Jump to content

The Ketchum Report (Continued)


Guest Admin

Recommended Posts

Guest njjohn

TM - mistakes can be corrected. Especially if they're identified. The typo was identified and has been explained.

I asked Ketchum about the contradiction in her and the response was that they didn't understand. They say there's not 1% of the data there, there's 100% there. Notice the difference between the two?

And yes, you have to make sense so that you can bring it to science, but the data has to back it up. That's the problem here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

SY, huh? Happened twice? The Trent report said "A". The DNASoln report said "T". That's once for each. The Trent report haplotype description coincides with the DNASoln conclusion of haplotype "T". And, the DNA sequences reported by each lab match. Confidence in Trent and DNASoln 100% here.

Why don't we wait for Sykes?

There was five samples listed in the Trent report , 3 were swabs from Justin ,as I was told. Did they test each one or just one, then label all three type A? These would be tested seperately from the Huggins 1 sample because Trent needed "their" positive Justin sample to compare to. So there is atleast 2 seperate tests, both of which are labled Type A. So it is not a typo but a misrepresentation of the data plain and simple. The swabs should have had pristine DNA to get it right. They still didn't, if we are to believe DNA Solutions did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, for crying out loud. ONE typo that can be easily explained vs. all the MULTITUDE of problems with the paper and study? There is no comparison. Simply get Trent to verify that they made the darn typo.

Try listening to Dr. Darren Naish's podcast about why the paper was rejected. It will put the typo in proper perspective.

Clarification: Derek was the official submitter, as Justin signed ownership of the sample to him. That is not the same as being the one who physically shipped the sample to Melba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tyler H

.

There was five samples listed in the Trent report , 3 were swabs from Justin ,as I was told. Did they test each one or just one, then label all three type A? These would be tested seperately from the Huggins 1 sample because Trent needed "their" positive Justin sample to compare to. So there is atleast 2 seperate tests, both of which are labled Type A. So it is not a typo but a misrepresentation of the data plain and simple. The swabs should have had pristine DNA to get it right. They still didn't, if we are to believe DNA Solutions did.

They tested Justin's swabs - they got one haplotype... they described said haplotype. Said description matched DNASolution's haplotype description (T). They typed a letter into a table, to represent the identified haplotype. They typed an A, instead of a T. Oops!

How can any of us make this more clear?

Is it a mistake?

Yep

Does it invalidate the whole report?

I guess if you want to believe that go ahead. That's anyone's prerogative. Not a logical prerogative, but their prerogative nonetheless. But if you are going to discount that report over one letter, you dang well better hold Melba's report to the same standard. lol.

Seems surprisingly odd that the sequences match the sequences in the DNA solutions report, and that everything else is so strongly corroborated, yet someone would discount the whole report over literally one letter. I guess if you found a spelling error in Gone With the WInd, you'd have to say the whole thing sucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scout1959

Just posted on FB:

Melba Ketchum

The following was a unsolicited commentary by A. John Marsh on a geaneology DNA page which scientis use to discuss mtDna origin. This is not the complete discussion . However it sums up the analysis.

T2 BIGFOOTS FOUND IN 5 DIFFERENT STATES:

Along with the fact that all Bigfoots seem to have several different mtDNA mutations from each other, they also are found in 5 different states. It suggests that if a single T2b human female mated with a Bigfoot male 13,000 years ago, that the descendants of the T2b ancestor have spread widely in USA since then.

AGE OF T2b:

Web site

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121018/srep00745/full/srep00745.html

If T2b is 12-10kya, and T1/ T2 coalesced about 19kya, T2b might very roughly originate about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.

THINGS I NOTED ABOUT MUTATIONS DIFFERENT IN BIGFOOT AND HUMANS:

One thing I noted was that all the 52 number diverse T2b haplogroup listed humans in the T2 project had a mutation 146T, but none of the Bigfoot had that mutation. It seems in fact that all T haplogroup have 146T. I am guessing that the earliest common ancestor of all Bigfoots had a back mutation on that marker to the CRS value.

Another thing I noticed was that all Bigfoots which appear to have been tested on the lower number markers, have mutation 73G. Yet not one of the

52 human mtDNA T2b persons had the mutation 73G. Why not? Was 73G a very early mutation in the Bigfoot line?

All the fully tested 4 Bigfoots had the 263G mutation, but not one single one of the 52 humans had 263G. Why not?

It seems all human T2bs have have 16187C and 16189T, but no bigfoots have either. In fact, all human haplgroup T are postive for both these mutations, so presumably in the common ancestor of all Bigfoots there was a mutation reverting to CRS.

According to the Ketchum knockers, all the mtDNA Haplotypes in her project are modern contamination. All of these Bigfoot haplotypes are different.

Isn't it a bit puzzling that all of these humans mistaken as Bigfoot have different T2 mtDNA haplotypes, all have 73G and 263G mutations not found in humans, and all seem to have had back mutations on 146T, 16187C and 16189T, where these back mutations are apparently not found in any human T2b s?

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest njjohn

Why didn't she simply supply the data if it was that simple... Why make another claim that she won't back up. I'm sure this could be verified if it's in the mtDNA in the paper... Have at it guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't she simply supply the data if it was that simple... Why make another claim that she won't back up. I'm sure this could be verified if it's in the mtDNA in the paper... Have at it guys.

About an hour before that, she posted the following

"We just received permission to post. There will most likely be a new paper come from this so we will not post the new findings but you will see enough of the proof to validate the paper. I am SO excited!!!!!"

New paper, maybe another $30?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

There was five samples listed in the Trent report , 3 were swabs from Justin ,as I was told. Did they test each one or just one, then label all three type A? These would be tested seperately from the Huggins 1 sample because Trent needed "their" positive Justin sample to compare to. So there is atleast 2 seperate tests, both of which are labled Type A. So it is not a typo but a misrepresentation of the data plain and simple. The swabs should have had pristine DNA to get it right. They still didn't, if we are to believe DNA Solutions did.

They tested Justin's swabs - they got one haplotype... they described said haplotype. Said description matched DNASolution's haplotype description (T). They typed a letter into a table, to represent the identified haplotype. They typed an A, instead of a T. Oops!

They OOps'd 4 different times as one had to type "A" for each of the three swabs and once for Huggins 1 in the form blocks.. Thats not just a single missed stroke on the key board which uses entirely different fingers on the left hand. They misidentified it Tyler, if DNA solutions got it right.

They may have just found a couple mutations in common then looked them up, made one determination on the type, (insert error explicative here) tthen labled them all the same, but I wouldn't call that a thorough and seperate evaluation of the haplotypes of the individual samples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone is curious, Ketchum's "support" comes from the Ancestry.com discussion board. Just scroll down til you find the Bigfoot DNA thread.

Also, to build off of Scales, who beat me to Ancestry.com, here's what John Marsh has to say about Phred scores:

Does the Q30 quality scores of above 88 mean 30 times average coverage, and 88 percent of the genome reconstructed? Just my guess, I don't know what it means. But on the face of it, does the scores obtained hint at a reliable coverage?
Edited by leisureclass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...