In my past work I have tried to treat each Ketchum et al. DNA sequence independently, and not to generalize without evidence. Sometimes a tentative overall conclusion is suggested. Here we look at some mtDNA sequences with common rare (human) mutations which are much more prevalent in other primates. From everything I have learned, these several samples hold the most promise for actually originating from an unknown human-like primate. This is a preliminary report, mostly just observations and suggestions for further study. Your comments are especially welcome here.
Referring to Table 1, samples S1 and ES-2 have identical mtDNA sequences and the same two extra mutations. C152T is common in humans, but G7332c is not found among the nearly 20,000 human mtDNA sequences in the Nucleotide database. Further, it was not found in any other primates, though G7332A had a few examples. Since we know nothing of the provenance of ES-2 and because it is identical to S1, it would be of great interest if Ketchum et al. would identify this sample. However, the most significant similarity among the samples in Table 1 is the occurrence of 7852A, 9083C, and 13209T in samples S24, S26 (less 7852A), S28, S29, and S138. These mutations are rare in both the NCBI Nucleotide database and the Phylotree of mtDNA mutations . In fact, none of the nearly 20,000 complete human mtDNA genomes in the database have more than one of these mutations, i.e. none have two or three. These five samples were collected by different teams in three widely separated locations, CA, NM, and BC. Ketchum, et al. maintain that all sample collectors and laboratory personnel were excluded from possible contamination based on their individual mtDNA profiles.
Fig. 1 shows percentages of each primate group possessing each of these rare human mutations. Percentages are based on all database entries (number in parentheses) for each group in GenBank(R) - Nucleotide database, without regard for species duplicates. The groups collectively include all living primates: chimpanzees (two species), gorilla (several subspecies), orangutan (two species),
gibbons, tarsiers, Old World (OW) monkeys, New World (NW) monkeys, lemurs, Lorisiformes (loris’s and galagos), and Chiromyiformes (aye-ayes). None of these extra mutations occurred in any Neanderthal (9 database examples), Heidelberg (1), or Denisovan (2) sequences, and are therefore not plotted in Fig. 1. However, these small numbers of database examples may not be representative of these populations. Full taxonomy of these families is found in ref. .that these three mutations, plus C9195T, are much more common in nonhuman primates, increasing generally with increasing taxonomic/genetic distance from human . C6571T was only found in Old World monkeys. C3626T was not found in other primates.
Nothing definite can be concluded from these limited data, especially when considering the relatively low number of database entries for some of the primate families in Fig. 1. Some intriguing questions might be explored further by collection of more DNA samples from the same geographical areas of CA, NM, and BC, along with photographic or video documentation:
1. Could S26 (the black bear) be contaminated with sasquatch mtDNA? In which case, it might be the result of a fight between bears over a sasquatch carcass. 
2. Why does S26 have so many (16) extra mutations? (so many that a haplogroup cannot be uniquely determined).  Phylotrees produced by two different methods did not agree. 
3. Could S24, S28, S29, and S138 actually be sasquatch samples with a vestige of nonhuman primate mutations, either through parallel or reverse evolution? The random occurrence of three rare mutations (7852A, 9083C, and 13209T) in all of these samples is a statistically improbable
coincidence. [See NOTE] They must be related somehow. Importantly, all four samples differ by only a few, mostly heteroplasmic, mutations. A common human contamination is unlikely, given the rarity of these mutations in the human genome (Table 1, Fig. 1), especially in combination. Even two human contaminants with these combined mutations seem unlikely (no GenBank(R) sequences had even two of these mutations). Even more remarkable are the identical sequences of S29 and S138, which have in addition to these mutations three additional rare heteroplasmic mutations (C3626Y, C6571Y, and C9195Y) in common. Sequencing errors would not likely be at the same three positions in two independent samples. Both of these samples are from British Columbia and were collected by the same people (ref. 1,Table 1), whose mtDNA was found not to be in these samples . These two samples may be from a single sasquatch or closely related individuals.
I openly encourage more field work and laboratory analysis of samples from these regions of OK, CA, NM, and BC.
The occurrences of 7852A, 9083C, and 13209T are 27, 20, and 7 respectively in 19988 human
database entries. The probability of all three occurring in the same individual is:
(27/19988)*(20/19988)*(7/19988) = 4.73 x 10 exp -10.
The probability of these three mutations occurring in any four randomly selected individuals is:
(4.73 x 10 exp -10) exp 4 = 5.02 x 10 exp -38.
 Ketchum, M. S. et al., Novel North American Hominins: Next Generation Sequencing of
Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies. DeNovo, 2013, 1:1, Online only: http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/view-dna-study/
Incomplete nuDNA., Paper 1 at right (and related blogs)http://www.bigfootclaims.blogspot.com
Supplementary Figures, June 17, 2016, this blogsite.
 National Center for Biotechnology, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/taxonomy/
26, 2014, this blogsite. http://www.bigfootclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/sample-26-smeja-kill-independent-lab.html
Numbers in parentheses for each group are the number of database entries in GenBank(R), which include duplicate entries for some species.