A press release came out this morning announcing the publication the long awaited Ketchum Sasquatch DNA study by Dr. Melba Ketchum. The release states that Ketchum and her team analyzed DNA from 111 samples submitted from across the country. They sequenced 3 whole nDNA genomes from a tissue sample, saliva sample, and blood sample, reportedly with high scores for purity and no contamination. They also sequenced 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes.
The nDNA samples indicate an unknown hominin (human relative) and the mitochondrial genomes (passed to progeny only through the mother) indicate a Homo sapiens ancestor in the maternal line. Thus they conclude that sasquatches are a species arising from the hybridization of an unknown hominin and humans.
This would be excellent news, if the paper had been published in a previously existing and respected journal of science like Nature (as was originally rumored to be the possible publisher), but it was not. Instead, it has been published on a new science journal website called Denovo: Journal of Science. For some reason my firewall is blocking it for lack of credentials! According to Bigfoot Evidence, this site is Dr. Ketchum’s own site recently started by her for the publication of this paper.
This brings up a conundrum. By self-publishing, she is stepping around the peer-review process. This is a huge blow to the credibility of her paper. Had it been more widely peer-reviewed, it would have much more force behind it for being true and accurate. As it is though, only Dr. Ketchum and her contributors to the paper are part of the peer review, which, in my opinion is a conflict of interest.
However, if her paper was rejected by the more mainstream science journals, not because of the quality of her research, but because of the subject matter and possibly the fact that it would cost too much to repeat her study, then what other course did she have but to self-publish and hope to get others to review the paper though that channel?
So the validity of this paper and its findings still hangs in the balance. Either the paper and the study are flawed and were rejected accordingly or the subject of sasquatch is being stonewalled by mainstream science for one reason or another. Which one is the case only time will tell.
You can find the press release on PRWeb.
I will post more later after I can get to Denovo and read the full paper.