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

[BobbyO]

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.

When i see his name i can only think of the lovely Melanie Sykes, who i had a little thing for many moons ago..

[Guest BFSleuth]

This is a reference article about the purported hair that turned out to be bison.

http://www.scienceda...50810133244.htm

Meldrum noted this also in his Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today?

http://www.isu.edu/r...Are%20Other.pdf

"Robson next implies that the physical evidence for sasquatch is found wanting based on an identification of an alleged sasquatch hair sample as in fact bison (Coltman and Davis, 2005). This sweeping generalization based on a single case, glosses over the accumulating samples of primate-like hair that indeed defy attribution to recognized species."

The case of the bison hair identification received a fair amount of press in 2005, and it became kind of a mantra for skeptical scientists. As Meldrum noted these scientists are ignoring the accumulating evidence and probably don't follow the BF community and may be unaware of the Ketchum efforts or of samples Meldrum himself has collected. It would be nice to have an honest to goodness peer reviewed DNA confirmation of the existence of a relict hominoid or unknown apes, and I wish both Dr. Sykes and Dr. Ketchum the best in their efforts.

Also, this announcement is on Dr. Meldrum's Relict Hominoid Inquiry web site (which I recommend everyone should bookmark as there are some interesting essays being posted and access to his digitized database of casts):

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Oxford%20PR.pdf

Note that Dr. Sykes was on the cutting edge of extracting DNA from ancient bones (1989) and was involved with DNA analysis of Otzi the Iceman. "Sykes also analyzed hair samples from Bhutan attributed to the Yeti, which seemed to defy DNA identification. Interestingly, during our conversation I learned that further efforts were subsequently successful in determining that the hair originated from bear."

Note that the project is officially called the "Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project".

[Guest gershake]

Interestingly, during our conversation I learned that further efforts were subsequently successful in determining that the hair originated from bear."

Interesting. That clears that one up!

[southernyahoo]

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

This goes right to the point that scientists will take one failed attempt to find something new then brush the whole idea away with it. Sykes should be PO'd about that. I bet he's not though.

[Guest BFSleuth]

The more I read about Sykes the more I like him. Seems like he's fairly skeptical of the whole relict hominid thing, yet open to the possibility. He certainly comes to the table with impeccable credentials. I also like the fact that he finally determined that Yeti hair DNA was bear, so if he does find anything positive in terms of new species of hominoid or ape DNA then it will set better with the scientific community.

[southernyahoo]

He's going to get hooked into this whole bigfoot thing, you watch. The right sample and sequence will likely slam the door behind him.

Danger Danger!!!

[Guest BFSleuth]

Are you channeling the capture action plan with the spring loaded container door?

[Cisco]

I suspect there's more than meets the eye with this study.

I also spent some time researching Bryan Sykes and he tends to veer towards more challenging, sensational types of projects. However, he has had more than his fair share of success and I suspect some of that can be attributed to the fact that he's a bit more daring than his contemporaries.

That being said, he's highly respected in the academic community as well as the media. In fact, most of his personal income is founded on his media popularity. It's because of this that I don't believe he would be willing to risk his credibility unless he already had looked at some of the evidence and concluded there was something unusual.

The fact that he's using such a small sampling and is publishing in such a short amount of time, supports the theory that he's already dotted his i's and crossed his t's.

I believe Dr. Sykes knows more than he's saying and he's set the stage to really get some attention when his results are released.

[Guest parnassus]

The more I read about Sykes the more I like him. Seems like he's fairly skeptical of the whole relict hominid thing, yet open to the possibility. He certainly comes to the table with impeccable credentials. I also like the fact that he finally determined that Yeti hair DNA was bear, so if he does find anything positive in terms of new species of hominoid or ape DNA then it will set better with the scientific community.

Yes, it is good that this is confirmed.

One well-publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Professor Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal.[59] Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus).

^ Chandler, H.C. (2003). Using Ancient DNA to Link Culture and Biology in Human Populations. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.

I hope he doesn't make the mistake again of going public before the study is completed. Retractions never get a tenth the attention that the original announcement gets, and as a consequence it sometimes takes years to correct the public's erroneus view of things. There are many examples of this in the bigfoot phenomenon.

Having said that, I am glad he is going to do this. I am rather amused by certain announced aspects of the study, and I bet Saskeptic is also. But I will let him comment for now; I am busy calibrating my crystal ball after replacing the worn-out part, which I picked up on ebay for a song, relative to its list price at Hewlett Packard. I am, however, concerned about the quality of its construction; can anyone read Mandarin? Or, if anyone would like to contribute to a original manufacturer's part, I'd be happy to take donations. I can tell you that in my prelimary bench testing, TheBall predicted that Sykes will have no trouble meeting his deadlines, including the publication. Of course, this is just a preliminary finding. See above.

p.

Edited May 24, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest]

This goes right to the point that scientists will take one failed attempt to find something new then brush the whole idea away with it. Sykes should be PO'd about that. I bet he's not though.

Not trying to single you out, but I do think it's funny that people are jumping on the one guy who says it's not worthwhile to do a study on bigfoot in an article mostly about how a scientist thinks it IS worthwhile to do a study on bigfoot.

[southernyahoo]

I suspect there's more than meets the eye with this study.

I also spent some time researching Bryan Sykes and he tends to veer towards more challenging, sensational types of projects. However, he has had more than his fair share of success and I suspect some of that can be attributed to the fact that he's a bit more daring than his contemporaries.

That being said, he's highly respected in the academic community as well as the media. In fact, most of his personal income is founded on his media popularity. It's because of this that I don't believe he would be willing to risk his credibility unless he already had looked at some of the evidence and concluded there was something unusual.

The fact that he's using such a small sampling and is publishing in such a short amount of time, supports the theory that he's already dotted his i's and crossed his t's.

I believe Dr. Sykes knows more than he's saying and he's set the stage to really get some attention when his results are released.

Could be, this just isn't looking like a true repeatability study of Ketchum's work. If there was a collaborative effort between the two studies using the same samples it would be, but the short time lines tells me the data set will be small, and conclusions only tentative.If he had only negative results, he could publish that quickly I imagine.

[Guest BFSleuth]

FWIW I think the inclusion of David Frayer's quote in the news article was likely a journalist's attempt to be "fair and balanced", and Dr. Frayer was likely the first available hit on bigfoot skeptic with some intense google search....

Regarding the fast track publication time line and limited number of samples it may be that Dr. Sykes et al may be seeking to publish more of a general survey of previously unknown hominoids and/or apes from around the world, a kind of shot across the bow of the scientific community that they need to stand up and take notice of the evidence that has and is being gathered worldwide.

[bipedalist]

Somehow all I've seen lately is "pea-shooters across the bow"..... but maybe this will be a stout sail in a stiff breeze or,

a breath of fresh air.

[Guest]

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

Ah, I see you using the word "presumed" - good on you!

A major difference in the "Sykes/Satori study", compared to the Ketchum study is, we actually have a public protocol (an abreviated one at least), which we can consult at any time http://www.wolfson.o...ic/GBFs-v/OLCHP, and in this protocol Sykes clearly states, why they prefer hair samples (contamination), and although it´s perfectly legit to question Dr´s Sykes and Satori´s choice of method, I for one don´t really find myself qualified for this task.

But my point was not choice of method, it was keeping the thread factual.

Edited May 24, 2012 by darwinist

[Guest]

^So was I...hair is NOT the optimal source of DNA. In fact it's a pretty poor source much of the time. Blood, skin, etc are far better DNA sources than hair is.