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

[Guest Stan Norton]

You are comparing an Order(primates) to a Genus(Ursus) or Family(Ursidae). To compare you would need to say Ursidae to Hominidae. Or Primate to Carnivora.

You're right. So pick the genus Ursos and compare it to most primate genera. My point holds true in the vast majority of cases.

The number of known primate species has essentially doubled in the last few decades. The same is not true for Carnivora.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Stan Norton

[Guest]

What do you think it means? The consensus, amongst those who are bothered enough to look into the subject and who feel there is something worth investigating, is that sasquatch is a perfectly normal animal, not some mind bending space monkey from the fifth dimension. Simple really.

I couldn't say what you think it means... as it was your assertion, not mine.  And, your answer "normal animal"  is hardly any consensus...of detail anyway....we seem to know more than that, don't we?

 

I don't think there is a consensus on Sasquatch.

 

 My own view is based on personal field research first, secondary sources and/or other witnesses/researchers, secondly.  

 

I think the bigfoots in my area are of the genus Homo, perhaps even as advanced as Neandertal (as I see the updates in paleoarcheology...there are open questions .) although more probably descendants of a Homo erectus line....  and the fossil record seems to support this, .in that bi-pedalism is the hallmark of the genus homo and came early...millions of years ago.  Fossil hominid skulls seem to also match well witness accounts...

 

So, I have combined my observations.. (see original part 1 Habituating Bigfoot thread ..as I do share in some detail my story)  with what we seem to know ....and it says to me... a type of archaic human

 

But, I have some significant observations/data that don't fit neatly into that hypothesis, unless we change our perceptions of what a normal archaic human is  (or even animal)...or, I am able to discover another cause/source for the apparent anomolies to normal.

 

I did smile at the idea..we are talking about what is a normal bigfoot...  only here, right?

Edited October 19, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest Urkelbot]

You're right. So pick the genus Ursos and compare it to most primate genera. My point holds true in the vast majority of cases.

No it doesn't.  You would have to compare genus Ursus to say genus Gorilla or genus Pan in which case Ursus is more diverse.

 

Saying primates are more diverse than bears is like saying mammals are more diverse than frogs.

[Guest Stan Norton]

No it doesn't. You would have to compare genus Ursus to say genus Gorilla or genus Pan in which case Ursus is more diverse.

Saying primates are more diverse than bears is like saying mammals are more diverse than frogs.

In the majority of cases my point holds true. Maybe not for the great apes but certainly for new or old world monkeys, lemurs etc.

[Guest Urkelbot]

Still no. New world monkeys, old world monkeys are at the suborder level and lemurs are at the family.  Getting to genus you need to be  more specific.  There might be some genus of monkeys out there that is more diverse than Ursus but probably not the majority.  

[Guest]

Bigfoot evidence just posted the latest statement from Rhettman Mullis.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/10/another-update-from-bigfootology.html

[Guest]

I had a feeling there was more to all of this than just a bear explanation.

[Gotta Know]

Thanks for the post--very illuminating as much for what cannot be said (yet) as what can. Seems clear enough that the other size 18 shoe will indeed drop, soon enough.

 

Seeing Dr. Sykes sitting there with Smeja is quite the surprise, and quite the clue. No way that guy is invited to the DNA party with anything but game changing evidence, IMHO. Bears steaks might have been served for dinner, but that's it.

 

The next six months are going to be quite the roller coaster ride. Fun times!

 

By the way, when I go to the Bigfoot Evidence blogspot and see that purported picture of the back of BF (long, gray hair) it strikes me as authentic everytime. The mass. The muscles. The human-like hair (not fur). I think once BF is given the DNA green light, that pic will become even more valuable. Perhaps the front side pic will soon follow once ridicule is cast aside?

Bigfoot evidence just posted the latest statement from Rhettman Mullis.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/10/another-update-from-bigfootology.html

[Guest]

By the way, when I go to the Bigfoot Evidence blogspot and see that purported picture of the back of BF (long, gray hair) it strikes me as authentic everytime. Perhaps the front side pic will soon follow once ridicule is cast aside?

Strikes me as a fake. Don't hold out hope for seeing a pic of another angle. Highly unlikely they even exist. The owner of the photo won't release anymore information about it. Screams of hoax.

