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

[Guest Stan Norton]

^Unfortunately, just spend some time here and you will find that "you people" rarely apply logic in this phenomina. But of course that is my opinion, and it is allowed is it not? And really if you people dont like my point of view or that of others why dont you just get together, change the rules, and censor what I and others skeptical about the phenomina want to say. Does that sound logical to you?

No not at all. You have every right to express your opinion here just as everyone else does. Please don't think for a second that i wish for the contrary please. I simply object to the lumping of proponents as "you people": the meaning is transparent and it is illogical to infer by the use of such language that there is one proponent viewpoint.

[Guest Darrell]

^I would agree and please note that the same applies to the skeptical viewpoint.

[Guest LarryP]

Spent a lot of time pondering that question Gotta Know. I mean, what IS the payoff there?  I think it is explained by a need for some to self-validate their superior intellects, and to put down their "marker" as somebody who wasn't fooled by all this nonsense, no indeed!

 

 

 

 

 

Which was the primary reason I always turned the channel whenever Carl Sagan was on The Tonight Show.

[Guest DWA]

Undiscovered Forest Lemur.

 

I'm in that camp!

Well, ya know?  We haven't done the taxonomy yet, have we?

 

Wouldn't that be cool!  I'm down!

[chelefoot]

This thread is way off topic.

 

Sykes/Satori Report

 

Feel free to start a new thread to continue this off topic conversation.

 

Thanks!

[Guest DWA]

Contrary to what DWA may think, there are many, many alternatives to the root cause of an eye witness report that do not involve hitherto undiscovered primates.

 

THAT'S NOT CONTRARY; THAT'S WHAT I THINK!

 

It's just that, if you are gonna tell me that those many, many add up to all the consistent reports we have - reports that answer to a normal distribution on just about everything measured, which lies hoaxes and hallucinations don't - you have to PROVE that to me, because Occam says the ape is more likely.

 

So until somebody PROVES the many, many to me, I choose to look at the way the world has always been, and wait for the proof.

That having been said (on-topic!):

 

Sykes is proving nothing.  Either natives (and quite a few westerners) are describing an ape, or they are describing by leagues the weirdest bear in the world, or they are describing something even weirder than that.

 

Unless you PROVE to me they're all false positives.  How this works.  Science never accepts toss-offs; science insists on evidence.

[chelefoot]

Well, he did prove that those 2 samples are bear.

[Guest DWA]

Well, that's two samples.

 

And as I've said before:  what if someone saw a yeti; walked to the spot looking for other evidence; and collected bear hair?  Can't happen?

 

If a small collection of DNA samples all say bear it says nothing about yeti.

[Guest Darrell]

Am I wrong to assume that Sykes asked for actual samples that could yield DNA? Not eye witness accounts, tree formaions, sounds, or whatever. And did those samples contain DNA that would indicate an unknown species of bipedal ape? Was there only 3 samples in his study? From what I read he had many samples but all came back as known animals. Even the samples of the hybrid bear. So maybe the locals are not seeing anything that is a bipedal ape and are seeing bear. Or mis-identifying the bear they are seeing (or not seeing) with legends hundreds of years old . Why is that not logical?  

[Guest DWA]

^^^I'm not sure how logical it is that natives are mis-identifying a known local animal as something they consider mythical.

 

Do we have utter absolute assurance as to the provenance of those samples?  That scenario I posted above is very possible.  Do we know that didn't happen?  Nope. 

 

Here's the logic:

 

This is the precise reason I don't think either Ketchum or Sykes will 'prove' the existence of anything.  The provenance of these samples, if it's not "that big guy over there," is as fuzzy as - no, fuzzier than, by far - the provenance of Patty.

[Guest]

Is there any real field researchers out there in Asia working those Himalayan lower elevation remote forested areas that could actually gather some fresh anectdoctal evidence like tree manipulations, prints and audio to at least compare to what us North Amercian researchers find regularly that is not easily explained away nor confused with bear ???  Quick Answer is No !  Too expensive  most to pull it off but **** it sure would be nice to see a real effort instead of going to the top of Everest to look which is ridiculous or just talking about old monk artifacts. We need a new Tom Slick !

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well there's the $64,000 Question.

 

That's how biologists confirm stuff.  Usually, the animal yields the sample that makes its DNA its signature, not its substitute.

 

That is what is going to prove yeti; not a bunch of samples from....um.....somebody who THINKs he saw a yeti, and THINKs this is the yeti's hair he found on the spot...and isn't lying or mistaken....we hope....

[dmaker]

" Sykes is proving nothing.  Either natives (and quite a few westerners) are describing an ape, or they are describing by leagues the weirdest bear in the world, or they are describing something even weirder than that"  - DWA

 

Or they are seeing nothing at all ( shadows, stumps, etc..take your pic) , or they are lying. Why do you constantly insist on omitting those possibilities? 

"This is the precise reason I don't think either Ketchum or Sykes will 'prove' the existence of anything.  The provenance of these samples, if it's not "that big guy over there," is as fuzzy as - no, fuzzier than, by far - the provenance of Patty."  DWA

 

So you trust Joe Average when it comes to reporting what he/she saw, but not when they gather samples and place them in your hand? Suddenly then you become concerned about provenance and accuracy?  That is convenient.

Edited October 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Well, you can insist on not getting this, and my efforts to educate others can continue.

 

What are the sightings?

 

Unresolved.

 

What are the samples? 

 

Unresolved.

 

Could anyone ever prove them exhaustive?  We all know the answer to that one.

 

You're telling me it's science to accept a bunch of indeterminate hair and poop as proof that something ISN'T real...?

 

Oh.  OK.

 

This is about doing science right...and I have pointed out how that's done.

 

This isn't about winning an argument.

 

"Just believe me" doesn't work any better for one fringe of this topic than it does for the other.

[Guest Stan Norton]

" Sykes is proving nothing. Either natives (and quite a few westerners) are describing an ape, or they are describing by leagues the weirdest bear in the world, or they are describing something even weirder than that" - DWA

Or they are seeing nothing at all ( shadows, stumps, etc..take your pic) , or they are lying. Why do you constantly insist on omitting those possibilities?

"This is the precise reason I don't think either Ketchum or Sykes will 'prove' the existence of anything. The provenance of these samples, if it's not "that big guy over there," is as fuzzy as - no, fuzzier than, by far - the provenance of Patty." DWA

So you trust Joe Average when it comes to reporting what he/she saw, but not when they gather samples and place them in your hand? Suddenly then you become concerned about provenance and accuracy? That is convenient.

So. As an example. Would you trust the eyewitness account of Rheinhold Messner because he saw a shadowy being in the woods which he later assumed to be bear? I suspect you would as it fits your umwelt. That's convenient too. Works both ways. Edited October 24, 2013 by Stan Norton