Is sasquatch a closely related subspecies to humans? ISPP says it could be named 'Homo sapiens hirsutii'

Homo sapiens sapiens, that's us. As far as we know, we are the only living species in the Homo genus. Subspecies of Homo sapiens such as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens idaltu are all extinct, probably due to interbreeding between the subspecies. Anatomically they were like us, modern humans.

And then comes Homo sapiens hirsutii or hairy humans, but Bigfoot researchers like to call them sasquatch. They are supposed to be like us too. Yeah. This is all new to us and it' not yet official, that's as much as we know for now.

Where did we get this new term "Homo sapiens hirsutii" from?

On May 4th 5th and 6th, 2012, the Pacific Northwest Conference on Primal People will be held at Richland, Washington. It's not clear if the event is invite only, or for the public, but heavy hitters like Dr. Melba S. Ketchum and David Paulides will may be there to give their talk on "Sasquatch – Homo sapiens hirsutii." What does this mean? Well, we can only speculate that they are already scheduling appearances and this must mean they have something, right?

Update: "Below is a list of proposed speakers… some have committed, some have given us a verbal OK and a few are still working on scheduling. Whatever happens, you can see this will be a wonderful conference." - Jaime Avalos

Here's the list of scheduled appearances:

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, Director

David Paulides

Alex Evans
Bob Gimlin
Paul Graves
Ron Morehead
R. Scott Nelson
Derek Randles
Arla Williams

This talk by David Paulides about Bigfoot being human and not an ape.



  1. Sorry, but from every video and photo I've seen, classifying this animal as a homo sapien subspecies is ludicrous. It's too morphologically dissimilar to modern humans (and archaic humans)... even the genus Homo could be a stretch.

    Without Sasquatch remains and a THOROUGH analysis of it's skeletal structure, the mere discussion of how to place the animal in taxonomy is, well, stupid.

  2. @Anonymous

    DNA evidence, if proven, would be enough to scientifically classify a species. In fact, DNA now trumps morphology when it comes to species classification.

    Of course we have no DNA and now we have no Erickson Project to announce the DNA we thought we had. We also have no bodies or even bigfoot steaks from the Olympic Project or Justin Smeja.

    We don't have any of these things and yet we're discussing Homo sapiens hirsutii?

    Am I allowed to laugh?

  3. Citizen Truth made an astute observation:

    Notice the "mystery" to be revealed at the dinner? Perhaps it is a joke?

    No! Never!

    Time will only tell...and the data!

  4. Haha. AFL--I agree. Yeah, until we have one, what are we doing classifying? I still believe that until you have a lot of controls in gathering evidence, we really can't say it came specifically from BF or some crazy inbred redneck in the backwoods. DNA evidence is only as good as your ability to take the actual person who's DNA it is and go "Bingo!" like in criminal cases. Otherwise, we have DNA and no one to attach the findings to.

  5. Can you tell a chimp from a man with DNA? Of course you can. Same with Bigfoot. DNA will reveal where these things fit in the tree of life. That means you can be certain, even without a type specimen, that Ketchum didn't inadvertently discover the jackalope.

  6. Yeah but it would be cool if the jackalope was real.

  7. It seems the Bigfoot Hunters had been chasing more clever versions of themselves all along!

    Perhaps now the “Bigfoot Monster Hunters” shall lay down their guns, put away the trail cams, and turn of the walkie talkies.

    Because - it will difficult for the BFers to denounce their Avenging Angel, Dr. Ketchum.

    It will be an interesting year - 2012! or not...

  8. Great posts the last few days Shawn. I been barley able to keep up with the discussion.

    Totally off topic....

    Is it too soon to start up "Bigfoot-Adventures in the Wild-Tours", oh, stand corrected, should be Homo Sapien Hirsutii.

    I wonder if this is where it will go if the truth does come-out.

    In a world full of entrepenurs, how will people make money off this discovery?

    Food for thought.


  9. Morphology is a great tool to understand how an organism lives in it's environment but Aifl is correct that DNA trumps morphology every time...morphology can be very "plastic" all it takes is a few switches in various genes to enact rather dramatic morphological changes. Size and hair growth would be two of the easiest things to change rather quickly by minor tweaks of a few genes.

    Look at the variety of breeds of dogs with regards to "morphology"- all one species. Look at the huge variety of species within the lizard genus Varanus- all belonging to one genus.

    Real genetic changes/differences in organisms are better expressed in terms of how the various enzymatic/molecular pathways of different organisms are arranged/expressed.

    On a related topic one often hears about the close "97% genetic identical" matchup of chimp and human DNA. What that statement doesn't take into account is that a large proportion of our DNA is junk DNA- it doesn't code for anything and is simply "baggage" from the shared common ancestry of all living things. So in effect that 3% difference is rather important.

    I hope this was useful for some of you, I am not a geneticist, I just have taken some basic biology and anthro courses.

    By the way I have been trying to stay out of the whole DNA/EP fiasco because I don't believe I (or most of the people reading/commenting) are in the know well enough one way or the other to say for certain what is going on.

    We just have to wait to see...will we get what we want for Xmas...or a lump of cool.
    Just gotta play it cool for now.

