The Sasquatch Genome Project aka The Ketchum DNA Study aka The Bigfoot DNA Study

The Sasquatch Genome Project aka The Ketchum DNA Study aka The Bigfoot DNA Study

The study is now OPEN ACCESS and can be view via this link: Sasquatch Genome Project

Definition of terms

All cells in the body contain a complete set of DNA instructions regardless of the function of the cell.

There are two types of is DNA – Nuclear and Mitochondrial.

Mitochondrial DNA is found in cell mitochondria and is from the mother only.

Nuclear DNA if found in the cell nucleus and is a combination of genetic code from both the father and the mother.

Genbank is a institution that collects and stores DNA sequences for ALL life forms on the planet. Once a DNA sequence is placed into the database comparative analysis can be run on it using a special software program called BLAST.

BLAST is a software engine that compares a DNA sequence against all the DNA sequences stored in the Genbank database and reports any matches from this database.

The DNA Samples

Three DNA samples were collected and completely sequenced. This means a complete genetic profile of both the Mitochondrial DNA and Nuclear DNA was produced.

Sample 26 -  A piece of flesh, hide, and hair reported to be from Bigfoot that was shot in Northern California.

Sample 31 - Blood collected from a plate that had sand paper on it to cut the tongue when the Bigfoot licked it. This was collected in Alabama by the Erickson Project under the supervision of a PhD in wildlife biology.

Sample 140 - Blood collected of a down spout that had been bitten into and punctured. (Please tell me if you know of any humans that could or would bite into an aluminum downspout and puncture it with their teeth.)  This sample was collected in Illinois.

The Findings

Dr. Ketchum was able to extract good quality DNA from these three samples. The samples were good enough to run through a machine called a HiSeq 2000. This machine will sequence the DNA and produce what is known as a DNA profile or complete Genome. Once she had her sequences she compared the Mitochondrial DNA to the Genbank and found that this DNA was 100% human in all three samples. This means it could not be from an animal or an ape. She then compared the Nuclear DNA to the Genbank and she could not find a match for any of the three samples. This means that she had a life form that had a human mother and a father that was not in the known genetic database.

Dr. Ketchum began comparing sections of the Nuclear DNA to human DNA to find out where it was different. All humans have the TYR gene, which is associated with skin pigmentation, and the HAR1 gene, which is a “human accelerated region” associated with human neurological development. She found that the Sasquatch DNA from all three samples lacked these gene sequences. This means that the father could not be human as we know it!  Dr. Ketchum and the entire DNA project team has discovered a completely new and never before seen life form or hominin. When she compared the samples to each other they were a match or better from the same family or type of hominin.

Bottom Line

The DNA Study collected three samples for DNA, one flesh sample and two blood samples. The samples were collected at different times in three distinct regions of the country. The Mitochondrial DNA was human in all three samples which rules out animal or ape. The Nuclear DNA from all three samples did not match any DNA in the Genbank DNA database which contains 152,599,230,112 base pairs. The Nuclear DNA of the three samples does not contain the TYR Gene or the HAR1 Gene which ALL humans have so the father is not human and the DNA sample CAN NOT be contaminated by a human source since these genes are missing. If there was contamination the HAR1 and TYR gene would be present in the sequences.

Finial Conclusion

There is an unknown hominin in the United States of America that is a human hybrid. The mother is of human origin and the father is a non-human of unknown origin. Since eye witnesses saw the donor of sample 26 and sample 31 and they described the donors as being hair covered, bipedal, and in general appearance looking like the cryptid known as the Sasquatch, we can logically make the conclusion that the DNA is from a Sasquatch.

Please note: The Ketchum DNA Study contained a total of 113 DNA samples extracted from sources to include hair tags, saliva, blood, etc. The three samples mentioned above were of high enough quality for complete DNA sequencing. The complete study includes the hair morphology and other factors that show that these samples were from a unknown hominin.  I chose the three samples above to demonstrate the validity of the study because they were complete genomes. Below is a statement from the DNA study itself:

During the present five year study, approximately one hundred and thirteen separate samples of hair, blood, mucus, toenail, bark scrapings, saliva and skin with hair and subcutaneous tissue attached were submitted by dozens of individuals and groups from thirty four separate hominin collection sites around North Americ.

Here we report the morphological and histopathologic examination, whole mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequencing and analysis, and electron microscopic studies of DNA extracted from fresh hominin tissue.

Overall the data are suggestive of an unusual contemporary hominin with mitochondrial DNA consistent with modern humans but showing marked anomalies in the nuclear DNA. These findings suggest the existence of a novel contemporary indigenous North American hominin.

Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies


The Sasquatch Genome Project aka The Ketchum DNA Study aka The Bigfoot DNA Study Part II

With the Sykes DNA Study about to be made public via TV specials I thought in important to go over the basics of DNA and how DNA Profiles are actually processed in simple terms. In the process I will also explain why the Ketchum DNA Study is so profound and why those scientists that actually understand the process and the ramifications of the study want it discredited and suppressed.

First let’s define DNA. DNA is short for deoxyribonucleic acid, it is the molecule that contains the genetic code of all organisms. DNA is in each cell in the organism and tells cells what proteins to make. A cell's proteins determine its function. DNA is inherited by children from their parents. The DNA in a person is a combination of the DNA from each of their parents. 

DNA has a double helix shape, which is like a ladder twisted into a spiral. Each step of the ladder is a pair of nucleotides. The four nucleotides in this ladder are adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). The nitrogen bases are found in pairs. 'A' only pairs with 'T', and 'C' only pairs with 'G'. The bases are held together by hydrogen bonds. If you unzip the DNA so you only have one side of the ladder you still know what the corresponding nucleotide is because DNA can only pair in this order. This is important to understand for discussions later on in this post.

There are two types of DNA, Nuclear and Mitochondrial. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is found in cell mitochondria and is from the mother only. Nuclear DNA (nuDNA) if found in the cell nucleus and is a combination of genetic code from both the father and the mother. mtDNA is more abundant and easier to extract and test. nuDNA is more difficult to extract and test therefor samples in quality and quantity are required for successful extraction nuDNA.

 

Now that we have the basics down, how do you perform a DNA test? DNA is tightly wound together in its natural state. Think of it like a jumbled wad of rubber bands tangled and intertwined. In order to sequence the DNA the strands must be unwound or broken into sections and unzipped. Remember you only need one side of the helix or ladder to decode DNA because as I have previously pointed out,  A/T and C/G are always paired together. So if we have one side of the ladder we know what the other side has to be.  

Special enzymes are used to break down the DNA and unzip them into single strands. Once we have the DNA broken down into strands we need to stack like strands together. There are multiple copies of the DNA in the cell. So when the DNA is broken down we may have thousands of copies of the same sequences. We now need to stack these like threads together one on top of the other so we can see the sequences. DNA testing is like a transparency picture. If you only have one copy of the transparency it is light and difficult to see. But if you have 25 copies of the same transparency and you stack them together one on top of the other then you can see the picture clearly. DNA testing is the same way. The greater the DNA density the better, this will make the DNA easier to see or what is known as “Amplifying”. 

In order to “stack” the DNA together scientist use what is known as a primer. The primer’s basic function is to gather like strands of DNA together and stack them so it is easier to see the DNA sequence or amplify the sequence. In the early days of DNA testing primers had to be designed for individual species and even subspecies within a family of organisms. For example primers were developed for humans, bears, dogs, cats, pigs, cattle, etc. If you were trying to identify unknown DNA you would use the primer for the individual species on the sample. If the primer found and stacked the DNA together or amplified the DNA then you knew you had this species. If nothing was amplified then you knew you did not have this particular species. These primers still exist today but as scientific advancements were made in the field of DNA processing machines were developed that could process the DNA faster and more accurately. Primers were also developed to help speed up the process. What is known as a “Universal Mammal Primer” was developed. Scientist with the use of a DNA Sequencer and Universal Primers can now process DNA and get a profile faster and more accurately. Just like with the species specific primers if you use a mammal primer and the DNA does not amplify then your DNA sample is not from mammal. Here is a very important aspect to DNA testing. The test will be affected by the quantity, quality, and purity of the DNA sample. If you have multiple copies of the DNA strands, the strands are not damaged and intact, and the DNA is all from the same organism then the primer will amplify correctly and you will get good clear results. If you have limited amounts that are contaminated the results will not amplify well. To use the transparency analogy again, now you have two transparencies of two different pictures. Some parts of the picture may be alike some different. So when the primers stack them on top of each other the picture is fuzzy and blurred and not easy to recognize.  

The process I have just described in very simple language is known as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).  This is the method the independent reference labs and Dr. Ketchum used in the DNA Study to sequence the Sasquatch DNA. Since Dr. Ketchum was aware critics and the scientific community would be crying contamination she set up extremely strict processing methods in order to ensure she obtained non-contaminated DNA from a single source. She used forensic laboratories and processes to gather, wash, and then process the DNA. The same processes and standards were used that law enforcement laboratories use when processing DNA.  She also used forensic laboratories in blind studies so the laboratories did not know what kind of DNA samples they were receiving. They received the DNA, forensically processed it, and then returned the results to Dr. Ketchum.

The study also used a DNA Sequencer machine. This machine is called a HiSeq 2000 and the DNA test were run by an independent lab on this machine. This machine has the ability to measure the quality of the DNA sample. The HiSeq 2000 uses what is known a “competitive” process. If the sample placed into the machine is contaminated then the primer will split and some of it will try to stack DNA strands from one organism while the other primer will try to stack DNA from the other organism. The machine can measure this split in the primer and determine if the sample was from a single source (pure) or from multiple sources (contaminated). This measure is known as a “Q30” score. When the DNA samples were run the average Q30 score was 85. According to the manufacturer of the HiSeq 2000 any score greater than 80 is considered PURE and NOT contaminated. A contaminated sample would return a Q30 score of 40 to 50. This is an extremely important FACT. This means that the DNA results from the Sasquatch samples were NOT CONTAMINTED and from a SINGLE SOURCE. 

Now that I have explained how the DNA was processed here are the reasons why the mainstream scientific community is ignoring the study and attempting to mislead the general public about the study. This is why the critics and the blogs have sought to discredit the study by destroying Dr. Ketchum personally. This is why the bloggers and critics drone on about “flawed method” and “the samples must be contaminated or faked”.  They know by exclusion alone the DNA Study has proven the existence of an unknown hominin.  Let me explain what I mean.

If you have a DNA sample obtained from hair, flesh, blood, etc. and you had an eye witness watch the subject (Sasquatch) leave the sample. If this sample was then forensically collected in the field and was also a high quality sample in both amount and purity , then forensically processed by the lab to ensure it was not contaminated. If you then used primers on the samples designed to amplify human and mammalian DNA and NO DNA amplified then this would mean by process of exclusion the DNA you had collected came from an unknown hominin that has DNA that does no match any know human or mammal. You have proven a new species of hominin exist. This is what Dr. Ketchum has done and this is why the critics claim the samples “must be contaminated”. The DNA Study documents in detail and proves the DNA samples were not contaminated and pure. 

The DNA Study also proved a new species of hominin exist by the 3 complete genomes produced using the Hi Seq 2000 DNA Sequencer. The samples that produced the genomes were pure and this was proven by the Q30 scores. It is a fact that cannot be argued. The DNA is pure and non-contaminated. When the contracted independent labs took the 3 genomes and compared them to the world’s largest depository of DNA (GenBank) for all known animals to include humans  none of the three genomes matched anything in the database. This proves again that there is a new species of unknown hominin living the forest of North America. 

One of the issues that conflict scientist about the study is how unusual the Sasquatch nuDNA is. When the scientist (those that even dared to read the study) looked at the nuDNA they noticed key DNA sequences either missing or severely mutated. The scientists understand that a human with these DNA sequences would not be viable. A living, breathing, biological entity with this DNA “cannot exist” in the minds of the scientist.The fact that the DNA study has documented the collection, processing, and purity of this DNA and that this DNA did come from a living entity is a fact their minds just cannot fathom. Therefor in the scientist point of view the only acceptable answer is the samples must be contaminated, the processes in the study flawed, and the results fabricated. This conclusion is irrational and unscientific based solely on a belief system and not the facts.

Another conclusion of the DNA Study that baffles the scientist is the fact that the Sasquatch is a human hybrid. All of the 113 DNA samples in the DNA Study had mtDNA (DNA from the mother) that was human. This by default rules out that any of the samples were bear, dog, wolf, or any other animal. To make sure the DNA was not from a bi-pedal ape or a Neanderthal the DNA was processed with primers for both and the DNA did not amplify meaning it was not ape or Neanderthals.  When nuDNA was extracted from 3 samples and the genome sequenced the father did not match any known animal in the Genbank database. This meant that the Sasquatch is a hybrid species produced from a human female and an unknown (novel) hominin male. This is a fact the scientist and most critics just could not accept. In their minds if Sasquatch did exist it had to be a bi-pedal ape or a relic hominoid of some kind. Again their bias would not allow them to accept the facts.

 I should also note that many “Big Names” in the “Bigfoot World” are heavily invested both professionally and financially in Bigfoot being a bi-pedal ape. Many have built their carriers on this theory and a human hybrid would be disastrous for this group.

It boggles my mind that people in the "Bigfoot World" would expect the Sasquatch that has extraordinary abilities to have "normal" DNA. It just makes no sense to me. Let me be frank for a moment.  The big names in the "Bigfoot World" people like Matt Moneymaker, Jeff Meldrum, Derek Randalls, Adrian Erickson, John Green, Bobo, Cliff, and the list could go on. They all have experienced these extraordinary abilities that the Sasquatch have to include Zapping, Infrasound, Mind Speak, Cloaking, Orbs, and eyes glowing with no external source just to name a few. They will NEVER admit it publicly because they do not want to be called kooks or crazy so they keep it to themselves. Trust me folks they know!!! So again how one "in the know" would be shocked that the Sasquatch's DNA is strange is baffling.

The Sasquatch Genome Project aka The Ketchum DNA Study aka The Bigfoot DNA Study
DETAILS

Over the span of almost 3 years I submitted numerous hair samples and candy wrappers that I suspected contained saliva. The DNA Study was officially published on February 13th, 2013.

I submitted numerous samples to the study of hair and saliva.  Eleven (11) hair samples passed initial review as being possible Bigfoot hair. The below is a exert from the study "Materials and Methods S1"

Hair Analysis:

Hair samples were sent to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for analysis. The samples were evaluated visually, stereoscopically, and by light microscopy to determine human or animal origin. Hairs that were classified as potential novel hominid were also evaluated for DNA typing potential by examining for root material. Only hairs that were not human in appearance and could not be identified as any other species were utilized in this study.

 The samples were processed and the mitochondrial DNA extracted and sequenced. The 11 Samples that were chosen from the samples I submitted were determined to be Sasquatch (Bigfoot). The sample numbers from Table 1 of the Study are 2,3,11,38,42,70,82,122,125,126,127. From this group of samples three had enough genetic material to run a full mitochondrial DNA sequence. These samples numbers were 2, 11, and 38.

It was determined that the female linage of the Bigfoot was human and the male linage was from a still unknown hominin.

During the collection of hair samples I was able to capture a night time infrared video of four Bigfoot taking turns peeking at my trail camera. I subsequently place a hair trap consisting of packing tape around the tree that the Bigfoot had used to hide behind. When I returned at a later date I found tape had been torn off the tree and contained a large amount of hair that was extracted with the root or skin tags still intact. This would be sample number 38 in the DNA Study. Below is the video documenting this entire process from the placing of the tape to the collection of the hair samples:


Below are the actual still captures from the video. One of these Bigfoot is the probable hair donor of sample 38.

Below is the actual hair sample:

Hair samples collected and submitted to the DNA Study

 

With this success we came up with a method to collect hair samples. I placed bacon grease high up on a tree and below the bacon grease wrapped packing tape sticky side out. This method was extremely successful yielding multiple hair samples that led to the 11 that were used in the study. Below are examples of how the hair traps were set and worked.

