Guest Darrell Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 I thought Amazon was stopping the publiction of "those" type of books, lol. I think it makes her appear even more credible. Only in the bigfoot world.
Bonehead74 Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Hey, here is what appears to be the sequal to the Ketchum report: https://www.createspace.com/4501337
dmaker Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 I suppose if they are human there is no reason to frown upon romantic relationships. No worries. Bigfeets prefer cows..
Drew Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I like how it's listed as fiction/fantasy/epic. Yes, it is listed right below the paper!
Guest DWA Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I want her to just cut to the novel about all the bad questionable DNA samples.
Oonjerah Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Cryptomundo, Craig Woolheater on 24 Jan 2014 posted a letter from Dr. Sykes that I found ... enjoyable: http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sykes-vs-ketchum/ "Dear xxxx, "Thanks for your email. I am well aware of Dr Ketchum’s claims. However, ... "
southernyahoo Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Cryptomundo, Craig Woolheater on 24 Jan 2014 posted a letter from Dr. Sykes that I found ... enjoyable: http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sykes-vs-ketchum/ "Dear xxxx, "Thanks for your email. I am well aware of Dr Ketchum’s claims. However, ... " Ketchum....... Sykes wrote me one time and wanted to meet with me. I said sure and even offered to take him to where he could see a Sasquatch, but he backed out. He could have accessed all of my data and samples, but chose not to do so I can vouch for one of those samples he didn't take the opportunity on. He knew it was in her study, so didn't try to replicate the findings when he had the chance.
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Not trying to replicate her findings with your sample SY is one of the reasons why I have posted my thoughts on the Brit Bomber being interested in only debunking the wild man Edited February 7, 2014 by GEARMAN
Oonjerah Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 The letter posted on Cryptomundo ... sounds like he read her paper. Outside of Oxford & geneticists, Dr. Sykes is well known for his best selling books on using DNA to investigate human history. Five (or more?) of his books are in publication, don't know if they were all best sellers. But perhaps he could make a pretty good living as an author. He requested samples of unproved hominins from around the world, including Bigfoot. Let's suppose he comes to the end of that project; no more cryptid primates; he's done with them. BigFoot, two possible results: 1. He found NO Bigfoot. As a scientist, he knows this does not disprove the creature. I doubt he'd bother to write a book or even an article about it. Maybe a press release to answer the queries. "All the samples were of known animals or humans." 2. One or more samples tested positive for primate, not found in the gene bank. He's got Bigfoot and he knows it. He goes back to the folks who submitted the samples, visits the areas where samples were taken. If submitter is a habituator, he may even See the creature. If he knows Bigfoot is real, what will he do: Sit on it? Deny it? Or write another Best Seller? Lots of people have an axe to grind against those who believe in Sasquatch. But if you live in England where the controversy is not very relevant, why bother? GB is not an extension of the USA.
Guest Darrell Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Not trying to replicate her findings with your sample SY is one of the reasons why I have posted my thoughts on the Brit Bomber being interested in only debunking the wild man Is that so wrong? If he couldnt find anything to substantiate bigfoot DNA why is he in the wrong? Was it up to Sykes to debunk or verify Ketchum's findings? Remember not so long ago how Sykes was going to fix everything Ketchum did wrong and prove your wild man to be real? And when it couldnt be now he is being less than creditable with his findings? Really?
southernyahoo Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 The letter posted on Cryptomundo ... sounds like he read her paper. Outside of Oxford & geneticists, Dr. Sykes is well known for his best selling books on using DNA to investigate human history. Five (or more?) of his books are in publication, don't know if they were all best sellers. But perhaps he could make a pretty good living as an author. He requested samples of unproved hominins from around the world, including Bigfoot. Let's suppose he comes to the end of that project; no more cryptid primates; he's done with them. BigFoot, two possible results: 1. He found NO Bigfoot. As a scientist, he knows this does not disprove the creature. I doubt he'd bother to write a book or even an article about it. Maybe a press release to answer the queries. "All the samples were of known animals or humans." 2. One or more samples tested positive for primate, not found in the gene bank. He's got Bigfoot and he knows it. He goes back to the folks who submitted the samples, visits the areas where samples were taken. If submitter is a habituator, he may even See the creature. If he knows Bigfoot is real, what will he do: Sit on it? Deny it? Or write another Best Seller? Lots of people have an axe to grind against those who believe in Sasquatch. But if you live in England where the controversy is not very relevant, why bother? GB is not an extension of the USA. He could be willing to look into whether BF is a type of human, as this is part of the story of one of Rhetman's sample providers IIRC. Kwit had also tested human prior to Sykes via Disotell. The problem there would be proof. So he may not write a paper on that.
Oonjerah Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 ^ If Bf is another race of Homo sapiens, with or without one nucleotide polymorphism Chimp, that'd make him waay hard to prove, as others have said. Only a type specimen, dead or alive, would do it. Sykes expressed an interest in the date of Zana's people coming out of Africa. If he discovers something interesting, historically significant, I'm sure he'll write it up. Then, too, there are likely Almasty out there, unproven. If a fresh sample shows up in some lab as 10% Neandertal or Denisovan? That would shake.
southernyahoo Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I agree it would be tough to prove fully human with small amounts of mtDNA. Though what we see as BF would have to have differences somewhere in it's DNA. It may not be in the targets in the genome we use for species ID. Sykes is familiar with the targets in nuDNA that could be responsible for it. I'm just not sure he has the samples to find it.
Branco Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Do any of the BFF members know for certain how many times Dr. Sykes visited the DOI's U.S. F&WS forensic lab in Ashland, and the approximate dates of those visits?
bipedalist Posted February 9, 2014 BFF Patron Posted February 9, 2014 http://bigfootology.com/?p=1617 Some mention on the bigfootology website about the timelines.
Recommended Posts