Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I asked if anyone has wondered about that, not that I believe it. I'm also curious if phoney trackways fall under the realm of consipracy, not sure. Edited November 30, 2012 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I'm not worried he'll intentionally throw the study, but I am worried, based on Dr. Ketchum's preliminary information, that he'll stop at the Mitochondrial DNA and say "human! nothing to see here" as we've seen in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Seriously ? Like Sykes would really do that. Talk about absurd conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I'm curious, with much talk about the distrust of Science (big S for you Mulder, with respect), has anyone wondered if Sykes is a ringer brought in to smash all of this? He is well respected, and part of the Science world. What if his job is to intentionally come out with "nothing to see here" results? Results that totally refute Ketchum, and shoot down every sample collected as a misidentification. Results like that could be devastating to many people, and coming from someone so well respected, they're gonna be hard to dispute. Since I saw a bigfoot in my riflescope for well over a minute in broad daylight, that doesn't really apply to me, just sayin. If he is, he's managed to put one over on Dr Meldrum, who is associated with his study. Those links above are typical examples of argument ad ridicule at work. Snark offered to trump science, but the general public will buy into it just like they buy into a ton of different BS things based on what the media tell them to buy into. I would not be surprised if the Tribal Governments weigh in with a claim. They could say these guys are members of the tribe and sue for protection in Federal Court. They will stay as far away from this as they can get. It's already near impossible for them to get people to take them seriously in the wider world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) The press release might be doing more bad than good. People are now speculating that this is all a hoax. With some speculating that Sykes and Meldrum are out to destroy Ketchum(?) Add Robert Lindsay to the mix and we've got some messed up stuff. I think they would have been better off keeping quiet on the subject until the paper is actually published. Edited November 30, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 30, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 30, 2012 SNAFU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Article at time.com. Robert Lindsay gets a mention. LINK Here's a handy Google link to the available articles. Sykes might want to find a new project. Loved this headline from the Google links. Boffin claims Bigfoot DNA reveals BESTIAL BONKING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Well its no huge surprise it was a bad idea. That's why you hire a media relations rep that knows what they are doing. Not a random off the shelf habituator you met on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 If he is, he's managed to put one over on Dr Meldrum, who is associated with his study. Those links above are typical examples of argument ad ridicule at work. Snark offered to trump science, but the general public will buy into it just like they buy into a ton of different BS things based on what the media tell them to buy into. The study hasn't been published and your calling it science? You had no trouble rejecting published DNA studies that contradicted your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I'm not worried he'll intentionally throw the study, but I am worried, based on Dr. Ketchum's preliminary information, that he'll stop at the Mitochondrial DNA and say "human! nothing to see here" as we've seen in the past. With most samples being hair, it's possible this could happen. Obviously not fraudulently in some sinister type of fashion. Just threw that out there to keep the party going. Edited November 30, 2012 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) **Duplicate Video** The Ruggster weighs in. Thanks for the link Bipedalist. Good to hear a level headed approach to all this and a very good explanation in there of DNA for laymen such as myself. Edited November 30, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC Duplicate viseo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 30, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 30, 2012 Thanks, he plays a good peacemaker for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I'm not worried he'll intentionally throw the study, but I am worried, based on Dr. Ketchum's preliminary information, that he'll stop at the Mitochondrial DNA and say "human! nothing to see here" as we've seen in the past. Not if he's worth his salt, which Dr. Meldrum apparently feels he is. Especially in light of what has been said about Ketchum's study so far, the suggestion that she had to go above and beyond a standard procedure, or a cursory examination to get finer details. Sykes will be taking everything that is being publicized right now into consideration, and ought to do as good a job as anyone would or could. If his conclusions come up as nothing here, move along, then rather than thinking he is under the thumb of the establishment, it might be more prudent to reconsider what Dr. Ketchum's analysis is worth. If their results show opposite conclusions, weigh them on their merits and their methodology, not on what the desired outcome would be. Choosing bad science because it supports one's views doesn't help anything. But again, the cart is so far ahead of the horse right now. There's no study from either party to weigh or analyze the results of. I would think that if the samples are from several bigfoots, then Sykes would find that out. I think that both of them should be considered decent people after what everyone wants; the discovery of a new species, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Yeah, we're basically pouring from the empty into the void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Sykes is testing a limited number of samples. As arizonabigfoot pointed out, most of those samples are hair. nuDNA testing is expensive, he's on a tight deadline and unless he has a really good reason to do so (or he knows Wally Hersom), I doubt there will be any full genome testing. Further, with so few samples, it's entirely possible he doesn't have any good ones. We just don't know. I'm saying the man could have the best intentions in the world and come up empty handed. I get the impression a lot of posters here automatically assume he's going to find something unusual that may or may not match Ketchum's results. I personally think the chances are good he won't find anything at all. Uh, all this assuming BF exists, of course. I really have no idea. Just my two cents (adjusted for inflation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts