Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 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? ....is that all that interest you? The bucks, my goodness, I'll give you the money if you got nothing better to contribute too. The only thing it appears people are interested in is the 30 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 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. The complete discussion can be found here http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2013-02/1361701351 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Looking forward to GenesRUs and Ridgerunner translating what she has posted on Facebook. I'm also dubious of this new excuse for not going public, uh, delay tactic, uh, paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 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. Egad, you've got me! There's clearly no way they could have cut and paste the same error. I recant. This has convinced me that all the matching sequences mean nothing, all the other corroboration means nothing, and that Melba's report is suddenly sound, viable and credible. One letter has changed my life. See the attached migration map, and tell me how "A" fits with their description of "a European haplotype; it occurs with highest frequency in East Europe (11%) and Caucasus (10%) (i.e. it initially originated from near the Caucasus mountains regions between the Black and Caspian Seas). It is not known to have originally occurred in East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, Oceania (i.e. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, etc.), North America, South America or Central America." Clearly, "A" was a mistake. Trent University gets a 99% grade instead of a 100%. Melba gets a flunking 2% mark. To each his own. WorldMigrations.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 If you read through a lot of the threads, the "John" even says he can't rule out modern human contamination. This is just a discussion filled with speculation. It does make an interesting read though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 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? LOL - quite the informed Dr. ... "Published on religiously backed ancestry sites everywhere!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Mo paper no money Get paid or die trying Word up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 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? LOL - quite the informed Dr. ... "Published on religiously backed ancestry sites everywhere!" Part of the problem might be that A. John Marsh is an architect, not a geneticist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Holy Cow!!!!. I never thought to look at Ancestry message boards, bad me. My second passion is genealogy and njjohn it is an interesting read. Shoot I've been looking in the wrong place for an expert, I should have been looking at the dead ancestors scientist. Ok I'm being snidely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 ^ lol. The podcast with Darren Naish who finally admitted he was a peer reviewer and explained the real problems with the paper. It wasn't bias at all, but what we've all been saying -- the data wasn't presented that proved her claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) She is having the data run by other labs, witch she does not care to mention who they are. It doesn't make her suspect, she just wants them to do their work without people in the bigfoot cummunity calling , e-mailing , harassing, etc...demanding answers to everyone of their questions, and they want the answers yesterday. And the second their demands are not met, they become belligerent rude, hostile, etc... towards them, to the point of ruining the personal life of the accused. Ketchum wants to protect them from this behavior, and I don't blame here one bit. The actions of some people in the Bigfoot community are deplorable, I don't understand how they can look themselves in the mirror. The sad reality is, they enjoy it, they feel good about themselves, and believe they are doing important work. If your only claim to fame is destroying someone's hopes and dreams publicly, your beyond help, and do not possess one deeming quality as human being. They can make a thousand excuses for their actions, but an excuse is the only reason for their actions. It's not directed towards people making fun or RD and the like, they welcome the attention anyway they can get it. Edited March 23, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 She will never mention them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 What labs? The universities she claimed already ran them and did this indepth analysis said they did not. When the paper is full of contradictions like that and people call out the paper for what is actually there, that's not harrassment or being personal. What do you think science is? If you claim to prove something, you better have the data to back it up. Calling every single qualified individual who has pointed out the problems with the paper an armchair scientist is the namecalling. Science is going back and forth with the data. It's either provable or it's not. It's really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 23, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 23, 2013 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? LOL - quite the informed Dr. ... "Published on religiously backed ancestry sites everywhere!" Part of the problem might be that A. John Marsh is an architect, not a geneticist. And why am I not surprised...... at least he's not in the clothing industry making denim (blue genes)...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Well, I had done a bunch of research on John Marsh, only to come back here and see that you guys had already figured out that he's not a geneticist, but a landscape architect. He's also project admin for his family's genealogy project, which is described as being run by "amateur genealogists." Also, that discussion board is open to anyone, so Dr. Ketchum has, either accidentally or on purpose, falsely insinuated that it is for scientists ... or perhaps she just didn't know any better. $%@!!! I was hoping that she really had found someone who could at least validate her mtDNA data, as I think it's all that can be rescued from her study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts