Sasquatch Coffee

Ketchum Sasquatch DNA Study Update: Questions Answered…

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on February 13th, 2013

Melba Ketchum answers questions regarding if this study was self-published, as well as a clip of the Matilda footage.

Posted by Melba Ketchum on facebook:

After discussing it with the others, we are allowing the video to go public with the following requirements:

This is a very short clip of a female Sasquatch sleeping that we licensed from the Erickson Project for use with the paper. Her respiration was timed at 6 breaths per minute, which is an indication that the video shows something unusual. This clip is now copyrighted to the Sasquatch Genome Project and any use or reposting MUST give proper attribution.Melba Ketchum

One thing I want to make ABUNDANTLY clear. I did not self publish, but acquired the other journal. I have had and still have NOTHING to do with any publishing, editing or peer reviewing for Denovo. That was all completed prior to the acquisition of Denovo.Melba Ketchum

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.


43 Responses to “Ketchum Sasquatch DNA Study Update: Questions Answered…”

  1. muircertach responds:

    sounds legit

  2. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    What does that clip have to do with a genetics study? Same old game. In the words of the great Johnny Rotten, “Boring, Sidney. Boring.”

  3. Andy Sewell via Facebook responds:

    Not sure I agree that buying the journal that publishes only one article (yours) is not self publishing.

  4. odingirl responds:

    Surely even Melba Ketchum should know that the mere appearance of scientific misconduct or similar shenanigans will often deal a death blow to your credibility amongst your peers (and even a gullible public). Surely even she could see that a move like the purchase (actually creation) of the very ‘journal’ her paper will appear in is misguided at best and completely indefensible at worst.

    It’s true that society is painfully short of critical thinking skills at the moment; this doesn’t seem to be encouraged in the general public much anymore. But I suspect anyone could see that this is an incredibly desperate move. One I find hard to believe would be necessary if the science was good.

    If there is the slightest trace of scientific credibility to this, it’s certainly being completely overshadowed by the skeevy side show that surrounds it.

  5. Redrose999 responds:

    I’m sorry to say it, but it looks like funfur from a Halloween costume to me.

  6. lancemoody responds:

    In a field full of scumbaggery. This is the scumbaggiest.

    That there are actually folks so stupid that they buy this nonsense surely reflects that the field that begat Patterson, Biscardi and Finding Bigfoot, is getting exactly what it deserves.

  7. David-Australia responds:

    PoeticsOfBigfoot:
    What does that clip have to do with a genetics study? Same old game. In the words of the great Johnny Rotten, “Boring, Sidney. Boring.”
    ————————————————-

    Sydney is NOT boring . . . Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide – well that’s another matter.

  8. Johnzo responds:

    Odingirl and Lance are spot on. I feel like an idiot for giving her the benefit of the doubt while we all waited with bated breath for her study to be released. Total flim-flam garbage. The video cinches it for me. The idea that a scientist would put up a “teaser” video like that, with no verifiable or even compelling shots in it is ridiculous. How much is she going to charge to watch the full length version (which will have nothing more to offer)? Shame on you, Ketchum.

    Will academia ever take the subject seriously again after this? Doubtful.

  9. Jim OR responds:

    Wow! Who are these posters shooting first and not even bothering to ask questions later? I’m something of a scientist who studies the technology of modern propaganda and opinion formation and I am sure that any solid evidence of Bigfoot’s existence will be immediately and heatedly attacked just as these posts attack Ketchum. In fact, I will in good part form my opinion of such evidence based on the vehemance, quantity and source of the attempts to discredit it. The more determined and desperate the attacks – the more likely the evidence is credible.

    Its strange to me that a site that should be home to open minded people leaning toward believing in Sasquatch would immediately be bombarded with angry contemptuous posts such as these. The paid Propagandists are well aware that early posts are the most highly read and can set the tone for future posts and even prevent alternate opinions from ever being posted. The first post here goes so far as to characterize Patterson-Gimlin as a fraud!!! I’m quite sure that no one open minded towards Sasquatches existence would ever do that.

  10. Fhqwhgads responds:

    “Sydney is NOT boring . . . Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide – well that’s another matter.”

    Well, that’s a matter of opinion. Several years ago I had quite an infatuation with a girl from Adelaide I met in Tokyo.

