Sykes has published his “paper” and in my opinion it is a
complete joke; there is no other way to say it. He did not set out to find the
truth but to sabotage the Ketchum DNA Study. Here are just some of the areas
that show bias and major inconsistencies.
His abstract makes the erroneous claim “In the first ever systematic genetic survey, we have used rigorous
decontamination followed by mitochondrial 12S RNA sequencing to identify the
species origin of 30 hair samples attributed to anomalous primates.” Ladies
and Gentlemen, in my opinion that is just an outright LIE, no other way to say
it, the Ketchum DNA study tested over 100 samples, used strict forensic protocols, used over half a dozen independent
labs and suffered through exhausting and unfair reviews and critiques for over
three years. (Click here to review the entire Sasquatch Genome Paper)
Some other items of interest concerning the “Sykes Paper”.
1.
It appears, but is not properly documented, that the
Oxford lab facilities did not test the hair samples, but a lab named Mitotyping
Technologies located in New York??? (Ref 9 and 10 Sykes Paper)
2.
Rhett Mullins is listed as the second author he
is not a scientist, and non-scientist are never listed a co-authors of
scientific papers.
3.
Incomplete materials and methods section.
4.
Incomplete references for the materials and
methods.
5.
No statement to which lab or lab(s) tested the
samples.
6.
References the Ketchum DNA study on contamination
without proof.
7.
Only a total of 503 bases were sequenced for
mtDNA only.
8.
The human sample was not tested on any nuDNA
loci to determine species or unknown sequence.
9.
It appears that the US Fish and Wildlife
screened the hair samples for testing. Is the US Fish and Wildlife Forensic Laboratory
so incompetent that they would pass on to Sykes easily identifiable samples
such as Horse, Black Bear, Wolf, Dog, Coyote, and cow????? It seems to me Sykes
did not want to test real “Bigfoot hair” and wanted negative results.
10.
Dr. Sykes makes the laughable claim on just 503
bases: “The techniques described here put
an end to decades of ambiguity about species identification of anomalous
primate samples and set a rigorous standard against which to judge any future
claims".
11.
Some samples would not amplify. Are these the “real
deal”? Dr. Ketchum discovered during her study that genuine Sasquatch hair will
not yield mtDNA, it is a unique property of Sasquatch hair. You must have a skin
tag in order to get DNA that will amplify. It appears Sykes did not do his
homework. He processed hair only samples with no skin tags that may have been Sasquatch hair
and of course these hairs would not amplify or yield usable DNA for testing.
This paper would have never stood up to the peer review process that the Ketchum DNA Study was subjected too by the Journal Nature. In short this paper in my opinion was no more than an
attempt to discredit the American Bigfoot Community, muddy the water, and discredit
the Kethcum DNA Study. I say MAJOR FAIL Dr. Sykes…..
Click here to read a critical commentary by Norman MacLeod, The Natural History Museum, London, UK
Click here to read a critical commentary by Norman MacLeod, The Natural History Museum, London, UK
Outstanding assessment Scott. As always, my mind is drawn to "WHY?" Who is behind the attempts to discredit Melba? The Sykes "report" is an obvious farce, full of lies and unsubstantiated narrative. "Who" remains the unanswered question IMHO.
ReplyDeleteGreat work Scott !! Sykes has had issues with previous work, such as the North American DNA study he did a few years back & his "Blood of the Vikings" fiasco. I'm not shocked now either.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dave, who indeed. This was obviously rigged from the
ReplyDeletestart with no attempt to prove anything. But, rather to disprove. One
of the words thrown about in our times is " spin ". How can someone
spin an argument to favor their point of view. This is normally done
by controlling all aspects of the conversation or in this case the testing
with no descent allowed to enter. One would have to question the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Laboratory ability to remain neutral in a test such as
this. And I for one would say there is some interest by some forces
to make sure these tests were flawed. A test is nothing more than a chain of events produced to determine an outcome. If the chain is
compromised by one link in the chain, the test is compromised.