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

[southernyahoo]

 It's obviously not a Sherpa's over active imagination as scoff tics like to constantly point out as the probable explanation.

.

 

...........Or the Sherpa's DNA in the findings............

[Guest Darrell]

Boy this is sure starting to shape up like the Kechum fiasco.

[Guest]

Boy this is sure starting to shape up like the Kechum fiasco.

 

In what ways, Darrell?

[NathanFooter]

Darrell , I am very interested in your view of how this is   ,, sure starting to shape up like the Kechum fiasco ,, .    

 

Would you mind sharing ?

[Guest]

Sykes has too solid of a reputation to be "Ketchum-ed".

[Guest]

Until a peer review paper is published, or perhaps an uploaded Genbank genome, maybe not immune, if even then.

 ...although he is clearly world reknown judging by the many conventional outlets that reported the story internationally

 

 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24433-beware-of-the-yeti-and-spurious-science-too.html#.UmVOSHBtiYQ

Edited October 21, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest Llawgoch]

Boy this is sure starting to shape up like the Kechum fiasco.

 

 

It really isn't.  Ketchum's 'research' was a complete mess of nothing that she claimed proved Bigfoot.

At the moment what it looks like  we're going to get out of this is some interesting results about bears that probably require further investigation before we can say much about them.

Sykes has too solid of a reputation to be "Ketchum-ed".

 

 

You're not still maintaining that that mess was worthwhile research that was unfairly panned are you? Really?

[Guest Urkelbot]

It's looking like no Bigfoot DNA. Finding bear DNA just affirms the idea that everyone witnessing Bigfoot/yeti is really just seeing bears.

I thought the results, if no Bigfoot, are dissapointing. But strangely here most people seem upbeat. I guess proponents have to be half full types.

The bear DNA is cool I guess but its not Bigfoot.

Who's on the horizon for the next DNA screening?

[Cotter]

"Finding bear DNA just affirms the idea that everyone witnessing Bigfoot/yeti is really just seeing bears."

 

And reaffirms that people seeing strange, large, hairy creatures unbeknownst to scientists are not crazy, deluded, or mistaken.
 

 

Edit:  And that large, undocumented mammals are still roaming about near human settlements.
 

Edited October 21, 2013 by Cotter

[Guest Llawgoch]

Again, no, not if those bears are unremarkable enough in appearance that people just think "Oh, a bear" on the rare occasions they see them.

[Guest]

^ Bears are neither strange nor undocumented, roaming near human settlements or not. They are generally large and hairy creatures, so I guess you have that part right.

[Guest Darrell]

Darrell , I am very interested in your view of how this is   ,, sure starting to shape up like the Kechum fiasco ,, .    

 

Would you mind sharing ?

To start with , there is a proponent view anticipating this to be the one true thing that will prove either to themselves or others that their belief system is valid. There is a paper that hasnt been published, with many reasons why and many postponements. There are individuals in the phenomina that claim to have the inside track and leak or tease info in thier blogs. There are NDA's. There are book and documentary promises. And I will predict that when its all said and done there will be nothing new or earth shattering for the phenomina. No proof, no new messiah, no person to place on a pedistal. And if you dont think this matches what happend with Ketchem just go back and read everything that led up to her report. Its almost exactly the same. Yes Sykes is doing his thing much better than the Ketchum blunder but its still the same pattern with the proponents.  I made a prediction in the Ketchem thread approx 8 months before she presented her study and I was almost perfectly correct. So, if the Sykes study is the basket you are putting all your eggs into, its time to get a new chicken.  

[Guest Llawgoch]

What you are doing there is confusing the way some people have been anticipating and second guessing Sykes's project with Sykes project itself.  Ketchum's project was intrinsically a fiasco; you seem to be saying that because Sykes's study will disappoint some people who hoped it would prove the existence of Bigfoot,  it's also a fiasco - without taking into account that Sykes never expected to prove the existence of Bigfoot.

 

His first words in that documentary were that he was annoyed with cryptozoologists claiming science was ignoring the subject while science is entirely evidence based.  So he said send me any evidence you think you have, I'll see what you've got.  Simply because he's now old enough and at a point in his career where he can do some things just due to a personal interest even if he wholly expects nothing much to come of it.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest Darrell]

^Exactly. I must not have been clear with that. The study is what the study is. Its the life it has here that I think is what matches the Ketchum fisasco.

[NathanFooter]

I can see the lines in the sand being similar as far as pattern and form but Sykes is not making empty promises , he is credible and scientific, to me you made it sound comparative of Sykes to Ketchum.   If that was not your intention I understand now.  Thank you for your explanation.

 

Also I would like to add that I never put all my eggs in 1 basket,  I do not rely on others to prove something for me , I get out there and do the field work my self to try and bring the truth to the surface.