The Bigfoot drawing as shown is via The Erickson Project, and posted under fair use to highlight the developments coming out of that group’s new enhancements and alleged discoveries. The image is a mixed media drawing done by their project associate dArlet Devisser. It as an illustration. It is not a true representation of the facial footage. The sketch was employed as a design element within the text of The Erickson Project’s webpage.
This is my first exposure to this information so I DO hope I am misunderstanding what is going on. Otherwise it sounds like there are some major misrepresentations. Here is the link that was brought to my attention:
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/breathtaking-news-from-the-erickson-project/
Which has this statement as its second paragraph
"Surely the most breathtaking news so far involves the sequencing of Bigfoot DNA. We already reported previously on the sequencing Bigfoot mitochondrial DNA, which is coming out 100% human. That means that the Bigfoot female line goes back to human females."
Here is the "Already Reported Previously" link:
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/interview-with-richard-stubstad-is-bigfoot-human/
But the actual news is that if the female genetics they are reporting are 100% human, then the sample is 100% human. There are two key samples used in the analysis and they must therefore both come from human female corpses.
The Third paragraph continues with the disclosure:
"However, we can now report on the sequencing of the nuclear DNA from the male side. The report is that it is absolutely non-human! It is very far away from humans. In the chart below, various hominins are measured according to their distance away from humans in terms of polymorphisms (P* distance)." And then gives a chart indicating comparative polymorphisms from modern humans in Neanderthals, Denisova, the Bigfoot composite sample, and chimpanzees.
Now the doubletalk here is that the DNA for the fossil hominids is once again mitochondrial DNA preserving the female line of descent and not nuclear DNA at all! Furthermore only half the nuclear DNA comes from the male line.
And then fuirther down the page is a lot of self-contradictory rigamarole about how the samples were allegedly obtained.
Now as I said I'd love to be proven wrong on this. But I have just heard a series of badly incriminating admissions that these people don't know what they are doing. It IS true I am hearing all this as indirect ("Leaked") rumours and not as official documentation. But what I have just seen gives me NO confidence in any conclusions the group might come to, I'm sorry.
Best Wishes, Dale D.
I subsequently got this reply from Tyler Stone:
I think this article might be worth looking at:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/erickson-project-news-5/
[Which is a long tale of woe consisting of reports of unsatisfied customers submitted to the Better Business Bureau. In the review of this DNA firm which promises a "Revolutionary new advance in DNA Testing" (ie, they presumambly use an experimental approach to analysis not approved by the DNA analysis industry at large) , the business is rated an "F" for its overall performance]
The business running the tests, DNA Diagnostics, basically seems to be doing this:
1. Receive samples and payment via check
2. Cash check
3. Fail to run test, lie about it to customer/legal officials OR perform test and send incorrect results to customer.
So basically, with as horrible as the company sounds, I wouldn't trust anything coming from them. I'd say this story is all BS.
It's also worth noting that Dr. Ketchum did the analysis for a sample of "yeti hair" found on an episode of destination truth. It came back as being from an unknown non-human primate, yet I've heard elsewhere that the lab doesn't even HAVE non-human primate samples for comparison!
Now if the samples were to be tested at a different lab and they got the same results, I'd be willing to accept this. But I doubt that will happen. Honestly, I'd say any "real" results are from contamination by Dr. Ketchum. I bet her DNA would match the "Sasquatch" DNA if it was tested.
In short, the "findings" are garbage and the whole story is a load of BS. End of discussion.
Sincerely,
Tyler Stone
--Sorry, I should wait for some sort of formal announcement of the final Bigfoot DNA test results from the company first: but right now I'd say that the stuff just keeps getting deeper and, frankly, I haven't got a shovel big enough to keep up with it.
Best Wishes, Dale D.
Please note that I personally do not have anything to say about DNA Diagnostics or the way they run their business: the report through Cryptomundo is by way of the Better Business Bureau. I am not publically defaming the business for that reason. What I AM saying is that based on these preliminary statements, they haven't a clue about mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA, or the male and female genetic contributions, and that therefore their results are useless.
Hi, Richard Stubstad here:
ReplyDeleteThere are so many misunderstandings in the above text—from all sides—that I think I should try to address them at some length here so as to avoid even more misunderstandings and speculation on the part of many “instant experts” in the field of DNA testing and analysis.
The first entry above is from “Dale D.”, which in part maintains:
“But the actual news is that if the female genetics they are reporting are 100% human, then the sample is 100% human. There are two key samples used in the analysis and they must therefore both come from human female corpses.”
This synopsis of “female genetics” is NOT the way mitochondrial DNA operates in our bodies. In particular, the two key samples did definitely NOT come from “female corpses”. Both came from purported sasquatch samples (although both may have been female, by chance).
Everyone, in fact every primate on earth, carries within their bodies a form of relatively “ancient” DNA, called mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). If the source of the mtDNA sample is or was a male, this mitochondrial DNA does NOT get passed down to the male’s offspring; only his nuclear DNA is passed down. On the other hand, if the sample comes from a female specimen (whether living or dead), her mtDNA IS passed down to ALL of her offspring, whether male or female. If one or more of her progeny are female(s), the very SAME mtDNA is passed down to her daughter(s), ad infinitum down through the female lineage, in theory at least from the time of the existence of that particular individual’s mitochondrial “Eve”, or “source female from ancient times”. [While occasional mutations can occur perhaps once every 5,000 years on a single pair of the mtDNA map of 16,569 pairs, this minor wrinkle is not germane to the discussion at-hand.]
Meanwhile, the mtDNA doesn’t do anything whatsoever to form our bodies and the thought- and perception-centers we call “me” or “you” or “he” or “she”. MtDNA is simply a relic “map” of your maternal source from ancient times, and as such only shows what the particular species of your mitochondrial “Eve” was at the time of her existence. It is ONLY the nuclear DNA that results in the person or primate or mammal you actually ARE, today or at any time in the past or future.
All that was meant by both Robert Lindsay and me was that the common mitochondrial “Eve” source of purported sasquatch Samples 1 and 2 were a common female (or female kin) who lived some 15,000 years ago in sub-glacial Europe and that she was 100% Homo sapiens sapiens—for example what we may now call a “Cro Magnon” female. We only know a small amount about these female ancestors of ours, and possibly of the sasquai, through the fossil record and—now—through the relatively new science of DNA analysis. For example, we have little or no idea whether these “people” were covered with hair or not. We only surmise they were not, because once the skeletal remains are found, the artist takes over and—well—draws what he or she believes a person would have looked like at the time in terms of skin color, hair, looks, etc.—in short the artist essentially dreams up everything except the skeleton itself. So the mtDNA samples did NOT come from “human female corpses”. They could have, but they did not—they came from living, breathing hominids—whether ordinary humans or sasquai—I believe the latter.
ReplyDeleteDale D. then goes on to say, “Now the doubletalk here is that the DNA for the fossil hominids is once again mitochondrial DNA preserving the female line of descent and not nuclear DNA at all! Furthermore only half the nuclear DNA comes from the male line.”
It is indeed difficult here to even understand what you are surmising, Dale D.? What “fossil hominids”? These two samples came from one of two things: living, modern humans (like us) or living sasquai. Each sample had FRESH blood attached to it. Each possibility carries mtDNA from their respective female lines of descent, and each have their own unique nuDNA that determines their actual bodily features and thinking “map” as it were. Furthermore, just because the mitochondrial Eve some 15,000 years ago was a stone-age human, this does not mean that “half of the sasquatch, if that is where it came from, was also “human”. Before the nuDNA data is in, we won’t know whether the nuDNA of the female human from 15,000 years ago or so has been supplanted by nuDNA from several or even dozens of males from the original Eve’s offspring, who were NOT Homo sapiens sapiens, resulting in a sasquatch creature of today that is—for example—90% ancient hominid and NOT Homo sapiens sapiens. Or vice-versa; we may be dealing with a feral human here, where both the male and female lineage are some form of stone-age Homo sapiens sapiens or even “pre-humans”. Dale D., you are putting far too much credence into the mtDNA side of the equation. The mtDNA only tells the entire “species” story IF the sasquatch species originated from a male and a female of the SAME species or subspecies. What Robert Lindsay is trying to say here is that this is NOT the case—he maintains that we have in fact a hybrid species living amongst us today that is partly human of an unknown percentage and partly some other ancient hominid (eg. Denisovan) that is not what was ever called “modern human”.
