Bigfoot DNA results will be accompanied by video footage of creatures

Many people are new to the story of the Ketchum DNA project but it’s been ongoing and talked about in the circles of Sasquatchery for over a year. During that time, many rumors have surfaced and tanked regarding where the samples came from and what ELSE would accompany the results.

This was a good piece on the Ketchum bigfoot DNA story including commentary from other experts about good old fashioned scientific skepticism.

Texas researcher claims to have DNA proving that Bigfoot is real |

A researcher in Texas claims to have DNA tests that prove Bigfoot exists.

Dr. Melba Ketchum is a veterinarian and specializes in DNA testing. She said her company started analyzing tissue samples collected around the US about five years ago by people trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot.

“We have saliva, we have bark scraping, we have blood we have a little bit of everything,” Ketchum said.

Video: if it doesn’t load, click here.

And, there have been those rumors that video exists. As I described in last week’s episode of Virtual Skeptics, the Erickson Project (Sasquatch: The Quest) has been working in conjunction with Dr. Ketchum providing the samples and additional evidence in order to convince the public that Bigfoot is real. Adrian Erickson makes this statement on his website:

Expanding to more study sites in both the USA and Canada, the team eventually achieved greater success, and recording extensive video and audio evidence, as well as collecting a host of other physical evidence including footprints, hand prints, and hair. Initially we felt that with the mounting evidence we were collecting, the scientific community would soon embrace this evidence, and move towards recognition of the species. With the exception of a few scientists who visited the Erickson Project, this was not the case; as the evidence mounted, the bar was raised higher, and soon it appeared that only DNA would turn the tide.

After many attempts, we perfected methods that enabled us to collect saliva, blood, and hairs from several sasquatch. The mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA of these samples are presently being analysed.

Who is Adrian Erickson?

Erickson says he has seen the sasquatch with his own eyes.

So armed with cameras, in 2005, the Erickson Project began its quest to document the sasquatch, capturing what is purported to be the only other footage of the creature since the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film.

Erickson and his Reel Productions team say they filmed the sasquatch in Maple Ridge and in U.S. locations. They didn’t just film one – but several. They caught them sleeping, peering through trees and via thermal images. In his film, you can hear the sasquatch make low guttural sounds, the kind that make your hair stand on edge. The creatures are in a variety of colours – grey, brown and an orangutan orange.

The location in Golden Ears Provincial Park [British Columbia] was ideal because it had been hiked for more than a decade by the man who reported the sightings to Erickson. The sasquatch were not afraid to interact with the man, growing more familiar with him as he returned to the area.

Erickson filmed at the location for two years and collected hair samples from what he says is a grey, light-coloured sasquatch.

Erickson realized that footage plus DNA results would be more convincing to the public. Therefore, the release of the Ketchum paper could be a one-two punch. Here is a teaser the Erickson project gave us in August of 2011 – a still from a video of a sleeping Bigfoot. He claims there is full-face video of this individual, named Matilda. But since this is not very impressive, we are left still being lead along.

Erickson Project’s sleeping Bigfoot

Several other scientific projects have been searching for Bigfoot. You can go here to read the background on some of them.

Many pro-Bigfoot people have been critical of me and other skeptics who are commenting on the Ketchum study prior to the paper even being released. But what else can we do? She’s made HUGE promises, we can’t help but think about it and speculate. Science by press release is unprofessionally bad form, and it often turns out to be a bust. I do understand that the wait has been long and process takes time but I can’t help NOT getting my hopes up considering all the so-called “real deals” we’ve seen before.

Those of us whose conclusions are made or broken only by critical consideration of the evidence are WAITING for the promises to be fulfilled. This could be Bigfootery’s finest hour or it could be it’s crash and burn fiasco.

The stage is set for Big Bigfoot news. Now produce it.

For more, please click on the related posts below.

  33 comments for “Bigfoot DNA results will be accompanied by video footage of creatures

  1. December 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM

    Good piece, Sharon. This shit just gets weirder by the minute. Can’t wait to read your piece on this fiasco!

  2. D.
    December 2, 2012 at 11:22 AM

    At the risk of seeming mean, this sounds like another bunch of hum-buggery to the highest degree. But I’ve got to admit, there’s a part of me that throbs with anticipation that something might come from this. There have been no teeth, bones, etc. found. At all. My guess is that the DNA “evidence” has been contaminated. Still… you never really know. HaHa !!!

