BFRO President Matt Moneymaker's Response To Media About Dr. Bryan Sykes DNA Study
BFRO President Matt Moneymaker has responded to one media inquiry regarding the Royal Society Paper on Bigfoot (aka "the Sykes Study"). Moneymaker believes the Sykes study was probably "corrupted at the sample inclusion stage" and due to TV documentary constraints, the study may have been rushed into conclusion. "I could pull this apart all day long ... It renders the whole study meaningless. According to this statement, some samples were excluded based on "prioritization of samples of particular historical interest". That's a clever way of saying a few samples provided better fodder for the TV documentary, and thus received most of the scientific attention," Moneymaker wrote in his response to Discovery News. You can check out Moneymaker's full response below:
From: Discovery News Reporter
To: ContactUs@BFRO.NET
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 10:53 AM
Subject: Discovery News Query re. Royal Society Papers on Bigfoot
Dear BFRO Directors,
I am a senior correspondent for Discovery News, the news service for the Discovery Channel. I am preparing a piece on the new Royal Society papers, attached, concerning the DNA analysis of hairs attributed to Bigfoot, as well as to Yeti and anomalous primates. Please share your thoughts on the research, and whether or not you agree with the conclusions. What evidence now holds that Bigfoot exists? A prompt reply would be appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
*************************************
*************************************
Hello Jennifer (senior correspondent for Discovery News),
This is Matt Moneymaker. I'm the president of the BFRO.
Here's my opinion about the "Royal Society Papers on Bigfoot" which I shall refer to as "the Sykes study":
The Sykes study is meaningless scientifically.
The actual DNA analysis by Sykes' team was surely performed with the highest integrity and accuracy but the overall effort was already corrupted by that point. It was corrupted at the sample inclusion stage.
Note: The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples, nor did we endorse those few samples from North America that were focused on in the associated TV program. None of the "bigfoot" samples that came from the US had a strong *credible* connection to a bigfoot sighting or some other credible corroborating evidence (i.e. footprints). The Asia samples had even weaker connections to Yetis.
Much of the DNA work on was directed at samples that were obviously from bears from the start, or were strongly suspected of being bear, or otherwise had a story attached that would provide better content for the well-hyped TV documentary.
Here's part of the flimflam in the Royal Society paper attempting to whitewash the corruption at the sample inclusion stage:
"Of these 58 samples, two were excluded as being non-hair and only 37 of the remaining 56 samples were selected for DNA analysis. The 19 samples excluded from DNA analysis were so designated for a variety of reasons including budget constraints, prioritization of samples of particular historical interest and amount of material available. In this reduced sample, seven of the samples selected for sequencing yielded no DNA. However, all of the 30 samples that did yield DNA contained base-pair sequences that were 100% compatible with known mammal species, though in certain instances the hair sample was reported to have been obtained from a region well outside the species’ known geographical range."
I could pull this apart all day long ... It renders the whole study meaningless. According to this statement, some samples were excluded based on "prioritization of samples of particular historical interest". That's a clever way of saying a few samples provided better fodder for the TV documentary, and thus received most of the scientific attention.
Even before that point ... "19 of the 57 samples" were "excluded" from the study because it would have taken much longer to find and/or extract sequence-able DNA ... in most cases because there was a relatively small amount of material in the sample (i.e. only a few hairs in the sample ... like MOST authentic bigfoot hair samples).
After that elimination round, seven (7) more samples yielded "no DNA at all."
Hence, according to the study itself nearly half of the DNA samples came from species that could not be identified, because those samples did not yield a sufficient amount of DNA to be amplified and analyzed.
Most people don't understand how it could be more difficult and more expensive to extract DNA from an authentic bigfoot hair sample, and thus why those samples would be more likely to be excluded.
One reason is related to the size of the hair sample (the number of hairs in the sample) and how that increases the difficulty in pulling DNA from the sample. A larger clump of hair will provide more DNA without much fuss, so a larger clump of hair is more likely to be included.
Bigfoot hair is not typically found in large clumps.
The other factor is the nearly non-existent medulla structure (the core of the hair that holds most of the DNA) in samples that have long been thought to be authentic bigfoot hair samples (none of which were included in the study).
If hairs of bigfoots have almost no medulla structure it will be much more difficult, and more time consuming, and thus more expensive, to extract sufficient DNA ... unless there are hair follicles (roots) still attached that are relatively fresh.
For those reasons, any authentic bigfoot samples that might have been part of the original 57 samples available to Sykes ... had a higher probability of being excluded.
