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

[Guest]

I'm not arguing the dishonesty point. I guess I didn't feel that website was credible

@ stinky.,,Thanks for making an assumption about what I think.

I think some are more likely than others.

I apologize for stating an opinion. I keep thinking this is a forum. Silly me.,,

Edited October 11, 2013 by mbh

[Guest]

"Bigfoot Files" seems to be not just a documentary but a series.

 

http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-38319

 

And a series with a bold claim: 

"Bigfoot Files follws Bryan Sykes and Mark Evans as they embark on a global quest to answer scientifically, once and for all, the mystery of Bigfoot and discover if they really exist."

 

No way you can scientifically, once and for all, proof Bigfoot "phantasy", unreal, fake. But you can proof a new primate, hominid.

I dont think someone with the reputation of Sykes would lend himself to just another Monsterquest, making a bold claim like a, FINAL, SCIENTIFIC answer, IF they found just bear, deer, mouse......  

 

As comparison, the shy Monsterquest theme:

"... Science searches for answers...on MonsterQuest."

Edited October 11, 2013 by Data

[Guest]

The question was to show where science was being dishonest .  What is your opinion about credibility based on ? What is your opinion about how the face was formed based on ? Look at who wrote that site and the next. Silly me , to expect someone posting on a forum, to have an informed opinion when debating a specific point. As for your artifact google "spheres found in South African mines". Then Explain how such exact tolerances in geometry are reached through nature. Here is a peer reviewed published paper from 2011 from a reputable publication discussing artificial vs. natural formation.

Edited October 11, 2013 by orygundewd

[dmaker]

^^ Isn't that quite far off topic?

[Cotter]

^Sort of, but I see his point.

You simply can't trust scientific consensus as it relates to 'hard to swallow' items.

[dmaker]

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.

 

Actually, I wouldn't. If Bigfoot were ever proven to be true, I would still come here, but not to argue about Bigfoot. 

"You simply can't trust scientific consensus as it relates to 'hard to swallow' items."

 

Hogwash. If that consensus was in your favor, you'd be waving that consensus flag as strongly as any other Footer. Spare me the special pleading please.

[Cotter]

^I'm not so sure.  Haven't really done it all that much in the past, actually, I've rather been quite suspicious about what mainstream ANYTHING tells me I should 'believe'.

[1980squatch]

OK, am I the only proponent who has a bad feeling about all this, and has for some time?  TV shows, hanging out with footers, media releases, etc.  Sounds to me like Sykes took a vacation and had some fun...

[dmaker]

I'm trying to reserve judgment based on things like that for now. Yeah, some of the details can seem to be indicative of one thing or another for both advocate and skeptic. But really until there is something on the table, it's just needless worry.  I don't predict anything that is really going to blow the lid off of Bigfoot in anyway, but that is based on my current position on Bigfoot--as in there aren't any. It has nothing to do with Sykes qualifications, his vacation habits or anything else.  If he delivers the goods that truly and conclusively support the claim for Bigfoot, then I am perfectly happy to admit I was wrong and correct my position.  

Edited October 11, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

I do agre with Dmaker that even a homerun result for proponents only moves the ball so far. Sykes, I'd just guess, doesn't see himself as having responsibility to form The BigFoot Conservancy or drop everything and lobby Congress for protection under the ESA. So, if it is only a positive step in the right direction and kicks the public's awareness up a notch or two about the serious scientific questions that need addressing, I'd call it "good."

[Guest DWA]

If one cannot point to that big guy right over there, and say he's the one that produced the sample, then, well, it's no better to me than another sighting report.

 

No DNA result that has no body attached will go anywhere - strictly to me now - but on the pile.  Now, Science, tell me what the pile represents.  We sure have given you enough decades now.

[Guest Darrell]

^But it seems that most proponents, especially you, put a ton of credability on sightings. So why do you need a body now?

[Guest DWA]

I don't need anything.

 

But I've figured out what the problem is with bigfoot skeptics.  They can't process evidence as compelling, yet inconclusive.  The eyewitness testimony is, to anyone who has properly processed it, just that.  The problem with the skeptics is that the evidence comes from something that they simply can't accept, so they can't even process it as evidence.

 

A body, in possession and made public, is proof.  Big difference.

 

The evidence says that we should be trying to procure a body.  Which is why NAWAC is, and why the mainstream should be gearing up a full-time effort to do the same.  Or at the very least stop discouraging the search by asking silly questions like "where are the fossils?" and "why hasn't anyone shot one?"

[Guest Darrell]

^I do agree with most of that.

[Guest DWA]

I don't know, Darrell, I just think that scientists should be harboring some curiosity about this.  What the heck is creating all of this?  Why are some of my colleagues treating it seriously?

 

If I were a scientist and anyone asked me about it, here's what I'd say:

 

There does seem to be a lot of people who have seen them, and a lot of tracks for which people with directly relevant experience vouch.  I'd want to know what was causing this, and I'm hoping the generation of kids in school now is going to produce the scientists who will finally tell us what all of this is.  I'd say we're overdue to know, and I'm curious.

 

Or something along those lines.  I mean, why DIScourage curious people?  Seems the last thing a scientist would want to do, but it seems what most of them who are asked their opinion on this promptly proceed to do.