  3. drwfishesman
    December 2, 2012 at 12:03 PM

    Is it me, or does this train wreck remind anyone of the NASA/Wolfe-Simon arsenic-based life fiasco?

  4. Caz
    December 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    I know someone who knows one of the peer reviewers of the paper. He said there is no problem with sample prep (no contamination) and no problem with the sequencing. All the fighting and all the delays are due to the INTERPRETATION of the data.

  5. December 2, 2012 at 4:23 PM

    No offense but I can’t buy into friend of a friend stories. And there is CERTAINLY by default a problem with the samples because we do not know their origins because none were taken from a known Bigfoot. As far as I can tell, they were sent in so not collected by the same person. Was a protocol followed? How old was the sample? Many questions.

  6. Jim Price
    December 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM

    The photo shown above looks very much like a bear carcass. Erickson claims he also has a “full face video” of the same alleged bigfoot. If that’s the case, where is it? Why would he release a junk photo to support his case when he supposedly has much better evidence? Because he has no such video of a genuine bigfoot.

    It’s kind of like a prosecutor trying to convince a jury using a smudged, ambiguous shoe print while claiming he has a conclusive fingerprint that he refuses to produce. It’s all lies, smoke, and mirrors, with very little smoke.

    How many hundreds of times over the last 50 years have we heard the same BS? Big news coming. Conclusive evidence, just wait. This will rock the scientific world. Not once has it ever materialized. This situation will be no different.

  7. December 2, 2012 at 4:35 PM

    A good bet. But it will be interesting to watch.

  8. December 2, 2012 at 4:43 PM

    As I recall, Tom Biscardi also included photographic evidence during his televised press release of the Georgia Bigfoot-in-a-freezer hoax. Possession of evidence is not the same as quality of evidence.

  9. December 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM

    I’m skeptical. The clearest footage is one that dates back to the 60’s. All the others are blurry, grainy, and out of focus. Why has no definitive archaeological footage ever been found. Not even fecal droppings, bones or even carcasses. I’m definitely in the ‘wait and see’ category.

  10. Jim Price
    December 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM

    P.S. It reminds of the situation with Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football. One would think that by now Charlie would realize that Lucy is a liar.

  11. December 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

    That exact analogy HAS been suggested.

  12. Jim Price
    December 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM

    Droppings? Bones? Carcasses? Everyone knows that Bigfoots bury their dead and use flush toilets.

  13. Chew
    December 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    So these shy reclusive animals who have avoided having a single clear photograph taken of themselves since the advent of photography… sleep out in the open? During the day?

  14. Jim
    December 2, 2012 at 6:14 PM

    This will turn out to be a bust like all the others

  15. Vin
    December 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM

    uno…I almost hope she DOES convince the Public… Tax Dollars will be spent and people hired and research started…..then everyone finds……NOTHING (hopefully then the Issue can FINALLY be put to rest, so Bigfoot can claim it’s rightful place in MODERN MYTHOLOGY)

  16. F89
    December 2, 2012 at 8:27 PM

    Photographic evidence will be released. If it was really important to these people, why wasn’t it released earlier, if it was so clear and as conclusive as Mr. Erickson feels?
    I’m not sure how the protocol of “discovery” of a new animal is laid out, but I would think that important information wouldn’t wait for another study before release. Couldn’t it be released with the caveat of “additional evidence is forthcoming in a related study” ?
    Real evidence would be great, but this field has been so polluted by myths, hoaxes and profiteering, that any evidence put forth is going to have to withstand some serious scrunity.

    As Mr. Nesmith says “and here we go….”

  17. Nrrd
    December 3, 2012 at 5:10 AM

    So if Erikson was able to observe what has previously been described as a clever and shy species sleeping, why didn’t he use a tranquilliser gun and drag the specimen in for tests at his local university?

  18. Locomoko
    December 3, 2012 at 5:40 AM

    This bothers me, as well. From Erickson’s remarks, there is every appearance that Ketchum et al had an “INTERPRETATION” before they even collected their first sample. How on earth could they possibly pre-screen multiple, separate samples from an *unidentified* species? If we knew it existed, we wouldn’t need the study. The only proper starting would be to say that there is no proof such an animal even exists. I will be curious to see if they account for all the non-sasquatch samples they doubtless received. And I don’t even want to imagine how they collected “saliva” samples.

