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

[dmaker]

I'm speechless.

 

I think I need to buy a lottery ticket today or something...

 

Had to plus you.  

[Oonjerah]

Dr. Michel Sartori

Research Associate University of Hamburg 

Zoological Institute

 

This article (June 2012) about Michel Sartori & Yeti is in French, 

but easily translated tho somewhat unclear. 

 

UNUSUAL - Science starts looking for the yeti 

http://www.ledauphine.com/societe/2012/06/18/la-science-se-lance-a-la-recherche-du-yeti?image=0E8E89B6-74E0-4AD9-87A2-8062C175A77E

 

"Bernard Heuvelmans. The Belgian, who died in 2001, bequeathed his 

land to the museum of Lausanne in 1999. A collection not quite trivial, 

having spent his life in the crypto-zoology, serious discipline that 

examines the existence of animals, say "plausible". ... 

 

"Last year, Brian Sykes, a famous Oxford geneticist, came to consult 

the existence of Heuvelmans funds, mainly written documentation compiled 

so encyclopaedic. In talking with Michel Sartori, the two men had an idea: 

check the existence of the famous yeti. "Genetic sequence of all mammalian 

species are now known. The idea is to compare the supposed traces of the 

yeti with this file ".

 

"For years, fetishists of the beast and scientific societies have collected 

hair, teeth, or excrement. Hence the appeal to the world to collect these 

samples famous .... The program began in early June. Conference in two

weeks in Japan, Michel Sartori had little time to deal with it.

 

"This is promising, we have already received a half-dozen samples that  

do not just cranks. But honestly, I think you will find nothing. Or goat 

hair or bear. My scientific skepticism tells me that the yeti does not 

exist ", puts Michel Sartori, which however requires to be contradicted 

in a rigorous scientific approach.

 

"The descendant of Neanderthal?

 

"And if the yeti should exist anyway, what would it be? "The Caucasian peasants 

spoke of red eyes in the night. Since then, we have learned that Neanderthals 

had a retinal carpet reflected light and gave the appearance to the eye. These 

stories are troubling. They have not been invented. "Le Yeti could it be a 

relic of this extinct branch of the human there 28,000 years?"

.......

 

I guess Sartori was never much of a Footer.  I did not know til now that

Drs. Sykes & Sartori began this investigation with a collection of artifacts

from a cryptozoologist, Bernard Heuvelmans.

 

I wonder what would have happened had Heuvelmans donated his 

treasures to someone more interested in unidentified evidence of

unknown creatures. It took about 10 years for Sartori to move on it. 

 

I am also curious to know if Sykes has identified the organic remains

from that collection. 

[southernyahoo]

Anyone heard from Rhetman on anything Sykes is planning to publish? Does he have anything to publish or was the the docu-show it?

[Guest Llawgoch]

Sarcasm is lost on you, isn't it?

 

For the record: 

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/other_forms_of_bigfoot_evidenc.html

 

 

Ok, so discounting the Sykes hair,as everyone has known for some time that turned out to be bear, we do actually have a claim in that first link that Ohio State University once said informally that something sent to them for testing was "unknown primate".  Of course as even the claimant says this is ALL they said, we don't know what they meant by it.  but I'm happy now that DWA can say "there was one example where it is claimed that a test came back as 'unknown primate', but the details of that test are unknown"  instead of constantly maintaining there are many examples of 'unknown primate' results which he refuses to cite.

 

Your second link, Sykes apart, neither makes claim of anything being 'unknown primate' (although it does imply unidentified mammal) nor specifies whether the tests were DNA testing or hair morphology.

DWA, the 2001 mystery hairs being discussed are not the recent polar bear stuff. Which, of course, puts to rest at least one of Mulders examples. Quite often that hair sample is trotted out as evidence of mystery DNA=bigfoot, while completely disregarding that Meldrum acknowledges that Sykes confirms for him that it was later identified as bear. It would be nice if people would stop using that example.

