Dr. Melba Ketchum Questions Of The Day [Bigfoot DNA]


Just like she promised when she first set up her public Facebook page, Dr. Melba Ketchum took the time to answer some questions concerning the Bigfoot DNA study that's slated for publication.

Here are some Q & A's she recently posted:

Q: Are we still taking samples. 
A: Yes, but not for the first paper.

Q: Do Bigfoots exist?
A: Yes

Q: Will the paper be published?
A: I truly believe it will. We have overwhelming evidence.

Q: Do you believe that you have enough evidence to convince the skeptics?
A: I know all fair minded skeptics will understand and believe, however, there will always be some people that nothing we can do will convince.

Comments

  1. Sorry, but this fails. Nothing of any importance here. At this time I believe she is on the "hoax team" but I hope i am wrong. I truly would like to know how much monetary gain she received to get involved in this whole matter and where she came from. Also, suspicion is raised due to these softball questions and measly answers she posted. Statements in reference to "we have overwhelming evidence" is almost always stated by the "bigfeet researchers" but, in the end usually nothing of value is ever produced. Hope for the best but fully expect the worse in regards to any end result in reference to the DNA result.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The FB page sends our questions about the her planned non-profit group for protection to Sally. I did FB Sally directly requesting info on this protection effort and have no response yet, I think day three now. So,maybe the FB went up a little soon as the information is not forthcoming and already SR had been substituted for DrK on many questions...mine don't get answers, LOl, but then many don't.

    As for hoax? Out right hoak? No, not even a consideration. Puffery, in BF world - always...
    we'll see, today is leap day!

    ReplyDelete
  3. BORING!!! Shaun where is the squatch/GillieSuit photo you promised would be published today...er well Mrs Hovey promised...show us the GOODS NOW!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds like a Larry King interview. All softballs and no substance.

    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To ask a DNA expert if bigfoot is real would not be catagorized as a "softball question." Asking something like, "Do you believe in the possible existence of a bigfoot creature"? would be a softball question.

      The question posed to her is the equilivant to asking the president if aliens are real after he supposedly had contact with them. Her answer was a straight forward "yes." Yes means yes.

      Maybe she is in on a big hoax, but I don't know what you guys are looking for. Maybe they could have asked, "Are you a habitual liar"? or some other off the wall question, but anything other that what was asked would be covered by the NDA.

      Delete
  5. Perhaps those that funded her project are beginning to put pressure on her to produce something and all this FB stuff is just meant to satisfy them. Wonder how much money she got out of Wally Hersom. Wouldn't be the first time a millionaire has been scammed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. I sure don't wish to sound so negative but I'm starting to think this is all a scam as well. If not a scam maybe the good doc is just in over her head or perhaps financial gain was her biggest objective. The main thing I've come to realize regardless of reason nothing will come of this DNA study

      Delete
  7. I usually despise all the negativity people seem to have towards this DNA study, but i have to say, this doesn't bode well...

    Q: Will the paper be published?

    A: I truly believe it will...

    You "truly believe" it will? What else do you "truly believe" in? That bigfoot is real? What a meaningless statement.
    What do we actually know about this? That the paper has no pub date. Vague comments like the above lead me to believe that the paper, if it even exists (and i hope it does), is probably still in peer review, if it hasn't already been rejected. She says she has "overwhelming evidence", but as someone else already pointed out, so does everyone else...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have a very good point and great post.

      Delete
    2. I think she should tell us if it has been rejected at least we could start somewhrere else. In talking to others in the genetic field there doubts are rising as well.

      Delete
    3. They have probably been shopping the supposed paper from journal to journal, trying to get one to accept it for peer review, and hopefully publish the paper. What I read out of that statement, and I am likely reading too much into the statement, is that it has been rejected multiple times, and they are still shopping around for a journal. That would jive with the "we can't name the journal" statements, and the supposed embargo. Both exist essentially because they haven't found a journal to take the paper seriously and they are still shopping around for a publisher.

      Delete
    4. It probably still IS in peer review. She won't know if it has been accepted until she gets a pub date. For Christ's sake, you can't rush science! You are grown-ups, are you not? Have patience! She is doing exactly what the BF community has wanted someone to do for YEARS now, but yet is continually bashed for it. The scientific process takes a long time, especially if you want to make sure that it is conclusive because there are MANY die-hard skeptics out there that will require nothing less. Again, please have patience.....We are SO close....

