BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Monday, November 21, 2011

First preliminary data on Bigfoot nuclear DNA


Before you read any further, you must watch this talk by David Paulides. It explains what the Bigfoot DNA study is trying to prove. Click here. Also, you may want to check out "Homo sapiens hirsutii," the proposed scientific name for sasquatch.

Here it is ladies and gentlemen, the A-Bomb of DNA results. Robert Lindsay does not reveal his source, but we'll take his word for it. First, we want to say that we are not geneticists, so we'll need an expert to decipher what we actually have here. We can tell you that not even Robert himself understands what some of the results mean.

"The results from the MC1R gene tests were very confusing, and I do not understand the results very well, but I will just throw them out to you and let you try to make sense out of them. Sources told me that the MC1R gene in the three Bigfoots was exactly the same in each one, a shocking finding. The results were “within the human range, but just barely.”


Here's the raw data:

Bigfoot News November 21, 2011

Nuclear DNA: As I promised in an earlier post, we can now release preliminary data on Bigfoot nuclear DNA. Three samples were tested for nuclear DNA. A single gene, the MC1R gene, was tested. According to Wikipedia, MC1R is one of the key proteins involved in regulating mammalian skin and hair color. In fact, in this study it was considered the “hair color” gene for practical purposes. The default Bigfoot hair color, which was the same in all three copies, is “red.” That could mean “auburn.”

All humans have a distinctive marker on this gene. In Neandertals, one polymorphism is different. Caucasians can have 10 varying coding genes for MC1R and Blacks can have five different coding genes for MC1R, but they all share a single polymorphism that differentiates them as humans and from apes and even primitive hominids like Neandertal.

The results from the MC1R gene tests were very confusing, and I do not understand the results very well, but I will just throw them out to you and let you try to make sense out of them. Sources told me that the MC1R gene in the three Bigfoots was exactly the same in each one, a shocking finding. The results were “within the human range, but just barely.”

The results were not in GenBank, nor were there any human results even remotely close to be found in GenBank. It is barely possible that such a bizarre finding could show up in one random modern human. That it would show up by chance in three separate random humans is for all intents and purposes statistically impossible. That is, the odds are against it are so extreme that we can be reasonably sure that these were not three random humans.

The problem is the same as with the MtDNA. We are still stuck with human DNA, even though it is so bizarre it is nearly completely outside of the modern human range.

But here is where the problem comes in. Out of the ~1000 polymorphisms in this gene, all three Bigfoot samples were concordant for a single polymorphism. That polymorphism was “100% non-human,” as my source put it. In other words, it is like the Neandertal copy of this gene that also differs by a single a non-human polymorphism.

Now the question is, can humans have non-human genes, non-human markers on their genes, or non-human polymorphisms? I would say no. If you find a non-human area in something’s genetics, my position is that the genetic sample is simply non-human. Humans can’t have non-human genes or even parts of genes. But I’m not a geneticist.

I would assume that this single non-human polymorphism is what made the Ketchum Study conclude that we were dealing with something non-human in terms of the nuclear DNA.

We also have the 4-letter DNA alphabetic code for that polymorphism, but I am not going to print it as I do not want to upset Ketchum’s findings. For now, let us call it XXXX where each X is an alphabetic letter in the genetic code.

I believe that the DNA testing subsequently concluded that all three of these samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA.

I believe at least one of these samples referenced above was Larry Jenkins’ Bigfoot toenail.

Numerous questions arise from this finding.

First of all, how can the gene be “within the human range, but only barely,” and also have a 100% non-human polymorphism similar to Neandertal’s? This makes no sense to me.

If the default color gene in Bigfoots is “red,” then why do we find dark brown, brown, white and grey colored Bigfoots? I have no answer to that question.

The nuclear DNA findings above are extremely tentative and are based on conversations with sources over a period of months. I tried to check back with my sources today before I wrote the piece, but I could not get in touch with them. They are subject to revision in the future. I have had this nuclear DNA information for months now but have been unable to release it because it was given to me off the record. I just now got the go ahead to run it.

