Bigfoot Files: Episode 2
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 18th, 2013
Well, there’s plenty of controversy swirling around news of Bryan Sykes’ findings:
We have talked about the three part series, the Bigfoot Files, that premieres this Sunday in the UK:
Sykes to Release Sasquatch DNA Study Results on Patty Day?
Episode 2 airs the following Sunday on British TV Channel 4 at 8:00 PM, October 27.
Episode 2
Mark Evans visits America’s Pacific Northwest in search of ‘Sasquatch’. In 1958 a digger driver called Jerry Crew found a series of huge footprints in Willow Creek, Northern California and the Bigfoot legend took off.
Since then the region has had over 1000 Bigfoot encounters. But for decades science has scorned the idea of Bigfoot, and anyone who studies it.
Mark meets some of the Bigfootologists who believe they’ve come face to face with these creatures: Justin Smeja, who claims to have shot two Sasquatch; Vietnam vet Dan Shirley, who claims he can communicate with Bigfoot by ‘wood knocking’; Derek Randles, who’s been a Sasquatch obsessive since a close encounter in 1985; and Native American Marcel Cagey, who says a Sasquatch changed his life.
And Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the hair samples he’s collected. Will the results confirm the Bigfootologists’ stories or will it be bad news?
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
So cryptozoologist Bryan Sykes released the conclusions of his study in the media, without/before the peer review process, with no paper published in a real peer reviewed scientific magazine, with just an announcement of a “soon published paper”, provided no data at all to support it and for others to scrutinize, his two (!) samples have highly suspicious chain of custody, and no way of confirming they came from a “yeti”… all while making an extraordinary claim that an animal, presumed extinct tens of thousands years ago in a quite different part of the planet, is still alive in Himalayas and miraculously evaded the science, though large, needs a significant breeding population and probably eats a lot? And he’s selling a book. What’s next, we’ll have to pay for the paper? When do we start calling him unprofessional, unscientific, crazy, pony circus? Anybody has a blog to write about his religious views? Or how he has “a thing” for ancient bears? Or how someone close to him said he claimed that this bear has supernatural powers? Maybe Better Business Bureau has something on him?
As you could all see from my posts, I’m appearing only when Ketchum needs to be defended. That’s only coincidental, because I’m highly irritated.
My country definitely has nothing cryptozoological about it, definitely no large footprints, but I’m curious and dream to see some serious changes in today’s science. I’m a psychologist and a writer, working basically as a kind of communication analyst. For me personally: BFRO database is proof enough Bigfoot exists, it’s obvious Ketchum had a fierce dirty campaign against her, and this now gives it all a nice round shape. The only thing I’m waiting to see is whether Sykes will be used (just as Rhettman Mullis et al. were used by him) to trash Bigfoot research further to fringes than ever, claiming at the same time sensational cryptozoological discovery of a bear, or he is able to play this along with getting a Nobel for Bigfoot in a scheme to finally release part of the truth in an institutional, controllable manner, under the rising pressure from serious Bigfoot researchers and possibly more apt Ketchum-like enthusiasts with serious sponsors. In that scenario, protection would be the keyword, and access to other scientists highly restricted. But I guess it will just be weird bears everywhere, and the public is settled for another 50 years.
But that’s just me.
Greetings,
I disagree Degnostik with some of what you say. Dr. Ketchums paper and the criticisms of it did have some problems. The first being she is not a recognized expert in the genetics field even though she has experience at it.
Now this does not mean that the conclusions she drew from analysis are wrong. However, some of the samples she submitted and analyzed did support her conclusions.
We need to wait and see what Dr. Sykes has to say and how his paper is received. It may or may not be a game changer for the species even if he does conclude the species exists and has the DNA evidence to prove it.
The existence of the species is up against an institutionalized and fearful business and eco model. It still may very well take a specimen body to convince them but we must wait and see what happens.
Just for your info I’m like Professor Meldrum and you don’t need to convince me as I’ve been to close to whatever Bigfoot turns out to be for comfort. My best,
airforce47,
true, she’s not a recognized expert, but with emphasis on “recognized” in my opinion, and more specifically on “recognized by whom?”. Because some other experts sure do recognize her as an expert – many people listed in her paper, many people in the labs she engaged, some serious experts that support her… And off course this does not mean that the conclusions she drew from analysis are wrong or not. Being recognized has nothing to do with it, especially not being recognized by the Bigfoot community. Or people with vested interests.
So we agree. I too think we need to wait and see what Dr. Sykes has to say and how his paper is received. I wouldn’t have a hard time accepting I’m wrong about him.
I have this feeling Dr. Meldrum could do much more for his own cause, but than again – who can blame that guy of being a coward, right?
My best, too,