OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,783
Sykes' entire study is focused on the DNA of "bigfoot-like" creatures. There's going to be a woo factor involved.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
His words?
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,783
Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project: "...we invite submissions of organic material from formally undescribed species, or “cryptids”, for the purpose of their species identification by genetic means."
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I don't know what is meant by "formally", but the major footers have a very comprehensive description, mostly from scientists, of every aspect of bigfoot. Anatomy, behavior, physiology, range, etc. are all documented.
We even have a prominent scientist with a detailed description of the anatomy and working of the foot of bigfoot.
We have bigfoot skeleton animations from scientists as well.
Last edited:
The Shrike
Philosopher
I see a difference between expressing concern and "pouring scorn". If Sykes is really chumming around with some footers on this project, then he's potentially leaving himself vulnerable to people who thrive on manipulation. James Randi will tell you that scientists are among the easiest people for a con artist to hoodwink.
Reading between the lines, I see the non-stop laughter, the talks about deep things, and the spur-of-the-moment decision to extend one's stay in a tour of northern California and Oregon as a flashing neon sign that significant quantities of doobage are being consumed on this junket.
Reading between the lines, I see the non-stop laughter, the talks about deep things, and the spur-of-the-moment decision to extend one's stay in a tour of northern California and Oregon as a flashing neon sign that significant quantities of doobage are being consumed on this junket.
But if that "doobage" results in him producing solid science which says "there was nothing unknown in any of the samples" are we to discount his result because he has been keeping the wrong company?
Presumably not.
In which case, why would the inverse apply? Here is a proper scientist with a proper reputation at stake. He knows that he has to publish stuff which will survive scrutiny, or, career-over. Would he risk that for a free meal?
Presumably not.
Presumably not.
In which case, why would the inverse apply? Here is a proper scientist with a proper reputation at stake. He knows that he has to publish stuff which will survive scrutiny, or, career-over. Would he risk that for a free meal?
Presumably not.
Prime territory indeed. Say, I wonder if there's any correlation between cannabis and bigfoot sightings? Or perhaps scary bigfoot stories to keep folks out of cannabis fields?
Seems like a research opportunity.
...
Attachments
The Shrike
Philosopher
Mike, the problem is not what Sykes will produce, it's how 'footers will interpret what he doesn't that'll do more damage.
Scenario 1: Sykes will produce unequivocal evidence of bigfoots gamboling about the countryside. This will lead to a series of seminal papers that will convince an army of scientists to finally actually go look for a bigfoot and, lo and behold, one will be collected in short order. (This is the great bigfoot fairy tale that the 'footers are hoping for, and it's just plain not going to happen.)
Scenario 2: Sykes does not produce anything of note from his investigations, but bungles into some statements to the effect of "Who knows? There's a lot of wilderness out there left to be explored and only the bravest scientists [like me!] will take the time to really invest in the spirit of discovery."
Result? People like - oh, there are several of them - will trumpet this crap for the next 20 years to buoy their fallacious case for bigfoot based on:
1. scientific bias against any bigfoot research (conspiracy)
2. vast areas of "unexplored" terrain (argument from ignorance)
3. Mr. Big-time Scientist du jour likes bigfoot (appeal to authority + ironic contradiction to #1 that the hard-core 'footers are not smart/honest enough to address)
So that's my concern about Sykes. Right now it looks like he's being played like a fiddle by people who will twist and decontextualize his comments to their advantage for decades to come. If you think you're helping honest people find some truth that's difficult to demonstrate, then you will approach the problem as a scientist and leave yourself open to playing the patsy in a grand game. If you realize you're dealing with con-artists from the get-go, then you will approach them as a skeptic and be on guard against such things. I can't pass judgment on Sykes yet, but so far it looks like the former is underway.
Scenario 1: Sykes will produce unequivocal evidence of bigfoots gamboling about the countryside. This will lead to a series of seminal papers that will convince an army of scientists to finally actually go look for a bigfoot and, lo and behold, one will be collected in short order. (This is the great bigfoot fairy tale that the 'footers are hoping for, and it's just plain not going to happen.)
