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

[dmaker]

Are you suggesting, Mulder, that Dr. Sartori has a different definition of evidence that Dr. Sykes? Are they not leading this project together? I don't see you calling into question Dr.Sykes qualifications. Do you think Dr.Sykes would lead a project together with someone who cannot be trusted to stick to standard evidence definitions? Would that slander not effect both leaders of the project if true?

[Cotter]

I take the 'real' evidence portion meaning 'evidence that is from an undiscovered primate', not a difference between what they consider evidence....but then again, he also could mean that blurry photos, fake hair, and weird noises at night doesn't constitute 'real' evidence.....

[Guest]

Yes, we can't have scientists defining what evidence is. Best leave that to posters on the Interwebs....

 

We have a word for a situation where one side not only is a player in the game, but writes AND adjudicates the rules: rigged.

 

"Science" has never submitted itself to any public process whereby it was granted authority to adjudicate issues of truth, nor is there any external oversight or appeals process to keep it honest.

[Guest]

The game ain't rigged. The standards for proving bigfoot are the same for other species.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[dmaker]

We have a word for a situation where one side not only is a player in the game, but writes AND adjudicates the rules: rigged.

 

"Science" has never submitted itself to any public process whereby it was granted authority to adjudicate issues of truth, nor is there any external oversight or appeals process to keep it honest.

Yes, of course. Conspiracy theory. How could I have missed that?  Unless, of course, the result is something you like Mulder. Will you be crying "rigged" then?

[Squatchy McSquatch]

You can "feel" whatever you like.

 

Objective reality says otherwise.

 

Yes, it does.

 

This is the point in our dance where I would ask you if you got monkey?

 

And you never seem to have got monkey.

 

I'll wait until after the Sykes report and there will be no monkey then either.

 

Just 'feelings'

[Guest Urkelbot]

We have a word for a situation where one side not only is a player in the game, but writes AND adjudicates the rules: rigged.

 

"Science" has never submitted itself to any public process whereby it was granted authority to adjudicate issues of truth, nor is there any external oversight or appeals process to keep it honest.

Do you have examples of "science" actively misleading and being dishonest to the public. Where all the scientists worldwide in a specific field are in cahoots to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of the world.

[Cotter]

Do you have examples of "science" actively misleading and being dishonest to the public. Where all the scientists worldwide in a specific field are in cahoots to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of the world.

seems to me there was an attempt at global cooling at some point.....

of course the ongoing flouridation controversy

then there's the whole health care industry where doctors and scientists knowingly falsify data:  http://naturalsociety.com/scandalous-scientists-and-doctors-falsifying-data-for-research-to-be-published/

 

 

So...it happens.

[Guest]

I know we've been over and over the standards and protocols for these peer-reviewed studies, but I have a question....If Sykes has nothing, in terms of proof of BF, can he just not say, "I tested all of the available samples and nothing tested positive for an unknown primate?"  If something was not deemed to be real in the first place, and certain samples of said alleged creature turned out to be nothing, what is the point of dragging it on and keeping it secretive, if that's the case?  Didn't Bigfootology claim that there was a book coming out about the study and that it was going to be released at the same time as the study, or something to that effect?  What would be the point of doing that if there was no positive results for BF?  Why, if there are no positive results, has Sykes been traveling to the U.S to go Squatching?  Didn't Bigfootology put out some teasers about the study, sort of implying that there was something to the study?  I don't put much stock in that group because I believe that most of these groups are ambulance chasers, so to speak, and attempt to nose their way in to every BF event and align themselves with key players and act as if they had some sort of major contribution to whatever it may be, but some of their comments strike my curiosity.

[HOLDMYBEER]

If you read any of his books you will see a style of identifying a series of questions (heritage of the locals or movement of populations) and then solving the questions by a review of the data from a DNA collection project. I can only guess he wants to release the answers to the questions at one time with a summary of the data.

[Guest]

The game ain't rigged. The standards for proving bigfoot are the same for other species.

 

Standards DEFINED by "Science", and REFEREED by "Science" (and often reinterpreted on the fly), with ZERO outside auditing or oversight, and no means of appeal.

 

That's not an impartial process.  That's a rigged game.

Yes, of course. Conspiracy theory. How could I have missed that?  Unless, of course, the result is something you like Mulder. Will you be crying "rigged" then?

 

No conspiracy, just basic truth.  And it's a truth that is reinforced every day right here on this forum when the science of Dr Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Swindler, Schaller, Sariamento, Officer Chilcutt, et al is ignored or impugned with ZERO counter-evidence presented on the part of Skeptics.  And the public nods approvingly and thinks what Science tells it to think.

Yes, it does.

 

This is the point in our dance where I would ask you if you got monkey?

 

And you never seem to have got monkey.

 

I'll wait until after the Sykes report and there will be no monkey then either.

 

Just 'feelings'

 

It exists in the hairs identified as "unknown primate".  It exists in Dr Fahrenbach's track size distribution paper.  It exists in the dermatoglyphics identified by Dr Chillcutt.  It exists in the biometric observations of Dr Meldrum and Dr Howe of the anatomy of "Cripplefoot".  It exists in the analysis of the PGF by Bill Munns.  It MAY exist in Dr Ketchum's DNA analysis (if some legitimate scientist will finally do a full and proper followup to her study).

 

We may not have a full-body monkey body, but we have parts, and the marks made by parts, and film of a monkey body.

 

All real science.  All ignored by the institution as a whole, which wants one physically on the dissection slab before it will even consider the existence of the creature, but does nothing whatsoever to acquire one.

[Guest]

I know we've been over and over the standards and protocols for these peer-reviewed studies, but I have a question....If Sykes has nothing, in terms of proof of BF, can he just not say, "I tested all of the available samples and nothing tested positive for an unknown primate?"  If something was not deemed to be real in the first place, and certain samples of said alleged creature turned out to be nothing, what is the point of dragging it on and keeping it secretive, if that's the case?  Didn't Bigfootology claim that there was a book coming out about the study and that it was going to be released at the same time as the study, or something to that effect?  What would be the point of doing that if there was no positive results for BF?  Why, if there are no positive results, has Sykes been traveling to the U.S to go Squatching?  Didn't Bigfootology put out some teasers about the study, sort of implying that there was something to the study?  I don't put much stock in that group because I believe that most of these groups are ambulance chasers, so to speak, and attempt to nose their way in to every BF event and align themselves with key players and act as if they had some sort of major contribution to whatever it may be, but some of their comments strike my curiosity.

 

The worst (in terms of BF documentation) that Sykes will be able to say in his report would be "none of the samples analyzed in my study proved to be from an 'unknown primate' ".  It would change none of the other evidence on proffer, nor would it "prove" that BF does not exist.

[Guest]

 

 I agree that it wouldn't change the chance of existence, but I highly doubt he would have went through all the trouble without having something substantial 

to be submitted to be reviewed.

[Guest TexasTracker]

What's the latest guess on the Sykes publication? 

[Oonjerah]

Rhettman Mullis on Patrick, the human-Bigfoot hybrid  (July 2012)

http://www.examiner.com/article/rhettman-mullis-on-patrick-the-human-bigfoot-hybrid

 

" .... Mullis has managed to track them down to a general location but won't reveal that

information, for obvious reasons. Efforts are being made to find the women and involve

them in Sykes' DNA research project, even as we speak. .... "

 

That is, Patrick's daughters, Mary Louise and Magdeline. 

 

(I've wondered from time to time if there is a thread in here all about Patrick.

 

ETA publication date. )

Edited September 25, 2013 by Oonjerah