Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Ohelemapit

DNA Proves Bigfoot Is real

119 posts in this topic

Here's a great Monstertalk interview with Dr. Todd Disotell (the formerly Mohawked DNA guy) from back in December. It's a great primer on all of this stuff.

http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/

:clap: :clap: :clap:This should be PINNED! (transcript?)

Excellent, Rafterman, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:clap: :clap: :clap:This should be PINNED! (transcript?)

Excellent, Rafterman, thanks.

Sorry, just had to repeat it...

Listen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Big Foot may very well exist. I remember some years back. I watched a program where they got skeptic scientists and an expert on apes and monkeys and they gave them some samples which included dung and hair samples of a supposed big foot. All of them agreed the samples were from an unknown animal which was highly likely some sort of ape. There was also a video of a big foot running. And an sprinter tried to run as fast in the same amount of time but couldn't. It was proven that the creature whatever it was couldn't be human because it was to fast to be human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be the same gene that tells them how big the animal is and how much it weights.

The creature's weight or size is not the same gene. They are separate.

There is no gene that tells the population count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:clap: :clap: :clap:This should be PINNED! (transcript?)

Excellent, Rafterman, thanks.

They're in the process of transcribing their episodes, but it will be a while before they get to the more recent ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most "experts" regarding bigfoot are all about money, and they prey on peoples interests. £18 to look at Ketchums study is an extortionate price to pay to tell you nothing and the erickson projects HD footage of an apparent sleeping bigfoot shows Nothing.. 5 years for that? I could make that video in 30 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DNA proves that these creatures exist then why isn't it on the news on tv instead of on an article on UM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DNA proves that these creatures exist then why isn't it on the news on tv instead of on an article on UM?

Better question is where is the actual DNA analysis instead of someone claiming there is one?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're in the process of transcribing their episodes, but it will be a while before they get to the more recent ones.

Yeah, too bad. It needs to be on a Reading List.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its real and aim sure the government has its dna locked up in a vault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the thing that dawned on me soon after Ketchum was talking about "her study" back in November. She said something to the effect that Bigfoot appeared to have been breeding with human females. The things that shoots a great big old Bigfoot size hole in that is that if you have a non-human creature that mates regularly with a human female, each successive generation is going to become more and more human until nothing really remains but human. Yet, we're to believe there are still seven.........eight.......nine........ten foot tall Bigfoot, with gigantic feet and telepathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the thing that dawned on me soon after Ketchum was talking about "her study" back in November. She said something to the effect that Bigfoot appeared to have been breeding with human females. The things that shoots a great big old Bigfoot size hole in that is that if you have a non-human creature that mates regularly with a human female, each successive generation is going to become more and more human until nothing really remains but human. Yet, we're to believe there are still seven.........eight.......nine........ten foot tall Bigfoot, with gigantic feet and telepathy.

If you have a non-human* that mates regularly with a human female, you get nothing. Unless it's a woman who's into bestiality, since the two must have similar enough DNA in order to successfully produce offspring. Even Neanderthals were of the genus Homo. And even then you're only likely to get reproducing females and sterile males (assuming males survive at all).

* Not a member of the genus Homo.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a non-human* that mates regularly with a human female, you get nothing. Unless it's a woman who's into bestiality, since the two must have similar enough DNA in order to successfully produce offspring. Even Neanderthals were of the genus Homo. And even then you're only likely to get reproducing females and sterile males (assuming males survive at all).

* Not a member of the genus Homo.

cormac

That was the supposition that Ketchum was making, obviously you didn't read it or have forgotten about, the whole theory hinges on compatible DNA in both the male and female. However, even if that were the case, each successive generation is going to be "washed out" more and more until you reach a point where there isn't going to be any Bigfoot left, so to speak. The only way this might change would be if all the Bigfoot males suddenly were able to locate enough viable Bigfoot females to begin inter-species reproduction.

