The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
17 votes

Implications if the Sasquatch DNA results are verified

At first blush this may seem off-topic but it has potentially very deep philosophical, social, legal, and political implications.

Two days ago Dr. Melba Ketchum, owner/director of a forensic DNA laboratory in Texas, issued an immediately controversial paper describing the numerous tests that she and several independent labs she contracted ran on over 100 hair, blood, saliva, and tissue samples of alleged or suspected Sasquatch/Bigfoot source from 14 states and two Canadian provinces. She reports very startling conclusions.

All the sample tests showed fully modern human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)of the types arising from Europe and the Middle East. At the same time all samples showed nuclear DNA that had some gene sequences in common with humans and certain other primates but also some sequences that matched nothing in the Genbank® all-species database. (Some samples collected for this study were screened out because under magnification they matched known wildlife, domestic animals, or were clearly human. Control samples and samples of DNA from the collectors were also tested as a precaution.)

These results suggest that all the samples in this study came from hybrid creatures with at least one purely human woman somewhere in the lineage, with all other females in the lineage being either fully human or hybrid females carrying human mtDNA. This can be determined because DNA found in the mitochondria are always inherited from the mother; only nuclear DNA (nuDNA) is mingled at fertilization.

Besides the sensational zoological/anthropological value of Ketchum's results, if verified by others, what do they imply for society? What are the ramifications of large, hairy, smelly, apparently nocturnal creatures that are in some portion genetically human living in wooded areas of North America and reportedly other continents? Ketchum's findings, if proved accurate, mean that we have company -- company that has for many generations been supremely independent of their small, weak, civilized cousins who have miserable night vision.

OK, I know there is inevitable smirking right about now so let's be a bit lighthearted here and consider:

Were Mongoloid Native Americans illegal aliens invading Bigfoot's territory?
If a Sasquatch "tribe" protests a dam project, would it have legal recourse?
Is Bigfoot a secret plot to advance Agenda 21?
Is Agenda 21 directed at restoring the territorial rights of Sasquatch?
If a man impregnates a Sasquatch, should he have parental rights?
Should Bigfoot be required to show proof of citizenship?
Where would we deport an illegal Sasquatch anyhow?
Sasquatch reportedly kill and eat deer. Shouldn't they have to get a deer license?
Or be ticketed for jaywalking?
Public nudity?
Will we have to build extra-sturdy jail cells to hold all the big, hairy scofflaws?
Will police need to carry an EXTRA-high-voltage taser?

OK, back to serious: There is bound to be a huge outcry from religious fundamentalists. Bigfoot is the AntiChrist or the spawn of Satan. A new target for the KKK. Some stuffed-shirt anthropologists will have heart attacks or commit suicide because their pet theories that have made it into textbooks will go out on the trash heap. Human exceptionalism will be taken down a few pegs. Natural rights theory will need to be reworked, expanded.

Of course these ideas have all been thought of before by a courageous few Sasquatch researchers (yes, I was one back in my younger days). Now, however, due to the implications of the Ketchum DNA study, we must all potentially face these questions in a serious manner.

Note to scoffers: You are not alone. The scientific community will be especially vicious in your behalf. However, Ketchum has received offers to re-test the samples from her study by other DNA researchers so the necessary process of scientifically verifying or debunking her work has begun.

I cannot give you Ketchum's paper, which is highly technical anyway. Like most scientific papers you can order it online for a fee. I'm just not sure where to order it though as it was sent to me for comment. There has been much criticism of the report, mainly by people who haven't read it, beginning months before its release. There is plenty to see by Googling "Ketchum Bigfoot," "Ketchum Sasquatch," or "Ketchum DNA."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I can't see a huge outcry from religious fundamentalists....

from a Biblical point of view Bigfoot doesn't fit into the anti-christ narrative of the book of Revelation and def not the spawn of Satan since angels (good or fallen) don't reproduce.

And don't quote Genesis 6:1-4 to me.

The term 'sons of God' does not mean angels (good or fallen).

And speaking of fallen angels, they were a great backing band to Gram Parsons. ;-)

Here's the thing,

anything that seems likely to blur the line between man and animal is anathema to some devout believers since they hold that God made man in his own image and likeness, very distinct from all animals. They reject the fossil record of ape men, proto-humans, even early Homo species, some claiming that Satan placed fossils deep underground to lure us away from God's Word. A living Bigfoot species will send some bonkers, just as Galileo's heresy was deeply upsetting to the Church's view that this world was the center of creation. Accusations will fly. Please understand that I am not saying Christianity as a whole will suffer, only the most rigid and desperate believers who have put their own spin on God's plan.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

well sure there are kooks..

but these kooks (I don't believe) represent Christianity as a whole.

Google: Gigantopithecus

Google: Gigantopithecus blacki

They lived at the same time as humans and were thought to be extinct, until a jawbone was found in asia a few years ago.