  10. Thanks SP, that really help clear up the chimpanzee analogy. I have heard it used many times here. I have used it myself.

    Amazing what another 1.5% would change!

    I really appriciate all the comments from science. Keep them coming. I read everyone!


  11. What ya want to bet this all turns out to be either "unidentifiable" or modern human?

  12. @sciaticpain

    Really good post. Besides "junk" DNA, which is usually an accidental insertion of genes that do nothing, we also have fossil genes, which used to do something and have fossilized from disuse.

    The gene for hair all over the body is still in our genetic makeup and gets switched on at about six months into human gestation and then gets switched off again. My premature nephew looked "just like a little monkey" when he was born, according to his mother.

    Leaving that gene on all the time wouldn't prove to be much of a genetic difference, but morphologically speaking, the difference would be huge to our eyes.

    In most people's minds, fur or hair all over = animal; no body hair = human. (Let's just ignore some of the more hairless animals and the fact humans ARE animals for now, shall we?)

    IF bigfoot is real (huge if), no wonder we assumed he was more of an "animal" this whole time.

  13. Listen dude I'm no Homo so you can just leave me out of this.

  14. Atheist - also great post..and the "issue" of the divide...many "tribal" proponents have fought bitterly with "ape" proponents for 50 years...and it appears the tide is finally turning and perhaps more humane thinking/treatment by Bigfoot Hunters - since for the most part they are the only ones out poking and prodding looking.

  15. Next thing you know,they will be getting drafted
    into the NFL,The NY Giants rookie full back,
    Sas Quatch,scored 80 touchdowns in the 1st half...

  16. In fact Atheist.. I would not be surprised if the greatest resistance to this news will be the BF Community itself..the part of that "community" that hunts, and thinks BF is a Beast...and so on. This will surely end thier "big Game" type fantasies and perhaps force them to think more deeply if they are to meet thier quarry...and of course terms like Quarry will become totally unacceptable..and so on, so perhaps in a few decades there might be some level of inter-communication given the right anthropologists in the field...

    of course all with a big "if" Bigfoots are real! LOL...of course witnesses and everyone else have a very different take on reality!

  17. zigoapex...LOL..good post also..

    I always thought a super soccer team! And low budget on cleats..

    I can say they seem able to detect light in 900nm evidence born of a technical failure in field and the response/behavior of "eye-shine" that liked to follow me around out there and visit camp at 2am for an apple...

    anyway I find out later from a friend that in WWII the Gov actually did experiments with Vit A to improve night vision and a result was increased sensitivity to IR...the studies discontinued (imagine everyone turned yellow)

    I really am very pleased to see Ketchum get this "sapiens" news out there. Kudos!

  18. there seems to bea movement towards many in the bigfooter community to bring the sasquatch out as some kind of neanderthal or something....I think its irresponsible and I dont buy it..I also thuink it damages the credibility of BF research in general.

  19. @Anonymous

    I don't think you can "bring out sasquatch" as anything until you have some evidence. All you're seeing is pure speculation on the part of pretty much everyone. There simply isn't enough evidence.

    So let me do some more speculating in your general direction. :)

    If bigfoot exists, a more human intelligence makes sense because:

    1) it has avoided detection eleven years into the 21st century.

    2) It's actually "weird" that Homo sapiens is the only species of Homo living on the planet. 35,000 years ago, as many as five different species of humans lived on the planet: Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo erectus and whatever the hell the Denisovans turn out to be. On an evolutionary time-scale, 35,000 years is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING.

    Homo floresiensis lived perhaps as recently as 15,000 years ago. I might be surprised and delighted to see one walk out of the forest today, but hey, at least we have fossils of these little guys. :)

    But again. It's speculation. Speculate in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first. :D

  20. My $$ are on:

    They are much closer than chimps.

    They can breed with us.

    They have.

    What I really am keyed up about is the implications for homocentric religion.

  21. @anonymous post #1 - you sound very much like the FBFB guys....or I should say the swim coach and his be wanna writer spokes person.

  22. AIFL, you keep saying there is no evidence, when then what the hell are they testing? Last I checked, the had a couple of sites where they have filmed video evidence of the subjects they took DNA samples from. Read Paulides report too, he has a clear case where sample collection came immediately after a sighting, with no third party handling the sample. Your bias is making me sick.

  23. hairsuit? Isn't that a little misleading right out of the gate? Who'll believe it? Why not something after someone big in the game like krantzi or pattersoni or gimleti?

  24. That is complete and utter nonsense. How can we give this creature a scientific name when we don't even know it exists? We can make field observations about their behavior, but we cannot try to fit the creature into the zoological real or construct any basic anatomy without examining a set of bones. Even if we capture one, we still would need to wait until it dies so we can examine it's bones. What about taking DNA samples from this creature, one might ask? Well, we have had multiple hair samples come back as 'unknown primate' or 'related to GAF' but mainstream science claims that this is "unsubstantiated".

  25. It's not my first time to pay a visit this site, i am visiting this web site dailly and obtain good data from here everyday.

    my blog best registry cleaner


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia