BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Press Release: Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Study Appearing In Denovo: Journal of Science, Feb. 13


Here's the official press release brought to you by DeNovo Journal of Science, a Science Journal website created Dr. Melba Ketchum. Her 5-year-long Bigfoot DNA study is going to be released in this journal. The journal supposedly references the Matilda Bigfoot creature and the offspring of Zana.

Researchers Sequence Sasquatch Genome, Novel Hominins Extant in North America

Next-Generation Whole Genome Sequencing Proves Extant Human Relative, Findings Published in Denovo Journal of Science

(PRWEB) February 13, 2013

A team of eleven scientists with expertise in genetics, forensics, pathology, biochemistry, and biophysics has sequenced three whole nuclear genomes from a novel, contemporary species of hominin in North America. The study, “Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies,” which analyzed DNA from a total of 111 high-quality samples submitted from across the continent, appears in the inaugural issue of Denovo: Journal of Science (http://www.denovojournal.com) on February 13.

The team, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, DVM, of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX, sequenced the three whole nuclear genomes using the next-generation Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform at University of Texas, Southwestern from a tissue sample, a saliva sample, and a blood sample. The three genomes all attained Q30 quality scores above 88 on the Illumina platform, significantly higher than the platform average of 85, indicating highly-purified, single-source DNA with no contamination for each sample. The three Sasquatch genomes align well with one-another and show substantial homology to primate sequences.

In addition to the three nuclear genomes, Ketchum’s team also sequenced 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes from the Sasquatch samples. In contrast to the nuDNA results, the Sasquatch mtDNA was fully modern Homo sapiens, indicating that the species is a hybrid cross between modern Homo sapiens in the maternal lineage and an unknown hominin male progenitor.

###

“Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies.”

Authors: Ketchum MS, Wojtkiewicz PW, Watts AB, Spence DW, Holzenburg AK, Toler DG, Prychitko TM, Zhang F, Bollinger S, Shoulders R, Smith R.

DeNovo. 13 February 2013.

Specimens yielding DNA were obtained, purportedly from elusive hominins in North America called Sasquatch. Sequencing and genotyping were performed in addition to histopathologic and electron microscopic examination of a large tissue sample.
Mitochondrial whole genomes were consistent with modern humans. In contrast, novel data were obtained when nuclear DNA was sequenced. Next generation whole genome sequencing was performed on three samples. Phylogeny trees generated showed homology to human chromosome 11 and to primate sequences. The data indicates that the Sasquatch has human mitochondrial DNA but possesses nuclear DNA that is a structural mosaic consisting of human and novel non-human DNA.

###

Correspondence should be directed to M.S. Ketchum (science@sasquatchgenomeproject.org).

Reporters may log-in to the Press Room at http://www.denovojournal.com to view the embargoed manuscript.

###

131 comments:

  1. No one's jumping on this? Okay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a single Bigfoot was proven real on this day.

      Delete
    2. Our data is amazing and beautiful.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Its kinda funny that now the last hope of proving Bigfoot rests with rick dyer!

      Delete
    2. 'Its kinda funny that now the last hope of proving Bigfoot rests with rick dyer!'

      Ah...er-- uh... I've got some bad news for you...

      Delete
    3. Elmer Fudd ain't got no wabbit|

      Delete
    4. The skeptards said for years that the paper would not be released. In whatever form, it is released today. To that extent, on that point at least, the skeptards and the king and queen of Skeptardia and the Monarch of the Morons and the high-ranking supertards are all having crow for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on Feb. 13, 2013. The can eat it with a fork and spoon.

      That includes Timmy, Parassus, Bigfoot is BS, and the other aliases.

      Delete
    5. suck it up skeptards"- im guessing you are a id so ill refrain from using big words or proper English!

      Im a non believever because i havent seen any evidence not because i choose to be. No doubt there are few people posting stupid comments. What you have to realise is we ALL want there to be Bigfoot! Some of us dont just take the word of eye witnesses ,if we did,we'd believe in loch ness monster/unicorns/dogman etc....as thousands claim to have said myths oo

      We need HD quality film /DNA and the obvious evidence there are 8-10ft 800apemen in North American woods. Nothing these last 2 days as made me 'believe' or "suck it up"

      I would gladly "suck it up" if that breathing carpet stood up and we can see a living wood ape in all its glory

      All i see is red flags and when you get a bit older or wiser so will you

      Delete
  3. I wondered if Shawn would post the release. It is time to start dusting off the reading glasses for those who waited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that a box of doughnuts gathers any dust, when it's within your reach.

      Delete
    2. You don't sit with him, you sit among him...

      Delete
  4. So she created her own journal?Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes really. Anyone can do it, you know.

