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

[Guest]

For those who are wondering about Dr. Nekaris:

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/02/anna-nekaris-searching-for-yeti.html

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/06/dr-anna-nekaris-lecture-searching-for.html

[Guest]

Thanks for that info Derekfoot. I knew it, but did not feel as if I could state it on the forum with it being from secondary sources and all.

The OP is doing great work and this might be what we have all waited on for some time.

No better name to have included than Dr. Meldrum IMHO.

If any forum members get the opportunity to attend one of the upcoming OP events I would certainly encourage their doing so. Quality folks presenting a cool intinerary with the biggest names in the field.

I hope to make it to one or two myself.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Something tells me it's possible this new study isn't starting out from scratch, at least as Dr. Sykes is concerned. He was involved in testing hair from Buhtan which came back unknown, and in the brief quotes about that I can find, he was very intrigued. Possibly his interest began there, and he ran with further testing.

[Guest]

He might have some pull getting published, but it doesn't mean the work will be any easier for him in proving something. Releasing names participating in a second study is not the same as publicizing someone elses data. I wouldn't be so excited as to expect a paper from Sykes right around the corner.

At this point we just don't know one way or the other.

Geeze, the clamoring has already begun, and he hasn't even begun to test samples. If he wants to test some I'll send him a sample, but Melba has been paving the way here, and we owe her first dibs for all the heat she's taken.

Maybe. You can't deny that she's also made more than few mistakes PR wise at the very least. Some of that heat she's earned.

Can you imagine all inquires that are already being sent to the participants of this second study? Do you think they will be able to focus on their work with all the updates people will want overy step of the way? I hope you have a fresh supply of patience.

I'd bet Dr Ketchum can sympathize...

[Guest MikeG]

"Oxford Brookes" and "highly regarded" in the same sentence!

Hmmmm

Mike

[Guest]

Where did the name Nekaris get mentioned?

From the link in the OP the DNA scientist is Bryan Sykes, from Oxford.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bryan_Sykes

Ah, yes. That makes sense. My apologies.

[Guest Shaun]

"Oxford Brookes" and "highly regarded" in the same sentence!

Hmmmm

Mike

It's a decent Uni Mike. Not like it's Luton, or Huddersfield :-)

It's won 'Best Modern Uni' for eleven consecutive years with the SUnday Times.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Unless Dr. Nekaris is actually confirmed as part of the study perhaps we can save the discussion of Oxford Brookes for later...

[southernyahoo]

Something tells me it's possible this new study isn't starting out from scratch, at least as Dr. Sykes is concerned. He was involved in testing hair from Buhtan which came back unknown, and in the brief quotes about that I can find, he was very intrigued. Possibly his interest began there, and he ran with further testing.

Yes, I would think he will have a fresh approach if he's been reading up on the latest developements.

You can't deny that she's also made more than few mistakes PR wise at the very least. Some of that heat she's earned.

I don't think there is a single PR strategy that would satisfy all the points of view in this community, Do it too fast, you did something wrong, not enough data and not published, overkill it and you're dragging your feet, say it's one thing and the other crowd calls BS. Say it's the other and too many people know better. Say nothing you have nothing, say you have something , it better be published tomorrow. The peanut gallery are the experts, etc.

[gigantor]

Oh come on. This was just announced, how can you say that?

PN, that's the definition of vaporware. It's a premature announcement about a future product/project before any details are available.

The announcement clearly says that they are awaiting "marching orders" and don't even have any samples yet. All they have is a website and hype = vaporware.

[Guest]

Renaming this thread The Sykes Report seems appropriate!

This is from the Bigfotology comments box (seems to be the organisations officiel stand) http://bigfootology.com/?p=156

· Bigfootology

Yes, we have been gradually releasing information about a different DNA project but as usual, there is a loss of misinformation already floating around about this information. One error that needs to be cleared up here. This is Dr. Bryan Sykes' project not Dr. Meldrum's project. Meldrum, like Team Bigfootology, was asked to be a part of Syke's project. Bigfootology was included because this was a joint brain-child of Team Bigfootology member Dr. Anna Nekaris who is a colleague of Dr. Bryan Sykes. As we progress into this project more information will be released and it will not be forever to get the information because the findings will be released in a BBC documentary (still pending approval) and a book by Dr. Sykes.

