Monster DNA and Ancestory – Ray Crowe
Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Monster DNA and Ancestory
by Ray Crowe
One of the main thrusts of Bigfoot research is to obtain a DNA sample for analysis to help solve Bigfoot’s genetic puzzle. Unfortunately possibly, several specimens have been obtained and analyzed and found to be contaminated. So, what is Bigfoot anyway? Ape, primitive man, human, or something else entirely. It is said that chimpanzee DNA is 98.5% Homo sapiens; not much room to squeeze between the human and the ape such things as: Australopithecines and Lucy, Alma, Homo Neanderthalis, Yowie, Mapinguari (Amazon), Yeran, Kaptur, Homo erectus, or Bigfoot, perhaps all are cousins? Perhaps the model for Bigfoot differs in different environments, which are what Darwin predicted from the variation in species found in the Galapagos.
Most scientists in our field of endeavor (others think us fools) tend to think that Bigfoot is a descendant of the pongid Gigantopithecus of Asia from a half-million years ago, based on four gigantic human-like teeth first collected by Prof. von Koenigswald as Dragon’s Teeth in Hong Kong in 1935. Later two lower jaws were added to the growing hominoid inventory.
Perhaps the creature is an ape then, but only in the context of Desmond Morris describing humans as the “The Naked Ape.” Or as Jared Diamond suggests, we are “The Third Chimpanzee.” Then we are all apes, including Bigfoot. Keep in mind though, that apes have 48 chromosomes, and humans only 46.
So, many of our investigative scientists tend to stick tenaciously to the ape theory almost religiously despite other suggestive reports. For instance, some Russian investigators have long opted for the Neanderthal as a viable model. Many US investigators lean towards a primitive human ancestry, myself included (as well as Rhettman A. Mullis, Jr., MS, MHP of Bigfootology).
One of the first clues might possibly lie in the structure of the DNA molecule and other hereditary traits. Bigfoot can hybridize successfully with humans! We were first introduced to this concept with Zana, the Georgian Alma, who gave birth to viable children and grandchildren. There were another ten cases between 1912 and 1954 of other births from wild women.
In North America there are myriad stories of Bigfoot kidnapping and having sex with native women. Perhaps the most famous is the one in a rare book of Dr. Ed Fusch, “Seweneytl And The Stick Indians Of The Colville.” He tells of the Lake Band of the Colville Indians. They had a fishing camp in the late 1890’s near Keller, Washington, on the San Poil River.
The recent pretty bride had gone for water when the camp heard the Indian maiden scream. The men thought a bear might be threatening or attacking the bride and rushed to her aid and they could only stand and watch in awe as the bride disappeared in the distance in the arms of a Skanicum (local Bigfoot name).
The remainder of the summer the men hunted for the lost bride searching every nook and cranny, but without luck. Finally at the end of summer they found her while she was gathering roots as the Skanicum slept. She was pregnant from the seed of the monster that had forced her to satisfy his desires. Months later she bore a half-monster child – a son. She named him Patrick. And Patrick survived and grew up to become a member of the tribe.
Patrick was ugly. A tiny troll of a sub-human hybrid. He was hump-backed and only 5’4” tall with arms that hung down to his knees. There was a sloped forehead, a large mouth, and a large lower jaw with protruding teeth. He grew up, being considered quite bright and affluent; enough that he found a wife (ugh) and lived a successful married life. He reached the ripe old age of 30, and was buried on the Colville Reservation.
Patrick had a full family life, siring three daughters and two sons that died early. The girls were Mary Louise, Madeline, and Stella, who also died early. Mary Louise lived near Omak and it was said that her paternal grandfather was a Skanicum, although she was relatively normal in appearance; although both girls were said to have protruding teeth, wide mouths, and were squint eyed.
Madeline lived near the Washington coast, and was said to be incredibly ugly, even by native standards. An alcoholic, she spent much of her time in taverns. Dr. Fusch is, last I heard, was unsuccessful in trying to track her down to get a DNA sample which might have been illuminating.
My first exposure to the “human” model came from the geneticist, Dr. Ruth McFarland in 1995 when she presented a compelling argument at a Carson, Washington, conference. The discussion at the time was if Bigfoot was animal or human in ancestry. The hostile “ape theory” group was quick to criticize.
One of the main problems was the idea that Bigfoot was an ape. Therefore, any DNA sample had to be similar to that of an ape/monkey type of creature. If it did not show that result, then it was probably contaminated.
I myself submitted a saliva sample collected from Zac Cave in eastern Idaho by Don Monroe to French authorities, and it came back contaminated.
The Coy/Green hair samples are the first evidence where a scientist began to see other possibilities. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach suggested that an actual hair be collected from the Bigfoot named Fox. There were numerous other hair and fecal samples available.
Mary Green and Dr. Fahrenbach have been unfairly attacked by critics for their opinions – they differed from the “ape norm.” But both have been unfortunately driven from the Bigfoot investigation field, mostly by “armchair” researchers.
Bob Daigle, a friend of Mary Green’s, sent a hair sample collected from the Tennessee site to a DNA geneticist (named only as Dan), who found nothing but human results, the sample sequence being an exact match. He sequenced some 300 nucleotides from a mitochondrial gene called cytochrome b, and amplified a 1100 base pair fragment, then ran the results through GeneBank.
The GeneBank is an open access annotated collection of nucleotide sequences and their protein translations. It lists some 100,000 distinct organisms and having in 2006 some 65 billion nucleotide bases and 61 million sequences.
Control tests were run that were deliberately contaminated with dog and cat DNA despite which still the Fox hair turned out to be human.
The rest of the scientific community and senior Bigfoot researcher’s deniability is reaching the point of being ridiculous. At some point some very public agency or noted personage is going to declare that the creatures are actually human beings, just different from modern man though a subtle shift in the genetic code. Perhaps just a few genes are involved though important ones and they might add up to huge differences and need to be identified. It might be what actually makes us human and them sub-human! This might be what made the jump between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens some 200 thousand years ago in Africa – we became intelligent beings almost overnight.
The next test of the human or ape theory might well be in the wind. Dave Paulides of North American Bigfoot Search has submitted an important sample obtained under very strict controls. The sample is from Raven Ullibarri on the Hoopa Reservation in California, where the Bigfoot had leaned against a shed and several strands of kinky hair were obtained.
The Ullibarri hair was submitted to an expert on hair and fiber analysis, and it was confirmed that the hair did not match any know hair that exists today. It did appear to be from some sort of unknown primate. The hair was then was submitted to Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics. The affair has been treated at the highest scientific level to preserve believability. All involved are locked into a non-disclosure agreement to prevent release of data to the public until publication of the results.
When tests are completed, Dr. Ketchum and her team will write a scientific paper submitted to a noted journal for peer review. This process should eliminate doubters and when presented to scientific institutions aid in their taking the topic of Bigfoot seriously.
Paulides says that the results of the test are nearly completed. Other points from a NABS article on DNA are also important contributions.
1. Many samples have been collected from different sources for testing.
2. A survey of the literature concerning DNA results had indicated that 95% of the results on Bigfoot samples have returned as “Human.”
3. Most researchers claim that human DNA was compromised or contaminated. Results should be discounted.
4. Almost every noted researcher of Bigfoot has proclaimed the results were flawed.
5. Researchers based their careers on the creature being an ape. They have written many books which are in error.
6. Native American tribes call the hairy bipeds “People.”
Read NABS DNA article at http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html
Ray Crowe March 2011
Edited by Rhettman A. Mullis, Jr., MS, MHP
Category : Bigfootology Field Report
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed.