Tuesday, November 1, 2011

If Bigfoot is 100% human, what could this mean?

It is rumored that some samples from the Bigfoot DNA project have already yielded some striking results. One study suggests that Bigfoot is 100% human. What does this mean? Without knowing all the facts from the on going DNA study being led by Dr. Melba Ketchum, this could mean many things. We're not going to suggest contamination of the evidence (yet) because there seems to be more to this than meets the eye. Folks, we could be looking at a totally different tribe of people here. But we're going to save that talk for another post.

In the meantime, while we're all waiting patiently for Dr. Melba Ketchum to release her study (currently in peer review), AutumnForesGhostHunter blog has an article asking what it means for Bigfoot to be 100% human. It's an interesting perspective and you should check it out.

Here's a snippet from the article:

But what makes us all human?

Does the 100% blood of a human mother lineage make BF a human or does the half that is from more primitive man make him ape? If a person has a genetic disorder that creates severe global developmental delay, does that make him not human because he cannot communicate or understand? Does BF, because he has no language we understand and lives in a primitive existence, be a human only with developmental delay? Would raising him amongst us show a level of intelligence that astounds us or could that bit of ape genes make him only as trainable as a chimp? Remember ape genes are 98% similar to ours, but that 2% makes a huge difference in language, intelligence and walking upright.

If this rumor were true, it may be a relief to realize that BF is not all beast, but then it also opens a new can of worms that none of us are prepared for. We might have a feral cousin in the woods who has been surviving on his own, but he might be that missing relative that would explain much of our own process of arriving as homo sapiens. This creature, walking erect for quite some time, has had the same free hands we had to fashion tools and be intelligent. Perhaps the very reason he has not been caught as of yet is that he is very cognizant of himself as a thinking, living, breathing, spiritual and physical being and also understand the "others" (man). 

Click here to read the full article.


  1. This speculation is intriguing. I like to look at it from all angles and knowing man as I do and our socialization, it complicates all matters of science. I'm excited to add to the conversation.

  2. I have been spending some thought time considering what THEY think after their observations of US and our antics. Here are a few of the thoughts:

    -Our physical differences: To whatever degree they are able, they might be trying to understand why we wrap ourselves in clothing, perhaps making the leap to conclude that we are lacking enough body hair to keep us warm. Assuming they communicate among themselves (and the evidence suggests they do communicate, and very well), they must have decided that we are inferior physically, if only based on our smaller adult size, scrawny appearance, pink skins(or other strange variations), apparent need to protect our feet and bodies with clothing, etc. Do they find us hideous in appearance? Attractive? Alien? Do they realize they could easily dispatch one of us quickly, or do they fear our technology too much to consider such a thing? Perhaps this ability might explain missing persons to some degree? I would think they, or at least some BF's would have won a run in with a lone human at some point in their lives. Does father BF tell the kids legends about grandpa who killed the pink skinned hunter? Perhaps the way a human with a gun ended grandmas life, despite the attempts by the clan to save her and care for the apparently minor wound. I would think so. I am at the very least sure they believe we stink more than anything they have ever encountered.

    -On our technology: Consider them watching from the shadows the average camp site or woodland home activities. The lights that seem star like that humans control at will. The deadly thunder that guns emit when in the hands of a human. The amazing way a gun can dispatch a bear or elk at our direction. The small box that emits the voice of a human, and sometimes many humans and other amazing noises. The mastery by humans of cars (or is it the other way 'round?). Perhaps guns and cars are the only thing in their world they cannot outrun. On occasion, they might watch a home being constructing a home. The amazing transparent force field (glass) they apply to the holes that can be seen through, but is hard...the way all of the human made caves seem to smoke and glow in the winter time, yet you can't always smell a fire. If you peer within the caves at night, you can sometimes see humans watching other humans and cars inside a very bright and magical box. The way the human caves always seem to smell of strange types of food. Where do they get this food if only a few of them go hunting? Then there's the smooth texture of the cars if you touch them as they sleep in the driveway, And there's the feel of the cloth that hangs on the wash line. Many trinkets and tiny versions of cars that the young humans play with in the backyards. Very light and soft rocks that roll easily, magical wheeled things made of sticks (bikes) that the kids ride to go faster than their slow legs can carry them...

