Find Bigfoot Movies.......

Sunday, February 17, 2013


Bigfoot DNA Paper Publisher and Author and Apparently Editor and Peer-Reviewer of Her Own Paper, MELBA KETCHUM.

Date: 02-17-13
Host: George Knapp
Guests: Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, Lynne D. Kitei M.D.
1st Half: Joining George Knapp, Dr. Melba S. Ketchum discusses the official release of her DNA analysis of possible Bigfoot hair samples.

That is right. Will they ask the tough questions, however?

An anonymous DNA Project insider sent these questions to me last night, and I think they are important. Here you go... maybe someone can get through and ask them live on the air?

(Submitted to me by someone who wishes to remain anonymous.)

1. Dr. Ketchum's excuse for not uploading the data to GenBank has been disputed by a scientist at Princeton. How does George know her "documentation" is valid? Is it something that could have been faked? Can he actually SPEAK to someone at GenBank to get a confirmation directly from them and NOT filtered through her?

2. Can he SPEAK with the editor of the "journal" where her paper passed peer review for direct confirmation of her story, including the sequence of events?

3. What is the name of the original journal?

4. Can this editor confirm the purchase of the journal?

5. How did Melba fund the purchase of this journal?

6. What scientific society owned it previously and how/why did they agree to the sale?

7. How much did acquisition of the journal cost?

8. What happened to the journal's staff and editor? Did they lose their jobs? If not, why are they not listed on the website?

9. Why didn't the purchase of the journal include its original website? Why throw together such a cheap-looking one with none of the standard information you see on other journal pages?

10. Why didn't she keep the original journal's name and publication record?

11. Why are there no citations for this journal?

12. Why is there no evidence of this journal ever existing before?

13. Who are these "top" geneticists who have come forward to review the paper?

14. Why must they be anonymous?

15. When they have their findings, will this be made public with their NAMES and professional credentials/affiliations provided? Or will this information also be filtered through her while they remain "anonymous?"

16. Why have two of her coauthors said that they never even saw the paper (as reported on JREF).

17. Why are her coauthors silent? Why have the coauthors not spoken up about their roles in the paper, or to defend its findings?

18. If GenBank's refusal of her data is legitimate, will she freely share this data with other researchers in an open-source manner?

19. Will she provide her data to Sykes? Immediately?


More Info. Here, from Bigfoot Evidence Blog:

The best scientific news article questioning this study so far released, by Ars Technica:
URGH. I hope to have answers from my two scientist friends re. all of this soon. At this point it doesn't look good for "finding Bigfoot" with Real Science.


Bigfoot Believer said...

I will attempt to answer some of these proposed questions.
#1. Dr. Ketchum has provided documentation to George Knapp of C2C AM of the initial refusal of Genbank to upload the sequences that were produced by the DNA Laboratory of the University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas.
Mr. Knapp acknowledged receipt of the valid documentation from Dr. Ketchum on the details and circumstances of this problem.
She proved to him that Genbank had first refused to accept the data on the grounds that there was no species name submitted. Accordingly Dr. Ketchum applied for a species name of Homo sapiens cognatus, through ZooBank. "Cognatus," from the Latin "con" (with) and "natus" (born), means "blood relative."
Genbank then refused to upload the data because she could not provide a signature of the Bigfoots who were the source of the sample(s).
She has mentioned that some of the Scientists who were reviewing her Study promised to arrange to get the data accepted by Genbank, but I doubt that this has happened yet.
#2 I would suppose that he could speak to the Editor, who is Dr. Rayford Wallace of the Denovo Scietific Journal.
#3 The original name of the Journal was the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology.

Bigfoot Believer said...

The remaining questions are:
#4 thru #12
I do not have information available to suggest the appropriate answers to these questions.
#13 The first such person is David H. Swenson PHD. Dr. Melba Ketchum posted this statement on Facebook by this Biochemist, David H. Swenson of Green Resources Redux, Inc. regarding her Bigfoot DNA study: It is also on
The Submission reads:
"Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.
My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.
Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.
Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis".
This is a very straightforward response from a well qualified PHD.
#14 As answered in #13, The person mentioned above is not anonymous. I would be very surprised if other Scientists will not also come forward publicly with supporting opinions.
#15 The first such person was listed in answer to Question #13.
I believe that other Scientists will also comment publicly in the near future, but that is only my personal opinion.
#16 There is a great deal of speculation on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, but I have not yet been able to locate these allegations on that site, although I do not dispute that such allegations may have been made and may be truthful. I would suggest that you address your question directly to the persons involved.
The list of contributors is listed in the article and on the Sasquatch Genome Project website.
#17 Allegations that all of Dr. Kechums associates are all totally silent is an unproven statement, that is unlikely to be provable.
#18 It appears that Dr. Ketchum has made every effort to make this information available, and will continue to do so. The data is contained within the article published by Denovo.

#19 As mentioned in my reply to question #18, the data is contained in the Article. I doubt that it would not be available to Professor Sykes.
I hope this will shed some light on some of these questions.
I suggest that all interested persons should visit the website of the Sasquatch Genome Project, which is at and to read the Article as published by Denovo.
Bigfoot Believer

bigfootexists,in ky said...

Dr. Ketchum, I am a believer and I feel the derogatory comments you have received are sexist. You are the scientist to present and ask for recognition of the new species and shall go down in history as the first. Shame on the boys.


Steven Streufert said...

This is not a matter of man or woman, but rather of good science or bad.

Anonymous said...

Good way of explaining, and good article to take facts
concerning my presentation topic, which i am going
to present in academy.

Anonymous said...

Nice response in return of this matter with real arguments and
explaining all regarding that.