Actual "Tape Trap"

Hair samples collected using the "Bacon Grease" method

 Another way I collected samples was to use a "natural hair trap". I would snap off saplings and limbs around four feet high along known Bigfoot routes. The splintered saplings would catch and pull out the hair when the Bigfoot would bump against them. Below is an example of hair I collected using this method.

The Sasquatch Genome Project aka The Ketchum DNA Study aka The Bigfoot DNA Study
Answering the Critics

November 2014

 

October 7, 2013

The Sasquatch Genome Project is beginning to release independent documentation that supports the findings of the DNA Study. Below is an email from one of the reference labs concerning a sample they were sequencing. In the email the Project Manger from the lab notes: "I tried blasting the consensus and get no hits with any organism, which is so bizarre. What is this???? Have you discovered a new species???

The email is from a lab documentated in the Ketchum DNA Study as a "Analysis for Hire Laboratories Used in the Blind Study". The lab is
SeqWright, Inc., 2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054

October 5, 2013

 Via Face Book

Robin Lynne - Spokes Person Sasquatch Genome Project

This needs to be said:

To clarify: I (Dr. Ketchum) do not know Todd Disotell. When Adrian Erickson came to our project, he told me that he had sent an aliquot of the red Sasquatch's blood to Disotell for testing. AE has results and correspondence as proof. He was extremely upset because Disotell had destroyed the sample. Disotell got human mitochondrial DNA sequence when he tested the sample and didn't believe that it came from a Sasquatch. He told the PhD on Erickson's staff that somebody must have hoaxed it. He said this in spite of the fact that the study was well monitored by Dennis Pfohl who is extremely credible was in control of the food trap start to finish. If it was hoaxed, our genetic testing showed the suspect would be a red headed female, which obviously Dennis is not. In addition, the whole genome SNP testing excluded this individual (the red headed female) as being 100% human with results close to 20% below the human threshold.

After Disotell destroyed the DNA (Mr. Erickson's staff had requested the remaining sample be returned), another aliquot that had been retained by Erickson was sent to Paleo labs in Canada. They also obtained human results on the mitochondrial DNA. Finally, AE sent the remainder of the DNA to our study and had Paleo labs send what they had left also. Our lab also obtained human mitochondrial sequence. These were all independent tests using different laboratories. We then began testing the sample using several platforms to obtain nuclear DNA sequences and profiles. This sample like all of the other samples in the study yielded human sequence as well as unknown sequence.

Disotell specializes in evolution using mitochondrial DNA. He is not qualified to comment on the genomics or other disciplines in this study. Like he said on the Joe Rogan show, our project used "some of the latest cutting edge science" that he is not expert on--he admits "I can't follow 3/4 of that paper." The raw data for this paper continues to be available as separate files with the manuscript. He is a perfect example of the scientific bias we have faced.



September 16th, 2013 - EXCLUSIVE - Newly leaked Information shows that the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Study PASSED PEER REVIEW - UPADTED

This is Dr. Kethcum's Response to the leaked information I received below from her FaceBook Page:

Melba Ketchum

I am so upset that the reviews got leaked. That means I was once again betrayed by an insider. On the up side, I feel a huge relief about it. Now I don't have to sit on this horrible secret anymore. The world now knows how unethically the scientific has behaved. It also knows that we DID pass peer review and with reviews that came from geneticists that work with whole genomes. At least that is what I was told.

Dr. Ketchum's DNA Study  the "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" did pass peer review in January 2013. The journal then known as the "Journal of Advanced Zoological Exploration in Zoology" (JAMEZ) gave the Ketchum DNA Study passing reviews and was planning to publish the study in its inaugural edition on or about January 11th, 2013.

Late in the evening of Wednesday January 9th, 2013 I received a phone call from David Paulides, Director of North American Bigfoot Search (NABS) the primary partner of the DNA Study. David informed me that he had just hung up the phone with Dr. Ketchum and she had been given notice that the DNA paper had passed peer review with JAMEZ and the publishing date "would be on or about Friday, January 11th, 2013". David said we should be prepared for some moderate media attention and possible interview request.

Then inexplicably the next day, January 10th, 2013, I receive the following email from David Paulides:

Apparently  someone had gotten to the staff of the JAMEZ and intimidated them so severely that they were now refusing to publish the paper. Even the attorney for the JAMEZ was under so much pressure from some outside source that he had threatened to resign if the JAMEZ published the DNA study. (Editors Note: The above information was previously disclosed by Dr. Ketchum during radio interviews in February and March of 2013. This email is provided as independent collaboration of her claims made during these interviews)

To prove the journal did exist below is a screen shot  of the JAMEZ's "Calls for Papers".

Later Dr. Ketchum purchased JAMEZ in order to preserve the passing per reviews. The JAMEZ was renamed  Denovo (http://www.advancedsciencefoundation.org/). Dr. Ketchum then published the "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies". Critics blasted her for doing this and claimed the paper never passed peer review. Due to confidentiality rules Dr. Ketchum could not make public the passing peer reviews from JAMEZ. Many critics, knowing these rules, used this against her and mounted an unprecedented personal smear campaign to discredit her and the DNA Study.

On Sunday, September 15th, 2013 I received a Facebook friend request from an individual I did not know. But since we had several "Facebook mutual friends" in common I accepted the friend request and did not think anything else about it.  Late yesterday afternoon I received a Facebook message from this individual telling me he wanted my email address. He expressed his extreme dismay at the treatment I had received in the group "Bigfoot Community" the previous two days (http://www.bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/09/ex-publicist-sally-ramey-opens-up.html) and was tired of the treatment I and the other supporters of Ketchum DNA Study had received over the past few months. He told me that he had inside information that would "Blow the lid off this thing and shut the critics up". He would not tell me what he had, he said "you will understand when you get my email". He also made me swear that I would keep his identity secret because the information he was giving me was "extremely sensitive". I gave him my email address and waited.

On Monday, September 16th I received his email. It contained a screenshot of an email from Scholastica, the publishing house for JAMEZ. Along with this screen shot I received the JAMEZ Peer Review with the authors' (Dr. Ketchum) responses and the Journal Nature's Peer Review from the second submission with authors' responses.

The email print screen that I received from the anonymous source clearly states that the Ketchum DNA Paper - "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" DID PASS A INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW FROM A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. The status for the manuscript read: "ACCEPTED for publication with revisions" Below is the screen shot of the email:

Click here to view the PEER REVIEWS

September 2013 -  Bigfoot DNA Study Update - Leaked Documents Show Bias Against Dr. Ketchum and the DNA Study

The recent leaking of the Peer Review of Dr. Ketchum's DNA Study by Journal Nature and her cover letter show the blatant bias she was up against. The reviewers showed how ignorant and biased they were with their criticisms of the study. It appears except for "Referee #1" none of the other reviews bothered to read much of the paper if any of it at all.

The cover letter also details the unethical behavior of the Journal Nature in leaking confidential information and how this had a detrimental impact on the study.

Below is the letter from Dr. Ketchum to The Journal Nature:

I am the corresponding author for the above mentioned manuscript. We (the authors of this manuscript) are extremely unhappy with the ethics of the reviewers chosen by Nature. Please consider this letter as a formal appeal of your process on the previous manuscript, 2011-09-11671 and 2011-09-11671A-Z. We are resubmitting a revised manuscript in an effort to vindicate our reputations and also to give Nature a chance to rectify the scientific bias and the unethical behavior exhibited by the previous reviewers by giving our manuscript a fair chance at publication. Our manuscript and our reputations were tarnished by the reviewers as follows:

1. Release to the public of the first peer review as well as the fact that our manuscript was at Nature. One of the reviewers leaked the original peer review to a “celebrity” that is involved with our subject and it was put on the internet.  Since it has not been published in Nature, this “celebrity” is now calling our study a “fake” on Twitter and elsewhere. This is highly damaging to our careers and never should have happened.  The link states the source of the information as being one of the reviewers. (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/mm-sasquatch-dna-project/)
2. Reviewers accused our genomes of having contamination even though we went to great lengths to explain how the samples were extracted and screened to rule out contamination. To tell us, as scientists, especially those of us that are forensic scientists, that our samples are contaminated can be likened to accusing us of hoaxing a scientific study or perjuring ourselves in court. As forensic scientists that testify in court, this can be highly damaging and has caused all of the authors tremendous worry and concern. Since we were not given a chance to defend ourselves on the second peer review and our manuscript refused because of these accusations (since all other revisions were verbiage and extremely minor), we contacted Illumina (manufacturers of the HiSeq 2000 next generation sequencing platform that we used to sequence the genomes) in an effort to prove, once and for all, that the three genomes were single source and not contaminated. We spoke with two supervisors specializing in technical support for next generation sequencing. We asked them if it was possible to prove if there was contamination in a genome or not.  They immediately answered “yes”!  They told us that the average Q30 score for a genome was 85, but if there was contamination, which would cause the divergent sequences to compete against one another, that a contaminated sample would have a Q30 score of only 40 to 50.  A pure, single source sample would have a Q30 score of about 85.  When we checked our Q30 scores for the first read, our three genomes had Q30 scores of 92, 88 and 89 respectively.  The second read was a little lower 88, 84.25 and 83.66 but still very close to the average of 85.  The Q30 is the percent of the reads that have the statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced.  Therefore, with the help of the scientists at Illumina, it was determined that not only were the sequences from a single source, but the quality of the sequences were far above the average genome sequenced using their platform. I can furnish contact information if you desire it. We attribute the high quality of the genomes to the stringent extraction procedures utilized whereby the DNA was repeatedly purified.   This gave us greater than 30X coverage of the three genomes.  Furthermore, it supported our original findings of human mitochondrial DNA since the whole genomes yielded human mitochondrial DNA consistent with the original individual mtDNA genome sequencing.  The nuDNA findings were also supported in that there was novel primate sequence in the nuDNA. So, the original submission was indeed supported by the next generation sequencing that we included in the revised submission. The three genomes aligned with one another also supporting that all three genomes came from the same species and they were NOT contaminated. Most importantly, the Q30 scores absolutely disproved the reviewers’ assumption that the whole genomes were a mixture of human with animal DNA contaminants.  The summary of the next generation sequencing generated by the Illumina HiSeq 2000 sequencer is now furnished as Supplementary Data 7 to support this discussion that is now included in our manuscript, Lines 544-558.
3. The peer reviewers failed to even read the manuscript because we were asked for data or criticized for not having data that was already in the manuscript or supplementary information.

Because of the ethical problems listed above, our group is therefore re-submitting this revised manuscript having addressed all of the concerns raised by the reviewers. We are supplying the authors’ response to each concern the reviewers had as proof of the bias and in defense of the manuscript.  We have corrected all of the verbiage concerns and added the definitive proof that the genomes are not contaminated. We are also available for questions and any further requested revision. We also added a conclusion concerning human hybridization likened to Neanderthal and Denisovan hybridization to satisfy Reviewer 3.  If it is preferred that the data speak for itself without theory, we will gladly remove the added conclusion.

We want our findings published in Nature since it is perhaps the best journal published and our manuscript is being called the largest scientific find in the last 100 years. If it was not a Nature worthy manuscript, it would not have been given a second chance with revision, revision that we completed beyond what was asked of us. Besides fair review, we are asking for expedient treatment of our groundbreaking discovery since we have provided more proof of existence of these hominins than any manuscripts describing other novel species to date.  We also have other scientific groups that are headed by “famous” scientists still trying to beat us to publication even though we have by far the most data. We know our manuscript is worthy of publication because we have had private peer review that was positive as well as your Reviewer #1.  We just hope Nature is brave enough to do what we all know is right and that is publishing this manuscript. We would also note that a new monkey was found in Africa and published recently (PLOS One: Lesula paper) with only 6.8Kb of sequence.  We have 20 samples with 16.5 Kb of mtDNA and 10 more with partial sequence but enough to obtain haplotypes with most of them coming from non-human hair yielding human sequence. This includes hair from 26, the first whole genome sample. We have three whole genomes comprising millions of reads and greater than 30X coverage.  We have 2.7 million bases aligned to human chromosome 11 that are novel primate which is no small feat considering the sequence is novel and therefore difficult to align.  That is not counting all of the other disciplines involved in our manuscript including forensic hair analysis, histopathology, forensics and electron microscopy.  It has been stated that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  We have provided more than enough extraordinary proof.  We even have high definition video of the donor of sample 37 sleeping in the forest and breathing at 6 breaths per minute (Supplementary Video 1).  This sample was part of a field research study overseen by a PhD in wildlife biology so we are certain of the source of this sample and the video attached to it. We have a full facial video of her also that will be released after the paper publishes. I could arrange for the Editorial board to view it if they so desire and perhaps a copyright arrangement could be reached so that one frame could be used for the cover of the journal. The face is stunning.

We understand our subject is controversial; however solid scientific methods were used in this study.  We are also attaching to this letter an overview of the laboratories utilized in the study to show how the data was produced using blind studies and reproduced and verified by other laboratories (see below).

If there is still any doubt concerning the existence of these hominins, we are also willing to allow a representative from Nature to travel here and see these individuals personally, preferably during a full moon to increase lighting since they are primarily nocturnal.  Though there is never 100% guarantee that a sighting will occur, if a few (about 3) days are allowed, we predict that the chances of seeing one of these hominins approach 99%.  So far, everyone that we have invited has had an experience, including myself and some of the co-authors.  Seeing is believing and that is why we offer this opportunity.  We will do whatever is necessary to support our manuscript.

Thank you in advance for fair unbiased treatment of our manuscript and for accepting it in its revised format. 

Kind regards,

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum

Corresponding author

Dr. Ketchum addresses the Sasquatch "Matilda" - 07/26/2013

 

OK, the Matilda questions. Her mitochondrial DNA was tested by Disotell with human results like all of our samples. He said it had to be human contamination and threw the sample away according to Adrian Erickson. Fortunately, he kept back some of the sample. He then sent some of it to Paleo Labs where they also got human mitochondrial DNA. When we got the remainder of the sample, we got the same results. But, we then tested the nuclear DNA where the differences are in the Sasquatch. First, the DNA was female and we had very few females in the study. Some of the individual genes we sequenced on this sample were human while others failed even with universal mammalian primers. This sample behaved just like the rest of the samples. To add credibility and link the sample to the videos, we tested the MC1R gene for red hair color. She sequenced human for this gene and had the mutation for red hair. We ran the 2.5 million human SNP array on her sample. Even a degraded human sample will have greater than ninety five percent of the SNPs run successfully and our degraded human control sample ran 97%. Matilda's DNA was pristine but only ran at 83%. So, her DNA was obviously not completely human. I also spoke with all three members of the Erickson team and am totally convinced that the videos are legitimate. This is especially true since the DNA findings matched her sex and hair color

 

The HiSeq2000 - Used to prove Bigoot's Existence

I was reading the comments to a blog post about the Q30 scores from the next generation Illumina platform on the 3 Bigfoot genomes when the light came on! Dr. Ketchum has the goods, she has solid, repeatable, undeniable, independently verifiable proof that Bigfoot is a real, living, breathing, entity and those main stream scientist "in the know" are painfully aware of this and extremely afraid of it! This is why Dr. Ketchum did the things she did in the last year. I am not saying a I agree with everything she did, but I now understand it.

First let me explain the "Q30" scores that just zoomed over our collective heads. This is the key, this is why the critics are afraid, VERY afraid. Dr. Ketchum extracted and purified three samples (26, 31 and 140) with large amounts of high quality DNA. (Note that sample 26 came from the alleged killing of two Bigfoot by Justin Smeja aka "The Sierra Kills"). She then sent these samples off to the University of Texas, Southwestern laboratory for sequencing. The UT laboratory used a widely accepted and proven process known as "the next generation Illumina platform". The machine that processes the samples is known as a HiSeq 2000 next generation sequencer. Here is an excerpt from the DNA study that explains what a "Q30" score is and what it means.

"the HiSeq 2000 next generation sequencer provides scores, Q30, for run quality​78​. Q30 can also be used to determine if there was any contamination (or mixture) found in the samples sequenced.  According to Illumina, a pure, single source sample would have an Q30 score of 80 or greater with an average of 85. However, if there was contamination present in the sample sequenced, the divergent sequences would compete against one another prior to sequencing causing a contaminated sample to have a Q30 score of 40 to 50.   The Q30 scores for the three genomes sequenced had Q30 scores of 88.6, 88.4 and 88.7 respectively for samples 26, 31 and 140.  The Q30 is the percent of the reads that have the statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced. Therefore, not only were the sequences from a single source, but the quality of the sequences were far above the average genome sequenced using the Illumina next generation sequencing platform. The high quality of the genomes can be attributed to the stringent extraction procedures utilized whereby the DNA was repeatedly purified.   This ultra-purified DNA also allowed for greater than 30X coverage of the three genomes.  The summary and of the next generation sequencing generated by the HiSeq 2000 Illumina sequencer is furnished as Supplementary Data 7-10."

The "Q30" is a score that tells us how pure DNA is. The manufacture states that anything at or above a score of 80 is pure and NOT contaminated! Again let me repeat the scores were 88.6, 88.4, and 88.7 respectively.

 In other words the DNA is:
1. NOT Contaminated
2. All from 3 individuals (Bigfoot) not a mixture or contaminated
3. The results are repeatable
4. The SAME results were returned on 3 different samples from 3 different individuals, collected from 3 different locations, and at 3 different times.
5. The lab that ran the data is well respected, accredited, and independent
6. The results are rock solid and indisputable

Now imagine you are Dr. Ketchum, you know what you have, indisputable scientific proof Bigfoot exist. A major journal (Nature) has delayed you repeatedly with frivolous request and leaked your results to others (Sykes). You know mainstream science is trying to make an end run on you via the Sykes study. Sykes has the political power and financial backing to publish quickly. The collective scientific community has done everything they can to keep you from publishing your findings.

Also remember that Wally Hersom and Adrian Erickson have funded the study to the tune of over $300,000! Your professional reputation is ruined, and you just spent 5 years of your life on this project. You have the DNA, you have the solid proof and GenBank will not allow you to upload your sequences leaving the door open for Sykes or another scientist to zoom in and get the credit!  Armed with this knowledge and these circumstances what do you do?

Would you tell Justin Smeja to contaminate his remaining samples so no one else like Sykes could use his political connections and power to beat you and claim discovery for what you already have? Would you have preemptive press releases before your study is published? Would you purchase a journal that has passed your paper only to back out at the last moment due to political pressure in order to preserve the peer reviews and editorial independence? 

Though you may not agree with everything she has done, Dr. Ketchum had good reason. She was up against a "like minded" conspiracy. Main stream science knew then and know now what she has. They know it is rock solid and can not be refuted. Their only recourse was to destroy her personally in hopes of discrediting the results. They are AFRAID, afraid of the truth. What is this truth? A unknown, Veterinarian WOMAN from the SOUTH no less with the help of  common everyday people have made one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our generation. This is a fact,  a truth their belief system just can not tolerate. The religion of  Darwinism demands this can not be true and not be allowed to stand.

This is why GenBank cannot allow the Genomes to be uploaded. To allow this is an admission of the truth and they know it. The "well respected scientist" doing the independent review of the DNA Study are promising that they will make sure GenBank accepts the Genomes, I hope they can deliver.

I make a challenge to any one that has access to the BLAST application. Take the supplemental attachments in Dr. Ketchum's study that contain the raw DNA sequence data, convert those PDF files into the correct format and then compare the sequences to the GenBank database and see if there are any matches. We already know the data is good, it has been produced by the University of Texas. Have the courage to run the BLAST search and publish the results! Because you know they will show no match, that the species represented in the data is a NEW species, a NEW homo sapiens species  a BIGFOOT.....

 Blog Post From 02/17/2013

I am growing weary of reading the same criticisms of the DNA Study. Here are the top two "complaints"

• "To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid,"  - Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University 
•  "All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant" -
  ArsTechnica.com 

To paraphrase what the critics are saying, all 110 samples are contaminated with human DNA. In their opinions this is the only way to explain these "odd" results. Dr. Ketchum contracted the following laboratories to run BLIND test on the samples. All these labs duplicated the "odd" results. Remember some of these labs are forensic labs used by law enforcement. People are in jail because of the work of these labs. So the assertion by the critics is these labs contaminated the samples. If so there are many people in jail that need to be let go because these laboratories can not be trusted to process the evidence.


 Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center,
1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008

SeqWright, Inc.,
2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093

USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033

Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, 
College Station, TX 77843-2257

Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences
2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207


This assertion of contamination and that "no data has been presented to support these claims" calls into question the integrity of the following Universities:

Texas A&M Microscopy and Imaging Center (Performed the structural analysis using electron microscopy)
Genomics Core Laboratory at the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) (Performed the Whole Human Genome SNP analysis)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas - (Performed - Whole Genome Sequencing)

The critics are also calling into question the submitters and their samples. I KNOW I handled my samples correctly, following EXTREMELY strict protocols to avoid contamination. I have documented this in more than one video. The DNA Study also went to great lengths to make sure to avoid contamination. Serveral of the submitters hold Doctorates, below is the list: Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev,  Dr. Angelo Capparella,  Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb” Sentell. I would think these gentlemen would know how to correctly handle DNA samples. Not to mention well respected researchers to include Derek Randles. So the assertion is we all mishandled our samples, I do not think so!


The study had great detail on how the samples were handled to avoid contamination. The study has a  complete subsection on the handling of the samples to avoid contamination: Prevention of DNA Contamination by Forensic Methodologies. Also remember many of the samples were not hair but blood, saliva, and a piece of flesh. The flesh was "cored" and a sample taken from the center of the flesh. This would make it completely sterile. The only way this could be contaminated is by processors inside the study or one of the University facilities mentioned above.

It is clear to me that the critics are not reading the paper or worse reading the paper and ignoring the documentation because of a personal bias. When the independent review is complete we will have our answers, until then I say again, and for the last time READ THE PAPER, provide POINT by POINT, DOCUMENTED, AND REFERENCED criticism.

Blog Post 02/18/2013

Dr. Swenson

Lately all we have heard from is the critics and their list of scientist that say the DNA Study is "bunk". Dr. Ketchum has posted a statement in support of the DNA Study from a scientist with credentials that rival the studies critics. David H. Swenson, Ph.D. who is a Biochemist and has over 39 journal publications to his credit.

 Below is his statement:

David H. Swenson

Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.

My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.

Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.

Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.

It appears Dr. Ketchum has made her raw genome data available to Dr. Swenson and he was able to confirm her findings. I am afraid we are now entering the "debate" phase of the study. We are going to have Geneticist and Scientist review her data and publish conflicting opinions on what the data means. But, this was the ultimate goal, to get legitimate scientist to take a hard look at the DNA and Bigfoot as a living, breathing, biological entity.

  Blog Post From 02/15/2013

 

Scientific and Forensic Experts Put Their Names and Professional Reputations On The Line


Dr. Ketchum's publishing of the DNA Study (Novel North American Hominins Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies) has the critics howling. These critics are showing their true color and demonstrating that this is not about science but about personal attacks and pure ignorance on their part. 

The DNA Study was a group effort headed by Dr. Ketchum. The team consisted of EXPERTS in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology. 

These outstanding men and women put their personal and professional reputations on the line when they signed on to the team.

The critics are claiming that this paper is "junk science" and "fraudulent". The foundation for these charges are based on ignorance, malice, and personal bias.

Dr. Ketchum said the following:
 

"It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities.

We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry."

I completely agree with her sentiment, the "Galileo Effort" is defiantly a major reason for the extremely harsh, unwarranted,  and illogical criticisms.

Lets take a look at a just a few of the experts that are on the DNA Study team:

Dr. Andreas Holzenburg
Director,  Professor, Department of Biology, Professor, Biochemistry and Biophysics

Microscopy and Imaging Center

Texas A&M University

Published over 30 Papers

Click Here For Dr HolzenBurg's Web Site

Fan Zhang, Ph.D.
Bioinformatician in the Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology (AIRT) at the University of North Texas Health Science Center.

Fan Zhang, Ph.D. is currently a bioinformatician in the Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology (AIRT) at the University of North Texas Health Science Center. He obtained his Ph.D. at the Harbin Institute of Technology in 2001 and completed his first postdoctoral work in the State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Tsinghua University from 2001 to 2003. He was an associate professor in the School of Biomedical Engineering at the Capital Medical University, China in 2005. He worked as a postdoctoral researcher in the Medical School of University of California at San Diego from 2006 to 2008 and in the School of Informatics at the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis from 2008 to 2011. He was a Data Analyst at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine prior to joining UNT Health Science Center.

Click Here For Dr Zhang's Website 


Dr.  Pat Wojtkiewicz
Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section. He has been employed at the crime lab since 1977.

Click Here for Full Bio

Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Wayne State University in Michigan
Molecular biologist with a background that also includes evolutionary biology, microbiology and biochemistry.

 Click Here for Full Bio


The rest of the team: 

Ms. Aliece Watts of Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless, TX; Mr. David Spence, Trace Evidence Supervisor at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences; Dr. Douglas G. Toler of Huguley Pathology Consultants in Fort Worth, TX; ; Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith of DNA Diagnostics.


 
The DNA Sample Submitters

The individuals who actually submitted the DNA samples of hair, blood, tissue, etc were also a select group that consisted of honest people from all walks of life including professionals and six Doctors! Sasquatch Genome Project Groups and Submitters

Handling of Samples

The samples from the study were FORENSICALLY processed. They were processed in accordance with criminal case handling of evidence and beyond! Below is an excert from the DNA paper's "Materials and Methods S1" Supplement.
  

Hair Analysis:

Hair samples were sent to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for

analysis. The samples were evaluated visually, stereoscopically, and by light microscopy to

determine human or animal origin. Hairs that were classified as potential novel hominid were also evaluated for DNA typing potential by examining for root material.Only hairs that were not human in appearance and could not be identified as any other species were utilized in this study.....

 DNA Isolation:

Since the presence of normal human DNA contamination of submitted samples was a primary concern throughout this study, all samples were thoroughly cleaned in a manner consistent with forensic testing procedures. In order to further rule out contamination from human personnel and lab workers, samples from submitters and scientists working with the samples were collected for comparison with the results obtained in the various DNA tests.

Dr. Ketchum used the following for hire laboratories in a BLIND STUDY of the DNA:

"The following laboratories provided sequencing and analysis of samples in the study on a work for hire basis and were not initially told the origin of the samples being tested until after the samples were tested:"

Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center,
1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008

SeqWright, Inc.,
2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054

UT Southwestern Medical Center
6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093

USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033

Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, 
College Station, TX 77843-2257

Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences
2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207

The authors that contributed to the paper and what area they helped in:

Dr. Ketchum, Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz, David Spence, Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg, Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith. performed experiments. 

Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Fan Zhang analyzed the genetic data.

Dr. Ketchum., Aliece Watts, and Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz wrote and edited the manuscript. 

Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg analyzed and wrote the EM portion of the manuscript. 

David Spence analyzed and wrote the hair analysis portion of the manuscript. 

Dr. Douglas G. Toler  analyzed and wrote the histopathology portion of the manuscript.  

Aliece Watts. also researched pertinent additions to the manuscript and helped with data collection.

Dr. Ketchum distributed samples, collected and combined data from the blind studies.


This study is complicated and it will take days or even weeks to read and absorb. I do not see how the critics have even had a chance to look at the let alone understand its complexity or grasp the concepts laid forth in this paper.

Dr. Ketchum has referenced this study and sighted multiple sources ad nauseam . Blind reference labs were used and DOCUMENTED. Even the editor of the paper was not Dr. Ketchum but Dr. Rayford Wallace. The paper was a group effort and written by many experts in different scientific disciplines. Many are FORENSIC experts which makes them perfectly suited for this type of study.

So I say to the critics READ THE PAPER and present a POINT by POINT, RESEARCHED, AND REFERENCED argument against the paper.

Until then I say SHUT UP!. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

BLOG POST March 19, 2013 - Did a Major Science Journal Attempt to Sabatoge The Ketchum DNA Study?

 On March 15th, 2013 Robert Lindsay posted the following on his blog concerning the erroneous claims of critics that the DNA was contaminated:

"No contamination in Ketchum DNA findings. There is some little-known evidence that there is no contamination in her samples: Ketchum tested the Bigfoot nuDNA for several human genes, the names of which you can find in the manuscript. MC1R (human/Neanderthal red-hair color gene) showed up in the Bigfoot nuDNA as did the human antigen gene TAP1 (most of the time) and the jaw muscle gene MYH16 (which when present showed only a human profile rather than an ape one).
Not discussed in the manuscript are the tests Ketchum did for the TYR gene, which is associated with skin pigmentation, and the HAR1 gene, which is a “human accelerated region” associated with human neurological development. The human skin color gene TYR and human brain gene HAR1 were not found in Bigfoot nuDNA. Now that in and of itself is very interesting.

If the samples really were just bear or coyote or bobcat smeared with human contamination, all of the human genes should show up all over the place. The peer-reviewers for Ketchum’s manuscript only wanted positive, not negative, results included for gene tests, so the TYR and HAR1 data are not discussed in the manuscript. However, you can see the remnants of it in the Supplemental Data 12 appendix. The bottom line is the Bigfoot nuDNA is missing some important human genes that should be there if the nuDNA were in fact simply contaminated with human DNA.

Furthermore, if the samples were simply bears, coyotes or whatever with no human contamination present, the human genes listed above would not be there at all.

The conclusion is that the “contamination” meme bandied about is simply a red herring. Ketchum’s DNA results, whatever they were and whatever they mean, ere simply not a result of contamination in any way, shape or form. Critics really need to get over the contamination BS."

Via: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/ 

 The part of Robert Lindsay's post that peaked my curiosity was the following:

"The peer-reviewers for Ketchum’s manuscript only wanted positive, not negative, results included for gene tests, so the TYR and HAR1 data are not discussed in the manuscript. However, you can see the remnants of it in the Supplemental Data 12 appendix. The bottom line is the Bigfoot nuDNA is missing some important human genes that should be there if the nuDNA were in fact simply contaminated with human DNA."

If I am reading this correctly the "peer-reviewers" only wanted "positive results". I asked myself why? The conclusion I came up with is that having the "negative" results in the paper prove that the DNA is NOT from a known ANIMAL and NOT from a HUMAN. This is the point of the study! If the samples are not from a known animal and not from a human then WE HAVE A NEW PREVIOUSLY UNDISCOVERED SPECIES. Since the samples were collected in areas were Bigfoot/Sasquatch were witnessed and/or filmed the the logical conclusion is this new "SPECIES" IS A BIGFOOT.  Apparently this is a reality that the "peer reviewers" could not accept due to personal/professional bias. So they requested Dr. Ketchum remove the negative results from her study.

Folks the scientific community, the Team Tazer clowns,  and those who insist Bigfoot is an APE are using the general public's ignorance of DNA testing and the Scientific Protocols to misinform and LIE about the Ketchum DNA Study. I know the DNA results are difficult to interpret and I so wish Dr. Ketchum would have published plan language abstract of the paper for us layman, but she did not. I would encourage you to do your own home work and do not take the word of these so called "experts". We all have an agenda, at least I am up front about mine, I support the study and the work done by Dr. Ketchum and the DNA study team,  These critics of the study appear to have a large stake in discrediting , I have to wonder why?

The Sasquatch Genome Project in a Nutshell

How it all began

2009-2010 
The TV show Destination Truth, starring Josh Gates, brought a hair sample back from Bhutan after finding a foot print

The footprint:

The producers chose Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics to perform DNA analysis.  

The hair sample:

Dr. Ketchum did not believe that a creature known as Bigfoot existed but she agreed to run the analysis anyway. What she found astounded her. The mtDNA tested human but the hair was not human. Dr. Ketchum remarked “The hair, visually, is not human. It’s courser than horse tail hair” When Dr. Ketchum compared the sequence to Genbank she could not find a match, she again remarks “There are literally millions of sequences in this database and we’re really shocked that it didn’t match any of the species exactly in the database”

About the same time David Paulides, executive director of  North American Bigfoot Search, was looking for a lab to test possible Bigfoot hair samples.

David was having a difficult time finding a lab that would test the samples, when the labs found out the samples were possible Bigfoot samples, they would refuse to test the samples. Fate brought David to gather with Melba as the Josh Gates hair sample had her curious and now open minded about the possibility of the Bigfoot being a real living, breathing creature. David approached Melba to test the samples and she agreed.  This began the DNA study.

My involvement

In June of 2010 I began to correspond with David Paulides the Executive Director of North American Bigfoot Search (NABS). I realized that I needed assistance with my research. I was encountering phenomenon and having experiences that were extraordinary. I needed to find a support network that I could partner with in my research. I began researching the different Bigfoot Research organizations and I found NABS to be the most professional, respectful and responsive group. I had read David Paulides’ book “The Hoopa Project” and was already impressed with his logical approach to Bigfoot research, so I introduced myself to the group via email correspondence.

 I began to bounce questions off NABS and relate my experiences to them on a regular basis. I also began to collect hair samples and would forward them to NABS periodically. I also sent NABS videos and photographs of the Bigfoot I was encountering in my research areas. The relationship matured and in February of 2011 David invited me to join the NABS Team as a Field Researcher. I gladly accepted his offer. 

 NABS had already partnered with Dr. Melba Ketchum and had started a ground breaking project to collect Bigfoot DNA specimens from all over the North American continent.

I had started working with NABS on this project in the spring/summer of 2010 even before I became a team member. David and I discussed the matter and the need to humanely collect as much DNA from the Bigfoot as possible. 

Through collaboration we came up with an innovative strategy. I took clear packing tape and placed it sticky side out. When the Bigfoot would lean or rub up against the tree their hair would stick to the tape and be pulled out by the roots. The root of the hair contains the DNA. I placed this “hair trap” around the tree the Bigfoot where hiding behind when I captured them on the trail camera in August of 2010. The trail cameras were still deployed in this area on the same trees. I was hopeful the Bigfoot would hide behind this tree again while observing the trail camera. The effort was successful and I collected a large amount of Bigfoot hair.

The Possible Donors:

Follow-Up - Same location size comparison

To scale comparison in same location

My Samples

In 2010 David Paulides and Melba Ketchum went on the Coast to Coast radio show to make a public plea for Bigfoot hair and other possible samples that could yield DNA. Hundreds of samples came in.

I sent in approximately thirty hair samples. Eleven passed the screening process and were included in the Sasquatch Genome Study.

Below are some of the samples I collected:

The “Hair Trap”

Below is how I deployed the hair trap using "bacon grease" for bait.

Eleven of my hair samples went through the screening process and were tested and determined to be from a Bigfoot.

Below is the list of my samples from the Sasquatch Genome Study.

The Team

There is a common misconception that Dr. Ketchum worked alone with little or no assistance. This is not true. Dr. Ketchum collaborated with at least ten other individuals with expertise in many areas to include forensics, DNA analysis, microbiology, molecular biology, biophysics and biochemistry just to mention a few.

Below is the list of the team, their credentials, and their contribution to the DNA Study.

Dr. Andreas Holzenburg
Director,  Professor, Department of Biology, Professor, Biochemistry and Biophysics

Microscopy and Imaging Center

Texas A&M University

Has published over 30 Papers

Fan Zhang, Ph.D.
Bioinformatician in the Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology (AIRT) at the University of North Texas Health Science Center.

Dr.  Pat Wojtkiewicz
Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section. He has been employed at the crime lab since 1977.

Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Wayne State University in Michigan
Molecular biologist with a background that also includes evolutionary biology, microbiology and biochemistry.

 Dr. Douglas G. Toler

Clinical pathologist at Huguley Memorial Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, for the past 30 years. His specialty also includes anatomical pathology. He is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center.

Ms. Aliece Watts of Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless, TX

BS, MS, MT(ASCP), PBT(ASCP), F-ABC is a founding partner and the Quality Director for Integrated Forensic Laboratories, Inc., the nation’s only private, full-service, accredited forensic laboratory. With over 30 years of laboratory experience and three board certifications (Forensic Biology, Medical Technology and Phlebotomy), Ms. Watts has an extensive background in Forensic DNA and Quality Assurance. She is an ASCLD/LAB International (ISO 17025) assessor and has traveled to Malaysia to inspect that country’s laboratory system for accreditation. She is a former member of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a Governor appointed and Senate approved position. Ms. Watts is an alumna of the University of Texas at Arlington where she also taught Introduction to Forensic Science Laboratory, Forensic Biology (DNA) and Methods in Forensic Biology Laboratory.

David W. Spence - Trace evidence supervisor with the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Criminal Investigations Laboratory, at Dallas County, Texas.

Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith of DNA Diagnostics.

The following is a list of the Team and some of the areas they contributed to the DNA Study.

Dr. Ketchum, Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz, David Spence, Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg, Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith performed experiments.

Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Fan Zhang analyzed the genetic data.

Dr. Ketchum., Aliece Watts, and Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz wrote and edited the manuscript.

Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg analyzed and wrote the Electron Microscopy portion of the manuscript.

David Spence analyzed and wrote the hair analysis portion of the manuscript.

Dr. Douglas G. Toler analyzed and wrote the histopathology portion of the manuscript. 

Aliece Watts. also researched pertinent additions to the manuscript and helped with data collection.

Dr. Ketchum distributed samples, collected and combined data from the blind studies.

The Laboratories used in the blind studies.

Again there is a misconception that Dr. Ketchum processed all the samples in her facility. This is not true. Dr. Ketchum realized with the implications of this study blind testing was a must. She contracted the services of the following laboratories to perform blind testing on the samples and return the results. This means the laboratories had no idea what they were testing. They were just given the samples and ask to run a DNA profile.

#	Laboratory	Type of Testing			Paid	Blind Study			Author ship
1	North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory, Shreveport LA	Forensic DNA Extraction and DNA quantification			No	No			Yes
2	DNA Diagnostics, Nacogdoches, Texas	Forensic Extraction, Species Screening, Preliminary Species Sequencing and STR PP16 genotyping, mtDNA and nuDNA, testing known submitter (human) samples.			No	Yes			No
3	Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Dallas, TX	Hair Analysis			No	Yes			No
4	Family Tree DNA, Houston, TX	mtDNA confirmation and mtDNA whole genome sequencing and haplotype assignment, PP16 STR confirmation testing and YSTR testing. Single locus Amelogenin testing			Yes	No			Yes
5	SeqWright, Houston, TX	mtDNA screening confirmation, sequenced various selected nuDNA loci and confirmation of mtDNA species sequencing, sequencing of various amelogenin exons			Yes	No			Yes
6	Helix Biological Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan	Blind parallel mtDNA testing of certain submitted samples. This work was done previous to our project and only became aware of this testing after we had confirmed mtDNA species ID on the same samples.			No	Yes			No
7	USC, Los Angeles, CA	Whole genome Bead Array SNP analysis			Yes	No			Yes
8	University of Texas at Arlington, Wakeland Laboratory		Next Generation whole genome sequencing and bioinformatics	Yes			No	Yes
9	UNT Center for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX		Confirmation of bioinformatics	Yes			Yes	No
10	Texas A&M University, College Station, TX		Electron Microscopy confirmation	Yes			Yes	Yes
11	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina		Electron Microscopy. The director was unhappy about the blind study and refused recognition in the ms. He did give us the data to use.	No			No	Yes
12	Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX		Histopathology	Yes			No	No
13	Huguley Pathology Consultants, Ft. Worth, TX		Histopathology confirmation	No			Yes	No

The Samples

The screening and handling of the hair, blood, saliva, and flesh samples.

Screening the hair

Before the hair was considered for testing it was first screened to ensure it was not human or any other known animal.  Below is the documentation from the DNA Study of how the hair was screened.

Hair Analysis:

Hair samples were sent to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for analysis. (Mr. David Spence)  The samples were evaluated visually, stereoscopically, and by light microscopy to determine human or animal origin. Hairs that were classified as potential novel hominid were also evaluated for DNA typing potential by examining for root material. Only hairs that were not human in appearance and could not be identified as any other species were utilized in this study15-19.

The hairs were examined for a variety of microscopic features such as: medulla, pigmentation, cortical fusi, ovoid bodies, cuticle, and root and tip characteristics. The hair cuticle patterns of select hairs were cast by embedding the hair shafts in a thin layer of clear fingernail polish. The casts were examined microscopically. Photographs and photomicrographs were taken of select hairs using a Canon G3 digital camera and a camera adapter (model MM3XS) from Martin Microscope.

Bigfoot hair shafts do not yield mtDNA

During the early stages of the study Dr. Ketchum discovered that unlike human and animal hair Bigfoot hair will not yield mtDNA. The hair had to have a skin tag attached. Several thousand dollars were spent on attempting to process hair shafts only. This is why we developed a method of extracting hair that pulled them out by the roots.

Sample Collection

An eye witness observed the subject leave the hair sample and the event was documented.

•        David Paulides sample from Northern California (Raven Ulibarri – Hoopa Reservation).

•        Mary Green samples from Tennessee.

•        Janice Carter samples from Tennessee.

•        Paul Freeman sample from Washington State.

•        Robert Densford sample from Oklahoma.

•        Ericson Project samples from British Columbia, Canada.

•        Dr. Webb Sentell sample from Louisiana.

•        Jennifer Hilaman sample from Virginia.

The hair sample was collected from a known Bigfoot feeding station or area of activity.

•        Scott Carpenter – Hair traps at feeding stations and locations where Bigfoot had been witnesses/recorded on video.

•        Erickson Project – Samples gathered from scratching post, blood samples obtain using sand paper on plates. (Under supervision of a wild life biologist)

•        Dr. Al Guinn – Multiple hairs found in cast of Bigfoot footprint.

•        Dr. Curt Nelson – Blood/Flesh from 18 inch footprint left on nail board, Snelgrove Lake, Ontario.

Integrity Of The Samples

•        111 Samples were used in the study to include, blood, tissue, hair, toe nail, tooth enamel.

•        17 of the samples were collected from direct sighting locations where a witness or investigator watched Bigfoot leave sample.

•        88 of the samples were collected by investigators or formal research projects in and around known areas of activity.

•        Only 6 samples were “randomly” found in the woods where Bigfoots were known to have been active.

 

NO CONTAMINATION

The hair samples that were processed were not contaminated. Critics of the study claimed that the hair samples “had to be contaminated”. The critics were also raised questions about of the chain of custody.

The relevancy of the chain of custody is a fallacy. The DNA paper is a research paper, not a criminal investigation. Where the hair came from or who handled it is irrelevant when it concerns contamination.

From Dr. Ketchum’s Face Book Page:

Somebody was told that the lack of chain of custody of our samples negated our scientific findings. This is not the case. First, most of our samples had pretty good chain of custody and some of them were as good as any sample from a crime scene as far as documentation and chain of custody.

Chain of custody is used in forensics to make sure the unknown samples from the crime scene are tracked from their recovery until they are tested and therefore not altered in any way. This insures that nobody tampers with the samples. The samples themselves are often of unknown origin. For example, a blood spatter on a wall could have come from anyone, victim, suspect or even an unknown individual. Of course chain of custody is a must when you are working a crime scene. We had really good chain of custody on a lot of the samples. However, this testing is a little different than a forensic case in that we were simply trying to determine the source of the samples, human, animal, or unknown. It's nice to have chain of custody and eyewitnesses collecting hair, but if you go out to the country and find a strand of hair on a fence, it could be washed and tested to determine what species it came from regardless of where it came from or who handled it because you can't alter the DNA. We're not trying to place an individual at a crime scene. In this type of scientific investigation, there is no crime and it doesn't matter where it's found, only what the DNA shows matters and DNA can't be altered with the kind of testing we did.. Therefore, it is nice but not imperative to have chain of custody since the DNA will tell you what the sample was from.

Decontaminating the hair samples

The DNA study used forensic methods to wash and decontaminate the hair samples. The process is documented in detail in the DNA study. The fact that the samples were not contaminated is apparent in the results of the DNA analysis.

In the Bigfoot Files - Yeti episode Dr. Sykes confirmed and validated the decontamination protocols used by the DNA Study to ensure the hair samples were pure and not contaminated. Below is the statement from Dr. Sykes:

The fact is hair is very resilient. You can clean any suggestion of contamination from the surface of the hair without damaging the DNA that lies within. This is something we have only known in the past couple of years.

Below is the documentation from the DNA Study of the cleaning process.

DNA Isolation

Since the presence of normal human DNA contamination of submitted samples was a primary concern throughout this study, all samples were thoroughly cleaned in a manner consistent with forensic testing procedures. In order to further rule out contamination from human personnel and lab workers, samples from submitters and scientists working with the samples were collected for comparison with the results obtained in the various DNA tests.

Hair samples were then sorted into two groups for extraction at DNA Diagnostics. DNA from those samples containing 5-50 or more single hair roots were selected and the roots clipped into 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes. The hair roots were thoroughly cleansed with water and ethanol prior to extraction to remove any extraneous DNA.

Flesh, Blood, Sylvia

Sample 26 -  A piece of flesh, hide, and hair reported to be from Bigfoot that was shot in Northern California.

Sample 31 - Blood collected from a plate that had sand paper on it to cut the tongue when the Bigfoot licked it. This was collected by the Erickson Project under the supervision of a PhD in wildlife biology.

Sample 140 – Blood/Plague/Tatar collected of a down spout that had been bitten into and punctured.

Processing the samples

Sample 26 – Flesh with hair

A small sample of flesh with hair was analyzed by Douglas G. Toler, MD, F.C.A.P. of the Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Huguley Pathology Consultants, P.A. 11803 S. Freeway Ft. Worth, TX 76115. Dr. Toler determined that the skin was not human and that the tissue was not contaminated with bacteria or fungus.

Several hairs with follicles from Sample 26 and sent it to Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for analysis. The hairs were processed robotically.

A core sample from the flesh was taken to ensure no contamination. This sample contained a high quality DNA that yielded both mtDNA and nuDNA.

The nuDNA was of a high enough quantity and quality that core samples underwent a structural analysis using electron microscopy.

Sample 31 Blood from food trap.

Sample 31 was collected from a research site using a food trap and forensic techniques to ensure that there was no human contamination.  The DNA extracted from the blood was of high enough quality and quantity for a complete nuDNA genome. Sample 31 was collected and submitted by the Erickson Project. The collect of the DNA via the food traps was supervised by a PhD.

Sample 140 – Fresh dried blood from down spout.

Sample 140 was fresh dried blood from the inside of a vertical downspout that had been chewed and the individual was injured by sharp metal. The inside of the downspout was clean and untouched by humans and the blood sample fresh and pristine. Large bite marks, hair, and fang marks were also evident on the downspout. The pipe was crushed to the point that the metal was torn with force. The DNA extracted from the blood was of high enough quality and quantity for a complete nuDNA genome.

DNA Boot Camp

What is DNA

First let’s define DNA. DNA is short for deoxyribonucleic acid, it is the molecule that contains the genetic code of all organisms. DNA is in each cell in the organism and tells cells what proteins to make. A cell's proteins determine its function. DNA is inherited by children from their parents. The DNA in a person is a combination of the DNA from each of their parents.

DNA has a double helix shape, which is like a ladder twisted into a spiral. Each step of the ladder is a pair of nucleotides. The four nucleotides in this ladder are adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). The nitrogen bases are found in pairs. 'A' only pairs with 'T', and 'C' only pairs with 'G'. The bases are held together by hydrogen bonds. If you unzip the DNA so you only have one side of the ladder you still know what the corresponding nucleotide is because DNA can only pair in this order. This is important to understand for discussions later on in this chapter.

There are two types of DNA, Nuclear and Mitochondrial. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is found in cell mitochondria and is from the mother only. Nuclear DNA (nuDNA) if found in the cell nucleus and is a combination of genetic code from both the father and the mother. mtDNA is more abundant and easier to extract and test. nuDNA is more difficult to extract and test therefor samples in quality and quantity are required for successful extraction nuDNA.

Definition of terms

·       Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is found in cell mitochondria and is from the mother only.

·       Nuclear DNA (nuDNA) is found in the cell nucleus and is a combination of genetic code from both the father and the mother.

·       Genbank is an institution that collects and stores DNA sequences for ALL life forms on the planet. Once a DNA sequence is placed into the database comparative analysis can be run on it using a special software program called BLAST.

·       BLAST is a software engine that compares a DNA sequence against all the DNA sequences stored in the Genbank database and reports any matches from this database. The current number of base pairs stored in the Genbank database is 152,599,230,112.

The above diagram shows the difference in mtDNA and nuDNA and from who it originates.

Now that we have the DNA basics down, how do you perform a DNA test?

DNA is tightly wound together in its natural state. Think of it like a jumbled wad of rubber bands tangled and intertwined. In order to sequence the DNA the strands must be unwound or broken into sections and unzipped. Remember you only need one side of the helix or ladder to decode DNA because as I have previously pointed out,  A/T and C/G are always paired together. So if we have one side of the ladder we know what the other side has to be. 

Special enzymes are used to break down the DNA and unzip them into single strands. Once we have the DNA broken down into strands we need to stack like strands together. There are multiple copies of the DNA in the cell. So when the DNA is broken down we may have thousands of copies of the same sequences. We now need to stack these like threads together one on top of the other so we can see the sequences. DNA testing is like a transparency picture. If you only have one copy of the transparency it is light and difficult to see. But if you have 25 copies of the same transparency and you stack them together one on top of the other then you can see the picture clearly. DNA testing is the same way. The greater the DNA density the better, this will make the DNA easier to see or what is known as “Amplifying”.

In order to “stack” the DNA together scientist use what is known as a primer. The primer’s basic function is to gather like strands of DNA together and stack them so it is easier to see the DNA sequence or amplify the sequence. In the early days of DNA testing primers had to be designed for individual species and even subspecies within a family of organisms. For example primers were developed for humans, bears, dogs, cats, pigs, cattle, etc. If you were trying to identify unknown DNA you would use the primer for the individual species on the sample. If the primer found and stacked the DNA together or amplified the DNA then you knew you had this species. If nothing was amplified then you knew you did not have this particular species. These primers still exist today but as scientific advancements have been made in the field of DNA processing machines were developed that could process the DNA faster and more accurately. Primers were also developed to help speed up the process. What is known as a “Universal Mammal Primer” was developed. 

Scientist with the use of a DNA Sequencer and Universal Primers can now process DNA and get a profile faster and more accurately. Just like with the species specific primers if you use a mammal primer and the DNA does not amplify then your DNA sample is not from mammal. Here is a very important aspect to DNA testing. The test will be affected by the quantity, quality, and purity of the DNA sample. If you have multiple copies of the DNA strands, the strands are not damaged and intact, and the DNA is all from the same organism then the primer will amplify correctly and you will get good clear results. If you have limited amounts that are contaminated the results will not amplify well. To use the transparency analogy again, now you have two transparencies of two different pictures. Some parts of the picture may be alike some different. So when the primers stack them on top of each other the picture is fuzzy and blurred and not easy to recognize. 

Below is a close up of DNA ladders on an agarose gel.

The process I have just described in very simple language is known as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).  This is the method the independent reference labs and Dr. Ketchum used in the DNA Study to sequence the Sasquatch DNA. Since Dr. Ketchum was aware critics and the scientific community would be crying contamination she set up extremely strict processing methods in order to ensure she obtained non-contaminated DNA from a single source. She used forensic laboratories and processes to gather, wash, and then process the DNA. The same processes and standards were used that law enforcement laboratories use when processing DNA.  She also used forensic laboratories in blind studies so the laboratories did not know what kind of DNA samples they were receiving. They received the DNA, forensically processed it, and then returned the results to Dr. Ketchum.

The Testing and Results

Hair samples - Non-Human hair yields HUMAN mitochondrial DNA

Below is the section of the Sasquatch Genome Study Concerning the hair screening results:

The medulla and root were found to be the two most discriminating characteristics of the microscopic examination. Most of the novel hairs had medullary structures and diameter ratios that were clearly distinct from human hairs. Even though a variety of medullary structures were observed, the micrographs in Figure 5B depict those most commonly encountered. Most of the novel hairs had elongated roots with a somewhat “spade” shape, which is a feature of some animal hairs but is typically not seen in human hairs (Figure 5C, left). Human hairs exhibit characteristic uniform imbricate scale patterns of the cuticle. Several different cuticle patterns were observed on the submitted samples. The hairs exhibited wide imbricate scale patterns proximally that transformed to close imbricate patterns distally. These patterns are distinctly non-human in appearance (Figure 5C, right). Most of the submitted hairs were not microscopically consistent with any of the hairs from the reference collection of common animal hairs that included human, cat, dog, cow, horse, deer, elk, antelope, moose, sheep, fox, bear, coyote, wolf, rat, mouse, monkey, beaver, squirrel, llama and others.

The hairs were evaluated for DNA testing by observing the presence or absence of hair roots and adherent tissue material. Hairs with apparent translucent tissue material and/or anagen or catagen phase roots were considered as suitable candidates for nuclear DNA (nuDNA) testing. Hairs with telogen phase roots without tissue or hairs lacking roots or tissue were considered suitable for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing. Hairs that exhibited non-human microscopic characteristics and that did not match any known animal species were recommended for DNA testing.

The “smoking gun”

It is important to note that until the DNA study many hair samples had been tested throughout the years and they kept coming back “human Mitochondrial DNA”. David Paulides noticed this trend and wrote about it on his blog

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html

The first place that NABS turned for information about bigfoot DNA was “The Track Record”, a newsletter produced by Ray Crowe for 17 years. There was not an index for the track record at the time, we reviewed all 174 documents and gleaned the DNA articles and submissions. After reviewing the Track Record documents we turned to the web to see what it had to offer, not much. The year we undertook this review was 2005 and many of the television shows about bigfoot did not exist.

Results

The results of our research found that over 95% of the DNA on purported bigfoot specimens returned as “Human”. NABS found this as an extremely puzzling result considering the “BIG” names in the bigfoot world that consider themselves researchers proclaimed that bigfoot was a type of ape. Many of these “researchers” claimed that the DNA showing “human” was compromised or contaminated and the results should be disregarded. We saw this same discussion time after time, discount the results, they are wrong. Again, almost every moderately famous researcher known for investigating bigfoot issues proclaimed the studies and results were flawed, every one!

Refusing to accept the possibility that the Bigfoot could be closely related to humans the results were always explained away as “human contamination”. In fact these were most likely legitimate Bigfoot samples yielding human DNA. It is statically very improbable that the scores of samples tested over the years were all contaminated. If even one was legitimate then we have some ground breaking findings that validate the finds of the DNA Study.

When Dr. Ketchum analyzed the mtDNA contained in the skin tags of the Bigfoot hair every sample tested human. The point cannot be stressed enough, NON-Human hair yielded HUMAN mtDNA. When you link the eye witness testimony that witnessed a large hairy bipedal hominid leaving the hair you now have empirical evidence that Bigfoot is a human hybrid.

Below is the summary of the hair results from the Sasquatch Genome Study:

One hundred eleven samples of blood, tissue, hair, and other types of specimens were studied, characterized and hypothesized to be obtained from elusive hominins in North America commonly referred to as Sasquatch. DNA was extracted and purified from a subset of these samples that survived rigorous screening for wildlife species identification. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing, specific genetic loci sequencing, forensic short tandem repeat (STR) testing, whole genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) bead array analysis, and next generation whole genome sequencing were conducted on purported Sasquatch DNA samples gathered from various locations in North America. Additionally, histopathologic and electron microscopic examination were performed on a large tissue sample.

The mtDNA whole genome haplotypes obtained were uniformly consistent with modern humans. Of the 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes sequenced, 16 diverse haplotypes were found suggesting that these hominins did not originate in a single geographic location.

In summary, our data indicates that the Sasquatch has human mitochondrial DNA but possesses nuclear DNA that is a structural mosaic consisting of human and novel non-human DNA.

Below is Sasquatch hair compared to human hair:

Source: (http://www.human-resonance.org/sasquatch_genome.html )

Species determination - mtDNA

The hair samples were tested using universal mitochondrial DNA cytochrome b primers for species determination.

The results:  All 111 screened samples revealed 100% human cytochrome b. Furthermore no heteroplasmic bases were found that would indicate contamination or a mixture. Heteroplasmy is defined as the presence of more than one mitochondrial genome within a tissue sample from a single individual. No heteroplasmic bases  were found, the mtDNA was from a single source therefor contamination is impossible.

mtDNA complete genome sequencing and HV region (haplotype) sequencing results

In order for one to understand the following results the term haplotype. A haplotype is the group of genes that a child inherits from the mother. Like haplotypes are grouped together and assigned a letter from alphabet. This grouping is called a haplogroup.

HV region sequencing will give the haplotype of the individual.

Thirty hair samples that had ample skin tags were selected for mtDNA complete genome sequencing and for HV region sequencing to determine the haplogroup of the samples.  The samples were sent to Family Tree DNA for sequencing. The source of the samples was withheld from Family Tree DNA.

Results

From the study:

DNA samples were successfully amplified and sequenced across the whole mitochondrial genome and the HV1 locus using both human specific and universal primers. The sequences that were subjected to BLAST searches in GenBank®40 showed consistent homology with human haplotypes. No mitochondrial DNA homology with apes, Neanderthal or Denisova cave sequences were found.

The results showed that the mtDNA was human. The haplotypes were human. Blast searches showed that the sequences did not match Apes, Neanderthal, or Denisovan. Of the thirty samples twenty yielded whole mitochondrial sequences and ten yielded partial mitochondrial genomes. The thirty samples showed sixteen different human haplotypes.

The interesting and unexpected finding is the origin of the haplotypes.  The majority of the haplotypes show origination from Europe, Asia, and Africa. On only four of the haplotypes originated close to where the samples were collected in North America.
 

Source for haplotype stats and map:

(Source: http://www.human-resonance.org/sasquatch_genome.html)

The North American haplotypes represented the following Native American Tribes:

Haplotype A6L2c - Inuit and Nivkh peoples

Haplotype C - Evenks and Yakuts peoples

Haplotype D -  Aleuts people

The Asian, African, and Europe haplotypes represented the following peoples:

Haplotypes H and T - European peoples

Haplotype V – Arctic Saami

Haplotype H1a (Sample 26, flesh/hair) - Basque of the Pyrenees mountains

Haplotype L0d2a - South African Khoisan peoples

Nuclear DNA Analysis of the 30 samples

The amelogenin gene was sequenced from the thirty samples. The amelogenin gene is the gene in humans that is related to tooth and enamel development. It is used in humans to determine the sex of unknown human subjects.

Results

The DNA samples yielded four types of results: XX, XY, Y and null. The X chromosome failing to amplify also known as “dropout” was considered by Dr. Ketchum as the “most significant of the findings observed with the STR genotype analysis of amelogenin.”

Below is the result table from the study:

From the chart above seven samples only yielded a Y chromosome. Twelve of the samples that amplified and yielded human haplotypes failed to amplify for sex determination. This is very strange, but in my opinion to be expected from a creature like a Sasquatch.

Some of the samples indicated a normal human X chromosome while others failed completely to amplify.

When the Y chromosome was amplified across Exons (exons are parts of DNA that are converted into mature messenger RNA) 1, 2, 4/5 and 8, varied results were obtained, with no samples successfully amplifying and sequencing across all five exons (except the human controls).

When the nuDNA sequences were compared to Genbank using a BLAST search, none of the nuDNA sequences matched any organism in the database.  Again DNA that had human haplotypes contained sequences that do not match any known organism.

Many sequences failed to amplify with the human primers.

From the DNA study:

The documented anomalies came from DNA samples that yielded long sequences with pristine electropherograms at other loci including at least one AmelY exon. Notably, this indicated that the DNA was of high quality and that degraded DNA was not responsible for the anomalies.

Below is table 4 showing the above described results:

The nuDNA of selected samples were tested for the following human specific genes:

MC1R - human/Neanderthal red-hair color gene

TAP1 SNPs - human antigen gene

MYH16 - This gene is associated with the sagittal crest in apes and was analyzed in an effort to determine if the unknown hominin was related to apes.

MC1R - human/Neanderthal red-hair color gene

Samples 28, 33, 35 and 37 had sufficient DNA extracted and were chosen for MC1R locus sequencing. The primers used for the MC1R gene were for apes, humans, and Neanderthals.

The samples were sequenced at DNA diagnostics and SeqWright lab.

DNA Diagnostic Results: The samples indicated normal human MC1R sequence and carried alleles for red hair color in humans. The samples were not from apes or Neanderthals.

SeqWright Lab Results: Partial human sequences in some DNA samples, while others had unknown sequences that were not human, ape, or Neanderthal, and still others failed to amplify.

All human control DNA amplified and sequenced successfully from both labs.

MYH16 - This gene is associated with the sagittal crest in apes and was analyzed in an effort to determine if the unknown hominin was related to apes.

The primers used were for both ape and human.

The samples were sequenced at DNA diagnostics and SeqWright lab.

DNA Diagnostic Results: All DNA samples that successfully amplified yielded results consistent with humans and aligned with the human reference sequences.

SeqWright Lab Results: All DNA samples consistent with humans.

TAP1- human antigen gene associated with breast cancer, diabetes and several other syndromes.

DNA Diagnostic Results:  Some samples showed human TAP 1 sequences and others failed to amplify. Unknown sequences were found and some amplifications with TAP 1 primers yielded long sequence of unknown origin. Two sets of 2 samples had long unknown sequences that failed to match anything Genbank, but interestingly matched each other. Two of these samples, samples 33 and 44, matched with one another although there were some SNPs that were inconsistent between the two sequences. These two samples were different in hair color and obviously were from different individuals and were retrieved at different times. Samples 33 and 44 were collected from the same general area and the donors are thought to be related. Samples 10 and 43 also matched each other. Samples 33/44 TAP 1 sequences were different than Samples 10/43. Sample 33 and 44 were supposed to be related individuals, while samples 10 and 43 came from different locations. 

Whole Human Genome SNP analysis:

Twenty-four samples were tested on the whole human genome (2.5 million SNPs) Illumina® Bead Array69 platform using the Illumina® iSCAN instrument.  All of the 24 samples failed to meet the human threshold of 95% SNP performance. The results ranged from 53% to 89% SNP performance.

Dr. Ketchum attempted to duplicate these odd results by purposely degrading human blood samples. The samples were degraded with bacteria. Even though the samples were degraded they were successfully sequenced and tested at 97.15% compared to the 89% of the non-degraded Sasquatch samples.

To further rule out contamination and address the possibility that normal human DNA samples could produce such markedly low SNP performance in the Illumina® Bead Array assay, a separate group of human DNA controls was tested. These samples were extracted from buccal swabs obtained from sample handlers and laboratory workers and were also subjected to identical Illumina® Bead Array testing. These human control DNA samples yielded SNP performance above the 99%.

Below is table 8 from the Sasquatch Genome project that shows the scores of the Sasquatch samples compared to the purposely degraded human samples.

Conclusion from the Sasquatch Genome project:

The failures across all 2.5 million SNPs tested in the Illumina® Bead Array when compared with the human threshold designated above 95% SNP detection, even in severely degraded human DNA samples, suggests sequence variation from human in the actual DNA obtained from the unknown hominin samples.

The findings reveal that non-human hair, that  yielded human mtDNA,  failed to yield human results when the nuDNA was tested for human SNPs.

