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

[Guest Darrell]

All this talk about poop, I just had to go use the bathroom. I wish I could add to this recent argument but I cant. I cant stir the pot, only sit on it.

[Guest DWA]

If there is one thing I have been adamant about from the first discussion of it I joined here, it is this.

 

With no animal, the best a DNA result can be is..."on the pile."

 

We still need the animal.

 

Sayin' it about Ketchum...sayin' it about Sykes...sayin' it 'til everybody gets it.

 

Got it...?

All this talk about poop, I just had to go use the bathroom. I wish I could add to this recent argument but I cant. I cant stir the pot, only sit on it.

One thing I might ask folks to do is:

 

1.  Run off as many sighting reports as one can.

2.  Staple 'em together.

3.  Put 'em next to the crapper.  Good way to catch up on the evidence in one's spare time.

[dmaker]

"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!" -DWA

 

You sure about that now, are you?  You've gone on record numerous times citing results of "unknown primate" in reference to hair analysis as compelling evidence for Bigfoot.  Seems you are conveniently changing your tune now.   I'm not surprised of course. 

 

 

"If there is one thing I have been adamant about from the first discussion of it I joined here, it is this.

 

With no animal, the best a DNA result can be is..."on the pile."

 

We still need the animal.

 

Sayin' it about Ketchum...sayin' it about Sykes...sayin' it 'til everybody gets it.

 

Got it..." DWA

 

 

Oh look, there you go again...

Edited October 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

YOU STILL AREN'T GETTING IT.

 

Know where all that 'unknown' is?

 

ON THE PILE.

 

Know what the pile is:

 

UNRESOLVED.

 

Whew.  Teaching *is* hard!

[Guest Darrell]

 

 

Oh look, there you go again...

 

Poop, there it is.......

 

I gotta say Dmalker and DWA are my bro's.  

[Guest DWA]

Well, I like to say 'on the pile' for a REASON, Darrell...

[dmaker]

So does bear go on the pile as well? I mean prior to the samples being tested they were Grade A bona-fide Bigfoot samples. Now they are just bear, but where does that fit in your pile filing system?  And let's jump ahead a little bit and speculate about the results for the NA samples. Let's suppose none of those come back as some sort of undiscovered primate? Inconsequential? These were the best samples the BF community had to provide. If the result in now way supports the myth of Bigfoot, then surely it must say something more than the incompetence of researches in gathering legitimate samples? At some point even you must begin to see the reality that stories are all you really have. 

Edited October 24, 2013 by dmaker

[southernyahoo]

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 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.

 

It goes like this..........

 

People have sightings and report them.

 

People who want to investigate go looking for samples in those places.

 

They find samples that may be from the animal witnesses saw or another they potentially misidentified.

 

DNA identifies the animal or places it within a genus if it is a new species and closely related.

 

Sykes is doing what you want, taking the evidence seriously and already has a neat discovery. 

 

He doesn't seem to agree that new species can't be discovered this way.

[Guest LarryP]

 These were the best samples the BF community had to provide.

 

 

And what do you have to provide? Other than pure biased speculation.

[Guest DWA]

I'll take samples over that any day of the week.

It goes like this..........

 

People have sightings and report them.

 

People who want to investigate go looking for samples in those places.

 

They find samples that may be from the animal witnesses saw or another they potentially misidentified.

 

DNA identifies the animal or places it within a genus if it is a new species and closely related.

 

Sykes is doing what you want, taking the evidence seriously and already has a neat discovery. 

 

He doesn't seem to agree that new species can't be discovered this way.

What's a yeti?

 

The DNA signature won't tell us, any more than my signature would if no other trace of me were known.

 

Imagine if all we knew of chimps was their DNA.  What would we know about chimps?

 

Sykes's analysis can raise eyebrows and spur the search.  That's the best it can do.  At least for those of us who have never seen one, and still won't have seen one.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

 

Got it...One thing I might ask folks to do is:

 

1.  Run off as many sighting reports as one can.

2.  Staple 'em together.

3.  Put 'em next to the crapper.  Good way to catch up on the evidence in one's spare time.

 

For once I agree with DWA.

 

Let's keep those sighting reports as close to the crapper as possible.

[Guest Urkelbot]

I'll take samples over that any day of the week.

What's a yeti?

 

The DNA signature won't tell us, any more than my signature would if no other trace of me were known.

 

Imagine if all we knew of chimps was their DNA.  What would we know about chimps?

 

Sykes's analysis can raise eyebrows and spur the search.  That's the best it can do.  At least for those of us who have never seen one, and still won't have seen one.

Lots can be done with unknown DNA.

Protein alignments will get you phylogenics. The year Humans and unknown diverged calculated. Genes can be transformed into ecoli plasmids. Proteins from the unknown DNA can purified from ecoli and structure determined through X-ray crystalography or NMR. It might take time but if someone gets the DNA it will be enough

[southernyahoo]

I'll take samples over that any day of the week.

What's a yeti?

 

The DNA signature won't tell us, any more than my signature would if no other trace of me were known.

 

Imagine if all we knew of chimps was their DNA.  What would we know about chimps?

 

Sykes's analysis can raise eyebrows and spur the search.  That's the best it can do.  At least for those of us who have never seen one, and still won't have seen one.

 

DNA would tell you if you had an ape sample and if it were a known ape or not. If Sykes has a similar find for an ape as he did for a bear, you will see Meldrum with a nearly uncontrollable smile and a new spring in his step for years to come.    Trust me. 

[Oonjerah]

99.5%-99.7% of Neanderthal = Homo Sapiens. They were that close to us. 

If, by chance, Sykes has one or more North American samples that are hominin, 

and they, too, are more than 99% the same as us, that's proof enough for me. 

 

My next question would be, If they're not quite us, are they Neanderthal? 

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neanderthal_Foot_Print.jpg

[southernyahoo]

The mitochondria has about 200 differences between Neanderthal and modern humans. Sykes would be familiar with this, but the question would be, "how many of those differences fall within the segments of DNA he is testing?" . Would he check further if he found a few of those known differences? Some genes he is testing may not contain any of those differences.