The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest njjohn]

Homolgous is not in the same realm as a microsatelite match. Did I hear someone accuse Ketchum of changing her haplotype for her sample? now someone is changing the Trent report Hap. Anyone want to change Justins while we're are at it?

I never said she changed it, I simply pointed out that Justin wasn't the submitter to Ketchum. Derek was. Because there's no record of the haplotypes for any of the submitters or testers, it's an impossible argument to win by either side. We know Justin's haplotype, but without the haplotypes of everyone else that worked on it, it's impossible to say it's proof that it's a different or the same sample.

And the halotype isn't changed in the Trent. It's labeled one way in the table, but described another way in the description. And the data matches the description. That's obviously a mislabeling, not a change.

[Guest]

This is consistent with haplotype "T", while type "A" is common to east Asia and Amerindian population. I believe the type "A" shown in the summary table of the Trent report is a simple typo.

You assume it is a Typo, But what if it wasn't. Shouldn't it be called into question instead of making the assumption it was a typo? This would have caused more reasonable doubt in a court of law or even in a Peer Review paper. If the report is official documentation it should have been proof read for mistakes like this NO?

I don't think you can just assume its a typo. If it isn't a typo then what else in the report may be incorrect?

Homolgous is not in the same realm as a microsatelite match. Did I hear someone accuse Ketchum of changing her haplotype for her sample? now someone is changing the Trent report Hap. Anyone want to change Justins while we're are at it?

Both

We have a credentialed, objective third party here, quoting the type as DESCRIBED by Trent, and noting the fact that it does not match what they put in their TABLE. The DESCRIPTION DOES however completely match the TYPE LETTER, used by OK's DNA Solutions. Pretty big cioncidence. Then, on top of it, in the HYPERVARIABLE region, we see that we have exactly matching sequence... use Occam's razor folks: "Typo" by Trent is about all we have left as a reasonable option.

I think its not a reasonable Option.

It would not hold up in a peer review. It would need to be corrected. It also would not hold up in a court of law. You could argue that the reverse, that the typo is correct and the other data is what is incorrect. So in the end the whole report would be thrown out if you can not verify that it was a typo.

So your view on occam's is correct and validates either side. That the whole report is false and the typo is correct. Or the report is correct and that it was a typo.

[southernyahoo]

This is consistent with haplotype "T", while type "A" is common to east Asia and Amerindian population. I believe the type "A" shown in the summary table of the Trent report is a simple typo.

You assume it is a Typo, But what if it wasn't. Shouldn't it be called into question instead of making the assumption it was a typo? This would have caused more reasonable doubt in a court of law or even in a Peer Review paper. If the report is official documentation it should have been proof read for mistakes like this NO?

I don't think you can just assume its a typo. If it isn't a typo then what else in the report may be incorrect?

Homolgous is not in the same realm as a microsatelite match. Did I hear someone accuse Ketchum of changing her haplotype for her sample? now someone is changing the Trent report Hap. Anyone want to change Justins while we're are at it?

Both

We have a credentialed, objective third party here, quoting the type as DESCRIBED by Trent, and noting the fact that it does not match what they put in their TABLE. The DESCRIPTION DOES however completely match the TYPE LETTER, used by OK's DNA Solutions. Pretty big cioncidence. Then, on top of it, in the HYPERVARIABLE region, we see that we have exactly matching sequence... use Occam's razor folks: "Typo" by Trent is about all we have left as a reasonable option.

The descriptions can be vague and similar to many others. Lots of them have some low percentage frequency in European folks and near the Caucasus origins. Has anyone matched the accession numbers. The PDF didn't come through on my end from Genes.

[Guest Tyler H]

Homolgous is not in the same realm as a microsatelite match. Did I hear someone accuse Ketchum of changing her haplotype for her sample? now someone is changing the Trent report Hap. Anyone want to change Justins while we're are at it?

I never said she changed it, I simply pointed out that Justin wasn't the submitter to Ketchum. Derek was. Because there's no record of the haplotypes for any of the submitters or testers, it's an impossible argument to win by either side. We know Justin's haplotype, but without the haplotypes of everyone else that worked on it, it's impossible to say it's proof that it's a different or the same sample.

And the halotype isn't changed in the Trent. It's labeled one way in the table, but described another way in the description. And the data matches the description. That's obviously a mislabeling, not a change.

