First Preliminary Data on Bigfoot Nuclear DNA

Posted by: Bigfoot Evidence on November 22nd, 2011

Nuclear DNA

Here it is ladies and gentlemen, the A-Bomb of DNA results. Robert Lindsay does not reveal his source, but we’ll take his word for it. First, we want to say that we are not geneticists, so we’ll need an expert to decipher what we actually have here. We can tell you that not even Robert himself understands what some of the results mean.

The results from the MC1R gene tests were very confusing, and I do not understand the results very well, but I will just throw them out to you and let you try to make sense out of them. Sources told me that the MC1R gene in the three Bigfoots was exactly the same in each one, a shocking finding. The results were “within the human range, but just barely.Robert Lindsay

Read more at Bigfoot Evidence.

About Bigfoot Evidence
The latest Bigfoot sightings, photos, and videos. World's only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.

15 Responses to “First Preliminary Data on Bigfoot Nuclear DNA”

  1. JE_McKellar responds:

    The exciting news is that all three samples were similar and exotic. Barring any genetic contamination, that means that the samples came from a real population of something. It’s still possible that the samples came from mundane modern humans, considering the unknown genetic diversity of modern humans, but it would be extremely unlikely for three random different modern humans to all have the same odd gene; they must all belong to the same breeding population.

    The next bit of information is that the exotic alleles seem to be just barely modern human, 1/3 of the way between human and chimpanzee as they put it. The problem here is that we don’t really know much about the genetics of all our hominin ancestors, especially for a single gene like MC1R. We do know that recent human subspecies, Neaderthals and Denisovas, had different MC1R genes, but anything else is mostly speculation. What we do know is that we’re talking about a close relative here, not a Gigantopithecus or gorilla or bear for that matter. They could be a highly derived H. erectus, but I think a Neanderthal or Heidelbergensis would look and act too human to remain so isolated from the rest of us. The other possibility is that this is a close cousin, like a descendant of Paranthropus or an australopithecine.

    All in all, the good news is that this bit of evidence can open up new questions and maybe justify proper research and funding.

  2. semillama responds:

    There needs to be more contextual information here, as a sort of summary. How do we know the samples are from three individuals? What sorts of controls were done to prevent contamination in the field and lab? Not really an A-bomb – more like an M80 off in the distance, that made you say “what was that?” The A-bomb is a body from which independent labs can make analyses to compare the results.

  3. allenfuchs responds:

    Just curious… does anyone have any dna from the bones of our ancestors? I know that most were fossils or something close, but I was just wondering if there was anything at all to compare the findings to?

  4. mandors responds:

    Is the same source that claimed bigfoot mitochondrial DNA was human, but the nucleic was “different”? Or was that a different researcher? (Sorry, there’s a lot of molecules flying around.)

  5. todreynard responds:

    Find the lab tech with the most prominent brow ridge and check for a match.

  6. odioustrident responds:

    This little sneak peek is pure propaganda and showmanship. Please step back from the situation and listen to exactly what he is saying.

    …. Major assertions while remaining as vague and inculpable as one can be. This bs has been around since the 70’s if not earlier. We should wait for the real deal as per usual.

  7. Vane responds:

    Very interesting, I also support the “close cousin” idea. But not too close. Closer than say a gorilla, obviously. But there would be some key differences. Since we really don’t know much about our early ancestors (but that’s a whole other thing) most of what we could come up with to explain this would be pure speculation (as is usually the case) but personally I’m not seeing Australopithecus (maybe something that came later in that branch though) or Gigantopitheicus (frankly I think that we should run these new findings past some of them famous molars anyway) or any known species. Let me re-phrase that, any known incarnation of a known species.

    But I’m overjoyed to hear this earth shattering news and very much look forward to hearing more in the near future. Take THAT skeptics.

  8. DWA responds:

    [holds head]

  9. Ragnar responds:

    todreynard said

    “Find the lab tech with the most prominent brow ridge and check for a match.”

    The MC1R gene is the one that regulates red hair color, fair skin and freckles in humans. So look for the Ginger lab tech with the brow ridge.

  10. Redrose999 responds:

    Well then, what journal is it going to be published in? And when will they send the samples off to another unrelated lab? Crossing T’s and dotting I’s you know.

    Other than that, it will be exciting news, I look forward to seeing the actual data. Go Melba!

  11. ETxArtist responds:

    Ragnar, that’s interesting. Does that mean Bigfoot should have hair similar in color to an orangutan, with a light-colored face? Doesn’t really sound like most sightings, does it? Something’s fishy here…

  12. bobhelferstay responds:

    I’ve heard that Robert Lindsay is not directly in the loop of the research project, and that his “leaks” should not be taking as the Gospel. I have trouble believing anything that I hear, unless it comes from Dr. Ketchum. I really would like to hear the official announcement. This has been brewing for a long time.

  13. todreynard responds:

    High-five, Ragnar!

    From Lindsay, “The results were within the human range, but just barely.”

    Oooh! It’s obvious now. Check the lawyer who drafted the NDAs for Ketchum and colleagues.

  14. JE_McKellar responds:

    There’s new on comment on the Bigfoot Evidence site, quoting a comment on Robert Lindsay’s site. It says that 2 of the samples had one unusual MC1R variant, and the third sample had another unsual MC1R variant. I’m not an expert on the diversity of MC1R in the modern human population, but this makes it possible that the samples were from modern humans. The commenter says that other genes support the conclusion that the sample are not from modern humans, though, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

    I’m of the opinion, though, that any of our very close relatives (H. heidelbergensis, H. neaderthalensis, and of course any Paleoindian group) would be highly social, living in large groups and actively engaging with other humans, not to mention littering the landscape with their tools and other trash. So I think the ‘near human’ results that are leaking out must point to a highly derived descendant of H. erectus or an earlier hominin, with the added implication that the whole Homo genus is more tight-knit genetically than we usually care to admit.

  15. flame821 responds:

    Count me in with the others who will wait for the peer-reviewed and vetted information to be published before I get excited. I’ve read a few article on Lindsay’s site and I won’t take his word for anything (Your mileage may vary)

    And all these ‘un-named sources’ and ‘friends of friends’ it just sounds too much like the beginning of an urban legend tale. As much as I want to see results and have Sasquatch proven to be a real animal, I won’t jump the gun. I’ve waited this long a few more months won’t kill me.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.