    -Our behavior: We use our guns to kill animals, then we waste much of them, we are loud and bring many loud and destructive things to the woods. No telling where the things humans have came from.

    -A fairy tale they might tell their children: "Children, see the weak, strange humans. This is what happens to you if you lose control of the forest. You might end up captive in square caves and the brightly colored smaller caves and be taken upon the hard rivers that go across the land. You will then lose your hair and have to wear brightly colored skins to keep yourself warm in the winter. You may only have a short time every moon to visit the mother woods. Truly a horrible end. We are lucky to be free to roam the woods all of the time. You can watch the humans from the shadows, but flee or hide when they approach, or they may make you like them."

    The thoughts of their perspective on our world keep rolling through my mind faster than I can type. Perhaps I have given (infected) the reader with a similar train of thought...


  3. FORGET ALL ATTEMPTS TO COLLECT EVIDENCE!!!! Figure out a way to capture one. Everything besides a capture or kill is 100% useless.

  4. Nice post Grant.

    On 100% human: I am not sure what that means in light of today's genomics. Since so far, H. sapien sapien is the only known living, "thinking" "human being." Seems there is room for a "Bigfoot" "human being," Homo bigfootus, or even relics such as H.erectus.

    By taxonomic definition then anything in the genus Homo is considered "human?" (Ssquatches don't exist and relic hominids died out). Imagine any relic of the genus Homo as Sasquatch...are they still 100% human?
    I am waiting for the paper, or Parnassus (at Randi JFRE forums.....read that for skeptics view, or who? who will inform me what exactly ae Sasquatches?

    The legal question of "humanness" is also an interesting thread, as there appears to be claims of dead Sasquatches, or injured ones...how does that work? Can one do a "Bigfoot" project with dead "humans?"

    So, I must believe there is something that makes Dr. Ketchum feel confident they are in the Genus Homo but NOT sapien (in spite of a shared 40,000 genes in mtDNA, if true)...and where does that take us? The speech gene is FOXB2 or something and HAR series associated with brain development..perhaps it is as simple as missing or additional genes...or not...

    even culturally as Autumn Forest pointed out..it isn't so simple to say "not human" or "human"..... perhaps the resistance in the scientific community is because of this very basic problem/paradigm.

  5. Pardon me, my bad...I don't think Dr. Ketchum has made a claim they are "human," and my post implies that. I think she has said things like "certain there is a Bigfoot." Pretty vague really.
    I think it is Paulides who is staing Bigfoots are human...and refers to them as a "lost tribe?" And also the recent mtDNA findings of Stubstad are too limited to say...

    so forgive me.

    I have no idea what Dr. Ketchum thinks, or has, or expects.

    Most of the witnesses and data poitn to..LOL apehuman. j/k But it does depend on ones cultural perspective I suppose whether they "see" and ape or see a "human."

  6. You're correct apehuman,it is Paulides who believes Bigfoot are human.If I remember correctly he thinks are of a Native tribe.
    Shawn has the video up of that.
    Must go read Autumnforest's post.

  7. Nice post "Grant in Iowa". What a great thought!

  8. It was a nice post Grant.I hear what you're saying.I often think about that too,but from more of a humor side.
    I wonder if they wager.

    "Hey,do a whistle.Let's see which way they look."

    "I bet you an extra piece of deer meat that you can't hit 'em with a rock."

    "Let's do peek-a-boo.First one caught in the flash has to clean up the poo pile."

    Or a dare:

    "Hey,stand out in the open so I can grab this jar of peanut butter."

