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

[dmaker]

Oh I see. We don't hear of test results that might support the idea of bigfoot because they are all suppressed. I do love conspiracy theories.

 

Oh, but Ketchum went on record. We have Bigfoot Bounty on television weekly begging for bigfoot evidence that they can test and go on record with AND reward someone 10 million bucks for providing it. But yeah, no one would EVER go on record with something bigfoot related. Yep, that makes sense.

[Guest Llawgoch]

^^^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/

 

 

So....there aren't any test results that have come back as "Unknown Primate".  Your contention has changed to that there were a lot of tests that were about to come back as unknown primate, but the labs refused to release them.  Is that a fair representation of your new position?

Edited February 3, 2014 by Llawgoch

[indiefoot]

When a hair test comes back with mtDNA that matches human but morphology that says non-human, and is repeated numerous times, can we conclude that there must be an unknown great ape out there contributing these hairs?

[dmaker]

^^ No, we cannot.

[southernyahoo]

How about  evidence of a wildman?  

 We have Bigfoot Bounty on television weekly begging for bigfoot evidence that they can test and go on record with AND reward someone 10 million bucks for providing it. But yeah, no one would EVER go on record with something bigfoot related. Yep, that makes sense.

 

I wouldn't say they are begging the public or researchers outside the show for evidence of bigfoot. If you have something from Disotell to the contrary let us all know about it. 

[dmaker]

I never said anything about outside of the show. But you have a nationally televised show willing to test possible bigfoot evidence.  That was my point.  And now that I mention it, Sykes study is still open to submissions. You just have to pay the processing fee. 

 

Certain people here like to paint this image that no one will go near alleged bigfoot evidence, but it's simply not true. 

Edited February 4, 2014 by dmaker

[southernyahoo]

I'm skeptical that the show and or Disotell would get behind a hair sample on the show. That's my way of daring them to do just that!    I think they would just say it was interesting, and brush it away or claim there wasn't enough data to grant a winner. Remember the testing destroys the samples, and there has to be plenty of it for repeatability.   There are easy outs, so if they were going to pay out, they would need some clear definitions to qualify the evidence, which are vague. 

[dmaker]

The show states that they need DNA and a clear photograph or video. But my point was that they are willing to test any samples brought to them for potential bigfootyness. In fact, that is the entire premise of the show. So for someone to claim that no one will examine potential bigfoot evidence is patently false.  Also, don't forget Sykes.

[WSA]

I don't personally accept the BF suppression conspiracy theory, no, because I just don't think anyone in a lab at present can do more than say "unidentified primate." How significant is a finding like that? Not very.  So, it is more of a disinterest than anything else. As many here have noted, until you can say, "See this hair, it came from that body over there", you've essentially got only a conversation piece, or a clue of where to look for that body.  In and of itself, an unidentified hair won't make any headlines as the current state of public interest stands. If Sykes were to say that, the public interest may rise appreciably, but that is all it really would be good for if f/u is not undertaken. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^Right.

 

When you give a guy some hair or something, and can't show him the Big Guy it came from, the burden is now on the tester to say, whoa, this is a bigfoot.

 

OH.

 

OK.

 

If the sample isn't coming from a body of a sasquatch...it's not.

So....there aren't any test results that have come back as "Unknown Primate".  Your contention has changed to that there were a lot of tests that were about to come back as unknown primate, but the labs refused to release them.  Is that a fair representation of your new position?

No.  Position unchanged.  Where'd you get ^that?

 

Almost without exception, allegations of "unknown primate" that I have read about came from the advocates, not from the testers.  (Jimmy Chilcutt, on track dermal ridges, is a very notable exception, and there are a few others:  http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints  .)  The Mionczynski statement about Birkbe was his statement, not a signed sealed attestation from Birkbe.  "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."

 

Not that this is surprising. If you don't have a body, you are in effect turning the tester into a bigfoot proponent.  Guesstimated results of that?

 

That Mionczynski would say that - and Birkbe not be all over the press denying it - speaks just as loudly as Chilcutt's endorsement of tracks he set out to debunk.

 

And those of us who know this isn't important wait for the type specimen.

Edited February 4, 2014 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

I didn't add to the above but I have read of more than one "we tested this; it didn't match anything we had, so we threw it all out."

 

Hunh!???!?!?!

[MIB]

Yeah, you don't find very many unknown primates if you throw out all DNA you don't recognize.     

 

MIB

[southernyahoo]

The show states that they need DNA and a clear photograph or video. But my point was that they are willing to test any samples brought to them for potential bigfootyness.

 

We need to know by what means in testing the DNA that they would determine it was a new species. You keep saying they will test any sample, but conveniently omit that the samples have to come from the teams on the show. That's not just any sample.

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

No.  Position unchanged.  Where'd you get ^that?

 

Almost without exception, allegations of "unknown primate" that I have read about came from the advocates, not from the testers.  (Jimmy Chilcutt, on track dermal ridges, is a very notable exception, and there are a few others:  http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints  .)  The Mionczynski statement about Birkbe was his statement, not a signed sealed attestation from Birkbe.  "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."

 

Not that this is surprising. If you don't have a body, you are in effect turning the tester into a bigfoot proponent.  Guesstimated results of that?

 

That Mionczynski would say that - and Birkbe not be all over the press denying it - speaks just as loudly as Chilcutt's endorsement of tracks he set out to debunk.

 

And those of us who know this isn't important wait for the type specimen.

 

 

OK,  So your position is that there are no official DNA test results from any institution showing "unknown primate"  However, some people have reported that they were told unofficially that there were results of "unknown primate".  Fair now?

 

Obviously, I can't argue with what you have been told, you would know better than me.  But if you admit you have nothing but people's unsupported word that they have been told that  there are "unknown primate" results, that's what you should say.

As long as we are in agreement that there are no official results of unknown primate out there, I'm done.

[Guest DWA]

What would official results mean?

 

We wouldn't be discussing this, is what they would mean.

 

Which is why I never pay attention to DNA flaps, except to note that some of what goes on in those flaps is pretty interesting, from a strictly scientific point of view.

 

Like, for example, the allegations that material has been tested that has come back "unknown primate."  Given the state of the evidence there is no particular reason to doubt or deny that.

 

Like, for example, the idea that testing a hank of hair is gonna satisfy us all what it came from.  It sure wouldn't satisfy me and I suspect it wouldn't satisfy most.

Edited February 4, 2014 by DWA