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

[bipedalist]

I don't know about varying standards, I would hope that whatever would apply for anything else would apply to the Sasquatch.

By he way, did any of you see the very recent interview with Sykes, he made a statement that he did not think he would find anything. What do you make of that?

He's lowballing in advance, stating you have low expectations: the anticipation and overachievers will then get up in arms, send you more evidence than you could ever examine by December and prove you wrong, lol (sort of a reverse psychology of caution in scientific endeavors).

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think Bipedalist is right. Whether Brian Sykes already knows the results or not, he won't build up unnecessary hype.

Edited September 7, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest VioletX]

He's lowballing in advance, stating you have low expectations: the anticipation and overachievers will then get up in arms, send you more evidence than you could ever examine by December and prove you wrong, lol (sort of a reverse psychology of caution in scientific endeavors).

Yes, because it would be strange to go into a big study like this with doubt, you would have to have some knowledge that you were not taking a stab in the dark.

I think Bipedalist is right. Whether Brian Sykes already knows the results or not, he won't build up unnecessary hype.

Thanks for your input.

[BobbyO]

By he way, did any of you see the very recent interview with Sykes, he made a statement that he did not think he would find anything. What do you make of that?

He's an Englishman, everything's a negative until it becomes a positive, it's how we roll..

[Guest MikeG]

Englishman going wild with excitement:.............."hmm, interesting"

Englishman praising someone: .............. "You're not quite so useless as we all thought"

Highest of high praise..........."not bad at all"

Bystander interviewed in the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings..........."this isn't good"

Englishman on the verge of a big breakthrough in science: ......."it's probably nothing"

Mike

[bipedalist]

Yeah I have to say I think he tested the waters found that they were warm and not luke warm or tepid and then put out the caveat..... I hope the rest is history and not histrionics as they say.

Edited September 7, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest BFSleuth]

^^^ and ^^ .... BobbyO and MikeG, those are priceless observations of English humor and understatement. :D

.... oops

Well, your observations show you aren't completely blind...

[southernyahoo]

He's lowballing in advance, stating you have low expectations: the anticipation and overachievers will then get up in arms, send you more evidence than you could ever examine by December and prove you wrong, lol (sort of a reverse psychology of caution in scientific endeavors).

It also keeps the heat off him, when questions could arise as to why he thinks there is something to it without proof.

[Guest VioletX]

Bobby O and Mike, thanks for giving us the Englishmen's guide by which we can guess the status of Sykes and his study, now if we could only have a similar translation for Dr. K's statements ; }

[Guest]

What is the minimum that he needs to establish in order for his study (or indeed ANY study) to be considered solid?

Is it enough to establish that there is a species of primate in N America NOT any primate in the genetic record, or must the study absolutely pin down it's precise phylogenetic niche?

[Guest]

It only took one finger bone and a tooth to establish the Denisovans, so I imagine it would only take one sample run many times to establish something interesting in Sykes study.

[Guest]

I hope this isn't going to be another hyped up trip to nowhere. That seems to be the thing to do these days and I'm really getting tired of it. It just makes Bigfoot look more like a big fake to the intellectuals.

[Guest]

Yes it does, it's one of my biggest problems with the topic.

[Guest]

I think these "hyped up trips to nowhere" are somewhat of a big deal because we are seeing science actually look for some hard evidence. Imagine the frustration of the first hand witness's who have to listen to these so called skeptics carry on about everything from drugs, to mental health, to accusations of just plain dishonesty.

Now when science does take a look, if it does not happen fast enough, or in the way the critics feel it should, it to, suddenly becomes a problem. Now the scientist trying to take a serious stance on it, are maybe on drugs, mentally ill, or hoaxers. I think I see a pattern here.

Edited September 9, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest]

I think you presume too much just yet, no final analysis has been published yet regarding alleged bigfoot DNA, so far DNA evidence as a type of evidence is, and would be, more concrete and substantial than the circumstantial evidence we have for bigfoot. When and if these results are ever published, and the response is what you suggest it will be, then you can state that there is such a pattern.

Edited September 9, 2012 by CTfoot