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

[Guest]

Look at these skeptics on here, they are hilarious.

5 posts from Drew on this page alone, absolutely hilarious people.

Beyond sad.

  With love from me to you. I sincerely think that Sykes planned on denying the reality of BF. Some of those samples should have tested out with unknown DNA. I believe that Sykes had an agenda to deny the existence of the BF species.   Even going to all of the places, asking questions,doing supposed research, I think he does not believe in BF, and that he fixed it to make BF into misidentified bears.

[Guest]

http://www.conservativecritic.com/2014/07/02/scientists-testing-for-sasquatch-actually-make-a-fascinating-discovery/

 

Sykes had as much interest in proving that BF exists as Rick Dyer has a real BF body still hidden away. Rick needs to be under a mental health expert 24/7 IMHO.

Sykes' actions make me think that he has no interest in proving this species exists, just in not proving it because all BF's are really bears..I think Sykes had an agenda, and he proved that bears do exist.

[roguefooter]

^No offense but I think you're just in serious denial here.

 

 

So, is this the last straw for any of the Footers?  You've been asking for Science to have a look, and they did, and they came up with Raccoons, Cows, Horses, Bears and Porcupines.  Is anyone done with this?  Didn't Meldrum give him some samples?  There was a Youtube video of them hanging out together.  

 

I wouldn't go that far. The results at least did come up with a very unconventional animal as a culprit for the Yeti, and people have described it as not looking like any conventional animal. Sykes is even planning an expedition to obtain a specimen. Just goes to show that there really are strange things out there, maybe not what people think but still. Maybe there's something similar running around here too? Could be an unconventional animal or maybe someone with hypertrichosis shying from society. Who knows? Could be a lot of things. Just because the dogma says it should be a certain thing doesn't mean it can't be something totally unexpected.

[Cotter]

^Well put Rogue.  

[dmaker]

Look at these skeptics on here, they are hilarious.

5 posts from Drew on this page alone, absolutely hilarious people.

Beyond sad.

How is that sad exactly?

^No offense but I think you're just in serious denial here.

 

 

 

I wouldn't go that far. The results at least did come up with a very unconventional animal as a culprit for the Yeti, and people have described it as not looking like any conventional animal. Sykes is even planning an expedition to obtain a specimen. Just goes to show that there really are strange things out there, maybe not what people think but still. Maybe there's something similar running around here too? Could be an unconventional animal or maybe someone with hypertrichosis shying from society. Who knows? Could be a lot of things. Just because the dogma says it should be a certain thing doesn't mean it can't be something totally unexpected.

Plussed, and I agree to a certain point.  That " someone " with hypertrichosis is either a tongue in cheek comment from you or totally disregards the fact that most people report bigfeets as being well beyond human proportions. I could get behind the idea of a bear with bizarre morphology, but  thousands of sightings of human outliers with excessive hair? Not so much.

[Ronnie Bass]

BobbyO, on 02 Jul 2014 - 4:56 PM, said:

Look at these skeptics on here, they are hilarious.

5 posts from Drew on this page alone, absolutely hilarious people.

Beyond sad.

Absolutely agree with you Bobby, the skeptics in here relish needling the people they detest - being us - especially when these results only show that the hair samples submitted are not bigfoot and nothing more.  

[dmaker]

^ Who's needling?  Must every hair in the world be tested before doubt becomes a legitimate reaction?

[MIB]

^ Who's needling?  Must every hair in the world be tested before doubt becomes a legitimate reaction?

 

Yes.

 

Not just every hair in the world, but every hair that ever has been in the world.   You also have to prove, not just claim, that there are no untested hairs.  

 

Then we move on to other types of evidence, each, individually, must be assessed, one by one, and proven, not just claimed, to be something else.

 

Y' know why?   Because what has been seen cannot be unseen.   Lack of hair, lack of saliva, lack of blood, whatever ... NONE of that has any bearing on reality of what I saw, it only affects my perception of rarity of what I saw.

 

MIB

[Guest Stan Norton]

I see the publication as a good day for sasquatch research. Firstly, it shows that legitimate scientists and scientific publications will look at purported evidence: this is encouraging. Secondly, it will hopefully spur researchers into being more rigorous in their approach to collecting evidence and weed out the dross: this is also encouraging. Lastly, we have an apparent bona fide surprise discovery in a remote part of the world, possibly lending credence to reports of anomalous creatures elsewhere: also encouraging. What's not to like?

[Guest DWA]

Yes.

 

Not just every hair in the world, but every hair that ever has been in the world.   You also have to prove, not just claim, that there are no untested hairs.  

