Jump to content
Guest

The Ketchum Report

Recommended Posts

Cisco

So, now that DNA samples have been submitted from all over the country; will the DNA show geographical variance? In other words; can DNA tell us the geographical location of where the specimen originated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeG

I reckon that it would be impossible to tell that from such a small sample, unless there were huge and obvious differences.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

@Tontar:

I would like to clarify my DNA statement. If I'm not mistaken - Dr. Ketchum has pretty much said she's seen BF. And is testing samples from areas that folks have gotten DNA from a BF. Of course I agree at this point it is not proven, a bit of semantics I felt for the question asked (which was not related to the thread). So anyway, according to DMK, there have been samples of a BF type creature analyzed.

Or have I indeed gotten way ahead of myself there?

Thx Tontar.

@Cisco:

Chain of custody could play a role in that over DNA sequencing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

I think it would be possible, but only if they can't disperse their genes as easily as hopping a train to some other part of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mitchw

It occurs to me that among the likely reviewers for Ketchum's paper are university researchers. If that is so, than couldn't these people and their colleagues have decided to do their own study just like the Oxford group we recently heard about? It's only speculation, but we may already be seeing the work that will reproduce Ketchum's. Reproducibility is the path to the establishment of a scientific truth.

Oooh Boy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

A few questions.....

Did she really take a trip to England? Anyone ask?

Could Sykes be a reviewer or friends with one of the reviewers?

If a major journal was given a paper that describes the unique DNA of a new large primate, do we think they would round up the best people to look at it and demand that the work be meticulously checked?

How long would it take from the final revisions being completed and the paper being turned back in, to publication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

I believe Sasquatch would not be an inappropriate name, considering the history. Not only would it pay respect to the natives, but it stays true to what we know as Sasquatch. It means "Wildman"

edit: I was looking at the wrong page

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

A few questions.....

Did she really take a trip to England? Anyone ask?

Could Sykes be a reviewer or friends with one of the reviewers?

If a major journal was given a paper that describes the unique DNA of a new large primate, do we think they would round up the best people to look at it and demand that the work be meticulously checked?

How long would it take from the final revisions being completed and the paper being turned back in, to publication?

Sykes' reasoning for taking on the study did seem a little beneath him, to respond to some calling out science for ignoring this phenomenon. That would surely get some accolades from the skeptics and proponets, but to the public it may have seemed odd. For all they know science has been all over it for years. Every documentary has some scientist telling them what they found. I think it is more likely that Ketchum's study is sparking the interest.

I reckon Saskeptic could fill in some blanks on time from final revision resubmit to pub date, but I'm sure it depends on the open slots the journal has to fill, and that acceptance letter has to arrive somewhere in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

nm...was reading backwards and just hit the Mod request...

Edited by Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shoot1

I reckon that it would be impossible to tell that from such a small sample, unless there were huge and obvious differences.

Mike

How small *is* the sample? I'm not sure if the sample size matters so much as what locations the samples come from (and, of course, the quality of the samples), since it could theoretically take only two samples to find two types of species. Judging only by the wide variety of "Sasquatch" descriptions (East Coast, PNW, Southeast/Gulf areas) there could be multiple types of anomalous hominids and/or primates. Even if they 'only' find one species, that does not mean there is not more than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeG

The sample size is of considerable importance.

If you are determining whether a variation you observe between 2 different samples is simply a matter of individual differences (in the way that our height and hair colour vary, for instance), or whether it is a regional/ racial variation (such as skin colour, facial features etc), then the small sample size isn't going to even begin to give you a clue. However, if you have, say, 10 samples from each area, you can start to examine whether there is anything about the samples from Area A which never occur in Area B, and vice versa.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shoot1

How large is the sample size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

Thick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cisco

One more Thursday and no breaking news....sigh

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Snidely1.jpg

"Curses, foiled again!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...