E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Karl Tate, LiveScience infographic artist
This is an artist's interpretation of Bigfoot. A study, panned by skeptics, says the legendary beast's DNA shows it is a human relative.
By Benjamin Radford
LiveScience
In November of last year, a Texas veterinarian made national news claiming that genetic testing confirmed that not only is the legendary Bigfoot real, but is in fact a human relative that arose some 15,000 years ago.
The study, by Melba S. Ketchum, suggested such cryptids had sex with modern human females that resulted in hairy hominin hybrids: "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," Ketchum said in a statement. The scientific community was rightly skeptical, partly because Ketchum's research — which spanned five years — had not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Now the study has finally been published, kind of, and it raises more questions than answers. The piece, written by a team of researchers led by Ketchum, is titled "Novel North American Hominins: Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" and published in the "DeNovo Scientific Journal."
The study, which used 111 samples of alleged Bigfoot hair, blood, mucus, toenail, bark scrapings, saliva and skin with hair and subcutaneous tissues attached, were collected by dozens of people from 34 sites around North America. Hairs were compared to reference samples from common animals including human, dog, cow, horse, deer, elk, moose, fox, bear, coyote, and wolf, and were said not to match any of them. [Rumor or Reality: The Creatures of Cryptozoology]
The report concluded, "we have extracted, analyzed and sequenced DNA from over one hundred separate samples... obtained from scores of collection sites throughout North America. Hair morphology was not consistent with human or any known wildlife hairs. DNA analysis showed two distinctly different types of results; the mitochondrial DNA was unambiguously human, while the nuclear DNA was shown to harbor novel structure and sequence ... the data conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin and are a direct maternal descendent of modern humans."
DNA sampling
So what can we make of this? The most likely interpretation is that 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 (mostly Bigfoot buffs with little or no forensic evidence-gathering training) accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough.
Though the study claims that "throughout this project exhaustive precautions were taken to minimize or eliminate contamination" in the laboratory, the likelihood that the samples were contaminated in the field by careless collection methods, normal environmental degradation, and other factors was not addressed. In some cases the person(s) submitting the alleged Bigfoot sample also contributed a sample of their own DNA to help rule out contamination, but the possibility of DNA contamination by others (such as hunters or hikers) could not be ruled out.
How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from Bigfoot? Well, they didn't; the report details where Bigfoot samples were retrieved: "hair found on tree" and "hair found on wire fence" are typical. In other words, the people collecting the samples didn't see what animal left it there, possibly weeks or months earlier — but if it seemed suspicious it might be Bigfoot. [Beasts & Monsters: How Reality Made Myth]
Scientific journal?
Ketchum's study had been rejected by other scientific journals. So what about the journal that finally published the study, "DeNovo Scientific Journal"? The journal has no other studies, articles, papers or reviews. Ketchum's is the only paper the journal has "published." No libraries or universities subscribe to it, and the journal and its website apparently did not exist three weeks ago. There's no indication that the study was peer-reviewed by other knowledgeable scientists to assure quality. It is not an existing, known or respected journal in any sense of the word.
This raises some red flags: If the results of the Ketchum et al. study are so valid and airtight, why didn't they appear in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal? Surely any reputable journal would fight Bigfoot tooth and Sasquatch nail to be the first to publish groundbreaking valid evidence of the existence of an unknown bipedal animal.
In fact, researchers from Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology announced last year that they would test any supposed Sasquatch samples that believers volunteered to send.
"I'm challenging and inviting the cryptozoologists to come up with the evidence instead of complaining that science is rejecting what they have to say," geneticist Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford told LiveScience in May 2012.