The 30 samples that were included in the Sykes study were, for the most part, the ones that easily yielded DNA of known species. Most were hair samples with plenty of material (i.e. a lot of hair), provided by people who simply found a clump of hair in the woods and then wondered (or hoped) that the hair was from a bigfoot. I say "probably" without knowing the actual specifics of each sample because that's USUALLY the case for most hair "possible bigfoot" hair samples that get sent to a scientist. It has always been that way. And those larger clumps of hair found in the woods have always come from animals that are much more numerous (e.g. bears), as one would expect.
Unfortunately there's no way to know if ANY of the samples from North America had any connection with a credible witness who had a close encounter, during which the observer actually saw the bigfoot leave clump of hair behind.
Unless the sources and circumstances of each "bigfoot hair sample" were to be documented and released, I would assume the hair samples were simply found in the woods by layman finders who wondered if they could be bigfoot hairs ... Nowhere is there documentation for how each non-excluded sample was collected. Again, none of the samples examined by Sykes came from the BFRO, nor did he ask for any from us.
I don't want to pillory Sykes because I do believe, based on a close viewing of the documentary, that he was put in a difficult position. He was asked to perform a study that he was honestly interested in, and he was paid to perform that study, but with a budget and calendar that was destined to yield inconclusive results.
The important conclusion that SHOULD emphasized in the media right now:
NEARLY HALF OF THE SAMPLES IN THE SYKES STUDY COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED.
The ugly truth underlying the Sykes study is that the DNA samples were "prioritized" to help yield more conclusive results for a TV documentary. The Royal Society Paper had to be consistent with that TV documentary.
Matt Moneymaker
[via BFRO Forums]
First for footery!
ReplyDeleteMMG
Bigfoot don't exist.
ReplyDeleteI think Sykes, Attenborough and Goodall might not share your sentiment, old boy.
DeleteBigfoots do exist but are covered up/denied due to their ET origins, in fact anything relating to this on the Internet is infiltrated by Intelligence groups. Including this blog most likely and BFRO whose job it is to fake the interest and pretend to search (and sometimes oppose each other), but actually work against discovery. Sykes is just small part in this to give legitimacy in the field.
DeleteInteresting comment. I find it fascinating that UFO's are reported in wilderness areas.
DeleteI find it fascinating joe can't follow the terms of his own bet
DeleteI find it fascinating you can retract from reality of what various statements have entailed this past week.
Deletedan ^
DeleteNope ^ but I agree.
DeleteJoe = Sykes has bigfoot DNA.
Sykes = there was no bigfoot DNA.
Suddenly a couple days later, Joe thinks Sykes has bigfoot DNA again....
Nope!
DeleteJoe = Sykes either is sitting on or will end up having DNA.
Sykes = decided to peer review the results of which we already knew, and then says he's still accumilating samples and theorises that Bigfoot could be Neanderthal.
Suddenly, a couple of days later... Joe thinks various things but is celebrating that the bet is actually a long term one at that.
Moneymaker's arrogance shines through once again. Seriously. Matt, stop using terms like "always" when it comes to bigfoot. You're making the rest of us cringe. Sykes study is meaningless? No. It's meaningless to you. You kill your credibility with your arrogance every damned time you open your mouth.
DeleteHi Joe! Welcome back, my footery friend! We've all missed your comments.
DeleteCrampz must be going even more nuts now!!! All the Midol in the world won't help relieve that pain!
Well said anon 9:18. He does more damage to his religion than he can comprehend.
DeleteNothing more fundementalist than people who not only don't understand consistent scientific method, but those that desocrate interpret the true meaning of skepticism and it's application to denounce tens of thousands who have had impartial and unprovoked experiences that, which in turn have undeniable physical and biological evidence to back up.
DeletePseudoskepticism is a fundementalist quasi-religion.
You mean how the documentaries that Sykes did was supposed to be different than his peer reviewed work? Because after all the peer review process couldn't be compromised by the documentary.
DeleteYou don't know science. Stop accusing others of your shortfalls.
It is traditionally considered very inappropriate and devalues the process to reveal the results prior to concluding the peer review process.
DeleteThat's not my opinion, that's how things have always been done. Sykes don't do things normally it seems, that was my shortfall... Yours is you require this to be pointed out to you.
'Science boy'.
You couldn't be more wrong.
DeleteProve me wrong.
Delete"The Sykes study is meaningless scientifically"
ReplyDeleteThat's some outright ignorance right there.
It sure is but would you expect anything less from Moneymaker?
DeleteHe is quite correct about the samples however. These were nothing short of farcical.
A 'death-blow' to footers? Really? The BF scene has never been so healthy which must cause our skeptical friends much pain indeed.
We move on from Sykes and allow the tards their 5 minutes of fun.
MMG
Sorry MMG but sykes has blown footery out of the water.
