Bigfoot DNA Is Not Modern Human DNA

A commenter writes:

Achilli A, et al. The Molecular Dissection of mtDNA Haplogroup H Confirms That the Franco-Cantabrian Glacial Refuge Was a Major Source for the European Gene Pool. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75:910–918, 2004.

“These findings have major implications for the origin of Europeans, since they attest that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area was indeed the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated much of Central and Northern Europe from ∼15,000 years ago.”

In other words, according to what has been presented here, it is most likely that the mtDNA in Stubstad’s samples originated from humans of European ancestry. Thus while there is neither evidence of a new primate nor of a hybrid species, there is the suggestion that that those who submitted tissue were either sincerely mistaken as to the actual source or actively participated in a hoax.

First of all, the samples show no evidence of a new primate or a hybrid species. Based on the samples alone, the conclusion is, bizarrely enough, that Bigfoots are some sort of human!

It’s not true at all. The two samples matched very well for ancient European DNA from that glacial refuge. There were 9 samples from that region, and those were the best matches for the 2 samples. Modern European DNA looks quite a bit different from the ancient glacial refuge DNA. Some modern European DNA looks somewhat like the glacial refuge DNA, that is people from Spain, Portugal and Southern France.

However, even that is not nearly as good a match as the glacial refuge DNA, which almost a complete match, with both samples matching all 8 glacial refuge samples very well.

What are the chances that the DNA was a hoax or that of any two matched humans of whatever type? According to Stubstad, statistically, there is a 97% chance that the samples are genuine and date back to the glacial refuge and that they are not hoaxes or random humans.

Furthermore, hoax appears to be ruled out as the two groups are from opposite ends of the US, and they don’t even like each other enough to cooperate on anything. In fact, they hate each other. Furthermore, Stubstad met one of the submitters and did not feel that the man was even capable of such an elaborate hoax.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot talk on the web.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

5 thoughts on “Bigfoot DNA Is Not Modern Human DNA”

  1. Despite what we might wish for, the data he presents does not make sense, therefore I have go with logic and training rather than my heart. Let me explain. First off, I am disappointed with these reported results as I would very much like there to be DNA confirmation of the existence of sasquatch/bigfoot. Given what has been presented here, however, this is simply not the case. Modern populations of humans do carry aspects of ancient lineages – this is why mtDNA is used for looking at human origins and migrations. As to his statistical analysis, his reasoning as to why there is a 97% chance that these samples are real ( from a sasquatch) makes no sense, at least as far as it has been described here. In other forums, it has been mentioned that Dr Ketchum reportedly commented that Mr Stubstad does not know what he is talking about and after reading this, I agree. Despite my disappointment with these results, I am hopeful that the actual data derived from Dr Ketchum’s analysis will make it through peer review to be published in a reputable journal.

    1. He doesn’t say it’s from a real Sasquatch. It’s says it’s from some real entity which is represented by these two samples, which should not be related to each other at all, much less to nine different 15,000 YBP lines from ancient Europe.

      Best match: 15,000 YBP ancient Europe.

      Second best match (further away): modern SW Euro populations.

      Keep in mind that the two samples independently lined up with 9 different lines from 15,000 YBP SW Europe.

      Now, I believe these samples are Bigfoots, but this research does not prove any such thing. It’s just interesting.

      You are implying that the sample are human. Do you realize that one of the samples is a bone?! A fairly old and weathered bone too. Do you honestly think that that is an old weathered bone of a human being, for Chrissake, that was found in the woods of the SW US? I find that very hard to believe. One just does not stumble on human bones lying around.

      As you might gather, Dr. Ketchum and Stubstad are not on the best of terms. Stubstad’s claims represent very well the analysis of two samples very early in the project. Stubstad knows nothing about the large amount of work that came after that project. This is what she means when she says she says he does not know what he is talking about.

      He does not say that there is a 97% chance that they are from a Sasquatch. He says that there is a 97% chance that the relatedness of the samples is not random, nor is it a hoax. He is making a statistical statement.

      1. Yes, I do understand, however his interpretation seems faulty; given the results implying the relatedness of the samples it is unfortunately _far_ more likely that these represent modern SW Euros. And why would one ever assume that a weathered bone that for all intents and purposes appears to be from a modern human is actually from a different entity? What actual evidence is there that it is not from a modern human? Most of New England was deforested for farming from the 1700 – 1900s and the secondary growth forests are now dotted with the remain of homes and the occasional small cemetery. So perhaps we can agree that the true origins of the bones are in doubt? There seem to be a number of people who imply that they have seen or know more so that any argument that is made refuting these results end in being told we haven’t seen all the data. It is clear that you disagree with my conclusion and perhaps based upon what you know beyond what has been presented here there is better evidence with which to come to a different conclusion. Again, I hope that Dr Ketchum can put forth a detailed analysis that will withstand peer review so we can all have an opportunity to have a greater understanding of this phenomenon. On that point, I think that we can agree? best regards.

  2. I am not following this. All I know is that Bigfoot is not human. My best guess is that it crossed Beringia during the Ionian Stage of the Pleistocene as a result of Peking Man’s metamorphoses to survive the Ice Age. I’m very impressed with Homo Erectus’s longevity and distribution and can’t imagine that Bigfoot evolved into a more specialized human like us or Neanderthal only to then diverge into such a wildly different ape.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.