DeNovo Denied?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 1st, 2013

Melba Ketchum has stated multiple times that her study was to be published in the journal JAMEZ and the editors backed out at the last minute, causing her to purchase the journal and rename it DeNova.

Reference the video below at the 14:51 mark, as well as the quote from her public Facebook page:

However, the following statement was posted at this url:


Note: For purposes of this statement the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology – JAMEZ shall be refered to as “The Journal”

1. “The Journal” is completely independent from and not connected in any way with DeNovo – Journal.

2. “The Journal” was disbanded (with some future reorganization of which information is private) in early 2013 by the Foundation for Advanced Zoological Exploration – FAZE. Subsequently, FAZE was discontinued as well.

3. “The Journal” was never transferred, sold or acquired. Furthermore, “The Journal” has not been nor ever was acquired by Melba Ketchum or any associated parties. Furthermore, Melba Ketchum did not acquire, purchase or receive from “The Journal” full peer reviews or “legally acquiring the peer reviews” for some other Journal (i.e. DeNovo Journal) or other purposes.

The owners and operators of JAMEZ have officially provided written notification to Melba Ketchum and Robin Haynes asking them to correct this information where they have erroneously made statements including but not limited to websites, facebook pages, and other media outlets.

4. Though “The Journal” was discontinued; all information regarding editors, peer reviewers, referees, legal counsel, owners, board members or any other associated party remains strictly confidential and sharing any such information is prohibited without express consent from the editor(s), editorial board, and legal counsel representing the aforementioned of which consent has not been granted in any form or fashion.

5. “The Journal” editorial board made a decision not to publish “Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies” authored by Dr. Melba Ketchum, et al. for various reasons including but not limited to:

– Counsel and board advisory information / advice.

– Peer reviews were completed and some reviews were submitted back to the editorial board as “accepted – with revisions”. The statement “accepted – with revisions” does not indicate an acceptance (on the part of the referees or editorial board) for publication. Only a small number of changes/revisions were actually made by the author. Therefore, the referees never “accepted- for publication; no revisions needed” for full acceptance and publication in “The Journal”.

– The manuscript was ultimately not published due to recommendations from the editorial board, peer reviewers, referees, editorial staff, and other associates.

6. The peer reviews conducted by “The Journal” and all related information are prioprietary and will remain such indefinitely except for the comments individual referees directly intended for the Author(s), of which intended comments for the Author(s) from the referees Ms. Ketchum currently has in her possession. The alleged “leaked peer reviews” claimed by Ms. Ketchum and her team are comments intended for her improvement through a professional peer review process. Therefore these documents are not as Ms. Ketcum has claimed in that they are not peer reviews- but rather commentaries from peers with the intent to provide Ms. Ketchum constructive feedback. She is and always has been free to share such commentaries for her improvement. It is considered highly unprofessional and inaccurate for Ms. Ketchum and her associates to refer to these documents as “leaked peer reviews”.

7. Melba Ketchum, Robin Haynes, and associated parties are strictly prohibited from discussing or sharing any information (in any format including but not limited to websites, emails, phone conversations, txt messaging, facebook messaging websites or any other manner of communication) regarding “The Journal” or (a) its discussions with legal counsel; (b) the reasons “The Journal” decided to disband and/or re-organize. This information is proprietary and only members of the organization are qualified and designated to discuss those reasons in any forum, format or communication. It would be considered highly inappropriate and prohibited for Melba Ketchum, Robin Haynes or any associated party to discuss “The Journal” or FAZE’s business and / or operation decisions including reasons for disbanding or reorganizing.

8. It is incorrect and inappropriate to elude to the idea that the peer reviews completed from “The Journal” are somehow associated with or connected to or owned by DeNovo Publishing, DeNovo accelerating science, advanced science foundation, DeNovo Journal or any associated party including Melba Ketchum. This is because “The Journal” did not transfer its completed peer reviews to DeNovo or any associated party. Therefore, DeNovo (or its associated parties) does not have the legal rights to the peer reviews conducted by “The Journal”.

9. DeNovo has no legal rights of any kind relating to “The Journal” (The Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology), or its associates. DeNovo and its subsidiaries are fully owned and operated by Melba Ketchum and Robin Haynes.

© 2013

In response to the several inquiries regarding JAMEZ, this is an official statement from the former organization and its subsidiaries:

Foundation for Advanced Zoological Exploration (FAZE)

I requested permission to post the statement here at Cryptomundo and it was granted:

You may do so. Please reference the link so as to ensure the most up to date information is available. I would also ask that you support our effort to simply provide facts regarding FAZE-JAMEZ. The information on our website is in no way intended to defame or hurt others.
Thank You
Jane Neilson-Mahorecht

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.

6 Responses to “DeNovo Denied?”

  1. slappy responds:

    this is pretty awesome.

    the ketchum BS continues to get DEEPER and DEEPER

  2. semillama responds:

    Well, well, well. And I thought that Ketchum’s credibility was at its nadir.

  3. Jayross responds:

    I doubt many will be surprised by this.

    That DeNovo site consists of some over-sized graphics, a paypal link to the DNA “results” and a broken form of some kind. If there’s content there I can’t see it – why is it being called a “journal”?

    It just looks a domain someone bought and left most of the placeholders there.

  4. DWA responds:

    Search for Bigfoot THIS WAY, people, THIS WAY, don’t hold up the line, move on move on nothing to see over there move on move ON…

  5. chadgatlin responds:

    I almost hate to bring this up, as I don’t want it to be misconstrued as a defense of anything. I do, however find one statement here odd. “The manuscript was ultimately not published due to recommendations from…””…other associates”. Who are the “other associates” and how do they factor in to the peer review process? Editorial staff and editors, peer reviewers, and referees…seems like that is all that would be necessary for a proper decision.

    As I said, I’m not defending anyone or any claims, not even defending this study. Maybe I just don’t know enough about the peer review process. It just made me curious, especially since I think I remember a statement early on by Ketchum that she was told their lawyers advised them not to publish the paper. Again, not in defense of anyone. Just observation and intrigue.

  6. LordBalto responds:

    Well, having actually bought and read the article, it is obvious why it was rejected by orthodox journals. It presents a view of human evolution that is outside of the accepted paradigm. It presents evidence that humans either intermarried at some point with species that were farther down on the human evolutionary tree than the apes, which is difficult to accept, or someone was playing at artificial hybridization. Either way, no established journal would have touched this with a ten-foot Lithuanian, no matter what the referees said.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.