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

[Guest]

Sykes book certainly will be interesting. One thing to keep in mind. The mini-series documentary that Sykes was employed for, is to Bigfoot skepticism what "Finding Bigfoot" is to Bigfoot advocacy.

It was entertainment. We will have to read Sykes for the substantial stuff.

[Guest guillaume]

What's possible or not possible is the same in the bigfoot world as any where else, they are the same world , same rules.

What interests me is what appears to be a basic disconnect between skeptics and believers.  On one end of the spectrum, the word "impossible" implies ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY (sorry for the caps, but I think they represent a relevant degree of emphasis); on the other end of the spectrum, the idea that "anything is possible" implies that even unreasonable notions can't be dismissed.  Somewhere in between are the finer lines that each side more usually walks.  I don't think skeptics are absolutely certain about anything much, and I don't think believers think that absolutely anything is possible.

 

Anyway, on topic for the thread, it doesn't seem reasonable that anyone would mount a show as Sykes et al. did and withhold positive evidence for bigfoot.  They would be throwing away fortune and fame for... well, for what?

 

It's true that the words "impossible" and "implausible" aren't interchangeable in a venue such as this, though, even if that's what is casually intended.

[Guest Llawgoch]

^^ Who do you think said that they were?

What's possible or not possible is the same in the bigfoot world as any where else, they are the same world , same rules.

 

I have no reason to believe you are or are not any percentage related to what we call Bigfoot, although I have to assume it's possible if they can indeed mate with Hss. We don't know at this time.

 

I only ask that folks not interchange terms in a discussion. Possible and likely are quite different.

 

So is it your contention that "equally possible" simply means that two things are possible and carries no implication of probability?  So you would say it is equally possible that the sun will come up tomorrow and that the Eastern seaboard of the USA will be obliterated by a tsunami next Wednesday?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest Crowlogic]

I've been absent so a lot of what I see posted is new to me.  I went to the first page of this thread then I went to the last page of this thread.  After reading both pages I conclude nothing changes in the project world.  Two years on and we're still at zero point.  Well I've seen enough to know there's nothing to see.

[indiefoot]

I'll leave it at, I think it's important to be as clear and accurate as we can when we debate.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Why not answer the question?  it appears to me that it's you that is refusing to define terms.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Llawgoch

[indiefoot]

True...

[Guest]

They are not equally possible.  One is the obvious conclusion to draw and the other is a desperate grasping at straws.  The idea that Sykes would announce that so many results were negative and then, without any comment, keep back the hugely significant results and that the documentary would be happy to pay him and proceed on this basis is to say the least bizarre.  However, he MAY be doing this so I can't and don't want to stop you thinking it if you want to.  But I will object to you saying it is equally possible.  It isn't, in the real world.

 

In fact, llawgoch, it is more likely that Sykes has found something, given the circumstances.

 

Journals don't as a rule like to publish articles that lack either significance or novelity.  If the "mystery sample were JAFNR (Just Another Frakking Null Result), then Sykes would, as others have pointed out, simply said "I didn't find anything" and move on.

That he hasn't said that, and is in fact apparently taking something to publication, is highly indicitive that he feels confident that he brings something new and significant to the conversation.  The only question is: is it proof of BF, or is it something else that turned up while he was looking?

[MIB]

Plussed ya.

The only reasonable alternative I can't omit is that it's all about the money and he thinks people will buy and read the story about the process even if the result was "nothing."   It could be.   I don't think so.   It may be a twist, something not from the BF world at all.   It may be the Zana / sub-Saharan African DNA if it proved to be ancient rather than recent, something that challenges our assumptions about how/when humans migrated out of Africa.  It could be the ancient polar bear.   Whatever it is, though, I think he's going to publish something interesting.    Until we see it, we haven't seen it.  We can speculate all we want, but that's all it is.  I don't see a lot of point in people getting all hot under the collar about conflicting speculations.   Wide eyed wonder and "hope for Christmas" seems more fun to me.

 

MIB

Edited March 12, 2014 by MIB

[Guest guillaume]

In fact, llawgoch, it is more likely that Sykes has found something, given the circumstances.

 

So in the bigfoot world, science that doesn't make you happy just means that they're hiding the good stuff for later.

 

In the real world, Sykes reported his findings, and there was no bigfoot DNA.

[southernyahoo]

^ So you think there is no science paper in review on the samples that remain unreported on? Why would he not say a word to those submitters about those results even if there were none? Or, do you think there should be a science paper on known animal sample identifications?

[Guest Llawgoch]

I don't know if he's writing a paper, or a book.  As far as I know he hasn't announced either.

 

However, if he is writing a paper, then the archaic bear finding is certainly more than enough to make this big news.  No Bigfoots are necessary.

In fact, llawgoch, it is more likely that Sykes has found something, given the circumstances.

 

 

When (not if) he doesn't publish anything about Bigfoot will you accept you were wrong or just think that in this case the dice went against you?  If he publishes anything in which he claims to have found any kind of Bigfoot DNA, I will happily accept I was wrong.

[indiefoot]

 

R Mullis.... 10-19-13,

 

More can be shared as each documentary is aired, more can be shared when the paper is published, and even more can be shared when Bryan's book comes out in the spring of next year.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/10/another-update-from-bigfootology.html

 

Last news IIRC, was fall a release.

[Guest guillaume]

^ So you think there is no science paper in review on the samples that remain unreported on?

I think that Sykes has no big, secret results that prove the existence of bigfoot.  No one would fund these shows and allow the payday to be deferred to a scientific paper.

 

If I were to speculate on unreported samples, I'd guess wildly that they were redundant or didn't pass quality control.  We'll probably find out eventually.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Last news IIRC, was fall a release.

 

When Sykes says what he's doing, we'll know what he's doing.  I see no reason a man of his standing and public profile would leak information through Rhettman Mullis.