Guest Darrell Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 ^Wonder how that will be accepted by those in the phenomina if his conclusions are negative. I think Sykes is the next bigfoot messiah to many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 ^well, I would ask the same if the other shoe drops. However, with me, if Sykes comes up empty, that will be a disappointment to say the least. Supposedly he's got some of the best samples that the BF investigators have to offer, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 ^well, I would ask the same if the other shoe drops. However, with me, if Sykes comes up empty, that will be a disappointment to say the least. Supposedly he's got some of the best samples that the BF investigators have to offer, no? selected, vetted, and approved by none other than Jeff Meldrum (at least until he tried to insert himself deeper into the project,(think the Meldrum / Sykes study) at which point Sykes cut him off!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 ^Thats interesting. I think there is always somebody who wants to be the "Grand Poohba" of the bigfoot scene and IMO, right now Dr Meldrum would like to be it. Just like Dr Krantz did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Well, that IS interesting SS, I was not aware of that. Boy, the disapointment would be even greater now. IF something comes back positively for the existence of BF, would you be willing to accept that?@Darrell, I don't fault anybody for wanting to be the best in their field. Someone's gotta be the leader, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 ^Its all about their agenda. Can someone say Ketchum Study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Well, that IS interesting SS, I was not aware of that. Boy, the disapointment would be even greater now. IF something comes back positively for the existence of BF, would you be willing to accept that? @Darrell, I don't fault anybody for wanting to be the best in their field. Someone's gotta be the leader, eh? I would be absolutely estatic, that would be so incredibly cool, and scientifically important, It would be earth shaking. If sykes comes out and says i have unknown primate DNA between humans and chimps. i would change my career trajectory in a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Not sure where you are getting the my "unsubstantiated belief system". fact is over the past 3 years I have personally run over 10 samples declared to be BF through my DNA lab. every one of them has been identified - unfortunately, each and everyone was clearly identified as a known mammal. bear, Alpaca, dog, human, horse. I am still searching for substantiation of the existance of BF, and so far all of the data I have examined has said - "nope". (BTW Spoiler alert - Guess what Sykes study says - including many samples form thesame people and samples that Melba calls highhbrid humans). Mid october, but you might as well rev up the spin machine right now - So in my mind, I think I try more than most others for an unbiased examination of purported evidence. And I have to tell you, every single "failure" is actuallhy more circumstatial evidence that BF does not exist. Can you share more details on the samples Slowstepper, like photo's of the samples showing the morphology of the ones that tested human? Sure, as soon as you share tyours! The photo's and DNA is shared here for my sample. According to Ketchum et. al, this sample produced modern human mtDNA haplotype T2b. Your turn........ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 27, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 27, 2013 Nice documentation SYahoo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 @SS, 10 samples is not statistically sound to base a decision on. Need more data points! @SY, have you submitted your hair to any place else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I've sent a portion to Meldrum, and sent provenance to Sykes and neither expressed interest in testing. Meldrum was interested at first, but I think the criteria he uses excludes prominent medulla present in the hair shafts. That's actually puzzling to me since primate hairs do have a medulla. Here's an example of a human hair with a solid medulla compared to my suspected BF sample. Bottom line is, I don't think excluding the hairs with a medulla will eliminate the human result, as seen in the Snelgrove Lake sample from Canada, collected by Meldrum and submitted to Ketchum's study by Curt Nelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I wouldn't put too much confidence in Dr. Ketchum's analysis of anything now. If I remember correctly, she passed quite a few samples from questionable Bigfooters as real Bigfoot. If someone has what they think is real Bigfoot hair, then they would need to get it tested at a reputable lab. But even then, the popular end result of modern human wouldn't be indicative of Bigfoot. The DNA would need to be attributed to an uncataloged primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 OS said: "I wouldn't put too much confidence in Dr. Ketchum's analysis of anything now." Nor would I....not sure how the wheels fell off the wagon on THAT one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I'm not getting a good vibe from the things that SS is posting regarding the Sykes study..... hmmm I'm going to try not to worry about it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) SY thank you very much for that. I tend to agree with you and am disappointed your sample didn't get to Sykes (correct?). Slowstepper, I don't expect anyone to find an ape (quadrapedal, etc) ....but, rather a descendant of H. erectus. Since we haven't erectus DNA (well I guess Denisova or Hidelbergensis count..do we have DNA from them? I have forgotten..) and the initial testing was to be mtDNA...(and have not heard if anything changed) and if BFs are descendants of Homo erectus, or Neanderthal,.or even modern human, how will typical mtDNA analysis definitively show that? I thought that we shared a great deal of mtDNA with Neanderthal.....are there particular, common, markers in mtDNA to distinguish all the genus homo variants? I have been thinking since I heard it was mtDNA only that this will just be the first in a series of testing ( I hope not documentaries really....they take too long, but might be the hook for funding...if it has viewers/advertisers...) ...assuming anything warrants further study... showing all samples are known animals, or the human researchers...would be the serious downside...and perhaps end such testing for a while... Edited June 27, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts