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

[Guest]

Well, Sykes has been scooped for title of "first formal scientific paper in a non-owned journal".

Congrats to our own Bill Munns for his excellent preliminary paper on Patty documenting the fact she's not a MiaS.

 

Bigfoot exists, gentlemen!  Now hopefully Skyes can tell us just what they are.

[Guest Urkelbot]

Not to disparage his paper I liked it. The paper is on Meldrums Journal with other sasquatch papers. If Sykes or anyone else can pull off the Bigfoot DNA with little to no doubt it could get into Science or Nature.

[Oonjerah]

"Revolutionary human geneticist and genealogist Bryan Sykes is known for discovering the

genes which bear the cause of diseases such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis."

 

Five of Dr. Sykes' books have already been published. The 1st by Oxford University Press, a

couple by Bantam. Without checking into it, I imagine his published articles far are more numerous. 

 

One of the write-ups about him: Bryan Sykes, wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes

 

On this study, will he submit a paper first? And then publish a book if his findings warrant it? 

 

Another thing I've wondered about. When he announced his interest in Bigfoot DNA, he said to

proponents via the US press something like: OK, you people have complained for years that

science won't take you seriously. Here's your chance. Put your samples where your mouth is. 

 

I don't recall exactly how he said it; but it was a challenge. 

 

Before that, did he already start with Almasty-Woodwose materials -- possibly on hand? 

 

Then did he contact press around the world, asking for samples of yeti, yowie, yeren, orang-pendek,

etc? I don't know about Africa, but every other continent has reports of an existing wild apeman. 

 

When he announced his desire to study them, was he more polite, less challenging than here in

the US? Did he contact us 1st, last or all on the same day? I wonder. 

 

I think Yowie proponents in Australia get the same ridicule as we do here. 

I suspect, have read, that Yeti in Tibet is accepted as fact by most people. 

As for Yeren & Orang-pendek, I know nothing. 

 

He had his 66th birthday on Sept 9th.  Happy birthday, Dr. Sykes!  I don't know when he graduated

Eltham College [1969-70?] He's been at his studies a long time. He sounds as versatile as he is creative. 

[Guest]

Here, if a documentary is to be aired anytime soon, there is generally advertising..of some kind..and I went to BBC Channel 4 website today and searched for any Iconfilms upcoming program dealing with Sykes/Yeti etc and came up empty...  

 

Not sure I was exhaustive in that search...but seems it should have been easy if a show was scheduled for just about 10 days out.. I think Rhett said Oct 18 initially...maybe. RL's post of the FB post by his "source" might be accurate?  

 

March 2014 seems more in keeping with positive results and peer review (at first he wasn't aimed for review, but a book..circa 2011 or so write up)  ...and his first round testing this year was to be  mtDNA, and if they are close to us..he will need to go to nuclear DNA or something..RNA-seq...   haha, don't pin me, I am deep in tutorials in genetics...figured in the lull perhaps I can improve my understanding...  but  a significant delay would not surprise me.

 

the icon films website reveals what looks like decent programming..but for this recent alarming title:  hope not predicitve...

http://www.iconfilms.co.uk/productions/recent-productions/hustling-america.html

 

Oonjerah, I couldn't have hoped for a better person to take this on, really. He possesses all the qualities necessary for such a problem, and more.  I think we are lucky to have his attention and resources...

Edited October 6, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Not to disparage his paper I liked it. The paper is on Meldrums Journal with other sasquatch papers. If Sykes or anyone else can pull off the Bigfoot DNA with little to no doubt it could get into Science or Nature.

 

So could Bill's, or any of the others in RHI.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest shoot1]

But a DNA-based paper by a famous, connected, and highly-regarded scientist like Sykes is a world changer. 

[Guest]

^In the current, un-scientific world we are faced with, perhaps.

 

But good science is not a matter of the reputation of the scientist, or the journal.  It's all about the data (or SHOULD be, if they were playing by their own rules).

[JDL]

Perhaps if Sykes concludes that the evidence indicates the existence of an undocumented species, objective people will listen.

 

Of course, there will be those who will immediately declare that he has gone nuts, despite his stature.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

A biological creature must leave us evidence, if we keep coming up empty, we might have to reconsider our understanding of what this is all about, and I for one certainly hope that is not the case.  I fear what types of deception might be perpetrated upon our race if we find alien connections to bigfoot are really true, or that the paranormal aspects reported are real.  That's one big can of worms I don't want to take fishing, so I am really hoping that we can prove this is another creature that is part of the natural world we inhabit, not supernatural in any way, other than it's agility and cunningness.

[Wheellug]

JDL, based on your avatar, its no longer"'Run Forrest, Run!", it should be "Run Sykes, RUN!"

[Cotter]

 so I am really hoping that we can prove this is another creature that is part of the natural world we inhabit, not supernatural in any way, other than it's agility and cunningness.

Well, I would say that, based on all other life on earth, there is a good chance it will indeed be part of the natural world.

[Northern Lights]

I did pose the question on the JREF forum as to whether Sykes had the clout to change opinions if he determines a previously uncategorized species does exist and several there responded it wasn't about the clout, and is about whether his methods are sound and provides access to the data.  I think that is a reasonable approach to this whole discussion.  

[Guest]

^Didn't help Ketchum's study any?  They still won't do an independent evaluation of it.

 

It IS about "clout".  Who has it, and who doesn't.

 

After all, we now have our first "clean" peer-reviewed paper proving BF (Munn's Report, first paper) and it still isn't getting anywhere.

[dmaker]

So could Bill's, or any of the others in RHI.

And you are basing this on what....?  How do you personally know what could pass peer review in Nature? 

I'm sorry, Mulder, but Munn's papers do NOT prove Bigfoot. They attempt to disprove the idea that Patty is a man in a suit.  Bigfoot remains unproven despite your bold claims here otherwise.  

[WSA]

I'm thinking that unless and until somebody with as much expertise as Bill  comes along and proposes through an analysis as thorough as Bill's that Patty IS a man in a suit, I will consider it as definitive proof as can be that it is not. Reason compels me to take no other position.  I think I can safely say Bill would welcome such a challenge, and he has extended an invitation to entertain anyone who wants to go toe-to-toe on the evidence...but he has had no takers to date that I'm aware of. Each day his conclusions go unchallenged reeforces them.

 

 Not to say someday somebody won't do that, and prevail, but the reasonable person considers this matter as settled for now. If they do not, it behooves them to come forward with cogent arguments pointing out the flaws in Bill's analysis. By "cogent arguments", I refer to analysis of only the images on the film....which is all Bill has ever looked at to frame his conclusions. What Patterson and Gimlin had for breakfast that morning, the gait of their horses, or if they ever beat their wives are all positively beside the point.