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

[Guest]

 The short furred animal hairs though should probably have been substituted for others.

 

Like finding a hair on the ground in a garden where no bigfoot was ever seen nor any tracks ever found

[Cotter]

^^^

 

Can you expand on that Gearman?

[georgerm]

Thanks Chelefoot and Southernyahoo for more information on the sample gathering. I searched the net for more information, and found the article on the bear samples. This is a set back and would like to know what Sykes finds with other samples.

 

 

Bryan Sykes, a respected geneticist at Oxford University in the U.K., this week reported the findings of a yearlong project that aimed to rigorously test hair and tissue samples that were claimed to have belonged to the elusive creature. "I put out a call for Yeti, Bigfoot, and Sasquatch hairs in 2012, and I received a good response from all over the world," Sykes told NBC News. One of the most promising samples that Sykes received included hairs attributed to a Yeti mummy in the northern Indian region of Ladakh; the hairs were purportedly collected by a French mountaineer who was shown the corpse 40 years ago. Another sample was a single hair that was found about a decade ago in Bhutan, some 800 miles (1,290 kilometers) away from Ladakh. According to Sykes, the DNA from these two samples matched the genetic signature of a polar bear jawbone that was found in the Norwegian Arctic in 2004. Scientists say the jawbone could be up to 120,000 years old..............................read more http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131021-yeti-abominable-snowman-bigfoot-polar-bear-cryptozoology/

Edited December 3, 2013 by georgerm

[southernyahoo]

 

Like finding a hair on the ground in a garden where no bigfoot was ever seen nor any tracks ever found

Perhaps like that, but also to consider the length of the hair and presence or absence of undercoat etc.

BF hair on average is reported to be 4 to 6 inches long. Primates have no undercoat, atleast in the apes, and will lose hair as individual strands, no clumps, according to Fahrenbach.  

[Guest]

^^^

 

Can you expand on that Gearman?

Refering to Brit version Episode 2 Bigfoot Files, touching tale by enlightened teary eyed N.A. finding his inner Indian after hearing a possible Sasquatch vocalization outside his home (nothing else) then submitting a hair sample he is positive was Sasquatch even though he admit to not ever seeing it or finding tracks... while all teary eyed to the beautful truth coom bay ya

 

Perhaps like that, but also to consider the length of the hair and presence or absence of undercoat etc.

BF hair on average is reported to be 4 to 6 inches long. Primates have no undercoat, atleast in the apes, and will lose hair as individual strands, no clumps, according to Fahrenbach.  

Main point no general hair specilizing biologist screened the hairs... unlike your OK sample SY that had passed that inspection by a biologist declaring not bear and not human If I recall... human like but different and unknown essentially

Edited December 3, 2013 by GEARMAN

[Cotter]

^Thx Gearman...

 

(my first reaction was 'you've got to be kidding me')

 

Haven't watched the episodes yet, so I appreciate the background.

[Guest DWA]

Thanks Chelefoot and Southernyahoo for more information on the sample gathering. I searched the net for more information, and found the article on the bear samples. This is a set back and would like to know what Sykes finds with other samples.

 

 

Bryan Sykes, a respected geneticist at Oxford University in the U.K., this week reported the findings of a yearlong project that aimed to rigorously test hair and tissue samples that were claimed to have belonged to the elusive creature. "I put out a call for Yeti, Bigfoot, and Sasquatch hairs in 2012, and I received a good response from all over the world," Sykes told NBC News. One of the most promising samples that Sykes received included hairs attributed to a Yeti mummy in the northern Indian region of Ladakh; the hairs were purportedly collected by a French mountaineer who was shown the corpse 40 years ago. Another sample was a single hair that was found about a decade ago in Bhutan, some 800 miles (1,290 kilometers) away from Ladakh. According to Sykes, the DNA from these two samples matched the genetic signature of a polar bear jawbone that was found in the Norwegian Arctic in 2004. Scientists say the jawbone could be up to 120,000 years old..............................read more http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131021-yeti-abominable-snowman-bigfoot-polar-bear-cryptozoology/

I don't call finding an unrecorded ecotype of the polar bear a "setback."  This smacked my gob harder than "primate, unknown" would have, and lends some credence to dzu-teh - acknowledged by natives to be a bear - possibly being a quite anomalous bear.

 

Plus, it does nothing to contradict the primate people insist they are seeing.  In fact, it actualy reinforces it.  As Adam Davies notes:

 

As to the findings in this episode, then they certainly don’t settle “The mystery of the Yeti once and for all†as the documentary makers claim (not Professor Sykes you will note). Rather, they point to a consistency with local legends, which point to two or three possible Yetis, one of which is a bear. So this exciting discovery seems to vindicate local legends rather then contradict them.

Edited December 3, 2013 by DWA

[Oonjerah]

Listening to Dr. Sykes, reading what Rhettman Mullis says, I do not think there is any

strong agreement between the Bigfoot Files British TV show starring Mark Evans and

the Sykes Sartori Oxford Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project.

 

The Bigfoot Files is TV show entertainment; it has it's own agenda; I suspect most of

the script was written before-around-&-in spite of Dr. Sykes' findings.  

 

Sykes Sartori ... Hominid Project, I believe, is science taking a look at the evidence.

The only agenda is to find out. I do not Equate Sykes' work with the TV show at all! 

 

Hopefully, this is the last time I'll say that in here. 

 

Like most here, I want him to find evidence of Bigfoot. . . . Waiting ... patiently. 

Edited December 4, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Guest]

If i were you I wouldn't put too much stock into what Rhettman Mullis says on the behalf of Dr Sykes, either.

[Oonjerah]

^^ Thank you, Stinky. I really don't know him at all, eventho I've been to his Bigfootology site & FB quite a few times. 

 

I did stumble upon something the other day that made me wonder about Mullis

knowing Igor. Burtsev and Zana were shown before, 2006, in "Is It Real? The

Last Living Neanderthal (Russian Bigfoot)"

So Bigfoot Files, episode 2, with Igor & the skulls of Zana & Kwit was a repeat-rehash.

... I said, "Hmmmm." 

 

There was a closure apparent in the 2 documentaries. In The Last Living Neanderthal

doc, Burtsev's female skull was dismissed as being "certainly not Zana," because it

was African. ... But now in Bigfoot Files in Russia, the same skull is Zana after all, and

she was an African instead of an Almasty, and shown to be related to Kwit as well as

her other heirs. 

 

Burtsev and Mullis too, no doubt, knew that Zana's DNA had been tested at least once

before by Dr. Disotell. Yes?

[Guest]

I sat at the same table as Mullis at the closing banquet of John Green's tribute Sasquatch Summit in 2011.  It was several hours that I'm sorry to say I'll never get back. I'm not a fan. PM me for details if you'd like.

[chelefoot]

^Thx Gearman...

 

(my first reaction was 'you've got to be kidding me')

 

Haven't watched the episodes yet, so I appreciate the background.

It made no sense whatsoever to me why they included that sample. It could have been anything but a Sasquatch.

 

 

 

Burtsev and Mullis too, no doubt, knew that Zana's DNA had been tested at least once

before by Dr. Disotell. Yes?

 

Yes he did. He said that they wanted to know if there was Neanderthal in her DNA. He said once they determined that there wasn't, they stopped without looking further at what was there.  I watched him talk on a blogcast with Steve Alcorn and Rictor.

[southernyahoo]

 

^^ Thank you, Stinky. I really don't know him at all, eventho I've been to his Bigfootology site & FB quite a few times. 

 

I did stumble upon something the other day that made me wonder about Mullis

knowing Igor. Burtsev and Zana were shown before, 2006, in "Is It Real? The

Last Living Neanderthal (Russian Bigfoot)"

So Bigfoot Files, episode 2, with Igor & the skulls of Zana & Kwit was a repeat-rehash.

... I said, "Hmmmm." 

 

There was a closure apparent in the 2 documentaries. In The Last Living Neanderthal

doc, Burtsev's female skull was dismissed as being "certainly not Zana," because it

was African. ... But now in Bigfoot Files in Russia, the same skull is Zana after all, and

she was an African instead of an Almasty, and shown to be related to Kwit as well as

her other heirs. 