      Delete
  5. So she creates her own journal and self publishes? She became her own peer review? Let's ask the important questions... who is De Novo? How long have they been in existence? The website was created last month? How is this a credible scientific platform? If De Novo was created recently, what was the other alleged science journal(s) that rejected her paper originally? I am trying to not come off as an jerk. I am trying to understand how we can take this seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. checked out the denovo site. rictor is rite: this seems sketchy. the site was created very recently and has virtually no information on it. this don't smell right, mr shawn.

      Delete
    2. I think she is starting a journal out of frustration with the peer review process. The web site is new. Based out of AZ I think it was.

      With her self publishing and the ten other co-authors, she is thumbing her nose at main stream. The report will be out there now. Main stream will have to review it. If it is as accurate as everyone says it is in scuttlebutt,she will have beaten them.

      They will have to accept it if true. That will pave the way for her journal to be the cutting edge journal and rake in tons of prestiege. Probably money too. Because she will have taken on the peer review process and shown how they are not open to accept outside thinking.

      It all hinges on how solid her paper is.

      Delete
    3. It could be that no main journal wanted to touch "Bigfoot" as the risk of faked evidence is central to the topic. The other aspect would be cost and time to review. If you wanted to take on the risk, you could test her paper by spending a few hundred thousand on a research team, genetics testing, and forensics lab. It's a big ROI risk for established scientific publishers - and they would rely on universities to write the grants for funding and staff up such ventures.

      Self publishing does introduce bias, weaken peer review, and cost the paper some legitimate attention by the scientific community, but what are the options if no one wants to touch a controversial paper? The closest thing in academia to self-publishing is http://arxiv.org/. It has strict guidelines on institutional and credential misrepresentation.

      The paper, like all of science, can be redeemed and strengthened by other scientists recreating the major claims through independent tests and experiments. But, alarms should go off here: are the DNA samples available for independent testing? To what extend can the science separate human contamination when the classification of the material is a claimed hominid?

      At the end of the day we should give Ketchum the benefit of the doubt. Did she not finish a very expensive, time consuming process of producing scientific research that was submitted to major journals for review and potential publication? Yes. This is the biggest push so far by any scientist to propel this area of research into the scientific mainstream, and far beyond the audience that consumes these crazy bigfoot blogs, youtube vids, finding-tv shows, and self-account books - much of which is fraught with hoaxes for hits, entertainment as a primary goal, and re-telling of legends.

      Delete
    4. this has no credibility, IF her paper proved what she claims, and this could be verified, Nature or Science or whomever would have been battling to publish it!!!

      Science isn't a popularity contest (no matter what some of you paranoid conspiracy theory nutjobs think) It's about verifiable, repeatable evidence.

      If she had this , she wouldn't have had to start her own journal and self publish.... this is folly pure and simple. don't fall for this.

      Delete
    5. Wrong. Nature or Science (Or any other Journal for that matter) will not go out on a limb for something as fringe as this. If a live (or dead specimen) accompanied the study with autopsy, then maybe.

      Delete
    6. Seems people don't understand how some Journals work.
      Mary Ann Libert Journals are all payed for by the contributing authors.
      A Scientist writes a paper sends it to Libert and pays for it to be published.
      It is in a way self published. Melba all she is doing is publishing the Journal her self. Nothing wrong with that. Those that say the science isn't good just because she is self publishing it, then need to question all other Journals science as well.
      Her Journal and research may take off
      Cmcmillan

      Delete
    7. No

      just no


      You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Real Scientific Journals don't charge for publication. They are edited and refereed by esteemed members of the scientific community.

      They require VERIFIABLE AND REPEATABLE DATA to be peer reviewed to ensure that the proper steps were taken (not always proving that the results are 100% infallible either as that is the job of the author's peers who read the paper to determine).

      If tomorrow a paper was submitted for publication that proved 100% in paper that General Relativity was horribly flawed, it would upset the establishment a million times more than Ketchum's ridiculous "paper" would, and guess what? Nature would publish it in a heartbeat and cahs in on the increased interest.

      Delete
    8. Yes

      just yes

      As anonymous poster you have exactly zero credibility to make the above statement.

      Delete
    9. Well, credibility is the issue, isn't it? Melba Ketchum certainly has none. But at least now we have something to look at and consider.
      Reality is a consensus construct, so this publication is the beginning of the process, not the end. Give it a few weeks. Will see if it stands up to scientific rigor.

      Delete
    10. Anon 5:56 is hopelessly naive, and thinks Nature or Science would jump at anything which would shake the foundations of science, in order to sell magazines. Wowee boy, woweee.

      5:56 thinks science is perfect and open and fair, and accepts with open arms anything of high controversy without a blink.

      This is so naive it's infuriating.

