I'd love for the Oxford team from the Bigfoot Files show to analyse the samples that Dr Ketchum claims to be from an unknown hominid.
But would they tell the truth, would there be a cover-up?
I would also love to see the "Ketchum" samples analysed by DR Sykes and his team, but I don't think that there is any chance of this because I do not think she would supply them.
My understanding is that DR Ketchum is renowned for her "interpretations" (not in a good way) I remember reading that she used some "underhanded" techniques to get a paper about Bigfoot DNA published. I am sure that if asked nicely @
lancemoody would not hesitate to fill us in (in layman's terms) why she is such a controversial figure.
My understanding is that DR Sykes is in a different league so to speak, in that he is the
inventor of many of the techniques employed in cutting edge DNA testing, although I may have got the wrong end of the stick (would not be the first time!)
I have also had another look for a "youtube" version of the USA episode and it is not there as far as I can tell, which I find strange to say the least, I am afraid that I am putting this down to the fact that none of the samples analysed by the show were found to contain Bigfoot DNA, I suspect that if the show had been more "sensational" there would have been multiple uploads to youtube especially by now, given that most of the televisual dross produced either side of the "pond" is routinley exchanged via youtube.
Hopefully Nation geographiclol or the Shistory channel will buy the documentary from Icon films, edit in a new "narrator" and give it a suitably sensational and exiting title but even this is looking unlikely now.
Lastly I would like to say that I can see little to no motive for DR Sykes to conceal or conspire to hide information regarding Bigfoot, in fact I see it the other way: in that here is a man with world wide renown in his field, and although being the one to discover Bigfoot would potentially enhance his fame and bank balance, if he does not, he will still be famous and well respected. What I am trying to say is that his "reputation" does not depend on the results he does or does not find, I genuinely believe that you would have to go a long, long way to find some one able to be less impartial.
In a nutshell to my mind it would serve DR Sykes interests more to "play" up his results than "play" them down. Yet he has not done this to the best of my knowledge.
Finally the Zana case you mentioned was just horrible, brutal, tragic and upsetting, I think if I recall correctly they concluded that the most likely reason for her son "Kwit's"(spelling) bones and teeth containing Sub Saharan DNA was most likely due to his mother Zana, being a slave taken from Africa and sold on to an owner in "South Ossetia" (modern day Georgia formerly part of the USSR) either way she had a brutal and inhumane life.