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

[Guest Darrell]

^Yes I agree 100% with that.

[southernyahoo]

http://www.arabnews.com/news/468282

Sykes compared DNA from hair samples taken from two Himalayan animals — identified by local people as Yetis — to a database of animal genomes. He found they shared a genetic fingerprint with a polar bear jawbone found in the Norwegian Arctic that is at least 40,000 years old.

Sykes said Thursday that the tests showed the creatures were not related to modern Himalayan bears but were direct descendants of the prehistoric animal.

He said, “it may be a new species, it may be a hybrid†between polar bears and brown bears.

It's the bottom line that is confusing. Was the acient polar bear a hybrid (which would have either the Polar bear mtDNA or the Brown bear's) or is it the Yeti samples which would be the hybrid which matches the ancient polar bear's DNA. How could it be either one if it is different from both modern bears and mtDNA doesn't recombine?

[Guest Stan Norton]

So here is my question: As "science" takes a look at this phenomina and keeps hitting a dead end as far as evidence, will there still be such angst against the establishment as a whole? The argument that science isnt taking a serious look at the phenomina isnt going to work if the evidense provided isnt what it is proposed to be. Its already starting in that Sykes, in the yeti case at least, has taken evidence and studied it but hasnt come to the conclusion of the proponent side has. I think it will always come down to what an individual wants to believe more than anything else.

Well I don't think either of the folks who submitted the two interesting samples claimed them to be indisputably from a yeti. In the one case the creature was so strange that a seasoned hunter preserved the skin, in the other it was a hair from a purported yeti lair. They were sent to Sykes precisely because he requested putative yeti hair. If they turn out not to be yeti then so be it. That's the rub. It is very persuasive evidence for an answer to the yeti enigma but in the end it proves nothing either way. Personally, I find this result as fascinating as the yeti-as-ape hypothesis.

It is clear that there is and has been a core of scientists willing to investigate the phenomena so I am not sure the science isn't looking argument is too strong. However, that core is very small and this issue is way out at the fringe so it can't be said that a proportionate amount of scrutiny is being shown given the range of evidence available. In this study. Someone looked and discovered something amazing...does that not wet scientists whistles?

Edited October 22, 2013 by Stan Norton

[BobbyO]

I'm amazed there hasn't been any leaks where the NA results are concerned.

When is the NA episode on, Sunday ?

I'd also be amazed if they do Asia first with those pretty incredible results, then a show on NA with nothing positive.

If there was nothing positive where NA was concerned, surely that would have done that episode first and then put massive emphasis on the Asian stuff and the new Bear species ?

[Guest Darrell]

^ Not necissarily. I would think if the 1st show delivered butkis then the subsequent shows would have less viewers. Deliver up front something good and at least the next show has more viewers. It think there are some here who hope that the NA show gives them something they want. We will see.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Darrell

[BobbyO]

Fair point Darell on the way round the shows could be.

With regards to the last line though, I couldn't care less either way to be honest, makes no difference either way to me.

No disrespect to current field researchers but if this Sykes stuff comes up empty, it's as clear as day to me that current research practices are way off the mark however, like I have been thinking for some time now.

I know you don't think these things exist Darell and I can completely understand why, but they do and if this does come up empty then I'd hope that current field researchers really take a long, hard look at themselves and have enough about them as people to take a look in the mirror, brush themselves down, admit to themselves first and foremost that they've been going about things the wrong way and start afresh with new research techniques other than, for example, sticking cameras on trees and expecting them to catch these things on them.

Think it was Einstein who said that insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting different results.

Edited October 22, 2013 by BobbyO

[Guest]

 Would that be the cytochrome b gene or the CO1 gene?

 

We'll have to wait for the paper for the details.

 

I get that it is conserved, but I seem to be lost as to how it is concluded a hybrid, without more data. Since the mtDNA segment is conserved , doesn't recombine, and clearly different from present polar bears and brown bears then it is a distinct species of bear descended from the common ancestor.