      5:56 has sure been indoctrinated and trained and is obediently regurgitating what he/she has been spoon-fed in school and uni.

      Nice work, parrot, robot, broken record.

      Delete
    11. You mean as opposed to the broken record of science is a big bad mafia who suppress things? You're just regurgitating some dumb conspiracy crack pot theory because you are unable to look at the evidence impartially. You really think that if Ketchum is correct no one would publish it? Come on there is no Bigfoot conspiracy and it will not shake science or religion's foundations at all and don't forget there's still Syke's study to come what's the bet he doesn't have to self publish.

      Delete
    12. anytime one of you tarded footers uses the argument "shake the foundations of religion and science" as an excuse for why it won't be published. I just crack up in laughter. Have you even thought how dumb that sounds? Like religion and science are all hanging out together ? Like science is looking to do religion any favors? (and vice versa)

      No sir, that is tin foil hat crackpot crazy people logic. But it's Bigfoot, and that's who the footers are..... either that or they just like being hoaxed.

      Delete
  6. She isn't publishing in an independent journal? Credibility is gone...

    ReplyDelete
  7. She's like Steve Martin in the Lonely Guy with cardboard cut outs of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope she remembers to keep watering the ferns.

      Delete
  8. Sounds to me that there is such a prejudice against the whole Bigfoot question that so called "real" science refused to even touch the study for fear of ridicule. So even if the science is impeccable (I'm saying 'if') perhaps no one would dare be the first to publish and stand behind it. It's easily seen whenever there is a Bigfoot report in the media that it's treated as a joke. The science snobs are extremely hostile to the question so it isn't surprising they would not consider publishing it. This has always been the hindrance to making new discoveries. The know-it-alls always try to hang on to the status quo and repress questioning and the spirit of exploration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the science is reliable and repeatable then it will be accepted as the current scientific theory. That's how science works.

      The idea that there is a 'scientific establishment' and a grand conspiracy to repress the truth is a convenient fantasy.

      If Ketchum's science was good she wouldn't need to self publish on a website knocked up in 5 mins on Wix.

      Delete
    2. no, its not. Im not conspiracy theorist, but do you honestly think any scientific journal is going to accept anything to do with sasquatch? Much like most commenters here, they will just say 'olol bigfeet' and brush it aside.

      And dont say, 'any journal will jump at the chance to be the first to prove'. There have been so many hoaxes, that no matter how sound the science, it will be ignored without a body. I doubt she wouldve shown any of these journals the videos she supposedly has.

      Delete
    3. I said same as OP above. It will come down to how solid her paper is. If they refused out of fear of the new and cannot refute her paper, main stream science is done and she will be on top.

      If her paper is crap, then she is done. Along with ten others. Which makes this very interesting.

      Delete
    4. What Mark said.And lol @wix.The page looks terrible.

      Delete
    5. @Mark. You are woefully ignorant. Your faith in the integrity of science is laughable. Please get caught up with the state of things. Read this for starters: http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/

      Delete
    6. @Anon 2:01 - stop making straw man arguments. I'm simply interested in that there doesn't seem to be a reasonable excuse to why she couldn't publish in ANY scientific journal.

      @Anon 2:11 - Ignorant maybe, but Ketchum can't use a 'science is against me' excuse for the failure of her paper. The paper has multiple qualified scientists co-authoring and she has said, on record, that they have "overkilled" the science - how can that mean the only alternative route is to publish on a $5 a month template website? What went wrong?

      @Big Jim - always talking sense big man!

      Delete
    7. Reviewers see the word Sasquatch or Bigfoot on a submitted paper - REJECTED
      Reviewers find out that the material collected to be studied was obtained by non-scientist, who are thus unqualified and surely contaminated it - REJECTED
      Reviewers see Ketchum proposing a hybrid from 13k years ago, not impossible, but goes against what we believe we know about human evolution - REJECTED

      Re-read every Ketchum topic posted since yesterday. 90% of comments say how she is a fraud, wrong, stupid, unprofessional, crazy, etc, and yet NOONE here has read the paper.
      You assume the scientific accademy would be any different? When they have reputation to lose IF this is a fraud, unlike anon trolls. Dont think the scientific world is one where everyone accepts and explores new ideas and beliefs.

      Its actually very similar to the Bigfoot world and BFE, just with PHDs

      Delete
    8. The scientific establishment, yes it does exist (Global warming hoax) can bury any paper they wish if it doesn't fit within the norm.

      Conspiracy? Perhaps....one does not know at what level, or what downward pressure was applied to reject the paper.

      Delete
    9. Both arguments in this thread are right. The scientific establishment exists. It is parochial and and insular. But Mark is right. The process of scientific rigor is there for a reason. If the facts are really there, it will out.

      Delete
    10. Global warming conspiracy? Yeah because our weather patterns are so normal! Like Mark and others have said if the science is spot on then they would have published it, just think how much money they'd make from all the Footers wanting a copy. Oh yep, Ketchum already has! When do you guys get your official t-shirts from her site or hoody maybe? As for the guy talking bout the bad comments regarding her on here it's because of the way she's behaved and the constant delays that led many of us to view her as a hoaxer. Plus it works both ways I've lost count of the number of believers hurling abuse at many of the people commenting on here as if this study was already published and they'd read it all already! I still think it'll be a while before anyone eats any crow but hey at least this could solve Ketchum's financial situation.

      Delete
  9. The BFF was down earlier tonight because of a simultaneous mass ejaculation occurring at the moment of the big news. In one glorious instant in time, the keyboards of every sexually frustrated footer were suddenly covered in milky white semen. The collective result was that the forum server malfunctioned because of the hardware damage. Another sad development was that, after learning the specifics of the "big news", the entire footer population became permanently mpotent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kids read this knock it off!

      Delete
    2. Man when I was a kid I knocked it off all the time!

      Delete
  10. Will someone with more credibility prove or disprove this? Is it that simple? Will they have to repeat the same tests? Will Sykes have the ultimate say with his study? I think us laymen would like to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok I'm a scientist so I'll chime in.

      Bigfoot does not exist therefore Bigfoot DNA does not exist. Self publication occurs when science rejects your claims. Not because science has an agenda but because the science is junk.

      Delete
    2. I agree, There is no conspiracy. A science journal would publish her results if something was actually there.

      Dr. Sykes is the real deal here

      Delete
    3. What's junk or more correctly bunk is the notion that science is an institution that is free of the usual human bickering and prejudice. Authority and therefore credibility are the cornerstones of science, not empirical free thinking. Whether or not Ketchum's paper is worth a damn is yet to be determined, but it is manifestly incontrovertible that the halls of science fall far short of an Olympian standard of objective rationality. You are not the virginal keepers of the flame of knowledge, elevated in your Vestal ivory towers far above the fray of human strife and pettiness. Indeed this unrealistic self conception undoubtedly makes you worse than most, as your consciously rejected human frailties are projected onto others with a sort of smug dualism. Consciously rejected, these human affects and prejudices make you their creature even as they are transformed into something more sinister until it is almost like a kind of possession as Carl Jung might say. The net effect is the introduction of a religious affect into the practice of science, though the shades are a bit darker.

      Delete
    4. wow! You are smart and articulate!
      I wish I could express what I wanted to say like that.
      Shoulda stayed in school I guess....

      Delete
    5. Maybe, then you can write smug self serving comments on a Bigfoot blog to prove to the very limited readership just how smart you really are. Is that possibly because no one else has realised how smart you are anon 2:50? Do you have a chip on your shoulder about the so called scientific establishment? Think it's a bit harsh to say that empirical freethinking isn't one of the cornerstones of science, if that was true it wouldn't continue to move onwards making new discoveries. I'm sure there is a deep prejudice against topics like this considered to be hokey at best total junk at worst but if the science was good I fail to believe no one would publish it. Money talks and there's bound to be media attention and a big demand from the Bigfoot crowd that would seriously increase their circulation. I think Dr. Sykes involvement in his own study would also give the subject a little more credibility and if he gets results I'm sure he will not be forced to self publish.

      Delete
    6. Anon 10:44 you seem to be relatively fair minded although perhaps a bit naive about the meta issues surrounding the scientific treatment of claims that threaten the prevailing paradigm. I think moreover that this kind of claim threatens more than simply the surface anthropological and zoological paradigms, it also calls much more profound and humanistic paradigms into question. To claim that sasquatch exists is not simply to threaten science, it is to threaten man's conceits about his place atop the zoological pyramid. It is to suggest that he has not only a peer, but perhaps a superior intellect to contend with on this planet. And that paradigm, like the Aristotlean paradigm that was eventually overthrown by Galileo, will be defended at all costs.

      Delete
    7. But what evidence is there that this creature exists at all? I'm sorry but you just sound like every other footer on here except you seem to have swallowed a thesaurus and keep regurgitating it. Science continually changes as you have pointed out and as for the claim that Sasquatch is somehow our intellectual superior, really how? From all the so called evidence that has been presented the only bit that might support that is it's ability to hide from us, something that many animals are able to do and no one bows to their greater intelligence. I appreciate that you feel as if this not just an affront to the current scientific thinking and what the major religions state but this inbuilt human chauvanism that we are the top dogs on the planet but don't see it myself. Religion (unfortunately in my opinion) has survived many things in the past like Darwinism and the finding of the "God" particle and will survive Sasquatch, crack pots are already drawing comparisons to giants in biblical texts. Science will just adapt to the exciting notion our family tree has changed, it's happened many times before with discoveries of our ancestors around the world it's just this one (in some people's opinion) is still alive. This Sasquatch maybe or physical superior but there is no evidence that it is anyway our mental superior, there's no evidence of it even performing activities like using simple tools that we see chimps do all we have is rock throwing?! Our intelligence is our asset and what has got us where we are today and Bigfoot can't challenge that. I appreciate in someways I have proved you correct about human chauvanism and how we are unable to accept a peer but if Ketchum is right (which I very much doubt) and these beings are our closest relatives they still show us nothing that elevates them above other apes or frankly equals their intelligence.

      Delete
    8. Anon 5:19 whether or not my critique is grandiloquent is irrelevant as you have conceded the relevance of my concerns. And FWIW I apologize for sounding patronizing. But I think it is imperative for scientists such as yourself (presuming that you are indeed the anonymous scientist above) to think very carefully about the processes of science rather than get swept along by them. And it is clear that several dynamics are at work.

      First, we know from cognitive science that human rationality is in some ways illusory, in terms of an abstract operation of logical symbolism. What is observed instead is an intuitive cognitive process that is in part a kind of inner imaginative visualization that is later expressed and incorporated into memory, some would say rationalized, by a process of verbalization. This process entails the comparison of novel experience with pre-existing schemata, and the subsequent incorporation of that experience into the schemata. This process quite naturally entails the harmonization of discordant experience with schemata. Now I'm not trying to suggest that the process of human cognition is wholly unreliable, far from it. In fact from a competitive standpoint as you have already alluded to, it has served us quite well in terms of generating explanatory and predictive models of experience that we are then able to exploit. But what this process of cognition most emphatically is not, is a wholly rational system of abstract reasoning, nor can it be relied upon to automatically conform to such a system. As anyone with any experience of humans can tell you. Cognition is naturally heuristic rather than logical.

      So what am I saying within my effusion of syllables? The process of science also functions heuristically rather than logically, and this must always be taken into account. Currently the default huerism is to rely on the scientific establishment as gatekeepers of what is and is not to be taken seriously. Unfortunately it cannot be avoided that institutions become more conservative with age as their schemata / paradigms incorporate more and more concordant facts and become progressively more elaborate. What is the antidote? IMO a studied and deliberate logic must be applied to novel and discordant claims. Logic of course naturally rejects the fallacies and trite but cozy intellectual distractions that individuals naturally use as informal heurisms, i.e. personal incredulity, ridicule, circular logic, non sequitur, etc.

      What can we really say about Ketchum's claims? She clearly has a long, perhaps interminable row to hoe. Yet there is nothing save our incredulity that makes it inevitable that a relic hominoid might not have survived to the present or subsidized with homo sapiens sapiens at some point. After all, unlike Dracula and the wolf man, this incredible monster has plausible paleontological antecedents. And if this feat has been accomplished under our noses and outside our awareness, I think that implies a great deal of strategic thinking and skill on the part of the creature that accomplished it. There are natural imperatives underlying human intelligence, and for the life of me I can't see why close relatives would escape this same dynamic. Perhaps we developed technology while they developed woodcraft and stealth. You don't have to believe it to acknowledge that it cannot be ruled out.

      Delete
  11. Apparently begging the question is a scientific attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LOL the bff is now members only

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO SKEPTICS ALLOWED!

      (unless you pay of course)

      Delete
    2. Lol^ I just wanted to have a good laugh at the bleevers!

      Delete
    3. I don't blame a person for being skeptical if they read the stories here! This just makes Bigfoot seem silly & looney...
      They wonder why the posts are off the wall?
      Look at the content with in this site!

      Come on man!

      Delete
    4. She braids the Sasquatches hair? This woman has weighed the money vs. looking nuts.....
      She chose the money wich is pretty darn obvious!

      Delete
    5. I'm the reason the bff is now members only.

      They couldn't find a way to shut down BFE, so they built a wall around themselves to insulate themselves from my mockery.

      Mission Accomplished. Thank you.

      Delete
  13. The problem with all this is that she has not just let the science speak for itself...if she has lab data, then that is what should be presented not her speculations over what this creature is or when it came to be...she doesn't have a body or bones or other such evidence other than what she has seen thru her microscope...she can't assume it or speculate that it came from a mating that happened x years ago and expect science to say to say she is correct...it's no wonder she couldn't get this published by a genuine journal..she didn't provide unbiased data and leave it alone...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And lets not forget Bigfoot does not exist

      Delete
    2. And yet, what you have described (minus evidence seen through the microscope)is identical to the Theory of Evolution, one of the bastions of modern science.