  19. Locomoko
    December 3, 2012 at 5:48 AM

    My hope remains that, if they’re real, the Powers That Be already know everything about them, and have been shielding them from the public this whole time. We don’t have a great track record protecting isolated tribes from our own species, as it is. If Moneymaker manged to find a family of them on TV, I think they’d be wiped out within a year.

  20. Tyler Kokjohn
    December 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

    In principle, peer review is a confidential process. Participants avoid making any statements regarding the data and its intepretation because they are bound by confidentiality agreements and an understanding that their personal opinion may not necessarily be held by all the reviewers or the journal editor. In light of the controversial nature of this research, it strikes me as odd that any reviewer would be talking at this stage. Unfortunately, it is not impossible that someone has communicated an opinion.

    Perhaps the poster also knows which journal Dr. Kethchum submitted the mansucript to for peer evaluation. I would like to know because I will not be sending any papers there for review. Science by press release is poor form, but peer review by rumor is completely inexcusable.

  21. December 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

    I wonder who’s using all this to write a paper on social gullibility. That’s the one I would like to read.

  22. Richard Smith
    December 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

    Dr. Ketchum doesn’t have a son or nephew named Ash, does she? Perhaps nobody can find bigfoot because he’s already caught them all?

  23. F89
    December 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

    Well, as I have stated before, Dr. Ketchum’s nephew has MUCH more experience with the habits, capture and traning of mysterious cryptids (and I’m glad somone else thinks so too!)

  24. December 3, 2012 at 8:02 PM

    I think is looks more like a shaggy puppy, depending on the relative size of the subject. It’s hard to tell without better size references.
    What a shame. Here they come across a sleeping bigfoot, and not only do they apparently take a single black and white shot of it, but from an angle and perspective that makes it worthless for identification.

  25. December 3, 2012 at 10:32 PM

    Nothing will be released until the right deal is signed with a production company. And by right deal, I mean highest bidder. BIO seems to be big on oogey-boogey lately. Or Animal Planet can ride the Mermaid’s coat-tails.

  26. December 3, 2012 at 10:41 PM

    Nah, they would start their own production company and develop a show called “Finding Bobo”

  27. Rich
    December 4, 2012 at 10:12 AM

    Tch. It’s not “out in the open”, it has a sleep strategy of deliberately and cleverly placing itself so that there’s a rather small but handily obscuring tree between it and anyone who comes by with a camera.

  28. DarkRabbit
    December 4, 2012 at 10:24 PM

    Would some of you please explain to Jimmy Chiclutt why he’s wrong? Don’t tell me; tell him. Then tell Jeff Meldrum. And let’s have some videotape of it to prove it. BTW, hi RayG, my favorite skeptical boogey man! Hope you are well!

  29. DarkRabbit
    December 4, 2012 at 10:27 PM

    I knew I’d look like a buffoon simply by misspelling Jimmy Chilcutt’s last name. (sigh)

  30. DarkRabbit
    December 4, 2012 at 10:38 PM

    RayG knows it takes me a minimum of three posts to get my point across. But, the point is: With me, you are up against Jimmy Chilcutt and Jeff Meldrum and Bill Munns’ analysis on the NatGeo documentary on the PGF. You are up against these scientific and/or forensic and/or human-anatomy minded professionals right now – not Tom Biscardi; not Melba Ketchum; not Justin Smeja. You have to prove to me they don’t know what in hell they’re talking about. And, as opposed to the skeptic view to dismiss all this without even seeing yet, I’m open to watch the debate skeptics can have with these experts who obviously have had a hell of a lot to lose by taking the postion they have. Oh, but that circumstantial evidence regarding their choices that any fair-minded person would consider doesn’t hold water.

  31. December 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM

    It’s the Johor Hominid hoax all over again.

  32. Bill Galovich
    December 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

    And what do you tell the people who have seen and/or even interacted with these creatures?

  33. December 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM

    Nothing. It was their experience. Not mine. I can’t comment on it.

Comments are closed.