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

[David NC]

dmaker. I am curious as to how you are so sure that a body will never be produced. I have always been good at seeing patterns be it nature or in human behavior. I do not understand the name "Footers" , You capitalized the F  as a name , and you use it in the sentence almost like a slur. I am starting to see patterns in this puzzle.

[Oonjerah]

Post #1128, Oonjerah on Ketchum: I'm sticking with her interview when she said there was

a 'possum in the mix.

 

^Do you have a quote for that?

 

Now I see where I got confused: It was a Lemur, not a 'Possum. 

 

The Ketchum Report (Continued), page 42. 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36891-the-ketchum-report-continued/?p=712730

leisureclass on interbreeding with lemurs. 

 

Melba Ketchum interview with Linda Moulton Howe (originally on C2C?) 

Video time: 5:15 in, speaking of the Bigfoot nuDNA.  

 

Linda: "do you have any information about what would be closest to known primates to the

unknown hominin male progenitor?" 

 

Melba: "It's headed a little bit more toward the lemur line, oddly enough; it is definitely not an ape.

And it's interesting, we found out there's an extinct lemur that weighed 4-500 lbs. Also they have

opposable thumbs and hooded noses. ..."

[Cotter]

Undiscovered Forest Lemur.

 

I'm in that camp!

[southernyahoo]

For the record, I don't believe bigfoot is part human and part lemur. I do believe that it makes a difference how you look at the data. Species ID should always be done with tried and proven regions that provide distinction between species and consistency within a species. Regions that are too conserved wouldn't provide it, and regions too variable could give you bizzare results with matches/ mismatches to all sorts of things.

 

Ketchum believes the nuDNA is naturally highly mutated, because it repeated too often in the results from SeqWright.  I think there was too much work to be done on it to manage in one paper.

[dmaker]

" 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.

 

 

The same very much applies to you too bro. You're going to look silly a year from now, 3 years, 10 years when NAWAC have been at this longer than some posters here have been alive and still have bupkis to show for it.

[Guest Darrell]

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.

Well if anyone wants to know what I do, its in my profile and also in a post from about 6 months ago I think. Short answer is I retired from the US Army in 2011 with 24 yrs of service. I now work as an investigative analyst with a federal law enforcement agency. In my spare time I teach Karate and Filipino stick & knife fighting. When I have time Im also a local IDPA/IPSC/3 Gun competetor and instruct defensive pistol and carbine tactics. As far as posting alot here, Ive been a posting member since 2011, so 500 posts in 2.5 yrs isnt that much is it? Im active on 2 other knife and martial arts forums but thats about it. I first got interested in the phenomina in 1970 when I was 8 and have followed it ever since. Thats 43 yrs. I will always say Im much more skeptical about bigfooters than the actual bigfoot.  And just because I havent posted about any encounters doesnt mean I havent had any. But on 2 occasions, both turned out to be something so totally not bigfoot that I now think most are misidentifications. One so much so that it still makes me laugh.     

[JDL]

You need a big hairy PTSD-inducing face-to-face experience.

[Guest Darrell]

Maybe. Ive had PTSD inducing face to face experiences but not with bigfoot. At least now if I find myself in the Himilayas I can pretty much count on that experience being with a bear and not a yeti.

[WSA]

Spent a lot of time pondering that question Gotta Know. I mean, what IS the payoff there?  I think it is explained by a need for some to self-validate their superior intellects, and to put down their "marker" as somebody who wasn't fooled by all this nonsense, no indeed!

 

Ever work with somebody who always, always, was the person who was quick to point out how gullible the rest of you were to think your co-workers/supervisor/employer actually told you the truth, and how much THEY certainly weren't buying it? But then again, they never faced  the contradiction that they worked there too, and showed no sign of ever leaving? Same-same.  All I can really concluded is some need that, and it takes all kinds to make a world. Me, I think I'd just get bored with myself after a time. 

 

Shoot oh well though...the Forum rules allow all points of view, but no reciprocal obligation to read them, huh?.    

[dmaker]

^^ Naw, that is not it at all. I'm here for the debate. My role in that is to point out flaws in Footer logic. For the benefit of whom you might ask? Well there may be some here who are undecided and might benefit from a counter position. Contrary to what DWA may think, there are many, many alternatives to the root cause of an eye witness report that do not involve hitherto undiscovered primates. I know when I first started reading posts here way back when that it was some of the well thought out and rational posts by long established and respected skeptics that were the most influential with me.  I'm not saying that I am on the same par with folks like Saskeptic, but I do my best to carry the torch    

 

Plus, it's kinda fun sometimes  

[dmaker]

" Shoot oh well though...the Forum rules allow all points of view, but no reciprocal obligation to read them, huh?.  "  WSA

 

Is that sad for you? Would you prefer it otherwise?

 

Since you offered your take on persistent skeptics here, let me offer my take on your position. The position that doesn't care about the truth really; probably doesn't really care if Bigfoot is ever discovered. The folks that  like the spooky; the idea of Bigfoot much, much more than any possibly reality. The type of Bigfoot proponents who are content to sit around and ooh and ahh over campfire stories about Bigfoot forever.  And leave it at that. 

 

The forum allows all points of view. No reason to take some of them seriously though....

[WSA]

Too funny.

[Guest Stan Norton]

The fact that proponents are referred to as "you people" should tell you all you need to know.

There is a type-1 error in assuming that we who dare to look at purported evidence in a positive light are lacking the requisite grounding in logic.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Stan Norton

[dmaker]

^^ Don't believe I used " you people" in either of the above two posts. And for the record you people can be used in a non pejorative way. For example, "what do you people think" when addressing a question. English lacks a decent second person plural. Sometimes I may use you people simply because I don't like " you all" or "y'all" or "youse", etc.    It's not always as nefarious as you want it to be. 

[Guest Darrell]

^Unfortunately, just spend some time here and you will find that "you people" rarely apply logic in this phenomina. But of course that is my opinion, and it is allowed is it not? And really if you people dont like my point of view or that of others why dont you just get together, change the rules, and censor what I and others skeptical about the phenomina want to say. Does that sound logical to you?