Finally, Dale D. concludes his entry by saying, “And then further down the page is a lot of self-contradictory rigmarole about how the samples were allegedly obtained. … Now as I said I'd love to be proven wrong on this. But I have just heard a series of badly incriminating admissions that these people don't know what they are doing. It IS true I am hearing all this as indirect ("Leaked") rumors and not as official documentation. But what I have just seen gives me NO confidence in any conclusions the group might come to, I'm sorry.”
Actually, Dale D., I think “these people” did know exactly what they were doing, and probably still know what they are doing (although I am no longer a part of the study). I know exactly how these first two samples were obtained, but due to one or more NDA’s, I cannot say exactly how or where. All I can tell you is that they were obtained at purported sasquatch habituation sites, and that both were totally fresh samples from living, breathing hominids—or modern humans, assuming both were hoaxes (which is still a possibility). What Robert Lindsay is doing is “reading between the lines”, and he is only partly successful in doing so—as is typical for reporters in general. What you are correct about, Dale D., is that the information coming from either me or from Robert Lindsay is not “official”. Still, it is not leaked since I am no longer bound by an NDA with Dr. Ketchum et.al. What I am trying to do, Dale D., is to start up a parallel DNA study of this creature (if it indeed exists) at another lab—one that definitely “knows what they are doing” to use your words. This is not to say though that Dr. Ketchum doesn’t know what she is doing—she’s actually a pretty good scientist, but sometimes other factors that are not germane to the science at-hand do get in her way, thus causing “contradictions and rumors” with absolutely no “official” announcements. In fact, I believe her project is in such a political mess that I wonder if a “parallel study” won’t be completed before she is done with her’s. No one knows what’s going on inside of “DNA Diagnostics Inc.” in terms of manipulations and playing off one interest against another. I certainly don’t know, and by now I have come to realize I didn’t even know what was going on behind the scenes even when I was involved. I also believe other “parallel studies” are taking place as we speak, notwithstanding yet another study or Dr. Ketchum’s study.
ReplyDeleteNext up was Tyler Stone, who initially goes into Dr. Ketchum’s checkered business history. While some or all of the BBB’s take on her history may be true, these accusations say nothing about whether the sasquai exist or not. Keep in mind too, Mr. Stone, that there are two sides to every story, and I for one have heard Dr. Ketchum’s side of these stories. Her side is not completely without merit, although she was obviously reported by disgruntled clients from time to time.
Mr. Stone then goes on to say, “Now if the samples were to be tested at a different lab and they got the same results, I'd be willing to accept this. But I doubt that will happen. Honestly, I'd say any "real" results are from contamination by Dr. Ketchum. I bet her DNA would match the "Sasquatch" DNA if it was tested.”
In fact, we DID check our own DNA (those of us involved originally at least) and none of these (including Dr. Ketchum's) matched any of the first four samples in terms of their complete mitochondrial genome and a single nuclear gene for any of these samples. Not even close, in fact. And yes, it WAS a different lab—who tested the samples blindly. I agree with this “blind testing” approach—don’t you, Mr. Stone?
Tyler Stone concludes his entry by saying, “In short, the "findings" are garbage and the whole story is a load of BS. End of discussion.”
Well, suffice it to say, Mr. Stone, I respectfully disagree with you. I was there. What we did was not “garbage”. How would you know it was “B.S.” anyway? That’s my end to the discussion, sir.
At the very end of the above tirade of accusations and unfounded assumptions, Dale D. concludes by saying, in part, “Sorry, I should wait for some sort of formal announcement of the final Bigfoot DNA test results from the company first … “.