DeleteNo creature is exempt from scientific discovery. Especially a 1000lb ape roaming around a highly populated and technological advanced country.
It just doesn't work I am afraid.
Every single scientific study results in zero bigfoots found and zero traces of evidence of bigfoot.
Why is that?
Well the answer is simple. The monkey don't exist.
If you think otherwise then you have to give this monkey some ridiculous baseless attributes to explain why it hasn't been found. Oh and also it has to be luckiest group of creatures on this planet. So lucky infact that when anyone actually looks for them ready to obtain the evidence they just HAPPEN to not be in that area, every single time. And they just happen to never leave any trace of biologic evidence behind, every single time. And they just happen to never die where anyone will discover the body. And they just happen to never step infront of the millions of game cameras across America, even if they were doing something like hunting. If they cant concentrate on hunting due to fear of getting caught on a camera (which they somehow impossibly know what they are) how the hell do these creatures ever eat? And if they did would it be enough food to sustain a 1000lb ape all while being alert to any pesky humans trying to prove they exist... oh and they would need to drink a lot of fresh water too, like a lot.
Footers are nutcases.
1000lb monkeys in the woods of north America throwing rocks near humans. Please.
Hello numpty, did you really think if leave you roam around spouting lies freely? Ha ha ha!! I can almost feel you tremor as this was posted!
Delete"No creature is exempt from scientific discovery. Especially a 1000lb ape roaming around a highly populated and technological advanced country."
Nope that's why we find traces of them everywhere... Tracks, hair, sightings... Duh? What's eluded us is DNA, the means to classify... And to do that, a species don't just fall into your lap, you need to study and research accumilate. You really have never and don't appear to understand how scientific research goes do you? Ha ha ha!!
"Every single scientific study results in zero bigfoots found and zero traces of evidence of bigfoot."
Wrong again... We know unknown primates are leaving tracks and hair... Duh?
"Well the answer is simple. The monkey don't exist."
Monkeys exist, and so do unknown primates who leave physical and biological clues... Duh?
"If you think otherwise then you have to give this monkey some ridiculous baseless attributes to explain why it hasn't been found."
It's simple it has been found. We just don't have DNA or a body to classify it. This is because it buries it's dead in complex wilderness areas, is largely nocturnal and evades in highly intelligent social groups with no natural predators.
"Oh and also it has to be luckiest group of creatures on this planet. So lucky infact that when anyone actually looks for them ready to obtain the evidence they just HAPPEN to not be in that area, every single time"
DeleteIt's pretty simple, as was put to you up top (sigh) people see them and people collect physical and biological evidence of them, someone's even in the same instance. I can reference this for you if you like?
"And they just happen to never leave any trace of biologic evidence behind, every single time."
(Sigh) I hope I'm driving home how stupid you are.
"And they just happen to never die where anyone will discover the body. And they just happen to never step infront of the millions of game cameras across America, even if they were doing something like hunting."
They do die. We know this and that they bury their dead because we have archeological studies that have documented giant skeletons in areas soaked up by the industrial agricultural boom. This goes right up to the mid 20th century in fact when we have a transition into modern media even filming them. Also. If you're trying to evade normal humans for their safety, then why would you do the tango in front of that big box attached to a tree? More so if you' we seen people erecting them, not to mention the signs they give off to a nocturnal subject?
"If they cant concentrate on hunting due to fear of getting caught on a camera (which they somehow impossibly know what they are) how the hell do these creatures ever eat?"
I would estimate at 70% of sittings are due to this very thing; hunting. Deer numbers are soaring and encroaching on towns too. They also have fish and a long post of things to survive upon.
"And if they did would it be enough food to sustain a 1000lb ape all while being alert to any pesky humans trying to prove they exist... oh and they would need to drink a lot of fresh water too, like a lot."
Uummmmmm, let's think... How do other animals that size survive in the wild?????
"Footers are nutcases."
No you're the nutcase and stupid too. If you think Sykes' Yeti Enigma was anything new from the last time you were told he's as good as his samples, then you're as big a pillack as everyone thinks you are.
"1000lb monkeys in the woods of north America throwing rocks near humans. Please."
Well Sykes seems to think they're relict Neanderthals actually, and when the actual researcher maintains enthusiasts should continue collecting samples, it makes t*rds like you look even more stupid should you suggest he's ruined Bigfoot research.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!
; )
Oh... And "but... The B-b-b-bet?!" Well Sykes is still accumulating samples, so we've got a major long term bet there me thinks!! Ha ha ha ha!!!
