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

[dmaker]

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.

I am not conveniently omitting anything. I already said up thread that I was not talking about outside of the show.  Any sample provided to them by contestants. Is that better? 

[Guest Llawgoch]

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.

 

It's pretty clear what an official result is - it's a full result that another person with expertise can see and assess.  Science, that is.  Your favourite thing.

 

So, there are no actual written, official test results that anybody can actually see, or has actually seen, showing "unknown primate". Do you agree with this sentence or not?  And  please don't go off on a tangent as to  what such results would prove, or not prove,  in order to try and cloud the issue. That's not the question.

[Guest DWA]

Wait a minute.  You are actually telling me "scientists aren't looking at it...so it isn't real"????  That is your position, clearly stated.

 

Do YOU agree with THAT or not?  No shillyshallying, thank you.  That IS the question.

I mean, this is priceless.   "What I have to do, as my thesis has otherwise not a leg to stand on, is get the answer I want to a totally irrelevant question.  WIN!  YES!"

 

Numerous tests of sasquatch evidence have come back "unknown primate."  Why? 

[Guest DWA]

This is still flat gobsmacking me.

 

Since when - SINCE WHEN - did a certified signed sealed delivered finding from a scientific mainstream in denial become actually required for something to be allowed to be real?

A.

MAY.

ZING.

 

I'm listening to a Yowie report from a woman who is either missing out on millions she could make lying, or saw a yowie.  You might want to get prepared for a lot of changes coming to the way you view the world.

[dmaker]

  You might want to get prepared for a lot of changes coming to the way you view the world.

Yawn. Heard that year after year after year after year....

[Guest DWA]

^^^^HAHAHAHA!  We've taken to calling you "Mr. Quoted for Truth."

[southernyahoo]

I am not conveniently omitting anything. I already said up thread that I was not talking about outside of the show.  Any sample provided to them by contestants. Is that better? 

 

Yes it is, because sooner or later someone will say that footers wouldn't send their samples to them when they offered 10 million for bigfoot.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Wait a minute.  You are actually telling me "scientists aren't looking at it...so it isn't real"????  That is your position, clearly stated.

 

Do YOU agree with THAT or not?  No shillyshallying, thank you.  That IS the question.

I mean, this is priceless.   "What I have to do, as my thesis has otherwise not a leg to stand on, is get the answer I want to a totally irrelevant question.  WIN!  YES!"

 

Numerous tests of sasquatch evidence have come back "unknown primate."  Why? 

 

 

No, I'm not.  please quote the part that makes you think I am saying that and I will explain why you are wrong.

I am trying to establish what YOU believe the case is with regard to this, and am asking you to clarify your position.  That ought to be obvious.  I do not have a thesis, I am merely asking you to clarify what tests you are referring to when you claim tests have come back as unknown primate.

 

Please don't make up ridiculous straw men again, but try answering the question.

[Guest DWA]

When you stop making up ridiculous straw men I will answer the question.

 

Oh wait.  I answered it.  Read that post you quoted again.  How hard is this?

 

It has been alleged; the evidence points clearly to the animal; the allegations fit in neatly with what would be expected were this evidence out there.

 

if you cannot prove it didn't happen...the evidence says it did.

 

I am not interested in this question.  It's a silly question.  Why don't you educate yourself on the evidence and start seeing that for yourself?

 

Oh.  I see why.

 

(My BlueQuote.)

[Guest Llawgoch]

When you stop making up ridiculous straw men I will answer the question.

 

Oh wait.  I answered it.  Read that post you quoted again.  How hard is this?

 

It has been alleged; the evidence points clearly to the animal; the allegations fit in neatly with what would be expected were this evidence out there.

 

if you cannot prove it didn't happen...the evidence says it did.

 

I am not interested in this question.  It's a silly question.  Why don't you educate yourself on the evidence and start seeing that for yourself?

 

Oh.  I see why.

 

(My BlueQuote.)

 

 

That wasn't the question.  The question was a simple and clear one.

 

"So, there are no actual written, official test results that anybody can actually see, or has actually seen, showing "unknown primate". Do you agree with this sentence or not?"

 

If you don't agree with it, please state simply which cases you believe contradict this.

 

I have made no straw men..  Due to your reluctance to state your position clearly without obfuscation I have sometimes outlined a position and asked you if it is yours.  I have not made any claims or outlined any positions of my own.

 

If you have any direct and clear questions to ask me, please do so, and I will answer them clearly and directly.  Then you will not have to make up positions you claim I hold to give yourself something to argue against.

[indiefoot]

We have tests that state that hairs are from an unknown type of human, humans are primates, so the hair are from an unknown primate. Or are you married to the term "unknown primate"?

[Guest DWA]

It's gotten tiresome to discuss.

 

This is how science works:  if hats are in the ring and evidence backs them up, the opponents have to debunk them.

 

If they're not doing that, they are doing nothing that interests me.

[dmaker]

"It's gotten tiresome to discuss." = No, I do not have anything to backup my position, but I will never admit that. 

[Guest DWA]

Take it away, John Green:

 

“Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.†– John Green

 

Wham.

 

That materials have been found and submitted for test is indisputable.  That anomalous results would have happened by now, a number of times, is far more tenable than any skeptic "how come nobody has ever..." and unlike <<<that, isn't debunked by evidence to the contrary.

 

To continually point to no scientific institution certifying signing and sealing that its attitiude toward sasquatch evidence is dismissable tripe, as evidence that there's nothing out there, is hereby John Greened as clinging to a belief.

 

To coin a phrase.

 

(You're welcome.)

One more thing, John.

 

Believers may be talented techies in their end of the scientific swimming pool.  But belief absent evidence is unbecoming a scientist.

[Guest Llawgoch]

We have tests that state that hairs are from an unknown type of human, humans are primates, so the hair are from an unknown primate. Or are you married to the term "unknown primate"?

 

Which tests are these?  

It's gotten tiresome to discuss.

 

This is how science works:  if hats are in the ring and evidence backs them up, the opponents have to debunk them.

 

If they're not doing that, they are doing nothing that interests me.

 

What do you want debunked?  Name your top 10 pieces of evidence and I will tell you why I don't believe each one of  them, individually, clearly and in detail.  I will not necessarily know an exact single reason why I disbelieve each one, there may be a range of possibilities, all of which I believe to be more likely than Bigfoot existing.  I DO NOT have to prove them in error unless I wish to prove Bigfoot does not exist.  I do not wish to prove Bigfoot does not exist, as that is impossible.

 

I wait for your list.