. realist

    A leading scientist who peer reviews the major journals said he never heard of her study until the press release, so apparently she did not send her study to a major credible journal. This is a HUGE red flag

    • Curious

      Realist, she submitted to Nature. Can your friend check that out and find out if it’s true?

    • Dean

      Lots of red flags with Ms Melba, most begining with the fact she is a veterinarian trying to play molecular geneticist. Given what her data supposedly documents, then there are 3 outlets..Nature, Science, and The Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)..she would /should have pursued. Assuming the managing editors actually sent it out for review (sometimes they don’t), the rejection from any of these three pre-eminent outlets is a HUGE red flag, given what her data supposedly describes. Nature is one of the hardest journals to get published in, but a study such as her’s should have had a fairly easy go of it, given what she says her data speaks to. Given her paper costs 30 bucks to read, I would say caveat emptor.But I would also say that with some contrition and sharing data and samples with other established molecular geneticists she can regain some credibility and some notoriety for her work. It has happened before. Had she done that in the first place, she might very well have been published in Nature.

      • realist

        it’s not her fault she’s not a molecular geneticist. I’m skeptical of her too, but judge her on the merrits, not on her credentials. i hope peer reviewed journals don’t require one has a certain background to publish

  28. realist

    I think the bigfoot theory would be a lot more plausible if this creature was said to live in Sub-Saharan Africa, because that’s the land where humans evolved and that’s where all our known closest living relatives (chimps, gorillas) live. But the fact that these creatures are said to live almost everywhere but Africa is a red flag

    • narut00

      orangutans are from asia,maybe the yeti is the real one,i think is an accurate and good analogy; many asian scientifics have tried to probe his existence
      the discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth … Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold

    • Brian

      realist, you are grasping at straws, and making straw men. H.erectus and all of it’s descendants left Africa at various times starting as much as 2 million years ago. H. heidelbergensis left Africa as much as 1 million years ago +/-, but some H. heidelbergensis remained in Africa to evolve into H. sapiens. Those that left Africa became H. neanderthal. So how on earth would this be more plausible if it happened in Africa? If this happened only 15,000 years ago, as the MtDNA suggests, then it has nothing to do with Africa. Hell, the Clovis culture was already in North America by that time and h. sapiens had been out of Africa for well over 50,000 years, H. neanderthal had never been in sub-saharan Africa and H. heidelbergensis had been out of Africa for nearly a million years at that time. This event that is alleged to have created the modern bigfoot is just a chance encounter in a desperate situation, as most such interspecies hybridizations are.

      As well, there are plenty of reports of apemen/cryptid hominids in Africa to this day. Just google cryptozoology and go looking. There is also now evidence that while sub-saharan populations of H. sapiens did not interbreed with Denisovan and Neandethal, they did interbreed with some other non-sapiens hominid(s) within the last 15-20,000 y.b.p. While this evidence of Ketchum’s shows that a hybridization event occurred at about 15,000 y.b.p. in the southern France glacial refugia, and that a number of bigfoot in North American descend from that mating, it doesn’t mean that all unknown cryptid primates/hominids globally descend from that mating. I highly suspect there are other populations with other sources of origin, some closely related to what we call bigfoot and others quite diverse and distant from both the sasqui and h. sapiens.

  29. Vincon

    After purchasing the paper and reading it, I hit the blogs and mildly championed her cause. I was hit by a maelstrom of verbal savagery from the keyboards of the resident trolls and mouth breathers who would NEVER buy the paper and ONLY parrot what rumors they pick up.

    I am glad to see Robert acknowledges her hard work and determination. There is a lot of great information in her report. If only other Bigfoot enthusiasts could be so open-minded.

    • Brian

      I think anyone who thinks that paying for a paper is something extraordinary and unheard of should go to any of the other journals that are online and see how free the majority of papers are. It is true that you can find many old papers for free online and sometimes newer ones get bootlegged, but in general, a newly published paper is not just laid out for the masses to drool over. I pay for papers all the time in my own work with researching and breeding domesticates. It is nothing new, and only shows the complete lack of knowledge of all the naysayers…I think we all know these people aren’t interested in looking at the science. They don’t care about the science. It is all about tearing down others to build up themselves.

