Friday, February 22, 2013

Ketchum DNA Study Supports Residential Visitation Claims

Hair samples collected from my residence
Over the past 2 years I have documented continued Bigfoot visits to my place of residence. I have foot print pictures, eye witness accounts from  7 individuals, documented police reports, trail camera eye shine photographs and night vision video that was collaborated by an independent witness. I also was able to collect hair samples. Three of these samples are in the Ketchum DNA Study. Supplemental Table 1, Samples 2, 3, and 70. Each sample was verified to be Bigfoot/Sasquatch. 

Documentation of the trap and hair collection
Foot print left in my back yard
I am sure this of great concern for the critics who ignored all of my documentation and called me "mentally disturbed","lunatic", "liar", "hoaxer", "idiot", and "out of touch with reality". I hear Crow is best served cold with a healthy covering of ketchup. I hate to gloat or rub it in but it does feel good to have DNA to backup what you know, to know that the hair collected at my residence has been scientifically proven to belong to a Bigfoot.  I wonder what will be the next "excuse" the critics will use? How will they explain it away? 

Below is an extract from the actual table from the DNA Study of only my samples.

This is to all the people over the years that have witnessed something incredible. So incredible they could not talk about it because of the ridicule of family, friends, co-workers, and strangers. This is to the Orthopedic Surgeon that called me to talk about his sighting that needed reassurance he was not crazy that what he witnesses was real. This is to house wife that called me needing help and advice because no one would take her seriously. She was scared because of the repeated visits of a Bigfoot to her home to look in the window. And there are others that have contacted me with similar stories. They all saw something and they had no where to turn, no one to reassure them, no one to listen that would not scoff or look at them like they were crazy. This is the beginning of the process toward acceptance of the Bigfoot as a real, living, breathing, interacting biological entity. It may take a few more years but the foundation has been laid and the walls of skepticism, disbelieve, and bias have cracks in them. These cracks will eventually lead to their collapse. I hope this collapse is sooner rather than later!


  1. Awesome! Thank you, Scott. For posting that excellent chart, and for standing solidly in favor of this study. May you never waver, especially from the mushy-thinking accusations of people who simply can't accept the non-ape reality.

  2. You're so right Scott.And you also nailed another big issue.....all the good people out there that have had a legitimate sasquatch experience that has changed their lives and have not been able to deal with it in a natural way because of fear of the critics making them feel that "something is wrong with them" , can have their peace of mind and balance back in their lives.You brought tears to my eyes when you mentioned them. Ironically, the critics will have the tables turned on them and they will be exposed as the ones having "something wrong with them" Sound strong people like you are needed to break'll change a lot of lives and be a part of something world shaking....Thanks for your unwavering determination.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. there is a vast conspiracy involving the whole scientific & academic establishment to silence Dr Ketchum
      Not a conspiracy, only prejudice.
      MK's paper may also have real issues, without being bad science.
      At there is criticism from "Zoologist #2" which sounds reasonable. Not with the science itself, but rather with how she presented it - that she didn't sound objective enough, didn't give necessary references, etc.
      her 15,000 years old account of a brand new hybrid species appearing right between Upper Paleolithics (about 30,000 years ago) & Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) doesn't make any sense.
      Why? Homo floresiensis is a (contested) new member of genus Homo that may have been around up until about 12,000 years ago. See "H. floresiensis is remarkable for its small body and brain"
      Hybrid species are NOT necessarily just mixtures of the characteristics of the parents.
      There is such a thing as hybrid dysfunction, i.e. a hominin/human hybrid could have behavioral changes, alterations in gene expression, etc. without being sterile.
      According to Wikipedia
      In a hybrid, any trait that falls outside the range of parental variation is termed heterotic. Heterotic hybrids do have new traits, that is, they are not intermediate. Positive heterosis produces more robust hybrids, they might be stronger or bigger; while the term negative heterosis refers to weaker or smaller hybrids. Heterosis is common in both animal and plant hybrids. For example, hybrids between a lion and a tigress ("ligers") are much larger than either of the two progenitors, while a tigon (lioness × tiger) is smaller.
      A human/hominid hybrid could be somewhat intelligent, without human intelligence, which would explain why there's no contemporary evidence of sasquatches using fire or sophisticated tools. Maybe H. floresiensis with its tiny brain didn't have human intelligence either.
      A hybrid species is an evolutionary "toss of the dice". It can come out looking pretty weird. MK described the Sasquatch as a "fluke".
      Also the sasquatches might not be as big as claimed. I've heard claims of up to 10 ft. tall, but maybe they are more like 7-8' tall. It's easy to imagine that scared people would see the creature as being bigger than it is.
      I actually see MK's theory as explaining some previously mysterious things. It's an extraordinary claim. But there's a big difference between truly incredible claims like "sasquatches live in another dimension", and "merely" extraordinary claims. A dwarf human species like H. floresiensis is also an extraordinary claim, but not unbelievable.