  11. MR JOSHUA responds:

    @Jim OR

    “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes” Well, the whites of Melba’s eyes are showing. Between back pedling on “bigfoot steak”, putting bizarre posts on Facebook, buying her own scientific journal, and putting up this bogus video where the “fur” looks about as real as an “Iparty” werewolf costume we have all the ammunition in the world. Everyone on this posting site is open-minded, but we are not naive. This website has done a great job of tracking this DNA studay and I am sure we are all up to speed on the facts. Ketchum is a charlatan and of the worst kind. The fact she is endorsing the “fee” to see the rest of this video is a DISGRACE.

  12. dconstrukt responds:

    i’m SO confused.

    first, what does this video (lousy one that shows just a bunch of fur and a breathe), have to do with the DNA report?

    And why on earth would you post that, today with the report?

    makes no sense.

    Second, how the hell does a squatch allow a person to come up close and video them???

    I thought these creatures were elusive and hardly ever seen.

    now you’re telling me you have video up close, of one sleeping?

    you couldn’t even get close to any other animal sleeping, how could you do that to this one?

    something doesn’t make sense here.

  13. G. de La Hoya responds:

    I have seen more credible “monsters” on Scooby-Doo.

  14. Ben Pearmain via Facebook responds:

    :(

  15. odingirl responds:

    Jim OR, I won’t speak for anyone else here, but let’s clarify a few things from my perspective.

    I am neither a skeptic nor a hater. I work in research regulatory compliance and would like nothing better than verifiable, respectable, evidence-based science that confirms we are not delusional in suspecting the existence of this creature. However, we are never going to come remotely close to clapping eyes on that prize with the current caliber of ‘research’ coming from ‘scientists’ who spend more time pontificating and making excuses on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube than providing evidence to back up their claims.

    “Determined and desperate” applies only to those who want to believe something so badly that they’re willing to overlook a plethora of suspicious inconsistencies and lack of meaningful evidence in favor of soundbytes on social media and ‘Blobsquatch’ videos of someone in a very bad costume whose face is conveniently obscured by a tree branch (again).

    I’ve been “open minded” about this subject for years…just not stupid.

  16. dredwards responds:

    I posted this on the cryptonews site too, I just felt like contributing:

    Hi, just wanted to add a few pros and cons….as someone who has family relations in the scientific field, who publish in scientific peer reviewed journals, I’d like to say some of Dr. Ketchum’s stuff seems good, some weird, here is what I mean:

    1–It is a long and tedious process for anyone trying to publish, no matter how strong the paper….just because an article passes peer review does not mean a journal has to publish it, according to Dr Ketchum, the journal’s lawyers advised them against publishing it, as it would ruin their reputations, that is possible.

    2–Buying a journal is a little weird, though not totally, and in this case, its possible that Dr. Ketchum saw no other way to get this stuff out, and, if this pans out to be the biggie it could be, it could allow future cutting edge discoveries an outlet to be published. This may be a good thing for the crypto world. According to Dr. Ketchum the paper did pass peer review before the journal was purchased, which means basically purchasing their web site, subscriptions, email list etc. Also, she did say on Coast to Coast that if it wasn’t published she would find a way to get the material posted on the web…maybe this is it, and can help others out in the future too.

    3–The short video posted is part of the paper, submitted as supporting material, however, just my opinion, but I think at this point, if one was going to put something out there, it should really be something convincing, its a nice video, but not definitive of a new creature existing….still, its her choice…

    4–It would be nice to see what the reviewers said, if the evidence is indisputable or questionable…it passed peer review, but by how much? With flying colors? Were there any skeptics on the review committee and what did they say?

    Anyway, thats just what I think, and I just felt like putting it out there:)

  17. chewbaccalacca responds:

    Like Jim, I, too, am a bit amazed at the vehemence of the attacks being leveled here at this item. Much as I’d prefer otherwise, how the release of this data is being handled makes no real difference as to its ultimate legitimacy. Apples and oranges. I’d say we take the hyperventilating down a notch and just await further investigation, okay?

  18. hoodoorocket responds:

    OHMYGOSH! Is it all right? Did they call an ambulance??!! Was mouth to mouth attempted?

