Have The Recent Sykes Results Changed Your Opinion?

[the parkie]

I've 'seen' it, but I'm not not nuts, and it wasn't an actual animal.  FYI.

Sorry Drew I don't understand what this means - are you able to expand and clarify? What did you see?

[MarkGlasgow]

Are you a member of JREF Darrell?

There seems something very cultish about a group who go to great lengths to force their views onto other folks who don't have the same 'critical thinking' abilities as they do.

Ultimately Darrell, just like Sykes, you are wasting your time if you think you are going to somehow 'educate' people who have held a strong belief in this subject for a considerable period of time.

Your arrogant assumption that these people are deluded, mentally ill or perhaps just terribly mistaken will only wash with your fellow sceptics, who may if you are fortunate give you a weary high five for your trouble.

[BobbyO]

I'll go one more Mark, it's not just "believers" they try to "educate" but witnesses too.

 

These people endlessly are basically calling me and others liars/mentally ill/deluded etc, daily, and that's not good and that gets to me.

 

I'm glad i've mellowed in my old age or else i'd have been banned long ago given the stuff that gets spewed out by these people over, and over, and over, and over again.

 

They can't accept that some people have seen these things, continually tell them that they're wrong both directly and indirectly, slip in endless sarcastic remarks on a forum dedicated to the very subject and yet they're the one's who talk about cultish behaviour.

 

It's mad.

[Guest Darrell]

^No Im not on JREF. And really, I dont care Mark and Bobby if you care about what I say. Refute my arguments but dont attack me. I have yet to call anyone here a liar so dont try that.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Darrell
To edit uncompliant content

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Mod Statement:

 

I'd like to remind everyone here that this topic is about the Sykes Results, not about other members.

 

I'd also like to remind everyone here of our forum's rules for civility. If you can't say something nice, you shouldn't say anything at all.

 

To the skeptical, I'd like to remind you that this is a Bigfoot forum. It is not an anti-Bigfoot forum. To the proponents, I'd like to remind you that skeptics are welcome here. To both camps, I'd like to point out some basic rules that seem to be lacking in this topic and others as of late:

 

The BFF is an independent forum dedicated to the discussion of the Bigfoot phenomenon. While the Forum is independent, it is owned and operated by the Centre for Fortean Zoology which is not a Bigfoot research organization and has no official ties to any Bigfoot organization.

The CFZ (including the BFF) has no official stance on any single aspect of the Bigfoot debate. The CFZ does not 'believe' that Bigfoot exists, or 'believe' that it does not exist, but that the evidence makes it worthy of discussion and further investigation. The members and Moderators may take a different view. That is entirely up to the individuals concerned. That being said, and while it is very difficult to pin any one opinion on a site with members as diverse as ours, there are some generalizations that can be made regarding the feeling of the board (assuming Bigfoot exists):

Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative.

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

 

The red text in bold is where we are at with some of the more skeptical among us. While our forum certainly welcomes those of a skeptical point of view, those that are certain that they are right about the creature's non-existence may want to start an "anti-Bigfoot" forum of their own. Questioning the evidence provided by proponents is fine, but when some of you continually allude to the "fact" that all proponents are mistaken, hoaxers, liars, hallucinating, drunk, under the influence of illicit substances, or are untrained as biologists and therefore unqualified to properly identify what they've seen and reported is getting old.

 

We're not here to be dogmatic about either position. We're here to discuss the evidence. If the claims are extraordinary in nature, then extraordinary evidence is required.

 

To the skeptical among us - If you can't accept the proponent's point of view and discuss the evidence without being combative and insulting, it might be time for you to move along.

 

To the proponents among us - If you expect everyone to take your position at face value based on extraordinary claims without the evidence to support them, maybe you should also consider moving on, as well.

 

Please understand that the membership of this site is quite diverse. We have those who have dedicated large portions of their lives to the study and investigation of these animals side by side with those with just a lifelong curiosity in them. We have those who have had encounters and those who have not. We have housewives, hunters, those living in urban, suburban, and rural environments, government workers, public service workers (police, fire, and EMT), blue collar, white collar, those with PhD's and those with no formal education, men, women, and people from every part of North America and several other countries throughout the world (but there's always room for one more!). Therefore, the BFF is not of one mind, viewpoint, or experiential background. It is the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of all of its members that are its greatest strengths.