My understanding of the final results of the nuclear DNA is that it is quite a bit aways from human. How far away is uncertain. From three different sources, we heard “1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp.”

However, another source said it is closer. Two different sources referred to Neandertal and Denisova. “Whether it is closer to Neandertal or Denisova, I am not sure,” one said. Another referenced late Erectus trending into archaic Sapiens. An example would be “Heidelberg Man.” If the nuclear side is 1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp, the split between Bigfoot and man took place 2.2 million YBP (years before present). If it is instead closer to Neandertal – Denisova – Heidelberg Man, we are looking at a Bigfoot – human split of 750,000 YBP.

At the moment, we don’t know how far away the nuclear side is from humans. All we have is conjecture.

Ketchum’s peer reviewed study. The study has been out for peer review for about 9 months now – February 2011 to November 2011. Blogs are quoting me as saying that Ketchum is unwilling to make the changes that the peer reviewers want. That’s a misquote. My sources are simply speculating that, based on her “bullheaded” personality, Ketchum may be unwilling to make the changes the peer reviewers request.

Truth is we have no knowledge whatsoever of how the peer review is going, but it does seem to be taking awhile. This implies a long and drawn out process.

We are also not certain of Ketchum saying a May 2012 publication date. That date is simply being thrown about because Ketchum will be appearing at a Bigfoot conference in the Pacific Northwest on Homo sapiens hirsutti on that date.

Justin Smeja’s original post on Taxidermy.net. We already discussed this finding in our previous post. The original post from that website is almost impossible to get. Only a few people have it, and they won’t let anyone else see it. Nevertheless, our team* got ahold of a copy.

In the post, Smeja admits to shooting the Bigfoot in the back as it was running away. In addition, Smeja repeatedly refers to the creatures as “bears,” though he says over and over that they are the strangest bears he had ever seen. Nevertheless, he titled the post, “If You Saw Bigfoot, Would You Shoot It?”

Keep in mind that the post was only 1 month after the Sierra Kills. Smeja did not believe in Bigfoots at all at the time of the shooting. Even after talking to several people who told him he just shot two Bigfoots, part of Smeja still cannot wrap his mind around that fact, so he keeps trying to rationalize that somehow he shot two of the weirdest bears on the face of the Earth. He theorizes that the Bigfoot he shot may have had two of its legs shot off and then learned to walk upright on only two legs.

The concept of Bigfoot is still so weird to him that his mind refuses to believe it and he is backing up into bizarre bear explanations to make sense of the insensible. He also refers to grizzly bears a few times when talking about the Bigfoot he shot, possibly due to the huge size.

*One or more persons, which may or may not include me.

Smeja’s Bigfoot steak is for sale. First of all, we do not believe that Smeja has a single small Bigfoot steak. By his own admission, we calculated that he has 7.5 pounds of steak. He gave Ketchum 1/4 of that, which was ~2 pound slice. So he still retains ~6 pounds of steak. We recently received word from sources that Smeja has been trying to sell some or all of that steak. Asking price was reportedly ~$10,000. We believe that there were no takers.

[via robertlindsay.wordpress.com]

Related:

22 comments:

  1. I think this is interesting?....... But really waiting for some one with a more scientific/academic mind than myself that might be able to elaborate a little.

    Is there any news to this?

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  2. We may get DNA results that are conclusive. We may get HD video that is almost irrefutable. There will always be those who will say, "DNA was tainted," or "The videos were cropped." Sad to say but until someone brings in a carcass of a sasquatch strapped across their fourwheeler or truck, the scientific world will never except the sasquatch as being anything other than myth. I would never kill a bigfoot, but I'm just sayin...If this Smeja fella is for real, he will go down in history as one of the greatest men of all time. If his story is another hoax, this could have a devastating impact on those scientists who have been willing to be open minded lately. Essentially, no one will be willing to even consider a serious look at the evidence in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The more I think about this, the more I think if Smeja shot a bigfoot, he would have taken it to the nearest news media outlet. He obviously doesn't have any remorse, so why would he have left the little one there? He would have taken it.

    The more I think about the DNA project, the more I think they must not have anything. It's taking too long.