I'm well acquainted with G. blacki

and the mandibles unearthed in caves in the 1950's, however, these remains were dated as having lived no more recently than 100,000 years ago. Except for some Bigfoot/Sasquatch researchers it is universally thought to be long extinct. The Ketchum DNA study strongly suggests that Bigfoot is not G. blacki. Maybe Yeti DNA would point to Gigantopithicus, who knows?

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Humans were also alive 100k

Humans were also alive 100k yrs ago, so they coexisted.

You have got to be kidding me

Lol wow.. McClarinJ taking batshit crazy to a wholeeee new level.


Tell us something we don't already know :-)

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Is this a Hoax?

I am using a search engine for "Ketchum" and "Evolution" and all I am getting is information on some kind of video game. I even tried searching for phrases about the X and Y chromosomes +"X/Y" and got the same thing.
Heck, I even went all out on this and tried to find all the people trying to catch these Sasquatches and searched for the phrase "Gotta Catch 'em all" and got the same results.

Haha, ok, joking aside (if you didn't get it, you're not geeky enough), this is some interesting information I've been hearing about. Hope to hear more about it in the future.

I Binged

melba ketchum and got a whole page on her. It's no hoax.


Yeah, I know

The hoax about the sasquatch being a Pokemon was just a joke. I said I was joking at the end of my post.

And don't use Bing, it's owned by Microsoft. That company should wither and die with Monsanto.
Try Ixquick instead ( - it helps secure your browsing when you search for Sasquatch, Pokemon, or anything else ;^)

I wanna be the very best

Like No one ever Was!


Sasquatch Uses Foot Stomp....

Its Super effective!

Wierd bit of info on bigfoot:

Apparently a bigfoot likes to mark its territory by uprooting trees and turning them upside down back into the ground so that the roots are sticking up towards the sky.

The old legends are still particularly strong towards the south end of the Alaskan panhandle among certain native communities.

I can't say how much merit the stories have, though there are some eyewitness accounts as I understand it.

That was on one of the Monster Quest shows

that I watched on YouTube recently. Twisted saplings are a more commonly reported marking means.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

You are correct

I've heard of the uprooted trees from a couple different sources, where did you get the twisted saplings from if I may ask?

I don't know that anyone has reported observing

a Sasquatch actually twisting a sapling. The saplings, most about 2-3 inches, have been bent over at around 7-8 ft. from the ground, then twisted around 180 degrees or so and left, presumably as some kind of marker for other Sasquatches. There are photos and videos of these from many states on numerous sites pertaining to Bigfoot.

In some cases it is easy to imagine the saplings snapping and splintering under a heavy snow load but hard to see how they were twisted. Also hard to see how any other animal would do this. In cases where the twists are fresh in the middle of summer, snow load can certainly be discounted. Most that are found are not fresh however. It seems they would have to be made by something with hands.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.


Where does one go about getting some of that Sasquatch DNA?

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

For testing?

The blood sample reportedly came from a human-habituating creature that for some reason bit into a metal downspout and cut itself. Most of the hairs were collected from sites where people reported seeing a Sasquatch. I think the skin/hair sample was thought to have come from a rabbit bite when a Sasquatch raided some people's rabbit hutches. I might be wrong on that one. The saliva was said to have been collected from a feeding station where researchers were trying to lure a Sasquatch, apparently successfully.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

I thought

Officer Steve Austin took care of this in the 70's. :)


Oh thats where

the DNA sample came from. How did Ketchum get the sample?

110 samples from 14 states, 2 provinces

She was approached by field researchers. There are groups that investigate Bigfoot/Sasquatch sighting reports all over the US and Canada. Back when I was involved there were only a couple dozen of us. They now patrol areas with FLIR cameras, game trail cameras, set out bait stations, dress in gillie suits and use tree-knocking, call-blasting, ape pheromones, and other methods trying to lure them in.

There are hoaxes of course. Every so often someone claims to have shot and killed one but the real corpus dilicti never seems to make a public appearance. Several have proved to be stuffed Bigfoot costumes. One such cadaver is allegedly now in possession of a reputable film company but we are still waiting and not exactly holding our breaths. There are even hoax hoaxes. I don't know how many people have now claimed to have hoaxed the famous 1967 Roger Patterson film of a female Bigfoot.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.


how'd i miss your link?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul


it wouldn't surprise me if big foot were human....or partially human. Don't we share like most of our DNA with chimps? Be interesting to know what the new nuclear dna means. night vision! fun stuff anyway.


Especially since the advent of whole-genome-mapping machines like the HiSeq 2000 Illumina sequencer it has come to light that we share a great many genes with all animals, event plants. Consider these gene percentages we have in common:
Chimpanzee 98%
Orangutan 97%
Zebra fish 85%
Fruit fly 36%
Round worm 21%
Mustard grass 15%
Bacteria 7%

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

and yet we are so differnt

or at least we think we are! ROTFL

A big question is just HOW

our chromosomes got so messed up from a simian perspective. Two of the formerly 24 pairs became fused and one long sequence common to apes and man was cut out and put back in backwards. BY WHOM, we might well ask.

