Bigfoot DNA: Duck, Duck, Goose!

During the past decade that I've been involved in the world of Bigfootery, there's been a particular occurrence that I've never quite understood. For myself the simple facts and evidence found surrounding the mysterious being was enough for me. I never understood why people often times would take something real, and then muddy it by making it more sensational than it really was. Isn't the fact that you saw a Bigfoot enough? Why make your story out to be more than it really was by forcing your own spin on things? One of the many problems Bigfooters have always faced is keeping evidence and sightings firmly planted in facts, not conjecture, theory, or opinion. Just facts. It has been stated by many of us out there, including myself, let the evidence lead you, do not build evidence to support your own theory.

However, people are people. And the truth is the Bigfoot research field is mostly comprised of a hodgepodge group of individuals from all walks of life. Most of which are not scientists, biologists, or any other professional that would lend credence to what we are doing and the evidence we are finding. Whenever one of those individuals with credentials does get involved, a lot of us take them for granted. Some even attack them for their own opinions not lining up with what they believe to be true. While I do believe this is wrong to do, and I do feel we should appreciate the fact that someone who is a professional with credentials would risk their own credibility by becoming involved in Bigfoot research, I do understand even those individuals are still just people like everyone else. People who come with their own faults and opinions like everyone else.

So what would happen if one of these accredited individuals did in fact have an agenda of their own? What if instead of doing true scientific study they allowed their own opinions and ideas to dictate their work and findings? Scientists and doctors disagree all the time, and some are even allowed a certain allowance for making mistakes as long as those mistakes don't cause harm to anyone. Of course their mistakes are usually called "miscalculations" or "misread data". 

The world is abuzz with the news of the Bigfoot DNA study. A study which results have yet to become public even though an explanation of those results has been sent flying through the media. In my last entry I wrote about taking a step back and waiting for the "meat and taters" to actually be released before everyone started choosing sides in the great Bigfoot war of 2012/2013, and I still feel that way. But there has been certain information that has been publicly released that for me raises some questions about the entire thing, and the motivations behind it. When I spoke with Melba Ketchum over the telephone several months ago, a lot of what she talked about was wanting to have all of her ducks in a row before she released things. She also said the real hold up was not on her end necessarily. Which by the way, I never signed nor consented to a NDA of any kind. I did however give my word I would not say anything, which I upheld. The problem I have is this; if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Unfortunately to me, some of Dr. Ketchum's ducks do not sound nor walk like ducks.
Dr. Melba Ketchum
Most people have been made aware of the following copyright registration made by Dr. Ketchum through the various other Bigfoot blogs. That is where I noticed some details that for myself raise some flags of concern.

Type of Work: Entry not found. 
Type of Work Preregistered: Motion Picture 
 Literary Work in Book Form 
 Advertising or Marketing Photograph 
Preregistration Number / Date: PRE000003852 / 2010-09-16 
Application Title: Sasquatch: The Tribe Revealed 
Title: Sasquatch: The Tribe Revealed 
Copyright Claimant: Melba Stinnett Ketchum. Address: P O Box 455, Timpson, TX, 75975, United States. 
Creation of Work Began: 2008-04-07 (Approximate) 
Date of Anticipated Completion: 2011-06-22 (Approximate) 
Projected Date of Publication: 2012-02-15 (Approximate) 
Authorship on Application: Melba Stinnett Ketchum. 
Description of Work: A film and/or documentary, narration or audio book, supporting photos and literary paper/document/book that will follow the The Sasquatch Project, the scientist and the scientific testing and proof for the existence of Sasquatch/ Bigfoot. Information will include discussion of results including A New Tribe of Living Humans, the complete Sasquatch mitochondrial genome sequence and nuclear DNA variations and text will show complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequences were identified from DNA, analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Sasquatch mtDNA falls inside the range of modern human mtDNAs and discussions of the origins thereof. The proof that the Sasquatch is not only the closest living human relative but is actually a contemporary living human. Also discussed is nuclear DNA testing performed on the same samples and the variations found in various genes including MC1R gene RUNX2 and FOXP2 as well as other targets genes involved in the perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, the production of sperm and the lactase gene. Also discussed is how testing has ruled out ape cross and any ancient contributor and that Sasquatch is indeed a modern human with some genetic mutations accounting for their physical appearance. Also included are discussion of the history of samples and circumstances surrounding the acquisition, their testing, the circumstances surrounding the entire Sasquatch DNA Project. Documentary stars Melba Ketchum, et al 
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence. 
Names: Ketchum, Melba Stinnett 