Electron microscopic examination of Sample 26

Sample 26 was selected to be examined by an electron microscope. The sample was selected because of its purity and lack of degradation. The electron microscope analysis was used for the following reasons: (From the Sasquatch Genome Study)

Electron microscopic characterization is considered superior to biochemical techniques when it comes to an accurate topographical analysis of single- and double-stranded DNA such as contour length/width, twisting, backfolding, nucleic acid-protein interactions, DNA-RNA heteroduplex analysis, R-loop mapping, degradation, replication, or packaging into higher order complexes.

The results from the microscopic examination:

·       Long double stranded DNA up to 15-20 kb, but some of the DNA also comprised smaller fragments.

·       Most of the DNA showed clustering of material along the length or at ends and were typical of disordered single-stranded segments.

·       There were also frequent single-stranded gaps and single-stranded ends which were not observed with the degraded human DNA control sample.

·       Occasionally, with the single-stranded ends, a back folding was observed that is typical for unspecific base pairing that can occur in the absence of treatment with formaldehyde glyoxal or elevated temperatures.

·       Single-stranded DNA segments residing within double-stranded .

Summary of the microscopic results:

Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR. The high quantities of single stranded DNA, interspersed with double stranded DNA may suggest substantial structural abnormalities of the DNA itself. The DNA was visualized twice by electron microscopy from aliquots of two different extractions from the same sample 26. Both of these extractions not only had yielded successful PCR amplifications previously, but were combined and utilized for whole genome nuclear sequencing at a later time. Alternatively, the abundance of single-stranded loci observed by electronic microscopic could be evidence of genetic manipulation of the Sasquatch genome.

Figure 12-B from the Sasquatch Genome Study showing the unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions.

Below is a graphic drawing of the unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions.

Next Generation Whole Genome Sequencing

Due to the large number of failures to amplify, failure to meet the human SNP threshold and unusual sequences obtained, Dr. Ketchum selected three samples (26, 31 and 140) with large amounts of high quality DNA were selected for next generation whole genome sequencing.

The DNA from these three samples was sequenced using the next generation Illumina platform at the University of Texas, Southwestern in Dallas, TX, a laboratory that sequences human genomes.

In depth analysis of all three genomic sequences (samples 26, 31 and 140) was performed at the University of Texas, Southwestern and alignment confirmed by the University of North Texas Health Science Center.

Below is a picture of the instrument used to sequence the DNA

Q30 Scores

The run summary generated by the HiSeq 2000 next generation sequencer provides scores called Q30 for run quality and purity of the samples. The Q30 can also be used to determine if there was any contamination (or mixture) found in the samples sequenced. According to Illumina, a pure, single source sample would have an Q30 score of 80 or greater with an average of 85. However, if there was contamination present in the sample sequenced, the sequences would compete against one another prior to sequencing causing a contaminated sample to have a Q30 score of 40 to 50. The Q30 scores for the three genomes sequenced had Q30 scores of 88.6, 88.4 and 88.7 for samples 26, 31 and 140. The Q30 scores conclusively prove that the sequences were from a single source, non-contaminated, and that the qualities of the sequences were far above the average genome (80) sequenced using the Illumina next generation sequencing platform.

Results

The three genomes matched each other and were form the same “unknown” species.

The three genomes were compared to all the genomes in Genbank. The BLAST search did not match any known sequence in the Genbank database.

The mtDNA sequences produced by the Illumina next generation platform matched the mtDNA sequences extracted from the same samples by Family Tree DNA in the early stages of the study.

The genomes from samples 26 and 140 were used to produce a primate “family tree” using a tool provided by Genbank called BLASTn. This produces a graphic representation of where the genome falls in the primate family.

Below is the primate family tree from the Sasquatch Genome Study.

Sasquatch Genome Study Conclusion Summary

·         Over a five-year period more than one hundred samples of hair, tissue, tree bark shavings, saliva, flesh, teeth, fingernails, tooth enamel and blood were submitted by a nationwide team of individuals from 14 US states and two Canadian provinces.

·         All samples were screened prior to DNA analysis to eliminate common wildlife species using a variety of methodologies, including microscopic morphological examination and comparison against a large reference collection of known North American wildlife hair.

·         Over one hundred hair samples passed the initial screen and were determined not to be human or from a known wildlife species.

·         It was discovered during testing that Sasquatch hair alone would not yield mtDNA. This was unusual because both human and animal hair will yield mtDNA. Only hair samples with ample skin tags were selected for the study.

·         To avoid contamination the hair samples were forensically processed and cleaned.

·         The hair samples were sent to multiple labs for blind testing. All the samples were determined to be human, with results consistent with human mtDNA.

·         Nonhuman hair yielded human mtDNA.

·         Results from purported Sasquatch samples tested over the previous two decades had always yielded a result of human mtDNA. These results were always dismissed as “human contamination.” The results of the Sasquatch DNA study support the conclusion that these samples were, in fact, Sasquatch samples.

·         Thirty mtDNA samples were selected for complete genome sequencing and HV region (haplotype) sequencing results. The samples yielded haplotypes that showed the origination of the Sasquatches to be from Asia, Africa, and Europe.  Only four out of the thirty haplotypes originated close to where the hair samples were collected in North America.  Also, none of the samples contained mtDNA from apes, Neanderthals, or Denisovans.

·         The amelogenin gene from the nuDNA of the same thirty samples was sequenced to determine the sex of the subjects. Mixed results were obtained for human chromosomes with some failing to amplify while others would only amplify the Y chromosome. Pure non-contaminated samples that yielded human mtDNA failed at times to amplify when human primers are used for sex determination.

·         The samples were tested for the MC1R - human/Neanderthal red hair color gene, MYH16 - This gene is associated with the sagittal crest in apes and was analyzed in an effort to determine if the unknown hominin was related to apes, and the TAP1- human antigen gene associated with breast cancer, diabetes and several other syndromes. The MC1R results were human, no ape or Neanderthal sequences.  The MYH16 results were human. The TAP1 results showed unknown when compared to the GenBank database, but the samples matched each other.

·         Twenty-four samples were tested on the whole human genome (2.5 million SNPs) Illumina® Bead Array platform using the Illumina® iSCAN instrument.  All of the 24 samples failed to meet the human threshold of 95% SNP performance. The results ranged from 53% to 89% SNP performance.  Attempts were made to duplicate these results with degraded human control DNA. The attempts were unsuccessful. The degraded human DNA scored 97.15% compared to the non-degraded Sasquatch DNA that scored 89% at best. The mtDNA from these samples tested human, but the nuDNA results for the SNPs were non-human.

·         A core sample was taken from the flesh sample number 26 and examined under an electron microscope. The results showed the nuDNA to be very unusual and non-human. Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions. This evidence suggests that the Sasquatch nuDNA had some time in the past been genetically manipulated.

·         Three samples that contained ample nuDNA were selected for Next Generation Whole Genome Sequencing. The DNA from these three samples was sequenced using the next generation Illumina platform at the University of Texas, Southwestern in Dallas, TX. In-depth analysis of all three genomic sequences (samples 26, 31 and 140) was performed at the University of Texas, Southwestern, and alignment confirmed by the University of North Texas Health Science Center. The resulting genomes were compared to the complete GenBank database using a BLAST search. The genomes did not match any organism in the GenBank Database. The three genomes were from a completely unknown species yet, the three samples aligned and matched each other.

Summation:

DNA from over one hundred separate samples of hair, tissue, toenail, bark scrapings, saliva and blood obtained from dozens of collection sites throughout North America have been extracted, analyzed, and sequenced. The hair samples were not consistent with human or any known wildlife hairs. Analysis of the DNA found that the mitochondrial DNA was human, but the nuclear DNA was from an unknown source. All known ape and relic hominin species such as Neanderthal and Denisovan were eliminated as being contributors to both the nuclear and mitochondrial sequences. Whole genome analysis showed that the Sasquatch is an unknown human hybrid species with some DNA sequences not matching humans or any known species.

From the Sasquatch Genome Study:  The data clearly supports that these hominins exist as a novel species of primate. The data further suggest that they are human hybrids originating from human females. This hybridization can be likened to humans with Denisovan admixture resulting from Denisovan males mating with human females. The same type of mating potentially occurred with Sasquatch; however, in the case of Sasquatch, the admixture is human. Though preliminary analysis supports the hybridization hypothesis, alternatively, it could also be hypothesized that the Sasquatch are human in origin, having been isolated in closed breeding populations for thousands of years. Nevertheless, the data conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin and are a direct maternal descendent of modern humans.

The Sasquatch is a human hybrid species, the mtDNA is human and the nuDNA is unknown.

Zoobank Registration of the Sasquatch

Homo Sapiens Cognatus - Cognatus is from the Latin which essentially means “related by blood.”

External Support for the Sasquatch Genome Study

Given the toxic nature of this subject most mainstream scientist have stayed away from the paper, afraid for their careers. The biased against the study is institutional and wide ranging. Though it is a subject for another book the Sasquatch Genome Study was caught in the crossfire in the war between the evolutionist and the creationist. Darwin’s theory is dying in my opinion but absent any cogent theory the Darwinist (99% of mainstream science) must protect the theory at any cost. Since the Sasquatch Genome Study could call into question many of the tenants of the Darwinist it had to be squashed.

There was also an attitude pervasive in the mainstream that just could not allow “A woman veterinarian from Texas and a bunch of rednecks” to make one of the most profound discoveries of the century. Below is a quote from Dr. Kethcum:

"It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities.

We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry."

There has been support for the study among a quiet but growing group of scientist and researchers.

One of the supporters is Dr. David Swenson, he is a Biochemist and has over 39 journal publications to his credit. He looked at the paper and the data and made the following statement:

Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.

My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.

Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.

 Researchers/Journalist

Robert Lindsay – Beyond Highbrow Blog

Robert Lindsay is an interesting person. It is not a stretch for me to say Lindsay holds the opinion that Dr. Ketchum is not a nice person. Lindsay had this comment in his blog about Dr. Ketchum:

“Dr. Ketchum’s personality. We get a lot of flak for focusing on this issue, but one of the things that this blog does is report on the personalities of those involved in the Bigfoot scene and the various conflicts that are going on with those on the scene. We noted before that Ketchum has a hard time keeping workers are her business. When I asked why, my source said, “Because she’s such a bitch!”

In the very beginning of the DNA project, many of the top names in the Bigfoot world met with Dr. Ketchum. One of the biggest names in the field, who went on to develop a deep relationship with Ketchum, was not impressed. This person described her as “a piece of work.” They also said, “My God she’s a man-hating bitch!” I do not believe that she hates all men, as she currently has a man in her life. This man is one of the biggest names in the Bigfoot field, but we will not name him.

The takeaway point is that Dr. Ketchum has a rather hostile and combative personality. Or, if you want to look at it another way, she’s a Type A, go-getter, hard-charging, get things done type in the finest American tradition.”

Source: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/bigfoot-news-october-14-2011/

After the release of the study, Lindsay became one its most ardent and active supporters. He read the paper, and even though he was often critical of Dr. Ketchum, found the study credible. Lindsay had this to say after reading the study:

“Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper is good. I have now read a bootleg copy of the 63 page paper I obtained a few days ago….

The paper is good. I like it a lot. I thought she did an excellent job on it. It is also very well written. The conclusions are as we discussed earlier on this blog. The MtDNA is human, and the NuDNA is some sort of an archaic hominid in the genus Homo.

Particularly interesting were the extreme measures taken to guard against contamination of the DNA with human DNA by handlers and other animal DNA. There was no DNA from any other known animals present in any of the samples. None of the samples had any human DNA contamination that would explain the results. The samples were very, very pure DNA, purer

than one usually gets from humans….

…I do not feel that this paper is a failure at all. What is occurring is what I predicted would occur. The scientific community refuses to accept the existence of this very real species, and they refuse to accept this DNA evidence for that reason. I have been predicating for a long time now that science would not accept the DNA evidence no matter how good it was.

Is it possible that Melba botched the paper and screwed up her proof of Bigfoot? We all know that she had real Bigfoot samples she was dealing with in the study, so all that remained was for her to successfully isolate the DNA and then prove that it was from Bigfoots and not something else. I feel that she did this, but I am not a geneticist.”

In this same blog post, Lindsay then made an extremely impassioned plea to the Cryptid/Bigfoot research community:

“I think the community should all get behind Melba right now, whatever her moral failings. She has been up there on the cross suffering for all of us, for our entire community, for 16 months now, while the legions of science poked her with their lances and jeered at her. She did it for us. She suffered for all of us. All of the pain we all suffer from skeptics – she took all of our pain and bundled it up for us into one giant mass and took it up there with her on the cross of Bigfootery, where she been slowly dying, being tortured to death, for over a year now. Our pain is her pain. Our torture is her torture. She took our pain and made it hers so we wouldn’t have to suffer it too.

This whole episode has been very hard on Melba. You can see it in her face and hear it in her voice. She says if she had to do it over again, she wouldn’t do it. But she did it. She took it on the chin for us all, falling on the grenade so we might live. And how many of us have her back? Basically, none of us.”

Thom Powell – Bigfoot Research – Blogger - Author

Thom Powell is a well-liked, thorough researcher. He is both humorous and articulate. Below is his bio from his web page:

“Thom Powell is a science educator and author who writes on paranormal or 'fringe science' topics.  One such topic is the bigfoot phenomenon and it's fair to say that, when it comes to bigfoot, Thom Powell's first book, The Locals (Hancock House, 2003) completely changed the thinking. It is a book that is still being read and praised fifteen years after publication.  Then in 2011, Thom tried his hand at fiction, authoring the cleverly-crafted novel, Shady Neighbors, centering on a rural family that is targeted by mysterious beings for equally mysterious reasons.  In 2015, Thom went 'round the bend' again and published Edges of Science, a compendium of paranormal or 'Fortean' investigations that boldly unifies most of what currently falls into that dumpster of scientific disparagement known as 'paranormality…

...Upon completing college with an honors degree in Environmental Education, Thom emigrated to Portland, Oregon where he continued guiding on rivers in California, Oregon and Idaho, while also teaching environmental science at a series of outdoor education centers around Portland. He responded to the lack of local river safety instruction by establishing his own kayaking school about the same time that he was hired as a science teacher for Portland Public Schools. His operation of River City Kayak School led to the acquisition of property along the Clackamas River in rural Clackamas County, Oregon, a place known for rich outdoor recreation opportunities and bigfoot sightings...”

Source: http://www.thomsquatch.com/p/about-thom-powell.html

Thom posted an extremely influential and educational blog concerning the Sasquatch Genome Study called “Bigfoot DNA Evidence Redux”. Below are some excerpts supporting both the study and the premise of this book, truth denied:

“The first-ever attempt to thoroughly map the bigfoot genome, authored by Dr. Melba Ketchum, et al. and published in DeNovo Scientific Journal, has been out for a couple months. I eagerly spent the thirty bucks to get my hands on a copy at my very first opportunity. I read every word of it three times. I also sought the opinion of a couple of geneticists for, despite my science background, I did not understand most of the highly technical jargon in paper.

What I really needed was some context. Context is particularly essential since almost no one else in the general public has the ability to grasp the incredibly arcane and specific language of the geneticist. I am capable of understanding most of Ketchum’s explanation of the methodology and of course her conclusions. Beyond that, I recall the advice of a career scientist who once told me that the way to read a study is to first read the abstract (a one or two paragraph summary of the whole report), then the introduction, and then the conclusion. Skip everything else. The academics will pour over that and you can’t understand it anyway…

… I was warned ahead of time by prognosticators like my buddy Guy Edwards that a DNA study proving the existence of the sasquatch probably would not rock the world. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is poorly understood by the general public. People want to see a body. I also fully understood that the community of self-anointed ‘bigfoot researchers’ is highly competitive, even back-stabbing. Vocal individuals in that community could be counted on to attack and devour anyone’s claim to scientific progress since it is always seen as a threat to the stature of the other self-important personalities who feel that the media attention is rightfully theirs. Then the ‘group-think’ kicks in. An underappreciated person with a recognizable name becomes critical and launches a blistering attack. The unexamined tribalism of a larger group, who are all in constant contact via the internet and Facebook groups march in lockstep disdain, comfortable in the belief that their collective criticism of the new evidence or new thinking is protected by the umbrella of group consensus, which emboldens the group in the near term but eventually turns out to be based on somebody’s logical fallacy…

… Now, enter Melba Ketchum. She has kept her distance from the ‘bigfoot research community’. She has not attended the conferences, she has not made the requisite pilgrimages to the Bluff Creek film site, to Steven’s museum/bookstore in Willow Creek, and the insufferable forums and chat rooms where a tribe of armchair enthusiasts spend way too much of their free time.