 

Burtsev and Mullis too, no doubt, knew that Zana's DNA had been tested at least once

before by Dr. Disotell. Yes?

 

 

I thought it was Kwit's skull that was tested. Anyways, his mtDNA would be the same as Zana's, so Zana was subsaharan modern human or possibly more ancient.

 

Disotell only went as far as to say modern human based on some portion of mtDNA , which would be different from Neanderthals, and was his aim for his testing.

 

I think Igor was probably hopeful there was something more to be found than just modern human in the mtDNA. Kwit's nuDNA might have been interesting.

[georgerm]

GEARMAN, on 02 Dec 2013 - 7:42 PM, said:


Same thing I said right after they aired.. Where was the pre-screening? Why did crap samples get in ..was it planned to add fodder to a tv show to make us look bad or just taking the word of the all mighty bigfootologist ? LOL. The could have picked better samples but also hear they didnt accept the better ones that were offered.

 

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

 

 

This rings true to me.

        

 

 

 

 

I think for the purposes of the show they did take some samples on merit of who they come from. They seemed to have a focus on the PNW primarily, so I think that weighed against the inclusion of some samples. Having some negatives in the bunch allows them to show some objectivity too, so screening too strictly could have actually drawn criticism as well.

He wanted to address the cryptozoologists who wanted their samples tested and felt they had the goods without prejudging them too much which has been the cry from bigfootologists and cryptozoologists in general.

The short furred animal hairs though should probably have been substituted for others.

 

 

 

Bear hair can be identified under the microscope and BF hair has already been shown to match no animals in the Pacific Northwest, so why even test bear hair?

Why let out the ancient bear results if other samples are in the works?

The revelations of the Sykes/Sartori study is very disappointing and politics may have entered the study. After all, the research is being done in England where BF has never been spotted while Americans seem to be spotting BF all the time. Sykes/Sartori may be fearful of looking foolish if BF is proven so this 'bear' ploy has  worked well.  Is it a ploy?

Did they need to capture headlines so their study would be funded in the future?

DWA, I agree with your statements, since the 'bear' result is an important discovery. However, if they conclude their study at this point, then I question their science.

Several years ago, an acquaintance, and I sent in a slice off her BF skin with hair sample to a DNA lab.  The lab seemed to be unequipped to get DNA.  Why is getting BF DNA results to difficult? The acquaintance and her family witnessed the BF hitting their trailer about 30 years ago, while driving in a night rainstorm through the hills west of Roseburg, Oregon.

Edited December 4, 2013 by georgerm

[Guest DWA]

 

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

 

        

Why let out the ancient bear results if other samples are in the works?

DWA, I agree with your statements, since the 'bear' result is an important discovery. However, if they conclude their study at this point, then I question their science.

Several years ago, an acquaintance, and I sent in a slice off her BF skin with hair sample to a DNA lab.  The lab seemed to be unequipped to get DNA.  Why is getting BF DNA results to difficult? The acquaintance and her family witnessed the BF hitting their trailer about 30 years ago, while driving in a night rainstorm through the hills west of Roseburg, Oregon.

 

I'd think that there's at least one symptom of good science in this:  prosecuting tests, bear or not, until sure of exactly what they are.

 

Sykes felt the ancient-bear result zoologically significant.  Were I him, I wouldn't have put a lid on that one.  It's already ruffling feathers, particularly of one of the scientists who made the Svalbard find that the Himalayan samples match.  And we do still have to verify the result, and I'm sure Sykes knows that.  In fact he does;  he said, now we need to get in the field and find that bear.

 

The main issue in testing bigfoot is (1) no type specimen for comparison and (2) sheer incredulity which is making getting tests hard, and admission of what they might represent even harder.  Just my two cents.  Says much for Sykes that he's even doing this.

 

But I'd agree that if we're just calling case closed based on analysis of some dubious hair samples, well, that needs to stop.  We've gotten, as Adam Davies points out, significant possible substantiation of an anomalous bear, and natives have long said that one of the yeti types is indeed a bear.  So they're wrong about the rest?  Not based on Sykes alone they aren't.  These hair tests don't change anything (unless of course they lead the way to new discoveries).  Sykes can only test what's brought him.

Edited December 4, 2013 by DWA