Scenario 2: Sykes does not produce anything of note from his investigations, but bungles into some statements to the effect of "Who knows? There's a lot of wilderness out there left to be explored and only the bravest scientists [like me!] will take the time to really invest in the spirit of discovery."
Result? People like - oh, there are several of them - will trumpet this crap for the next 20 years to buoy their fallacious case for bigfoot based on:
1. scientific bias against any bigfoot research (conspiracy)
2. vast areas of "unexplored" terrain (argument from ignorance)
3. Mr. Big-time Scientist du jour likes bigfoot (appeal to authority + ironic contradiction to #1 that the hard-core 'footers are not smart/honest enough to address)
So that's my concern about Sykes. Right now it looks like he's being played like a fiddle by people who will twist and decontextualize his comments to their advantage for decades to come. If you think you're helping honest people find some truth that's difficult to demonstrate, then you will approach the problem as a scientist and leave yourself open to playing the patsy in a grand game. If you realize you're dealing with con-artists from the get-go, then you will approach them as a skeptic and be on guard against such things. I can't pass judgment on Sykes yet, but so far it looks like the former is underway.
Whilst I agree with you in principle that this is a possible danger, I would also add that there is a much more likely alternative Scenario 2, or perhaps a Scenario 3, and that is that he will find absolutely nothing, and report that he has found absolutely nothing. No spinning a yarn, no embellishment.......just zilch.
You're a scientist. He's a scientist. His address is freely available to everyone, and if you haven't got his email, ask me and I'll pass it on to you........ Why don't you write to him and express your concerns? Put him in a position of strength to be able to deal with the twisting of his actions and words, simply by giving him the background, and by forewarning him of the dangers.
Mike
The picture in the gallery of the braided horse tail is outstanding. In my opinion, the hair looks matted to me. Perhaps the big fellas don't possess similar manual dexterity to humans, so the brading attempt ended up looking like matted hair. Also the stick structures are outstanding. There are a couple on the hill behind my house that must have been constructed by Bigfeet. Time to set up camera traps, NOT.
Last edited:
Wow, this is amazing. Is it actually possible that Wally Hersom buys into Melba's "science"? How does someone get that rich and be that gullible at the same time? Have any of the rest of you given any thought to the level of cooperation that goes on between the bigfoot elite for lack of a better discription? I assume that recognition within the footer establishment is the goal but the money grubbing would take at least a little planning to work. If someone told me Paulides was the conductor of this symphony, for instance, I would not be surprised. I see that Hersom has a music background as do I and others on these forums. Perhaps we can appeal to him in that manner and bring him to his senses about bebop bigfoot.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Well that's what I assumed would happen from the beginning. It's these recent hints that he's really getting cozy with some 'footers that, IF true, give me pause.
I hadn't considered that, given that Sykes doesn't know me from Mitochondrial Eve's husband. I assume he's the kind of guy who's had multiple colleagues advise him to avoid bigfootery, and that's exactly why he's doing this.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Well if anyone in England has ever heard of Sir Edmund Hillary, then there's a good chance they've heard of the yeti. Same bollocks, different continent.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
At least I agree with this much. It is truly unbelievable.
By the way, I see the web site spell checking is done with the same attention to quality as her paper.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Meldrum has published utter garbage. It doesn't seem to have dented him any.
herrdocjdm
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Messages
- 125
It appears that Ketchum is contradicting herself in this statement. There can be good and bad in people, but what about Sasquatch? Seems to me Ketchum is stating there is only good. Huh? If they are truly like us, wouldn't some of them go crazy, walk into town pulling their fur out and try to fornicate with a dog? Okay, maybe not the last part, but the point is in any animal population sample, there are deviations from the mean, ie crazy people. How come not one single Squatch has done this? And Ketchum calls herself a scientist?
Last edited:
- Status