    5 feet away from a bigfoot and you can’t move the camera the 3 inches necessary to show the face, hands, or feet. Yep, sounds legit.

    I am sure this teaser will eventually lead to more clips that contain the epic halloween mask reveal, but, really, the shag-rug carpet suit is just embarrassing.

    Going to watch the Patterson-Gimlin film now, just to reaffirm what an unknown living creature looks like, and get the taste of this clip out of my brain.

  19. Wee Falorie Man responds:

    Somebody finally manages to get a close-up shot of a Bigfoot sleeping, then they decide to turn off the camera – aaargh!

    I was hoping that they would keep on filming ;)

  20. odingirl responds:

    “And the details appear to point in the exact opposite direction of the authors’ conclusions that bigfoot represents a recent hybridization between modern humans and an unknown species of primate.”

    The first public reviews of the paper by scientific peers are coming in, and it doesn’t look promising.

    How the data is presented may not affect the assumed legitimacy of the data, but most researchers I know who had worked for over five years attempting to sequence DNA for a potential conclusion that would rock the world of anthropology, biology and evolution would take great cares not to do anything that might drag down the legitimacy of their findings. It would be like a physician who operates on you to remove a tumor, but doesn’t follow sterilization protocol – yes, you might be ‘cured’ of your cancer, but you’ve got a lethal staff infection in the meantime.

  21. semillama responds:

    Ars Technica has a copy of the paper, and the preliminary review pretty much points to it being a case of bad science and ignoring obvious signs of contamination. Essentially, Ketchum et al. appear to have started with the conclusion and twisted their presentation of the data to fit it.

    And now that it’s in her vanity journal, all we have is her word that it passed peer review somewhere else. Does anyone know if Meldrum’s journal looked at it, or if she even offered it to RHI? Seems like a logical place for it, and suspicious if she didn’t submit there or was rejected, if the data and methods were sound.

  22. Goodfoot responds:

    David-Australia:

    Calm down. Step away from the kinkajou. Johnny was talking about SID VICIOUS, not a city in Australia….

    “Sidney”, not “Sydney” was the clue. You blew it.

  23. DWA responds:

    odingirl: I’d comment if you didn’t say it for me. Two thumbs up.

  24. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    “Second, how the hell does a squatch allow a person to come up close and video them???

    “I thought these creatures were elusive and hardly ever seen.

    “now you’re telling me you have video up close, of one sleeping?

    “you couldn’t even get close to any other animal sleeping, how could you do that to this one?”

    There are reports of people observing sleeping sasquatch. They didn’t bring cameras, but there’s no reason to doubt them. (As to other animals: we have video’d them doing flat everything.)

    “Never seen” = no evidence. Oh they get seen plenty, if the reports are any indication, and are likely not much more elusive than animals we know about. It’s the attitude of the mainstream that provides the “cloak of invisibility.”

    The question is (always) this:

    If you have the goods on a sleeping sasquatch, what the heck could be the motivation for showing only this?

    Buy-in – cha-ching! – from the gullible, is always your answer.

  25. muircertach responds:

    “how the release of this data is being handled makes no real difference as to its ultimate legitimacy…….”

    I hope you are not serious about this chewbaccalacca. It makes a huge difference.

    Should it be ignored that she created a “journal” to release this joke in?
    Should the 30 dollar price tag be ignored?
    Should the refusal to allow anyone else to see and test the samples be ignored?

  26. springheeledjack responds:

    Yeah, I’m sorry, but that clip shows absolutely nothing, and with the way people love to hoax things, you HAVE to assume it’s bogus until they can prove otherwise.

    With all of the skulk and duggery going on with this, ketchum is cutting her own credibility whether it’s legit or not, and on this one you’re gonna have to show me the proof first before I buy in.

  27. DWA responds:

    SHJ:

    While we are on proof, what really amazes me about this whole thing is that the provenance issue has to be forcibly dragged up.

    Human hybrid? And you are gonna expect us to buy that, Melba, on the basis of DNA sequences of….what, exactly?

    I’ve never seen a show-me-the-monkey that was more show-me-the-monkey than this one. Your holotype can’t be a DNA sequence from this, well, thing, that, trust us, came from a bigfoot.

  28. springheeledjack responds:

    DWA–as always…I’m with you.

