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

[Gotta Know]

Comment deleted.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Gotta Know

[Cotter]

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.

I agree with this.  For some the need to feel vindicated trumps rational thought.

 

But I would also say that IF these creatures exist.  There are 'folks' that know about it and aren't telling.

 

*dons foil hat*

[BobbyO]

100% cotter and I'd go even further and say they're not just not telling, but they're holding other stuff such as evidence back to for whatever reason.

They simply must be, there can be no other explanation.

Edited October 23, 2013 by BobbyO

[Guest]

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.

In the show it was stated the samples from the Nazi stuffed creature had no results due to damage from the chemicals used etc. No viable DNA.

 

But ..... Why the heck cant he get a tooth from the darn thing ? Seems like the core of a tooth would be a much better source for DNA

[BobbyO]

Didn't they say on the show that the entire jaw was made and and had been rebuilt, by clay or cement or something ?

That would suggest that whatever those teeth that were there ( also didn't they say they were upside down ? ) could well have been NOT the teeth of the subject.

[Guest Darrell]

^ But your statement "They simply must be, there can be no other explanation" is exactly what Im talking about. They must exist, so any fact or argument that contradicts what that individual belieives must then be wrong or a conspiricy to supress that knowledge. So Sykes asks for yeti dna samples, gets some samples, and tests them. Samples do not confirm a large bipedal mystery ape in the Himalayas. Does that prove that yeti do not exist, of course not. But what that says to me is what people are claiming they are seeing, and convinced they are seeing, isnt really what they think they are seeing. is that 100% across the board, maybe not. But it does say something to the notion that maybe people are not seeing yeti at all. Ditto that argument for bigfoot in N. America.          

[BobbyO]

^ But your statement "They simply must be, there can be no other explanation" is exactly what Im talking about. They must exist, so any fact or argument that contradicts what that individual belieives must then be wrong or a conspiricy to supress that knowledge. So Sykes asks for yeti dna samples, gets some samples, and tests them. Samples do not confirm a large bipedal mystery ape in the Himalayas. Does that prove that yeti do not exist, of course not. But what that says to me is what people are claiming they are seeing, and convinced they are seeing, isnt really what they think they are seeing. is that 100% across the board, maybe not. But it does say something to the notion that maybe people are not seeing yeti at all. Ditto that argument for bigfoot in N. America.

See this is where you must respect how I view these things Darrell and realise that my mindset and thinking where they are concerned is very different from yours.

I've seen one, no bull, no mis id, no living creature that is currently documented in any natural history books, and certainly no bear..

So when I make these kind of statements like what you've highlighted, you can now see how and why I say what I do.

And as I've said before, if I hadn't have seen one, I would have no interest in this subject whatsoever and wouldn't take it seriously for one second at all.

But circumstances dictate, like all things in life..

Edit : Actually I take that back. You don't have to respect it all, you don't even have to believe it, but you should at least understand it and ultimately understand why I write what I write.

[Guest Darrell]

Well I dont dis-respect (or is it un-respect?) what you might say, as long as bigfoot doesnt morph into an alternate demension or fly away in a UFO. But here is a root problem with some of this mess. You cant convey to me your personal experience in a way I can experience it other than by telling it to me. For me right now, thats just not enough.

[Guest]

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

 

 

By scientific standards, no proper rebuttal has been made.  No showing that peer-review did not take place has been made.  The nature of the refusals and the attitude displayed by some of the places the paper was submitted originally to display clear bias.

 

So why should I accept that the study was fairly judged and rejected?

 

That said, there's so much mud thrown all over the study I don't expect anyone to take it seriously in any event.

 

It's not scientific, but neither is most of institutional science on this issue.

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.

  I saw what I saw and I KNOW what I saw was no bear.  Bears aren't bipedal.  Bears do not move as humans move.

[Guest DWA]

OK, people seeing bigfoot are not seeing bears; and any intimation that that's happening just indicates that one isn't reading the reports.

 

You'll have an easier time just going out and proving bigfoot's real than you will have proving to me that it's routine - to the tune of thousands of reports - for people to see an animal we know about and fantasize something they stand by forever afterward.

 

People aren't that way; and all of our daily experience proves that, minute by minute, over and over.

 

There is nothing with the volume and consistency of this phenomenon that isn't proven, except this.

 

Science can get on it whenever they are ready.

[Guest]

Didn't they say on the show that the entire jaw was made and and had been rebuilt, by clay or cement or something ?

That would suggest that whatever those teeth that were there ( also didn't they say they were upside down ? ) could well have been NOT the teeth of the subject.

True on the teeth but what about the upper teeth in the skull? Or a tleast X -rayed the darn thing and look at the bones

[Guest DWA]

By scientific standards, no proper rebuttal has been made.  No showing that peer-review did not take place has been made.  The nature of the refusals and the attitude displayed by some of the places the paper was submitted originally to display clear bias.

 

So why should I accept that the study was fairly judged and rejected?

 

That said, there's so much mud thrown all over the study I don't expect anyone to take it seriously in any event.

 

It's not scientific, but neither is most of institutional science on this issue.

 

Ketchum's presentation has been execrable (just compare to Sykes); but I have seen nobody resoundingly and conclusively deep-six the results.

 

I have a real hard time with the casual relating of habituation experiences which, were I her, I would have said:  we get this on video and substantiate our findings by showing it to the world, or I'm not helping you.  But that doesn't deep-six the results.

 

I've seen nothing less scientific, in my lifetime, than mainstream science's appraisal of this topic.

 

  I saw what I saw and I KNOW what I saw was no bear.  Bears aren't bipedal.  Bears do not move as humans move.

 

There's nothing easier to deep-six, while we're on that, than that sasquatch sighters are seeing bears.  No they aren't.

[Guest]

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.

 

Wildlife research is pretty standard science Bobby: observe, document sign, attempt to photo and if possible obtain biological samples.

[Oonjerah]

If Himalayan Yeti Is a bear, then Yeti and Bigfoot are different creatures. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well, yep, but I don't consider Sykes the final word on that.

 

If we don't have a body of an animal to connect to any of the samples he reviewed then I have a simple question:  isn't it possible that people saw yeti; went to the spot to collect evidence; and collected bear hair?

 

It is; and it's why not knowing what these samples came from is problematical.

 

Just like with bigfoot, people describing yeti either aren't describing bears or are describing what will vault to the top of the heap instantly, upon confirmation, as the weirdest bear yet found.

(I've always thought yeti and bigfoot different.  Meldrum, at least, does too.)