The Ketchum study is a controversial 2013 claim by forensic scientist Dr. Melba Ketchum that DNA from alleged Sasquatch samples shows human mitochondrial DNA but novel nuclear sequences, leading her team to conclude Bigfoot is a recent human–unknown hominin hybrid; the work was published outside mainstream journals and has been widely criticized and not independently replicated.
Summary of the paper
Dr. Melba Ketchum and collaborators announced a multi‑year project analyzing >100 hair, blood, and tissue samples attributed to Sasquatch, claiming to have sequenced multiple mitochondrial genomes and portions of nuclear genomes. The team reported that mitochondrial DNA matched modern humans, while parts of the nuclear DNA allegedly contained sequences not found in public databases, leading them to propose a hybrid origin for Sasquatch dating to roughly 12,000–15,000 years ago.
Novel North American Hominins: Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies
Methods and main claims
Ketchum’s group said they used a mix of standard forensic techniques and next‑generation sequencing to assemble mitochondrial and partial nuclear genomes from a subset of samples. Their headline claim: maternal lineages are human but nuclear DNA shows a mosaic of human and unknown primate‑related sequences, implying interbreeding between human females and an unknown male hominin lineage.
Reception and scientific critique
The study drew immediate skepticism from geneticists and mainstream science outlets. Independent analysts and journalists found methodological problems: possible contamination, degraded samples, questionable assembly methods, and conclusions that did not follow cleanly from the data. Many experts who examined the sequences concluded the apparent “novel” nuclear signals could be artifacts of contamination, poor assembly, or mixed-source samples rather than evidence of a new hominin. The paper was published in a new, nonstandard journal (De Novo) after difficulties with conventional peer review, which further fueled criticism.
What the paper claimed
Ketchum et al. presented a multi‑sample study reporting 20 whole mitochondrial genomes, 10 partial mtDNA genomes, and three whole nuclear genomes from alleged Sasquatch material, concluding the nuclear DNA was a mosaic of human and novel primate‑like sequences. That central claim is the basis for all subsequent scrutiny.
Media and public reaction
The paper received rapid mainstream coverage because of its headline claim that a “Bigfoot genome” had been sequenced; reporters emphasized both the sensational conclusion and the unusual publication history—Ketchum’s use of a newly created De Novo label after rejections from established journals—which amplified public skepticism. Media coverage framed the story as controversial rather than settled science.
Core scientific criticisms
Experts raised several interlocking technical objections that together undermine confidence in the conclusions: (1) contamination risk, especially given human mtDNA in many samples; (2) bioinformatic and assembly artifacts that can produce spurious “novel” sequences from low‑quality or mixed reads; and (3) lack of deposited raw reads and transparent pipelines, preventing independent reanalysis and replication. These points were repeatedly emphasized by geneticists and science writers reviewing the reportPhys.org.
Why those critiques matter
- Contamination: Modern human DNA is ubiquitous in field and lab settings; without rigorous ancient‑DNA protocols and negative controls, human sequences can dominate and mask or create false signals. If contamination is not convincingly excluded, novel‑sequence claims are not credible.
- Assembly artifacts: Low coverage, mixed‑source reads, and aggressive assembly parameters can generate chimeric contigs that appear “novel” when in fact they are misassembled fragments of known genomes. Robust claims require high coverage, consistent mapping, and independent assembly validation.
- Transparency and reproducibility: The absence of raw FASTQ/BAM files, mapping scripts, and lab logs means independent labs cannot reproduce or refute the results; science requires open data for extraordinary claims.
Current standing
Because the paper did not deposit raw sequence data in public repositories and because independent reanalyses have not validated the novel nuclear sequences, the broader genetics community treats the Ketchum conclusions as unproven and highly suspect. The combination of methodological concerns and nonstandard publication practices prevents the study from changing mainstream scientific consensus.
Broader context and replication
Other systematic surveys of alleged anomalous‑primate samples (e.g., Oxford and other teams) have generally found mitochondrial sequences matching known species, including humans, and have not produced independent evidence requiring a new primate species or hybrid origin. The Ketchum results remain unreplicated and contested, and mainstream consensus treats the claim as unproven.
What the paper did
The authors report analyzing ≈111 specimens (hair, blood, tissue) and selecting a subset for molecular work; they describe generating 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes and performing targeted loci, STR testing, SNP arrays, and next‑generation sequencing on several samples. Key laboratory claims include histopathology and electron microscopy on tissue and use of multiple sequencing platforms to assemble mitochondrial and partial nuclear data.
Main findings and headline claim
The study’s central empirical result is mitochondrial genomes that align with modern human haplotypes while portions of the nuclear DNA are reported as “novel” or mosaic, containing human‑like segments interspersed with sequences the authors say do not match public databases; from this mito‑nuclear discordance the paper infers a human maternal lineage with an unknown paternal hominin, dating the hybridization event to the Late Pleistocene/early Holocene in their interpretation.
Publication and data transparency
The paper was released under the De Novo label rather than a mainstream, established journal; the PDF circulated widely as an author‑hosted copy. Crucially, the study did not deposit raw sequencing reads (FASTQ/BAM) or provide fully transparent pipelines and lab logs in public repositories, which prevents independent reanalysis and is a central reason the broader genomics community has not accepted the conclusions.
Why the conclusions remain contested
Independent experts and reviewers have emphasized three interlocking problems: (1) contamination risk (human DNA is ubiquitous and can dominate degraded or mixed samples), (2) assembly and analysis artifacts (low‑coverage or mixed reads can produce chimeric contigs that appear novel), and (3) lack of open raw data and reproducible pipelines, which together mean simpler explanations (contamination, misassembly, known species) were not convincingly excluded. Because of these issues and the nonstandard publication route, the claims remain unproven and unreplicated.
Sasquatch Genome Project Press Conference
Sponsored Products
Your support Helps us pay for this site and conduct Analysis Research, everything helps… besides, you get Cool Bigfoot STUFF…
-
Quick View
-
Quick View
-
Quick View
-
Sale!
Quick ViewBigfoot Doesn’t Believe In You Either Vinyl Decal 6″
Original price was: $9.00.$6.97Current price is: $6.97. Add to cart
Some Featured Items
-
Quick View
-
Sale!
Quick ViewBigfoot Packing AR’s Sasquatch Vinyl Sticker, Black
Original price was: $8.00.$5.97Current price is: $5.97. Add to cart -
Quick View
-
Sale!
Quick ViewBigfoot Carrying the US Flag – Size 3′ x 5′ – Sasquatch Hanging Flag
Original price was: $12.00.$8.97Current price is: $8.97. Add to cart
