Bigfoot DNA – Proof Within Controversy
As the results of the Bigfoot DNA studies slowly emerge from the silence of Dr. Melba Ketchum’s lab, it is both exciting to hear about the discoveries, and distressing to realize there’s so much in-fighting and bickering going on. As usual, in Bigfoot research, every ego is on edge and some go over the edge.
I first heard of it from my neighbor, JavaBob Schmalzbach, author of Monsters, Myths, and Me and owner of the Footprints in Your Mind website. He was involved with Richard Stubstad and Dr. Melba Ketchum when the project started. However as it progressed and the non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) expired, communication within the team broke down. It seems that Ketchum has taken over the evidence and edged others out of the deal.
Consequently, Richard Stubstad recently published a statement about the results of the DNA research, after refusing to sign a new NDA giving Dr. Ketchum 100% of the glory and joy of the new discovery. It appears that her attempt to cut out her former associates has backfired.
This appears to be a typical Bigfoot research scenario. I don’t know what it is about Bigfoot, but researchers have been vying with one another for the glory of the great discovery for decades now. I tend to think it is a matter of motivation. When we’re caught up in the human drama rather than thinking first of the well-being of the Bigfoot people themselves, competition runs rampant. So many people want to be the owner of the name that goes down in history as the person who proved the existence of Bigfoot!
Richard Stubstad’s article about Bigfoot DNA can be found in the July 2011 issue of JavaBob’s online magazine: Footprints in Your Mind – Special Sasquatch Edition. It is also on his website.
According to his biography on Footprints In Your Mind.Com, Richard Stubstad started his Bigfoot research as recently as 2009. Since then he “initiated the mitochondrial sequencing of several purported sasquatch samples through Dr. Ketchum’s DNA diagnostics laboratory in Texas.”
The information he is revealing now is not a “leak” of someone else’s work, but rather is from Richard Stubstad’s own collection of evidence and work on the DNA project prior to being shut out. For more information see this rebutal found on JavaBob’s website. He believes he has a legal right to share this much with the public.
Quoting Richard Stubstad:
1) This wasn’t intended to be a leak. Since I am no longer working with Dr. Ketchum according to her own personal desires, I am simply reporting on the work I did, without assistance, on the mtDNA analysis of the first two unspecified mtDNA samples.
2) Dr. K is incorrect; I’m not at all “misinformed” about her ongoing DNA work on various purported sasquatch samples; I’m not informed whatsoever, much beyond what I have already stated.
3) What I stated was not the result of Dr. K’s own work; she merely provided the mtDNA sequencing that others (who provided samples) had paid for. I also paid for some of the testing involved out of my own pocket.
4) Dr. K did not initially notice the close connection between Samples 1 and 2; I did the statistical analysis and told her, quite openly, of the statistical results since we and several others were intimately involved in this exciting and cooperative research when it started.
5) Within a short period of time, she excluded me from what quickly turned into “her” project, along with several others. She told me that her lawyer(s) told her to do so. This does resemble the smell of blood, eh?
The two original samples submitted to the lab were from totally separate sources. In fact, the researcher offering sample #1 did not see eye-to-eye with the researcher offering sample #2, so there was no opportunity for cross-contamination. Nevertheless these two samples had strikingly similar DNA characteristics, enough so that Stubstad concluded that there is a 97-98% certainty that Bigfoot exists.
The mtDNA tests of both samples offered clues to the mitochondrial (maternal/female) origins, showing them to be 100% HUMAN (homo sapiens) proving that “Bigfoot People” is a reasonable term… just as many recent research reports have suggested. They are our cousins, and a likely possibility is that they resulted from breeding between something else, and humans of our species.
What is known about the “Mitochondrial Eve” for both the original samples, is that she was from the “Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge”. She was a homo sapiens human being living in southern Europe 15,000 years ago, give or take about 5000 years.
Sources include:
Breathtaking News From the Erickson Project
New Erickson Project News: Bigfoot DNA Project Using Two Dead Bigfoot Bodies for Samples
Bear Hunter Interview – Part 2
Interview with Richard Stubstad – Is Bigfoot Human?
The issue of two dead Bigfoot . . . is something I can’t totally believe at this time, but I will explain it to you. The story is that a hunter in Plumas County, CA was threatened by a female Bigfoot, old enough to have gray hair. She was, according to him, blocking the road and making gestures that made him feel threatened, so he got out of his vehicle and shot her.
Then he says there were two young Sasquatches in the forest nearby, obviously upset by the female’s death. The hunter is reported to have shot and killed one of them.
The story continues that there were two other hunters with him. One became hysterical and they took away the rifle and wouldn’t let him shoot the third Bigfoot.
According to the web-rumors, the hunter is extremely worried about being prosecuted, and well he should be. California law is detailed and specific about what hunters are allowed to shoot. Bigfoot, of course, is not on that list.
Also, since the DNA is proving that Sasquatches are at least 1/2 human, there could be murder charges.
One rumor states that they left the bodies there. Another states that the bodies were recovered and sent to a Bigfoot research project in Washington state. And there’s the rumor that a piece of flesh from the female’s thigh was sent to Dr. Melba Ketchum for DNA analysis.
So, there’s the story of two dead Bigfoot bodies. I’m waiting for proof before I’ll believe any of it.
…
All sources for this article can be found on the web.
…
[Update: Radio broadcast - 7/9/11 - Richard Stubstad interviewed by M.K. Davis and Don Monroe. Thanks to Bobbie Short of Bigfoot Encounters for the link!]
[Update: Another radio broadcast - 7/9/11 - Robert Lindsay interviewed by the Minnesota Bigfoot Research Team, with a call-in from BFRO researcher Derek Randles, who spoke with the shooter of the 2 Plumas County Bigfoot and tends to believe the story. (I'm still reserving judgement on the story because it reminds me of the Georgia Bigfoot Hoax, the Stagecoach Nevada Bigfoot Hoax, etc. etc.... show me the proof!!!)]
