The Sykes / Sartori Report - Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project

[Oonjerah]

From what very little I've read of them, I suspect Almasty is different from Bigfoot, also. 

 

Was it Mike Rugg who said we have 4 distinct varieties of Bigfoot here in the States? 

[Guest DWA]

^^^Not sure about the attribution; but several varieties of NA hominoid wouldn't surprise me.

 

Which is another problem I have with Ketchum/Sykes being for anyone the 'final word.' In my opinion, if Ketchum's find is 'bigfoot,' well it sure don't seem like Patty to me!

[Oonjerah]

Ketchum: I'm sticking with her interview when she said there was a 'possum in the mix. 

[southernyahoo]

^Do you have a quote for that?

[Oonjerah]

A quote?  No, not off hand. 

I think it's somewhere in The Ketchum Report (Part 2).  She did say it in a radio interview. 

And I thought several of the posters here were a bit amazed by it. 

Amazed that she would say such a thing.  Veterinarians do have to pass Biology 1A. 

[TimB]

So has there been any type of report released or is it only his impending book and the BBC special?  

[Oonjerah]

^Do you have a quote for that?

 

The Ketchum Report (Continued), pg 148.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36891-the-ketchum-report-continued/?p=750906

 

"Ketchum apparently gave a Houston Chronicle reporter some of her samples to be independently tested.  

They came back positive...ly possum."

.......

 

Dr. Melba Ketchum's Response to Bigfoot Is a Mix of "Possum and Other Species" Statement (July 2, 2013)

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/07/dr-melba-ketchum-response-to-bigfoot-is.html

 

Going with what I find on Google, Dr. Ketchum didn't say that. 

Houston Chronicle blogger Eric Berger said it. July 1, 2013. 

 

Dr. Ketchum objected to his remarks. 

 

I guess I didn't see leisureclass' original post about this, came upon the "Bigfoot Is a

Mix of 'Possum and Other Species'" remark later, and misunderstood the source of it.  

 

Dr. Ketchum, I owe you an apology.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Oonjerah

[southernyahoo]

A quote?  No, not off hand. 

I think it's somewhere in The Ketchum Report (Part 2).  She did say it in a radio interview. 

And I thought several of the posters here were a bit amazed by it. 

Amazed that she would say such a thing.  Veterinarians do have to pass Biology 1A. 

 

I think you are confused by that supposed review of the data reported by that Houston Journalist, who wouldn't even give the name of the reviewer.

 

That's why you don't have a quote from Ketchum, except perhaps to refute the assertion from the un-named reviewer.

 

edit :Just saw your post above, there you go.

Edited October 23, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Oonjerah]

In the miles & miles of "The Ketchum Report," any particular remark or post is

a needle in a hay stack. ... But once I had the date, I could track it down. 

[TimB]

I still find it interesting that unknown sources is qualifying proof for some people.  It really shouldn't surprise me though.

[dmaker]

^^^Well, yep, but I don't consider Sykes the final word on that.

 

If we don't have a body of an animal to connect to any of the samples he reviewed then I have a simple question:  isn't it possible that people saw yeti; went to the spot to collect evidence; and collected bear hair?

 

It is; and it's why not knowing what these samples came from is problematical.

 

Just like with bigfoot, people describing yeti either aren't describing bears or are describing what will vault to the top of the heap instantly, upon confirmation, as the weirdest bear yet found.

(I've always thought yeti and bigfoot different.  Meldrum, at least, does too.)

Let me get this straight:

 

Can't prove Bigfoot without a body. Can't disprove Bigfoot without a body. ( that, at least, I have to agree with since Bigfoot has never been "proven" in the first place)

 

So as long as no body is ever produced and linked to DNA samples, then we're good. The myth can go on forever and ever and ever...?

