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

[dmaker]

I tend to agree with your second statement JDL.  But I also, from a logical point of view, am forced to agree with what you contend. Nothing Sykes does, or anyone for that matter could do, would confirm every single witness report. That is a practical impossibility. So, yeah, Darrell is correct in what he says. But I think that you are correct, as an advocate, to take pause with that position, despite the fact that it is accurate. 

 

 

For me, it's not about how many people have actually seen a Bigfoot. My contention is that no one has actually seen a Bigfoot because no such beast exists. If this was proven wrong ( conclusively with DNA or a specimen) then I would not care to argue who saw what when. It just would not be relevant to me anymore.  Suddenly the " maybe you saw a Bigfoot" option becomes an actual possibility. I argue to provide alternatives to that option because I believe it to be a false option. If it were a genuine option, then I have no skin in the game anymore and would bow out. 

Edited October 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

I am hopeful b/c apparently Sykes is returning to the US and will meet with Peter Byrne, according to what seem to be public comments on a the BFE FB page by Bigfootology.  Given his very long involvement a visit between the two seems really appropriate if Sykes feels he is closing in on our fabled Friends. (or alternatively a personal visit to let him down easy? May it never be!).

 

But, hard to base much on    

   ...two samples, use of term Yeti, and also another reference that he received the game changing samples "late"....and also no US copyright..his find could be unrelated to our continent even....   but it did say "shock" and "human history"....ahhh PR!

Edited October 10, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest Urkelbot]

If the DNA comes back no Bigfoot is anyone going to give up on Bigfoots existence?

For me the 5-20% I believe will probably shrink by half.

[dmaker]

I can't answer your question directly Urklebot since I don't hold any current belief that Bigfoot exists. I will make a prediction however. I predict that the majority of advocates will proceed unhindered in their belief. Particularly those that claim to have seen one. That probably does not need to be said. But for the ones who think Bigfoot exists solely because a large number of people say they have seen one? I really don't see that changing much. These things come and go and people continue to believe because they want to. You cannot prove to them that Bigfoot does not exist. You can demonstrate that something claimed to be Bigfoot is not, but then they just shrug and move on to the next shiny bauble that is purported to be evidence of Bigfoot.  This will never end. 

[JDL]

If the DNA comes back no Bigfoot is anyone going to give up on Bigfoots existence?

 

 

The bigfoot certainly won't.

[dmaker]

I draw no hard conclusions from Dr. Sykes' comments, really. But, he obviously has something he wants to share with us unless this is merely puffing to sell books on the part of his publisher. You might recall though that Sykes tested an alleged Yeti hair w/follicle DNA found in a hollow tree in Bhutan a number of years ago. He said, "We expected Bear. It wasn't Bear." He stated the DNA was unknown and behaved like nothing he had ever seen. As far as I know, he was never able to make a match. With that experience under his belt, I'm betting he is selling steak, not the sizzle. (Sorry for the pun...couldn't resist).

(Bolding mine) In fact, it was in a press release in RHI where I read the bear confirmation:

"...Sykes also analyzed hair samples from Bhutan attributed to the Yeti, which seemed to defy DNA identification. Interestingly, during our conversation I learned that further efforts were subsequently successful in determining that the hair originated from bear..."

Source: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Oxford%20PR.pdf

Edited October 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

We got a date.  

 

20th Okt! 

 

http://www.channel4.com/tv-listings/daily/2013/10/20

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

This is interesting:

 

 Episode 1

Mark Evans travels to the Himalayas to find the real story behind the centuries-old Yeti legend.

He risks altitude sickness at Everest Base Camp, where the photograph of a footprint in the snow set off Yeti mania in 1951. He traces the legend through ancient manuscripts, holy relics and a Nazi expedition, and meets people convinced they have come face-to-face with the creature known in the west as the Abominable Snowman.

Meanwhile Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the Yeti hair samples he's collected. The results are spectacular and unexpected.

 

[WSA]

(Bolding mine) In fact, it was in a press release in RHI where I read the bear confirmation:

"...Sykes also analyzed hair samples from Bhutan attributed to the Yeti, which seemed to defy DNA identification. Interestingly, during our conversation I learned that further efforts were subsequently successful in determining that the hair originated from bear..."

Source: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Oxford%20PR.pdf

Roger that. Thanks for updating me.

[Guest SDBigfooter]

DMaker

 

And you will continue to come here with your thousands of comments.

 

You are such a noble man, bringing truth and rational thought to this great forum.

[MarkGlasgow]

This will never end.

And I hope for your sake it won't Don.

What on earth would you do with your time if it did?

Edited October 10, 2013 by MarkGlasgow

[Will]

He'd have to be in the Tar Pit more arguing politics.

[Guest]

You know by definition I can not link you to anything that you will accept. I do how ever have something to offer that shows science intentionally was dishonest with the public. Let's see how honest you are about this. Here is "proof" that can not be explained away that NASA and the JPL have released information that was misleading at best. Intentionally to the public . I think this page offers proof for articiality on Mars. That is debatable. The misleading information is not. Intentional lies proven right here . http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp

ugh

that face is not artificial.

still waiting for the artifact

Perhaps "Yeti" has become his catch-all descriptor for all things BF? And I have to think that if one domino begins to fall, they all do. (Yeti is real thus big foot is real thus skunk apes are real, etc) And if only "Yeti" is brought out into the daylight, suddenly the world accepts that BF can't be far behind.

I'm not sure it would work like that. From what I have read about the yeti, it's highly unlikely to exist. Edited October 11, 2013 by mbh

[Guest]

From what you've read(or just assumed) about any cryptid mbh, is that they are highly unlikely to exist. Thanks for stating it again.

[Guest]

MBH why on Earth would I even bother ? You obviously read nothing on the link I posted. I said I believe it is artificial. I said there is proof , not evidence that JPL and NASA intentionally lied to the public. The question was show where science has intentionally lied and covered up evidence to the public. I showed you proof it has. I did that with something that could not be argued. The simple fact is I provided it. Not with an artifact where the evidence is subjective. With something that is objective and can't be refuted at any level. I prefer not to discuss the face with anyone that just offers an opinion. Learn a few facts and we can discuss the face. The face controversy is unlike Bigfoot. The number of scientist that support the face being artificial is significant. Read a few of the peer reviewed, published pieces. I will even give you another page to look at. You or someone else further back said some thing to the effect of , show here science is "intentionally dishonest..what reason do they have" intentionally lying to the public. http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/newface.htm . Bottom line when the Viking mission first sent the image back of the Face. The public wanted the MGS with HD cameras to take better pictures. JPL and NASA did not want to do it. When forced to (imagine wanting to tell them how to spend part of our money doing something we want) they did it using poor lighting conditions from a bad angle. Not content to just do that. The image was then processed with poorest filtering possible. Then it was stretched. This first image set public opinion. I am sure that is all you are basing your opinion of what formed the Face on Mars. That was not the point . Scientific dishonesty was. All I can do with the artifacts is provide evidence that indicates the dishonesty , with the Face there is proof.

Edited October 11, 2013 by orygundewd