As has been stated before, multiple results discussing a link to human DNA in a “Bigfoot” sample could be caused by faulty collection techniques that introduced human skin or hair cells into the samples.

We need more that leaks.

Got a hunch here of what may possibly be the path of least resistance for more or less European Halotype similarity (Homo Sapiens/Cromagnon) in SOME samples of the mitochondrial DNA results. And still place the introduction many thousands of years ago? Particularly in light of primitive animistic beliefs contributing to less resistance?

Archeological evidence suggests a Bering Land Bridge connection between current Alaska & Siberia of one thousand miles wide. So along with other gigantic Pleistocene Megafauna we have likely the more or less somewhat bipedal Gigantopithecus of China & the giant man-eating 12′ tall saggital crest form of the Yeti lone males driven out by the Alpha males or in small mated family pods bumbling their way into North America. The much weaker females have a higher mortality in childbirth & are easier prey for Cave Bears, Sabre-tooths, Dire Wolves, Panthera Atrox etc. thus leaving male lone Giganto & Yeti etc. with “eat, sleep, reproduce” drive.

These creatures eventually encounter a much more numerous population density of pre-Archaic Mound Builder hunter/gatherer Indians, Clovis Culture & North European & Scandinavian proto Early Bronze Age colonies looting as much as a half a million tons of Michigan pit mine copper with pre-Archaic Mound Builder Indian trade labor for shipping & barging along the Ice Cap back to Europe, Africa & The Middle East along with pre-Druid/Stonehenge culture Tin mined in England.
What is likely to occur when these lone male brown & black haired Megafauna bipedal animals encounter exposed bipedal, weak, easily obtained brown & black long haired bipedal Archaic Mound Builders, Clovis Culture, North European/Scandinavian traders, who like the later Phoenicians, brought women along on voyages for colonization and “other reasons”?

Perhaps in most all cases the mating didn’t result in pregnancy, perhaps in a few cases it resulted in infertile offspring such as the mule, and perhaps as in the very rare case of fertile mules, the human-Giganto/Giant form of the Yeti whatever hybrid WAS fertile… resulting in what we have today in North America?

In regards to Dr. Ketchum saying “bigfoot is real”, I think one thing we need to keep in mind is that they’ve been treating this forensically as much as possible, meaning many of the samples were taken as a result of witness sightings, which were documented, not just a random chunk of hair caught on a fence (although there may be that too). If the witness describes a very tall bipeadel creature, and the DNA confirms a primate of unknown type, and there are multiple witness statements with multiple samples all of which have a high degree of correlation, it is a reasonable conclusion to make that the witnesses were perhaps reasonably accurate in describing what they saw, which would be a creature resembling bigfoot.

It’s my understanding that they’ve given preference in their sampling to those which have a solid forensic trail, for this very reason. Those samples which were collected using solid forensic guidelines were given priority, and thoroughly documented as part of the analysis.

This is most likely why the paper is taking so long.

Also, someone above questioned why someone used to seeing tissue samples would be afraid when they saw a sample they thought was human. The answer is clear. A normal pathologist or someone else who analyizes human tissue samples is most often going to get them from authorities, so they would have no reason to be fear the origin of the samples. If you get dead human tissue samples from some random person, it means there is some dead person out there, who had a chunck of thigh cut off, and it’s not the police who are asking you to identify it. You are then culpable for abetting a murder potentially. It’s not the sample itself that would have scared Dr. Ketchum, it’s the provenence of that sample, which was ostensibly from a hunter and not the authorities.

But like the venerable Mass. said, regardless of the veracity of this chapter in this story, I think Dr. Ketchum’s work sounds very exciting.

And Mastiff, what makes this different, potentially, is that it is a massive study of many samples, cross checked and compared to build up a profile of an unknown species. Analysis here and there of individual samples are worthless, but do enough, and do them well enough to build up a genetic profile which shows undeniable commonality across locations and time frames and you have something extremely significant.

So, either Ketchum is a liar, or made a big mistake with the science, or she has discovered something very interesting and relevant to this field. I certainly hope for the latter. But as always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so for now we must all wait and see.

I’m sorry if this may have been posted and discussed in the past, but it seems relevant now given the current rumors and such.

If this Bigfoot shooting story is true (admittedly a very big “if”), it sounds like it was more like icing on the cake for DNA sampling (though tragic for the Bigfoot involved of course and we shouldn’t forget that.) And if the shooting story is false, it sounds like it doesn’t interfere with the DNA evidence story, since other sources were available to Dr. Ketchum’s team.

And, according to her, the reason the announcements are taking so long is because the peer review process, especially for something so controversial and potentially ground breaking, is lengthy and rigorous. She and her team are, apparently, dotting all their I’s and crossing all their T’s, basically, to produce an outstanding scientific paper, which takes time, and further evidence won’t be discussed, presented or any claims made until that lengthy process is completed and the paper is published in a reputable scientific journal.

She did say she believes she has proven the existence of Bigfoot, but although that sounds impressive, I don’t see how she can definitively say that unknown primate DNA is from Bigfoot specifically (the 8 foot tall bipedal primate of lore). Why not some other unknown primate, a small one that doesn’t match our conception of the creature? What’s the exacting scientific link to Bigfoot proper I wonder? I know people will protest, but if we are talking about absolute proof, I wonder how they can definitively link unknown DNA to a specific animal, if they just have hair samples from an unknown and unseen source animal? They didn’t discuss this in the interview. Perhaps someday it will be answered.

I must say she sounds very professional and convincing. And perhaps the legal infighting is over this peer review question (if it’s actually happening.) Perhaps she wants to keep waiting until the peer review and publication is completed, and other people want to just go ahead and make findings known to the public. That would be a reasonable thing to argue about, and it wouldn’t demonize Dr. Ketchum either. She would be a pillar of prudence and good judgment to stick to her guns for science and to maintain high standards, if that were the case.

This is not like writing a letter to Dear Abby. These things take a great deal of time. For a matter as heated and controversial as Bigfoot, she has to make sure everything is perfect, absolutely perfect or people will point at every little thing and accuse her of sloppy science.

Look at the heated debate around the discovery of Homo floresiensis. You can expect Bigfoot to be far, far more controversial.

I can tell you right now the fact they’re claiming the mitochondrial DNA is 100% human stinks of contamination. Either Bigfoot has a human mother somewhere in its ancestry or someone forgot to wear gloves. Which is more likely?

While we do everything possible to prevent contamination, it still happens in the best of settings. Every once in a while a sample of human DNA comes out as “Tuna fish” and suddenly you realize you just wasted $1000 to find out what the lab tech had for lunch.

Skeptics like David Daegling manage to make damning reviews of the work of Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz. They’ll make mince meat of Ketchum for her association with Tom Biscardi and Todd Standing regardless of what her evidence is. She’s already damaged goods.

I checked for the so called thread, via the Wayback Machine. I might be using it wrong.. but I don’t show anything helpful to us.

I remain skeptical.