So, at least to me, the whole thing sounds more out there than it did when I first heard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how it's always a male mythical beast mating with a human female. You'd think the fellows who are into goats and sheep would want to get a little action with a she BF.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY! Sheep tell lies!

Sorry old joke reference. It does seem the male Bigfoots have been caught "sniffing" around human females......but then so have I.

What?

:unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it's a bust!

Link: http://www.livescien...questioned.html

In November of last year, a Texas veterinarian made national news claiming that genetic testing confirmed that not only is the legendary Bigfoot real, but is in fact a human relative that arose some 15,000 years ago.

The study, by Melba S. Ketchum, suggested such cryptids had sex with modern human females that resulted in hairy hominin hybrids: "Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens," Ketchum said in a statement. The scientific community was rightly skeptical, partly because Ketchum's research — which spanned five years — had not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Now the study has finally been published, kind of, and it raises more questions than answers. The piece, written by a team of researchers led by Ketchum, is titled "Novel North American Hominins: Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" and published in the "DeNovo Scientific Journal."

The study, which used 111 samples of alleged Bigfoot hair, blood, mucus, toenail, bark scrapings, saliva and skin with hair and subcutaneous tissues attached, were collected by dozens of people from 34 sites around North America. Hairs were compared to reference samples from common animals including human, dog, cow, horse, deer, elk, moose, fox, bear, coyote, and wolf, and were said not to match any of them. [Rumor or Reality: The Creatures of Cryptozoology]

The report concluded, "we have extracted, analyzed and sequenced DNA from over one hundred separate samples... obtained from scores of collection sites throughout North America. Hair morphology was not consistent with human or any known wildlife hairs. DNA analysis showed two distinctly different types of results; the mitochondrial DNAcm was unambiguously human, while the nuclear DNA was shown to harbor novel structure and sequence... the data conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin and are a direct maternal descendent of modern humans."

DNA Sampling

So what can we make of this? The most likely interpretation is that the samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens (mostly Bigfoot buffs with little or no forensic evidence-gathering training) accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough.

Though the study claims that "throughout this project exhaustive precautions were taken to minimize or eliminate contamination" in the laboratory, the likelihood that the samples were contaminated in the field by careless collection methods, normal environmental degradation, and other factors was not addressed. In some cases the person(s) submitting the alleged Bigfoot sample also contributed a sample of their own DNA to help rule out contamination, but the possibility of DNA contamination by others (such as hunters or hikers) could not be ruled out.

How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from Bigfoot? Well, they didn't; the report details where Bigfoot samples were retrieved: "hair found on tree" and "hair found on wire fence" are typical. In other words, the people collecting the samples didn't see what animal left it there, possibly weeks or months earlier—but if it seemed suspicious it might be Bigfoot. [Beasts & Monsters: How Reality Made Myth]

Scientific Journal?

Ketchum's study had been rejected by other scientific journals. So what about the journal that finally published the study, "DeNovo Scientific Journal"? The journal has no other studies, articles, papers or reviews. Ketchum's is the only paper the journal has "published." No libraries or universities subscribe to it, and the journal and its website apparently did not exist three weeks ago. There's no indication that the study was peer-reviewed by other knowledgeable scientists to assure quality. It is not an existing, known, or respected journal in any sense of the word.

This raises some red flags: If the results of the Ketchum et al. study are so valid and airtight, why didn't they appear in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal? Surely any reputable journal would fight Bigfoot tooth and Sasquatch nail to be the first to publish groundbreaking valid evidence of the existence of an unknown bipedal animal.

In fact, researchers from Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology announced last year that they would test any supposed Sasquatch samples that believers volunteered to send.

"I'm challenging and inviting the cryptozoologists to come up with the evidence instead of complaining that science is rejecting what they have to say," geneticist Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford told LiveScience in May 2012.