Sykes is a bigfoot believer...go shove your foolery up yo` ass mr anonymous
Delete:) XX
Delete; )
DeleteThere`s always the unpalatable hypothesis that "bigfoot" is more intelligent that humans..but that`d be all too much for you,Mr Anonymous,wouldn`t it...but here`s a question that I would like you to answer,please ...why would you be here on a bigfoot oriented site if you`re a non-believer ? ...just to annoy people ? ...or show you`re much much cleverer than fools that believe in nonsense ?
DeleteWhat would make you think a bigfoot would be more intelligent than a human? Their elusiveness? If that's so then a Snow Leopard and a Wolverine are Ivy league material. If it's something else then please share.
DeleteBecause they're human and have the sensory attributes of wild animals. This means they have the calculative intelligence to evade as well as understanding the wilderness signs to stay out of dodge.
Delete3:16 is one of those covert guys whose job it is to write tripe like that, knowing full well no one's talking about monkeys except these hired trolls we're talking about a hybrid hominin of unknown ET origins. Just like the Ketchum study found, the ET bit I'm concluding because it makes most sense when we already know there's life on other planets so the thought is not too far stretched or unlikely. Much more likely is a human cover-up here on planet Earth by authorities. Get real folks, we're not alone.
DeleteWelcome back Joe.
DeleteTrolls and Tards can never be allowed to taste victory.
MMG
Nice post Big Dick!
DeleteMMG
Hello my friend, and I'll second that... This Big Dick can rock.
DeleteIts not meaningless if you understand what Science actually is and how the process of scientific investigation is supposed to go.
DeleteBig dick= millipete JON
Deleteno joe you poor poo delusional man. there are no "traces" it's all a big con. I wouldn't be surprised to find out you were conning people too with the veracity of your replies. Every single piece of so called "evidence" put forth by footers has been debunked as a hoax or a mis-identification. every single one. (I know of a track that was hailed as "amazing, the best ever" by some of the so called"experts" of footery only to be exposed as a hoax done in 15 minute by someone I happen to know. You are either a rube, completely out of your depth in regards to how science actually works (do you get your ideas from watching movies or something?) or a con man. (or crazy) which i it?
DeleteAs someone wrote earlier, stfu and go brush your tooth!
DeleteDermals that exceed decades and States with same species traits found 50 miles into wilderness areas. Unknown primate hair confirmed by primatologists & wildlife biologists... Multiple examples of it with species traits and morphological consistency means it cannot be hoaxed or from any known animal, found near tracks and sightings. Tracks are what wildlife biologists conduct much of their research on. Add a complex application of forensic scientific methods, a study of dermal ridges that outline a species then you at the very least, have 'something' that is undeniably leaving such a physical source. Pair this with sightings and the hair accumulation sometimes in the exact same instance, then that's as profound as you like. These two sources of evidence are accumulated and verified by professionals that have used the exact same scientific methods that have excelled them above the majority in their respected fields.
DeleteYou cannot handle scientific evidence and don't really warrant any grounds or authority to be telling anyone what that entails exactly, because you either do not understand it, or are incapable of accepting it... Quite possibly both. Whatever the case, you are stupid.
You know nothing of anything remotely proper in science; your ever occurring contradictions as every other t**d here to deny the same methods you claim to understand and apply consistently, are evident every time you decide to dribble on to that keyboard of yours.
See ya around Hill Billy... You just got served.
Lol joe came crawling back like some lost puppy!!! What a welcher! He couldn't make it 3 full days without his drug!!
DeleteI missed making your life even crappier, I guess!
DeletePS. The bet's still on... Much at the expense of Danny's mental health.
Oh geez, I love how utterly stupid Joe is. I think it goes beyond stupid and squarely to insane. Joe, buddy, get a grip on reality! There are no bigfoots in the woods! There are only people playing jokes on the likes of you and other stupid people. You say they leave hair, well, no they don't. There is no bigfoot hair, and the DNA analysis which you used to boast would finally prove bigfoot existed, turns out to prove that no bigfoot hairs were provided. No bigfoot hairs. So why not quit saying bigfoots leave hairs as evidence, when we KNOW for a fact that no hairs have ever been attributed to a bigfoot. That is, unless bigfoot is a bear, or dog! LOL! Freaking stupid.
DeleteAh, you say that evidence and proof comes form an accumulation of evidence? Okay cool, how many raccoon hairs does it take to finally get enough DNA to pretend it is bigfoot? Oops, I guess no matter how many bear samples people provide, they will always come out as bear. Bummer. You don't need any sort of accumulation of data, you just need real data, and that real data can be quite small as long as it is real. So far there are mountains of fake data, and fake data will never morph into real data, sorry. A million fake stories will not make bigfoot any more real than a thousand fake stories, so time will not make bigfoot more real by accumulating more BS hillbilly lies.
