WSA Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) Drew, you also know a species that plausibly came out of Africa an estimated +100,000 years ago, and who are (or at least one was) covered in auburn hair are not synonymous with modern H.Sapiens from Africa, right? Edited April 7, 2015 by WSA
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Some state of the art Sasquatch science right here. I love how this guy get's all worked up even before anything has happened.
Rockape Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) [The 2014 Royal Society journal paper] gave Sykes’s affiliation as the Institute of Human Genetics at Wolfson College, Oxford. Sykes is a fellow of Wolfson but he admitted the institute was mythical. “The journal required some sort of additional address in the college and, hey presto, I became an institute!†You mean this is all a scam? https://www.google.com/search?q=Wolfson+College%2C+Oxford.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 QuoteSykes’s book says he has been professor of human genetics at Oxford since 1997, but university officials said he had not held that post for a decade or so. If so, maybe it's because he's been doing this for the University of Oxford it seems? http://www.oxfordancestors.com/ I'm not sure how Oxford has let Sykes run around this long making his credentials up from thin air. Edited April 7, 2015 by Rockape
Rockape Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 Rockape....I've long considered a mass die-off by human borne pathogens as a possible scenario, as many have. The outcome might be a natural selection of BF with a predisposition to avoid human contact...not because they understood germ theory, but because they simply didn't want to be around humans to begin with and those who did vacated the gene pool. Agreed, plus some could have had some natural immunity. I still believe that if Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti, whatever you want to call it does exist, it is hard to find because it is extremely rare. Possibly bordering on extinction if not already functionally extinct or outright extinct. Mass die-off from disease would probably be as common for them as it can be for us; and it would not have to be only human disease to fear. Just as with humans, they would be susceptible to many animal borne disease with no real way to stop it other than for it to run it's course, with those left having better immunity. But if your numbers are small to begin with, you are starting with one foot in the grave when it comes to propagation of the species. Epidemics could have hit them even harder.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 It might have more to do with behavior and intelligence, rather than population rarity. There are credible reports of these animals coming from all over North America. I think people are underestimating the animal's potential for intelligence. We aren't dealing with something that's as genetically distant from us as chimps or bonobos.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 Some state of the art Sasquatch science right here. I love how this guy get's all worked up even before anything has happened. What fun could come out of focusing on the bozos? Why do you do this to yourselves?
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 What fun could come out of focusing on the bozos? Why do you do this to yourselves? It represents the industry standard.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 8, 2015 Author Posted April 8, 2015 It makes sense that other skeptical scientists would first seek to discredit Sykes, after all they probably have little good to argue against his hypothesis in the first place. Whether or not you buy the hypothesis, Dr. Sykes is certainly a credible geneticist by any definition, you can't pull the Melba strategy here, though it seems that will be attempted once again. Sykes interpretation of Zana as a subspecies, if true, should be a earth shattering discovery, instead it is being treated as tabloid fantasy. Once again highlighting the difficulty of getting the scientific world off its conflated throne, and moving it sorry little gears to get to the bottom of something real. I have no faith in the established scientific world to awaken to this subject, once again pointing to the need for a specimen, and that should not have to be the case. 1
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 It represents the industry standard. The industry standard can be conveniently ignored by those paying attention. If one cannot show the scientific proponents wrong, one's hand holds no cards of significance.
SWWASAS Posted April 8, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 8, 2015 I would not call Sykes a proponent myself. He seems more like a skeptic on all things BF to me.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) For the most part, the only skeptics in the bigfoot field are proponents. Sykes might also be a *true* skeptic. He just needs to make sure he and everyone else understand that testing samples only says what *those samples* represent. It says nothing about the reality of the animal, one way or the other. This is so obvious every grade-schooler should understand it (pick your grade). But in bigfoot skepticism one sees interesting exceptions to rules, all the time. Edited April 8, 2015 by DWA
Squatchy McSquatch Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 So it doesn't matter that Sykes lied about his credentials? That sums up the state of sasquatch science right there.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 To those who are not following along, it does. To those who are: Sykes is irrelevant, and unnecessary.
Rockape Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 So it doesn't matter that Sykes lied about his credentials? That sums up the state of sasquatch science right there. I want to know for certain he lied. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49735-2015-the-state-of-sasquatch-science/page-49#entry899508
Recommended Posts