      Delete
  14. So what about this HD Ericson video that was promised with the release of the study? Is this footage ever going to see the light of day or what? I don't want to read about it in a frickin journal or hear it "referenced" to in a report.

    Where by god is the video? Where?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick Dyer (ironically) will be the key piece to this puzzle

      Delete
    2. The footage is junk. If it was any good it would have been released.

      Delete
    3. video or not, if she's correct about theory, her voice will now be louder for just the fact the science is out for the world to climb on to or reject outright.

      Delete
    4. @anon 2:57:00AM

      In the words of Professor Frink from the Simpsons "Please dooo explaaain it...?"

      Delete
  15. Mark, seriously can you rely on the scientific community to really explore what they don't understand? History is littered with pioneers who were shunned by the community after publishing uncomfortable against the grain theories. Even Darwin was heavily criticised. Im not saying that ketchum is right but without such mavericks earth would still be flat and god would have created everything in a week!!! People need to learn and keep an open mind!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not?,, He didn't? how did you learn so much?

      Delete
    2. It's not Victorian England anymore where most o the scientific upper echelons were populated by stiff, conservative elitists "gentlemen" who didn't like anyone rocking the boat. This is 2013, where the majority of the science community is populated with people on the cutting edge , looking for new ways to expand and grow knowledge in their fields.

      your hypothesis is not consistent with the modern scientific world. It is antiquated, excuse making nonsense.

      Delete
    3. If only that was the case. Weren't bili apes that killed lions once disregarded as folk lore amongst the less educated local people only to be 'discovered' recently? How about the giant squid, purely an old sailors tale, or the mountain gorilla only being discovered in the 60's, formerly attributed to myth? I'm not saying that Sasquatch does or does not exist only that it is possible. Even in Attenboroughs book he mentions it's unlikely but not impossible. Being open minded is key though the more I see of this I realise that footers do themselves no favours!! Like I say I'm not trying to convince anyone they exist but science should always be cautious not to write anything off, and it would be the greatest discovery of the 21st century.

      Delete
    4. the mountain gorilla was discovered in the 1800's....

      The billi ape was regarded as folkore, but then they got the $$$ to go looking for them and WOW! they found them tons of em. (unlike Bigfoot)

      Giant Squid evidence existed for a long time and it's existence has been confirmed for a long time. Science has just been hoping to see them in the wild ,alive (and now they have)

      Nobody has "written anything off" except for this terrible hoaxed paper. we have contacted her co-authors, the deny writing anything. all they did was sequence some samples for her and were surprised to be mentioned as "authors" on a paper.

      Delete
  16. coukdnt be bohered reading it. no doubt when its finished the salent points will be bulleted to avoid reading trash.

    so where is this pic of 'matilda' . all we get is a long term pic of what could be a mankey suit or dead cat!


    utter nonsense. anyway i thought this hournl had rejected this report?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your either a very good troll or a very dislexic one...gona go with option b

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So Disapointed in how this whole thing has been handled from the get go.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is a crap thing to do after all of this time.
    This whole concept in itself is proof that her methods, conclusions and over all fantasies have been rejected by reputable scientist and journals. If the work and results were credible she would have been working with a reputable source to answer questions, or to provide more data on the research to allow them to move forward with publishing it. Instead we get a self published paper, this is laughable.
    To self publish is nothing more than a way of saving face, in the hopes that people will think she actually contributed, as opposed to hurt the field. And probably to try and keep from being sued by those that contributed money to her work. This is not a conspiracy by the government or fear from real science. It is simply an acknowledgement that her paper is lacking in credible procedures and conclusions!
    How can anyone continue to give her the benefit of the doubt when she continually fails to do or accomplish what she said she would?
    I hope the promised pictures are included in the paper!
    Keep milking that cow for every last dollar!!!!
    Just another con-artist, liar, and hoaxer amidst a field drowning in them!

    ReplyDelete
  20. As are others here I am nonplussed by the denovojournal.com site, however, let's consider the reported results: human mtDNA and exotic nuDNA. To me this suggests paternity at some point by an even more exotic creature.

    There have been reports of both human males and human females having sexual experiences with Sasquatch. It's possible that viable offspring have issued from such activity and that there is a hybrid population of creatures. Since there are only a relative few samples in Ketchum's study, the finding that all showed human mtDNA means that all the samples were in the lineage of a male-non-human/female-human bond since mtDNA is passed down only via the mother. It doesn't necessarily mean that the mother was not herself a hybrid or even that the father was not a hybrid, only that some female in the lineage was purely human and the rest of the females in the lineage have been either fully human or hybrids carrying the human mtDNA.

