Dr. Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Study, Peer-Rejected

Dr. Melba Ketchum as Lucy; Charlie brown as the general public

"The problem is that some people absolutize the science. Unfortunately science now is too conservative." --Igor Burtsev on why Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA research was peer-rejected

This is not the outcome we had hoped for, but one we had hinted at. Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study has been rejected for publication. It may not have even made it to the peer review process, meaning it could have been rejected by journal editors before they even assigned a peer-review team.

Igor Burtsev, head of the International Centre of Hominology, is the man who initiated the media frenzy by prematurely "leaking" the study to the public. Dr. Burtsev is also the same man who announced the non-publication of Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study.

"Re the paper: the reviewed journals in the US refused to publish the paper. That is why Dr Ketchum has sent it to me to arrange publishing in any Russian reviewd journal. And I showed to our genetisits and understood that it was a serious work. I gave it up to the journal, now it's under reviewing." --Igor Burtsev

UPDATE: Robin Lynn. Dr. Melba Ketchum's spokesperson reacted to Dr. Burtsev's remarks and seems to slightly contradict them:

The REVISIONS HAVE BEEN DONE AND THE JOURNAL HAS THEM NOW. They are now reading the paper. I have read the paper myself it is very indepth. and long. Extremely scientific. This is why it is talking so long...Also this is a topic never been done before. All this adds up to taking alot longer to approve." 

This has been, at least, the fifth time the targeted time line has been pushed back. In fact, in a Yakima Herald article, Dr. Ketchum is quoted on Nov 26th 2012, "(the study might become public in) weeks instead of many months, that’s for sure.”

Lucy and the football comes to mind.

We knew getting a Bigfoot DNA paper published would be a challenge. According to Katrina Kelner, a Science magazine editor, "At Science, we have to reject more than 90% of the papers submitted to us." 

This is why Dr. Melba Ketchum's execution and communication had to be flawless, it had to be held to a higher standard--there were too many expectations and too many personal efforts on the line. In our opinion, if Dr. Melba Ketchum had realized this project was bigger than herself, the outcome would have closer to the one we had hoped for.

Unfortunately it is Not Over.
Like a bad breakup, where on side rejects the other and then the rejected one says they were never interested in the first place. We see a similar analog here. It seems Dr. Burtsev, is almost saying, "Science doesn't like us, we don't think science is worthy." We are paraphrasing so let's use Dr. Burtsev's own words from his Facebook post.

The problem is that some people absolutize the science. Unfortunately science now is too conservative. One third of the population of the USA believes in BFs existing, but academic science even does not want to recognize the problem of their existing or not, just rejecting to dicuss [sic] this question. In such a condition this subject is under discussion of the broad public. We can't wait decades when scientists start to study this problem, forest people need to be protect now, not after half a sentury [sic], when science wakes up. 

Fortunately it is Not Over

There is another camp that is trying to do Bigfoot DNA research. It is the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project headed by Bryan Sykes (read: Everything You Didn't Know About the Bryan Sykes' Bigfoot DNA Research ). 

The Oxford-Lausanne/Sykes project is taking a different approach, instead of hinging the research on a peer-reviewed paper, the results will be distributed in multiple formats. According to Rhettman Mullis, founder of Bigfootology, "do not forget that Sykes is also turning this project into a book and the BBC have stated they are going to film a three hour documentary (one hour segments) on the Sykes' project."

CNN reports Bigfoot DNA Using Footage Mostly from TV Show Finding Bigfoot

CNN Carol Costello reports the Bigfoot DNA study that says Bigfoot is part human
using  mostly footage from Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot

Now you know it is really news. CNN had picked up the Bigfoot DNA study that claims Bigfoot is part human.

The choice of mashing up the Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study and the TV show Finding Bigfoot is ironic (perhaps even amusing) to most Bigfooters. Matt Moneymaker, co-host on Finding Bigfoot,  has been very vocal, most recently on twitter, about his lack of confidence in Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study that claims Bigfoot is part human.