We are approaching the point, if we haven't already reached it, of being able to do stuff like this with our medical/gene-splicing technology. Is this the way God works? Did God slice up ape chromosomes and fuse them together in the process of creating man, or was somebody else involved? The Book of Genesis according to the Sumerians has a bit to say about what happened.

It would be great if we knew just when the radical genetic restructuring occurred. It seems it must have happened suddenly because changes like these can't happen gradually, a little bit at a time.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

are we god now?

Since we are cloning animals and genetically modifying plants (and more than likely animals). Wonder if anyone has created a new species. This will likely happen long before we will hear about it. I heard that someone was going to try and clone a mastodon.

While the gene sequencing change could have been intentional by someone, there is also a possibility of chance-- at least in my very imaginative mind. They talk about changing genes...making repairs to genetic disorders using some sort of drug therapy. I have no idea if anyone has done this yet or not. I just know of scientists thinking about doing it. So, assuming you can make genetic changes with drugs, then it would be possible that some environmental change made this same mutation occur in multiple people at once or in the same time-frame. Then they could then reproduce with each other and split off. Maybe something in the womb so they are born that way. Perhaps unlikely but perhaps possible.

Can we find any old genetic materials preserved in ice maybe? Must be some way to find out when.

Ice is nice and would suffice,

to quote Robert Frost's poem "Fire and Ice."

A frozen baby mammoth in very good condition was found in 2007, the apparent result of some mega-cataclysm that plunged its region of the globe into sudden and permanent permafrost. (Crustal shift?),2933,288975,00.html
If samples were kept frozen, they should prove adequate for cloning. Even a half-mammoth (its genes spliced onto an elephant's) would be great to see.

There's a fascinating project underway to clone the Thylacine, aka Tasmanian Wolf. They have spliced a number of gene sequences into bacteria so that they can be ready to go when the blessed moment arrives (meaning when they think they have the entire genome and can begin stitching everything together). They're extracting DNA from a well-preserved joey (all marsupial youngsters are properly called joeys) that was stashed away while Thylacines still roamed the Earth. There's actually an outside chance they still roam, based on a few eyewitness reports from the more wild areas of Tasmania.

As you note, a lasting change from ape to human would have to involve at least two individuals for breeding purposes due to the different number and arrangement of the chromosomes. However, I am unaware of any theory that supposes an identical cluster of gene errors is created naturally multiple times in the same generation. That's because there are close to 30,000 protein encoding genes in mammals and, except for carefully controlled laboratory use of restriction enzymes and ligases, gene damage is a random, indiscriminate act.

For a such an identically mutated breeding population to appear simultaneously due to environmental factors, I think the "environment" would have to consist of an assault force of fully equipped genetic engineers (or else supernatural intervention!). If there were to be any randomness in the mutation cluster, then other mutations would occur as well, leaving most of the mutant zygotes unviable.

Genetic accidents are nearly always detrimental and only the extremely rare freak event produces a change that is advantageous and gives offspring a similar advantage if the newly changed gene is dominant. If it is recessive, future generations could only be advantaged when pairings between carriers happen to combine both recessive genes. It is certain that many advantageous genes have been wiped out before they could take root due to predation, loss of breeding options, natural calamities, etc. Thus natural evolution proceeds at a plodding pace.

All this theory, however, fails to account for the fact that splits in the phylogenetic tree have clearly occurred where the number of chromosomes has changed. Such change would not upset life forms with asexual reproduction but how about those with sexual reproduction. How were they able to breed if there were no similarly changed breeding partners?

Some life forms can reproduce both sexually and asexually, so for them, if a mutated individual ran off multiple copies of itself asexually and were at the same time fully hermaphroditic, then it and its offspring could breed with compatible individuals and carry on the change.

However, natural asexual reproduction (parthenogenesis), though sometimes claimed in the case of embarrassing pregnancy, is not known to exist in mammals, so the "copy machine effect" would not apply. In short, it remains unclear how mammals and most other vertebrates with different chromosome counts, such as horse and donkey, split into viable, fertile populations. The fact that the mule (horse-donkey hybrid) cannot breed is probably the best known example. This is because of their different gene counts. Short of each such split having been the science project of either the Almighty or some visiting genetic engineer I have no good answer to the mystery.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

This has always been my theory.....

on the elusive Bigfoot.

Uh, my bad,

I only just now noticed the link you kindly provided. Great story and a theory similar to what many Native American tribes' lore suggests, that Sasquatch are shape-shifters that can appear and disappear at will. I presently think they are just extra wily but would be happy to be wrong.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.