 

I don't know what is so hard to understand about:  testing a single piece of evidence only says what that single piece of evidence is, and nothing else.  Testing 100, only those, testing 10,000, only those.  And on and on.  Hair-testing doesn't even begin to address the suite of other evidence, the footprints and the encounter reports each, independently of one another and of the rest of the evidence, asserting the reality of the animal in terms anyone with a science degree should understand, and still utterly unaddressed by people who should know better.  My kids get it.  But some grownups are having unaccountable difficulty with it.

 

Then we move on to other types of evidence, each, individually, must be assessed, one by one, and proven, not just claimed, to be something else.

 

And if this is too much work for you skeptics, guess what that means?  YOU CONCEDE, and join the chorus demading the concerted application of science to this topic.  Unless "no, I'd rather be in denial" works better for you. You've been handed the choices.  Not to decide is to decide.

[dmaker]

Yes.

 

Not just every hair in the world, but every hair that ever has been in the world.   You also have to prove, not just claim, that there are no untested hairs.  

 

Then we move on to other types of evidence, each, individually, must be assessed, one by one, and proven, not just claimed, to be something else.

 

Y' know why?   Because what has been seen cannot be unseen.   Lack of hair, lack of saliva, lack of blood, whatever ... NONE of that has any bearing on reality of what I saw, it only affects my perception of rarity of what I saw.

 

MIB

Right. And thankfully science and reality do not hinge upon your perception. If the animal does not exist in reality, then your perception is at fault and that has nothing to do with rarity.

[Guest]

^No offense but I think you're just in serious denial here.

 

 

 

I wouldn't go that far. The results at least did come up with a very unconventional animal as a culprit for the Yeti, and people have described it as not looking like any conventional animal. Sykes is even planning an expedition to obtain a specimen. Just goes to show that there really are strange things out there, maybe not what people think but still. Maybe there's something similar running around here too? Could be an unconventional animal or maybe someone with hypertrichosis shying from society. Who knows? Could be a lot of things. Just because the dogma says it should be a certain thing doesn't mean it can't be something totally unexpected.

I sincerely hope that you are correct. When I watched the TV program about Sykes research I was totally shocked that none of the samples tested out for anything except bear. Did I misunderstand the program, or did I miss something?

 

I have not heard except here that Sykes had anything unknown.

 

I *sincerely* feared that Sykes was against the reality of the BF species, and I heard or read someplace that all of his samples were from bears *which shocked* me, totally.

 

I believe in and I trust Dr. Ketchum's DNA work. She does this for a living, and has an excellent reputation for being correct, and for helping to solve crimes. I truly do respect her work.

 

Personally, I am at the point where I think the only thing that will prove this species exists is a dead body being found.

[Guest DWA]

I sincerely hope that you are correct. When I watched the TV program about Sykes research I was totally shocked that none of the samples tested out for anything except bear. Did I misunderstand the program, or did I miss something?

 

I have not heard except here that Sykes had anything unknown.

 

I *sincerely* feared that Sykes was against the reality of the BF species, and I heard or read someplace that all of his samples were from bears *which shocked* me, totally.

 

I believe in and I trust Dr. Ketchum's DNA work. She does this for a living, and has an excellent reputation for being correct, and for helping to solve crimes. I truly do respect her work.

 

Personally, I am at the point where I think the only thing that will prove this species exists is a dead body being found.

 

Nothing shocks me about what Sykes found...although the archaic polar bear result is maybe one of the most exciting zoological finds I'm aware of, at least as exciting to me as "primate" would have been, if there turns out to be anything to it, and it seems hard to figure out how there wouldn't be anything to that.

 

Keep in mind:  the samples aren't being submitted by The Leading Lights of Primatology, following painstaking years in the field.  They're coming from fairly random people really eager to prove a point, amateurs generally, who have varying levels of experience in dealing with evidence.  

[Guest DWA]

Sykes puts another nail in the BF DNA fantasy. 

Nope.  Just tested a few samples that were sent in by a few random people.  Nothing against Sykes, he's testing what people send him.  But anyone who thinks he's Striking A Blow Against Hairy Hominoids just hasn't thought significantly about this.  

[dmaker]

I believe in and I trust Dr. Ketchum's DNA work. She does this for a living, and has an excellent reputation for being correct, and for helping to solve crimes. I truly do respect her work.

 

Personally, I am at the point where I think the only thing that will prove this species exists is a dead body being found.

I would say that Dr.Sykes reputation and body of work is far more impressive than Ketchum. Yet you distrust him for some reason? Why would that be?