" OK, people seeing bigfoot are not seeing bears; and any intimation that that's happening just indicates that one isn't reading the reports." -DWA

 

That is purely speculation on your part. You don't know what they are seeing or if they are seeing anything at all beyond shadows. Or even if they are lying.  Reading the reports does not confirm what someone saw. It simply details what they claim they saw with no supporting evidence at all.  To take those claims, without supporting evidence, as truth is sloppy and very poor science my friend.

[Guest LarryP]

You don't know what they are seeing or if they are seeing anything at all beyond shadows. Or even if they are lying. 

 

 

 

You fogot to throw in your usual "mentally ill" and "hallucinations" into the mix.

 

Of course if you read another eyewitness report from someone that contradicted a previous report you'd find that to be very credible evidence that in fact the original report was wrong.

 

That's because you are far more interested in defending your views than you are in in finding out the truth.

[Guest DWA]

Let me get this straight:

 

Can't prove Bigfoot without a body. Can't disprove Bigfoot without a body. ( that, at least, I have to agree with since Bigfoot has never been "proven" in the first place)

 

So as long as no body is ever produced and linked to DNA samples, then we're good. The myth can go on forever and ever and ever...?

We can talk after something approximating a reasonable scientific pursuit of the truth has been attempted.  Stopping with Sykes is of course sheer silliness.  It's like sending ten people who know nothing about spotted skunks out to get spotted skunk samples, and presuming the spotted skunk isn't real if they all bring back dog hair. 

 

" OK, people seeing bigfoot are not seeing bears; and any intimation that that's happening just indicates that one isn't reading the reports." -DWA

 

That is purely speculation on your part. You don't know what they are seeing or if they are seeing anything at all beyond shadows. Or even if they are lying.  Reading the reports does not confirm what someone saw. It simply details what they claim they saw with no supporting evidence at all.  To take those claims, without supporting evidence, as truth is sloppy and very poor science my friend.

 

I'm not sure how many times I've said this but here's one more:  compelling evidence worthy of pursuit - which they are - and truth - which remains to be seen - are two very different things.

 

Not to have read them, not to know what people are saying, and to presume they are seeing bears - or shadows - is no closer to figuring out what's going on than I would be if I simply presumed everyone riding the subway in New York City did so because they were afraid to fly.

Edited October 23, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Darrell]

Nothing to do with much any of this but the noted author, Arthur C. Clarke, had a television series in 1980 called Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World. He did an epeisode on the Yeti/Alma/Bigfoot phenomina. At the end he speculated the yeti had more credability of actually existing over any of the other bipedal ape creatures, but not by much.  

[dmaker]

You fogot to throw in your usual "mentally ill" and "hallucinations" into the mix.

 

Of course if you read another eyewitness report from someone that contradicted a previous report you'd find that to be very credible evidence that in fact the original report was wrong.

 

That's because you are far more interested in defending your views than you are in in finding out the truth.

Seriously? Every time the "truth" is presented to Bigfooters it is brushed off with some excuse. What, dna result shows bear? Bad sample or maybe the Bigfoot ate bear or something equally ridiculous. Don't talk to me about Bigfoot and truth. The two do not mix.

 

" We can talk after something approximating a reasonable scientific pursuit of the truth has been attempted.  Stopping with Sykes is of course sheer silliness.  It's like sending ten people who know nothing about spotted skunks out to get spotted skunk samples, and presuming the spotted skunk isn't real if they all bring back dog hair.  "

 

Uh, no. Sykes did not go out and look for anything and return with anything. People brought samples to him, he did not go and gather anything. Your analogy makes no sense in this circumstance at all. If you don't like the results it's because the samples do not come from the alleged beast, or said beast is not at all what you fantasize it to be.

 

 

 

You can repeat your false statements as often as you would like, but it won't make them true. I have read reports. Plenty of them.  But please pretend that I have not pointed that out a hundred times already here since you think it somehow makes your position stronger. As if anyone exposed to the powerful elixir of the BFRO database would instantly succumb and believe every word of it. No, some of us can read them and resist the urge to believe in giant ape-men running around North America. 

Edited October 23, 2013 by dmaker