southernyahoo Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 Sykes studies human DNA, so he might still publish what he finds, even as a negative result. he was intent on publishing at the onset of the study, so it really doesn't mean anything that he still intends to. People want to know what he found and through the proper channels regardless of what it is.
Guest DWA Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Serious scientists doing serious science publish their results. It was Sykes's intent from the day he started to publish his findings. That's science.
Sunflower Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Well, Melba was asked several times, "Where did you get these samples?" The scientists were having difficulty with what they were finding. Meaning, it didn't match any "known" that they had already tested and one lab said she needed to give them the name of the creature before they would finish. (I believe that was the gist).
southernyahoo Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Serious scientists doing serious science publish their results. It was Sykes's intent from the day he started to publish his findings. That's science. Well the Journal is the one that actually publishes it, if it is to be called peer reviewed science. So Sykes would have to explore options if there were problems in the review. I figure his book will likely be plan B.
Guest Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 So Ericson footage was shared in Dallas press conference today.... So Ericson footage was shared in Dallas press conference today....
Guest Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) Should be coming up soon - the news report, that is. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/10/breaking-erickson-project-matilda-to-be.html Serious scientists doing serious science publish their results. It was Sykes's intent from the day he started to publish his findings. That's science.And, what if his study indicates something intriguing that warrants more investigation/study.........? That would be well worth publishing. Edited October 1, 2013 by bananasquatch
Guest Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Whats interesting is that the Erickson Project website, sasquatchthequest.com, is no longer in use. Why would they issue a press conference if the project is done?
Guest Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 What video I saw that was NV and, other looked short armed.
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Posted October 2, 2013 It's made it on the news here in Aus... http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/10/03/06/50/bigfoot-researchers-unveil-dna-video-proof It's sad to see that they used a Chewbacca suit in the video... sigh. Cheers, Kraig
southernyahoo Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 . In regard to Dr. K's analyses: If her "bulk" sample was contaminated with "human" DNA, what did the uncontaminated portion of DNA show? Wouldn't the DNA have shown at least something other than "Human" if the sample was simply contaminated? She had human, novel , and known animal sequences in the nuclear results according to several evaluations. Two of the three had issues where contamination couldn't be removed if they arrived at the lab that way. The steak could have been screened out of the study in my opinion if it is from a bear.. The results of these could be from contamination and degradation. In the mtDNA, the results were predominantly human. While Ketchum says she had screened the samples with universal primers to detect other known animal DNA and washed the samples prior to testing. The known animal DNA would have been the primary contributor at that point if there at all. This seems to mean little to the evaluators because they are focused on the three whole genomes.
Guest SDBigfooter Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Anyways, at least the whole report seems to be available online for free now. Is something brewing? A simple search should bring it up. Now I have some nice reading to do tonight!
Branco Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 Thanks southernyahoo, appreciate your response. Reasonable circumstances.
Guest Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Not gonna happen. Get ready for dissapointment round #2. The Melbanites have nothing left but hope and the rest of that will be destroyed when Sykes comes up with either nothing or results that do not match hers in any way shape or form. Like you said in that earlier post..... Game - Set - Match If you think that all the recent releases and hoopla by Melba is just an accident .... think again If you think all the allegations by Robert Lindsey is blowing in the wind ... think again If you think the recent allegations from a publisher for Sykes is just a popcorn poot then think again I could go on and on .... but I thought again ........ WHY The only disappointment will be the slow acceptance of reality by the LAME STREAM MEDIA ( skeptics and the like ) BTW ....... Sykes will finally go against the LAMERS It's gonna happen .... in fact it has happened in front of all of our noses .. I repeat Game - Set - Match Get used to it... Thanks southernyahoo, appreciate your response. Reasonable circumstances. Thats correct .... SouthernYahoo has been a stalwart in the face of the constant bombardment by the skeptics .... But he has held his line and it has been True Thanks SY Anyways, at least the whole report seems to be available online for free now. Is something brewing? A simple search should bring it up. Now I have some nice reading to do tonight! Just curious ....... And your simple search turned up ?????????? BTW ...... Sykes controls all of his information even Publishing leaks ... so I would not consider valid releases ........ leaks IMHO ....... Yes something is brewing .... something besides oneupmanship .... which Melba had to begin ..... Good for her .... It is way past time ..... This should be BIG ......
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) lol, in case you didn't know, Sykes has already said he doesn't agree with Melba's conclusions. It was confirmed through Rhettman Mullis after Melba's paper came out. Edited October 9, 2013 by OntarioSquatch
Guest Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Note "conclusions" though, the way I heard it the conclusions strayed quite far from the data and were rather speculative.
Recommended Posts