Dr. Melba Ketchum says Bigfoot DNA results will be “beautiful”

Dr. Melba Ketchum now has a public Facebook page where you can view her updates about the supposed new DNA study set to be published soon that supports the reality of Bigfoot creatures.

Dr. Melba Ketchum

Some quotes:

I do not have a pub date yet. Please be patient, real science takes time unlike TV.

Our data is amazing and beautiful and all cutting edge. I will be so glad when we can share it!

Tip: Bigfoot Evidence blog

There is no official word, but RAMPANT GUESSING is typical, about the all aspects of the study. This topic constitutes much of the hot discussion on Bigfoot forums and blogs these days. We don’t know when or where it will be published.

Frankly, this topic is profoundly weird. With the huge interest from the Bigfoot community, most of which are NOT scientists, in this study, they will surely pounce on the results. I wonder exactly what is being tested and how it will be received. I suppose we will just have to see. Yet, already, there are major problems surfacing. Many in the active Bigfoot community are “skeptical” of the  study, it’s goals and purposes. So, there is already disputes before there is anything out their to argue about. Oh, wait… that’s how the Bigfoot advocates work. We have no animal, yet heated arguments ensue about what it is an how it behaves.

It’s been almost impossible to take the Bigfoot news scene seriously in the past few months. It’s built completely on hearsay, speculation and egos. When real evidence appears, I hope we won’t be to jaded to notice.

  24 comments for “Dr. Melba Ketchum says Bigfoot DNA results will be “beautiful”

  1. Tom Nally
    February 19, 2012 at 8:14 PM

    “When real evidence appears, I hope we won’t be to [sic] jaded to notice.”

    I consider the enormous absence of evidence…evidence for the creature’s nonexistence.

    And that’s not to say that I wouldn’t be absolutely delighted if it existed! It would be awesome and thrilling! Who wouldn’t love it, both inside and outside of the scientific community?

    I’m actually rooting for the existence of bigfoot. But if I had a quarter to bet (which I don’t) I would bet that a bigfoot carcass will not be found before my time on Earth ends. I’m hoping otherwise, however.

  2. F89
    February 19, 2012 at 9:12 PM

    Honestly, it would be amazing to have real evidence. But I’m not expexting mutch either.
    Again, I think that Dr. Ketchums nephew, Ash has more experience with strange cryptids than she does.

  3. jim
    February 19, 2012 at 9:50 PM

    Even the gorilla wasn’t positively verified as a real creature until several decades ago; I’m intrigued and sorry that the hoaxers have give the nerdy so-called “skeptics” (and so many of these folks don’t even understand the definition of that term, as it’s so widely misused) humorous fuel for argument. Now that science, the “skeptic” world’s pedestal and armor, is being applied, what will they do?

  4. LobsterTrouble
    February 19, 2012 at 11:45 PM

    I have to agree that the Bigfoot community is one big tempest in a teapot. I expect if any worthy evidence surfaced it would be broadcast all over the news.
    I am absolutely certain this study is just hokum. If the Bigfoot community really expects this to be taken seriously I believe they will be disappointed.

  5. Gary B
    February 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM

    I too think that this ‘report’ will not be taken seriously but that may well be the intent. The bigfoot croud has vigorously painted itself into a corner with the Ketchum report and the bogus shooting story from Justin Smeja(sp?)that they need a way out. I think that way out is to publish whatever this report contains on a bigfoot friendly website and claim that all those scientists and skeptics cannot see what is so plainly evident to the footers. It seems to me there are true believers in this group but I think it is full of oportunists as well who make money on that belief. The cries of predjudice and bias on the part of the bigfoot community versus the scientific/skeptical group should be interesting if anything is published.

  6. phil
    February 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    Thousands have reported seeing and encountering the creature for centuries. It’s real.

  7. LobsterTrouble
    February 20, 2012 at 12:11 PM

    I suppose what bothers me the most is that the Bigfooters will not tolerate a dissenting viewpoint. They cry foul when sceptics ask for real verifiable evidence, then want to use the science they decry to bolster their case. Can’t have it both ways. The British isles have a long history of fairies, that doesn’t make them a reality.

  8. February 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM

    If nothing else, it makes for an interesting study in the psychology and sociology of gullibility.

  9. Scott Godlewski
    February 20, 2012 at 5:14 PM

    Whoa there, Jim. Science hasn’t been used to prove the existence of bigfoot. Just because someone is applying a scientific method to something doesn’t make the subject legit. I could go collect and test what I thought was unicorn DNA, but that doesn’t make it real. We’ll have to wait for the results. But even if the material they’re testing is from a bigfoot, that’s not what the results will say since bigfoot DNA has never before been analyzed. The best result bigfooters can hope for is inconclusive. Then you’d still need a body to verify the DNA results against. Hmm, I guess these results really won’t mean anything.

  10. Scott Godlewski
    February 20, 2012 at 5:19 PM

    I’m sure the results will make for some hilarious podcast material.

  11. Scott Godlewski
    February 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM

    Thousands have reported seeing and encountering leprechans, Elvis, time travellers, dinosaurs, etc. Anecdotes ain’t evidence.