Dreaming about some future scientific application of forensics or dermal mapping or whatever you dream up is so sad. It doesn't matter what sort of make believe science you come up with, you need a legitimate sample to apply that science to, and never in the past fifty, hundred or a thousand years has one speck of legitimate biological evidence been found. No bigfoot, Joe buddy. Just insane people who can't face reality.
Well I can assure you here's a comment that blows your argument apart quite nicely. No Bigfoot hair? None at all right? We'll scroll down to the bottom of this link;
Deletehttp://www.artistfirst.com/bigfootcentral.html
... You'll see these hairs that are nowhere to be seen. Also;
I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."
- Dr. Fahrenbach
"Several hair samples collected from one of the 16 1/2″ tracks were analyzed at two institutions and found to be non-human primate after which it was sent to Dr. Walter Birkbe a respected primatologist and specialist in primate hair, well know at the time as a skeptic on the subject of sasquatch. His comments were not made public but unofficially he remarked, “you’ve sent me my first stumper”. It was definitely primate but not a known primate and not human."
- John Mioczynski
So it seems that puts that little ignorance to bed doesn't it?
Also... The application of forensics with dermals has happened by not only one of the very best forensic specialists in the country, but who also doubles up as one of the only primate prints expert in the world, in Jimmy Chilcutt. So you, see... It's not so much my make believe, but your ignorance, you poor fellow.
So hey, 'buddy'... Who has the bigger claim to mental illness? People who consist of wildlife biologists, costume experts, forensic experts, forensic artists, forestry officers, doctors, lawyers, police officers, teachers, psychologists, historians, conservstionaists, anthropologists, geneticists, archeologists, primatologists...
... or the people trying to deny those people with nothing except mental illness claims?
Hhhhhmmmmmmmmm... tough one that... 'Buddy'.
Joe. You might as well say it. Unless you'd prefer I do it. You know damn well that as about two o'clock Texas time testerday, I independantly confirmed from two unrelated sources that the Sykes' study based on a hybridization event is still underway and " may take years" of study and sequencing before the final results are in. Am I saying that I know to a 100% certainty that as we comment today, and rightfully so based on knowledge you did not deny when I confronted you, that we know DNA is currently under collection and being sequenced on the hybridization collateral species issue? Does a prehistoric bear defacate in Bhutan? YES!!! He does. And YES!!! It most certainly is...Rhettman Mullis may be on vacation. But my Oct 31st suspension has been lifted without question and I'm calling you out to say it here and now. And you might as well tell the truth. I outed you. Look Man. We both have insider knowledge. I sat here during this troll celebration. I don't blame MM for issuing this statement, it was agenda driven cherry pickin all the way. But for Sykes and his team of eager grad students o go all Conclusory "follow the funding" on this topic was not the academic juggernaut we were expecting. And while we all sat around speculating as to why? I picked up the pieces and started asking people that I know were "in the know" if the hybrid study was still a viable ongoing study. Cause I was and am still pissed about this. I heard Jeff and Batdorf going off about, well Jeff was, about how this was the retirement lecture circuit bear paper that was gonna use Bigfoot -yeti, as it's selling point. Well Rev, you were partially right in my opinion, academians, vain as they are, will write the glossy piece, and do the cheese and smile, IN ORDER to pay for and prime the pump for the real scientific paper that they want to be their legacy. The real ground-breaking stuff on hybridization that is yet to come, is the cherry on top of this "look at the bear" routine. Joe. I'm as pissed off about this smoke and mirrors nonsense as you'll ever see me. And I'm much more interested at this point in Melba's work on the red haired giants and her self funding of that project than I am anything coming out of Oxford labs these days. They put the Bigfoot myth to bed like Justin Bieber defined modern music. Look. Sorry for the vitriol on this topic. All I can say at this point is: Is DNA sequencing still being done on the issue of both archaeologically recent and collateral Hominids in multiple studies as we speak...... Why you BET your sweet A$$ it is. Kirk Out.
ReplyDeleteHa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!
DeleteWell I might as well own up! I think my return, as well as yours is indicative of certain reasurrances we've had in recent days. Those reassurances were embraced with a bit of frustration as to when, but highly relevant to secure our home coming and regardless... It's plain to see Sykes' agenda. As has always been maintained by us, DNA will unlock this mystery. The cadaver that everyone wants has evaded us this long (be it with help from governmental sources as well as from the intelligence this subject clearly has), will continue to evade us until we can comb every inch of the wilderness areas... Unrealistic.
What's for sure is in the time it takes Sykes to start getting academics to embrace the idea, the physical and anecdotal sources will be sure to continue to role in and even if that holy grail of samples is years away, we have one in Sykes who's ready to even positively speculate as to what people are seeing, suggesting that researchers have been wrongfully treated along the way.
