Ketchum Sasquatch DNA is being analyzed by others

Dr. Melba Ketchum has just announced that the Bigfoot/Sasquatch DNA data set is being analyzed by others. Details are not made available but she released this on her facebook page:

I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen.

The submission to GenBank is also important. This is a good step (one that should have been done before releasing the paper).

Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper released: Problems with questionable publication (Updated) | Doubtful News.

Frame capture from the Patterson Gimlin film, to date, the most discussed piece of Bigfoot evidence.

Frame capture from the Patterson Gimlin film, to date, the most discussed piece of Bigfoot evidence.

  6 comments for “Ketchum Sasquatch DNA is being analyzed by others

  1. One Eyed Jack
    February 16, 2013 at 2:27 AM

    “top level scientists” – red flag. Smacks of vagueness like “studies by a major university”.

    I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the results will come back in support of Ketchum, but the “top level scientists” will turn out to be more criminologists and forensic investigators without a single reputable geneticist among them.

  2. February 16, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    The secret is knowing when to quit. Ketchum doesn’t see to be in on that secret. But then, neither do any of her faithful followers.

  3. Matthew Herron
    February 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    “If not, then I will announce that also.” Given the reaction to peer review, it’s more likely that she’ll simply accuse the other scientists of bias.

  4. Tyler Kokjohn
    February 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

    A precondition for publication in scientific journals is that DNA sequence data will be made available in GenBank databases for independent analyses by anyone, top level scientist or not. By not adhering to that community standard, Dr. Ketchum is completely corrupting the essential processes necessary to establish data validity.

    Dr. Ketchum has solved several inconvenient problems pose by the scientific peer review process by attempting to circumvent it entirely. The simple fact is that researchers are not allowed to hand pick the peers allowed to see and assess their data, top scientists or not. Self publication, judicious selection of reviewers and withholding of data are, as One Eyed Jack noted, clear red flags that the information she published is neither vetted nor necessarily reliable.

    Although an explanation has been offered as to why the Bigfoot genomic sequences were not deposited in GenBank, I find it far fetched. Strange we have databases chock full of ribosomal RNA sequences from unknown, unnamed and uncultured microbes, but somehow complete genomic DNA sequences from an unknown, potentially paradigm shattering novel organism is in hand and the short-sighted database curators won’t have it in their computers. Fine, allowing that the official curators would not allow the data deposits actually is the case, knowing the demands were going to be coming in, why didn’t the Bigfoot scientists put the stuff up in a web site, ftp file or burn disks to distribute the data? I fear the short answer is that they do not want anyone to see that data who might disagree with their interpretations.

    This is not how quality scientific investigations are conducted. If Dr. Ketchum has enough faithful followers who do not know the difference, from her perspective it may not matter at all. What might be important is how long she can keep this game going.

  5. February 16, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    That scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark immediately sprang into my mind with the phrase “top level scientists’. It’s a worn our phrase. Whenever I am in a discussion with someone who falls back to that phrase, it usually means a) nobody of note has seen the data, or b) those “top level scientists” are not at the top of the right fields of study. While a breakthrough in one field does happen as a result of work by those in another field, it is vanishingly rare. This is why you want careful researchers who are experts in the exact field review results, and not those from adjacent or more distantly related field.

    As a software engineer, if I stumbled upon an extremely fast prime factorization algorithm, I would not shout it to the world until I had some experts in mathematics and cybersecurity look it over.

Comments are closed.