      Delete
    5. I'm getting tired of hearing you can't rush science. That is exactly what happens whenever a viral out break happens. Technology advances have continually been fueled by rushing science.

      Delete
    6. What it really means is we need time to try and figure out how to get out of this with our tails intact. That is the direction I am leaning on this matter as of now.

      Delete
    7. Can't rush science heck now we have a USB DNA sequencer by MinIoN I think thats how it's spelled and you don't have to be a 1% to afford it .

      $900.00 really it is google it it takes six hours to get results

      Delete
    8. I must ask, who else has overwhelming evidence? Also, you or anyone else is at the mercy of someone who is reviewing your work, you can only say what you think, not what you know because you truly don't know anything yet.

      This may all be a bunch of jack links bologna, but I think that we are beating a dead horse. We keep asking the same questions, expecting different answers. The only cure is to wait until the review is published or wait until it isn't. Either way, the questions will cease.

      Delete
    9. Thanks Ed, and others who point out the reliance on "gag orders" shouldn't be taken at face value. There do seem to be big finacial hopes, through the many registrations early. The Sierra Kills story also troubles me, in that it could have been seprated from the other participants easily and early and published for what it was...
      But, I don't have much choice here without any data, but to wait and hope. The drop dead date? I guess when it ends up in conference rather than a journal?
      Ed I have watched your comments and like your independant thinking, if you decide to forge ahead let us know, you may find more support than you guess!?

      Delete
  8. It's quite possible that the "paper" has been rejected by numerous journals and this is just a prelude to the big let down...I gave them absolute proof and they ignored and rejected it. Science is biased against Bigfoot, science bad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ask her Facebook page how long she has known biscardi.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bigfoots are awesome and wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You all know that if someone could get a body all of this baffoonery would stop abruptly. We would have no need for this report or any of the money/fame seekers. Real scientists would push all the current players right out of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. She has a good point about some skeptics will never believe. Take for example, there are still NASA moon hoax skeptics out there that believe NASA never went to the moon.

    But I agree with one of the posts above, put Mrs Hovey's big foot photo up right away so we can wet our appetites for the DNA evidence.

    I was also thinking that with the Erickson project being rummored to be in hollywood, I was thinking maybe he's trying to get his video and photo graph evidence to be played at IMAX theatres. That would be so awesome!

    Chad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are some interesting quotes in Jeff Meldrum's book regarding DNA evidence, and that in zoological taxonomy, there has never been a new species that he is aware of that has been proven to exist on DNA evidence only. Unfortunately, it is a tantalizing clue for it's existence, and I know this is controversial, but you need a body or large portion of the body for true confirmation of it's existence. I would not rank Meldrum as a skeptic, but his views are realistic into what science would need to confirm the existence of Sasquatch.

      Delete
    2. Chad, I find the direction of you analogy to be quite odd. The moon hoax camp are the ones suffering from credulity and are at odds with the scientific establishment. I'm sure that a Chi square test on bigfoot belief and support for a moon hoax would be highly significant.

      Delete
    3. All I am getting at is that there are skeptics out there that won't believe in anything, no matter what the topic.

      Delete
  13. Isn't this whole thing tied to a possible movie? This just seems like a big waste of time. We heard end of the year in December, we heard end of Feb in January and it probably will be rejected all over. F the peer review just release your shit.
    Bigfoots Broski

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who have you "heard" this from? Robert Lindsay?? Dr. Ketchum has released NOTHING stating when these results will be published. In fact, she does not know herself because she is at the mercy of the peer review process. All of those rumors of a release date are pure speculation. Period.

      Delete
  14. The DNA results need to be released now! Do it in a press release. When I first heard about this in December, then told to check NBC sites every Thursday for the BIG announcement, at this stage with nothing announced on yet again another Thursday, I thing the whole the smell like a scam. At I dont think Dr. Melba Ketchum has any DNA results that back up her claims period!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You think it's a scam because the results haven't been released per your demand?? No wonder the BF community has not been taken seriously by scientists. Here we have a legitimate study underway and y'all stamp your feet and act like impatient 5-year-olds because it's not on YOUR timescale. Jeeeee-zus!!

      Delete
  15. I would like to ask three simple questions to people in the Ketchum camp. I'm fully aware of your commitment to an embargo, so these questions will reveal nothing novel about your study: no results, no interpretation, no novel methods. The questions involve the sort of basic, run of the mill methods that barely warrant citation.

