Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember that John Hawks said this in May of 2012 about the Sykes study:
Dr. John Hawks said:
This is a strange announcement to me. I don't know what they propose to do that isn't already a routine part of forensic investigations in such cases. "Modern genetic testing" has been able to settle the species identity of hair samples for many years. Neither the BBC nor the Oxford website report on whether a new television program or other media enterprise is helping to fund their work, as has often been the case with cryptozoology investigations involving geneticists in the U.S.
Click to expand...
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/cryptozoology/brian-sykes-yeti-hunter-2012.html


I doubt it is anything to do with a new species. Seeing that Dr. Sykes wrote 'Seven Daughters of Eve', I think he may have found a unique pattern, or segment of DNA in certain samples that hasn't been found before. Perhaps it is early European DNA segment present in certain tribes of Native Americans, and he has been able to put a time frame on it that puts Europeans in North America before they have been documented.
 
MikeG said:
His Seven Daughters of Eve was great apart from the last silly 100 pages, and was based on science he published in the recognised way. I just don't see what you guys are worried about.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. If he's got something of note, it should be published for realz. If he doesn't, then it's disingenuous to announce something of note in a book.

My worry is that if Sykes doesn't employ good critical thinking in this endeavor, that ill-founded statements he makes now could spawn another 40 years of bigfoot woo. We've already got enough bad work from otherwise good people to fan the flames of bigfootery.
 
With open access being the new thing, he may be monetizing his discovery before actually publishing anything.
 
MikeG said:
Or it could be a very Richard Dawkins thing to do, could it not? Or Steven Hawkins, or Steve Jones or Jerry Coyne? Lots of scientists do great science writing.

Sykes' previous books have been wonderful examples of good science writing for the literate masses. His Seven Daughters of Eve was great apart from the last silly 100 pages, and was based on science he published in the recognised way. I just don't see what you guys are worried about.
Click to expand...

Worried? You really have got the wrong end of the stick. Mild amusement would be nearer the mark.
 
dafydd said:
Worried? You really have got the wrong end of the stick. Mild amusement would be nearer the mark.
Click to expand...
:D Mild amusement? It would probably be laughter out loud.

I can't conceive of what it is I could be worried about in regards to Dr. Sykes and some fantasy Bigfoot DNA. At the risk of sounding indifferent (I am), I couldn't care less what he comes up with. The question of Bigfoot's existence has nothing to do with Sykes' studies. And he's the one that will have to live with whatever he says, not I. If he goes the direction of the now-obvious truth, he'll have just another addition to his resume of (apparently) doing one-of-a-kind-but-futile Bigfoot DNA examinations. Well that and probably make good folks like The Shrike breath a little easier given he is a conscientious and vested peer of Sykes. If he goes Bigfoot (or anything similar), he'll surely lose a big chunk of his scientific credibility, but likely make up for it with the additional wheelbarrows of cash that lying, cheating and stealing usually provides. Ask Don Meldrum, even he thinks Bigfoot science is for the weak. Bigfoot cash is where it's at.

Does anyone here actually know Dr. Sykes the guy beyond just reading his name in some 10 Wonderful Worldly DNA Scientists And Why They're Wonderfully Better Wonderful People Than The Really Nonwonderful You internet story (more than likely) written by his buddy Rhettman "Full Of ****" Mullis? Just curious.
 
I never heard of Sykes except in relation to bigfoot. First heard about the dna sample project, then he was running around with prominent footers, then he was sampling Smeja's boot...

He was almost a footer to me when I first heard of him...
 
HarryHenderson said:
:D Mild amusement? It would probably be laughter out loud.