    2. Grammy says: Thank you, Lark: that's a well-thought post.

      Ms Emma, dear, the phylogeny charts were changed when Haeckel's theory was disproven. Don't be upset about it; real science expects to change with new facts. The forensic DNA work done by Dr. Ketchum and her team and her subcontractors is the most powerful fact here. DNA overrules juries. DNA puts people on death row; and sometimes takes them off of death row. The forensic background of Dr. Ketchum is precisely what this situation needed.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Grammy again here: Emma dear, Dr. Ketchum has no such "scenario". She specifically wrote that the unknown progenitor of this novel species is NON APE. Please stop dragging the apes around?

      If you've read Dr. Bryan Sykes fascinating book, "The Seven Daughters of Eve", you should have a clear understanding of the reliability of dating by mitochondrial mutation rates. There is nothing ludicrous in estimating the hybridizing event by using the mitochondrial mutations: it's good science. I can understand that Dr. Ketchum's results are shocking. But we have many events in human history that compelled us all to change our outlook about very basic information.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Grammy here: Ms Emma, the word you meant to use is "interbred", not interbreeded. Since the DNA-proven cross happened many millennia ago, no living human being can say with authority who did what to whom. All the science can demonstrate is that the two lines crossed.

      No, child, I don't have to explain anything to you. A highly skilled group of forensics specialists has published a technical paper, giving results of many expensive DNA sequencings. You claim that you're not trying to debunk their results, but you continue to produce more and more, and still more complaints about this paper. If you feel that your studies in ethno-anthropology qualify you as a DNA expert, then bless your heart. You have no genuine knowledge of who or what was roaming North America 15,000 years ago: nor are you breaking my heart. I pity you for the flames you can't seem to edit out of your comments. Why do you have such a big axe to grind?

    8. Grammy,
      It seems that "Emma" is a "troll", meaning he or she is merely entertaining themselves by coming up with empty criticisms and observing people react.
      "Emma"'s criticisms don't seem to come out of a genuine process of questioning and thinking.
      At first I thought he/she was asking questions because of intellectual interest, but no, it seems to be only an attempt to provoke.

    9. Lark, with regards to Homo Floresiensis, it may have existed up to 12 kya. It may not have existed at all. It did not suddenly pop into being 12 kya - most estimates are around 100 kya. In the last 30 thousand years, hominin species have gone extinct. None have come into existence. Why? Because modern homo sapiens out competed them. Once we hit the upper paleolithic, we were on a role, baby.

  4. Thanks Scott for sharing your work and your thoughts with us. It's odd,the reactions of so many "intelligent" or "scientific" individuals. Kind of disheartening. One would think most would get their copy of the DNA study,put some real time into it,and give polite and thoughtful input,or constructive critism. It seems like science,and its community,has reached a place where it cannot be taught,it cannot be shown. Because it knows all. And therefore,if it does not know,then surely it does not exsist.
    To rewrite history books,is not in the nature of those who wrote them! I can't blame the skeptics,,I sure wouldn't want to be this wrong about something and have to show my face in a professional arena! Lol.

