I WANTED to be impressed. I wanted Dr. Melba Ketchum's paper on Bigfoot DNA to be persuaive. It's not. It's just weird. A viable species sired by two parent species, one so unknown it has no known fossil ancestors or descendants? And then there is the journal - it has never published (it's Web-only, which isn't necessarily a problem - there are very legitimate Web journals - except that anyone can do it, so we have only the author's word that the paper was peer reviewed). Dr. Ketchum says she did not self-publish, she only acquired the journal and execised no influence. That's not an explanation. How does one acquire a journal that did not exist prior to this paper? And the video clip floating around of a sleeping sasquatch doesn't impress, either: you can't see any detail that would help to determine if it's a real animal or a person in a suit.
Granted, I am not a DNA expert. I can't critique the description of the genome. But everything else feels wrong.
Doubtful News has a good recap.