The tribe wasted no time.   Before it was even published, the Ketchum study was faulted on several fronts. The eagerly-awaited publication was repeatedly delayed for unspecified reasons. That was seen as damning.  Ketchum’s personal and business life was thoroughly scrutinized by a platoon of amateur sleuths. The fact that her privately owned genetics lab was not flourishing, and that she had some unhappy customers, was the beginning of the groupthink feeding-frenzy. Then it was discovered by eager-beaver researchers that her paper was rejected by first-tier scientific journals. It was suggested that the paper had so many problems that that we might not ever get to see it in print at all.

During this time, I had some contact with Dr. Ketchum. She confided that she was intensely frustrated by the fact that the peer-reviewers for the journals she was courting kept ‘moving the goal posts’ on her. Initially receptive audiences suddenly became unreceptive. Suggestions for small changes were willingly accommodated by her, only to be followed by further requests for huge changes and revisions….

As soon as the study was made available, the criticism shifted to the fact that, she published the paper by acquiring control of an obscure ‘boutique’ journal, and then making her genetics paper its sole item of content. I would certainly agree that this is not the preferred way to present an important scientific paper. I also know that, as the author of two bigfoot books, ‘bigfoot’ is a topic that very few if any publishers wants to touch, and this is doubly true of scientific publications. Scientists are people too, and they stand in line at the grocery store, reading the tabloid headlines about Elvis’ bigfoot baby or whatever else the tabloids are screaming about that week. Scientists have their prejudices and 'bigfoot' is a big one.

So, hell, yeah, Ketchum is going to have a tough time getting published. I could see that one coming miles away, especially since I had the frustrating experience of trying to get two different books published on the much-maligned bigfoot subject. Maybe it’s just because I’m a lousy writer, but I couldn’t get any publisher to look at my novel, so I, like Ketchum, went ahead and self-published Shady Neighbors. I’d still be sitting on an unpublished manuscript if I had not. Not only do I NOT blame Melba Ketchum for essentially ‘self-publishing’ her paper, I am downright appreciative that she did so…

 … Which brings us to a discussion of the results of her study: half human, half ‘novel’ DNA. This finding is so radical, and the implications are so enormous that it’s a no-brainer that she was going to have a very tough time finding a scientific journal that would publish this finding. Scientific journals get very uncomfortable with radical finding, no matter how good the science is. Bear in mind also that Ketchum, with all her radical conclusions, is not nearly as an established in academia as someone like Dr. Bryan Sykes at Cambridge. She's a veterinarian and the owner a small, privately owned genetics lab in Texas. For whatever reason, she had the willingness to apply her genetics training to the bigfoot mystery. And when she examined the genetic evidence surrounding that mystery, it took her to a conclusion that was way too radical for mainstream science. In fact, it seems her conclusions are even too radical for a most bigfoot researchers to accept, and bigfoot researchers have always seen themselves as outside-the-box thinkers…

…I find her arguments compelling, and it isn’t just because her findings agree with that which I have always said and published in my books. Her conclusions are also perfectly consistent with everything I have experienced in the field and with all the information I have gathered from reliable witnesses over many years. I long ago concluded that the sasquatch are human so it is very easy for me to agree that Ketchum study is correct in its’ conclusions. If that makes me a “Ketchum supporter” then, yes, I guess I drank the Kool-Aid. All I can say is, it was delicious. And, it was much easier to swallow than that, bitter, even toxic Kool-Aid that has been dispensed for decades by the ossified tribal group-thinkers, and I have certainly tasted that Kool-Aid many times.

There is one final doozy of a stone that is still unturned.  It’s sort of the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about.  Put another way, the Ketchum study, I think, has yielded physical evidence whose implications are so profound that most do not even want to open that can of worms.

I’m referring to the other half of the sasquatch genome that the Ketchum study identified; the part that isn’t human. The sasquatch genome, according to the Ketchum’s work, is human DNA that interspersed with DNA that is absolutely unknown.  It is neither ape, nor human, not lemur.  Ketchum has no idea what it is, nor does anyone else, but the ‘novel’, single strand, haploid DNA is there for anyone to find who knows how to sequence it. Is it some evolutionary offshoot of humanity that we have yet to identify in the fossil record?  Maybe. But the mysterious sequences are single strand, that is haploid DNA, and all terrestrial DNA in somatic cells (blood, hair, tissue, bone) is diploid unless it is in gametes (sex cells).”

Source: http://www.thomsquatch.com/2013/03/bigfoot-dna-evidence-redux.html

I strongly encourage the reader to visit Thom’s blog and read this post in its entirety.

Christopher Noel – Bigfoot Researcher – Author

Christopher wrote a blog post a year after the Sasquatch Genome Study had been published. He was addressing criticism from Todd Disotell, a self-proclaimed “debunker of labels pseudoscience. Dr. Jeff Meldrum was also criticizing the study for claiming Sasquatch was a human hybrid.  Below are excerpts from the Christopher’s blog post:

“Today marks the one-year anniversary of the release of Melba Ketchum’s Sasquatch Genome Study, “Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies.” While some researchers have embraced her findings, many more have dismissed them, based on an insufficient grasp of the data or a neglect of the data altogether. I would like to observe this occasion by exploring several aspects of the case.

1) Month after month, many have threatened to produce evidence of some sort of “data fraud,” but after a year, no such exposé has materialized, nor has a single shred of credible evidence. The entire Ketchum study, in addition to much supplemental material, can be seen and freely downloaded at SasquatchGenomeProject.org, and Dr. Ketchum has invited scientists worldwide to pore over it and offer responsible feedback. The most high-profile taker thus far has been Dr. Todd Disotell, who has built his brand over the years as a professional debunker of what he labels pseudoscience. “It’s just a joke,” he loudly proclaimed of the study, “junk science. She is a laughing stock.”

But let’s look behind the scenes. Disotell was given the opportunity to test one of the 111 samples used in the Ketchum study, a blood sample obtained by the Erickson Project at its Kentucky habituation site and provided to Disotell directly by Adrian Erickson himself. Disotell proceeded to sequence only the mitochondrial DNA (the vestige of the maternal line only), found it to be a 100% match with modern human, interpreted this result to mean that human “contamination” must be involved, and then summarily disposed of the sample without investigating the far richer territory of the nuclear DNA (which encodes the entire history of maternal and paternal genetic contributions over millennia).

Unfortunately,

a) his results only served to confirm Ketchum’s findings, the entire point of which is that Sasquatch is a surviving hybrid of an ancient pairing of human females and males of an unknown primate species; and

b) the Ketchum paper details at length the rigorous methods employed in the study to rule out contamination.

During an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Show,” Disotell admitted, “I can’t follow ¾ of that paper.” This is because, Ketchum explains, “Disotell specializes in evolution using mitochondrial DNA. He is not qualified to comment on the genomics or other disciplines in this study.”

2) It’s not hard to understand, of course, why so many in the mainstream media and the general public would accept at face value the words of a dynamic, self-assured debunker as he apparently “shoots down” a study whose implications are so profoundly challenging to conventional wisdom, so far outside our collective comfort zone. But why are so many serious Sasquatch researchers also willing to blindly accept this kind of groundless attack? Because it relieves them of having to question their deeply entrenched views on the subject. As Thomas Kuhn famously observed, “During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the ‘map’ directing new research.” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions); however, Kuhn also demonstrated the fierce tenacity with which science will cling to its outmoded paradigms even in the face of fresh, dis-confirming data.

… Now add to this resistance the fact that the insiders’ club of Establishment Science is made up of academics, who naturally look down their noses at one such as Dr. Ketchum, an independent researcher, not part of any recognized institution, a “mere” veterinarian (DVM) rather than a PhD— never mind her twenty years of experience in genetic testing and her scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals (her CV can be seen on the website). Her background in forensics, too, flies in the face of the officially sanctioned approach to evolutionary biology.

Some enjoy piling on further with ad hominem blows, a notoriously weak mode of debate, including insults to her personality and to her accounts of having now seen individual Sasquatch in person. Some also present as damning evidence her willingness to speculate upon supposedly supernatural elements of the subject. (Eclipses and lightning were once considered “supernatural” as well, until natural science expanded to incorporate them.)

Whatever one may think of any of these putative “red flags,” they all have one thing in common—their utter irrelevance to the bothersome issue of the genetic data themselves, in all their richness and consistency.

3) Speaking of which, you will not hear the detractors mentioning the two independent outside laboratories, SeqWright and Family Tree DNA, that the study employed to blindly test samples, and that corroborated Ketchum’s results 100%, even though they had not been told what organism these samples were taken from. Nor will you hear them breathe a word about the study’s nine highly credible co-authors, precisely because not one of them has come forward to repudiate the study’s methodology and results, or even to distance himself from it to the slightest degree, which would naturally be the safest professional move, given that their names and positions are now publicly associated with the study.

This ringing silence speaks volumes as a clear, implicit endorsement. By the same token, of course, none of the co-authors has gone on record in support of the study, though in view of its worldly reception, can you quite blame them? Bigfoot usually still equals professional suicide.”

Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.

A study published in the Journal Nature appears to support the general findings of the DNA study. One of the main criticisms of the Sasquatch DNA Paper published in early 2013 was that hybridization between Sasquatch and modern humans was "ludicrous", "impossible", or "wild speculation". But wait, fast forward to December of 2013 and a group of scientist publishes a paper in the Journal Nature that essentially claims that the genome of a Neanderthal skeleton they discovered was actually a hybrid, a mixture of modern humans, Denisovans, Neanderthals, and a "potential unknown hominin".

From the Journal Nature study:

"The new analysis finds that the genomes of Han Chinese and other mainland Asian populations, as well as of Native Americans, contain about 0.2 percent Denisovan genes…..

The genome comparisons also show that Denisovans interbred with a mysterious, fourth group of early humans also living in Eurasia at the time."

Sources: (http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genome-fourth-lineage-01624.html) and (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html) 

The results are extremely similar to Dr. Ketchum's results, a genome that shows hybridization with modern humans and a unknown hominin.

A world renowned genetic scientist Dr. Tom Gilbert, of the University of Copenhangen, recently sequenced hairs from a purported Orang Pendek (A Sasquatch like creature that lives in South East Asia). 

He received hairs that were analyzed and determined not to be human or from a known animal. When he tested the mtDNA from these non-human hairs the results came back human.

Though critics claim contamination, Dr. Gilbert is a world renowned Professor of Genetics and I would assume he would know how to properly process a DNA sample without contaminating it.

Dr. Gilbert has over 125 peer reviewed publications to his credit. He recently was lead author of the paper where the whole genome was sequenced from a 12000 year old Native American child (Anzick-1). 

YouTube video link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcPrXZyBUfo

Gofundme support

From Dr. Ketchum:

Hi all, just wanted everyone to know we do have academics supporting the paper and our research via the Gofundme campaign. These two folks were kind enough to donate to the sequencing project and put their names on their donations. I just thought you would like to see that we do indeed have support from other scientists and these guys actually put their money down to prove it! I've posted them below but you can go to the page here to see for yourself: http://www.gofundme.com/b1f5ak

Libby Rutledge, Ph.D. - $100
Thank you so much for your Sasquatch Genome Project paper. I assign this paper for discussion in my senior molecular biology class at Salish Kootenai College.

Dr. Philip Haseley - $150
This is a challenge to all the wimpy academic types to come forward and support this research likewise.

George Knapp

December 2012

Scores of hair samples were sent to a dozen well-respected DNA labs across the country. The people at the labs weren’t told anything about the samples. They performed DNA analysis in the blind, then sent the remarkable findings back to Ketchum. I’ll put it this way — this is spooky stuff. The results are unequivocal: The hairs are not only from an unknown species, but they show a common link to humans. In other words, whatever these creatures are, they share a common ancestry with humans dating back about 15,000 years. Half of the DNA in the samples is simply unknown. The blind tests conducted by various labs weeded out known species such as bears or wolves. And in the end, they were left with the completely uncomfortable conclusion that the hairs came from a primate species previously unknown to science.

Source: (Knapp, George – Las Vegas City Life, December 2012)

The Contamination Myth

Mainstream scientific critics of the study have been relying on their old standby “the samples were contaminated or not handled properly”. This claim is refuted throughout the paper beginning the forensic washing of the hairs that even Bryan Sykes admits “You can clean any suggestion of contamination from the surface of the hair without damaging the DNA that lies within. This is something we have only known in the past couple of years.” Dr. Ketchum knew before starting the study this would both a concern and a criticism so throughout the study steps were taken to ensure both no contamination and quality samples. The results themselves prove there was no contamination. This is demonstrated by the high Q30 scores to the lack heteroplasmic bases  when the samples were screened for cytochrome b.

Even those who had openly criticized the Sasquatch genome study and made unsubstantiated personal attacks toward Dr. Ketchum and other members of the team admitted there was no contamination. Below is an excerpt from Robert Lindsay’s blog:

"No contamination in Ketchum DNA findings. There is some little-known evidence that there is no contamination in her samples: Ketchum tested the Bigfoot nuDNA for several human genes, the names of which you can find in the manuscript. MC1R (human/Neanderthal red-hair color gene) showed up in the Bigfoot nuDNA as did the human antigen gene TAP1 (most of the time) and the jaw muscle gene MYH16 (which when present showed only a human profile rather than an ape one).

Not discussed in the manuscript are the tests Ketchum did for the TYR gene, which is associated with skin pigmentation, and the HAR1 gene, which is a “human accelerated region” associated with human neurological development. The human skin color gene TYR and human brain gene HAR1 were not found in Bigfoot nuDNA. Now that in and of itself is very interesting.

If the samples really were just bear or coyote or bobcat smeared with human contamination, all of the human genes should show up all over the place. The peer-reviewers for Ketchum’s manuscript only wanted positive, not negative, results included for gene tests, so the TYR and HAR1 data are not discussed in the manuscript. However, you can see the remnants of it in the Supplemental Data 12 appendix. The bottom line is the Bigfoot nuDNA is missing some important human genes that should be there if the nuDNA were in fact simply contaminated with human DNA.

Furthermore, if the samples were simply bears, coyotes or whatever with no human contamination present, the human genes listed above would not be there at all.

The conclusion is that the “contamination” meme bandied about is simply a red herring. Ketchum’s DNA results, whatever they were and whatever they mean, there simply not a result of contamination in any way, shape or form. Critics really need to get over the contamination BS."

(Source:  http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/ )

Related Studies

A study published in the Journal Nature appears to support the general findings of the DNA study. One of the main criticisms of the Sasquatch  Study published in early 2013 was that hybridization between Sasquatch and modern humans was "ludicrous,” "impossible,” or "wild speculation.” But wait, fast forward to December of 2013 where a group of scientists publish a paper in the Journal Nature that essentially claims that the genome of a “Neanderthal” skeleton they discovered was actually a hybrid, a mixture of modern humans, Denisovians, Neanderthals, and a third "potential unknown hominin.”

From the Journal Nature study:

"The new analysis finds that the genomes of Han Chinese and other mainland Asian populations, as well as of Native Americans, contain about 0.2 percent Denisovan genes...

The genome comparisons also show that Denisovians interbred with a mysterious, fourth group of early humans also living in Eurasia at the time."

In the publication “Nature News” the author remarked:

Reich said at the meeting that as well as interbreeding with the ancestors of Oceanians, they also bred with Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans in China and other parts of East Asia. Most surprisingly, Reich said, the genomes indicate that

Denisovans interbred with yet another extinct population of archaic humans that lived in Asia more than 30,000 years ago — one that is neither human nor Neanderthal.

