Jump to content

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

Guest gershake

By Guest gershake
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

southernyahoo Sasquatch

southernyahoo

Posted
Posted

He'd just be better off to say he can't say until his paper actually publishes, and there is no guarantee that will happen even if he has great samples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I wish people wouldn't speak for other people unless, of course, there was something to say. This whole hyped-up BF drama is a tired song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Guest OntarioSquatch

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looking at the history of Bigfootery, it seems like there have been more hoaxes in the past decade than ever before. A lot of what people think is legitimate research is actually just a series of scams and hoaxes. If Sykes doesn't find anything in his study, then I'm afraid Bigfootery could remain the same for possibly many more years....

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MIB Skunk Ape

MIB

Posted
Moderator
Posted

Agreed. 

 

I think what we disagree on is whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.  :)    I'm not needing to be validated or vindicated so for my purposes, and I think for theirs, its just as well they're not proven.    Beyond satisfying my own curiosity and furthering my own understanding, my purposes for "evidence" are for AFTER they're shown to exist, not to help show they exist.  

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bipedalist Sasquatch

bipedalist

Posted
BFF Patron
Posted

I wish people wouldn't speak for other people unless, of course, there was something to say. This whole hyped-up BF drama is a tired song.

 

 

But, but, then we wouldn't have a hyped-up forum Pacnwsq?!  LOL!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Midnight Owl Bukwas

Midnight Owl

Posted
Posted

I just don't think the mainstream science community will ever give the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon much serious consideration no matter who it is or what is forensically proven.  You will have people bringing unfounded science opinions to refute it, others claiming mistakes in the science process and a few coming out with bare faced lies to discredit folks.  Its happened in the past and will happen again!

 

I have tried to understand why some people do this.  My experience evolved over time from a skeptic to a believer, but I always carefully considered all possibilites even when it sounded way out of the box.  Why do some folks that have never given any serious inquiry out there or none at all, be so quick to close their mind and write people off as fabricators or liars.  Can it be there are people who just can't handle the truth?  The possibility of something being out there that just doesn't follow their preconceived thinking or comfort zone?

 

I really hope I am wrong about this, but there have been a number of good honest researchers pass away without ever seeing the fruits of their labor widely accepted by mainstream sicence.           

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chelefoot Skunk Ape

chelefoot

Posted
Posted

I just don't think the mainstream science community will ever give the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon much serious consideration no matter who it is or what is forensically proven.     

 

But isn't that what Dr. Sykes is  doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Midnight Owl yes...and no - b/c of Syke's inquiry....but that outcome is unknown...if it is "negative" what shall we do? I think I read 35 samples..of which we (and apparently Sykes) have no info on yet....the plan I understand is for the lab to complete all testing, and then those results sent to Syke's..here soon I think...by end of June perhaps....and I don't expect that to be shared until the documentary reviewing the submissions from around the world is also released..or his writings...which shall come first?

 

Bigfootology folks were there, and they do feel something happened to put him over the skeptic's razor edge....but then we are ever hopeful...so I am interested to hear what Sykes has to say....and compared to the "five year" study this feels like a bullet train..

Edited by apehuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MIB Skunk Ape

MIB

Posted
Moderator
Posted

 

I just don't think the mainstream science community will ever give the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon much serious consideration no matter who it is or what is forensically proven.     

 

But isn't that what Dr. Sykes is  doing?

 

We don't know that yet.   That was what Melba was supposedly doing and you can see where that wound up.  Before appointing Dr Sykes as the next "great squatch hope", we should wait for HIS paper.   Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.   You'd think we'd learn but I haven't seen it happen yet.  

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chelefoot Skunk Ape

chelefoot

Posted
Posted

I don't feel that Dr. Sykes is out to fool anyone. I have much more confidence in his ability to interpret the results. If there is nothing there, I am confident he will tell us, there's nothing there folks.... even if he did have an "encounter".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bipedalist Sasquatch

bipedalist

Posted
BFF Patron
Posted (edited)

I can guarantee you this thing is not going to "break" on bloody boots, that much I know. 

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MIB Skunk Ape

MIB

Posted
Moderator
Posted

His study was originally only going to look at mtDNA, not nuDNA.

 

Unless you look at the nuDNA, there's no reason to believe any bigfoot sample is anything but human contamination.  Unless he has changed approaches, bigfoot is about to be dismissed again.

 

Wait and watch.  :)

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chelefoot Skunk Ape

chelefoot

Posted
Posted

I don't have much, if any hope for the bloody boots.

 

Dr. Sykes study was also supposed to be complete by now. There must be a reason it is taking 6 months to a year longer. I won't speculate what that reason is...

 

You have to have something to look forward to, right? I don't think Matt and Bobo are going to find anything anytime soon...

 

Let's hope the findings are not dismissed. It they are, it may be awhile before this kind of study happens again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bipedalist Sasquatch

bipedalist

Posted
BFF Patron
Posted (edited)

This is the thing about sampling that "could" have been obtained (if no body exists).  Blood on a T-shirt.  T-shirt washed.  Why wash the T-shirt when you know that is going to be your free meal ticket unless you've got something better?  Was the something better just the "steak"....... (he certainly didn't care to save the boots from contamination)   or something else? Maybe the story of boots and salt water was just that.....  maybe it is just a canard.   Either way, why hinge your bets on an unknown * steak, unless you knew where the steak came from all along and could verify that and document it.  It will be the provenance as well as the dna that will make this thing or break it. 

 

These are some of the things that make the bloody boots sort of nonessential like somebody trying to lead Polumbo over into the grass on the wrong side of the road to find the tiretracks. 

 

Either way, Polumbo will get his man if it can be done. 

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday Bigfoot

Doc Holliday

Posted
Posted

 

 Let's hope the findings are not dismissed. It they are, it may be awhile before this kind of study happens again.

Agreed...if this goes bust like other studies I'd guess BF may be permanently considered a sham unworthy of further investigation .

Sometimes some (not all) of the BF crowd seem to be their own worst enemies,IMO.

Unless of course another TV show emerges later to spark interest again, then perhaps the cycle repeats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...