    "I bet you can't run across that field without the human seeing you."

    "Let's go camera tipping!."

  9. since you guys are still here..there is a real serious side to DNA of BFs if they are "human"

    see this letter response after a Nature article on aboriginal DNA project..must have been uproar...

    I also am aware that there are controversies in IP Law wrt to genomes and patenting sequences, etc. I know BF forums aren't the place to ask the question...but I figure perhaps Parnussu reads this and will answer my concerns thoughts there anywayhere is excerpt:

    Nature | Correspondence

    Previous abstract
    Next abstract

    Genome sequencing: Aboriginal people agreed to DNA study

    Craig Muller

    (27 October 2011)

    Published online
    26 October 2011

    As research manager of the Goldfields Land and Sea Council (GLSC), I was involved in your discussion of Aboriginal genome research (Nature 477, 522–523; 2011) and would like to make it clear that the decision to allow analysis of the 90-year-old hair sample was made by the duly mandated people. The decision took proper account of ethical research practices and of the rights of Aboriginal people to safeguard their cultural heritage.

    The GLSC is the representative body for the Aboriginal people in the region where the sample was obtained, and is recognized under the Native Title Act 1993. The directors are elected by GLSC members, and membership is open to all Aboriginal residents of the region. In granting their permission for the research, the board exercised properly defined moral, cultural and legal authority to speak on behalf of the Aboriginal people there.
    Subject terms:

    Genetics and genomics

    this was published in ths weeks online Nature journal

  10. Who will speak for Bigfoot? The above Nature response over a 90year old hair...what about a two week old "steak" or "blood and tissue" from glass baits?

    The problem with the BF field is we don't have any Field Anthropologists out there....

  11. well shoot, it did post, sorry for redundancy

  12. Your post we stuck in a filter. I had to unstuck it for you :)

  13. I agree with the poster above who wrote that all evidence besides a capture or kill is useless. What has decades of collecting evidence done? Absolutely nothing (but allow some people to make money). No court of law is going to prosecute someone for killing a sasquatch. If it's some sort of deformed human (which I doubt), no one is going to go to jail for killing a 9 foot tall 700 plus pound "human" that for all intents and purposes looks like a bipedal ape. All of you who are trying to gather evidence are wasting your time if what you're doing does not result in a capture or kill. Nothing else will convince those who don't already believe.

  14. Kidding aside,I think Bigfoot is more human than ape.Maybe it's a mix of something we haven't considered,or discovered yet.
    Our knowledge is not infinite,but it is ever changing.
    It's my hope that whatever Bigfoot is,it's left alone by mankind so it can continue as it has.
    I know it's a lofty dream.

  15. Anon - I agree with you in terms of conventional wisdom and old school specimen vouchers - a body on display in the American Museum of Natural History ....would "prove" it to "everyone.". But, I think that approach is a bit 19th century and less than we can accomplish given modern anthropolgy. Especially given the apparently precious nature of the Sasquatch species.
    So, many of us don't feel a need to "prove" the exist in that old dusty taxidermy way.
    Rather we want to encourage the best modern field studies. DNA is the most informative thing we can learn about BF today and that is being supplied by amateurs. We all hope a DNA study will raise the bar on attention, but the right kind of attention...from academia, not Finding Bigfoot Shows and amateur hunters.
    A dead body won't inform us of too much more than the DNA, and it certainly won't inform us of habit or growth and abilities...
    So, not sure on this in the long haul..it's a very complicated thing the "Finding Bigfoot" phenomenon....
    I can just go with my gut, I can do without proof it if means a calculated killing or capture of a Sasquatch.

  16. Lofty dreams are the best kind of dreams.

  17. To say it is a "relic human" is ridiculous. Just because it is covered in hair and lives in the wild dosn't make it a "relic human". It is a known fact that humans have the genetic capability to grow to 8 feet or more and even be covered with hair and be 100% homo sapien sapien.