Sources: (http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genome-fourth-lineage-01624.html) and (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html)

The results are extremely similar to Dr. Ketchum's results, a genome that shows hybridization with modern humans and an unknown hominin. These studies continue to be published showing modern humans interbreeding with a “unknown” hominin species. In one study the scientist actually called this unknown hominin a “ghost species of ancient hominins.” Not to belabor the point, but it cannot be stressed enough, these studies are making the same general findings of the Sasquatch Genome Study. That in the past, there were genetically “unknown hominins” breading with known human species producing hybrids! The Sasquatch Genome Study proved that one of these “unknown hominins” is alive and well in modernity, with exotic, novel (unknown to science), nuDNA.

In an article entitled “Neanderthal Genome Reveals Fourth, Mysterious Human Lineage”, published in the December 18^th, 2013 edition of “Science News”, the author cites a study published in the Journal Nature. One of the study’s conclusions was “The genome comparisons also show that Denisovans interbred with a mysterious, fourth group of early humans also living in Eurasia at the time.” (See Exhibit 34)

A more recent article in “Ancient Origins”, published in 2017, entitled “Hominid Hanky Panky Led to 'Ghost' Species of Ancient Human”, cites a study published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. This study makes the following conclusions:

 “As part of this investigation, the team examined the MUC7 gene in more than 2,500 modern human genomes. The analysis yielded a surprise: A group of genomes from Sub-Saharan Africa had a version of the gene that was wildly different from versions found in other modern humans.

The Sub-Saharan variant was so distinctive that Neanderthal and Denisovan MUC7 genes matched more closely with those of other modern humans than the Sub-Saharan outlier did.

"Based on our analysis, the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression -- the introduction of genetic material from a 'ghost' species of ancient hominins,"  Gokcumen says. "This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such

as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a 'ghost' species because we don't have the fossils." (See Exhibit 35).

The Journal Molecular Biology and Evolution peer reviewed, passed, publishing a scientific study that ONLY had DNA evidence to support the conclusion that a “Ghost Species” interbred with humans?!?! This based on just one gene comparison?!?!

In contrast, the Sasquatch Genome Study was systematically suppressed by mainstream science, with essentially the same findings, that an unknown hominin, with unknown nuDNA (“ghost species”), interbred with humans to produce a human hybrid. The Sasquatch Genome Study consisted of a literal mountain of DNA data, to include blood, flesh and hair samples. Three complete nuDNA Genomes, with over one hundred and ten samples total in the study. Multiple analysis of genes, electron microscopy results that were confirmed by two independent labs and blind studies by over 12 nationally known laboratories. I think the hypocrisy is evident, completely undeniable.

Dr. Tom Gilbert – Orang Pendek

A world renowned genetic scientist Dr. Tom Gilbert, of Copenhagen, recently sequenced hairs from a purported Orang Pendek (A Sasquatch-like creature that lives in South East Asia).

He received hairs that were analyzed and determined to be non-human or from any known animal. When he tested the mtDNA from these non-human hairs the results were human. This supports the Sasquatch Genomes study results of non-human hair yielding human mtDNA. Though critics claim contamination, Dr. Gilbert is a world-renowned Professor of Genetics and I would assume he would know how to properly process a DNA sample without contaminating it.

Dr. Gilbert has over 125 peer-reviewed publications to his credit. He recently was the lead author of the paper where the whole genome was sequenced from a 12,000-year-old Native American child (Anzick-1). YouTube video link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcPrXZyBUfo

The results from my DNA samples

Sample #2 – Collected July 2011 – Brown hair

Haplotype – T2b

Same as samples (1,12,36)

Bigfoot in 1 = Oklahoma, 12 = Oregon, 36 = Washington

Amelogenin – XX (Male)

Sample #3 – Collected July 2011

Amelogenin – XY (Female)

SNP – 62.25

Sample #42 – Collected February 2011 – Reddish brown to brown

Haplotype – T2

Same as samples (39b, 41)

Bigfoot in 39b = Southern Alaska, 41 = North Texas

Amelogenin Seq Results

Only Exon 2 – H

Sample #11 – Collected August 2009 – Brown hair

Haplotype – A6L2c

Amelogenin – XY (Female)

Sample 38 – Collected October 2010 – Curly brown hair

Haplotype – V2

Amelogenin Seq Results

Exon 2,4/5,8 – H

SNP – 64.21

Sample 82 – Collected May 2011 – Light brown to blonde

Amelogenin Seq Results

Amelx, 8 – H

Sample 122 – Collected May 2011 – Mixed color

Amelogenin Seq Results

Amelx=H, 2=H-Chromose 13, 4/5 = H

Click here to view/download the Sasquatch Genome Study

The Truth About Sample 26 of the Ketchum DNA Study

(The Justin Smeja Alleged Bigfoot Shooting Flesh Sample)

•  Justin Smeja claimed to have shot two Bigfoot, one adult and one infant. He could not find the adult body, but inexplicably left behind the infant.
•  At a later date he returned with help to recover a piece containing hair, skin, and flesh. Since this was recovered at the shooting location it was presumed to be from one of the Bigfoot.
• Justin Smeja sent a small piece of this sample to the Ketchum DNA Study that was ongoing at the time of the incident. (Figure 1).
• Dr. Ketchum wanted to make sure this sample was from a Bigfoot and not a known animal so she had the flesh analyzed by Douglas G. Toler, MD, F.C.A.P. of the Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Huguley Pathology Consultants, P.A. 11803 S. Freeway Ft. Worth, TX 76115. Dr. Toler determined that the skin was not human and that the tissue was not contaminated with bacteria or fungus. If the skin was from a bear or other known animal Dr. Toler would have made that identification. He did not. (Attachment 1).
• Dr. Ketchum also removed several hairs with follicles from Sample 26 and sent it to Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for analysis. The hair was determined not to be human or any other known animal. The hair was consistent with the Bigfoot control sample and determined to be from a Bigfoot.
• Hair Samples were also sent to Patrick W. Wojtkiewicz of the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory, Shreveport, LA or DNA extraction and sequencing. The follicles were processed for DNA using a robotic extraction process to ensure no human contamination. mtDNA and nuDNA were successfully extracted and sequenced. The DNA from the hair follicles that were extracted robotically and at this independent facility matched the core sample DNA processed by Dr. Ketchum.
•  Dr. Ketchum removed a core sample from the flesh to ensure no contamination. This sample contained a high quality DNA that yielded both mtDNA and nuDNA. The mtDNA was consistent with the finding of the other samples in the study with the same unexplainable anomalies found in the other 111 samples. The nuDNA did not match any DNA in the Genbank Genome Database but was consistent with the other two samples in the study that yielded a complete Genome. (Samples 31 and 140). The results were added to the study before submission to the Journal Nature for Peer Review.
• The Journal Nature acted in a very unprofessional manner. They unethically leaked the first peer review. The bloggers and other celebrities in the “Bigfoot World” used this leaked peer review to criticize both Dr. Ketchum and the study. The attacks were both personal and professional in nature and damaged the public’s confidence in the study. Dr. Ketchum was invited by the Journal Nature to make revisions and resubmit the paper for a second round of reviews. Dr. Colm Kelleher was brought in to edit, revise, and co-author the revised manuscript.
•  This study and the peer review process was now going on 3 years and many in the “Bigfoot World”, and sample submitters to the study were growing impatient. The unethical leak of the first Peer Review had already inflamed many and confidence was low in the team.
•  I think there was a loosely coordinated effort by the critics and detractors of the DNA Study to destroy Dr. Ketchum’s personal and professional reputation. The ultimate goal was to suppress the DNA Study and destroying Dr. Ketchum.  During the second review the Journal Nature also began using delaying tactics. They requested pictures of footprints and video of the Bigfoot. This delayed the Peer Review process for several weeks as the team made calls to submitters for the requested material.
• Bart Cutino and Tyler Huggins grew impatient with the Peer Review process. They decided to take what they claim were flesh samples from the same source that was sent to the Ketchum DNA Study and have the samples tested independently. The independent test came back Black Bear with human contamination. (Attachments 2 and 3). They then began a campaign to destroy the DNA Study and ruin Dr. Ketchum based on these results. Since the study was still in Peer Review, Dr. Ketchum could not defend herself, the team, or the study. The Peer Review process requires that the submitter keep the Manuscript and the Peer Review confidential. If Dr. Ketchum had violated the confidentiality agreement she risked the Journal Nature refusing to complete the Peer Review and possibly publishing the paper.
•  Bart Cutino, Tyler Huggins, Justin Smeja, Robert Lindsay, Shawn “Evidence” of the Bigfoot Evidence Blog, Jeff Meldrum, Matt Moneymaker, the group then known as “Team Tazer”, the Cryptomundo Blog, and other minor blogs seized upon this set of circumstances to savagely and unfairly criticize and attack Dr. Ketchum, the DNA Study Team,  and the DNA study. They made false claims that the study was a “hoax” and made unprecedented personal attacks against Dr. Ketchum. The motive in my opinion was to destroy Dr. Ketchum’s credibility and thus destroy the validity of the study. The above mentioned groups knew Dr. Ketchum could not defend herself. All the data and documentation that she had to defend herself and the study had to be kept confidential. Those on the DNA study team could do nothing but standby and watch the critics unethically and systematically destroy the study and our hands were tied.
•  In my opinion the motive for the attacks centered on the DNA Study coming to the conclusion that the Bigfoot was a human hybrid and not a bipedal unknown ape species. Most of the critics mentioned above were both professionally and financially invested in the Bigfoot being a bipedal ape. The scientific community had hinted that it would accept the possibility of the Bigfoot being a bipedal ape. I think that the conclusion that the DNA showed a human hybrid was just too much for many in the Bigfoot community to handle. Also many had built their carriers on claiming Bigfoot was a bipedal ape. The study had to be destroyed in order to keep the money flowing and save reputations. There was speculation that Justin Smeja was afraid of prosecution. I agree with this possibility and even a sympathetic friend of Cutino/Huggins, Thom Powell, blogged in support of the study and theorized that Smeja was afraid of prosecution (http://www.thomsquatch.com/2013/03/bigfoot-dna-evidence-redux.html)
•  In order to continue I must define the term “haplotype”. A haplotype is a contraction of the phrase “haploid genotype”, is a set of closely linked genetic markers present on one chromosome which tend to be inherited together (not easily separable by recombination). Another way to think about it is that a haplotype is half of a genotype. Since the mtDNA of the Bigfoot in the study were found to be human it was possible to determine what haplotype the Bigfoot belonged too. This is a unique marker and if two individuals have the same haplotype then they may be related. The most important aspect of haplotypes for this discussion is that it is a unique identifier. If the flesh samples that Bart Cutino/Tyler Huggins had tested were from the same piece of flesh sent to the DNA Study the haplotypes would match.
•  The DNA Study was published in the Denovo Journal (February 2013) and the documentation to refute the claims of Bart Cutino, Tyler Huggins, et al was now publically available.  To review, the DNA test performed on two samples of flesh that Cutino/Huggins claimed was from the same source that was given to the Ketchum DNA Study (Sample 26) came back with the results “bear contaminated by human”. The human DNA from the two Cutino/Huggans samples had the following haplotypes. DNA Solutions reported the human contamination DNA was a T2 haplotype (Figure 3, results received 1/28/2013). Wildlife Forensics reported the human contamination of the DNA was A haplotype. (Figure 4, results received November 2012). In the Ketchum DNA Study the haplotype of Sample 26 was H1a. (Figure 5)  It is IMPOSSIBLE for Sample 26 to be from the same source as the two samples of flesh tested by Cutino/Huggins.
•  It is clear from Cutino/Huggins own lab reports that the haplotypes from the two samples Cutino/Huggins submitted for testing were not from the same source as Sample 26. This fact incensed Cutino/Huggins and when I blogged about this fact I was attacked by them both. (http://www.bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/03/just-facts-smejacutino-flesh-sample-hoax.html). I was called a “liar” and “brain washed”. They demanded Dr. Ketchum release all her raw results from all the labs. They also challenged her to produce Sample 26 for “blind testing”. Dr. Ketchum refused to cooperate. Frankly I do not blame her, given the circumstances and the savage personal attacks I definitely would not trust them (Cutino, Smeja, and Huggins) to conduct themselves with integrity or honesty.
•  The controls from the Cutino/DNA Solutions report DO NOT MATCH the controls from the Ketchum DNA paper, Table 5. Please see Attachment 4 for the side by side comparison. Again this proves it is impossible for Sample 26 to be from the same source as the Cutino Sample.
•  Below is a side by side comparison showing the hair from Sample 26 is completely difference in appearance to the Cutino sample:
  
•  Conclusion: In my opinion the two samples provided to Cutino/Huggins for DNA testing WERE NOT THE SAME as Sample 26. I can only speculate as of the motive, but it is clear to me that the main goal was to discredit the study and destroy Dr. Ketchum’s reputation. Due to the confidentiality agreements Dr. Ketchum was unable to defend the study or herself and Cutino/Huggins took full advantage of this to spread false claims, rumors, and lies. They along with the others mentioned above successfully misrepresented the study as a “hoax” and a “farce” before the results were ever made public. This crippled the DNA Study, made the major media outlets shy away, and gave the hostile scientific community more ammunition to criticize the paper without even reading it.

  Figure 1

Figure 2

Sample 26 compared to samples claimed to be from the same piece of flesh

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Attachment 1

From the DNA STUDY

 Supplemental Data 1

Four outside slides are reviewed which include and H&E, Giemsa, GMS and Gram stain. The H&E demonstrates skin with surface keratosis that is uniform. It includes small inclusion cysts and evaginated crypts that contain laminated keratin debris. There is a sparse scattering of benign peripheral nerves and small vessels and capillaries. No unusual inflammation or evidence of granulomatous inflammation or malignancy is found. There are a few skin appendages including sebaceous glands and a few pilosebaceous units. These include hair follicles and a few abortive hair shafts. In addition there are clustered hair follicles and hair shafts. The shafts appear solid and contain a scattering of relatively coarse brown pigment. Some of these hair shafts and clusters of hair shafts occur fairly deep in the dermal portion of the section. The dermal collagen is fairly bland and paucicellular. There are some areas with suboptimal preservation but show components compatible with skeletal muscle bundles with peripheral flattened nuclei near the epidermis. Definitive cross striations are not identified secondary to the nature of fixation. Preservation overall is adequate for review but does include some artifactual shrinkage from dehydration preservation rather than usual formalin fixative. The gram stain demonstrated a few rare structures morphologically compatible with bacterial organisms. However there is no tissue reaction or inflammation in the vicinity. These could be artifact and incidental due to processing and staining. The Giemsa does not demonstrate definitive organism and no silver positive fungal organisms or definitively identified in the GMS stain. There is some background silver positive material both in the dermis and in the surface laminated keratin debris. Some tissue remains intact in the paraffin block and could be used for additional stains or studies if warranted.

This tissue sections reviewed show sufficient preservation for adequate histologic review. The basic epidermal and dermal histological architecture and cellular constituents are intact.

Douglas G. Toler, MD, F.C.A.P.

Anatomic and Clinical Pathology

Huguley Pathology Consultants, P.A.

11803 S. Freeway

Ft. Worth, TX 76115

Addendum: It seems there are some abnormalities with abortive hair shafts, various alopecias etc. where hair follicles can be grouped. However, the clustering deeper in the dermis than the level of dermis where most skin appendages usually occur is unusual and is not generally associated with hair follicle loss as is seen with alopecia. This appeared to be hair follicle addition or at least some extra follicles, clustered and deeper in the dermal region. There was also lesser numbers of eccrine glands and even sebaceous gland/pilosebaceous gland units than you usually see in human skin. The relative number of skin appendages is somewhat dependent on which part of the body the skin comes from so that would be location specific. Some surfaces have lots of hair and others considerably more eccrine glands. It is difficult to say where the combination in these sections came from especially since the deeper dermal clustering is not usually found in human skin.

Attachment 2 and 3 

Attachment 4