When you purchase through link on our website , we may earn an affiliate deputation . Here ’s how it works .
In November of last year , a Texas veterinary surgeon made interior tidings claiming that genetic examination confirmed that not only is the fabled Bigfoot real , but is in fact a human relative that arose some 15,000 long time ago .
The study , by Melba S. Ketchum , suggested such cryptids had sex with modern human females that result in haired hominin hybrids : " Our data point indicate that theNorth American Sasquatchis a hybrid species , the result of males of an unidentified hominin species crossing with distaff Homo sapiens , " Ketchum said in a affirmation . The scientific residential district was justifiedly skeptical , partly because Ketchum ’s research — which cross five years — had not appear in any compeer - reviewed scientific journal .
An artist’s interpretation of Bigfoot.
Now the study has in conclusion been published , kind of , and it raises more questions than answers . The objet d’art , written by a team of researchers conduce by Ketchum , is titled " Novel North American Hominins : Next contemporaries sequence of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies " and published in the " DeNovo Scientific Journal . "
The work , which used 111 samples of allegedBigfoothair , blood , mucous secretion , toenail , bark scraping , saliva and skin with hair’s-breadth and subcutaneous tissues attach , were collected by dozen of the great unwashed from 34 sites around North America . Hairs were liken to computer address samples from common animals including human , dog , cow , sawhorse , cervid , elk , European elk , fox , bear , coyote , and wolf , and were said not to match any of them . [ rumour or realism : The Creatures of Cryptozoology ]
The written report concluded , " we have extracted , analyzed and sequence DNA from over one hundred separate samples … obtained from scores of collection sites throughout North America . Hair sound structure was not uniform with human or any known wildlife hairs . DNA analysisshowed two distinctly different type of results ; themitochondrial DNAcm was unambiguously human , while the nuclear DNA was show to harbor novel social structure and succession … the data once and for all proves that the Sasquatch survive as an extant hominin and are a lineal maternal descendant of modern humans . "
An artist’s interpretation of Bigfoot.
DNA Sampling
So what can we make of this ? The most likely interpretation is that the samples were pollute . Whatever the sampling to begin with was — Bigfoot , bear , human or something else — it ’s possible that the people who collect and manage the specimen ( mostly Bigfoot buffs with small or no forensic evidence - gather training ) circumstantially introduced their DNA into the sample , which can easily hap with something as destitute as a spit , sneeze or cough .
Though the study arrogate that " throughout this project exhaustive precautions were hire to minimize or extinguish contamination " in the laboratory , the likeliness that the samples were contaminated in the field by careless collection method , normal environmental degradation , and other factors was not addressed . In some case the person(s ) submitting the alleged Bigfoot sample also add a sampling of their own DNA to help rule out pollution , but the possibility of desoxyribonucleic acid contamination by others ( such as hunters or tramp ) could not be ruled out .
How did the squad definitively decide that the samples were from Bigfoot ? Well , they did n’t ; the report contingent where Bigfoot sampling were retrieve : " hair find on Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree " and " whisker launch on wire fencing " are typical . In other words , the mass collect the samples did n’t see what animal leave it there , possibly hebdomad or months earlier — but if it seemed suspicious it might be Bigfoot . [ Beasts & Monsters : How realism Made Myth ]
Scientific Journal ?
This raise some ruby flags : If the results of the Ketchum et al . study are so valid and airtight , why did n’t they appear in a respected , peer - critique scientific journal ? certainly any reputable daybook would fight Bigfoot tooth and Sasquatch nail to be the first to put out groundbreaking valid grounds of the existence of an obscure bipedal animal .
In fact , researchers from Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology herald last year that they wouldtest any supposed Sasquatch samplesthat believer volunteered to send .
" I ’m challenging and ask over the cryptozoologists to come up with the evidence instead of complaining that scientific discipline is rejecting what they have to say , " geneticist Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford tell LiveScience in May 2012 .
In an consultation on the MonsterTalk podcast , Dr. Todd Disotell of the New York University Molecular Anthropology Laboratory dismissed the musical theme that Bigfoot could be a primate that arose as recently as Ketchum ’s DNA issue take : " If it ’s a hierarch that is so like to us , that ’s only furcate from us about 15,000 years ago , that ’s us , " he tell . " Even with people of European descent , we ’ve acquire 50,000 years ofcommon ancestrysince we leave Africa . " In other words , there is far more than 15,000 year of genetic diversity among average man , so the approximation that something that separate from our lineage would be as different from us as Bigfoot is absurd .
It seems that the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study , which was suppose to rock the world with its iron - cladscientific evidence of Bigfoot , is a bust , and tells us more about dust science than about the mysterious teras . Scientists will not be impressed , but Bigfoot believer might be ; the paper is available to the world for $ 30 from Ketchum ’s WWW internet site .
Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of " Skeptical Inquirer " science magazine and author of six books includingTracking the Chupacabra : The Vampire Beast in Fact , Fiction , and Folklore . His Web site is www.BenjaminRadford.com .