  5. (because Dr ketchum has yet to clarify and define exactly what she means by "unknown hominin")
    I already gave you a reference for that, Ms Emma! Don't you bother to look at links, read answers?
    "Hominin" has an exact definition. What it means is, a creature in the tribe to which humans belong.
    "Tribe" is a taxonomic classification between family and genus.
    Chimps are in the same family as people, but not in the same tribe.
    The "unknown hominin" could have been a member of genus Homo, the genus to which humans belong. Dr. Ketchum may have been specifying the most general classification that might have fertile offspring with humans.
    As far as I've read, the hominin contribution to our genes is only from members of genus Homo.
    Earlier I gave you a reference - we likely have not only Neanderthal in our genes, but also other members of genus Homo.
    In other words, we were interbreeding ALL OVER THE PLACE.
    Then explain me why the average Yeti`s-Bigfoots-sasquatches look like Gigantopithecus.
    I already explained to you, TWICE. Hybrid species are NOT necessarily just a mixture of the parents. It's not like mixing red and blue paint and getting purple! The body is much more complicated than that. There are all sorts of subtleties, hybridizing can change how genes are expressed. You could get giants (possibly sasquatches), dwarves (possibly H. floresiensis), they could be less intelligent than either parent.
    Also you`d have to explain me how & why Mesolithic females willingly interbreeded with sub-human species.
    Who ever said it was willing ?????? Very likely the DNA from the interested willing party is only in the nuclear DNA! i.e. from the male.
    There was a likely sasquatch called Zana in Russia, who was captured by villagers and kept for years, she had children by the men there.
    But it apparently was usually the other way around, with the hominin male breeding with (polite word for raping) the human female.
    I`d hate to break your heart,but there were no unknown hominins roaming North America 15,000 years ago.
    Again, we don't know that. The H. floresiensis remains were only found recently. The fossil record of hominins is very far from complete. Hominin fossils are quite rare!

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. I just told you, I have ALREADY ANSWERED the questions you have asked.
      I was INTERESTED when I first heard your questions, but you aren't carrying on a rational discussion or making rational objections.
      You didn't even look up a "hominin" for yourself. Not only didn't you look at the Wikipedia reference for "hominin" that I GAVE YOU; you could look it up in about 10 sec. online.
      Instead, you prefer to criticize MK for not telling people what it means!
      Scientists are better trained to think and understand - and less liable to make statements w/o supporting them - than you. Another reason I think you are pretending to be someone you are not!
      I DO have science training and I have supported what I've said WITH REFERENCES, I am interested in analytically thinking about this paper and sasquatches in general. I am the critic and questioner that you are not.

  6. H. florensiensis sized little people, are still very much alive in the United States. They did not die out. Many of the supposed mythical little people, are in fact real. A person just needs to put in the time, in order to gain their trust that leads to them revealing audio indicators that they do exist. And one more thing. The higher dimension excuses, are more than just an excuse. If one were to watch Finding Bigfoot, their forest scenes with nearby sounds that they can never see the perpetrator even with their thermals, are the indicators that the perpetrators are concealing themselves in other dimensions. I have had them stand within 10 feet of me on a number of occasions. I guarantee you that they normally remain invisible in other dimensions. U.C. Berkeley has named that dimension, the 4th dimension.

  7. Dr. Ketchum has publications on Medline (the peer-reviewed literature):
    They're papers on forensic procedures and technology.

    1. Thank you, Lark, for these links. And thank you, also, for your comment (upthread) about the troll. Like you, I was willing to give "her" the benefit of the doubt. The first one or two entries did sound like a very young person who simply had not yet learned the discipline of any sciences. But the personal insults blossomed, and the snark increased.