    In a recent post, you described the study as being cutting edge. This implies something rather specific these days. My first two questions are geared towards evaluating that statement without revealing any crucial specifics. 1) What sequencing platform(s) did you use? 2) What language did you use for the bioinformatics?

    The third question isn't even information that would be included in the paper. Which Genbank submission system did you use? Of course you're holding the release until publication, but you know that NCBI won't in any way to talk to anyone about your submissions.

    An embargo is no excuse for avoiding such general questions (while of course, creating a facebook page about the study is the sort of thing that publishers might actually get irked about).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the actual Facebook page you'll see that they are very careful about what they can NOT reveal. Believe me, I am biting my fingernails in anticipation to this release, but we MUST have patience and stick together as a community.

      Delete
    2. I'll take that as a dodge. I'm not surprised about the reluctance to answer the first question. However, the second question is the equivalent of "what version of MS Word did you use to type the manuscript?". There also should be no reason to hold back on question 3. If the results will be published in a proper journal, of course the data will be uploaded to Genbank, so acknowledging this gives away nothing more than stating that a paper is likely to be published. I asked it to highlight an important difference between the work done at pet testing companies and actual science: after publication anyone can use the data.

      By the way, my questions have absolutely nothing to do with impatience (I know an awful lot about the publication process). I'm also not a member of your "community", so I'm not here to "stick together" or be supportive. I'm not here to be a jerk either. I'm just trying to offer a helpful (and informed) perspective.

      Delete
    3. Well, many of us don't buy the tight lid because of science per se, for me it is more about control and consolidation.

      Anything cogent and on topic is welcome and this works! Hope to hear more from you if/when the study is published, don't leave us w/o opinions. My genetics way too old for the 21st century!

      Delete
  16. When you say that "we have a legitimate study underway " is misleading in the sense that the study(including DNA evidence) was said to be COMPLETE to the point of "it will be released any Thursday now and BTW check the NBC site every Thursday". That insinuates that the study is complete and the results will be released any week now. Its called "the string along"

    Now you are saying that the Study is still underway. This whole thing would have been better served by not saying anything. Why does Dr. Melba Ketchum retract this whole "any Thursday" nonsense and say the DNA results are not yet ready because the process is still underway. Dr. Melba Ketchum has made a mockery( very unprofessional ) of this process by the whole "every Thurday" self serving hype on a study that you say is now not complete.

    There is definitely something very wrong here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As an academic I can definitely say that this is very suspicious.

    Journal reviews go through a very similar process in most fields.

    The author(s) send the article to a journal for consideration. At that point, the editor of the journal either (a) decides that the paper is of insufficient quality to warrant a review and it is sent back or (b) the editor selects 3+ reviewers to review the paper.

    If a paper is not even sent for review, that is usually a very quick turnaround. If a paper is sent out for review it can take anywhere from 2-12 months to receive reviews.

    The editor then reads the reviews and decides if a.) the paper should be accepted outright (as is); b.) the reviewers find merit to the paper, but feel there are serious concerns that need to be addresses or c.) the reviewers are clearly against publication.

    If Option c occurs, it is over with the journal in question.

    Option a is very rare. Most articles have to go through at least 2 versions before publication.

    Option b is generally called "revise and resubmit." Once the author(s) revise the paper it is sent back to the original reviewers (and sometimes a new one). This second review is generally faster than the first. Once the editor receives reviews of the R&R, he/she makes a final decision. Getting an R&R is a good sign that the paper has some merit.

    Usually the editor will decide to either accept or reject the paper at this point. In rare cases, yet another revision may be solicited.

    The point of all this is that Ketchum should be able to answer several questions if this process is legitimate:

    - How many journals have reviewed the paper to date?
    - How many journals have rejected the paper outright?
    - How many of those journals gave the paper a revise and resubmit?
    - What are the names of those journals?
    - Where is the paper currently under review? And what stage is it in? (First review, R&R)

    Some might object about the last two items - ideally the review process is supposed to be anonymous. But when a person is broadcasting in multiple outlets that they have authored a paper on Bigfoot DNA, the point is moot.