    I’ve got a friend who has been following this pretty closely and he did some IP checking on the website for this journal. The website for the journal was created 8 days before the journal showed up, and it was Ketchum who acquired it. And this is the only journal that’s ever been published on this website…and they want $30 to look it over.

  29. odingirl responds:

    From LiveScience: “In an interview on the MonsterTalk podcast, Dr. Todd Disotell of the New York University Molecular Anthropology Laboratory dismissed the idea that Bigfoot could be a primate that arose as recently as Ketchum’s DNA results claim: “If it’s a primate that is so similar to us, that’s only separated from us about 15,000 years ago, that’s us,” he said. “Even with people of European extraction, we’ve got 50,000 years of common ancestry since we left Africa.” In other words, there is far more than 15,000 years of genetic diversity among ordinary humans, so the idea that something that split from our lineage would be as different from us as Bigfoot is absurd.”

    I feel sorry for the individuals in the world of forensics who either voluntarily associated themselves with this study or have simply been sucked into this mess by a widely cast net intent on capitalizing on their credibility. They’ll be forever associated with something that’s going to compromise their careers to at least some degree and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few lawsuits against Dr. Ketchum erupt faster than dandelions in June.

    My only hope at this point is that the credible researchers in this field keep calm and carry on.

  30. David-Australia responds:

    Goodfoot:
    Sydney versus Sidney.
    Er, thanks, I know that, that was part of the (bad) joke.
    Hook, line, sinker and whole friggin’ fishing fleet…..

  31. alan borky responds:

    Bli’me Craig even sick gorillas baboons and the 2001 apemen keep their fur in better condition than that.

    When this new Sasquatch superstar ‘Melba Ketchup’ finally gives her first interview someone should tell her that 70s caveman look is so out.

    Oh ye’ and make sure Oprah breaks it to her gently she’s half human half Old English Sheepdog [though her mother may also’ve been seeing Sideshow Bob’s hair and Donald Trump’s combover on the side].

    Seriously if you wan’o convince people you’ve got film of Marilyn Monroe showing everything she’s got then giving them a flash of the hairs growing out an oil rigger’s back ain’t go’n’o do it.

  32. Cryptoraptor responds:

    It’s surprising that there are so many skeptics here regarding this particular video considering so many here have fought claw and nail to defend the authenticity of Patterson/Gimlin’s 1967 man in an ape suit.

  33. corrick responds:

    The reason for this 15,000 – 13,000 divergence date from Ketchum is pretty obvious. It’s the oldest acceptable date when paleo-indians first entered North America. Makes for great stuff for all the theorists and wide-eyed believers.

    From everything I’ve read about Melba Ketchum she seems like someone destined for a future Investigate Discovery episode.

  34. Troubles_Cousin responds:

    At this point I believe a lot of people were led astray several years ago and are now trying to figure out how to recoup their losses. In the process they are just looking foolish.

    A breathing rug is the Erickson high def unbelievable video, And Ketchum’s “peer reviewed journal” is Volume1, Issue 1 with one article. On a website created 10 days ago.

    Any and all credibility for Ketchum et al is gone. I am disappointed and can only hope the other DNA study will be handled more scientifically and honestly.

    Domain Name: DENOVOJOURNAL.COM
    Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
    Creation Date: 04-feb-2013

  35. Goodfoot responds:

    Troubles_Cousin:

    “At this point I believe a lot of people were led astray several years ago and are now trying to figure out how to recoup their losses. In the process they are just looking foolish.

    It would be helpful if you could name names, instead of simply casting a poisonous net.

    “A breathing rug is the Erickson high def unbelievable video,”

    I wish I had the faintest clue what you’re talking about.

    “And Ketchum’s “peer reviewed journal” is Volume1, Issue 1 with one article. On a website created 10 days ago.”

    Yeah. We know.

  36. springheeledjack responds:

    Troubles_Cousin–

    Well said, brother…err cousin.

  37. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA – thanks dude.

    it just seems fishy to me. i mean i cant see how any creature like that wouldn’t hear someone coming and be alerted… these things are supposed to NOT want to be seen, right?

    but someone can just creep up on them while sleeping? I DUNNO ABOUT THAT ONE.

    but ya… showing this now? why? to get the $30 from people.

    so this is all about money, eh?

    just read yahoo article on this:
    http://news.yahoo.com/bigfoot-dna-discovered-not-fast-182536083.html

    1. contaminated DNA – they say the people who collected the evidence samples, could have easily (unknowingly) contaminated their evidence.

