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

[roguefooter]

OK, I'm taking pity, and you guys will drop out otherwise.  So here's a hint:

 

REAL/NOT REAL MYTHICAL/NOT MYTHICAL ISN'T THE ISSUE.

 

It's taking the word of a bunch of people that they got what you are looking for when they didn't. 

 

 

 

 

If you ignore the evidence people's eyes gave them, you ignore the best evidence.  As folks who have read up on this know.

 

 

In one scenario you're telling us it's faulty to take the word of a bunch of people, the next you're saying it's faulty to ignore the word of a bunch of people.

 

Seems like a lot of flip-flopping going on.

[Guest DWA]

And a GOLD STAR to Theresa (OK, her "playing Doctor" with the boys might have something to do with their standing in the class) for submitting:

 

"One cannot consider a scientific investigation shut down based on the results of 27 samples of dubious provenance submitted for testing to somebody who's only trying to help from the angle of his expertise."

 

WOW. 

 

"And nobody asks Meldrum about his take on the Shipton and Cronin tracks.  Why is that?"

 

OK, honey, there's a fine line between GOLD STAR and smart-aleck.

[Oonjerah]

 

Reviewing the Sykes DNA Study -> Yeti Hunter Adam Davies Remarks

 

http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2013/10/reviewing-sykes-dna-study.html

 

This was refreshing. 

[MarkGlasgow]

^^ Think that Adam is on the same page as many of us.

Sykes findings were pretty stunning but any idea that this study would close the book on the yeti/bf are very wide of the mark.

Cue frustration for both proponents and exponents....

[southernyahoo]

I'd like to point out something that has grabbed my attention between the Sykes study and the Ketchum study.

 

Rhetman Mullis has posted a link to a PDF on sample collection and what is required for a viable sample below.

 

 

http://www.bigfootology.com/holding/Hairsampledesignfordistribution.pdf

 

In this link , it is stated that a follicle is not required to obtain the DNA results. We know that from current extraction methods this only produces mtDNA and nuDNA is very difficult to get if at all.

 

Ketchum reported repeatedly that in her experience she could normally get DNA from hair shafts except in the case of these bigfoot samples, and needed desperately the root follicles attached.

 

If Ketchum is right, Sykes might have nothing to offer in regards to Sasquatch DNA other than human mtDNA and it's origins, unless newer technology has made further breakthroughs or Sykes has found something else in the mtDNA.

[Guest DWA]

In one scenario you're telling us it's faulty to take the word of a bunch of people, the next you're saying it's faulty to ignore the word of a bunch of people.

 

Seems like a lot of flip-flopping going on.

Who's "taking the word"?

 

This is the old either-proof-or-nothing approach to evidence.

 

The difference between the two situations is pretty obvious.  27 samples close the book?

 

Thousands of consistent observations...and we close the book?

 

Oh.  OK.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

Reviewing the Sykes DNA Study -> Yeti Hunter Adam Davies Remarks

 

http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2013/10/reviewing-sykes-dna-study.html

 

This was refreshing. 

 

 

Yep, I'd agree, parts of it were indeed.  But not this:

 

"Many of us were more than disappointed in the Sykes DNA study’s results that pointed to an ancient and previously undiscovered species of polar bear."

 

THIS IS BEYOND DISAPPOINTING?  HUHN?

 

No, this is more like the problem that both the proponent and skeptical fringes bring to this discussion:  a failure to appreciate the utter coolness of nature and its ability to totally flummox us every which way we turn.

 

And Davies even nails it himself:  "In conclusion, this discovery is great news. It represents an excellent new start to the research on the Yeti."

 

Couldn't agree more.  This one will focus people.

 

Bunch of biologists, sitting around a table. musing about what Sykes is gonna find out.  Do we honestly think that any of them would say "Polar bear.  Watch out for that.  He's gonna find a polar bear in the Himalayas, two specimens, the length of the range apart"?????

 

The response - if it were not silence with sidelong glances and raised eyebrows - would have been "Right.  Somebody's gonna try to hoax him."

 

It doesn't help to have one's nose so buried in the fantastic that one forgets the amazingness of the "mundane."

 

"Primate, unknown" would to me, honestly, have been a far LESS surprising find than "Himalayan polar bear."

 

And - no matter what Sykes finds out from 27 specimens of dubious provenance - the book isn't closed on what yeti is.  Not Sykes's fault.  He is doing precisely what he set out to do:  testing what is brought to him.  He can do no more than that.  So Davies is certainly right there.  This looks like one more case of people lazily waiting for answers...without even thinking about all the questions.

 

(And I sure can do without any more "Syke's."  That goes "Sykes's.")

[chelefoot]

I'd like to point out something that has grabbed my attention between the Sykes study and the Ketchum study.

 

Rhetman Mullis has posted a link to a PDF on sample collection and what is required for a viable sample below.

 

 

http://www.bigfootology.com/holding/Hairsampledesignfordistribution.pdf

 

In this link , it is stated that a follicle is not required to obtain the DNA results. We know that from current extraction methods this only produces mtDNA and nuDNA is very difficult to get if at all.

 

Ketchum reported repeatedly that in her experience she could normally get DNA from hair shafts except in the case of these bigfoot samples, and needed desperately the root follicles attached.

 

If Ketchum is right, Sykes might have nothing to offer in regards to Sasquatch DNA other than human mtDNA and it's origins, unless newer technology has made further breakthroughs or Sykes has found something else in the mtDNA.

SY

I seem to recall Sykes saying that the method he uses to extract DNA from the hair shaft is a very new method. Maybe Ketchum hasn't used that method.

[southernyahoo]

That might be, though Ketchum was very adamant about the state of the art methods used on the hairs and the extreme stubborness of the shafts even with the aid of crime labs like this one,

 

http://www.americanownews.com/story/16611526/north-louisiana-crime-lab-helps-clear-dozens-of-burglary-cases

 

 

Dr. Pat Wojtkiewicz. would probably have more info on the methods. His expertise is supposed to be in extraction from bones.

 

In any event, I have reservations about the shafts being sufficient.  

[Guest]

So you're stating you have reservations about the methods Dr Sykes uses but not the ones Ketchum uses?

[southernyahoo]

It's about the hairs themselves and whether they respond to the methods. Many apparently haven't even as recently as the DNA Solutions results for Finding Bigfoot CSI episode. 

[BobbyO]

Bigfootology

It is true that those who have contributed samples to the Sykes study are receiving notifications today of their results, but they are not supposed to divulge what the results are. We are still testing some samples so not all will receive results today.

Like · · Share · 3 · 9 minutes ago ·

Options

[chelefoot]

SY,

I will try to find the info on the new method that Sykes said he used. I remember him saying that he was able to take the DNA from the hair in this way that hasn't been done before. 

 

I'll dig around and see what I can find.

[Guest]

SY,

I will try to find the info on the new method that Sykes said he used. I remember him saying that he was able to take the DNA from the hair in this way that hasn't been done before. 

 

I'll dig around and see what I can find.

Maybe this is helpful Chele, although not sure if enough detail? Screen shots (with subtitles) taken from the Sykes study programme Bigfoot Files (part 2 that aired in UK tonight)

[chelefoot]

Thanks Kezra. I read a while back somewhere that Brian was using a new method to extract the DNA from the hair shaft - a method that would not have been available to Ketchum.

 

I am trying to find out if that is documented anywhere or figure out how to get that information.

 

But yes, it showed something similar to what you posted in the first show last week along with Sykes actually saying it was a method that was very new.  I would just like to get more specifics.

 

Thanks!