The video is an ABSOLUTE, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT DEAL-KILLER. That she would associate with that absurd footage FINALLY tells me all I need to know about Melba Ketchum.

Me fleas, you ketchum.

I suppose it may happen that an article passes peer review and still isn’t published, but I don’t think it’s common. I’ve published several times and never seen that happen.

Has the journal that rejected her paper confirmed that she passed peer review, or is Ketchum herself the source of this claim? This sort of thing rarely comes up because the review process is not transferable. If you submit an article to one journal and they (for some reason) choose not to publish it, the next journal to which you submit it will insist on their own review.

“2–Buying a journal is a little weird, though not totally, and in this case, its possible that Dr. Ketchum saw no other way to get this stuff out, and, if this pans out to be the biggie it could be, it could allow future cutting edge discoveries an outlet to be published. This may be a good thing for the crypto world. According to Dr. Ketchum the paper did pass peer review before the journal was purchased, which means basically purchasing their web site, subscriptions, email list etc.”

No other way to get this stuff out? You mean Ketchum doesn’t know how to make a pdf file available on the Internet? It can be done for absolutely nothing, and quite frankly it raises fewer red flags than buying your own journal.

“De Novo’ has gotten off to about the worst possible start. The way this was managed gives it zero credibility. Who else would want to be published in De Novo? Who would be willing to throw away a few hours peer-reviewing an article for it? I’ll be surprised if it ever publishes a second paper. Setting it up was a waste of money.

That’s too bad, because cryptozoology could benefit from having its own journal. It would need a professional editor with meaningful independence, though. I’m not at all sure peer review would really work, at least as long as cryptozoology is so tainted by disreputable stunts, but there’s nothing magic about peer review anyhow. It’s there to (1) prevent embarrassing mistakes from being printed in the journal, (2) make sure the subject and methodology presented are within the journal’s scope, and (3) prioritize the publication of the papers that will have the biggest impact. Other mechanisms could be used to achieve the same ends.

“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.”

OK, I hear you – you’ve obviously followed the Melba Ketchum story a lot more closely than I have and perhaps you have a reason to feel whipsawed and angry about how this has played out, hence the strong negative reations – I get that. I’m not attacking or defending her but would only suggest that any scientist trying to study Sasquatch seriously may find dealing with the establishment so difficult and confounding and impenetrable that these seemingly incompetent actions happen as a result – just a thought, but I imagine people like Jeff Meldrum would have a lot of bad stories they could share about their treatment by mainstream “colleagues”. Its hard not to notice the extreme “know it all” attitude scientists operating in the safe zone routinely portray without the slightest hint of embarrassment.

Personally, I follow these stories casually for a reason – there are undoubtably plenty of phonies and delusional people and none of the hype matters until some evidence is publicly presented. To my mind I’ll know it when I see it – the P-G film to me is the real deal, and I’m waiting for someone with a modern hd phone or hand cam to finally get a nice clear close-up. DNA has the potential to be even more decisive but it seems to me that its too easy to claim “contamination” with no real evidence to back up the claim and that seems to be happening here. “She may have something but…badly handled..contaminated..blah blah”. How can it be verified? Who are the umps? Can the samples be tested again by a larger group?

Like I said, I don’t know Ketchum but these problems will present themselves to anyone who tries this now or in the future.

it just seems fishy to me. i mean i cant see how any creature like that wouldn’t hear someone coming and be alerted… these things are supposed to NOT want to be seen, right?

but someone can just creep up on them while sleeping? I DUNNO ABOUT THAT ONE.

but ya… showing this now? why? to get the $30 from people.

so this is all about money, eh?

just read yahoo article on this:
http://news.yahoo.com/bigfoot-dna-discovered-not-fast-182536083.html

1. contaminated DNA – they say the people who collected the evidence samples, could have easily (unknowingly) contaminated their evidence.

2. the scientific journal – weird. researchers from Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology announced last year that they would test any supposed Sasquatch samples that believers volunteered to send.

Well said, brother…err cousin.

“At this point I believe a lot of people were led astray several years ago and are now trying to figure out how to recoup their losses. In the process they are just looking foolish.

It would be helpful if you could name names, instead of simply casting a poisonous net.

“A breathing rug is the Erickson high def unbelievable video,”

I wish I had the faintest clue what you’re talking about.

“And Ketchum’s “peer reviewed journal” is Volume1, Issue 1 with one article. On a website created 10 days ago.”

Yeah. We know.

A breathing rug is the Erickson high def unbelievable video, And Ketchum’s “peer reviewed journal” is Volume1, Issue 1 with one article. On a website created 10 days ago.

Any and all credibility for Ketchum et al is gone. I am disappointed and can only hope the other DNA study will be handled more scientifically and honestly.

Domain Name: DENOVOJOURNAL.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Creation Date: 04-feb-2013