    Assuming for argument that Ketchum's results are accurate, they say nothing about whether the whole Sasquatch population has human mtDNA. If the original non-human species exists in pure form or if the male -human/female-non-human bonds were viable, there could be Sasquatches running around with non-human mtDNA.

    In other words there could be two types of mtDNA in these creatures, one of which simply didn't appear in any of the Ketchum samples. Note that, even in bondings between the two theoretical mtDNA types, the mtDNA of the mother would be carried through to the offspring. There is no way to blend mtDNA types, only nuDNA.

    What would such hybridization imply for the field researcher? It would seem to imply that the hybrid would possess more human traits, including size, hair, body build, facial characteristics, and behavior. Researchers have noted differences in body type and size among sighting reports which could signify genetically pure Sasquatch vs. creatures of various extents of hybridization.

    Hybridization also implies that the genetically pure Sasquatch is/was very closely related to man and is not an ape since all known apes have 24 chromosome pairs and humans have 23 chromosome pairs, making viable ape/human meiosis highly unlikely from natural fertilization.

    (Full disclaimer: I have a non-monetary bet on Sasquatch being in the same family as man.)

    Assuming again for discussion the validity of Ketchum's findings, what does the future of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research look like? I would expect the gathering of range and behavioral data to be HUGE but also huge would be the search for non-hybrid Sasquatch and for non-human mtDNA hybrid examples.

    While the impending full release of Ketchum's findings appears to take the cake for inauspicious beginnings, let us remain open to what we can actually glean from the findings that may help in future research efforts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simply, is there any credibility in a self published paper. That speaks loud and clear that her methods and conclusions were rejected by how many other reputable / real scientist?

      And you want to gleam information from a published fantasy.

      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    2. Aside from the implications IF Ketchum's results are validated, my key point is REMAIN OPEN. Don't form limiting beliefs or attitudes. They serve no purpose.

      Delete
    3. I'm always open minded, but I'm not going to give a pass to a questionable self published paper. We will see the worth shortly.

      Delete
    4. Ok, I'll do whatever you tell me to do, because that hat makes you look really smart.

      Delete
    5. Where does the angel DNA fit in?

      Delete
    6. Yeah, I'm really interested in the range and behavioral profile of angels ;-) ;-)

      Delete
  21. Seems people don't understand how some Journals work.
    Mary Ann Libert Journals are all payed for by the contributing authors.
    A Scientist writes a paper sends it to Libert and pays for it to be published.
    It is in a way self published. Melba all she is doing is publishing the Journal her self. Nothing wrong with that. Those that say the science isn't good just because she is self publishing it, then need to question all other Journals science as well.
    Her Journal and research may take off
    Cmcmillan

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Specimens yielding DNA were obtained, purportedly from elusive hominins in North America called Sasquatch."

    Purportedly. So there's nothing to indicate where the samples are actually from, except the word of the submitter, and no real chain of custody of the samples prior to their analysis.

    So, no way to really check the results.

    ReplyDelete
  23. LOl at her "co-authors" it's all the people she sent her samples to to be sequenced. I bet they have no idea they are "co-authoring" a Bigfoot paper.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Tommy
    This is common for Online Journals to have a fee to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Also everyone relying on Dr. Sykes.
    Oxford has its own publishing company and Journals. As do many Universities.
    So its no different than Melba publishing it her self.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are very stupid!

      Please do not post anymore.

      Delete
  26. I think I'll write up my own paper and self-publish it. Then I'll "leak" it to some idiot like Robert Lindsay and set the BF world on fire.

    My God. Footers will fall for anything. And I'm a footer so I can say that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is the biggest hoax ever.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just wait until the Bigfoots and their hybrids come out and down from the woods to start a war on humanity, then all of those snobby scientist will be wetting their pants with fear and look to the footers to fight the final war.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Press Release - For Immediate Publication

    (Insert Name Here) is pleased to announce that a study that definitively proves the earth is flat will be published in the Denovo Journal of Geography. "The data was amazing, the earth is flat as far as the eye can see", said (insert name here). "The data and the earth spoke to me, I'm pretty sure they said flat, not fat." Ima Nunn Tobright, PR guru for (insert name here) said, "Keep checking our website, we will soon be selling an edge detector to help boaters and travelers find the edge of the earth and prevent avoidable accidents."

    Got $50 for godaddy and another few hundred from sugar daddys who just might have been hucked? Then you can also self publish and occupy the cutting edge of science.

    Ending this saga by slinking away would have been better than this option.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tommy Flannagel, er Dr. Tommy Flannagel...yeah..Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 10:01:00 AM PST

    Bigfoot exists, I've studied them since 1978, I have No tangible proof and I will post all of it on my newly created website "Bigfoot exists." That's the ticket, yeah, with my wife Morgan Fairchild.......