[Gotta Know]

Strikes me as a fake. Don't hold out hope for seeing a pic of another angle. Highly unlikely they even exist. The owner of the photo won't release anymore information about it. Screams of hoax.

I wouldn't either if I didn't want to subject myself to great levels of public riducule. If a hoax, the techniques used are exceptional IHMO.

[Guest shoot1]

Bigfoot evidence just posted the latest statement from Rhettman Mullis.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/10/another-update-from-bigfootology.html

My cynical spidey sense is tingling now. The statement is somewhat revealing about the groups mindset:

 

 More can be shared as each documentary is aired, more can be shared when the paper is published, and even more can be shared when Bryan's book comes out in the spring of next year. 

 

The only (legal) reason I think they can't discuss the documentaries or the book yet is because they must have signed NDA's about the info with commercial distributors or producers - I mean, they have to maximize the return on their investment, right? This makes sense since, for example, I personally won't watch the (first) documentary since I know it is at it's core just a documentary about a bear.  I'm pretty sure most people will watch the documentary despite those results, but I'm curious how many other "Bigfooters" feel the same way as I do - since the results aren't directly linked to Sasquatch I'd rather watch something else for entertainment. As for the paper itself I think that there were (are) stipulations / academic rules to be followed before it's published so that doesn't bother me (well, not as much, at least).  I am afraid that if this project doesn't conclusively prove something/anything then "Bigfoot hunting" will have been commercialized to the point where people won't touch it for anything other than financial reasons ever again and academia won't pay any attention to related projects again in the future.     

[Guest]

I wouldn't either if I didn't want to subject myself to great levels of public riducule. If a hoax, the techniques used are exceptional IHMO.

Disagree. People who don't stand by evidence shouldn't bother to release it at all. People who release evidence, and then don't stand by it, or do anything to investigate it's background are even worse. 

[Gotta Know]

Disagree. People who don't stand by evidence shouldn't bother to release it at all. People who release evidence, and then don't stand by it, or do anything to investigate it's background are even worse. 

I understand this position and don't necessarily disagree. But hoax or not, the pic in question looks exactly like what I'd expect the back of a BF to look like. Heck of a bit of fakery if that's the case.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Mr Mullis from Bigfootology is in the Motherland right now according to himself, something to do with the filming ( although surely that's all done now ).

 

Can't see why he'd be there if there wasn't positive results to what Sykes has tested so far.

Bigfootology

about an hour ago

In the UK the Icon Films company is playing Bigfoot Files for Channel 4 starting Sunday, October 20th, and each subsequent hour will air on the subsequent Sundays. However, National Geographic has picked up the program and are editing it for a two hour program to be aired on November 17th on the National Geographic Channel. What I have not been told is how the US version will be edited. Icon Films owns the programs, Bryan and I do not, so they have full control of what is presented in these programs.

In fact, after re-reading it, the incorrect English at the start of the post may not mean he's actually in the UK after all.

 

The lack of apostrophe or full stop means it could have a couple of meanings.

 

If it was me writing ( and i know this wouldn't be correct English too ), i would write " In the UK " referring to myself being in the UK as opposed to the correct " I'm in the UK " so maybe i've read it wrong and with an English mindset, which this wasn't written with..

 

 

Well I'm British and I have a degree in English, and I can't see how you can possibly read into that that Mullis is saying he's in the UK.  His English is perfectly correct, and he's talking only about the film.

Disagree. People who don't stand by evidence shouldn't bother to release it at all. People who release evidence, and then don't stand by it, or do anything to investigate it's background are even worse. 

 

The often claimed position of "I don't want to expose myself to ridicule so I'm only releasing a little of my evidence, and only the unconvincing parts". is indeed nonsensical.

[Guest]

Someone asked how the new species of bear was being received by scientists.. I don't know....is it real news for zoologists?  A little early yet.

 

 There is no accompanying paper published, so it's a non event to science in some ways....  to the peer review process anyway...  and yet big news of it's own and seemingly swallowed whole by the media today..

 

It is interesting Skyeshas floated a "extinct species"  mantra with this bear, as any acceptance by anyone of that claim would make it hard for those same minds to come unglued with a surviving relict hominid.and declare his science faulty...humm...it's a great strategy, even if serendipitous.

Edited October 21, 2013 by apehuman