Hate to say it Njjohn, but to continue the honesty and transparency... (and I'l triple check), but I don't actually think Derek ever submitted the sample directly to Ketchum, I believe Justin and wife sent it straight to her, not via Randles - so I don't think his DNA can be on it, if that's the thought.

[Guest njjohn]

Cath - The table says one thing, the description and the data say the other. It's pretty obvious where the mistake lies. And Genes compared the two and found them the same, so the OK report backs up that the table in the Trent report is a typo.

Yes, it should be corrected, but you can eliminate the option that the paper is false.

Yeah, we've heard various reports. Regardless, he's listed as the primary sample submitter, not Justin. The fact that we have no idea who's haplotype is showing up because they won't release a full list of submitter and tester's haplotypes makes it unprovable either way.

In my view, it's Justin's word with 2 independent tests to back it up, vs. the word of Ketchum. And that's where this all gets cloudy.

[Guest]

njjohn,

No According to the sierra projects website. Justin was told to send the sample out to Melba. He was asked by Derek to do this.

Derek was not the one who submitted it.

So if you have information that contradicts this then the Sierra projects information is false and calls into question possibly the sample they had given as well.

And no NjJohn you can not elemental the option the paper is wrong. If you are demanding Melba's data to be accurate then why not from this other source as well?

It would not hold up under peer review nor would it hold up under any legal discussion. You know this.

[Guest njjohn]

Derek is listed as the primary submitter by her paper. If it came from Justin, which it looks like it does, he should be listed as the primary submitter.

And I agree, it would have be redone. But you can pinpoint the error because it's been checked and verified by two other sources. (Genes and the OK report)

My whole point hasn't been to prove that either paper is correct or incorrect. I think it's obvious that there was an error in the Trent report. It's been pointed out and it doesn't compromise the findings because the error was pinpointed to an exact location. It would still need to be fixed before it was used in court. The problems with Ketchum's paper are much bigger than the data accuracy.

[Guest]

Follow-up,

You are also saying Melba was sloppy in her work.

A Typo that was possibly made also indicates sloppiness or maybe the lab mixed results from another sample. It has been known to happen many times that labs make mistakes and mix up samples and reports.

So if you require Melba to be better than you should expect the same from any other lab that presents evidence to try to refute Melba's DNA testing.

[Guest]

Tyler and njjohn

Thanks for the support.

As for some other posters,

I DON'T think you can have it both ways with the data. I suppose a typo may make you wonder what else is a mistake in the Trent report, BUT the Trent scientists went to the extra effort to write an entire paragraph detailing what their haplotype analysis meant. It meant "T". And, the objective sequencing data shows that both samples are identical.

As I see it, I have to decide between consistent RAW data from Trent and DNASoln (the sequence provided in both reports) vs a self-published paper, with unverified peer-review, back-editing post post-publication, and less than 1% of the genomic data. I have to draw conclusion every day based on the data I have in hand. Guess what my conclusions are in this case. And ya know what, if I'm the one giving testimony in court, it will stand up! I know that from experience. I get paid pretty well for my testimony.

Cheers,

Genes

[Guest]

See for me Melba's Research makes more sense to me.

When we look at the over all concept of how Native American's think of Bigfoot as a "tribe of" Human like beings.

The concept that some have reported 2 rows of teeth on them and we have discovered bones with 2 rows of teeth of giants.

The lack of a better term Hybridization makes sense. We know Humans have been known to grow 3 sets of teeth. Some have had the 3rd set grow in like a row.

We know Humans Have had the "genetic defect" Giantism in them. We also know Humans have a "disease" Hypertrichosis (also called Ambras syndrome)

I question if we have miss identified much of this as a Genetic Defect or Mutation but what if this is all because of some Hybridization with a creature like Bigfoot so this is why some of this happens because in our Genetic makeup we had an ancestor along the line who breed with a Bigfoot. I would think we could do DNA testing of some of these people and see if it matches up with what Melba got. Of course her DNA she found would need to be placed in GeneBank. (which from what I understand it is in the process of now being done)

[Guest]

Tyler and njjohn

Thanks for the support.