      I will enjoy checking these links: thank you. Grammy

    2. Well, real scientists have shown extreme prejudice: they feel they already know sasquatches are a myth therefore they don't have to read the paper to evaluate the claim. For example PZ Myers, who's a zoologist I think, "just knows" the paper isn't worth anything and won't read it, You would think if he wanted to make such a claim he would read the paper first before deciding? but noooo...
      He isn't trolling because he isn't pretending to be open-minded and wanting to discuss, he isn't looking for a response. I hope if he did start posting here, he would actually read and respond to arguments other people make, unlike this "Emma".
      I dislike having my time wasted! I actually looked up the reference for Bryan Sykes' comment which "Emma" should have posted; I gave her lots of Wikipedia references defining hominins, heterotic hybrids, etc. I've been doing work responding to "Emma" that he/she should have done for themselves. That's why I call them a troll.
      Criticism of the idea is fine. I'm delaying any decision about believing MK's results, until they are thoroughly checked out by other specialists. But I am impressed that her theory actually explains some things that have been puzzling about the sasquatch phenomenon.
      The Medline papers aren't particularly Sasquatch-relevant, I was just curious about what MK has done in the peer-reviewed literature.
      I mentioned earlier that a zoologist made some negative comments about how MK presented her results. It made me think she might not have much experience in writing research papers. She isn't the main author on either of those papers on Medline, she may not have taken part in writing them.
      She certainly seems to be inexperienced in presenting a good public image. Maybe she should consult with a PR firm. When I've seen her pictures online, like on a TV interview, she's looked quite weird to me. It's not how scientists look. Female scientists don't go on tv wearing heavy makeup and big false eyelashes. There's an academic culture, and where I've been the women don't go around in "female drag", they have either light makeup or none at all.
      And MK said something unfortunate about how sasquatches weren't "Darwinian" which of course a "skeptic" pounced on, as suggesting she was a nut. I highly doubt she's into "intelligent design", probably all she meant was that sasquatches "don't make sense" as something that evolved in a more usual way. A hybrid species might not look "Darwinian".
      But a person more experienced in science-lingo would know not to say such a misinterpretable thing.
      Her DNA diagnostics lab probably does mostly practical work like determining the parentage of racehorses, etc.

  8. I bought MK's paper. There's a rather good sasquatch picture in there, it looks like a still from the video but more detail is visible, you can make out the creature's leg, trunk, arm and head pretty well. Furred like a shag rug.

    1. Thanks lark for all the documented, we thought out comments!

  9. Ill second that Scott! Thanks Lark! Wow,that's a lot of great info. Ill be reading thro all this myself. It's great to see such intelligent and thoughtful comments.

    1. And I'll add my "Amen", and thank you! Scott, thanks for your patient courage on the field work. Lark, thank you for a lot of very welcome information. Grammy

  10. Thoroughly enjoyed the informed comments from Lark and Grammy . I don't have the science training like you ,but I've learned a lot by reading your comments and checking the cited references for myself....thanks !

