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

[southernyahoo]

We have physical biological specimens in the form of hair and tissue that can be typed as hominin or hominid.

 

Specimen= DNA = critter, yes, the problem is that it is not conclusively shown to be a new species as yet, and that might be because  BF isn't a new species, unless the nuDNA can show otherwise. The only reason this should be the case is if bigfoot is a human hybrid. If it weren't, the DNA would be all we would need to open the academic doors.  

 

The tests should be repeatable, and there is more of atleast one of the samples.

 

For those who need proof of bigfoot (as a new species), this will haunt them eternally until one is brought in. Unfortunately the study of such a specimen would wind up embroiled in a legal, moral and ethical quagmire.

[Guest lightheart]

I agree with your post 100% AH. You addressed both of the things that occupy my thoughts.

 

I think perhaps erectus and that the DNA will match in the database in the near future with the new technology to analyze more and more ancient DNA. Maybe several different offshoots ..... those that remained in Africa for some time.....those that mated with neanderthal .....and maybe an Asian version....

 

The understanding, compassion, respect, and communication are what I ponder a great deal  I believe that while it may be next to impossible to learn their language or proto-language completely because modern humans may not be capable of creating all the sounds, it will still be possible to communicate enough to bridge the gap and establish relationship at some level. I feel certain that this is already being done in situations that we know about and in many that we do not. I also feel confident that the stick structures have meaning and probably have a connection of some sort to the paleolithic symbols being decoded.....just too many coincidences and similarities for there not to be.l....

 

The telepathy thing is probably one way of communicating at multiple levels.....just so hard to know for sure if it is your thoughts or a message of some sort. For me this is not as huge a  stretch as it is for some.....no insult or judgement intended. I just listened to a bog talk broadcast with John Mioncynski (sp?) and he even mentioned that there seems to be something to the telepathy thing. I will start a thread with the link.

Edited December 24, 2013 by lightheart

[georgerm]

We have physical biological specimens in the form of hair and tissue that can be typed as hominin or hominid.

 

Specimen= DNA = critter, yes, the problem is that it is not conclusively shown to be a new species as yet, and that might be because  BF isn't a new species, unless the nuDNA can show otherwise. The only reason this should be the case is if bigfoot is a human hybrid. If it weren't, the DNA would be all we would need to open the academic doors.  

 

The tests should be repeatable, and there is more of atleast one of the samples.

 

For those who need proof of bigfoot (as a new species), this will haunt them eternally until one is brought in. Unfortunately the study of such a specimen would wind up embroiled in a legal, moral and ethical quagmire.

 

 

If BF is a hybrid why would the nuDNA not clearly show this?  DNA is supposed to show the difference between animal species or hybrids.

 

Nice post Lightheart and perceptive.

[Guest Llawgoch]

- and 'unknown primate' has come back more than once - 

 

 

 

Saying this repeatedly does not make it so.

 

Can you give one specific example?

[Guest DWA]

_{And satisfy you?  Nope.}

[MIB]

If BF is a hybrid why would the nuDNA not clearly show this?  DNA is supposed to show the difference between animal species or hybrids.

 

It would if you have a known type sample of each type.   I'm not sure that's entirely true where you are comparing an unknown to a known.   Especially if they are really really close.

 

Ketchum aside, and possibly Sykes through we haven't seen his results, I don't think anyone has done nuDNA testing on a purported bigfoot sample, or at least not come forward with the results afterwards.   Where DNA was retrieved, it was clearly a known animal, or it was so human it was presumed to be contamination and the sample disposed of rather than being tested.   If bigfoot is very near us, genetically, that fact may account for the appearance of contamination, thus account for the lack of testing ... a vicious little circle.

 

MIB

Edited December 24, 2013 by MIB

[Guest DWA]

I guess what those of us who didn't go for their battlefield commission in genetics over this would be asking at this point is:

 

Is it possible to separate a sample contaminated by human DNA from a sample inherently containing it?

[MIB]

That's a good question.   "Maybe." I was told that if you have a mixed sample you should get two different graphs, one overlaying the other.   If the "other" is quite close to human, the difference might be hard to detect.  If it is considerably different, it should be more apparent.   So the closer to human, biologically, bigfoot is, the tougher it is going to be to tell whether you've got a valid sample or contamination.

 

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.  (And someone else will scoff if I'm right.)

 

I think where this leads is we need a much better chain of custody.  We need a witness seeing the sample as it is being left to be visually certain of what left it rather than working from an assumption about what left it.   Then we need someone willing to spend the bigger bucks to do the nuDNA testing rather than stopping at mtDNA testing.

 

MIB

[Guest Llawgoch]

_{And satisfy you?  Nope.}

 

Thought not.

[southernyahoo]

If BF is a hybrid why would the nuDNA not clearly show this?  DNA is supposed to show the difference between animal species or hybrids.

 

Nice post Lightheart and perceptive.

 

The nuDNA recombines differently in each individual, so it would be rather difficult to find the consistency in those results to show where they are consistently different from humans. It would take a lot more study across many samples. Ketchum felt she had evidence of this in her paper as there was some novel sequence at some loci and from samples other than the three whole genomes. From her study this would be the only hope to prove a new species albeit from the genus homo with fully modern human mtDNA.

 

 

 

It would if you have a known type sample of each type.   I'm not sure that's entirely true where you are comparing an unknown to a known.   Especially if they are really really close.

 

Ketchum aside, and possibly Sykes through we haven't seen his results, I don't think anyone has done nuDNA testing on a purported bigfoot sample, or at least not come forward with the results afterwards.   Where DNA was retrieved, it was clearly a known animal, or it was so human it was presumed to be contamination and the sample disposed of rather than being tested.   If bigfoot is very near us, genetically, that fact may account for the appearance of contamination, thus account for the lack of testing ... a vicious little circle.

 

MIB

 

If there was at least one locus that consistently showed mutations not found in modern humans it would demonstrate an isolated group of people and that would be a start, but it would have to go much further than that to call it a new species. JMHO.  The Amelogenin locus would be the best place to look, like Ketchum did. It would be in the Paternal lineage for sure. Yes that is nuDNA 

[southernyahoo]

Saying this repeatedly does not make it so.

 

Can you give one specific example?

 

Here's something you can follow up on @ around 44 to 46 minutes into this interview.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/44524-interview-with-john-mioncynski/

[Guest Llawgoch]

That's talking about hair morphology, not DNA, and doesn't seem to have been followed through.

 

I shouldn't have to "follow up" on anything.  It's up to the people who continually claim that DNA tests have come back as "unknown primate" to tell us when and where those supposed results happened.  It seems nobody can give even the most basic idea of this, yet people continue to claim that it has happened, without any ambiguity or qualification.

 

Do you personally know even the rough details (the lab, who submitted it, when) of a DNA test that has come back as "unknown primate"?

Edited December 25, 2013 by Llawgoch

[southernyahoo]

Unknown primate DNA, no, It's only in the morphology that it comes back as unknown primate, The DNA, when mtDNA is tested , it's human. I figured you knew that by now.

 

Glad you listened to it though......, it was to show how results get misconstrued.

[Guest Llawgoch]

^^

Ok then, we agree.  I was replying to DWA's claim below that DNA tests come back as unknown primate..  he says this repeatedly and refuses to provide examples when challenged.  Glad you also agree that there aren't any.

 

If anyone knows of any and can give an example as you did for the hair morphology, where he cites both an institution and the name of an individual, it would lend some substance to that claim.  Currently I see none.

 

 

The problem is:  from the blood/hair/tissue of what?

 

Nobody will be satisfied with a DNA result - and 'unknown primate' has come back more than once - when we won't be able to point to what it is.

 

I'm not aware of any species accepted based on a DNA read.

[LeafTalker]

Southernyahoo, that interview with John Mionczynski was fabulous. I saw Lightheart's post about it the other day, listened to it from there, and really enjoyed it. 

 

You are one of my heroes, southernyahoo. I hope you know how profoundly comforting it is to many of us that you post here. My deepest, deepest thanks and appreciation to you on this holiday!!!!