  12. Scott Godlewski
    February 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    Indeed. That’s what I find to be the only compelling angle on any of these paranormal shows.

  13. Scott Godlewski
    February 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM

    Agreed. They’re only interested in facts and evidence when it supports their world view.

  14. Scott Godlewski
    February 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    That’s what believers don’t understand. I don’t know any skeptics who wouldn’t be delighted if all of this stuff were real. It’d be super sweet if ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, ESP, mediums, etc were all real. But the evidence just isn’t there. Believers pummel skeptics because they think we’re just here to piss on their parade. We just want to see the evidence.

  15. Gary B
    February 20, 2012 at 7:41 PM

    I can understand doing the bigfoot thing as a fun, high camp lark but I have to admit that finding the depth of belief for some of these folks is almost unnerving. It’s as if we have just not read enough sighting tales or seen enough footprint casts that is holding us all back. I have read accounts of people who hold that they know one simple “fact” that will knock the stuffing out of evolution theory even with the huge background science that it has and that is how I am beginning to see bigfoot belief.

  16. Realist
    February 21, 2012 at 12:36 PM

    One of two things is happening, either bigfoots exist or the biggest hoax perpetuated by humankind has duped countless credible invdividuals. Occam’s Razor suggests the former. Lumping leprechans and Elvis in with bigfoots is ludicrous and just plain old silly. The fact is, and to our knowledge, there is no bigfoot body lying on a lab table anywhere. Does this mean the creatures do not exist? Of course not. Science works both ways, but it’s shoddy science to suggest that the lack of evidence means something doesn’t exist. And it’s shoddy science to suggest that every furry upright creature is a bigfoot. Ask yourself though which is more plausible…a hoax of mammoth proportions, tens of thousands of misindentifications, or the exsistance of a yet classified elusive animal. Any way you slice it, science suggests the later.

  17. F89
    February 21, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    No, “Science” isn’t saying that lack of evidence says Bigfoot dosen’t exist, but without credible, repeatable,and testable evidence that can be verified, the probability for bigfoots existence is low.
    Unfortunately for Bigfoot proponents, the Hoax has taken a life unto itself, and has tainted the whole study of this subject.

  18. Scott Godlewski
    February 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    Leprechans and bigfoot are exactly the same until a physical specimen is brought before the scientific community and is confirmed to be an unknown species. Believers keep throwing the absence of proof is not proof of absence arguement at skeptics, and while certainly true, they don’t find it at all odd that in the entire history of bigfoot investigation no specimen has ever been brought before the scientific community. Even giant squid wash up on shore from time to time, but a breeding population of giant hominid eludes 6 billion people? And F89 is right, the long history of hoaxing in the crytpo field has made skeptics cynical and believers seem even more gullible.

  19. LobsterTrouble
    February 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM

    What is really growing tiresome is the contention that as skeptics we are just a bunch of spoil sports. Thousands of reports that can’t be verified don’t add up to a compelling argument. If all it takes is straight face and a good story to have a sighting validated, I have to confess I am not persuaded.
    Also, stating a witness’ profession as some sort of safeguard against falsehood is specious. Just because a witness is a “psychiatrist” or a “forestry” worker doesn’t lend one scintilla of credibility to their claim. We are all prone to erroneous observations.

  20. Gary B
    February 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

    It sounds like you are saying person(s) A states that bigfoot exists and then tells everyone else to proove that it does not. I’m sure you are aware of where the burden of proof lies. The only way bigfoot can be established as real is with a body or part of a body. This does not mean you have to kill one as the bodies of critters are found everywhere. Except bigfoot of course. The current discussion and subsequent handwringing about killing one seems to me to be a smokescreen/apology for a singular lack of biological evidence. It does, however, serve to prevent some nut in a suit from getting shot I guess. In the end, the point appears to be moot because, you cannot shoot that which does not exist. You can only take blurry pictures of something and follow a few “tracks” that lead nowhere.

  21. Scott Godlewski
    February 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

    Believers keep submitting anecdotes and inconclusive photos as evidence and are continually turned away because none of that stuff matters. But they keep coming back with more of the same, proclaiming that an abundance of such evidence must prove the existence of a creature unknown to science. Quantity is not quality.

  22. Tom Nally
    February 24, 2012 at 6:32 PM

    Of all possible results, I don’t think the best they could hope for would be “inconclusive”.

    I think that the best result is that the sample is verified Hominidae, but a Hominidae that has never before been cataloged.

    But perhaps you were suggesting THAT particular result — a previously uncataloged Hominidae — was beyond possibility.

    Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t go that far. I certainly think it is within the realm of possibility.

  23. Tommy Titmouse
    March 2, 2012 at 9:51 AM

    Ketcham is a fraud. What kind of “doctor” or scientist uses hippie terms like beautiful and amazing to describe data? She’s probably as much of a doctor as Dr.J

  24. March 2, 2012 at 11:58 AM

    That doesn’t make her a fraud but it is an unprofessional way of speaking.

Comments are closed.