In an interview on the MonsterTalk podcast, Dr. Todd Disotell of the New York University Molecular Anthropology Laboratory dismissed the idea that Bigfoot could be a primate that arose as recently as Ketchum's DNA results claim: "If it's a primate that is so similar to us, that's only separated from us about 15,000 years ago, that's us," he said. "Even with people of European extraction, we've got 50,000 years of common ancestry since we left Africa." In other words, there is far more than 15,000 years of genetic diversity among ordinary humans, so the idea that something that split from our lineage would be as different from us as Bigfoot is absurd.
It seems that the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study, which was supposed to rock the world with its iron-clad scientific evidence of Bigfoot, is a bust, and tells us more about junk science than about the mysterious monster. Scientists will not be impressed, but Bigfoot believers might be; the report is available to the public for $30 from Ketchum's web site.
Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of "Skeptical Inquirer" science magazine and author of six books including Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore. His Web site is www.BenjaminRadford.com.
- Loch Ness & Bigfoot: Our 10 Favorite Monsters
- Bigfoot, Nessie & the Kraken: Cryptozoology Quiz
- Tracking Belief in Bigfoot (Infographic)
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetworkcompany. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
Bigfoot? That's even stupider than thinking the THEORY of evolution is real science after being debunked a gadzillion times.
without a skeleton or at least a convincing part of it, none of these so-called "samples" means anything and no one should spend any valuable time on them.
"bigfoot" is like UFO, a product of crazy/unfunny people, unless proven otherwise.
Grammar much? Evolution is a proven theory. Sorry if the scientific definition stumps you, but it is accepted as fact.
I suggest you look up the definition of theory. From dictionary.com, first definition:
And all I'm going to say about your debunking statement is, it's the least debunked idea on where humans came from, and it supplies the most physical evidence.
Also, (and I'm making the assumption here based on your statement that evolution is false that you prefer the story of creation), the bible doesn't say bigfoot can't exist. The bible doesn't mention angler fish, but we know they exist. And, since the bible doesn't say that bigfoot doesn't exist, you have to keep the possibility that he does open.
And, (again, I'm acting on the assumption you're a creationist), all the bible says is God created everything; it doesn't say how he did it.
Evolution is a fact. Evolution is change over time...so everything, cars, TVs, phones, computers, change over time. What I think you are referring to is the theory of evolution by means of natural selection...which is indeed a proven scientific theory. Remember kids, a scientific theory is the best explanation to a natural phenomenon, supported by massive amounts of evidence. If evidence ever came along to prove this wrong...it wouldn't be a theory anymore, and we'd have something else to explain the evolution of organisms.
I'd love to see some actual scientific data debunking evolution though...please cite your gadzillion sources.
Creationism doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
I want to believe there is such a thing. Just as I want to believe in alien life. But, until I see it plain and clear in captivity...then It's still just B.S.
Bigfoot again! Sheesh! PT BARNUM was right, there's a sucker is born every minute. Folks you cannot extract DNA from something that DOES NOT EXIST!
BIGFOOT is a HOAX that was perpetrated by two pranksters with a gorilla suit, a camera and a strange sense of humor. They ADMITTED the hoax years later and even displayed the fake foot they used to make the big footprints.
Get a grip people. We've got real problems, like Timothy (see above), who believes in mythology instead of science.
Right! And what about that guy who recently dressed up as Bigfoot for a prank, and was tragically hit by a car while running around in the hairy outfit? How many more people will have to die before the hoaxsters call an end to this?
Uhm Skip, you realize scientific studies of Patterson/Gimlin film and site studies within hours of the sighting completely refute what you've stated? Folks don't know what it is in the film, but it isn't a man in the suit. Clearest give away is the action of the creatures feet as it walks... it has two breaks in its feet as the articulate, humans only have one.
Those fake feet are so crude that even Stevie Wonder can see the difference between the "stompers" and castings of an animated foot.
I would hate to read that the vet who takes care of MY little furry girl was this much of an ignoramus.
Hey Ben,
When are you going to debunk Rendlesham Forest or Lonnie Zamora?
Oh wait, you can't. Nevermind.