 

 

Helps to stay informed.  

 

 

I added the quote and the link to my earlier post.

 

Actually, no.  I believe that the Bhutan hair was indeed one of the two samples that Sykes subsequently maintained match the archaic polar bear.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

Well, Llawgoch and I agree on something.  A start.

 

I never found the post to which dmaker refers.  I didn't consider it worth the time, and considered my response far more instructive.  But looks like I was right anyway; I suspected I was, as (1) the timeframe for the Bhutan 'polar bear' find suspiciously matched the alleged 'earlier' find and (2) that find, which was indeed unresolved as last I'd heard, could not possibly have missed Sykes' attention as comparison samples and other possibilities opened up.  (The Svalbard find post-dates Sykes's "stumped" finding on the initial test; and I'm kinda thinking I would have seen a resolution had there been an earlier one.)

 

(But I cut slack here.  I really do.)

 

For the record, and I guess I've said this here before, I consider the 'polar bear' result exciting as hell.  THAT is about as unexpected a development as one could wish for.  As somebody who comes to this because he knows animals and animal evidence when he sees them, that one blew me away.  Heck, we already have evidence for yeti.  How much did we have for this?

 

Now as to the numerous "unknown primate" finds which have occurred, I have no interest in scanning the archives and documenting them for anyone who will accept nothing but a body as evidence let alone proof.  That I've read them is sufficient for me.  Anyone - including any scientist - who wants to bother expanding his horizons a bit can read.  Useful skill that.

Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Llawgoch]

Well, Llawgoch and I agree on something.  A start.

 

I never found the post to which dmaker refers.  I didn't consider it worth the time, and considered my response far more instructive.  But looks like I was right anyway; I suspected I was, as (1) the timeframe for the Bhutan 'polar bear' find suspiciously matched the alleged 'earlier' find and (2) that find, which was indeed unresolved as last I'd heard, could not possibly have missed Sykes' attention as comparison samples and other possibilities opened up.  (The Svalbard find post-dates Sykes's "stumped" finding on the initial test; and I'm kinda thinking I would have seen a resolution had there been an earlier one.)

 

(But I cut slack here.  I really do.)

 

For the record, and I guess I've said this here before, I consider the 'polar bear' result exciting as hell.  THAT is about as unexpected a development as one could wish for.  As somebody who comes to this because he knows animals and animal evidence when he sees them, that one blew me away.  Heck, we already have evidence for yeti.  How much did we have for this?

 

Now as to the numerous "unknown primate" finds which have occurred, I have no interest in scanning the archives and documenting them for anyone who will accept nothing but a body as evidence let alone proof.  That I've read them is sufficient for me.  Anyone - including any scientist - who wants to bother expanding his horizons a bit can read.  Useful skill that.

 

 

So you still maintain that there are numerous "unknown primate" DNA results, despite the inability of anybody to furnish any solid examples of any?

[Guest DWA]

What would a 'solid example' be?

 

Answer:

 

In the face of the evidence for sasquatch, doesn't matter enough for me to be the Bigfoot Skeptic Encyclopedia.

 

[and then get,..."yeah but that isn't proof of anything]

 

It's that whole work/gain equation rearing its ugly head.

 

There's a point at which one simply says:  hmmmmm...I know how I satisfy my curiosity about this topic....and....hmmmm...that is open to everyone...and....welllllll....a certain level of curiosity does appear, strictly to me now, to be a prerequisite...

Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA

[Oonjerah]

Anyone heard from Rhetman on anything Sykes is planning to publish? Does he have anything to publish or was the the docu-show it?

 

Yes. See post #1639 ... or click the link ... It's on amazon.co.uk; 

the book doesn't come up on amazon.com in the US last I looked. 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Yeti-Enigma-Dectective-Story/dp/1444791265/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1389809396&sr=8-10&keywords=Bryan+Sykes

 

 

As for his science paper coming out, I'd haunt Oxford-Lausanne

Project, last updated Aug 2013, for that news. 