Sykes to find no Bigfoot DNA in the coming years he's affiliated with this field?
I wouldn't bet on it!
; )
^^/^ The two longest winded know it all's in existence. Lets keep it pithy folks. Life is too short.
DeleteYou're too kind.
DeleteYou are cheap and pathetic. I knew you had zero integrity and I knew you wouldn't live up to your own bet.
DeleteYou can't even admit that you were wrong, are wrong, and have always been wrong.
Now you think some kind of BS about Sykes still spending time and money on this Patrick crap. It's all bull, Joe, Patrick's story reads very similar to Zana's.
So you can't make it a week without breaking your own bet.
Weak. What, you get banned from BFF already? Squatch Proboards not accept you?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, fart, plop, badoink, barf.
DeleteGood news is I'll be here to reel in your dribbles from now on.
Peace and love Daniel!
; )
Painful lessons are being learned the hard way folks.
DeleteIn the world of the big guy trust no one. Not even Mullis. Words and reassurances are cheap. Wait until he delivers the goods fellas.
I for one aren't holding my breath....
MMG
MMG, you might want to tell PJ about Mullis, he still is clinging on life & limb to Rhettman, even after the spectacle that was Sykes Study.
DeleteJoe, remember when I said I expect you to do the opposite of what a man with character and integrity would do? You just lived up to it again.
Perhaps an apology, at the minimum, is in order.
MMG, good comment and you're right, but please try and read between the lines of mine and Mike's comments.
DeleteThere's a little room to be excited.
Hope you're well. Turkey's a blast too... Been there loads of times.
This coming from a guy who hasn't apologized for posting a link to his scrote.
Delete7:48, yes, of course I have, just because you didn't see it doesn't infer that I didn't.
DeleteHa ha ha ha!! I'll apologize for staying away for two-three days... I'll apologize for that.
DeletePerhaps you'll have fun trying to explain how Sykes saying no bigfoot DNA actually means Sykes has bigfoot DNA?
DeleteYou're so messed up in your head, you could probably receive public welfare assistance.
Easy... We already knew these results, it means nothing for other studies and the fact that he's made it public he wants researchers to still hand in samples leans towards those alleged further studies.
DeleteIf Sykes had tested for hybrid samples, this would have been made public.
I don't know Sykes has DNA, I think he may be sitting on something however, what's for sure he's not done yet boyo!
He's not done yet!! As long as you're mad and reigning out the insults, I'm happy!!
Ha ha ha ha!!!!
Anyway Dan! Before you turn this thread into one of your soap operas, I'm back and there's not a thing you can do about it.
DeleteLaters!!
So basically you're just inventing your own reason and telling others to "read between the lines" because Sykes has confirmed his lab recieves $2000 for every sample submitted. Of course he wants them to continue to line his pockets and keep his lab afloat.
DeleteEven in sheer 100% defeat, you can't admit for just one second you're wrong for once. You don't get it? That's all I want, really, for you to stop making spins and trying to wiggle, take one post and admit that for the past year you readily abused something that you had no idea about in an effort to push your line of thought. I just want an apology for the litany of useless wise cracks about Sykes that were completely unfounded, I want you to say you were wrong and you were sorry. That's all.
Say that and I'll drop it completely.
And if in your own words, 'we already knew these results...'
DeleteThen I would appreciate you recognizing that you indeed were wrong when trying to say if the documentary results would compromise the peer review process, which ultimately was a Rhettman Mullis point that was mistaken.
I'm done with the insults, Joe, I'm tired of it. I'm exhausted. All I want is an apology for an entire years worth of your wrong statements.
Dan. I was wrong. 100% completely wrong. Their could never be a viable bet about Sykes' study because he has multiple studies in the works and I wrongly assumed he had to publish his collateral hominid findings with the "Bear" stuff. And that was very wrong. Never did I know that academians were as fork tongued as Footers, as Surrulous as politicians and as social climbing as Texas widows. Nevertheless. I regret into a bet of integrity with a man about a subject that's frought with lies, half truths, schemes and let downs. And I acknowledge that though the study continues. With regard to that white paper. You were right Mike.
DeleteThank you, Mike, I appreciate it. I don't question your integrity or ability to admit when you were wrong.
DeleteI want Joe's apology.
I'm done with the arguing PJ, I'm done with the insults, I'm done trying to reason or argue with you. If that's what you desire, you will not find it from me. All I wish is for you to recognize you were wrong for once and apologize like you rightfully should.
What a tool ^
DeleteNo one owes DC an apology
DeleteNow you see why Joe didn't want an administrator to ban the looser.