    The more I think about Robert Lindsay being the spokesperson for all this, the more I start to think it's all a huge hoax.

    Ack.

    They're waiting for April: April Fools!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Couldn't have said it better Athiest. Pure hogwash.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree... Total BS! You had a body and you are waiting for DNA results? Lol. A body would have proved this without a doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exactly a body is irrefutable. You wouldn't need ANY DNA to prove anything. But they're looking for the money/patents. If any of this shit is true. I'm leaning towards it being squat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. > Robert Lindsay does not reveal his source, but we'll take his word for it.

    I won't. That's not how science works, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. a follow up comment on Lindsay's site by Stubstad:

    Richard Stubstad
    November 22, 2011 at 1:26 PM

    OK, Robert, one main thing:

    You certainly do NOT piss me off one iota. I think you are doing your best, and you are certainly willing to stick you neck out where no one else dares to do so in this business.

    Rather than criticize the take you have on the nuclear DNA of MC1R, I will merely state it is partly true and partly not true.

    Firstly, I heard that the sequencing revealed a “red” hair color; I did not check this statement, though. It was told to me by the ever-reliable Melba Ketchum herself, and I had no reason to believe she was NOT telling the truth at the time.

    A single polymorphism on the nuclear side is generally reported as follows:
    X/Y, where “X” is the normal (in this case human sequence), and “Y” is the new sequence that does not appear to exist in humans, at least those represented in the GenBank database. “X” is either “A, C, G or T” and “Y” is also either “A, C, G or T”, not all four at the same time. Also, obviously, X does not equal Y. This nomenclature simply indicates a mutation has occurred in the specific creature, whether human or otherwise.

    Two of the three samples exhibited the exact same polymorphic site within the MC1R gene; the third one was a different polymorphic (mutation) site. Neither of these were documented within GenBank in any known human. This doesn’t mean, though, that there are no modern humans with one of these two polymorphisms. There may be; one would have to test every living human on earth to know for sure. What is known though is that such a polymorphism (either or both of them) are VERY unusual and highly unlikely amongst modern humans. I cannot do any statistical analysis on this aspect, though, since I have no data where these polymorphisms exist, other than the purported sasquatch sequences.

    Ergo, I believe (but do not know) that all three of the samples tested for MC1R are from extant sasquatch (pl.). This conclusion is based on far more information than merely the MC1R sequence. This only added more confidence to my statement that sasquatch exists as a living, extant hominid, obviously very close — but certainly not identical to — any tribe or race of extant modern humans — most likely as more than one subspecies or haplotype.

    The testing of the nuclear genome simply has to be completed to know “squat” about anything more at this point. We’re working on that as we speak, sir!

    Reporting the above, from both of us, is OK as far as I’m concerned, because we still have not revealed the exact polymorphic sites; I think that should be Melba who releases this information to assist her in writing and passing peer review with her paper.

    Thanks, Robert.

    Richard

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, dear. As someone who has been spending a bit of time wading through research papers on the genome of an unrelated animal, I will be the first to admit that genetics is a ridiculously complicated field with ridiculously complicated lingo. Reporting on DNA test results without understanding genetics, or with just enough understanding to toss the lingo around without saying anything rational... hmm. The suggestion that the melanocortin 1 receptor sequence revealed red hair color is, sorry, funny as heck to anyone who knows anything about the inheritance of coat color in animals. To suggest that a scientist with a specialty in genetics would say such a thing... oh dear oh dear. Pass the salt shaker and take the lid off; sprinkle heavily on the exact polymorphic sites.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Love all the arrogant arm chair doubting idiots on this thread, why the hell are you all here anyway just to try to smash it apart? Please go away. You self centered fools really don't have an effing clue of just how real and of just how clever these creatures are and dismiss out of hand the worldwide lore of indigenous cultures who have encountered these creatures for centuries. Nor do you consider the GROWING BODY of evidence that already exists which presents a very compelling reason to have an open mind (such as vocal recordings and footprints etc.). You laugh it all away because truthfully you can't handle the idea, you are afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Where did I say that I doubt the existence of Bigfoot, or that I haven't considered the body of evidence, which is certainly intriguing? Not that it matters--if Bigfoot exists as physical critters in the physical universe, they exist entirely independently of what we know or can prove, what we believe or don't believe. But there's a chronic complaint in the field of Bigfoot that scientists won't take it seriously, and the above "results" are pretty much why. Nothing wrecks credibility better than making statements about science (like genetics or evolutionary biology) that are simply wrong. Bad or badly presented information about science is bad or badly presented whether Bigfoot exists or not. I am not the least bit afraid of the possibility that Bigfoot exists; I am afraid that the "DNA results" as presented above are... misinformed. Which says nothing about what Dr. Ketchum's results may be; just that these obviously aren't them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True,seems to me the ones trying the hardest to prove it are the ones doing the most dammage to its credibility.I know they exist,dont get me wrong but dang some of these (experts) really dont have a clue.