- A New Bigfoot Documentary – Coming Right Up!
- Digging for Dirt? …or Looking for Bigfoot?
- Bigfoot Mind Probe Experience Redux
- Sierra Sasquatch – on Monster Quest, March 17
- It Has Been Proven That We’re All Psychic, and This Can Be Applied to Bigfoot Research
July 1, 2011
What is the Plural of “Bigfoot”?
Would you say the plural of “Bigfoot” is “Bigfeet”? Or “Bigfoots”?
Right now, honestly, when I need to use the plural, I usually revert to “Sasquatches” because I’m not sure what’s most proper.
The word “Bigfoot” is kind of a strange name for this creature, in my opinion. It started in the nineteen-fifties when Humboldt County road workers found large footprints in the dusty dirt of the unpaved road beds they created. But surely this creature has a better name than that. I would L-O-V-E to know what they call themselves!
The word “Sasquatch” is not really a Native American name. “Oma” is… but would you then say “I saw three Omas yesterday?”
“Yeti” is a great name, and easy to make into the plural, “Yetis”. I don’t think anyone would argue with that.
“Wild Man” seems most reasonable to me.. and the plural would be “Wild Men” . . . plain and easy. But there are so many wild and crazy men in the world today, who would know the term referred to something large, reclusive and hairy?
So, I just thought I’d put it out there for your opinions…. what do you think the plural of “Bigfoot” should be?
- The Cost of Owning a Bigfoot
- M.K. Davis – Have You Seen the New Interview?
- Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter Six: “Amador County”
- The Track Record – Ray Crowe’s Research Now Available Again!
- Tribal Bigfoot – Comments on Chapter One: “Historical Bigfoot”
May 31, 2010
Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence – An Anthropologist Speaks Out
Book review by Linda Martin – © 2010
Reading group homepage for this book: Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence
Re: Chapter One of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence – An Anthropologist Speaks Out by Dr. Grover S. Krantz, “Introduction”:
Dr. Grover S. Krantz was fascinated by the possibility of Bigfoot’s existence. His enthusiasm shines through in the pages of his seminal scientific examination of the phenomena: Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence – An Anthropologist Speaks Out. The introduction and chapter one are the same thing – there is no separate introduction.
In Chapter One – Introduction, Dr. Krantz explains how he came to be invested in Bigfoot research. He lists the books he read and tells what he thought of them and what he learned from them. He introduces a few prominent Bigfoot researchers of his era; he started his Bigfoot research in the mid-sixties. Next he examines, briefly, various types of proof he’ll discuss at length later in the pages of his book.
Not content with telling why people believe in Bigfoot, Dr. Krantz also writes about alternative explanations for Bigfoot sighting reports and Bigfoot related phenomena, including bear misidentifications, fabrications, misinterpreted chance irregularities, and other types of human error. He states:
Dr. Krantz lists a series of events needed to prove to scientists that an animal is real. The process includes sighting reports, skeletal remains, a complete body, a live capture, and then studies in its natural habitat. We’re a long way from proving anything about Bigfoot! We’re still in stage one of the process – gathering sighting reports.
The next section explains why we are unlikely to ever find Bigfoot bones. Dr. Krantz concluded the chapter by discussing strong opinions, unusual historic Bigfoot sighting and encounter cases, his personal involvement in Bigfoot research, and the focus of his book, which is professional and scientific in nature.
Next chapter: Big Footprints
- North America’s Great Ape: The Sasquatch – Dr. John Bindernagel’s Bigfoot Biology Site
- Bigfoot Evidence
- Bigfoot Reading Group
- The Bigfoot Reading Group – “Tribal Bigfoot”
- Is It Real? – An Analysis of Bigfoot Evidence
April 4, 2010
Missouri: Saint Louis University Biology Professor Supports Bigfoot Research
Dr. John Severson lectured on “Bigfoot: Science Fiction or Science Fact” during a recent family night at the Space Museum in Bonne Terre, Missouri. Dr. Severson is a professor of biology at Saint Louis University where he teaches Biology of Health and Disease.
He clarified that although there’s no “hard evidence” (bones or bodies,) there’s plenty of “soft evidence” (footprints and sightings.) He also told his audience that recent examinations of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film showed it could not have been a hoaxer in a costume.
Dr. Severson has been interested in Bigfoot for a long time. He did not commit to being a totally convinced believer, but said that Bigfoot is thought to be nocturnal, omnivorous, and a strong swimmer.
His statements about the flexibility of Bigfoot footprints and the ludicrous idea that thousands of fake-foot hoaxers exist are reminiscent of Dr. Grover Krantz’s anthropological study in Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence, which I’m currently reading. (I’ll share more about that in a future posting.)
Source: Giving Bigfoot evidence a second look; Dr. John Severson talks about Bigfoot at space museum’s Family Fun Night by Teresa Ressel, published on March 30, 2010 in the Park Hills, MO Daily Journal Online.
Note that a comment on the article cited above mentions a Bigfoot known to frequent the Bonne Terre Rock Quarry. Rock quarries are known to be a site frequently associated with Bigfoot sightings.
Bonne Terre, 62 miles south-west of St. Louis, is surrounded by forests, and in the vicinity of Missouri’s St. Francois State Park.
- North America’s Great Ape: The Sasquatch – Dr. John Bindernagel’s Bigfoot Biology Site
- Bigfoot in Illinois
- How to Find Bigfoot
- Dr. Matthew Johnson and the Oregon Caves Bigfoot Sighting
- Online Bigfoot Tour – 24 Bigfoot Site of the Day Winners, 2009