First off we have the listed dates. The preregistration date was 9/2010. Date of project start, 4/2008, completion date of 6/2011, and a publication date of 2/2012. Dates are approximate. According to these dates and the wordage used in the project description we can conclude the following. Ketchum began her study in 2008, and had completed her study and analysis by September of 2010. A time frame of roughly 2 1/2 years. She expected to complete her project by June of 2011, 9 months later, and then expected it to be published by February 2012. According to the wordage being used, she had concluded that Bigfoot are in fact human. She even calls them a "tribe" and claims her study will prove that. She goes on to say that according to her test results, she has ruled out any ape cross or ancient contributor, and that Bigfoot are modern humans with genetic mutations to explain their physical differences from "us" just regular old humans.

But wait... genetic mutations? I thought the test analysis revealed that they were in fact hybrids from the result of humans cross breeding with an unknown (non-modern human) and not genetic mutations? So which one is correct? How did the test results change between September of 2010 and now? If her dates listed above are incorrect, or her testing was not fully complete, then apparently she predicted what her analysis of the test results would be, and went as far as registering it for a copyright. Hmm...

Then we have this:

Type of Work: Entry not found. 
Registration Number / Date: TXu001766114 / 2011-07-19 
Application Title: A New Species of Contemporary Feral Homo sapiens. 
Title: A New Species of Contemporary Feral Homo sapiens. 
Description: Electronic file (eService) 
Copyright Claimant: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955- . Address: P. O. Box 455, 569 Bear Dr., Timpson, TX, 75975, United States. 
Date of Creation: 2011 
Authorship on Application: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: text, photograph(s), editing, Data Tables. 
Rights and Permissions: Maureen A. Doherty, Doherty Legal, 10777 Westheimer, Suite 1100, Houston, TX, 77042-3462, United States, 
Names: Ketchum, Melba S., 1955- 

Type of Work: Entry not found. 
Registration Number / Date: TXu001776703 / 2011-09-12 
Application Title: A New Contemporary Feral Species of Hominin
Title: A New Contemporary Feral Species of Hominin. 
Description: Electronic file (eService) 
Copyright Claimant: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955- . Address: P.O. Box 455, 569 Bear Dr., Timpson, TX, 75975, United States. 
Date of Creation: 2011 
Authorship on Application: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: text, photograph(s), compilation, editing, Data Tables. 
Rights and Permissions: Maureen A. Doherty, 10777 Westheimer, Suite 1100, Houston, TX, 77042-3462, 
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence. 
Names: Ketchum, Melba S., 1955- 

According to these entries from July 2011 and September 2011 in 2 months time her test results went from concluding Bigfoot are a "new species of contemporary feral homo sapiens" to a "new contemporary feral species of hominin". So somewhere in that two months time it was decided that Bigfoot were first Homo sapiens, to them being something in the hominin species group, and not specifically Homo sapiens.

How many times has the analysis of the test results changed? In her detailed description of the work that would be discussed, why did she say they were genetic mutations when later on she would claim they are a hybrid species? Are the results going to change again before we see them? Why has it taken apparent years for the peer review to be completed? If not why would she sit on the results for so long? Why the apparent differences in copyright registrations all done by the same person on the same subject? Is it a case of complicated science, or is it a case of someone just changing their mind? Or is this a case where there is a different motivation than that of science and the pursuit of the truth? One would hate to think so, but to me these ducks smell awfully fishy.

Matt K.


  1. Found this really interesting and appreciate the time you put into this.
    However I don't see how this discredits her, you even said yourself that scientists and doctors make mistakes, what convinces you this wasn't just a minor mistake that was later corrected?

    1. When these copyrights were registered, the testing, analysis, and paper were supposedly complete. Once the paper was completed and supposedly sent off to scientific journals for peer review and publishing, you can't go back and change your answers.

  2. A good informative post that you have shared and appreciate your work for sharing the information. |

  3. Generally I do not read article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to check out and do so! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, very nice post. |

  4. All the contents you mentioned in post is too good and can be very useful. I will keep it in mind, thanks for sharing the information keep updating, looking forward for more posts.Thanks |

  5. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this post. |

  6. Thanks you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such information. |

  7. I like this post. It's quite unusual and innovative. Writer might be really gorgeous. Someone could easily claim that he is a genius. |


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I don't Believe Todd Standing

Tsiatko: The Story Of The Stick Indians

Top Secret Bigfoot Habituation Area Exposed: Invasion Of The Bigfoot Skeptics