The Sykes / Sartori Report - Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project

[Guest Darrell]

^ I would sure like to know for sure or not. Yes Im skeptical but that doesnt mean my mind is totaly made up. Its just frustrating when time after time nothing pans out. I dont think that this study will solve the mystery but It may be another brick in the fountation to proof, or it may just be one more nail in the coffin.

[MarkGlasgow]

This project has all the hallmarks of a intellectual 'Brewsters Millions' type scenario developing between Sykes and Sartori.

Sykes seems very open to BF researchers and their experiences. Whilst Sartori is keen to silence those who claim the existence of several unknown hominids.

We're very close no matter what...

Edited September 7, 2013 by MarkGlasgow

[Guest]

I dont think that this study will solve the mystery but It may be another brick in the fountation to proof, or it may just be one more nail in the coffin.

 

Jeez Darrell, no wonder you're happy with your batting average... So your prediction is "may build proof", or else "may not build proof"? You're really out on a limb there.

[Guest]

haha, the same limb I am trying to share...and a few of us...our weight may break it....

The results should be...  one or the other...!

Edited September 9, 2013 by apehuman

[Cotter]

This project has all the hallmarks of a intellectual 'Brewsters Millions' type scenario developing between Sykes and Sartori.

Sykes seems very open to BF researchers and their experiences. Whilst Sartori is keen to silence those who claim the existence of several unknown hominids.

We're very close no matter what...

 

Your comment about Sartori is interesting, can you expand on that?

[Guest Darrell]

Jeez Darrell, no wonder you're happy with your batting average... So your prediction is "may build proof", or else "may not build proof"? You're really out on a limb there.

Well they either exist or they dont exist. They cant kinda exist. My prediction is this report will offer nothing any other DNA report has or will. At some point there has to be more than circumstance, myth, and legend.

[MarkGlasgow]

Your comment about Sartori is interesting, can you expand on that?

Cotter. The following article is excellent. Sartori's quote right at the end should give you an idea where he stands on this, hence my post.

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/08/everything-you-didnt-know-about-bryan.html?m=1

[MIB]

Thanks for the link to the article.

 

Sort of on a tangent ... it talks about the Yeti finger at the Royal College of Surgeons museum in London testing as human in 2011.  Does anyone here know whether that determination was based on mtDNA or whether it was based on nuDNA?   Citations or links?

 

MIB

[southernyahoo]

I expect it was mtDNA MIB, it's more commonly targeted when doing species identification and is easier to get than nuDNA from old or degraded specimens/samples. It has alot more copies per cell.

[MIB]

Thanks.   My guess as well but I'm not "in the know" so I asked.  

 

So basically its about as solidly human as all the "contaminated" north american samples that were tested and discarded on the assumption of contamination.   "Hmmm."

 

If Sykes comes back with modern human mtDNA in a sample with some other nuDNA, all of these old "results" have to be discarded along with whatever assumptions we made based on them because it means the old science was bad.   Since the samples were (reportedly) destroyed in most/all cases, we can't retest, so we just have ... nothing.   Sykes finding something novel doesn't prove those old things novel, only that the science used on them was incomplete.

 

MIB

[southernyahoo]

Well it would mean that the hybrid theory just wasn't tested for in the past. What drove Ketchum to look at the paternal lineage was the disagreement between morphology and the mito testing. This is why I hope to see Sykes document and write up the morphology thoroughly before sequencing and destroying the samples.

[Guest]

So, Lindsay is now reporting he has sources in the Sykes camp and that they give him the impression that there is something positive with the study? The BF drama is exhausting.

[BobbyO]

Shoud all be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion as history has taught us.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Sykes stuff is positive however and I'm just glad not everybody put a ll of their eggs in one basket where the other study was concerned.

One thing I will say though, if I'm not mistake, Sykes is testing samples from all over the world and not just North America.

What if he has positive things from Malaysia for example but one from the US for example ?

That won't change anything where North America is concerned will it, surely ?

It's like I do also sometimes wonder what if Sykes was to find positive stuff of Sasquatch on samples from the Queen Charlotte's in Canada for example, would that have any effect on the population of Sasquatches or whatever they are in the Everglades of Florida ?

I'm not sure how it would, if it would.

[Guest Darrell]

I think thats a fun assumption to think about. I think someone wrote one time that just because bigfoot is proven to exist, it doesnt mean all the sightings, footprints, and other stuff was real. It just means some of it was. But it does make one think what if.....

[Cotter]

^Exactly, and if one can be found/proven elsewhere, it adds creedence to the areas with high 'activity'.