Because those are UFO incidents, he's a cryptozoology debunker, and you are a moron.
No he's not, jackass, he smugly takes on the easily dismissible UFO cases as well.
Try doing some research, moron.
Awwww, did I hurt your poor little feelings? Just cinch up that tinfoil hat real tight and you'll feel better...
Yes, they live in rural trailer parks.
And work at Walmart
..and watches NASCAR.
People believe in bigfoot because they want to, regardless of the lack of evidence. Bigfoot must be god.
Scientists also stated that the world was flat for hundreds of years and that an animal striped like a Zebra did not exist in Vietnam, until it was proven to exist. If the samples had been contaminated by humans, the nuclear DNA would have shown that had happened. Academics have an agenda.
Don't know if it exists but don't write off the possibility.
Scientists since the ancient Greeks have known the Earth was not flat. While some did believe the world was flat, they majority of them didn't have anything to do with science.
As for the striped animal, they also thought the coelacanth had been extinct for 65 million years until one was found in the 1930's. Is your point that bigfoot might exist because we haven't found one yet? Bigfoot might be real. That's not what the article is saying. It's saying the DNA evidence they have has most likely been contaminated by the people who collected it. Breathing on the sample could have contaminated it. If they didn't use sterile gloves to pick it up, their hands almost definitely contaminated them.
Academics may have an agenda. But so does someone who refuses to have their studies peer reviewed. Nothing says false data like the lack of review.
I don't know if bigfoot exists or not. But with all the sightings from all across the US and Canada, it is a little odd we don't have any concrete proof. It's not impossible, just unusual.
On the spectrum between unusual and impossible, I'd say it's a lot closer to impossible.
The difference between science and faith is that science, when presented with solid evidence, is more than willing to change its mind. But in the absence of evidence of the existence of bigfoot, the verdict of science remains, "not proven." Is it impossible? No, but it's becoming increasingly unlikely, given the size of this alleged creature, and the sheer number of individuals that would be required to maintain a breeding population.
Cunical is terribly confused. It was religious extremists who claimed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. I guess a gross lack critical thinking skills does not prevent people like cunical from exposing their ignorance on public sites like this one. I mean, damn.
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here. One thing I feel pretty safe believing is that Bigfoot evidence falls into two categories: (1) outright fraud and (2) error. Based on this view of the evidence, I conclude that Bigfoot does not exist.
Admit it: your first thought after seeing the researcher's name was "Bigfoot is a pokemon!?"
I'm not sure if the author just didn't get that far in the investigation, but the reporting about the journal is missing a huge detail:
"DeNovo Scientific Journal" is owned by Melba S. Ketchum. She bought the journal specifically so that she could publish this one article.
In other words, this article is "published" only in the most technical sense of having been printed on paper and made available to others. It did not undergo any review and the "journal" in which it was published is nothing more than a vanity press of the highest order.
There has always been those that want to believe in the absurd. Fairies, trolls, witches, were-wolf, leprechauns, gods and such. You can not convince them of their absurdity because you can not disprove something that does not exist and any evidence you present they will not see. Creationism, monsters, unicorns all are real in their mind..... heck they even believe in virgins.
Food for thought: I guess Dr. Ketchum now knows how C. Darwin felt when he proposed his "Evolution" theory. He was ridiculed upto his death, and even now 150 years later. Alas, Evolution although accepted, is still just a theory. I bought the above mentioned, published journal and reviewed it. The work is sound. The tests were tried and successful from many other different labs (blindly and double blindly) and the samples were from all over the country. I don't know if the American worldly way of thinking would be ready for this yet. We, homo sapien, are supposed to be the best at everything, and to think that there may be an eight ft, 800lbs hairy homo out there that physically is closer to our "pre-human" fossil records would raise entirely different suggestions about life as we know it. --Jason
30 clams? Sucker! I get all my evolution stories for free!
If you want to fantasize about some 800 lb hairy homo, that's your lookout.. whatever turns you on!