I can't conceive of what it is I could be worried about in regards to Dr. Sykes and some fantasy Bigfoot DNA. At the risk of sounding indifferent (I am), I couldn't care less what he comes up with. The question of Bigfoot's existence has nothing to do with Sykes' studies. And he's the one that will have to live with whatever he says, not I. If he goes the direction of the now-obvious truth, he'll have just another addition to his resume of (apparently) doing one-of-a-kind-but-futile Bigfoot DNA examinations. Well that and probably make good folks like The Shrike breath a little easier given he is a conscientious and vested peer of Sykes. If he goes Bigfoot (or anything similar), he'll surely lose a big chunk of his scientific credibility, but likely make up for it with the additional wheelbarrows of cash that lying, cheating and stealing usually provides. Ask Don Meldrum, even he thinks Bigfoot science is for the weak. Bigfoot cash is where it's at.

Does anyone here actually know Dr. Sykes the guy beyond just reading his name in some 10 Wonderful Worldly DNA Scientists And Why They're Wonderfully Better Wonderful People Than The Really Nonwonderful You internet story (more than likely) written by his buddy Rhettman "Full Of ****" Mullis? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Best. Title. Evar.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I never heard of Sykes except in relation to bigfoot. First heard about the dna sample project, then he was running around with prominent footers, then he was sampling Smeja's boot...

He was almost a footer to me when I first heard of him...
Click to expand...

OK, potted history.....

Prof Brian Sykes is professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University. He first came to international attention with a paper in Nature on retrieving DNA from ancient bones. It was he who managed to get DNA from Otzi, the Iceman, and then find a local descendant. He also identified the Russian royal family from their remains buried in a forest, and did a DNA analysis of a neolithic body pulled from a cave in Somerset, known as Cheddar Man (and again, found a local living descendant). He worked out the direction of spread of the peoples of the Pacific, and identified where they all originated (Thor Heyerdahl was wrong). He has published numerous papers in prestigious journals, as well as half a dozen books. Americans might like to read "A Genetic Biography of America", but Seven Daughters of Eve, and Blood of the Isles are also worth a read.

Oxford is the equivalent of, say, Yale or Harvard. This guy is one of the leading academics in his field in the world. This is no mickey mouse vet from Nowhere, Texas.

Mike
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
OK, potted history.....

Prof Brian Sykes is professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University. He first came to international attention with a paper in Nature on retrieving DNA from ancient bones. It was he who managed to get DNA from Otzi, the Iceman, and then find a local descendant. He also identified the Russian royal family from their remains buried in a forest, and did a DNA analysis of a neolithic body pulled from a cave in Somerset, known as Cheddar Man (and again, found a local living descendant). He worked out the direction of spread of the peoples of the Pacific, and identified where they all originated (Thor Heyerdahl was wrong). He has published numerous papers in prestigious journals, as well as half a dozen books. Americans might like to read "A Genetic Biography of America", but Seven Daughters of Eve, and Blood of the Isles are also worth a read.

Oxford is the equivalent of, say, Yale or Harvard. This guy is one of the leading academics in his field in the world. This is no mickey mouse vet from Nowhere, Texas.

Mike
Click to expand...

Ummm...yeah, I've heard of him since...and I had already heard of Oxford...

If he's a footer on belief alone, it sets back anything else he's done, imo.

He's already encouraged footers a lot. He may feel a burden not to upset them...

I have to tell you, sampling Smeja's boot was a big sign for me...

Looked pretty squatchy...
 
LTC8K6 said:
If he's a footer ....... it sets back anything else he's done, imo.........
Click to expand...

What on earth makes you think he is?

LTC8K6 said:
.....I have to tell you, sampling Smeja's boot was a big sign for me...
Click to expand...

I just don't see this the way you guys see it.

If you thought the whole field was complete bunk, and you had the tools at your disposal to prove it finally, wouldn't you go about it in EXACTLY the way that Sykes has? I certainly would.

I would ingratiate myself with every single organisation that might have some evidence. I would test and test, and listen, and smile, and nod, and sample, and test again.........and leave them absolutely nowhere to hide when the results come out. If he didn't sample Smeja's boot, for example, then all footers would have pointed at him and said "ah, but you didn't test our best evidence".