DeleteI'm embarassed for you Danny. Who the hell do you think you are? I'll apologize I missed out on two days where I could have made your life a little more crap... I'll do that. Nobody likes you, nobody wants you here and there is not one thing you can do to stop me posting here. You'll hate me even more by the end son.
Delete"As you can see, a lot of money and effort was wasted on some samples. It must be noted that Bryan generously self-funded this project all on his own, including all of the travel. I can tell you that this has not been cheap and I doubt if he will ever recoup his investment, so those who claim that he is in this for the money don’t know what they are talking about. Neither Bryan, nor Bigfootology, charged anyone for processing, shipping and analyzing the samples for this project."
I'd be telling Footers to cough up too!
No, Joe, I used to hate you. I don't anymore. I've become numb to you.
DeleteYou just proved exactly how much this place means to you. You have shown that you are incapable of even the slightest acts of decency. This blog is your drug, you can't live without it. I find it poetic that you and your anonymous cheerleader consistently comment about drug use when this blog is the biggest drug in your world.
I'm not going to continually chastise you, I'm over it. You're in your own crazy world, and you know what? If that's the life mechanism that you need to survive, Joe, you go right for it buddy.
Mike, I thank you for your honesty and apology. You're a decent man in a world of filth.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
DeleteThere you go again, DC, making up crap.
DeleteThe only drug I have ever commented on is Midol.
And, I would say that by your words, again you are more butthurt than thought previously.
Please take some more Midol for those crampz!
I've made a bunch of prescription jokes at him because I saw joe talkin bout it b4 so I just went along. Sorry dc just messin
DeleteArgh don't worry about it, Danny regularly cracks jokes about taking drugs, another one of his strange forgetful episodes... Kind of like accusing others of needing this place?
DeleteMidol is hilarious.
not a good excuse I shouldn't have done something just because someone else was. after the passed week you both shown yerselfs to be loosers Dan for gloating and you for comin back tho u lost
DeleteThe bet's still on! Ha ha ha ha!!
DeleteSykes came n went his study is over, you bet Sykes study on July 2 would have bigguy DNA n it didn't.
Delete"j** f********d verifiedTuesday, July 1, 2014 at 10:14:00 AM PDT
DeleteIf Sykes has something remotely attributed to a Bigfoot/hominid, then Danny's gone.
If he has nothing, I'm gone."
Now... If Sykes had stated that he's concluded that he hasn't or likely to not have any DNA, or disclosed any information about testing alleged hybrids, then I would have lost. However, after making those three points clear, he's still looking for samples, so the bet appears to be a long term one at that.
Joe loses, so he tries to move the goalpost. What a douchebag. Just like Sweaty Yeti and all the other messed up footers over on BFF.
DeleteDaniel, I appreciate your trying to pin Joe down to an apology, but you and everyone else knows what a douche he is, and no matter what he will not do it. He has no integrity, no spine, no balls. You won fair and square, anyone with half a brain can see that. But Joe will never concede defeat. He's just that kind of guy. And those kinds of guys are called douchebags.
Joe is back.
ReplyDeleteCan we at least get an acknowledgement that you were wrong?
You have my 'agknowlegement' up top.
Delete; )
No where.
Delete(Whispers)
DeleteEverywhere.
Great comments MIKE and JOE. You guys know much more about this than this midwesterner. After viewing the first Sykes documentary last fall I lost most interest in the Sykes study as the agenda of Icon Films became quite clear. Viewing audiences would be quite bored with an ancient bear, but cloak it with a study about bigoot, yeti, almasty, yeren, etc. and you have a ready made large audience.
ReplyDeleteI read Moneymakers statement on July 2, am and put a link up to it in a comment here on July 2. It was the only statement I made about the study and summed up how I felt about it. Like him or hate him Moneymaker's statement about what this study was is straight on. Then I saw the sensationalized headlines put out by the know nothing lame stream media. So predictable from organizations that lost all sense of true investigation starting circa 1980 and has now escalated into Don Henley's Dirty Laundry and entertainment. Sykes himself said his work did not disprove Bigfoot, instead his samples did not contain any, but that was never put forward to the dead from the neck up people who take their clues from the alphabet news agencies, AP and Reuters.
On another front a new soon to be heavyweight competing for George Noory's massive audience, being Clyde Lewis of Ground Zero has entered into the Sasquatch World after sitting on the sidelines for years. His first guess was Todd Standing who bubbled over with excitement and passion about the projects he had going on. Clyde Lewis is another disciple of the Art Bell school of ( so labeled paranormal ) interviewing. He knows the right questions to ask and the right time to ask them and his passion is immense and refreshing in this field.
Anyway MIKE I liked what you had to say about the hybrid investigation. I know you are privy to much more than me and really appreciate it. Good to have you back JOE. Never make a bet based on passion and emotion. I learned this in the early 80s when betting football ( that is real football American Style ).
Chuck
Alpha dog, you are the true class act of this blog. Thanks for your consistent class input. I have learned a lot from you, happy 4th sir.
Delete^ weekend
DeleteChuck. I really appreciate that. I never asked for a peek into the looking glass. But many real researchers that I'm lucky to work with, tell me the truth pretty quickly. And the truth here us they let footers look like fools once again to attain their financial and academic goals. And us Footers seem to excel in assisting them at this. Have a geyser week my friend. M
ReplyDeleteWelcome back, DSM! I, for one, have missed your witty comments!
DeleteYou mean to say the Sykes study was agenda driven? I'm sad, disgusted and irritated. Oh wait.......... it's ALL agenda driven, you moronic fools!
ReplyDeleteMoneymaker.... What a wanker.
ReplyDeleteCome on! What's Moneymaker gonna say? "Yeah, I've known all along that bigfoot is only folklore and Sykes backed that up. But, I'm not going to cut off my gravy train and admit it."
ReplyDeletenever! it's so damned funny to hear all of these crazy people defending the conman and chastising the esteemed scientist because he told them the truth. bigfoot isn't real. the evidence just isn't there. If you think you saw bigfoot, go have a cat scan, you might have a brain tumor or suffer from a delusion causing mental illness. good luck folks
DeleteSorry, who the hell are you to say anyone has mental illness? You have the debating skills of a child and are probably the biggest conman here pushing falsities and celebrating nothing.
DeleteYou clearly are too stupid to understand what's going on.
The scientists you're talking about also feels that what people are seeing is a relict Neanderthal. He also has said that Bigfoot researchers have been treated unfairly. Does this register? Are you too dumb too agknowledge this? Are you angry because your parade got urinated on?
I think you're just a little too dumb for your own good, nobody like you should be suggesting anyone's got mental health problems.
Daniel CampbellSaturday, July 5, 2014 at 9:04:00 AM PDT
DeleteAnd if in your own words, 'we already knew these results...'
Then I would appreciate you recognizing that you indeed were wrong when trying to say if the documentary results would compromise the peer review process, which ultimately was a Rhettman Mullis point that was mistaken.
...you know science as well as a muppet...
"joe fitzgeraldSunday, July 6, 2014 at 11:48:00 PM PDT
DeleteIt is traditionally considered very inappropriate and devalues the process to reveal the results prior to concluding the peer review process.
That's not my opinion, that's how things have always been done. Sykes don't do things normally it seems, that was my shortfall... Yours is you require this to be pointed out to you.
'Science boy'."
There's too many people that have seen them first hand to say they do not exist, I personally had a massive one walk off the hillside within twenty feet of me & he did not care one bit that I was there . He slowly continued to walk in the direction he was going until he disappeared out of sight only watching me just as I did him.
ReplyDeleteUntil that morning I didn't give them another thought & now I watch over my shoulder continuously for them .
It's pretty simple...Sykes will never deliver any results on sasquatch because he is not allowed to do so. I predicted this way back. In addition, I believe that some of the BFRO and others are in on a coverup also.
ReplyDeleteand what possible motivation would science or the british govt have to keep it "under wraps". do you realize how totally idiotic and naive to how science works you sound? (not that I'm surprised half of you don't even believe in evolution and think a sky daddy controls your destiny)
DeleteYou don't understand science or the scientific method. You have shown that right the way through your comments. You claim to know it's use, but you have not once used an instance of it to back up your arguments.
DeleteI don't think you know what you're talking about, do you?
bwahahaha, you footers are so predictable! "real science won't ever check any of this out because they are afraid" then real science checks it out and says "it's all nonsense " and you reply " conspiracy!!! da gubbmint (ignoring that he is British and doesn't give a shit about our govt) then you messiah moneymaker (a certified conman and NOT a scientist) hand waves it away because to admit defeat would end his gravy train. you people are so damned gullible..... it's sad...almost
ReplyDeleteNews flash...
DeleteWhat you and MM missed was Sykes is still studying Bigfoot and believes Bigfoot to be Neanderthal. Go take your face to the toilet and try and get your head around that.
Sup Stank Ape.
DeleteStank Ape has a hard on fer C McMillan.
DeleteWow you sure love to make up your own fantasies
DeleteMoneyfaker is a fraud who hoaxed the Kentucky Hotcake phootage and was also in on the hoaxed Matilda Wookie footage. I can bust this new explosive news wide open if the community would like.....
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Society while not perfect has a long and credible history. BFRO doesn't.
ReplyDelete