Below are some choice tweets from BFRO founder and Finding Bigfoot's co-host, Matt Moneymaker.

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 28th)

@chucker58 @Zite I think the DNA study in Texas will be exposed as a hyped up publicity stunt and scam. I've been monitoring it for a while.

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 29th)

Bald-faced mendacity of Melba Ketchum. She told Lee Speigal the DNA samples "came to me. I didn't go after them, that's for sure." Bullsh*t.

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 29th)

More than 5 years ago she pitched her BF DNA testing to the producer of Monsterquest, and later pitched herself to the producers of MY SHOW!

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 29th)

@GregPrice13 Yo Greggy, Melba's study won't be taken seriously by any real scientists. It's all fake. Her "team of scientists" doesn't exist

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 29th)

Yes, she received a few legit samples but her "DNA analysis" and documentation was a sham and a scam. She made ridiculous excuses for years.

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 29th)

@FatherBruceW When hoaxers and charlatans succeed it getting news media attention, they can use the attn to swindle people who want to help.

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 29th)

@CharbyPaul All three of those guys [Paulides/Randles/Carpenter] are dealing w/ Melba because she is telling them exactly what they want to hear about their own samples.

Matt Moneymaker ‏@MattMoneymaker1 (Nov 29th)

The only silver lining to Melba Ketchum's scam: It helped encourage Dr. Sykes at Oxford (England) to seek BF DNA samples. He is very legit.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum Responds to Melba Ketchum's TV Interview

Dr. Jeff Meldrum holding a possible Bigfoot Cast

"Please don't get me wrong. I truly hope she has the brass ring. I want very much for her study to be legitimate and significant." --Dr. Jeff Meldrum on the Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study

Dr. Jeff Meldrum is the highest profile scientist and academic when it comes to Bigfoot research, he is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. His book, a companion to the Documentary of the same name, "Sasquatch Legend meets Science," is a must have in any serious bigfooters library.

Believers and skeptics alike respect Dr. Meldrum's approach to the Bigfoot phenomena. Notable skeptic Brian Dunning has been quoted as saying, "The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it." 

Due to his credentials and popularity Dr. Meldrum has been showcased on maultiple networks including NatGeo, History Channel, and the Discovery Channel, this also includes TV shows including Monster Quest and the recent Finding Bigfoot. 

He is also involved in a parallel study of Bigfoot DNA. The study headed by Bryan Sykes of Oxford University.

Recently Melba Ketchum has been in the spotlight due to her press release that claims Bigfoot may be part Human. Two days ago (11/27/2012) Dr. Melba Ketchum was interviewed and Dr. Jeff Meldrum commented on the interview on his Facebook Page. You can read his response right after the video below.

And Dr. Meldrum's response.

Dr. Ketchum provides a much more reasonable interview for a Houston news program. She acknowledges the prematurity of the announcement (I believe she could have stopped short of discussing her unpublished results, however). She does conclude by saying the publication is anticipated in a matter of weeks not months (we've heard that before, but I hope this time it is indeed accurate).
Please don't get me wrong. I truly hope she has the brass ring. I want very much for her study to be legitimate and significant. To that end I want to see her navigate the publication process properly and successfully!

My criticisms stem from the lack of available substantiation of her interpretation of the mtDNA results and the difficulty I have envisioning a scenario that accounts from what is proposed -- a hybridization event 15000 years ago in Eastern Europe that resulted in a population dispersed across North America.

Many people don't seem to understand the role of a null hypothesis (a working hypothesis). The aim is to attempt to falsify or refute it. The hypothesis that whatever is out there is likely a relict ape, or a relict early hominin (e.g. Paranthropus) appears the most reasonable in light of the substantive objective data (personal subjective experiences by some, notwithstanding). Melba even acknowledges this fact in her interview. If evidence, properly interpreted, overwhelmingly negates the null hypothesis, then we set it aside -- simple as that. The notion of "camps" as if they were political parties, has no legitimate place in a scientific endeavor.

I am anxious to see the results -- whatever they are!