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

[Guest]

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? 

I think that Sykes has an agenda of some sort.

 

What type of agenda I do not know, but there is a lot of evidence regarding this species being real, and for him not to receive a viable sample is just mind-boggling to me.

 

He managed to have a 2 hour TV special showing him traveling around, collecting samples, and discovering bears. I saw this species, these things exist, and I sincerely wish that the public knew for their own safety.

 

I was traumatized just seeing a Dogman from a car, people who have close up encounters, without any knowledge and even a thought that they    may *even* exist are scared half to death.

 

I sincerely wish for BF to be recognized by science and the country to keep people safe, so that people can decide to hike and camp *knowing* that they exist, and that they are "out there."

[dmaker]

^^ You've seen a bigfoot and a dogman?

[Guest]

^^ You've seen a bigfoot and a dogman?

Just a Dogman. Someone here explained to me that a BF with a *snout* was a DM. At that time I had no idea that there are different types of BF.

[southernyahoo]

I'm not surprised at the results. There's not that many people gathering hair samples, with even fewer actually finding some interesting enough to have tested and fewer yet would be potentially from a bigfoot. Sykes' criteria seemed to be that the sample only had to be biological in origin, and probably with a good story and location to go with it, so he was assured some known animals in the mix, if not entirely filled with it.

 

Seven samples returned no result, which Ketchum claimed happened when only the hair shaft was available on Sas samples. It's disappointing that there is no morphology documented which could be at least educational for those who collect the samples.

[Guest]

Plus 1 for you from me...Well said my friend:)

[kitakaze]

 

I'm curious as to how many sabotage minded skeptics out there submitted samples just to fill the pipeline.

 

I mean, we already know the lengths skeptics will go to mock those that have an open mind toward the subject.

 

Meany skeptics sending in not Bigfoot samples to mess with believers.

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

[roguefooter]

 

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.

 

Hypertrichosis is just an option, I'm not throwing it out because the characteristics are too similar to ignore. All I'm saying is that what if Bigfoot is really human? Then the DNA would show as human- which results have come in as. Just something to think about.  

 

I think "well beyond human proportions" is questionable. For one thing it's not uncommon to find people around the 7ft mark nowadays. Also I think larger body mass tends to make subjects appear taller than they really are. A big furry bear could seem like it's an 8 foot giant in person where in reality may only be 4-5'. If Bobo wore a Bigfoot suit I'd be willing to bet that people would report him as much taller than he really is.

 

Like this particular sighting in Utah that was studied on site determining the Bigfoot was just over 5" tall, but was reported by witnesses as being 7-9' tall.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/47856-new-video-out-of-utah/

 

I know it all seems far fetched in the grand scheme of things, but then again who would have thought we would come up with ancient bear DNA of all things?

Edited July 4, 2014 by roguefooter

[Guest]

I asked this in another topic but got no answer...

 

Susie, your story has morphed from seeing a BF crouching behind a tree into locking eyes with a Dogman climbing a tree.  Any explanation here?

[Guest Suesquach]

Dr. Sykes has made an important discovery finding ancient bear DNA in that hair sample. This is so encouraging to BFers! If you find hair that looks unlike anything you've seen in common animals, you now know who to send it to.

[Guest DWA]

Yeah, I'm not really getting anybody being discouraged or disappointed by Sykes's findings.  To the hairy hominoid field, they (so far) mean nothing.  To the bear field, that could be one of the biggest findings in recent history...and yet another sign that scientists don't know half what they think they do.

[dmaker]

I actually agree with DWA that these results when looked at objectively from a very high level mean nothing more than the result of each individual sample. A non-result is never going to prove anything existence wise. But the point that he is trying to gloss over is that it does actually mean something to the hairy hominid field ( HHF). Unless enthusiasts in the HHF went to woods and just randomly grabbed the first hair they saw ( every single one of the enthusiasts by the way), then each of them had a reason to suspect the hair was from hairy hominid.  So why is it that every submitter was wrong?  While proving nothing, these results are compelling evidence that bigfoot is a creature of folklore. These people misinterpreted whatever it was that lead them to believe the hair was worth submitting to a bigfoot study. Not some sort of hairy roulette, but a study asking for bigfoot samples. Instead we get dogs and raccoons. Either these were the most inept enthusiasts ever, or people are seeing something completely different than what they believe.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Or it simply might be evidence that (as many open-minded proponents think, me included) much of the 'research' is being done by people with little clue what they are doing. This has been very useful as a sifting exercise.

[dmaker]

^^ What is the lesson here, though? It's not rampant contamination wer're talking about. We're talking about completely different species misinterpreted as bigfoot. What is the adjustment to methodology here?

 

"No, no, next time give me the bigfoot hair..."

[Guest Stan Norton]

Agreed. But it is clear that many folks thinking they're being visited by sasquatch are not. I see this as a positive thing. This is helpful sieving of dross. It might teach budding researchers that they need to up their game.

[Guest DWA]

It is funny how often the normal curve asserts itself in daily life.  The fringes of the argument assert that their personal opinons are the topic...then there's the bulk of the evidence, tons of it and consistent...right there in the middle, being utterly ignored by both fringes.  Instructive, for sure.