ndeed Dale D.—good idea. You may have to wait a long time, though, due to the politics and egos involved in the current project, but NOT the science. That’s why I’m pushing for a parallel study. At best, a parallel study will confirm what Dr. Ketchum concludes and eventually publishes. At worst, it may well contradict her conclusions. These conclusions I have no idea about, because I haven’t seen the vital nuDNA data. I think that Robert Lindsay has gotten some information third- or fourth-hand on this subject, and this information is from folks who know far less about the DNA project than I do. I think Robert is taking some quantum jumps in his interpretation of these 3rd and 4th hand stories as a speculative reporter—which he certainly has the right to do. In fact, I can neither support nor deny what he is saying. I don’t think it will turn out, in the end, exactly as he says, though, on the nuDNA side of the equation. In fact, no one knows at this point due to the way that Dr. K is conducting her study.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, several others continue to work on various DNA approaches to the sasquatch phenomenon, including me. I haven't lost interest in the sasquatch project at all, because I have seen what I consider to be a 97% level of supporting mtDNA evidence that sasquatch exists—not what sasquatch IS. This is NOT scientific proof by any stretch, because this conclusion is only based on the first two samples we tested for the entire mtDNA genome. Two specimens do not make for a viable population, let alone support the necessary genetic diversity that must be present if the sasquai indeed exist "out there" in our backyards, as it were. Otherwise, they (the sasquai) would long have reached a genetic bottleneck and died out due to lack of genetic diversity.
Very briefly, my conclusions at this point in time are:
MOST IMPORTANTLY, TH E DNA DATA ARE NOT YET IN TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SASQUATCH SUBSPECIES (IF THAT IS WHAT ITS LINNAEAN TAXONOMIC DESIGNATION TURNS OUT TO BE—A SUBSPECIES).
Secondarily, just as the checkered history of Roger Patterson does not prove, one way or the other, that he and Bob Gimlin hoaxed their 1967 film (maybe they did; maybe not), Dr. Ketchum's work may or may not prove the existence of sasquatch, notwithstanding her personal attributes or her strange, highly secretive, and paranoid ways of doing business.
Richard Stubstad
Consulting Engineer and Statistical Analyst
I am sorry if my points caused any confusion. I had essentially two technical points on DNA which I stated as clearly as possible. The rest does not concern me.
ReplyDeleteI have a degree in Anthropology and I do in fact know a bit about mtDNA: enough to know that the figure of 15000 years ago goes with one of the European "Eves" and hence we are talking about two probably Western-European femals samples in the comparison: probably White, Anglo-Saxon femaels of nominally American citizenship we might assume. Your easiest course of action is then to say that the samples were included mistakenly and you do not even have to say it was due to a malicious hoax (Frankly I incline tro the Malicioyus Hoax explanation myself.)
Why there was any problem about my statement concerning the fossil hominid samples I do not know. I named them by name: Neanderthal and Denesovian. Those samples are included in the comparison of nuclear DNA and they are NOT nuclear DNA samles. The Fossil DNA is also mtDNA and that is what the comparison between them is based on.
It just so happens I have collected "Bigfoot" genetic evidence myself before. It also just so happens that I not only lost the samples when I turned them in for analysis, I also never got any lab results back, nor yet any good excuse as to what supposedly went wrong. I am not holding those matters against DNA Diagnostics and I am not letting the experience cloud my judgement: It was another company entirely. In my opinion the genetics of the Bigfoot I deal with in this part of the country are close enough to human that they can be classified as human, or at least members of the genus Homo. That is my impression on hearing results from other samples. I do NOT consider all Bigfoots to be equal and I definitely do not consider all creatures being called "Bigfoot" to be of the same species. Some are bears, for example. Because of that, I expect that there is going to be confusion when results from different species are added together. The problem comes in when you are trying to determine how much genetic difference determines a species: there is no good agreement on that point and because of that situation all results are going to be questionable by some party or other UNTIL there is a good consesnsus for a general genetic-distance ruler for species. And don't even begin about subspecies when you have that situation already.
Best Wishes, Dale D.
PS, I do hope you don't mind that I did not continue my arguments further than I did and answer all of your counter-statements, I thought what I had said was sufficient.
Tyler Stone is a friend of mine and his opinions have been aired on this forum before, and his input is still welcome here. I am in no way connected to the site Cryptomundo and any opinions expressed by that site are made under that site's responsibility
Just in case I needed to repeat my earlier statement, 100% human female DNA means that you are obviously sampling a human female. and it did NOT help that the lab people chose to specify they were looking at mtDNA only on the female samples, not specifying what the nuclear DNA was in the same samples.
ReplyDeleteIf the theory were to be valid at all, we would be talking about ALL mtDNA from ALL samples and ALL nuclear DNA from ALL samples. In males the mtDNA also comes from the female line. Sperm carries very little mitochondrial DNA, almost all of it is the donation of the ovum to the new zygote.
Best Wishes, Dale D.