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

[Guest Darrell]

^So I saw the news release on Messner sighting, which came out shortly before his book did. Bought the book and liked it. But is Messner now saying he really did see a yeti? Sounds kinda off to me. See a yeti and becomes beleiver, decides yeti is a bear after investigating the phenomina, now believes bear was a yeti?   

[TimB]

Isn't the point of the clips we've been given on Syke's work that two of the stuffed yetis or chemos produced for the study resulted in a descendant of an ancient species of brown bear?  Nothing more, nothing less?

[Guest DWA]

^^^OK, and yes I'm doing this without looking it up....I actually thought Messner went yeti first then switched to bear.  Not that this proves anything.

 

One of the most intriguing Westerner sightings is Don Whillans:  http://sujoyrdas.blogspot.com/2011/08/annapurna-sanctuary-don-whillans-and.html

 

Talk about the guy I would least expect to imagine anything like this...that would be the guy.

^So I saw the news release on Messner sighting, which came out shortly before his book did. Bought the book and liked it. But is Messner now saying he really did see a yeti? Sounds kinda off to me. See a yeti and becomes beleiver, decides yeti is a bear after investigating the phenomina, now believes bear was a yeti?   

[Guest Darrell]

^That account more than anything screams Himalayan bear.

[dmaker]

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.

No, not saying a bunch of hair and poop is proof that something isn't real. But, on that topic, it can sure go toward creating reasonable doubt. But that was not the point I was making. 

 

The point I was making is that you lecture here constantly that we should trust people to report what they saw accurately. They are decent people in full command of their faculties after all. Experienced woodspersons one and all, etc, etc.  Yet now when there is a high profile dna sampling going on again you suddenly get concerned about provenance. Gimme a break. So we can trust people when they describe what they saw, but we can't trust them to go to that spot and grab a hair sample?  Trust their anecdotal evidence, but when their physical evidence fails you suddenly want to be able to point to the creature that provided the sample or the result is unimportant? That seems a little double standard-ish to me.  If you cannot point to the big hairy guy that people are claiming to see, then how can you be so sure they are not seeing bear, etc?  In fact, if they are providing bear hair as alleged Bigfoot hair, then it stands to reason that maybe they are seeing bear. Should not your strict evidence standards apply to anecdotal as well as physical evidence? In fact, one could easily argue that anecdotal evidence is where science should place the strictest standards, not the lowest. Seems you kinda got that backwards bro.

Edited October 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^That account more than anything screams Himalayan bear.

Not "ape like."  Not saying what it could be, but nothing about it screams louder than ape.

[WSA]

I find my stress level is much more manageable when I assume everyone else is either an incompetent, a liar or a fool. Anyone else have that going on? Really, it clears your thinking tremendously and cuts down on lots of messy loose ends you'd rather not consider.  Give it a shot! 

[Guest DWA]

No, not saying a bunch of hair and poop is proof that something isn't real. But, on that topic, it can sure go toward creating reasonable doubt. But that was not the point I was making. 

 

The point I was making is that you lecture here constantly that we should trust people to report what they saw accurately. They are decent people in full command of their faculties after all. Experienced woodspersons one and all, etc, etc.  Yet now when there is a high profile dna sampling going on again you suddenly get concerned about provenance. Gimme a break. So we can trust people when they describe what they saw, but we can't trust them to go to that spot and grab a hair sample?  Trust their anecdotal evidence, but when their physical evidence fails you suddenly want to be able to point to the creature that provided the sample or the result is unimportant? That seems a little double standard-ish to me.  If you cannot point to the big hairy guy that people are claiming to see, then how can you be so sure they are not seeing bear, etc?  Should not your strict evidence standards apply to anecdotal as well as physical evidence? In fact, one could easily argue that anecdotal evidence is where science should place the strictest standards, not the lowest. Seems you kinda got that backwards bro.

I draw a big line between people clearly relating what they saw and an ongoing crap-toss about DNA.  You ever seen DNA? 

 

The sightings yell louder to me than any flap over DNA that no one can point to what it came from, other than a non-identifiable piece of an animal.  I mean, let's stay sane here.  How can you prove an animal based on hair?  Or anything?  The problem with DNA is that it's become a religion.  Sorry, I stick to science.

 

Where's the animal?

I find my stress level is much more manageable when I assume everyone else is either an incompetent, a liar or a fool. Anyone else have that going on? Really, it clears your thinking tremendously and cuts down on lots of messy loose ends you'd rather not consider.  Give it a shot! 

You're imaginary, dude.

 

WHOA....

[WSA]

Psst....Dmaker. Hair is everywhere. All kinds.  When you look for hair in the woods, it might have come off the thing you just saw, or it might have come off something you didn't see. You see?  

[dmaker]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that DNA analysis is not science? That eye witness reports are more valuable?  Really?  That is what you are saying?

[WSA]

You see DWA!!!  I told ya so. Mind over matter. Simple. (I'd tell you to go away, but then, you're not here, so....)

[Guest DWA]

The hair on MY head came from a yeti, bud.

 

This is it.  I can't believe how everyone is getting this wrong!  zoology works THIS WAY:

 

We have an animal; we test samples coming from that animal; we now have the signature of that animal.

 

NOW, when you find hair and it gives you the same results, you can assume it's that animal.

[dmaker]

" Where's the animal?" DWA

 

I love when you show unintentional jedi level skills in irony.  Where's the animal sounds an awful lot like "Got monkey?"

[WSA]

DNA is always going to be just one more for the pile, even if it is a #$&^!!** result. Lack of DNA means it won't go on the pile.

[Guest DWA]

It never goes:

 

We find poop; we hope the poop is that animal; and if it comes back 'unknown' IT'S THAT ANIMAL!  EUREKA!

 

Gotta have the animal first, people!

 

The samples Sykes tested that come back identical to a sample already collected from another animal:  probably that animal.

 

Is yeti real?

 

Beside the point.  Not even discussing that with regard to these samples.  THESE appear to be bear.

I'm sorry, but are you saying that DNA analysis is not science? That eye witness reports are more valuable?  Really?  That is what you are saying?

I'm saying:

 

Do YOU know the provenance of those samples?

 

Do YOU know - I mean KNOW - the animal they came from?

 

Do YOU know that contamination didn't happen?

 

(Did you KNOW that Sykes hasn't revealed the test results of every sample yet?  Just tossing that in.)

 

Do YOU know - I mean KNOW - what exact malfunction created every single bingle gingle zingle bigfoot sighting report?

 

Do YOU HONESTLY THINK that giving a guy a bunch of hair, poop, etc. is the be all and end all to this discussion?

 

REALLY?

 

Fascinating.