The statement also seems to indicate, that the project is somewhat progressed and not just in its starting fase.

Edited May 17, 2012 by BFSleuth
Remove repeating text in quote

[Guest BFSleuth]

I agree that this is probably better labeled the Sykes Report.

Regarding the "vaporware" analogy, I suppose that is correct. However, vaporware is used as an attempt to prevent competitors from investing in R&D if they think that a large competitor is close to bringing a product to market or to motivate customers to wait until their favorite trusted vendor brings the product to market and avoid purchasing the new company's product. This analogy doesn't apply to the field of scientific research, because if anything the release of information that a scientist or group of scientists are undertaking a study does not preclude other scientists or groups of scientists from also taking on the same area of study. If anything it lends an air of competition to finish and publish results or will create an environment of cooperation or will at least lend credence to the area of study as independent research teams all work on the same problem and we end up with faster confirmation by repeatability.

In business repeatability is a bad thing (hence copyrights and patents). In science repeatability is everything.

I would also add that it seems to be fairly common for scientific studies or efforts to be publicized before results are known, at least that has been the mantra of Parnasus and Saskeptic. This also seems to be born out in media publication of initiation of research or interesting tidbits from ongoing research, especially when large expenditures of public monies are involved like the Large Haldron Collider. They don't always wait until the final research paper is done, accepted, and media embargo lifted before doing their PR bits.

[Guest]

I don't think there is a single PR strategy that would satisfy all the points of view in this community, Do it too fast, you did something wrong, not enough data and not published, overkill it and you're dragging your feet, say it's one thing and the other crowd calls BS. Say it's the other and too many people know better. Say nothing you have nothing, say you have something , it better be published tomorrow. The peanut gallery are the experts, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I am saying, however, that in retrospect it would have been better to not say anything until the paper was on it's way to actual publication. The PR mess could and should have been avoided.

As it stands, the longer she holds back, the more "smoke" there is to obscure and cast doubt, the more people are going to start thinking that there is something to the claims that her report isn't "all that and a bag of chips".

Logical or not, perception has a way of becoming reality.

And this is me saying this as someone who has been a big defender of Ketchum, as my posting record easily shows.

Renaming this thread The Sykes Report seems appropriate!

This is from the Bigfotology comments box (seems to be the organisations officiel stand) http://bigfootology.com/?p=156

· Bigfootology

Yes, we have been gradually releasing information about a different DNA project but as usual, there is a loss of misinformation already floating around about this information. One error that needs to be cleared up here. This is Dr. Bryan Sykes' project not Dr. Meldrum's project. Meldrum, like Team Bigfootology, was asked to be a part of Syke's project. Bigfootology was included because this was a joint brain-child of Team Bigfootology member Dr. Anna Nekaris who is a colleague of Dr. Bryan Sykes. As we progress into this project more information will be released and it will not be forever to get the information because the findings will be released in a BBC documentary (still pending approval) and a book by Dr. Sykes.

The statement also seems to indicate, that the project is somewhat progressed and not just in its starting fase.

Based on this, it looks more like a book project, not a report of a scientific study in progress for journal publication...as loathe as I am to admit it, just publishing a book that gets promptly filed under "fiction" or "crypto" or something is not what we need.

[southernyahoo]

As it stands, the longer she holds back, the more "smoke" there is to obscure and cast doubt, the more people are going to start thinking that there is something to the claims that her report isn't "all that and a bag of chips".

Logical or not, perception has a way of becoming reality.

And this is me saying this as someone who has been a big defender of Ketchum, as my posting record easily shows.

Publishing in a journal puts you out of control in terms of a release schedule Mulder, you know that. To settle for less won't cut it. One persons perception can affect another, true, but scientists have the last say here. I hope Sykes' Project has great success, and would like to see a science paper out of it, but I'll bet he has to play to the BBC documentary funding tune, or there wouldn't be a study.

ETA: On the PR issue, you have to mention you are doing a study to get the samples, so people will know you are doing one, Expectations escalate from there.

Edited May 17, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Guest BFSleuth]

Let's just hope the BBC funding won't result in the same level of "professionalism" they displayed when they did the PGF "debunking" with that silly suit. Hopefully another arm of the BBC will be involved that is more attuned with science and facts.