  11. Why thanks :)
    I read MK's paper. She has made extensive efforts to rule out the possibility of contamination and to support the validity of her results.
    People have been complaining that MK hasn't released the actual sasquatch genetic sequences. The 3 sasquatch nuclear DNA sequences appear to be included with the paper, in a supplement. There's a note with the sequences saying they're in FASTA format and the full sequence info won't appear unless you open the files using software that can view FASTA files. I don't have such software, so I can't vouch for the full sequences being there.
    I'm not a geneticist or forensic scientist, so I can't comment on the validity of her sasquatch genetic sequences. But I do have a couple of criticisms:
    She doesn't explain her Fig. 16 well enough. She is apparently trying to analyze the Sasquatch nuclear DNA with software, to get an idea of the proper taxonomic classification of sasquatches - e.g. which primates are they closely related to?
    The geneticist Leonard Kruglyak complained that Fig. 16 "makes no sense", see If a geneticist is puzzled, more explanation is needed. Her caption for Fig. 16 reads
    "Drill Down" analysis and resulting supertree of global BLASTn sequence alignment results, Samples 26 and 140. Reference 80".
    Reference 80 is and Fig. 16 may be the output of some software that implements the "greedy algorithm" mentioned in Reference 80. The "unknown" sequence in Fig. 16 is presumably the sasquatch sequence, although that isn't explained either.
    She writes in the discussion section:
    "The entire supercontigs for Samples 26 and 140 with lengths of 2,726,786 and 2,101,957 bases respectively were also utilized to make a phylogenetic supertree (Figure 16). These phylogenetic trees supported the original trees generated by using the selective supercontigs. Figure 16 supports that both Samples 26 and 140 are the same species."
    I had to hover the mouse over the paper to bring up the caption. Perhaps Leonard Kruglyak didn't see the caption.
    The other criticism is that coming up with a taxonomic classification for sasquatches seems likely outside her professional expertise. She suggests classifying them as Homo sapiens cognatus, but she doesn't discuss in the paper why she thinks sasquatches are the same species as us. Also, deciding on the taxonomic classification isn't done based only on DNA from what I've read - one would want anatomical info etc. also.
    The crucial part of the paper however is coming up with valid DNA sequences, and that does seem to be in her area of expertise.
    This may be the first time that anyone has attempted to generate a sasquatch nuclear DNA sequence. Mitochondrial DNA info is usually all you can get from bones, hair shafts etc. and that seems to be what has been done in the past, and it came up human just as she also found.
    For example, Zana was a possible female sasquatch who was captured and lived for years in a Russian village in the 1800's. Mitochondrial DNA from the skulls of Zana's son Khwit and a skull that was possibly Zana's, was sequenced and found to be human, see
    This is consistent with MK's results.

    1. Yeah, key part of that comment is that you're not a scientist.

      The caption does nothing to explain the tree. Among other problems, Figure 16 shows that humans and bushbabies (Otolemur garnettii) have a more recent common ancestor than humans and gorillas. Although I could be misreading it, given that it shows humans as at least three separate branches of the tree.

    2. You appear to be interpreting Fig 16 as a very messed-up phylogenetic tree, but that interpretation makes no sense.
      MK seems to have run some kind of software to figure out what species the unknown samples are related to.
      Thus the relationships between already-known species on that graph are NOT intended to be meaningful. It's obviously not intended to replicate already-known relationships between species. (especially given that gorillas appear 3 times!)
      MK says that her analysis in Fig 16 supports that samples 26 and 140 come from the same species. I think the two red dots in the "unknown" branch are samples 26 and 140. They came out right next to each other in the computerized analysis, that's probably why she says 26 and 140 are the same species.
      According to that interpretation, Fig. 16 is telling us that samples 26 and 140 are close to humans and Otelemur garnettii (of all things!) but not so closely related to gorillas.
      She doesn't tell us what the nodes and branches in Fig. 16 mean, or why the same species occurs repeatedly.
      This might be a very preliminary analysis. It's a very small part of the genome.
      The sequences she was using are both on chromosome 11, I think. The sequence from sample 26 has 2.7 million base pairs, the one from sample 140 has 2.1 million base pairs.
      Human chromosome 11 has about 134 million base pairs, see
      So, we are looking at an analysis of a small part of one chromosome.
      MK might have included this as a preliminary attempt to classify sasquatches, but it needs to be explained better.
      Please, avoid the putdowns. From your comments you probably don't have more experience relevant to this, than I do. You're figuring it out as you go along, just like me.

    3. PS Here is a little computer project that someone could do to investigate:
      - Figure out what parts of human chromosome 11 the sasquatch sequences align with. Same with the equivalent gorilla chromosome.
      - Redo as best possible what MK did with the sasquatch sequences, with the human and gorilla equivalents.
      - Also, compare the sasquatch sequences - and the human and gorilla equivalents against all the genetic sequences. (a BLAST or whatever). Are the results similar or not?

  12. Grammy, saying Thank you, Lark. "if a geneticist is puzzled, more explanation is needed." is exactly correct. Thank you so much for taking time to share some of the details in the paper. I'm on a very tight budget: I think I want the field journal book first, and Dr. Ketchum's paper will have to wait. Hope the medics don't empty my pockets first! Bless you for these excellent comments.