    Answers to these questions would greatly clarify the overall quality of the project, the likelihood of it every being accepted by a journal and the likely time frame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This person is absolutely correct. Shouting that you have a study proving the existence of sasquatch through molecular genetic analysis makes one wonder about the strict adherence to an embargo. It is also quite common for scientists to list papers as either "in review" or "in revision" at specific journals on both their publicly available CVs or even on the recent publications sections of their lab's website. I have never heard of this interfering with anyone's eventual publication (and don't think that's because the journal doesn't find out but would actually care if they did - the people who would be reviewing your CV for a lot of jobs are likely to be on the editorial boards of the same journals you submit to).

      Delete
    2. I agree. But, I don't have control and I do feel a great deal is invested on tha part of people trying their damndest..and subject to this one HUB. The hope, this study will somehow break up the log jam to some degree and get all those really intelligent academics out from behind the conventions and into the field responsibly and compassionately? :)

      Delete
    3. apehuman - I know many academics with a strong interest in Bigfoot (including myself).

      The Bigfoot community frequently blames academics for a lack of interest in the subject.

      But when the supposed evidence is hidden behind unnecessary smoke screens (Ketchum), the witnesses are unavailable or the sources of evidence ambiguous (re: the new picture today), academics are wary.... as anyone should be.

      Delete
  18. I have a sneaking feeling, that most negative comments here aren't even from genuine bigfooters but those who want it to fail. As someone stated above earlier, this is what we've been calling for for years, for science to take notice. And now that it's being studied and likely proven real (she even says they exist and at this point that's good enough for me), it means it probably won't be that much longer. Point is, many of us already know the beings are real so proof revealed someday is unavoidable anyway. Damn, what happened to that good old virtue patience. LOL A decade ago we all thought it'd be several more decades still, no one then thought it'd be already but it appears to be so finally. Therefore patience is called upon us once again, and it seems to me most blabbermouths here have none of that unfortunately. If a few years ago we had accepted many more years, how come now we don't have the time. With all due respect, this isn't rush hour traffic it's a little bit more important than that to the whole world, hence no mistakes allowed. Many other peer scientists are involved at this point, there's no holding back proof from being published anymore. Besides, imagine total silence from Dr. Ketchum how you'd not like that situation either. Can't have your cake and eat it as they say, but everyone from Romney to Moneymaker should get their plates ready. And make them big ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like silence much better than the circus that Dr. Ketchum has turned this into. When you have the results, then you can talk.

      Other Scientists and researchers are quite open about the peer review and at what stage their research is in such as R & R and which journals are involved with the process.

      I for one would love to see a positive result, however, at this point it has become quite apparent that Dr. Ketchum is being dishonest about the process. If I was a Journal, after this promotional charade by Dr. Ketchum, I would not touch the paper. So, yes, silence would have not only been much better but more professional.

      Finally, a positive DNA test can only prove and unknown species of primate, not that Bigfoot exists.

      Delete
  19. It would seem we all want her to succeed. The reality is most everyone has lost hope. Many are even saying its a scam. I don't know if I would go that far.

    The way she has acted and the things she has and has not said and mostly the way she has conducted herself has made most all of us loose hope. I don't want to speak for everyone else but that sure seems to be the case.

    The truth is if she has real science she sure as hell is real doesn't need our support in the least bit.

    If there even is a paper at all with substance it will speak for itself there is no need for anyone to think she needs to be viewed in a positive light by the bf community

    ReplyDelete
  20. It'll be published. But in some fringe journal that promotes woo stuff like UFO's and ghosts... Basically giving the data very little credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That cake again can't have it both ways, got to be one of them. And why wouldn't she have the goods? She says she does and the species is real after all, every witness already know this, so final proof obviously will come one day one way of the other.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anybody asked her Facebook about her relationship with biscardi? Ask if they have ever had dinner or hung out in social situations or spent much face to face time together

    ReplyDelete
  23. My big worry is that she can't get any journals to look at her paper simply because it's bigfoot. It would be nice to know if at the very least it is being reviewed.

    That's not to much to ask is it????
    Chad

    ReplyDelete
  24. So Dr. Ketchum saw Bigfoot AFTER she did her testing. Let me tell you, its not so easy to see or find one. That fact that Ketchum just happened to go out looking in conjunction with her study and ACTUALLY found one has taken this whole bizarre episode to the level of complete hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lots of people see Bigfoots, especially if you have a good local guide and a currenly known active area. That was all the case here.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story