Guest Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) I'll PM you Edited October 29, 2013 by apehuman
southernyahoo Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 Perhaps, I just think we as a community were tapped out..or the "independants'..were anyway . What is interesting is no formal submission from BFRO or Meldrum/Farenbach.... I find that really, really odd... BFRO...so many claims of possession of hair....why no submission? and Meldrum wrote about a year ago in some comment..he had talked with Henner and was wanting to "re-do" the hair collection as a collaboration b/c of advances ..then I never saw another comment... could be two things... Henner said..no.... or yes....who owns all those hairs? Henner...? the submitters? if he said yes.....then a very quiet study could be happening.....b/c if not..why would either of those BF Horsemen pass up free testing..of the entire collection? Henner's BF hair pronouncements have been the Gold Standard for a long, long time.... hummmm Exactly! I think Henner has come across some results before, but didn't want to go public about it. If it were an unknown primate of some sort, I think he would have. Sykes, being the expert on human DNA should have sounded last call for those samples, especially if the results actually matched his criteria for bigfoot samples.
Guest zenmonkey Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Apehuman, Where were you able to watch it? I've been looking for a way to see it since it aired and have had no luck. Michele ditto that!
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 alright folks i have uploaded the first part here: I will try to get the rest up tomorrow so we can all discuss
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Turns out we are all gullible idiots that want to believe, gutted. Lets face it, they were never going to reveal anything revolutionary were they. They made out that they'd given the bigfooters a new direction at the end, I'm still puzzled as to what direction that is though. I know. Where have I heard and seen that before? Only like ten million bajillion times. I'm also concerned that the result of this hard-hitting research television show starring Dr. Sykes will all be misconstrued as definitive proof of its "nonexistence".
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Thanks Kezra, finally got to see some of it, man it's been frustrating waiting for a view when everyone else seems to have seen it Just a thought, none of us who have actual experience with the creature will ever doubt it's existence. So for those of you who have not yet had the fortune, or misfortune if you will, of an encounter sit tight, we are not making all this up. The creature actually exists, completely independent of any ones approval or imagination. We just do not know how and when it will be identified, we know it is no bear, coyote, raccoon, deer, wolf or other known specie. If you begin to doubt it is real, go back to the footprint evidence and see if you can completely explain those away, and if you can, than re-read the thousands of encounters and see if they seem like misidentification or hoax, or delusion. Simply cannot dismiss the creature, because it does exist, and will exist far beyond this study...
BobbyO Posted October 30, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 30, 2013 . What is interesting is no formal submission from BFRO or Meldrum/Farenbach.... I find that really, really odd... BFRO...so many claims of possession of hair....why no submission? hummmm Because so many within this subject are only interested in scientific acceptance if THEY are the ones who shown as discovering. It's selfishness of course, in some cases driven by money. Especially where the BFRO is concerned these days with the TV Show > $400 expeditions. But it's very puzzling where Meldrum is concerned, you're right. 1
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Jeffrey weighed in with his concerns about which hair samples Sykes was going to get, he had suggested that they were sent to him first for examination, but Sykes did not follow his suggestion, so Meldrum was pretty sure that some bogus samples might be included, but I doubt he thought all of them would test bogusl Maybe Sykes is using a more stringent purification method, but that would only account for contamination, not morphology. I would have liked them to discuss the samples morphology. He seemed to intimate that "Ketchums" mistake was in the cleaning and purifying of the samples, thus she came up with human sequences. Something is really amiss here, I can smell it, someone is not telling us the truth. I'm leaning toward that person who stood to gain the most from their study.
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 My musings... Could it be Meldrum has submitted samples to the Sykes study and these will be published along with the other findings in a formal publication/journal? Do we know definitively this is not the case?? Or is that just my 'happy-holding-hands-we're-all-in-this-together' way of thinking and the reality is closer to the brutal truth of 'my' discovery' or no discovery. Meldrum and his work is much respected, rightly so. Maybe he was approached by Sykes if he didnt contact the project himself. .....computer is uploading part 2 for you folks... apologies as it takes bloody hours
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) Hi All, Jeff did respond to the central question..did he submit.. and also to some extent about Henner's collection... here in FaceBook...and the conversation is open there I guess? I don't want to speak for him when he chooses to respond! But, I do wonder if he used Henner's criteria to screen, or the range of known animals/humans (!) data and only those outside those groups were "potentials," and I did not ask that.. https://www.facebook.com/don.j.meldrum/posts/433563400081162?comment_id=2111545&offset=0&total_comments=1¬if_t=feed_commen My link to the show takes one to dropbox..if you have a dropbox account (free) you can download and watch..to the one who said only 14mins viewable.. I suppose b/c you need to register with Dropbox? But, I bet by today it will be on YouTube..let me know by PM anyone who needs. BobbyO if I had a plus to give ya I would... Edited October 30, 2013 by apehuman
chelefoot Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I plussed Bobby for you AH. Not sure why the video was only 14 mins. Strange. But I appreciate that you guys are tryng to help us all to see it. It has been frustrating not being able to participate in the conversation!
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) It is circulating in FB groups..but one must be friended... .or like dropbox..if you have an account..they are worth it, free to send large files, etc and now they team with Yahoo mail..but, I could not stream from the dropbox and had to download...rural wireless server...took a long time! Edited October 30, 2013 by apehuman
chelefoot Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I'm in a bunch of the FB groups, but all I have seen are the short clips and links to the sites where you have to DL stuff - I don't trust those.
Ike Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 This is quoted from another thread about how to watch it: Hi, Try this page for links to ep 2 http://watchseries.lt/episode/Bigfoot_Files_s1_e2.html It worked for me although it has a tendency to freeze up and be annoying. I finally just told it to play, then hit pause, walked away for a while to let it upload and then hit play again.
southernyahoo Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Jeffrey weighed in with his concerns about which hair samples Sykes was going to get, he had suggested that they were sent to him first for examination, but Sykes did not follow his suggestion, so Meldrum was pretty sure that some bogus samples might be included, but I doubt he thought all of them would test bogusl Maybe Sykes is using a more stringent purification method, but that would only account for contamination, not morphology. I would have liked them to discuss the samples morphology. He seemed to intimate that "Ketchums" mistake was in the cleaning and purifying of the samples, thus she came up with human sequences. Something is really amiss here, I can smell it, someone is not telling us the truth. I'm leaning toward that person who stood to gain the most from their study. Scott Carpenter has something to say about the cleansing and sterile protocols. Sykes isn't exactly consistent with practice and preaching. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/
Recommended Posts