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

[Guest wadaguy]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/oxford-makes-big-push-into-bigfoot-research-enlists-swiss-zoolo/

Brother sent this to me earlier, thought it was worth a look.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Can someone refresh my memory on Sykes? Is he the guy with the DNA test from years ago on the Yeti hair that came back as unknown, or goat or something?

Every time I read the name, I can only think of the one armed man from The Fugitive.

[Guest]

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

http://www.wolfson.o...ic/GBFs-v/OLCHP

Well, this is a quotation from the source given by yourself above (which is of course the only genuine source for this project): "In order to avoid misidentification of samples due to contamination, our preferred material is hair, although tissues will be considered."

Edited May 23, 2012 by darwinist

[Guest mariner]

Today on Canada's Broadcasting service

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/05/23/sci-bigfoot.html

[Guest]

@ Darwinist: Ok, so it's a matter of preference for this study, as opposed to a presumed superior quality of sample...

Edited May 23, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I merged one more of the many Sykes topics here, which puts Mulder's response out of context. He was answering Darwinist.

[Guest]

^Thanks FG! Fixed.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Read the last line in that cbc article above to see why folks like mulder might shake a fist at science every so often.

[Guest]

^Indeed, a prime example of unscientific thinking. Read the first few responses too...

Edited May 24, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest BFSleuth]

I think everyone here has noticed that whenever a major news story like this breaks, that many different publications will throw essentially the same story online. Rather than referencing that same story over and over again in different publications, it would be nice to wait until someone actually publishes a new story. That might be in another day or two before the journalistic "me too" thing plays out.

I'm not sure why this "me too" thing happens, perhaps all the publications are simply going with whoever wrote the first article then publishing it as theirs (sometimes with reference to the original article), or perhaps journalism is simply not creating enough income to keep writers on staff that can write something fresh. I hope that in the next couple of days we might have more insightful articles written.

I've also noticed that most of the publications that allow for reader comments invariably are filled with knee-jerk cynicism. Some publications are putting this in the "weird stories" section instead of the "science" section, so there's a clue how well the rest of the world perceives this news.

[southernyahoo]

There is a couple of issues with this Sykes study. One is that he is opening the scope too wide, and the other is cutting the sample size to 20. He seems to be hoping for just something or one or two good samples of interest. Not the sample size needed to prove a population of new species. Another is the claim that he can write it up and get it published in two months Does he have a Journal in his back pocket or something here?

[bipedalist]

Saw on another thread where the word Oxford was confusing folks. Dr. Nekaris (part of Bigfootology team of Rhettman Mullis Jr. ) represents Oxford-Brookes University. Dr. Sykes, Wolfson College of the University of Oxford. I think folks are confusing the two over in the Ketchum thread. Dr. Sartori is the Lausanne, Switzerland (Museum of Zoology) connection where the archives of Dr. Heuvelmans reside.

More info. on future Animal Planet show of Dr. Nekaris:

http://launch.it/lau...pping-unparall/

http://www.nocturama.org/

Edited May 24, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest UPs]

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.

Of course those who have spent their own time and resources finding, documenting, and submitting DNA samples deserve a great deal of credit for their hard work (including some BFF members). My thoughts on singling her out at this time is because over the years, it seems the test results would always come back human, contaminated, or too degraded. I think it is fair to say that she dug deeper and the result is more DNA studies which is what I had hoped for regardless of the final outcome. I consider it a turning point and a significant one.

I also hope that this new project will be somewhat isolated from much of the less desirable side of bf world ie. egos, insinuations, politics, etc. Unfortunately, per the CBC article linked above, the first shot over the bow has already been made by a professor at KU. UPs

[Guest BFSleuth]

That "shot over the bow" is a rehash of morphology analysis of what I remember to be a sample taken in Canada. I believe the KU professor has stated this in the past.

[Guest UPs]

This is the Quots that I was referring to and I should have put it in my post.....

From the CBC news article

David Frayer, a professor of biological anthropology at Kansas University, told The Associated Press in an email that "No serious scientist [would] treat Yeti as a worthy research project."

He said previous tests on supposed Yeti hairs have already been done — "and they turned out to be from a bison."

These kind of snide remarks have come up from time to time and I think they are very unprofessional (first quote). It probably will not be the last either. Personally, I have a very close relative that has a quite impressive vitae and is a retired department head at a fairly large university. I simply cannot envision this type of quote coming from a respected university professor within the context of the article. Hence, the shot over the bow comment. UPs