Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Matt Moneymaker Calls Sykes' Bigfoot DNA Study "Meaningless"

Matt Moneymaker Called Sykes Bigfoot DNA Study, "Meaningless scientifically"

"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)." --Matt Money maker on why some submitted samples were not even anlyzed

Gawker.com was able to get an official response from Discovery News regarding the recent results of Dr. Bryan Sykes DNA study. Even better? They got a response from BFRO founder and Finding Bigfoot co-host Matt Moneymaker. In a few short words Matt Moneymaker claims the study "meaningless scientifically."

Read the full response why below:

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).
To be fair Dr. Bryan Sykes has not ruled out the possibility of a Yeti or Sasquatch being out there. He has said so in his response.

"While it is important to bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and this survey cannot refute the existence of anomalous primates, neither has it found any evidence in support. Rather than persisting in the view that they have been 'rejected by science', advocates in the cryptozoology community have more work to do in order to produce convincing evidence for anomalous primates and now have the means to do so."

Click the following link to read the entire Gawker article titled, "Bigfoot Field Research Organization Head Calls DNA Study 'Meaningless'"

8 comments:

  1. When did Matt Moneymaker get his PhD?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh that's right...he didn't. My bad.

      Delete
  2. Down to Matt to donate a sample he is confident of then ? Let Sykes DNA testing technology do its job & let the truth out..

    ReplyDelete
  3. > absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

    The dodge of frauds such as Donald Rumsfeld and Stan Friedman.

    ReplyDelete
  4. long in the woodsJul 17, 2014, 3:43:00 PM

    mister moneymakerwould appear much more intelligent if he shut his mouth once in awhile he's supposed to be a lawyer but he discredits all evidence or anybody's effortsbecause he does not endorse those Mr Money Maker is not someone I would trust out in the forest I'm an outdoorsman I spent more than 45 years I've seen evidence nothing that I could carry thoughand I'm sure you'll discredit anything I have to say as well cuz he's a tv star

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Moneymaker, but I read his response to the study, and PhD or not, I agree with him. He's probably not the brightest bulb in the pack sometimes, but his points are valid. Squatch ON!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I fast fwd anytime this chubby dummy talks or camps alone...he ruins the show......

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, we begin with a little summary replica louis vuitton from a hooded figure (why? rolex replica Well, whatever), who gives the history (somewhat) of the later Han at its end, with power being seized by prada replica the 10 eunuchs led by Choujou, and then passing to Toutaku, only to have a coalition of warlords led by Enshou march upon the capital replica wathces of Rakuyou (should be Luoyang).

    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.