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

[Guest BFSleuth]

To the mods:

Could we please get this right?

The official name of this project is: Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project and the two lead authors are Sykes and Sartori, which could be used for an abreviated name of the project.

Done.

Cryptomundo just posted this article with an interesting rebuttal to Dr. Frayer's assertion that no serious scientist should consider Yeti a worthy research project:

http://www.cryptomun.../oxford-yeti-2/

"Resologist

2012/05/24

at 8:55 AM ET

Why does the Associated Press, (and CBC News which published this news article), find it necessary to include a criticism that “no serious scientist†would research the Yeti?

Professor Frayer should know this isn’t true.

Any physical anthropologist or zoologist should know about, (even if they haven’t bothered to read it), Ivan T. Sanderson’s book, Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life.

Professor Frayer, himself, did comparative studies of ancient teeth, (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 39: 413-426), and came to the conclusion that the Gigantopithecus, was more like humans than apes:

“Giganotpithecus blacki, on the other hand, can best be explained as an Asiatic hominoid (an aberrant hominid) which did not use tools, but rather continued to increase in body size as it adapted to the forest conditions. From the number of teeth found in China, it would seem that this specific adaptation (size vs tools) was quite adequate. Survival into the mid-Pleistocene attests to this… The late existence of these large primates proves their effective adaptation through size.â€

If Homo erectus hunters did not kill off the Gigantopithecus, (reputed to stand 3 meters tall and weigh 540 kilograms), something might still be found in the mountainous forests that resembles the legendary Yeti and Sasquatch. One of the arguments that Gigantipithecus could not be a Yeti is its identification as an “ape†with a different gait than a “hominidâ€, (resembling Yeti and Sasquatch sightings), however Professor Frayer’s early research suggests that was wrong.

It’s okay to research ancient teeth and say that those species are extinct, but “no serious scientist†would bother to do an analysis of DNA samples to see if there might be unknown species to be discovered?

Read the book."

Link to Sanderson's 1961 book (you can read online for free): http://www.sacred-te...r/abs/index.htm

[chelefoot]

Technology continually advances. It is possible that Sykes has developed better means of DNA extraction from hair. That is speculative.

What is not speculative is that new commercial machines for doing fast genome sequencing are recently available. If he chooses to go that route, it is now less expensive.

In any case, if there is enough material, he will probably use the Ketchum probes to pre-qualify specimens for further whole genome sequencing.

Ok...I know I have heard or read somewhere where Dr. Sykes is talking about a new advancement in technology that allows for much better DNA extraction from hair. (I know....I will get busy looking for it!). And I agree with P.Noun that based on comments from Sally, it does not appear that there has been any sharing of information.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Dr. Sykes is noted as having developed DNA extraction techniques that led to being able to sequence ancient DNA. That was back in 1989, so I think he is likely on the cutting edge of developing new ways to yield workable DNA.

[Guest slimwitless]

Great quote from Sykes:

"As an academic I have certain reservations about entering this field, but I think using genetic analysis is entirely objective; it can't be falsified," Sykes said. "So I don't have to put myself into the position of either believing or disbelieving these creatures."

Where are the usual suspects arguing DNA alone couldn't possibly prove the existence of a cryptid like Bigfoot?

[bipedalist]

*Crickets*

Edited May 25, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Great quote from Sykes:

"As an academic I have certain reservations about entering this field, but I think using genetic analysis is entirely objective; it can't be falsified," Sykes said. "So I don't have to put myself into the position of either believing or disbelieving these creatures."

I'd give that a +1 if he posted that on this forum.

Yeah i very much agree..

I have a very large problem with that statement. No real scholar should ever be reluctant to engage a topic of inquiry simply for what the topic is. Any subject can be properly addressed in a scholarly manner, and the status of any idea, theory, or topic in science should always be "open to review".

[Guest BFSleuth]

While I agree that proper science should be open to any idea or topic for review, the world of science is populated by humans that are by definition coming to the topic with preconceived notions that are hard to shake. Hence the idea that world of science progresses by general consensus of opinions formed by the scientific method, and that sometimes takes the form of paradigm shifts when new developments and discoveries are made.

My statement that I support the idea that Dr. Sykes is coming to this area of research with reservations is because if he finds DNA evidence for the existence of relict hominids or heretofore unknown apes, then in the politics of science it will lend greater credence to his results. He also comes to this study with a solid reputation, which in itself will also lend greater weight to the findings.

[Guest]

^Those are fair points. Plussed.

[Guest parnassus]

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."

Possibly the biggest single scientific issue ever related to bigfoot. How could Dr. Jeff Meldrum, author of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, not know this? (rhetorical question).

Edited May 25, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest BFSleuth]

Are you saying the purported Yeti hair samples is one of the biggest scientific issues? I wasn't aware that it was anything other than a side note. It also seems that Dr. Meldrum was well aware of the purported Yeti hair and it was brought up in discussion with Dr. Sykes. Perhaps I'm not following your point, could you explain what exactly you are driving at here?

[Guest]

Parnassus wrote:

"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. "

Nice to see the skeptics staring at their balls..............my prediction Neanderthal!!!

[BobbyO]

I have a very large problem with that statement. No real scholar should ever be reluctant to engage a topic of inquiry simply for what the topic is. Any subject can be properly addressed in a scholarly manner, and the status of any idea, theory, or topic in science should always be "open to review".

In a perfect world i'd agree with you Mulder, but we don't live in a perfect world hence i am in full agreement with what was said as even science has elements of discrimination.

Edit to say : BFS put it much more eloquently than i ever could, a few posts up..

Edited May 26, 2012 by BobbyO

[Guest Kerchak]

Great quote from Sykes:

"As an academic I have certain reservations about entering this field, but I think using genetic analysis is entirely objective; it can't be falsified," Sykes said. "So I don't have to put myself into the position of either believing or disbelieving these creatures."

I'd give that a +1 if he posted that on this forum.

There would still be some cynics screaming it must be wrong in some way if they get an answer they don't want to hear.

[Guest]

^Or pointing to that article about how some idiot ponied up $40million to have a partial DNA sequence "faked" in a lab by stringing together aminos in sequence.

[bipedalist]

Tune into 12 minutes to hear a review of some of the history of Bigfootology and relationship to the Sykes/Sartori Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid project.