      Delete
  12. @Anonymous Believer with Sense

    Exactly. I really don't have a working knowledge of genetics, so I have nothing to offer on the topic. A body would work better for proving the animal, anyway.

    @Anonymous Believer Who Can't Take Criticism

    Even as an unbeliever, I have awareness of the physical evidence, such as it is: footprints with dermal ridges, the dimensions of the creature in the Patterson film, various hairs, vocal recordings (R. Scott Nelson thinks it's a language), etc. etc. etc.

    Outrageous claims require outrageous proof. The above is not enough, silly. No more vaporsquatches!

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Anonymous said...

    > Robert Lindsay does not reveal his source, but we'll take his word for it.

    I won't. That's not how science works, sorry.
    Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:20:00 PM PST

    Best comment ever posted on this site...hands down

    ReplyDelete
  14. So "the A-Bomb of DNA results" is not understood by anyone associated or reported on or quoted in this post. That's a lot of hyperbole.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In florida there are lost chimps.. been there for decades. They have traveled north as far as Georgia and other southern states.
    In the Pacific Northwest there are Bigfoot hunters calling back at one another trying to make their best sounding calls deceiving and being deceived by tracks and the like to prove something they want to believe in.
    There are "feral humans" out there who live off the wild and cover themselves in deer skins or bearskins in the Pacific Northwest their way of doing things passed down from generation to generation. Most of these are of Indian descent, called stick Indians. They also go out at night to poach deer and bear and net fish. You can use the banging of trees and stones to make the big bucks and other game to move at night.
    Many of these "feral humans" are ordinary folk during the day and play their tricks at night to keep their freezers full.
    If you see a sasquatch chances are its someone in a bear skin to smell like the wild and live off the land. This is a fact... dont be fooled.
    If you kill one you wont report it because you will see its a guy just like I said.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Not impressed, author claerly has a below high school level of understanding about Genetics.

    "I believe that the DNA testing subsequently concluded that all three of these samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA." -This would require that we had a bigfoot to collect a tissue sample and then sequence the genome?

    DNA from a bigfoot steak (from a hunter who thinks it is a bear) and a toenail... Journals who will not publish

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Robert Lindsay does not reveal his source, but we'll take his word for it." I can also sell you a beach resort in Oklahoma while we are at it.

    A-bomb of DNA results? Yawn. I tune out automatically when I see hyperbole. Yes we are in a period of awakening, but basic rules of hard physical evidence, actual clear images, clear videos, (how convenient that many videos and pictures are grainy and unclear) are needed. Hard evidence that can be double and triple checked from separate, unrelated sources. Open mind yes, naive mind, no.

    Until then it makes for good pulp fiction, entertainment and a money making industry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Robert Lindsay does not reveal his source...'

      And why the inability to disclose sources? This is not some insider in DHS revealing plans about FEMA camps etc. This is science for public knowledge.

      Delete
  18. The compensation is certainly more if a person gets injured during work.
    Secondly, one should never try to tackle the situation with
    the other party alone, as the victim can endanger his chances of having a strong case.
    reliable lawyers for personal injury has been prepared, it is very much.


    Feel free to visit my homepage: www.personal-injury-lawyers-blog.com

    ReplyDelete