As for some other posters,

I DON'T think you can have it both ways with the data. I suppose a typo may make you wonder what else is a mistake in the Trent report, BUT the Trent scientists went to the extra effort to write an entire paragraph detailing what their haplotype analysis meant. It meant "T". And, the objective sequencing data shows that both samples are identical.

As I see it, I have to decide between consistent RAW data from Trent and DNASoln (the sequence provided in both reports) vs a self-published paper, with unverified peer-review, back-editing post post-publication, and less than 1% of the genomic data. I have to draw conclusion every day based on the data I have in hand. Guess what my conclusions are in this case. And ya know what, if I'm the one giving testimony in court, it will stand up! I know that from experience. I get paid pretty well for my testimony.

Cheers,

Genes

Nice that you get Paid for your testimony but then you should know that that typo would open the door for responsible doubt to a jury about the lab report.

It could be argued that it actually belonged to another sample? That is where the Doubt and possible mistake comes into play.

[Guest]

Tyler and njjohn

Thanks for the support.

As for some other posters,

I DON'T think you can have it both ways with the data. I suppose a typo may make you wonder what else is a mistake in the Trent report, BUT the Trent scientists went to the extra effort to write an entire paragraph detailing what their haplotype analysis meant. It meant "T". And, the objective sequencing data shows that both samples are identical.

As I see it, I have to decide between consistent RAW data from Trent and DNASoln (the sequence provided in both reports) vs a self-published paper, with unverified peer-review, back-editing post post-publication, and less than 1% of the genomic data. I have to draw conclusion every day based on the data I have in hand. Guess what my conclusions are in this case. And ya know what, if I'm the one giving testimony in court, it will stand up! I know that from experience. I get paid pretty well for my testimony.

Cheers,

Genes

Nice that you get Paid for your testimony but then you should know that that typo would open the door for responsible doubt to a jury about the lab report.

Not so much.

[Guest njjohn]

The idea of the paper has to be plausible or it wouldn't have even gotten this far. Like I said, my investigation into the Ketchum paper isn't based on whether they are human or ape, or if BF is true or not. Some of the ideas could very well be proven true in the future.

The problems with Ketchum's paper were never the ideas. It's the contradictions in her paper and what is actually true. Stating the analysis was done by Universities that have since said they did no analysis. The paper stating there is much more data, but her saying there isn't. And that's only data related. The other problems are much more serious.

The fact that the ideas are plausible is what made me say in the beginning, I'll just wait for the data to be analyzed. When I started getting some info that didn't make much sense, I started digging. For the everyday person that just glances at the paper with a glancing view... it does seem very plausible. But once you peel back the layers, what you find is definitely not what you saw with that first glance.

[southernyahoo]

Cath - The table says one thing, the description and the data say the other. It's pretty obvious where the mistake lies. And Genes compared the two and found them the same, so the OK report backs up that the table in the Trent report is a typo.

Yes, it should be corrected, but you can eliminate the option that the paper is false.

Yeah, we've heard various reports. Regardless, he's listed as the primary sample submitter, not Justin. The fact that we have no idea who's haplotype is showing up because they won't release a full list of submitter and tester's haplotypes makes it unprovable either way.

In my view, it's Justin's word with 2 independent tests to back it up, vs. the word of Ketchum. And that's where this all gets cloudy.

The thing is, if the sample provided to Trent along with Justin's swab was independently tested and evaluated seperately, the typo actually happened twice. That is not confidence inspiring.

[Guest]

Cath - The table says one thing, the description and the data say the other. It's pretty obvious where the mistake lies. And Genes compared the two and found them the same, so the OK report backs up that the table in the Trent report is a typo.

Yes, it should be corrected, but you can eliminate the option that the paper is false.

Yeah, we've heard various reports. Regardless, he's listed as the primary sample submitter, not Justin. The fact that we have no idea who's haplotype is showing up because they won't release a full list of submitter and tester's haplotypes makes it unprovable either way.

In my view, it's Justin's word with 2 independent tests to back it up, vs. the word of Ketchum. And that's where this all gets cloudy.

The thing is, if the sample provided to Trent along with Justin's swab was independently tested and evaluated seperately, the typo actually happened twice. That is not confidence inspiring.

Wow i didn't know it happened in 2 Independent tests.

That would really call into question the data. What is it that popped that "Typo" in 2 independent reports? Is it a typo or is it something the program fills in?