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

[Guest]

When you read enough, and see how the internet arm chair scoffism err skepticism works, then maybe you will have a better understanding of the pattern I am referring to. I am quite aware of what circumstantial, verses concrete evidence is, and I do not see any suggestion of what the results would be in my post.

[Guest]

Agreed, and plussed, JohnC. Although I think that most of us don't want another "hype" with big disappointment, both big current studies at least represent, to me, progress in the area of scientific inquiry. There is also an undeniable pattern of denialism that will be inevitably brought into the fray. We should be intent on exposing that denialism, as we should be intent on exposing fraud, hoaxing, and plain old poor quality evidence. All in all, we should be encouraged by the Sykes study, and cautiously patient before passing judgement. Compared with the Ketchum study, I would say that the Sykes study represents minimal "hype," and the lowballing statements by Sykes should be encouraging rather than discouraging.Certainly not fodder for unreasonable skepticism. I don't see what I would call "hype" with this one. Night and day compared with the other research study (whatever its real status).

People involved in bigfootery - scientists, or competent witnesses, or even folks who feel that there is a compelling level of evidence for scientific inquiry- are VERY often dismissed by skeptics and unabashed denialists. Dismissal of Syke's study before it is even done, or accusing folks of hype who are not hyping (or even using the word "hype" in a context where there is none), smacks of the worst kind of denialism - the kind that relies on overly generalized (or overly specific but out of context) statements of skepticism and innuendo to make points that are often FAR off the mark...

John's observed parallel between witness dismissal techniques and the use by another poster of the phrase "hyped up trips to nowhere" being "the thing to do these days" in reference to a study by a prestigious individual/org/university that is not even completed - and that seems by consensus in previous discussion as not being overly "hyped" - is VERY valid, IMO. What folks imply with their statements can often be more powerful than what they actually say...

[Guest]

And I plussed yours notgiganto, for understanding completely what I was trying to say lol

I agree with your post, we need to see equal levels of responsible research, and critique. Equal levels of respect as well.

Edited September 9, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest VioletX]

Maybe what Kerry meant was the hyping coming from outside the study, not from Sykes himself.

[Guest]

Well, even our discussion here could be considered "hyping," and that could have been what was meant (hype that comes from other sources, including us here at BFF), in all honesty. Does not negate JohnC's observation, methinks.

[Guest]

When you read enough, and see how the internet arm chair scoffism err skepticism works, then maybe you will have a better understanding of the pattern I am referring to. I am quite aware of what circumstantial, verses concrete evidence is, and I do not see any suggestion of what the results would be in my post.

Would it matter? I took it to mean that you assume anyone looking would be accused of such, not everyone thinks like that. I'm dubious, but I'm curious to see what Sykes finds.

[Guest]

^Ask Dr Meldrum how serious scientists who look into the subject of BF are treated professionally. They tried to deny him tenure over his BF research.

[Guest]

I remember reading this discussion a few times before. If memory serves me, it was for other reasons.

[southernyahoo]

I don't see what I would call "hype" with this one

The man makes a press announcement that he is going to test bigfoot, yeti, yowie samples and this is not hyped?

By comparison, Dr. Ketchums study who only made one public statement on C2C that she was accepting samples was a far less hyped way of doing it. Why do I think she would have been blasted for doing the same as Sykes? Because she found something positive in them perhaps? I think Ketchum is taking the brunt of the skepticism for Sykes.

[Guest]

Well, if one wants a variety of samples from persons who claim to have them, one must announce what one is doing. No, I would not call that hype.

No other better way of going about getting the samples from private submitters from various locations worldwide. Not denying "buzz" from various sources (the main one I see is the media providing its own hype), including our buzz here, but I just don't see evidence that the Sykes camp itself is engaged in any "hype." Rather the opposite, it seems.

Both are going to be blasted - but Sykes less so due to his reputation, position, and the comparatively professional manner (thus far, and from what little we know) in which he has run his study.

Ketchum has set herself up for MORE blasting due to how she has handled her study (i.e. using Facebook as the primary outlet for information, lack of a clear timeline or status updates other than "soon", cart-before-horse establishment of protection orgs, interesting sighting claims (rumors?I can't even tell anymore) before the scientific side of things is released, etc, etc, etc.). I hope that she does have something (and that the Sykes study comes up with a similar something), but really cannot imagine a more poorly handled situation (not saying much since we really don't know much about the "situation" in the first place - another aspect of the Ketchum study that has jaded those of us who have had high hopes in the past). In short, I think that the "brunt" that Dr. K is taking is certainly a product of her own camp's handling of things. Don't think she is taking any heat for Sykes (although, his study being the second has the opportunity to, should K's study be less conclusive, be the hero or villain of the day). We will just have to wait and see how it all plays out between the two studies. The science will speak for itself. Or not.

edit: grammar

Edited September 10, 2012 by notgiganto

[Guest]

Sykes has an advantage as an established scientist with good backing and a good rep.

[southernyahoo]

I hear Sykes is just now getting started testing, which was suppose to start in September, so he has November to test, analyse, and write it up with a real snappy submit, review and publish process in December. Don't hold your breath for a published result in 2012.

[Guest BFSleuth]

When Sykes announced his time line I did not expect him to meet a December publication date, and it does not surprise me to hear that he is late getting started with the testing. Projects like this seldom seem to be on schedule. I was surprised that he published the time line in the first place, as that would open the door to criticism when he failed to meet the publication deadline. Wait for the blogosphere to start attacking him in late December...

[southernyahoo]

I expect to see that too, but from select posters of coarse.

[Guest mdhunter]

Didn't he recently state something about not being able to promise a publication date? Or was that rumor? I can't remember where I saw it.