He is throwing some supposition and guess work out there in the show. I would be very surprised if the paper made a firm conclusion on this yet. That is likely something that will be studied for years. It sounds like it is likely a portion of the brown bear population that has this trait passed down. I'd be surprised if these bears were a separate population, again that is something that will have to be studied for some time to determine. The population may or may not still be present as well, both materials sampled were from old sources with little providence. 

 

Step 1 will probably have to be to check if the two hairs tested are from the same or different animals. Step 2 would be to find the bear population.

[Guest Darrell]

Bobby, Point well taken. I do have an opinion that, exist or not, there are some proponents who make this part of their belief system. I believe they are looking for anything that will validate that, and when it doesnt they attack the person or discipline, or deem the failure as a conspiricy. Thats just what it seems like to me.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Darrell

[BobbyO]

If " believers " ( people who haven't had any type of encounter, foot print finds etc included ) do that sort of stuff, I'd be inclined to point towards a few sandwiches short of a picnic if you get my drift, more often than not.

If knowers/witnesses do it, I can understand it ( not necessarily agree with it though ) as it can be frustrating, very frustrating seeing little to no breakthrough after you've had a sighting or found tracks etc that you can't dismiss.

[Guest SDBigfooter]

Yes I do hope that the show gives me something I want.  That is why I will be excited to watch it.  Of course, it sounds like the whole show will be leaked a few days before which makes no sense but o well.  I would be confused if the three shows do not find something substantial (related to the Big guy) becuase that is the focal point.  If that is the case, then it was all about getting money to pay for the production.  To get a publisher and a documentary team and to write a book, all to show a scientific process that finds nothing about the focal point of the series would be a head scratcher. 

 

When/If the show doesn't prove anything, you will be the first person here asking, "Are you done yet?"  It goes both ways Darrell.

 

I am axcited about the show and hope it shows some great new things.  You are pretty sure nothing new will come out of it and are predicting no interesting samples.

 

No big deal.

 

And Lawg, what about the stuffed bear Sykes was trimming samples off of.  I watched the doc late last night so I may be wrong but I thought that was one of the bears.  Was it not?

Darrell, I just had to add that you crack me up.

[BobbyO]

And Lawg, what about the stuffed bear Sykes was trimming samples off of.  I watched the doc late last night so I may be wrong but I thought that was one of the bears.  Was it not?

.

If I remember rightly that "thing" was nearly 100 years old now and had been butchered by a taxidermist ( an old Nazi taxidermist, perish the thought ) and had also been subjected to decades of sunlight which I think they said, ruins the fibres in the hair and makes it tough to extract DNA from or something along those lines.

[MarkGlasgow]

So the Yeti hairs were a shot in the dark...

Didn't the Frenchman who was taken to the village see the stuffed creature remark that it looked like a bear to him? The hairs taken from the tree could have been anything that passed by.

When experienced sherpas describe a creature very different from a bear that they would have surely seen many times then we should take note.

Interestingly enough Anna Nekaris firmly believes that first hand accounts from local/native peoples should be taken very seriously as 'following these leads' have proved very fruitful in the past.

Not heard any whispers about Sunday's NA show so far. The lid is pretty fast on this one. My gut tells me that we may have to wait for episode three to hear about those two samples that have got Sykes so excited.

[Guest SDBigfooter]

I thought he took the samples anyway.  I remember that he was trying to dig in to get hair that was more protected from sunlight.  I am guessing I am wrong though.

[Guest Darrell]

 

Darrell, I just had to add that you crack me up.

Well then you should see me ride a unicycle and juggle handgrenades. Sometimes I just crack myself up too.

[Oonjerah]

As I recall: 

1st sample, Mark hiked to a village & spoke to a man who knew where some Yeti remains are.

   They hiked another 6 miles to the village that has the remains, & Mark was given a sample. 

 

2nd sample, hair from a hollow stump said to be bedroom of a Yeti. 

 

Taxidermist's revenge creature now belonging to Messner: sample taken, but was a bust. No DNA.