    2. the scientific journal – weird. researchers from Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology announced last year that they would test any supposed Sasquatch samples that believers volunteered to send.

  38. Jim OR responds:

    @ MrJoshua, Odingirl et al:

    OK, I hear you – you’ve obviously followed the Melba Ketchum story a lot more closely than I have and perhaps you have a reason to feel whipsawed and angry about how this has played out, hence the strong negative reations – I get that. I’m not attacking or defending her but would only suggest that any scientist trying to study Sasquatch seriously may find dealing with the establishment so difficult and confounding and impenetrable that these seemingly incompetent actions happen as a result – just a thought, but I imagine people like Jeff Meldrum would have a lot of bad stories they could share about their treatment by mainstream “colleagues”. Its hard not to notice the extreme “know it all” attitude scientists operating in the safe zone routinely portray without the slightest hint of embarrassment.

    Personally, I follow these stories casually for a reason – there are undoubtably plenty of phonies and delusional people and none of the hype matters until some evidence is publicly presented. To my mind I’ll know it when I see it – the P-G film to me is the real deal, and I’m waiting for someone with a modern hd phone or hand cam to finally get a nice clear close-up. DNA has the potential to be even more decisive but it seems to me that its too easy to claim “contamination” with no real evidence to back up the claim and that seems to be happening here. “She may have something but…badly handled..contaminated..blah blah”. How can it be verified? Who are the umps? Can the samples be tested again by a larger group?

    Like I said, I don’t know Ketchum but these problems will present themselves to anyone who tries this now or in the future.

  39. edsbigfoot responds:

    Dr. Ketchum on first half of Coast to Coast AM with George Knapp tomorrow night, Sunday, Feb 17….

  40. edsbigfoot responds:

    Dr. Ketchum’s Facebook post from yesterday:

    “I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen.”

  41. stevedlocke responds:

    Yesh a carpet from the goodwill attains internet celebirty status!

  42. Fhqwhgads responds:

    @dredwards

    I suppose it may happen that an article passes peer review and still isn’t published, but I don’t think it’s common. I’ve published several times and never seen that happen.

    Has the journal that rejected her paper confirmed that she passed peer review, or is Ketchum herself the source of this claim? This sort of thing rarely comes up because the review process is not transferable. If you submit an article to one journal and they (for some reason) choose not to publish it, the next journal to which you submit it will insist on their own review.

    “2–Buying a journal is a little weird, though not totally, and in this case, its possible that Dr. Ketchum saw no other way to get this stuff out, and, if this pans out to be the biggie it could be, it could allow future cutting edge discoveries an outlet to be published. This may be a good thing for the crypto world. According to Dr. Ketchum the paper did pass peer review before the journal was purchased, which means basically purchasing their web site, subscriptions, email list etc.”

    No other way to get this stuff out? You mean Ketchum doesn’t know how to make a pdf file available on the Internet? It can be done for absolutely nothing, and quite frankly it raises fewer red flags than buying your own journal.

    “De Novo’ has gotten off to about the worst possible start. The way this was managed gives it zero credibility. Who else would want to be published in De Novo? Who would be willing to throw away a few hours peer-reviewing an article for it? I’ll be surprised if it ever publishes a second paper. Setting it up was a waste of money.

    That’s too bad, because cryptozoology could benefit from having its own journal. It would need a professional editor with meaningful independence, though. I’m not at all sure peer review would really work, at least as long as cryptozoology is so tainted by disreputable stunts, but there’s nothing magic about peer review anyhow. It’s there to (1) prevent embarrassing mistakes from being printed in the journal, (2) make sure the subject and methodology presented are within the journal’s scope, and (3) prioritize the publication of the papers that will have the biggest impact. Other mechanisms could be used to achieve the same ends.

  43. Goodfoot responds:

    OH. THAT movie. Now I understand the reference.

    The video is an ABSOLUTE, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT DEAL-KILLER. That she would associate with that absurd footage FINALLY tells me all I need to know about Melba Ketchum.

    Me fleas, you ketchum.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.