What DNA studies have been conducted on alleged Bigfoot hair and tissue samples and what were their results?
Executive summary
Multiple formal DNA investigations of alleged Bigfoot/Yeti hair and tissue have been published: a high-profile 2013–2014 Oxford-Lausanne study sequenced mitochondrial 12S RNA from 30 usable hair samples and found matches to known animals (bears, cows, horses, dogs, porcupine, even ancient polar bear signals) — none to an unknown hominid [1] [2]. At the same time, a separate controversial claim by Dr. Melba Ketchum’s Sasquatch Genome Project asserted novel nuclear-genome results from ~111 samples that it interpreted as a half‑human hybrid; that claim was widely questioned because the paper appeared in a nonstandard journal and contamination and collection protocols were criticized [3] [4] [5].
1. The Oxford–Lausanne forensic sweep: methodical, peer‑reviewed, and negative for new hominids
Researchers at Oxford University and the Museum of Zoology, Lausanne solicited historic and museum hair/tissue specimens, cleaned short hair segments and sequenced a mitochondrial marker (12S rRNA) to identify species affiliation; of 37 selected hairs, 30 yielded sequences and all matched known species — including black bears, cows, horses and canids — with two Himalayan samples aligning most closely to an ancient polar bear lineage; authors concluded samples implicate known mammals, not an unknown ape-like hominid [1] [6] [2].
2. Why mitochondrial DNA was used — strengths and limits
The Oxford team relied on mitochondrial 12S because mtDNA is abundant in degraded hair shafts and is a standard barcode for species ID; this approach gives robust genus/species assignments when there’s a close match in reference databases. That strength means the study could confidently attribute many samples to common animals, but mitochondrial markers cannot fully rule out unusual nuclear-genome hybrids or detect low-level contamination sources — an acknowledged limitation of the method and of short hair-based studies [1] [6].
3. The Ketchum “Sasquatch Genome Project”: dramatic claim, contested evidence
Dr. Melba Ketchum’s group published a large, sensational paper claiming nuclear-genome sequencing across ~111 specimens and concluding a novel, hybrid hominin lineage; mainstream outlets and scientists criticized the report because it appeared in “DeNovo Scientific Journal” after prior rejections, collection methods were heterogeneous, contamination risks were not adequately addressed, and independent peer validation was lacking [3] [7] [4] [5].
4. Contamination and collection practices: the recurring explanation offered by critics
Journalists and independent scientists pointed out that many submitted specimens were collected by enthusiasts with variable training, sometimes long after alleged deposition, so human and environmental contamination during collection and handling is a plausible alternative explanation for human sequences and odd nuclear signals reported in disputed studies [3] [4] [5].
5. Other institutional tests and archival work: FBI and historical analyses
The FBI examined a clump of hairs in the 1970s after a Bigfoot researcher submitted them; the Bureau’s analysis concluded the hairs matched members of the deer family (and other archival work has repeatedly classified submitted hairs as known species), demonstrating that formal forensic labs have historically found identifications in ordinary fauna rather than unknown primates [8] [9] [10].
6. Newer, contested entries and exemplar reports since 2014
Since the Oxford study, fringe and amateur projects have continued to produce claims — for example groups asserting partial “genomes” or novel sequences — but reputable coverage shows these claims often lack independent verification, are published outside recognized peer‑review channels, or have been contradicted by standard forensic sequencing that repeatedly returns known animal matches [11] [12] [13] [4].
7. What the record actually shows and what it doesn’t
Available, peer‑reviewed sequencing work shows dozens of examined hairs and tissues attributed to Bigfoot/Yeti match known species, most commonly various bears and domesticated animals; that empirical pattern is the strongest, repeatedly replicated outcome [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any independently validated, peer‑reviewed nuclear genome that proves an unknown North American hominid exists; the Ketchum claim stands as an outlier criticized for methods and venue [3] [4] [5].
8. Conclusion: science so far points to misidentification or contamination, not a new primate
The best-documented, peer‑reviewed genetic surveys have not found DNA from an unknown ape-like hominid; instead they identify ordinary animals and occasional ancient polar-bear–related signals in Himalayan samples, and critics trace extraordinary genomic claims to weak protocols or publication choices. Those who press for further work point to limits of hair-only mtDNA and call for rigorously collected, chain-of-custody specimens subjected to full nuclear and independent lab sequencing — a standard that, if met, could settle the question scientifically [1] [6] [4].
Limitations: this summary relies on available reporting and the referenced published studies and critiques; available sources do not mention any independently replicated, peer‑reviewed nuclear-genome confirmation of an unknown Bigfoot species.