Most importantly, BFF is not a research organization and never will be - it is simply a place for people to discuss Bigfoot. The BFF, its owners and Staff are not responsible for the content of BFF - if you find it objectionable, inaccurate or incredulous, take it up with the individual who posted it, don't blame the forum.

 

And lastly:

 

General Guidelines:

1. BFF has one rule above all else - Behave like adults!
What do we mean by this? Imagine the forum is run by a bunch of people who have invited you over for dinner - we expect sensible, well thought out conversation. If you start getting personal with other diners, you are likely to be ejected. This not your house after all, you don't have a right to sit at someone else's table and disrupt things.
 

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.
 

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.
 

4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion.
 

5. If you have grievances against others from the past, leave them in the past and do not bring them here.
 

6. All opinions concerning the Bigfoot phenomenon are welcome regardless of which side of the proverbial fence you may reside in relation to the entire BF mystery.

 

Please... Remember, all of you are at our table. Don't be ejected because you're trying to prove your point.

[Guest]

 Back to the topic. I don't understand how one DNA researcher obtained  so many samples that she said "prove" it's existence, and the other obtained 0  confirmed sample's..

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

^That is one of the major red flags with the Ketchum study.

Edited October 31, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

sykes just got bad samples.

[Guest]

I don't think what people realize is that it really doens't make a differnce if you have thousands of hair samples from a purported Bigfoot, even if that circumstance invvolving the hair sample was the best possible and pointed to a possible Bigfoot.

 

A bears hair or any other animals hair could be found literally anywhere, even 10 feet up in a tree. Until someone throws in a sample that is from a no BS, dead Bigfoot on the spot, then it'll always be hard to get a viable sample. Even Justin Smeja said he wasn't certain the sample he found was from the Bigfoot he shot. 

 

And, this is not even anywhere close to the nail in the coffin. For people (like me) who know these creatures exist as a real biological entity, we still have extremely high hopes.

[Guest]

[southernyahoo]

 Back to the topic. I don't understand how one DNA researcher obtained  so many samples that she said "prove" it's existence, and the other obtained 0  confirmed sample's..

 

It might make you wonder about the contamination possibilities, but by comparison, Derek Randles said he had sent in a couple hundred samples to Ketchum, and wound up with just a few in the paper as I recall, and Sykes tested one from him.

 

Sykes wanted to extract from a few samples, almost without any regard for morphology.

 

Ketchum wanted to screen much larger numbers by morphology then selecting those unidentified for DNA extraction. 

 

A very different approach.

[Guest]

 Thanks for the reply southernyahoo, While I am interested in the DNA subject I feel it is only a part of the puzzle.. I am merely a observer on this subject and trying understand how the two camps came to opposite results with samples that they received from the same individual.  With all that going on I don't have all my hopes and dreams pinned to it and do what I can down in my little slice of heaven. With all the deer hunting going on I find myself getting out well after dark now.  I am actually looking forward to the time change!

[Guest]

The Sykes study has become a complete non-event for me. I didn't wait on it with baited breath and after I saw the first slanted episode I mentally tuned out. What a surprise. And I held out practically 0 hope on the Smeja boots considering their carelessly attended to state.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bigfoot will never be found or discovered in such a way that it will be universally recognized. Patterson found it but all he got was a bunch of jack-a-ninnies squabbling over a technology that didn't exist then and that has yet to manifest itself now.

The only way now is for it to show itself. Maybe show up at Yellowstone carrying a buffalo as a roadside attraction posing with tourists.

After the bitter taste from the Ketchum "report" I give up on seeking affirmations from "science". I'll take a pass on the lab coats and just rely on my own wit and discernment as I have always done.

[Oonjerah]

I liked Sykes as soon as I began to learn about him, & am not ready to give up on him. 

Therefore, Rhettman Mullis' explanation http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/31023-the-sykes-sartori-report-oxford-lausanne-collateral-hominid-project/?p=782388

of Icon's (it is their movie) "Bigfoot Files," for the moment, supports my hope. 

A science paper and a book are yet to come. Surely, they can't be as mediocre and clueless

as this popular pap series has been. 

Edited November 1, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Drew]

sykes just got bad samples.

 

Bad in that they didn't show Bigfoot?

Because the samples gave DNA results, so they are good samples.