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

 

[Guest Llawgoch]

What would a 'solid example' be?

 

Answer:

 

In the face of the evidence for sasquatch, doesn't matter enough for me to be the Bigfoot Skeptic Encyclopedia.

 

[and then get,..."yeah but that isn't proof of anything]

 

It's that whole work/gain equation rearing its ugly head.

 

 

A solid example would cite  who it was submitting the test, what institution carried it out, and what the result was.

 

In Mulder's one example that comes close, we lack an official result - even the submitter, it seems , is saying they never got an official result for that one.

 

I am not concerned with whether it is proof of anything.  This is not about whether Bigfoot exists;  it is about whether the numerous DNA tests that you claim have come back as unknown primate exist.  Whether they prove Bigfoot's existence is wholly irrelevant.  What you seem to want to do is to continue to claim that these tests exist without being questioned  while being unable to point to anything that confirms it.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

^^^All this being what it may, I just ask myself....why don't they just talk to the scientists who think this is real, and for whom I profess to carry not a drop of water at all, just to wonder why they'd be interested other than the evidence...?

Again, what I've read is sufficient for me...and what they have not read apparently sufficient for other folks.  There I am content to leave it.

I mean, I don't say, after every post, "here is the academic background that qualifies me to write in English," do I...?

 

at some point, you're getting my information base, and not how I came by it.  My being at some point very disengaged with intellectual laziness, and wanting to blast This Societal Scourge at any and every opp.

 

(To wit:  debate me on that for which we are equally Read Up, on what it means; and not that on which one simply sponges on my superior Read-Upness and just goes:  Nu-uh!)

 

(You still haven't satisfied me what I'd be gaining.  I mean... .  What you seem to want to do is to continue to claim that there is no evidence that these animals are real...without being questioned...  while being unable to point to anything that indicates anything other than a deficient knowledge base.  On your part.  Did I get that right?  Oh, I did, didn't I.)
 

If insufficient, I fall back on: sauce for the goose and...  DONE.  And unmoved by demurrer.  Now, back to the topic.

Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Urkelbot]

Rather than long winded posts if someone has unknown primate DNA documented evidence post the links/sources. If its out there someone should have it.

[Guest DWA]

^^^And wouldn't it be cool.  You'd be providing something other than cynical denial for a change!  (Oh.  Wait.)

I do love the you win! posts.  Particularly when they verify what i just said about intellectual laziness. Why don't you, personally, go out and provide a positive contribution to this topic the way so many of us have?  Pose the challenge.  Make it public!  Post your findings here.  Now that would be cool:  an actual contribution by a bigfoot skeptic to science, using scientific method.  Might even be a first.

Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Urkelbot]

I suppose I could make wild statements and when asked to back them up with sources or evidence evade with crazy long winded posts.

[dmaker]

^^^And wouldn't it be cool.  You'd be providing something other than cynical denial for a change!  (Oh.  Wait.)

I do love the you win! posts.  Particularly when they verify what i just said about intellectual laziness. Why don't you, personally, go out and provide a positive contribution to this topic the way so many of us have?  Pose the challenge.  Make it public!  Post your findings here.  Now that would be cool:  an actual contribution by a bigfoot skeptic to science, using scientific method.  Might even be a first.

Done.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45575-unknown-primate-dna/

[Guest DWA]

^^^Those posts could be interesting if I opened them.

 

But in the interests of getting back on topic:  gauntlet thrown down.  See if you can find anybody who will admit to you that their tests of a sample told them Bigfoot might be real.  See if they'd go on record.  Reflect on why they might not.  Might larn ye something.

 

Here's one guy who had to get outed...but of course to you he doesn't count (denial works like that):

 

"His comments were not made public but unofficially he remarked, “you’ve sent me my first stumperâ€. It was definitely primate but not a known primate and not human."

 

Here's the thread:  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45416-john-mioczynski-interview-elk-predation/

Edited February 3, 2014 by DWA