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

[Cotter]

Or why hasn't psychology jumped at the opportunity to study this self created hallucination?

[Guest DWA]

^^^It would be one of the biggest whoppers in the field's history, the Universal Hominoid Illusion, and would probably thrust psychology into the forefront of the "hard" sciences.  One does wonder, doesn't one.

 

We keep hearing about how, oh, eyewitnesses can do this, that and the other.  Well, unless one can prove that is happening with bigfoot witnesses, one is left with a fourth possibility - the one of relevance to zoology and anthropology - that remains unassessed.

[Guest Darrell]

But see I think there has been academic study on both sides of the aisle. Bottom line, there isnt much for academia to grab onto.

[Guest DWA]

Well, this is part of why I think we won't know until somebody - NAWAC; Survivorman; Wildlife International; National Geographic Society; The American Museum of Natural History; or some other well-funded, full-time enterprise takes a good look at the evidence; decides that it's worth field time to find out what's causing this; and commits the funding needed to secure that time.

 

Until that happens, well, good luck.

[Guest Darrell]

And when they find nothing?

[Guest DWA]

Well, when is that?  No point speculating until they actually look, right?

 

As long as I don't believe the subject is being treated with the proper degree of seriousness by the mainstream, I don't have to accept the mainstream's "findings."

[Rockape]

<As long as I don't believe the subject is being treated with the proper degree of seriousness by the mainstream, I don't have to accept the mainstream's "findings.">

 

 

But when someone from the mainstream does do somethng serious on the subject, then we should at least respect their findings.

[Guest DWA]

Of course, doesn't matter what the findings are, if the proper work appears to have been done.

 

And since we are talking about Sykes here, I do want to make clear that I don't think Sykes's results are going to be anything more than interesting.  A DNA sequence isn't a type specimen; a sasquatch is.

 

If Sykes finds no sasquatch DNA - which actually, he can't, because there is no DNA sequence yet from a sasquatch type specimen - in his samples, all that will mean is that none of those samples came from a sasquatch.  It doesn't begin to address the question whether sasquatch exists or not.

Edited October 12, 2013 by DWA

[1980squatch]

Or why hasn't psychology jumped at the opportunity to study this self created hallucination?

Big plus there Cotter, exactly. Ok so you do not think Bigfoot are worth looking into. You would then think that what you said would be. But it is not one or another, it is nothing...

[Gotta Know]

Big plus there Cotter, exactly. Ok so you do not think Bigfoot are worth looking into. You would then think that what you said would be. But it is not one or another, it is nothing...

Um, what?

 

This post requires translation for those of us trying to follow along at home.

[MarkGlasgow]

Or why hasn't psychology jumped at the opportunity to study this self created hallucination?

As in the same way sleep paralysis studies account for 'old hag' or 'grey abduction' stories/claims?

Huge difference between a rarified sleep disorder/event and seeing something you cannot explain at close quarters whilst hunting with every sense fully alert.

[Guest]

In 2005 it still cost tens of thousands to produce DNA sequencing, and today the $1000 genome is upon us.  The various open source databases of genetic data, to clinical studies, are contributing to the fast pace of genetic bioinformatics..  the wave is just beginning it seems 

It will be within reach of many interested, who haven't a dependence on job security or standing within a peer group.  They will still need access to good BF data/researcher, and hopefully without the accompanying circus..  

But, those who so spend their money, on this seemingly bad karma quest, should educate themselves on how to spend it and with who to get the outcome they seek (that does vary!) and it seems an objective (non-stakeholder!) consultant would make sense.  

I do think many capable scientists/geneticists would consult privately for a fee to evaluate and shepherd any study that was dependent on service lab work and any BFdom motivated project manager......until a University sponsors..(and that is Oxford...now!).   

Edited October 12, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Todd Neiss says he's sworn to secrecy, but Sykes has some 'block-buster findings'. More will be known in his show next week, apparently. Hmmm.

[Oonjerah]

^ "some 'block-buster findings'."

 

I believe it ... but it's too exciting. 

 

Better I should keep reading, "well, you know, change our understanding 

of human history -- that's what he normally does. It certainly doesn't mean

he actually Found Yeti." 

 

So who is Todd Neiss?  

[Guest shoot1]

 

^ "some 'block-buster findings'."

 

I'm becoming cynical in my old age, not skeptical, so I'm betting they cash in on something 'blockbustery' like "We found DNA of unknown origin and check out the scary interviews and video of us geezers bumbling through the woods. Ooh, ahhhh!"

 

And to answer your question, Todd Neiss runs The American Primate Foundation. 

Edited October 14, 2013 by shoot1