In an interview on the MonsterTalk podcast, Dr. Todd Disotell of the New York University Molecular Anthropology Laboratory dismissed the idea that Bigfoot could be a primate that arose as recently as Ketchum's DNA results claim: "If it's a primate that is so similar to us, that's only separated from us about 15,000 years ago, that's us," he said. "Even with people of European extraction, we've got 50,000 years of common ancestry since we left Africa." In other words, there is far more than 15,000 years of genetic diversity among ordinary humans, so the idea that something that split from our lineage would be as different from us as Bigfoot is absurd.

It seems that the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study, which was supposed to rock the world with its iron-clad scientific evidence of Bigfoot, is a bust, and tells us more about junk science than about the mysterious monster. Scientists will not be impressed, but Bigfoot believers might be; the report is available to the public for $30 from Ketchum's web site.

Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of "Skeptical Inquirer" science magazine and author of six books including Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore. His Web site is www.BenjaminRadford.com.

Interesting Ketchum wants $30 to look at her report. Wonder how many people are going to break bad and cough it up just to see she doesn't really have anything? Looks like she took a lesson from Rick "the man" Dyer.

Edited by keninsc
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the supposition that Ketchum was making, obviously you didn't read it or have forgotten about, the whole theory hinges on compatible DNA in both the male and female. However, even if that were the case, each successive generation is going to be "washed out" more and more until you reach a point where there isn't going to be any Bigfoot left, so to speak. The only way this might change would be if all the Bigfoot males suddenly were able to locate enough viable Bigfoot females to begin inter-species reproduction.

So, at least to me, the whole thing sounds more out there than it did when I first heard it.

I read it. It was your choice of using "non-human" that I was referring to as it then excludes all lines including anatomically modern human, which means "us". All members of the genus Homo are considered human, which means anything non-human is automatically incompatible. As to what Dr. Disotell said in the above post, that was always true, but I find it hilarious that some people took Ketchum's claims as seriously as they did.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone who would take what they say.....Ketchum.....Dyer......Allen, and a whole host of others.....which seems to be growing every day lately.

I know deep down inside, I'd love to see some proof, instead all I seem to ever get is this train wreck with all the same players trying to out do each other and all they're doing is lying through their collective teeth, then laying low for a bit, then they pop up, tell another lie and then duck out of sight again.........what's really insulting is they act like no one can possibly remember the last scam they pulled and how dare you even mention it, that was a terrible mistake or misunderstanding, or "I was the real victim.", in that. Sadly, there are always going to be the crazy gullible who want it to be true so badly they cling to the hope that maybe this time it will be true. The idiots who'll believe anything you say I have little sympathy for, they want to go chasing after a liar and faker like he or she is a rock star, that's their business.

I know I keep saying this but I think these guys are working to make a huge score through the use of chicanery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In an interview on the MonsterTalk podcast, Dr. Todd Disotell of the New York University Molecular Anthropology Laboratory dismissed the idea that Bigfoot could be a primate that arose as recently as Ketchum's DNA results claim: "If it's a primate that is so similar to us, that's only separated from us about 15,000 years ago, that's us," he said.

Hmm, I remember saying the same thing over in the Sasquatch DNA thread, Post #47:

15,000 years ago the only hominin species left was us. So any group that broke off that far back were modern humans to begin with.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most likely interpretation is that the samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens (mostly Bigfoot buffs with little or no forensic evidence-gathering training) accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough.

And that's reason number 68 for why you shouldn't have amateurs collecting scientific evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning on KSAT12 they are going to have a story to night in regards to Bigfoot. Some self proclaimed Bigfoot Stalker says he has proof about Bigfoot running around south Texas.I may have to wait to watch what they saycan't seem to find out much more on it from their website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning on KSAT12 they are going to have a story to night in regards to Bigfoot. Some self proclaimed Bigfoot Stalker says he has proof about Bigfoot running around south Texas.I may have to wait to watch what they saycan't seem to find out much more on it from their website.

I couldn't find anything. But I did find Bigfoot, Texas. (but named for a famous Texas Ranger not a hairy giant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never trust again...until next time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.