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

[Guest]

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.  

Well he was WRONG! lol

[Guest]

Does anybody care if I post a question to Darrel? Here is the question, why do you spend so much time here if you don't believe at all? From what I have read about you, you have never had any kind of experience of your own yet you post here basically saying that anybody who saw something is hallucinating. What do you do for a living that allows you to spend so much time here?

[chelefoot]

I don't think what Darrell does for a living is relevant.

[MarkGlasgow]

^^^ Don't you just love this type of 'footer' catt? There are plenty of them here, all trying to save us from ourselves.

Seriously though, as annoying as these guys can be, they do play an important role here.

Their reasons for actively debunking the subject at every opportunity may not be entirely clear but I guess it's not my place to question why some folks spend their spare time on such a negative and mostly pointless hobby.

[BobbyO]

Wildlife research is pretty standard science Bobby: observe, document sign, attempt to photo and if possible obtain biological samples.

That would be true if those same rules of logic worked with this subject, yet they don't.

Well I dont dis-respect (or is it un-respect?) what you might say, as long as bigfoot doesnt morph into an alternate demension or fly away in a UFO. But here is a root problem with some of this mess. You cant convey to me your personal experience in a way I can experience it other than by telling it to me. For me right now, thats just not enough.

That cool and there's nothing I can do about, and that's why I don't even try to..

[Gotta Know]

I don't think what Darrell does for a living is relevant.

Agreed. But I am interested in his answer to the first part of the question. I am also confused by the motivation behind his, and others, persistent anti-BF arguments. Is it a hobby, or just the love of a good intellectual argument? Or something else entirely?

 

And I understand the question about what he does for a living. Certainly there are big (corporate) pockets out there who would very much prefer that the BF phenomenon stay in the shadows. Not saying that's the case, but I do suspect there are those on here being paid to keep the ball of doubt bouncing happily in the air.

[Guest LarryP]

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.

 

 

 

That statement fails to address your subjective assumptions about thousands of witness reports as evidence.

 

Again, you have no interest in actually finding out the truth, as a true Skeptic does. All you care about is defending your personal view of what you perceive to be "true".

Edited October 23, 2013 by LarryP

[southernyahoo]

Let me get this straight:

 

Can't prove Bigfoot without a body. Can't disprove Bigfoot without a body. 

 

 

 

You still didn't get it right. You can't prove or disprove bigfoot with anything because bigfoot is a conceptual entity. You can prove a new hominin or ape exists with a specimen or substantial piece with DNA, but you cannot ever prove a negative , in this case the non-existence of such.

 

So those with experiences will continue to bull doze forward putting evidence forth until they prove it. Get use to that, since it is what they are challenged to do.

[dmaker]

^^ I realize that sy. I was simply trying to illustrate the point that it doesn't matter what happens, things will never change. A body will never be produced and since that is the only thing that could end this debate, then it will never end. There is no point that Footers will concede that Bigfoot does not exist.  That is the perpetual motion machine that fuels the good ship Bigfoot. 

[Guest]

If anyone recalls I posted on why skeptics or non believers are so obsessed with bigfoot. Really stirred the pot to question why someone so adamently states how there is nothing to the topic yet spends. Incredible amount of time discussing it. Are they on a secret MIB payroll to try to get people to stop believing and maintain the status quo of it as a myth ? LOL.

Edited October 24, 2013 by GEARMAN

[Guest DWA]

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.

 

True Belief, an unbelievable thing.

 

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.

 

Um, yep, hey dude, I get your frustration.  But those of us who are keeping up just get it better.  We know what's going on.  NAWAC won't change a thing they're doing come Sykes Ketchum or high water.  They're right.  But you can live where you want if you, um, want to.  Just doesn't sound as exciting as, you know, cutting-edge science to me.

 

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. 

 

OK, well,  you just haven't thought about them enough.  If that floats your boat, OK.  But "Just Believe Dmaker" doesn't cut it with me.  The evidence is all I put any stock in.  If I were you, though, I wouldn't put so many "Quoted For Truth" statements up here.  They might not look too good soon...and "soon" may be sooner than you think, bro.

[MIB]

Are they on a secret MIB payroll to try to get people to stop believing and maintain the status quo of it as a myth ? LOL.

 

I'm not paying anybody.  Scouts honor.

 

MIB

[Guest]

LOL

[Branco]

That would be true if those same rules of logic worked with this subject, yet they don't.

BobbyO: Sticking my neck out, but not much. If the Sykes data shows that Bigfoot is a hominid, there is not a snowball's chance in Hades that his work will ever be validated or accepted by any scientific organization having any funding from the U.S. Government in any shape form or fashion. And there is a clear-cut reason for that. It is a "Catch 22" situation that was reinforced by a memorandum from the POTUS in 2011.

 

The work will not be accepted by any country that has membership in the INSDC.

 

Dr. K. got caught up in that trap with the GenBank, and explained it. 

 

Folks need to understand that neither science as a whole nor any part of our government want to deal with the problem of "Bigfoot", our nearest relative.

[southernyahoo]

^^ I realize that sy. I was simply trying to illustrate the point that it doesn't matter what happens, things will never change. A body will never be produced and since that is the only thing that could end this debate, then it will never end. There is no point that Footers will concede that Bigfoot does not exist.  That is the perpetual motion machine that fuels the good ship Bigfoot. 

 

Well if you say never, then you've shut the door. You can't know what they've experienced without being there. That's why I'd take some time in the woods over trying to prove a negative to someone who knows otherwise. There is plenty of truth out there, in the claims and the evidence.