    ReplyDelete
  31. What we have discovered:

    Ketchum's listed "co-authors" did not write any of the paper (well the one's who didn't work at her business anyway) they merely sequenced dna for her and some were surprised to learn they were listed as authors.

    Her "journal" is listed under the name of Robin Lynn Pheifer, that woman who claimed she fed her habituated bigfoot blueberry pancakes...

    Ketchum may have stolen the pictures for her "journal" without paying the owners... no confirmation on that as yet.

    She has taken the amusing (and tired as hell) Galileo Defense. Claiming that mean old science wouldn't even look at her paper. Bullshit. where is her evidence. I can't wait until the editors of some of the journals she submitted to get wind of this and tell us the real story.(or she never submitted to any real journals and we won't hear a thing)

    I suspect we mean old skeptics were right all along. She huckstered you and stole money from people to get her name out there in footerland. In fact, our resident actual DNA expert scientist has already read the rough outline and stated that he descriptions of what they did din't even make any sense. and he hasn't even read the paper yet!


    sorry, folks, she got ya, she got ya good.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Messn With Sasquatch - I hear the Indians have some blankets left over from our last gift to an indigenous population of this country, maybe they can regift on our behalf?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is this photo at the top of the page the same as the "matilda" footage?

    It seems to be exactly the same based on simple comparisons and if so, I'm sure this was already revealed/proven to be a small sleeping dog, which is pretty apparent when viewing the full (uncropped and coloured) picture.

    This alone kills the whole "matilda" thing for me, unfortunately and disappointingly I might add, because I really was looking forward to seeing some real evidence this time after all the build up...

    ReplyDelete
  34. If you would like to take a good deal from this paragraph then you
    have to apply such strategies to your won blog.


    Here is my blog; Louis Vuitton Outlet

    ReplyDelete
  35. Great goods from you, man. I've understand your stuff previous to and you are just too wonderful. I really like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you're stating and the way in
    which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to
    keep it sensible. I can't wait to read much more from you. This is really a great site.

    My web blog - additional info

    ReplyDelete
  36. Howdy I am so excited I found your website, I really found you by accident, while I was
    browsing on Digg for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say cheers for
    a tremendous post and a all round enjoyable blog (I also love
    the theme/design), I don’t have time to look
    over it all at the moment but I have saved it and also
    included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will
    be back to read more, Please do keep up the superb jo.


    Here is my homepage: Abercrombie

    ReplyDelete
  37. Everything is very open with a clear explanation of the issues.
    It was truly informative. Your website is useful.

    Many thanks for sharing!

    Also visit my web blog :: Click Here

    ReplyDelete
  38. Today, I went to the beach front with my kids.
    I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear."
    She placed the shell to her ear and screamed.

    There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants
    to go back! LoL I know this is entirely off topic but I had
    to tell someone!

    Here is my page; Michael Kors Bags

    ReplyDelete
  39. whoah this weblog is fantastic i like reading your posts.
    Keep up the good work! You understand, many individuals are looking around for this information, you could help them greatly.


    my site; Louis Vuitton Outlet

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi, i believe that i noticed you visited
    my website thus i got here to go back the favor?.I am trying to find issues to enhance my site!
    I guess its good enough to make use of a few of your ideas!
    !

    my web page Abercrombie Pas Cher

    ReplyDelete
  41. This is my first time go to see at here and i am really pleassant to read everthing at one place.


    my blog post: Abercrombie paris

    ReplyDelete
  42. For hottest news you have to pay a visit web and on internet I found this web
    site as a most excellent web site for most recent updates.


    Feel free to visit my web page - Louis Vuitton Handbags Outlet

    ReplyDelete
  43. Howdy! I simply wish to offer you a big thumbs up for
    the excellent info you have here on this post.
    I will be returning to your web site for more soon.


    Also visit my web page: NFL Jerseys Cheap

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think this is one of the most important info for me.
    And i'm glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The web site style is wonderful, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

    Feel free to surf to my website; wealthwayonline.com

    ReplyDelete
  45. Excellent post. I'm dealing with a few of these issues as well..

    my page - Full Report

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hello, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam remarks?

    If so how do you reduce it, any plugin or anything you can advise?

    I get so much lately it's driving me mad so any assistance is very much appreciated.

    Also visit my web page: http://wiki.vcp-rps.de/index.php/Benutzer:UXEVance

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be
    happy. I've read this post and if I could I want to suggest you few interesting things or suggestions. Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article. I wish to read more things about it!

    Feel free to visit my blog; Nike Free

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for great info I was looking for this information for my mission.

    My web page - beats sell

    ReplyDelete