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

[Oonjerah]

The Sykes / Sartori Report ... 

 

12 Nov 2013 in the Manila Bulletin, for Pete's sake ... I missed this statement before.

AND it's only about the Yeti find. 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.mb.com.ph/dna-links-mysterious-yeti-to-ancient-polar-bear/

 

"Sykes’ research has not been published, but he says he has submitted it for peer review.

His findings will be broadcast Sunday in a television program on Britain’s Channel 4." 

.......

 

Currently, on Bigfootology Facebook, Mullis mentioned that Sykes' science paper is still in

Peer Review. My Facebook navigation skill is retarded; so I wasn't able to find anything

more to clarify the statement. 

 

Dr. Sykes has a paper in peer review for Yeti. 

Does Dr. Sykes have a paper for Zana & Kwit? 

No word can I find on Sykes & Bigfoot now.   ...  but -- only a few of his Bf samples were

discussed on Icon's Bigfoot Files. 

[Sunflower]

NatGeo had a program on a few weeks ago called "Russian Bigfoot" and it might be available on their channel by now.  Igor gave up a tooth from the skull of Kwit which Sykes tested and got dna.  Zana's dna came back as "100% Sub Saharan Human."

 

So......

 

He also traced family members in the area and took their dna samples.

[Oonjerah]

The great Himalayan Yeti debate by Edward Crabtree

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=262431

(small part of interesting & objective article) 

 

... Desmond Doig, along with Edmund Hillary, failed to find evidence of the yeti in a special 

expedition in 1961.This fact is sometimes trotted out as another thumbs down for any exotic

hominid living there. Twenty years later, however, Doig would point out that they did not

see the snow leopard either on the same mission. Doig, who knew something of the local

languages, told the TV show Arthur C Clarke’s Mysterious World:

"In 1961 we discussed the meh-teh as pure myth. I now think we were wrong." (cited by 

Welfare and Fairley, p-280).

 

If Professor Sykes’s prehistoric bear stalks the snowline of the Himalayas then is that the sum

of the issue? The region is still unexplored enough to have room for more than one new finding.

 

Just because a giant squid was discovered off the coast of Spain in recent times, this does not

mean that henceforth all unknown sea animals should be categorised as squids. ... 

[yowiie]

Has this study gone down the shute along with the ketchum report

[Guest Llawgoch]

It hasn't "gone down the shute"; he analysed a lot of samples that were thought by their finders to be from Bigfoot, and none of them were.  That's a valid and worthwhile study.  Some of them he has said were interesting in their own way (Archaic bears, Zana being an African woman) but we are still waiting for the official publications on those.  However, they were not Bigfoot.

[MIB]

Not "down the chute."  Gone silent ... yes, for now.   That's normal for real publication of real papers.  

 

I wouldn't say none of the samples were from bigfoot YET.   If you are paying attention you'll have noticed the numbers don't add up.   Within the documentary, there were a number of North American samples reportedly tested and a number of those samples with results returned.   Those numbers are not equal.  There was at least one that was not discussed.   Either the footage wound up on the cutting room floor or that sample is part of something in for peer review so Sykes can't talk about it.   Both appear equally possible making it premature to say anything with certainty.

 

MIB

[Guest Llawgoch]

Not "down the chute."  Gone silent ... yes, for now.   That's normal for real publication of real papers.  

 

I wouldn't say none of the samples were from bigfoot YET.   If you are paying attention you'll have noticed the numbers don't add up.   Within the documentary, there were a number of North American samples reportedly tested and a number of those samples with results returned.   Those numbers are not equal.  There was at least one that was not discussed.   Either the footage wound up on the cutting room floor or that sample is part of something in for peer review so Sykes can't talk about it.   Both appear equally possible making it premature to say anything with certainty.

 

MIB

 

 

They are not equally possible.  One is the obvious conclusion to draw and the other is a desperate grasping at straws.  The idea that Sykes would announce that so many results were negative and then, without any comment, keep back the hugely significant results and that the documentary would be happy to pay him and proceed on this basis is to say the least bizarre.  However, he MAY be doing this so I can't and don't want to stop you thinking it if you want to.  But I will object to you saying it is equally possible.  It isn't, in the real world.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Llawgoch

[indiefoot]

Until his paper and book are published we don't know what is possible, equal or other wise.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Well of course we do.   We can judge possibilities based on our knowledge and experience of normal human behaviour and standard procedure.  In the circumstances we have, it is far more sensible to conclude that the "missing" samples were simply of no interest to the documentary beyond what we already had and had no interesting back story to reveal.  This is far more likely than them having come up with unknown hominid DNA and the documentary being happy to ignore this despite that being the whole point of the documentary in the first place.  It is not impossible, if there are some bizarre and unprecedented circumstances of which we are as yet unaware, that this is the case but it is exceedingly unlikely compared to the prosaic explanation.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Llawgoch

[indiefoot]

^ So you've moved from what is possible to what is likely as if the two were interchangeable.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Well if possibility doesn't carry an element of probability then "equally possible" doesn't carry any meaning at all.  If we're going with possible being a  zero-one condition, then it's possible Britney Spears has shot a Bigfoot and hasn't told us about it yet.  But that's meaninglessly pointless.

[Guest guillaume]

Indiefoot, the notion of what's possible or not in the bigfoot world interests me.

 

Is it possible that I'm a bigfoot?  Or not?

 

I'd like to encourage any believer to answer.

 

 

[southernyahoo]

I think the big question is whether it is possible that bigfoot could be human. I'd say it likely is "technically" but that would not make you a bigfoot because there is likely a difference in genetics, but not enough to remove bigfoot from the genus homo.

[Guest]

southernyahoo- actually during the review of any DNA report and part of the classification process,a series of studies aimed at the degree of personage would be performed; even if the DNA would show very, very close to Homo Sapiens. Just part of the process.

[indiefoot]

Indiefoot, the notion of what's possible or not in the bigfoot world interests me.

 

Is it possible that I'm a bigfoot?  Or not?

 

I'd like to encourage any believer to answer.

What's possible or not possible is the same in the bigfoot world as any where else, they are the same world , same rules.

 

I have no reason to believe you are or are not any percentage related to what we call Bigfoot, although I have to assume it's possible if they can indeed mate with Hss. We don't know at this time.

 

I only ask that folks not interchange terms in a discussion. Possible and likely are quite different.