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

[MIB]

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.

 

Is there a published report on that incident?   Somewhere I can get more details about the precise location, date, etc?   If not, would you be willing to post (or PM me if you want it confidential)?   I used to spend quite a bit of time out that way.   I like to take pictures of old sighting locations and look around for "why".   Somethin' to do when I'm roaming.

 

MIB

[georgerm]

Is there a published report on that incident?   Somewhere I can get more details about the precise location, date, etc?   If not, would you be willing to post (or PM me if you want it confidential)?   I used to spend quite a bit of time out that way.   I like to take pictures of old sighting locations and look around for "why".   Somethin' to do when I'm roaming.

 

MIB

 

MIB, this project and pictures of the samples was a thread on the old forum. Can someone call up threads from the old forum? 

 

Peter Burns called me last year and was interested in retesting the samples.

 

If I can find her number, it would be interesting to test for DNA from the hair as Sykes has done. Maybe it's the one sample he is looking for?

[georgerm]

 

The Sykes/Sartori study brings sample collection into question. Why could they not have come to people like Branco or Dr. Fahrenbach and others whom specialize in BF hair identification? Was it sloppy science during the collection stages?

 

 

 

Branco said his about BF hair identification.

 

 

Branco, "As I said; I can't tell for certain the difference between the "Big Red's" hair from a Caucasian human's hair. Dr. Fahrenbach says he could determine BF hair by a slight variations in the medulla when compared to a humans. I have examined hundreds of human hair samples and compared them against some hair that undoubtedly came from some of the "Big Reds". I could not discern the differences. Although the unusual debris in the matted hair and the very worn and frayed distal ends of them were pretty clear indications the hair was not from a typical human."

 

 

 

Read more on hair collection:

 

 

 

Hair collection report: On August 5, 1995, two separate sets of hair samples were collected by three persons (P. Freeman, B. Laughery, and W. Sumerlin) in the Blue Mountains east of Walla Walla, Washington. The group first tracked three sets of fresh foot prints, then found freshly twisted-off trees with hair caught in them, and within a short time later observed a sasquatch at less than 100 feet with binoculars. The hair was sent to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (Beaverton, Oregon), who determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been not cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion..................read more    http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm

 

 

[southernyahoo]

      

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

I don't think there was much screening by morphology. I'm really not sure what merited inclusion of a sample but it looks like location of where it was found was one factor and another might have been in the submitter's presentation of the sample.  Since Sykes felt like he was in one way answering the call of cryptozoologists for science to take them seriously he may have wanted to take their word for their samples and then deliver a lesson on being so certain about them. We learn as much through finding the negatives as we do the rare positive, if not more.

 

I think he was generous to spend his own money doing the tests, but perhaps well enough compensated through the documentary. I think his results are probably acurate, and he just might have something about humans to put in his paper. He might be treating the bear results differently on the Yeti samples., Sort of like the new trend in science is to share the data prior to writing it up in a paper.

[HOLDMYBEER]

MIB, this project and pictures of the samples was a thread on the old forum. Can someone call up threads from the old forum? 

 

Peter Burns called me last year and was interested in retesting the samples.

 

If I can find her number, it would be interesting to test for DNA from the hair as Sykes has done. Maybe it's the one sample he is looking for?

 

George,  We talked about this by phone some time ago. This particular sample was vetted by myself but could not reach a level of probability. The brother, the only surviving witness to the event, told an entirely different version of events leading up to the discovery of the sample.

 

None the less the sample was brought to the attention of Bryan Sykes warts and all. He met with the owner just prior to the deadline.

[Guest]

I find it pretty hypocritcal that for years people are claiming science won't look at Bigfoot and now we have like the top DNA guy involved and people are already attacking him because they aren't getting the results they want.

 

He found hair that had DNA for a species previously thought to be completely exctint. Give the guy some credit. He is providing answers. Answers are good. Perhaps with a little more patience and the right samples he will solve this thing once and for all.

[georgerm]

I don't think there was much screening by morphology. I'm really not sure what merited inclusion of a sample but it looks like location of where it was found was one factor and another might have been in the submitter's presentation of the sample.  Since Sykes felt like he was in one way answering the call of cryptozoologists for science to take them seriously he may have wanted to take their word for their samples and then deliver a lesson on being so certain about them. We learn as much through finding the negatives as we do the rare positive, if not more.

 

I think he was generous to spend his own money doing the tests, but perhaps well enough compensated through the documentary. I think his results are probably acurate, and he just might have something about humans to put in his paper. He might be treating the bear results differently on the Yeti samples., Sort of like the new trend in science is to share the data prior to writing it up in a paper.

 

Agree and well written.

 

George,  We talked about this by phone some time ago. This particular sample was vetted by myself but could not reach a level of probability. The brother, the only surviving witness to the event, told an entirely different version of events leading up to the discovery of the sample.

 

None the less the sample was brought to the attention of Bryan Sykes warts and all. He met with the owner just prior to the deadline.

 

What did the son say about the BF incident? Well there should be enough hair for future studies since she had a square inch piece of dried skin with hair at one time. Is Sykes going to test the hair?

 

Bipedalcurious, I see your point.  Bad science is like taking a vacation on a plane that crashes. You would have been better off by staying home. All 12 samples failing is a crash. Samples should come from hair experts such as Fahrenback and Branco, and a few field guys. Sykes contacted some unknowns in the BF field and took their word for samples. Who was the fellow doing wood knocks, then return knocks sounded like heavy booms. Did they ask well known BF investigators to collect samples?

 

To have all 12 come back negative, shows something was really wrong with sample gathering. Imho, this is a set back for bigfootology, especially if Sykes concludes his study now. Will other labs be hesitant to do more testing?

 

This has also cause skeptic family members, to laugh at my beliefs...................ouch.

Edited December 6, 2013 by georgerm

[chelefoot]

To have all 12 come back negative, shows something was really wrong with sample gathering. Imho, this is a set back for bigfootology, especially if Sykes concludes his study now. Will other labs be hesitant to do more testing?

12 out of over 35

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I am trying to cover all the threads in a night, never before

accomplished, just joking, but what is at work here should be

of no surprise. The fact that we have limited time, resources,

technology, know how(sorry BFRO), and patience(BFF), it should

not be an wonder that we come up empty....

[georgerm]

12 out of over 35

 

 

That's good to know. So are you saying there are more than 23 more samples to test?  Let's keep our fingers crossed, since their method of sample collection could be another let down.

 

 

 

Hello Lake CB, are you in some way connected to the Sykes/Sartori study?

 

Lake CB,  " we have limited time, resources,

technology, know how(sorry BFRO), and patience(BFF), it should

not be an wonder that we come up empty...."

 

[Guest DWA]

I simply don't think that any proponent should be wasting a significant amount of angst on this.

 

The findings will be interesting (the "Himalayan polar bear" about as intriguing as I could conceivably have hoped for).   But this isn't biologists putting the best evidence forward; it's random (not a pejorative) people sending in a bunch of suspected stuff.  No evidence that any sample was taken from a live (or dead), truly anomalous subject that we're aware of.  One expects the results one gets.

Edited December 6, 2013 by DWA

[chelefoot]

That's good to know. So are you saying there are more than 23 more samples to test?  Let's keep our fingers crossed, since their method of sample collection could be another let down.

 

From what I have read, they had tested over 30 and just recently chose 5 more samples to the last tested for the paper. The contract with the TV show only was to include the results of 12 samples.

[Guest]

I agree DWA. I haven't found anything useful here yet.

[BobbyO]

To have all 12 come back negative, shows something was really wrong with sample gathering. Imho, this is a set back for bigfootology, especially if Sykes concludes his study now. Will other labs be hesitant to do more testing?

.

Not if they had a body in front of them they wouldn't.

[JDL]

Given the possibility that bigfoot DNA might be very similar to human DNA, have the studies taken the additional step of collecting DNA from those within the chain of custody for each sample to eliminate or identify them individually as the possible source of any apparently human results?