Melba Ketchum Publishes Bigfoot DNA Study


As bigfoot news has been breaking left and right, word has traveled fast that the long awaited bigfoot DNA study conducted by Dr. Melba Ketchum has finally been published. As per the norm, controversy still surrounds the paper. It was soon discovered once news initially broke, that the journal publishing Dr. Ketchum's paper, the DeNovo Journal, was created just a few days prior. In fact the journal was apparently created just so the paper would be published as it had been rejected many times over for apparent various reasons.

Is it common practice for scientists to self-publish their own works? Is that very scientific? Does it tamper with the scientific process of peer review? These and many other questions come to mind, that I honestly do not have the answers to. In my personal opinion, I would consider the rejection from the numerous other journals as a failure, and move on. I find it difficult to believe that the scientific community would be completely closed off to the study, if it were conducted in the proper manner by individuals who had the credentials to conduct such a study. To hear that one journal after the next came up with shaded reasons as to why they would not publish the study in an attempt to keep the information from getting out or being recognized seems like convenient excuses, once again, in my opinion.


"It is not how it seems. There will be a statement in the morning explaining why it is the first paper. I had NOTHING to do with the peer review and it was blind (I was not told who they were) as it is supposed to be and we did pass. The reviewers were geneticists with next gen whole genome experience. That was all I was told by the editor." - Melba Ketchum

 According to the above statement, everything is on the up and up and there is a perfectly good explanation as to why this was the first paper published by the DeNovo journal. Dr. Ketchum clearly states that the peer review was conducted blindly by "geneticists with next gen whole genome experience" and the good news is they passed. But according to this, there is no way to verify any of that information beyond taking her word for it, or rather the word of the newly established DeNovo Journal. After all that's all the editor told her.

Then this morning comes the following statement:

"It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. We have had the proof for nearly 5 years but building enough data to convince mainstream science has taken a lot of time. Trying to publish has taken almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities. 
We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. We did finally pass peer review with a relatively new journal. It took a fresh outlook on the part of the editors and their careful selection of reviewers with knowledge of next generation whole genome sequencing in order to pass. I have no idea who the reviewers were though I have the reviews. That was kept confidential as is the way journals handle peer reviews. That was only part of the delay and problems associated with publication though. After this journal agreed to publish the manuscript, their legal counsel advised them not to publish a manuscript on such a controversial subject as it would destroy the editors’ reputations (as it has already done to mine). I have documentation on all of this drama. So, rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community. Denovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received. We furthermore have adhered to all of the standards set here in the link below, especially since the entire review and agreement to publish was done at the previous journal: " - Melba Ketchum

(emphasis mine)

So... yeah...

So you just took over the journal yourself? They just willingly said you can have it? What was the name of the journal previously? Why did you change the name? Why did you create a new website for the journal? What this clearly says to me is that instead of waiting for a legitimate and recognized scientific journal to agree on publishing your study, or instead of taking the numerous rejections as a sign that perhaps your work wasn't up to par, you just took over a journal and published it yourself. 

By your own admittance, it is YOUR journal. Do you really expect it to fly when you say you have no knowledge of the persons involved in the peer review, or that your knowledge is limited to what the editor would allow you to know? IN YOUR OWN JOURNAL? Do you not see how this might muddy the water a bit?

Does one have the right to self-publish? Absolutely. You are free to publish anything you would like as long as it belongs to you. That does not however constitute such as acceptable scientific practice. I too could create a website, publish a paper on a study I conducted and the results thereof, and say it was peer reviewed by anonymous experts in that particular field of study. That doesn't make it true, nor does it make it scientifically acceptable. The act of doing so demands full transparency, something that is severely lacking in this situation. By publishing the paper one would think that this would at least open the door to other accredited scientists or geneticists to do their own review of the work. I seriously doubt that will happen. I can't imagine that a professional would waste their time or even give this a second look, knowing that it was self-published due to the fact that it had been rejected numerous times by neutral third party journals.

If the DeNovo Journal and it's website had not been called into question due to it's recent creation and being obviously geared towards publications and studies in the area of her own agenda, yes agenda, would Ketchum have said anything? Or is this all what would be considered damage control, such has happened time and time again involving this study?

I'm sorry Dr. Ketchum, I don't know how things work in your field of science, but in the Bigfoot community "Because I said so" just doesn't cut it.


  1. Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited and happy to say that the webmaster has done a very good job here to put all the information content and information at one place. |

  2. For latest information you have to go to see world-wide-web and on world-wide-web I found this web site as a best website for hottest updates. |

  3. I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. |

  4. I've just decided to create a blog, which I have been wanting to do for a while. Thanks for this post, it's really useful! |

  5. It is always on the side of those who needs help. |

  6. You should comment on the competition comparison of the blog. You can highlight it's mind boggling. Your blog exploration/tour will broaden your conversions. |


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