Evolution isn't "just a theory". It's a scientific theory, which holds considerably more weight than a layman "theory".
Jason you are seriously ignorant of what a scientific theory means. In laymen terms it's FACT. Evolution is one of the most challenged because of myth believers. Over 150 years the theory has been around and has only gotten stronger.
I never cease to be amazed that religious crackpots can enjoy the benefits of science every minute of every day, from the medicines they take to the high tech devices they use to visit this site, yet they are blithely able to turn the switch of rational thought to the OFF position the instant science refutes the primitive myths of an ancient band of ignorant nomads to which christians so desperately cling. It speaks volumes about christians and their ability to lie to themselves. I say let them deceive themselves but keep their imaginary deity and their insane cults out of our schools, our secular government, and our personal lives.
If you call that food for thought, then you have been chopped.
bigfoots, leprechauns, pink unicorns, gods. Good luck finding any of these myths.
99% of what Ben puts out is opinion w/o investigation. His "investigations" start out with a predetermined end and then he goes about all methods to ensure his end is achieved;all of his work is like that and it is patently BAD science. He only has a psychology degree, we can't expect him to actually do scientific work.
This fool is making us all look bad. Apparently, Dr. Ketchum is a 1978 graduate from my veterinary school - Texas A and M university. This is one of the best veterinary schools in the world, not just the United States, and it has extremely stringent academic criteria for acceptance. And once you are in, if you get two F's or three D's in any courses throughout the four year program you are kicked out.
And on top of that, it places a heavy emphasis on honor and ethics.
But I guess some whackjobs fall through the cracks. With Dr. Ketchum we have academic dishonesty and questionable research. Oh, and a perplexing business which claims to offer genetic testing for a variety of animals - including horses - which is all offered by a number of higher quality and accredited labs in the United States...most notably those at vet schools, and who's sole staff appears to be...Dr. Ketchum.
Seriously. You can't make this crap up if you tried. Go to her website. It's good for the lulz. I am embarassed that she graduated from the same school as me. I apologize on behalf of all legitimate veterinarians in Texas.
And honestly, I thought she was BSing about the DVM degree too. So I researched it. The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners confirms that she does indeed have a DVM, and has passed the boards, and is able to legally practice veterinary medicine in Texas.
Now that practically every 8 year old in North America is armed with at least a 12 mega pixel camera, don't you think we would have got decent footage of a Bigfoot by now if it existed. Why has a Bigfoot never been found, captured, killed, trapped, ran over, or legitimately filmed? Because it does not exist, it's a mythological creature just like a unicorn or a leprechaun. I just hope that not a dime of tax payer money went to fund any of the studies for this crap.
Big foot, UFOs, (but I believe there are inhabited worlds out there) Kennedy conspiracy, etc. are a lot like drugs and alcohol. When I consume any of it, I feel a few brain cells die. That "Dr." Is selling a lot of that stuff, literally, and a bunch of people have consumed a LOT of it. I wouldn't let her touch my dog, and he is a mutt!
"What fools these mortals be!"
deleted
Give it up bigfoot fans , if there ever was a "bigfoot " don't you think by now they would have found skeletal remains . All you guys are clinging to is Big Bull@!$%# .
Oh by the way , if one of you BF fans ever manages to spot one , make sure to film him extra blurry so it looks like a big smudge on film. That will cinch it for proof .
They're far from being myth. Just take a close look at the next Republican you run across.
Yes charles and they WILL plant a big foot up your ass .
Lets face it people, we as human beings are a truly despicable race, just putrid and disgusting, selfish, petty and simpleminded. And when we gather in packs, like academia we're downright bloodthirsty. We aren't worth a squirt of piss.
speak for yourself
Compiled in under 30 seconds
Footnotes and references expose countless examples of disgrace
Bullying_in_academia
Scientific_misconduct
Academic_dishonesty