    1. Well, you can still download the Google html version of the paper.
      type hominin
      into Google and click on the "view as html" link.
      The html version is harder to read though and it lacks the tables and figures in the paper.

    2. ps I'm in an awful medical situation too, but $30 is very small on the medical scale of things.

    3. If you have older relatives handy, ask them how they manage. Medicare A did not pay for my recent cataract surgery: I had to empty my savings account. I'm well past 70 now, and dreading the future. Grammy, and not really complaining. Well . . . maybe just a little.

    4. It sounds like we are taking a vacation from difficult realities here ... Nothing wrong with that, everyone needs something more.
      I'm totally uprooted, I can't live in my house bc of severe allergies, I can't be around my dog bc of severe allergies ...
      I've even wondered a bit if they have a dog/cat free zone around the sasquatches - maybe being uprooted is a chance to evolve ...

    5. Lark, you have my total commiseration! Maybe your house became a "sick building"? But it's awful to have reactions to your own pets!

      Yes, focusing my mind on the Sasquatch subject is an attempt at coping. We had a bizarre encounter, back in 1975, that seriously affected my family. At the time, none of us knew anything about these creatures. I've been searching for information for several years. This new DNA data might explain things for my family: maybe the thing that tried to grab my 15-year old daughter was just a primitive human, looking for a mate. (ewwww!) Grammy

    6. Thing? Did you get a good look? How big was it, what color, did you see fur? Did you see a hand? Were you out in the country?
      They need to get their mitochondrial DNA somehow, you know ... :)
      I've never had a sasquatch encounter, I thought about the sasquatch evidence in 2009 and now that it's being tackled scientifically it's fascinating again. Having another hominin sharing the Earth with us, really learning about another kind of consciousness, another way of being, could be such a revolutionary change in our existential state...
      I've always thought it was terribly sad that we were the only hominins who survived - so many different kinds have been on the earth.
      I wonder if sasquatches would communicate remotely if this were made possible for them - suppose for example there were a robot put out in the woods that they could get habituated to, made nonthreatening in some way - and a human would communicate through the robot by remote control. They would be curious about us too, surely.
      If they like to grab human women, create a sexy young female android with good musky menstrual-type odors, and put her out in the woods, hope she's grabbed by squatches - but remote-controlled by a human. They might not be able to resist that :)
      The possibilities are endless :)
      Yes, my house and everything I own are contaminated with dander, I was mysteriously ill for 4 years there, living with my dog. Now I know about the allergy but I became super-sensitized in those 4 years. Someone stopping next to me in a car with the window open with a dog in it, makes me sick for days. There was a rotting underground wall in my house, that might be the root cause. Now I'm living in a (very pet-free) motel and my dog's in a boarding kennel while I look for expert help, the local allergists haven't helped. Hopefully it's temporary but I dunno if temporary means months or years.

  13. Actually they should leave out sex toys, sexy dolls for semen collection in the sasquatch habituation sites; I looked at a video about the sasquatch habituation and they had these bright toys for children out there.
    The sasquatches probably go "bwahaha, we know what WE want" when they see the sweet colorful children's toys. If they found a buxom blond and pink sex-doll they'd probably be like "Now THAT'S more like it!"
    The sex doll could have a radio transmitter in it so someone could pick it up after it was used, with the semen sample in it (which could be analyzed for nuclear DNA).

  14. Grammy & Lark, Did you know that the government has been collecting newborn DNA testing & storing it?
    Here is a couple articles you may find interesting:
    just copy & paste into your address bar.
    The government has your baby's DNA
    DNA February 04, 2010|By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent
    Aaron Dykes
    November 13, 2012

    Makes you wonder what is happening else where in the world. The government can take Babies' DNA without parent's consent but Dr Ketchum needs Sasquatch's permission?

  15. You need Weighing Scale orWeighing scale for weight measuring in home as well as in the gym. Many companies offer you different kind of Electronic Weighing Scale with attached plans. They make many promising quotes relates to these machines but you need to be ware.
    Your blog really contain lots of useful information. We have to read all the condition before making decision to take these packages of Weight Machine.