Guest Urkelbot Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 It dropped any belief I had in half. The door remains open for now but it's closing if nothing physical surfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 28, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted October 28, 2013 See, that's mad and I have a hard time understanding that too urekbot I must admit. Not only do I find it hard to understand why you'd believe anyway in the first place, but if w emove on from that i cant understand why would you then stop believing, if you do believe, just because 12 samples that were given by amateur researchers tested for known animals and not unknown primates ? If it had been samples from a multi million dollar project I could understand you losing faith in the subject, but we are talking amateur researchers that, no disrespect, aren't experts whatsoever in evidence gathering techniques on our chosen subject. The two Guys in California for example, nice Guys I'm sure but some of the stuff they were saying wasn't very scientific to say the least and as was said on the show, I could understand why the presenter was swaying towards them being similar in behaviour and what they were saying to cultish behaviour more than scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Well it really points out that what 99% of what people are seeing and collecting as evidence isnt what they think they are seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 28, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted October 28, 2013 It doesn't though Darrell does it. Aside from Smeja, none of those people who submitted those samples saw the subject that they got the samples from. Randles didn't see what he got the samples from that day, nor did the lovely Marcel, nor did the two Guys out near Sacramento. In fact what am i saying, even Smeja has said he couldn't be sure that the steak was from what he shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 12 samples tested by Sykes should have no effect on peoples beliefs, especially the knowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'd be very surprised if this study changed or made up anyone's mind on the subject. I've heard sceptics use the term 'final nail in the coffin' of BF, but this is of course nothing more than wishful thinking on their behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 ^^ Haha to true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) I'd be very surprised if this study changed or made up anyone's mind on the subject. I've heard sceptics use the term 'final nail in the coffin' of BF, but this is of course nothing more than wishful thinking on their behalf. Anyone who thinks a smattering of hair samples is the final word on anything needs to get better acquainted with reality. This is so self-evident that...come on, it just IS, folks. Sykes is doing just what he said he would do. He is testing samples, to see what they are. He isn't saying it's the nail in the coffin. That's because, you know, it isn't. The sky's blue, too. Edited October 29, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) When hair is recovered from an area that's full of wildlife, it could belong to a wide range of species. Unless someone walks up to a Bigfoot and plucks its hair, it's most likely going to be a known animal every time. I think people are more likely to get clear video of these things or collect a type specimen than they are finding hair samples. Edited October 29, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 I don't know, this is a world-renowned scientist, who got the best samples he could find. These weren't samples that were just found at the zoo, they were collected by people, and examined and didn't match other hairs, at least one of the samples was in the Ketchum study and she said they were hybrid humans. Not only did Sykes not find Bigfoot DNA, but he didn't find anything that he couldn't Identify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Washington state samples (including a sample from the Olympic project): 1. Cow 2. Cow 3. Black bear 4. White tail deer 5. Canine, wolf or dog (olympic project sample submitted by Derek Randles) 6. Canine, wolf or dog (Marcel Cagey) 7. NOT STATED 8. Arizona sample: Racoon 9. Texas sample: Horse 10. Michigan sample: Porcupine 11. Sierra Kills Smeja submitted hair samples of a black bear. No steak as such. Boot was tested for blood and NO blood could be found on the boot. He looked a broken man and was in tears after hearing the results. 12. Placer County, Northern Cal. (Dan shirley and Garland Fields) Black bear I note an absence of a particular result as a negative. Surely some people turned in a sample that tested human right? Anyone know where that sample is that NAWAC sent in? The one with no medulla? Sample six here. http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/224-possible-wood-ape-hairs-persistence Seems unaccounted for. Human results aren't completely negative in my book of coarse, but being that this one was collected off a building windowsill, there would be a sizable collection of people to rule out. BTW, the Sykes study won't affect my acceptance of bigfoot without more samples tested in both His and Ketchums study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yes, it has convinced me I must have been hallucinating under the influence while sleepwalking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 "If you say you did that...;prove it, or I can only take your word you aren't lying, and wonder why that hair didn't test "bigfoot."" DWA But isn't taking people at their word what you lecture about here every day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'd be very surprised if this study changed or made up anyone's mind on the subject. I've heard sceptics use the term 'final nail in the coffin' of BF, but this is of course nothing more than wishful thinking on their behalf. I have used the "one more nail in the coffin" term pertaining to this study. But actually everytime "science" takes a genuine look they cant find anything. I dont understand why the true beliver crowd gets so butt hurt when nothing pans out. I understand why this is all "wishful thinking" on anyone's behalf because just questioning the proponent position makes those skeptical an enemy of the phenomina. And thats what is cult like about the phenomina. But please prove my argument wrong and if it is I will stop making it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'm going to want to see all the results before I could tell you for sure, but let's just assume the OL project throws craps. I would have to say it would have about as big an impact on my view of the corpus of evidence as an across the board "unknown" result. But, even saying that much gets us a little ahead of ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts