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

[dmaker]

^^ But I seem to remember hearing often how these samples were the best the bigfoot community had to offer, etc? Personally vetted by so and so and such and such. Now they are "dross"? 

 

How does one up their game when talking about collecting hair or other biological samples? That part of your statement I still do not understand as you have not elaborated on it yet. Presumably the samples were handled correctly enough that they were able to be identified by the study, so we're not talking about anything like that. 

[Guest]

Do we know exactly how many samples were received and tested fully (DNA rather than just analysed)?

My thinking is that THE bear sample would look like exactly that, a bear sample.

It would be interesting to know if anyone else were sent samples and because they were looking for 'yeti', they dismissed it.

(I am in no way saying that BF samples were dismissed BTW)

CC

[Guest Stan Norton]

Firstly I never described anything to do with this study as the best of anything. In terms of evidence gathering, maybe folks will be a bit more discerning in their collecting rather than hope that any random hair found in the woods in the general vicinity of a sasquatch sighting will yield a result. Maybe come forward only when there is every possibility that a hair or whatever is linked to a particular event which has a good chance of being the real deal. Yeah, that was supposed to be the deal with this study but clearly things didn't roll that way. 

 

Bottom line for me is that Sykes has been positive, and not because it is supposed to have debunked sasquatch. 

[dmaker]

"...maybe folks will be a bit more discerning in their collecting rather than hope that any random hair found in the woods in the general vicinity of a sasquatch sighting will yield a result" 

 

Is that what you think happened? That is your explanation for why all the results came back as known animals? Are bigfoot enthusiasts that inept in your estimation? You don't like the result, so you assume gross incompetence on the submitter? Every single one? You've never seen a bigfoot, yet you are so positive that they exist that you need to paint submitters as rather clueless to explain this result?

 

I agree that Sykes has been positive. I am excited to get a look at one of these bears once his expedition is over. 

[Guest Stan Norton]

Yes. It appears that is exactly what happened. I saw the show. No-one on it struck me as rigorous in terms of scientific collection. I'm so not bothered about getting into a back and forth with you: we essentially agree but you just want to show that yours is bigger than mine. Ta-ta and carry on....

[dmaker]

^^ Actually, we do not agree. You believe the results came back as known animals, every single sample, because the people who submitted them are incompetent. I believe the results came back as they did because there is no such thing as a bigfoot. 

Edited July 4, 2014 by dmaker

[southernyahoo]

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.

 

There aren't many people among the enthusiasts that have the hair morphology knowledge to be highly discerning. Even fewer would know what a squatch hair "should" look like, so it would be very easy to collect the wrong thing. Wildlife biologists don't look for samples of bigfoot, and if they had found any with human DNA in them they would likely assume they contaminated it, even with the lab assuring them the results were accurate.

 

So if I found a sample that looked human-like, and submitted it because I think bigfoot is human-like and the results were human, was I wrong? 

[dmaker]

I'd like to know the story behind some samples. What made the submitter choose that hair? Was it in what the person considered to be a bigfoot nest or something? Did they ****** it off the back of a sleeping bigfoot? Did they witness a bigfoot rubbing his back along a tree?  etc, etc  I highly doubt they just went "oh, here is a hair in the woods...must be bigfoot!"

 

"So if I found a sample that looked human-like, and submitted it because I think bigfoot is human-like and the results were human, was I wrong? "  

 

Depends on what you mean exactly. Were you wrong in your selection method? Not based on your personal beliefs, no. But based on your above then you must think that some researchers think bigfoot is raccoon like or equine?  Probably not, hm?

Edited July 4, 2014 by dmaker

[southernyahoo]

I can't speak for the other samples as to what the submitters were thinking, but you know, some people don't realize that apes don't have an undercoat. Enthusiasts should know that bigfoot hair would be like other apes or humans at least. They are reported to have hair on their body in the range of 3 to 6 inches long. Bear hair is the most like ours and apes among the hairy mammals out there so it is most likely to wind up in these studies. Horse mane might be another that might pass as ape to enthusiasts, though I doubt enthusiasts think bigfoot is more related to a horse or raccoon.

 

I can tell you this about my sample, if you had been standing there with me during collection, you would have bet against it being human, especially after closer examination of the hairs, even though they looked a lot like human hairs.

 

It really is tricky to get it right. 

[HOLDMYBEER]

I'd like to know the story behind some samples. What made the submitter choose that hair? Was it in what the person considered to be a bigfoot nest or something? Did they ****** it off the back of a sleeping bigfoot? Did they witness a bigfoot rubbing his back along a tree?  etc, etc  I highly doubt they just went "oh, here is a hair in the woods...must be bigfoot!"

 

"So if I found a sample that looked human-like, and submitted it because I think bigfoot is human-like and the results were human, was I wrong? "  

 

Depends on what you mean exactly. Were you wrong in your selection method? Not based on your personal beliefs, no. But based on your above then you must think that some researchers think bigfoot is raccoon like or equine?  Probably not, hm?

Exactly! It should vet to a standard of probability available for review.

[Cotter]

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

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

 

Exactly.  Just like meany skeptics laying tracks at Elbe to mess with researchers.

 

;-)

I actually agree with DWA....

 

I just had a mild stroke.

 

:-)

There aren't many people among the enthusiasts that have the hair morphology knowledge to be highly discerning. Even fewer would know what a squatch hair "should" look like, so it would be very easy to collect the wrong thing. 

 

Perhaps these enthusiasts shouldn't be submitting samples.  Perhaps they should be educating themselves on morphology instead. JMO.

[Guest]

The results of this report were totally predictable. The justification that the results means little - in the way of dismissing the reality of BF - is equally as predictable. It reminds me of the argument that the known Wallace fakes mean little, even though these tracks were used previously to support the case for BF. I've even heard some people claim that Wallace both found real prints and faked prints. For me, this report just further supports what I already believe. There is no such thing as BF...there is Bigfootery. The bigger mystery, in my opinion, is how grown men and women can actually believe in such a thing? Just sayn'.

[David NC]

summit walker you may want to ask the people on here and others that have not come forth with their experience, about how they can believe in such a thing when they see it standing in it's tracks.

[southernyahoo]

 

Perhaps these enthusiasts shouldn't be submitting samples.  Perhaps they should be educating themselves on morphology instead. JMO.

 

Without a microscope , diligent use of it, and extensive knowledge about most animal hairs out there, you're still going to get some known animals in the mix. It's just simple odds. People will be hopeful, and think animals and saquatch hairs can be variable, So instead of missing the find of a century, they will test anything that might be BF. Human nature, like science is to test what is supposedly known.

[Cotter]

^good point SY.

 

However, I think some basic skills could rule out cow and raccoon though, no?