When he shows that the footers have nothing, they will think of something to say to explain it away.......but what they won't be able to say is that he didn't test everything, that he missed the best evidence, that he didn't give them a chance. Some people might remember the old expression about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves. This is exactly, in my considered view, what Sykes has done with the BF community.

Mike
 
Last edited:
^^ I tend to agree with MikeG. I'm a little concerned about the rumours that he joined Bigfootology ( whatever that is) and that he had an "experience" in the PNW recently. But unless he has gone off woo end, then I think what we will see will be something along the lines of what Mike just said. And also what Drew mentioned yesterday. He may very well have found something that is ground breaking and that will re-write human history, but have absolutely nothing to do with Bigfeets.

The upside being that this will be a very public venue where Science gave Footers and their "evidence" a fair shake.
 
MikeG said:
If you thought the whole field was complete bunk, and you had the tools at your disposal to prove it finally, wouldn't you go about it in EXACTLY the way that Sykes has? I certainly would.
Click to expand...

Sykes can prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? Are you saying that?
 
MikeG said:
What on earth makes you think he is?



I just don't see this the way you guys see it.

If you thought the whole field was complete bunk, and you had the tools at your disposal to prove it finally, wouldn't you go about it in EXACTLY the way that Sykes has? I certainly would.

I would ingratiate myself with every single organisation that might have some evidence. I would test and test, and listen, and smile, and nod, and sample, and test again.........and leave them absolutely nowhere to hide when the results come out. If he didn't sample Smeja's boot, for example, then all footers would have pointed at him and said "ah, but you didn't test our best evidence".

When he shows that the footers have nothing, they will think of something to say to explain it away.......but what they won't be able to say is that he didn't test everything, that he missed the best evidence, that he didn't give them a chance. Some people might remember the old expression about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves. This is exactly, in my considered view, what Sykes has done with the BF community.

Mike
Click to expand...

Sykes can't show the footers anything at all, imo. He will simply be used by them at best, or get sucked in to their world at worst.

Whatever results Sykes reports, they will be used to promote sasquatch.

There's nothing to be gained at all by a reputable scientist engaging with footers, and much to lose, imo.

We are probably going to have footers shouting that Sykes has validated Ketchum, imo.

It won't make any sense, but that won't matter in footerland.

That will be just ducky.
 
Jane Goodall is an important scientist and we don't even know her recent thoughts on Bigfoot existence. She once said that she is certain that they exist. The Bigfooters are constantly reminding everyone of what she said. She can't distance or divorce herself from the Footers even if she wanted to.
 
William Parcher said:
Sykes can prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? Are you saying that?
Click to expand...

No. I am saying that Sykes can (and likely will) prove that all the evidence which they gave him contains nothing which supports the existence of BF. In seeking to spread the net as widely as possible, so that the footers hold no physical evidence which hasn't been debunked, he will have done as much as it is possible for a scientist to do in terms of showing that the entire field is bunk.

Why do you make me write so many words to reiterate the completely obvious implied-but-not-stated in my post?
 
MikeG said:
He can show them that all the samples they hold contain no evidence of the myth they perpetuate.
Click to expand...

Will Sykes use the word myth when he talks about the object of the negative samples? Or are you just spinning your wheels speculating instead of waiting to see what he actually says?
 
^Bingo. Sykes may have approached bigfoot as a scientist, but it does not appear that he's approached it as a skeptic. Without the benefit of experience in skepticism, it's very easy to make statements that will be woo fuel for decades.
 
Yes, Sykes can show them that all the samples he analyzed do not support the claim for Bigfoot. Footers will simply respond ( the canons are already loaded) that he was not given good samples. Provided he is not condescending in his prose this will be difficult for Footers to shrug off as Ivory Tower arrogance or mainstream science scoffing at their beautiful collections of evidence. So if his ingratiating himself with the Footers now helps make it harder for them to turn on him when they don't get the result they want, then have at it Dr.Sykes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom