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

[Guest BFSleuth]

I have concerns about the methodology of the Sykes project.

1) Hair is the preferred source for the study. DNA is difficult to extract from the shaft of the hair. Hair roots are easy. If from the shaft, at best only mitochondrial DNA is likely to be practicable. Even that will be difficult, and maybe impossible, according to Ketchum and others experiences doing so for BF. An FBI report about general human hair extraction indicates that the efficiency of extraction even depends upon hair color.

Not true that hair is the preferred source organic material. Read the submission requirements. Any material is requested.

http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/academic/GBFs-v/OLCHP

[southernyahoo]

I think spurfoot was speaking from what is generally known in the field of forensics. While Sykes and his team may want any material, he will still have better luck with tissue than with hair shafts. Then there is the issue of using the correct primers. If he isn't consulting with Ketchum on that he may waist samples getting the PCR to work. I'm in agreement with spurfoot.

[Guest spurfoot]

In saying that "hair is the preferred source" for the study, that was a reference to Syke's stated preference. It certainly would not be MY preference. Primers won't do the job. A whole genome analysis is needed. I agree with SY that samples might be wasted by an improperly designed study. That was intended to be my implication also.

[bipedalist]

My understanding is that all tissues would be considered mostly on the basis of documentation and provenance and passing some screening requirements.

[Guest slimwitless]

I'd be willing to bet Sykes already knows quite a bit about what Ketchum has uncovered (and I'm not talking gossip from blogs, forums or FB).

Edited May 23, 2012 by slimwitless

[BobbyO]

I'm with you Slim.

Parts 1, 2 & 3 of Doc Meldrum on the Project from Richland earlier in the month.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Well, I will say, without giving anything away, that Sally Ramey (who is directly plugged into the Ketchum Study) knows next to nothing about the Sykes study, which leads me to believe Dr. Ketchum doesn't either, which leads me to believe that there is zero communication or information sharing between them.

[Guest]

For whatever it is worth, I did a quick search of Sykes' publications over the past few years and he has a ton of experience in extraction and sequencing methods . HIs focus is different than the ketchum study for sure , but having a top notch molecular geneticist on the job to me seems as good if not far better than a veterinarian. It is my guess that whether direct communication is occurring between the two groups, he is aware of the pitfalls that she may have faced and is certainly well versed on the methodology. Even if he is not approaching this from the angle that many of us would like to see, he is still bringing credibility to the subject and his studies will hopefully spark the interests of others .

[Guest slimwitless]

I also doubt there's any sharing between Sykes or Ketchum but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what she's uncovered. There are other people that have seen her results.

[Guest Particle Noun]

True Slim. We'll see!

[Guest]

Thanks Bobby O for posting the videos. I just watched them and caught up to date. My hope is that those fortunate persons who have habituation situations, the Olympic Project and other like minded groups submit as many samples as they possibly can so that Dr. Sykes has sufficient material to really extract DNA and get the data we've all been waiting years on. I feel hopefully that this study, with definitive sufficient samples will yield results.

[Guest BFSleuth]

In a search for Sykes related literature I found this gem of an article written in 2002 by Bert Thompson Ph.D., Neandertal Man - Another Look:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=625

Much more information has come out since 2002, but this is a good indicator of the direction of thinking of the scientific community. Note this quote:

"The implications are that the Neandertals did not evolve into fully modern humans, that they were a different species from modern humans, and that they were just one of many proto-human types that were failed evolutionary experiments. We alone evolved to full humanity (1998, 12[1]:87)."

And this:

"Over the past several years, the scientific community has witnessed (not always to its liking, I might add) a serious “redefining†of the Neanderthal people. Some anthropologists of the past depicted them as culturally stagnant, if not outright stupid, individuals. In 1996, however, researchers were forced to reevaluate their long-held views on Neanderthals, due to the discovery of musical instruments and items of personal ornamentation (similar to our jewelry) [see: Hublin, et al., 1996; “Neanderthal Noisemaker,†1996; Folger and Menon, 1997]. Furthermore, almost all anthropologists recognize burial rituals as being not just strictly associated with humans, but as a distinctly religious act as well. That being the case, the strongest evidence to date that the Neanderthals were, in fact, human, is that at four different sites where Neanderthal fossils were found, Neanderthals and modern humans were buried together! As Lubenow noted: “That Neandertals and anatomically modern humans were buried together constitutes strong evidence that they lived together, worked together, intermarried, and were accepted as members of the same family, clan, and community...."

Baranov noted that there is folklore regarding the hairy man stories from Russia and elsewhere that there is sometimes a symbiotic relationship between peasants or shepherds and their local hairy men. http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Bayanov.pdf

[Guest]

Dr. Ketchum should be given credit for getting the ball rolling as far as DNA goes whether her paper is published or not. .......

Under the given circumstances you´re referring to, the original sample submitters should be given the credit, since they were contacting a commercial DNA-lab in order to get their samples analysed, thus getting the ball rolling.

Edited May 23, 2012 by darwinist

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Whoever comes out with he verified proof, gets the credit IMO. Otherwise we'll all be thanking Biscardi before too long.

[Guest]

...........

Well, this doesnt indicate anything more than a "monsterquest" style investigation. While Dr. Ketchum is after proofing a species, or subgroup or what have you. This study seems to only look for single anomaly samples. A single sample can not proof much. How many times there was a DNA result like unknown or unknown primate? I think there were many.

............

The only thing to look foreword, is that if the Ketchum Report comes out this study might change an try to test Ketchums hypothesis. They might just jump on the train.

This is hardly true, and I don´t really understand your thoughts.

This should be a day for the believers to cheer, it´s what they have asked for all along: Heavyweight scientists looking at the combined "wildman" enigma. Now it´s happening, isn´t it?

How many times have we read proponents arguing that "the hairy guy´s", wether called Sasquatch, Yeti, Almasty and many other names, were part of a worldwide phenomonon and the entities were of the same kin ?

I´m with you George, I was only referring to UP´s post.