• Bigfoot DNA discovered at last? Not so fast...

    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.

    Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetworkcompany. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Mountain's roars and shrieks: Some claim that it's Bigfoot

    Karl Tate, LiveScience infographic artist

    An artist's interpretation of Bigfoot.

    By Benjamin Bradford
    LiveScience.com

    Do new recordings from Oregon's Blue Mountains offer good evidence of the mysterious bipedal creature known as Bigfoot? That's what some are claiming after hearing a recording of strange roars and shrieks given to The Oregonian newspaper.

    When people think of Bigfoot evidence, casts of big footprints and blurry photos and films often come to mind. But some of the more interesting bits of evidence are sound recordings of alleged vocalizations. One company, Sierra Sounds, markets a CD called "The Bigfoot Recordings: The Edge of Discovery." Narrated by "Star Trek" actor Jonathan Frakes, the recording claims to have captured vocalizations among a Bigfoot family.

    The sounds include a series of guttural grunts, howls and growls. The liner notes offer testimonials from a "linguist" whose self-described credentials include playing the flute, speaking several languages and having "a Russian friend (who) thinks I'm Russian."

    She confidently asserts that the tapes are not faked, and that the vocal range is too broad to be made by a human. She also suggests that Bigfoot individuals have a language, possibly including "Sasquatch swear words."

    In his 1992 book "Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry Into the Reality of Sasquatch" (Johnson Books, 1992), physical anthropologist Grover Krantz discussed his experience with Bigfoot recordings: "One ... tape was analyzed by some university sound specialists who determined that a human voice could not have made them; they required a much longer vocal tract. A Sasquatch investigator later asked one of these experts if a human could imitate the sound characteristics by simply cupping his hands around his mouth. The answer was yes." As for other such recordings, Krantz "listened to at least 10 such tapes and find(s) no compelling reason to believe that any of them are what the recorders claimed them to be."

    It's little wonder that one of the top scientific Bigfoot investigators held audio recordings in low regard: Sounds are simply poor evidence. [ Infographic: Tracking Belief in Bigfoot ]

    Other explanations for the Blue Mountain sounds include foxes and coyotes, which — unlike Bigfoot — are known to exist in the area. Just because an animal call seems unusual or mysterious doesn't mean that it is. There are many factors than can affect how something sounds from far away, including temperature, wind and geographical features such as canyons.

    Some suggest perhaps a hoaxer in the area is having a bit of fun with the local legend. And sometimes Bigfoot hunters go deep into the woods and "sound blast" pre-recorded "Bigfoot calls," hoping to elicit responses from any real Bigfoot nearby. Of course other people in the area can also hear the strange shrieks and howls coming from the dark wilderness and — not knowing that Bigfoot noisemakers are afoot — may report the sounds as genuine and unknown.

    Acoustics and Bigfoot
    According to "Good Morning America's" John Muller, this latest recording is not the only one; in fact the mysterious sounds have been coming out of the area since at least November. This raises an obvious question: If anyone seriously believes these sounds could be real evidence for Bigfoot, why haven't investigators been able to photograph or videotape the source of the sounds?

    For example the cast of the optimistically titled Animal Planet show "Finding Bigfoot" has spent months in that area, and so far have come up empty-handed. Surely a well-financed cable television show would be able to provide its team members with the equipment they need; Neal Karlinsky of ABC News noted that the "Finding Bigfoot" crew has "every bit of cutting edge technology — night vision gear and all the sensors they can get their hands on." So what's the problem?

    This isn't rocket science; it's the science of acoustics. With an array of sensitive microphones placed strategically throughout an area, it's relatively simple to triangulate the location of a sound to within a few feet almost instantly. If that same area is also covered by an array of wide-angle, high-resolution cameras (using infrared at night), it should be fairly simple to trigger cameras nearest the source of the sound to photograph whatever created it: fox, hoaxer, Bigfoot or something else.

    Researchers could even use camera-mounted drones to help locate the vocalizations and monitor the area. Another option would be to set up a perimeter around areas where Bigfoot are said to be especially active and use sound-activated cameras. [ Rumor or Reality: The Creatures of Cryptozoology ]

    Surely a group of 8- to-10-foot tall hairy bipedal animals can't be that hard to find if you place cameras around a hotspot of activity and wait a few weeks. Of course covering huge swaths of wilderness would not be cheap. But it would be a small price to pay if it finally provides hard evidence of Bigfoot — instead of more ambiguous roars, grunts and howls in the wilderness.

    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.