      • Dean

        I can’t speak to others motives, Brian, but I can tell you that my criticisms of Ketchum’s work has not been to tear her down in order to build myself up. I spent an awful lot of time and money in graduate school to become the scientist I wanted to be. I have worked hard at learning grantsmanship, and the publication process, and the learning curve of modern techniques as they enter the field of science. I, and others like me are not going to passively embrace someone who simply steps up to a thermocycler and DNA sequencer and puts on the moniker of molecular geneticist and authority on anthropology and human evolution. The integrity of science has to be maintain by vigourous, rigourous critique and peer review, something that Ms Melba has hidden under the cover of secrecy. I will take any scientist to task over that kind of behavior, especially when it is also accompanied by attempts to preserve her own financial gain with Non disclosure agreements to minimize her early collaborators, and I would expect others to do so to me if my science ever became compromised in such a way. I don’t need to build myself up, my work will stand or fall on its own merits from repeated experimentation; but those of us who came into to science the right way have an obligation to protect the integrity of the discipline. Most bigfooter researchers, if they are serious, should do the homework to understand how science works and is properly conducted, and some the post Ketchum efforts by PNW Bigfooters to engage Dr. Bryan Sykes is a good first start. A new species and conservation of such may literally hang in the balance.

        • Brian

          Straw men….With all your training, can you not simply look at her evidence and weigh it strictly on the balance of its own merit, or are you too offended that she didn’t play by your rules to consider the actual content? All I see is establishment arrogance in your statements.

          Most importantly, I wasn’t referring to you in my post, so please, stop projecting all over me. Thanks so much!

        • Brian

          P.S. – Who I was referring to in my post was not real scientists, but “bigfoot researchers” who are raising hell because there is a charge for the paper. These people don’t know what they are talking about, don’t care about the science and are only in this to tear down others to build up themselves. If they had any knowledge about papers, they would know that all papers aren’t free and if they cared about the science, they would read the paper.

  30. B.G.

    “We all know that she had real Bigfoot samples she was dealing with in the study”

    -Actually, we don’t all know that. At all.

    “She did say that it passed peer review in a journal called the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology. However, Melba stated that the journal’s attorneys said that if they published the paper, it would destroy the journal’s reputation, so they said they would not publish it.”

    -If even a cryptozoology journal’s reputation is at stake for publishing it, that’s even more suspect. And that is assuming she is telling the truth – I’m not saying she’s lying or not, but it seems very suspicious to keep saying something is in or passed peer review and providing no evidence.

    -Secondly, isn’t it a bit odd that a journal who won’t even publish someone’s paper for fear of their destroying their reputation is actually willing to sell the entire journal to that same person?

    “Given these circumstances and the fact that she did finally pass review at an obscure journal…”

    -Hardly a fact. She says it did, but the point of passing is to actually demonstrate that it was published. Given the nature of the whole situation, she’d need to actually show it did for people to believe it.

    “…Melba was right and proper to purchase the journal named above when even it refused to publish her findings despite passing them via review.”

    -If her paper was so good, and it passed review, then it needs objective verification. This is the nature of a scientific claim. If she has to publish in her own journal, well it may be a good paper or not, but whatever it is, it’s not good science. I don’t think people should be mean to her, but criticizing the work she’s doing hardly makes her a Christ figure.

  31. Russ

    Robert what I havent heard anyone address is where are the arrowheads and tools that bigfoot uses if he is indeed the Heidelberg man?

    • Not sure about that. That is the part about the Bigfoots that never made sense. This is why Meldrum and the others always insisted they must be apes.

      • realist

        yes but sasquatch would need more intelligence not less to survive cold climates so it should not have lost intelligence. perhaps its non-human genes are even more primitive than heidelberg. gigantipthicus?

  32. J

    For those interested, Dr. Ketchum is having a radio interview with George Knapp/ Coast to Coast at 10 pm tonight. If you go to their web site and click stations you can find the local station for your area.

  33. biggerbrain

    The Ketchum interview on Coast to Coast was ok, but I want to see the vids before I will believe her. The reasons she gives for not showing the vids sound like BS to me.

    • J

      Some of the people will just never be satisfied. Bigger than the film release, is all of the Science related questions that were addressed that the Team has been repeatedly Bashed over the head with. Dr. Ketchum shed light on a lot of the issues raised by the Scientific Community that are very serious and potentially devastating accusations. I hope we are seeing a turn of the tides here!
      Beyond that……..I hope the videos will come out soon. It would definitely help the paper shift into positive territory.

  34. Not published in any peer-reviewed journal (instead produced in a phony journal created solely to release this report — to the public no less and with a $30 price tag — this is Volume 1, Issue 1), it’s not science, pure and simple. Oxford University has been offering to test any “bigfoot DNA” free of charge for quite sometime and nothing has come of it. Anyone who buys into this stuff is a goober.

  35. some guy

    Robert – read on another blog that the writer was unable to find the collaborating scientists and experts that Ketchum lists. might be worth looking into.

    • J

      I think they are grasping at straws. How could anyone think that the Ketchum Team would be so naive to do something like that that would of course be double checked and so easy to uncover as false information?

  36. Pingback: Bigfoot DNA as mysterious as the elusive cryptid – February 18, 2013 at 03:13PM | Lifestream

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s