Jump to content

Ch4 Uk Next Week... Sykes Bigfoot Show


Guest Junior

Recommended Posts

Episode 2 sypnosis, to be broadcast next Sunday 8pm:

Mark Evans visits America's Pacific Northwest in search of 'Sasquatch'. In 1958 a digger driver called Jerry Crew found a series of huge footprints in Willow Creek, Northern California and the Bigfoot legend took off.

Since then the region has had over 1000 Bigfoot encounters. But for decades science has scorned the idea of Bigfoot, and anyone who studies it.

Mark meets some of the Bigfootologists who believe they've come face to face with these creatures: Justin Smeja, who claims to have shot two Sasquatch; Vietnam vet Dan Shirley, who claims he can communicate with Bigfoot by 'wood knocking'; Derek Randles, who's been a Sasquatch obsessive since a close encounter in 1985; and Native American Marcel Cagey, who says a Sasquatch changed his life.

And Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the hair samples he's collected. Will the results confirm the Bigfootologists' stories or will it be bad news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Is it the same production, or a separate one?

 

This us just a guess, but since the UK presentation is 3 separate 1-hour episodes and NatGeo shows a single 2 hour episode, I think that they're different.  We'll probably have to wait and see.

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

I thought it was a brilliant show, top notch.

Utterly amazing results too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Episode 2 sypnosis, to be broadcast next Sunday 8pm:

Mark Evans visits America's Pacific Northwest in search of 'Sasquatch'. In 1958 a digger driver called Jerry Crew found a series of huge footprints in Willow Creek, Northern California and the Bigfoot legend took off.

Since then the region has had over 1000 Bigfoot encounters. But for decades science has scorned the idea of Bigfoot, and anyone who studies it.

Mark meets some of the Bigfootologists who believe they've come face to face with these creatures: Justin Smeja, who claims to have shot two Sasquatch; Vietnam vet Dan Shirley, who claims he can communicate with Bigfoot by 'wood knocking'; Derek Randles, who's been a Sasquatch obsessive since a close encounter in 1985; and Native American Marcel Cagey, who says a Sasquatch changed his life.

And Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the hair samples he's collected. Will the results confirm the Bigfootologists' stories or will it be bad news?

Bad news. The language used in the advertising is a dead give away. The hype is strong with this one, they're selling the human drama since they can't sell the results. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rascar capac

Watched the show here in the UK.

 

My sister, who likes/believes the whole bigfoot thing was nervous and angsty throughout.

 

Since the program was leaked in the press, and we knew what was coming, I was very relaxed about the whole thing.

 

I think it was a fine piece of TV.

 

The Yeti is real (maybe), and that makes my heart sing.

 

Even if it's just a pesky bear.

 

So, since the world is accepting Sykes telling us about The Bear...

 

Is DNA enough for a new man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news. The language used in the advertising is a dead give away. The hype is strong with this one, they're selling the human drama since they can't sell the results. :(

 

Agree.  My guess is known animals, human, and misc contamination.  Even if a hair is actually from a BF, I think that would be called human.  With his bear conclusion he was not dealing with scattered hair samples.  If a real scientist is going to call BF they will want a chunk on hand for others to go at to confirm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree.  My guess is known animals, human, and misc contamination.  Even if a hair is actually from a BF, I think that would be called human.  With his bear conclusion he was not dealing with scattered hair samples.  If a real scientist is going to call BF they will want a chunk on hand for others to go at to confirm...

 

I don't think so. Have you been reading all of Bigfootology? Something big is going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just posted a full post on this on Bigfoot Files Review thread - i'm thinking that surely they cant reveal the complete DNA results on the show as the peer review process and journal publication has to go ahead first??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Have you been reading all of Bigfootology? Something big is going to happen.

 

Well I could be wrong, but since it is fun foruming to states one's best guess as to what might come down, I figured I would just cast a vote with shoot1.  I would really be surprised if anything big came of this, at least right away.  I would guess if a hair is interesting to Sykes he would not go ahead and proclaim anything definitive, but rather seek confirmation with more samples preferably of a scale that would allow repeated tests...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extra Large, Russian, pro boxer, Nikolai Valuev, in the Bigfoot Files trailer. 

How can I be so slow?!

 

He'll be in Episode 3, the Russian Almasty segment!  Maybe Sykes did check 

his DNA!!  Wouldn't that be a trip?   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news. The language used in the advertising is a dead give away. The hype is strong with this one, they're selling the human drama since they can't sell the results. :(

 

Yes it sounds very bad. And calling Justin Smeja a Bigfootologist is just hilarious. Just wondering what Bigfootology.com makes of this. As it was mentioned that there is an interesting finding with Zena´s DNA, it just fits, to put the "lame" episode in the middle, with a strong teaser at the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched episode one on U Tube, thought that the Shipton track was dismissed without much thought by the double bear track theory, which in no way describes the divergent big toe, as well as not conforming to the symmetry of the heel region. I think they stretched the imagery to make it look like it conformed to a double print, when that was really not the case. But skeptics will be skeptics, I only wish the track and others like it would have been more described from a morphological standpoint.

That being said I was also interested in how they came up with wild human on one sample, and later came up with bear, was that not the same sample? What was the disposition of all the other samples, never tested, or not relevant.

Yah the bear thing is cool, especially when you consider the oddness of the Nazi taxidermy version, that could be something to be reckoned with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...