Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What do DNA analyses of alleged Bigfoot samples show?
Executive summary
DNA tests done on alleged Bigfoot (and related “yeti”) samples have mostly identified the material as known animals—dogs, bears, horses, deer, human contamination and other common mammals—rather than an unknown hominid (e.g., Oxford-Lausanne found 30 sequenced hairs matched known species) [1] [2]. A high-profile outlier—Melba Ketchum’s 2013 claim of hybrid “Sasquatch” genomes—was met with skepticism because of nonstandard publication, possible contamination and methodological concerns [3] [4] [5].
1. Systematic surveys: the mainstream result — ordinary animals
A coordinated, peer-reviewed effort led by Oxford/Lausanne sequenced mitochondrial 12S RNA from hair samples and reported that, of the hairs yielding usable DNA, all matched known species (dogs, bears, horses, etc.), with seven samples too degraded to identify; the paper concluded there was no genetic support for an unknown hominid in those specimens [1] [2] [6].
2. Why mitochondrial 12S sequencing? — forensic species ID, not whole genomes
The Oxford-style studies used mitochondrial markers (12S RNA) because these short mitochondrial sequences are robust for species identification and easier to recover from degraded hair shafts; they reliably match samples to reference sequences in GenBank when present [1] [2]. That method is designed to tell whether a hair came from a known mammal, not to reconstruct whole nuclear genomes.
3. The Ketchum claim: a high-profile counterclaim and why scientists pushed back
In 2013 Dr. Melba Ketchum claimed to have sequenced whole “Sasquatch” nuclear genomes showing a hybrid between unknown male hominins and human females; her report was released outside mainstream peer-reviewed journals and drew criticism for nonstandard sample collection, contamination risk, and lack of reproducible methods—leading many geneticists to regard the result as unproven [3] [4] [5] [7] [8].
4. Contamination and sample provenance: the recurring caveat
Investigators and skeptics emphasize that many alleged Bigfoot samples have been handled by collectors and enthusiasts without forensic controls; mitochondrial results identical to humans or “unknown” returns can plausibly reflect contamination, environmental degradation, or lack of an appropriate reference genome—not proof of an unknown hominid [3] [4] [5] [9].
5. Media and entertainment reports vs. peer-reviewed science
Television and promotional outlets sometimes present eDNA or “unexpected” findings as suggestive of non-human primates (e.g., environmental DNA claims on expedition shows), but these reports do not substitute for transparent, peer-reviewed sequencing with raw data and independent replication; mainstream scientific publications remain the gold standard [10] [11].
6. What a decisive genetic proof would require
To demonstrate a novel, reproducing hominin species scientists would need uncontaminated samples, clear chain-of-custody, multiple independent labs reproducing whole-genome nuclear sequences that are consistently distinct from known humans and other primates, and peer-reviewed publication—requirements not met by the Ketchum report and not contradicted by the Oxford-Lausanne negative survey [1] [3] [4].
7. Alternatives and remaining unknowns
The dominant interpretation of available DNA work is that purported Bigfoot hairs sampled to date come from ordinary animals or are contaminated human material; however, several samples were too degraded to identify, and available sources do not claim that every possible specimen has been exhaustively tested worldwide—so while current genetic surveys argue strongly against the samples studied representing a new hominid, they cannot logically prove a universal negative [2] [1].
8. How to weigh competing claims — scientific standards and incentives
When extraordinary claims (a living hominin) arise, the scientific community expects extraordinary evidence: transparent methods, deposited sequence data, independent replication, and publication in reputable journals. The Oxford-Lausanne paper produced open sequence matches to known species and was published in Proceedings B (with later corrections and debate), while the Ketchum study was criticized for its publication venue and methodology—this contrast in process informs why mainstream scientists remain unconvinced by the hybrid claim [1] [3] [5].
Conclusion: The best-supported, peer-reviewed DNA work to date identifies alleged Bigfoot samples as known animals or contaminated human material; contested claims of novel genomes exist but have not met the scientific standards required to overturn the prevailing interpretation [1] [3] [2].