Friday, July 25, 2014

Dr. Bryan Sykes Responds to Moneymakers' Criticisms of Bigfoot DNA Study

Dr. Bryan Sykes
"I really don't know whether any of the samples arrived thanks to the BFRO or not." --Dr. Bryan Sykes

In a previous post we shared some reporting from Black Bag's Matthew Phelan regarding criticism by Matt Moneymaker. Matt Moneymaker was quoted as saying the Sykes bigfoot DNA study was meaningless scientifically.
Since our post, Matt Moneymaker Calls Sykes' Bigfoot DNA Study "Meaningless", Matthew Phelan was able to get a response to Matt Moneymakers comments from Dr. Bryan Sykes. 

Here is the correspondence between Black Bag and Sykes:

Black Bag: This is to Moneymaker, specifically, but Sykes may know something too: Moneymaker says that 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." UK Channel 4's Bigfoot Files, presumably. Is this, in fact, correct? Further, to Moneymaker, why did the BFRO not submit samples?

Sykes: I really don't know whether any of the samples arrived thanks to the BFRO or not. They were all submitted by individuals and not by organisations.

Black Bag: Moneymaker asserts that a substantial portion of the submitted samples were excluded "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)." Dr. Sykes, can you speak to the veracity of this and —- overall —- explain in more detail the rubric by which those 18 samples were excluded?

Sykes: Not so. Many samples consisted of only very few, sometimes a single, hair. I had a slight preference for samples with two or more hairs simply because if I had found any to be from an "anomalous primate" I would have had an independent lab test them before publishing the results. That turned out not be necessary. All told I was sent 95 hair samples of which I sent 37 (now 38) for analysis of which 30 (now 31) yielded DNA.
Check out what else Dr. Bryan Sykes has to say about funding bigfoot research and the three questions we should ask when pursuing Bigfoot in the Black Bag

9 comments:

  1. Lets look at who has to gain most from discovering a new species;
    Brian Sykes - Potential Nobel Prize, $1million in Nobel prize money, no problem with research funding, University research building named after him, place in science history canon, endless lecture tour and income.
    Moneymaker - Media fame, probably short lived, minor lecturing tours and income, pat on the back from the Bigfoot community.
    So, why would Sykes not do a very thorough and efficiently sound job, he has, by far, most to gain from a positive result?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kompani is right!

    ReplyDelete
  3. How many hair samples, called "almasty", from Russia Dr Sykes examined? His results are published in a scientific journal. Okay. But all of them are called almasty -so this means all of these samples are from the Caucasus? Or they are fom other parts of Russia? All of these samples has animal DNA - no primat. So, it would be interesting to know how our Russian colleagues in Moscow came to the conclusion that their samples are hair of Russian Bigfoot! Knows anyone anything about when, where and how these Russian samples has been found? Maybe only Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Burtzev can answer this questions.
    A visitor from Italy

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shouldn't there be more than one lab involved? Sykes and maybe two others? US and Canada or maybe Japan? Are "control" samples of known non-Bigfoot DNA being sent to make sure valid results are coming back? I don't think Sykes is a bad guy at all, and I think Moneymaker is just passionate--maybe a bit too much Captain Ahab--but maybe that's what it takes to keep stumbling around in the forest.

    IR cameras on small blimps or drones should be in every "Finding Bigfoot" episode. I'm getting tired of the blocked views and limited amount of tech being put into that "search". The show can't last forever--you better actually make progress and take advantage of it while you have the money.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What I find suspicious about the show "Finding Bigfoot" is that when their in a "Hotspot" as they call it and they have something strange happening in the woods such as the case in Florida for the second time, they leave because of the weather.. I thought the name of the show was called Finding Bigfoot. I know that if I suspected a bigfoot was closeby, a little rain wouldn't run me off. Besides wouldn't it be easier to "Find A Bigfoot" if the ground were muddy. And why would you leave a place you claimed was a "Hotspot" to go somewhere else to look for one when you say you have one there---it is calle
    Finding Bigfoot right?? So if you have a creature that's a cryto that science doesn't recognize as real then wouldn't you stay in that place and gather the best footage and evidence one could ever hope to get?? But that not what they do at all---instead they leave and go somewhere else and hope to find something in a different place.. Enough of stringing people along with ratings--either find one or
    move on

    ReplyDelete
  6. A television series is a vehicle for the television company to raise revenue through advertising to create profit. The basic rule is the higher the audience the higher the revenue.
    To create high audience numbers you must appeal to what audiences want to see, humour, death, games, money, monsters, etc.
    The 'Finding Bigfoot' series is only being made because it contains several audience 'hooks' (mystery, money, monsters etc.) and therefore potential to maximise its audience which equates to revenue and profit. It is not being made to further the science of Bigfoot research, that would be incredibly naive of the viewer.
    If a Bigfoot was found in week 1 of the series the income potential would collapse and not be good for revenue and profit. One of the audience 'hooks' is the possibility 'it', in this case finding a Bigfoot, may happen the following week i.e. never. This technique has been used in literature since the first serial stories and on television since its inception. It ensures the audience remains week after week and usually to the next series.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bigfoot isn't a real animal, the results make total sense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Content: (please note that dior replica content portions of a review may contain spoilers) So, we begin with a little summary from a hooded figure (why? Well omega replicaomega replica, whatever), who gives the history (somewhat) of the later Han at its end, with power being seized by the 10 eunuchs led by Choujou swiss replica watches, and then passing to Toutaku, only to have a coalition of warlords led by louis vuitton replica Enshou march upon the capital of Rakuyou (should be Luoyang).

    ReplyDelete
  9. While I can appreciate Matt Moneymaker's passion, dedication, and enthusiasm, he has lost all objectivity and discernment.

    He is a lawyer, not a scientist. He's trained to argue, not in the scientific method. You don't discredit/dismiss someone just because you don't like the results. Sykes is the most credible scientist to EVER study the bigfoot phenomena. He's from Oxford !!!! If you want the scientific community to respect BF research, then respect scientific research.

    And to Moneymaker, learn the difference between opinion and fact. You constantly say "We know that...." as if everything you think is a fact when it's unproven therefore a hypothesis (or opinion). Yet you dismiss FACTS such as Dr. Sykes study. Try a little discernment when "collecting" evidence. If everything is evidence then nothing is.

    ReplyDelete

Let's keep the language and material clean, keep in mind we have younger fans that get their Bigfoot News here too. If your comment is directed specifically to our editor, Guy Edwards, he will personally take time out of his day and ask one of us interns to reply to you in his name.

Please read our terms of use policy.