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

[southernyahoo]

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)

 

 

I think the show is saying there is preserved DNA in the dead cells found in the cortex or medulla of the hair. I've not heard of a method that has great success with nuDNA.

 

Like I said before, Ketchum said she could normally get DNA from the hair shafts of animals and humans, but the BF samples were most stubborn even when targeting the mtDNA, so she did emphasize the need for root skin tags.

[Guest]

 

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.

 

So to paraphrase: You think that all the samples sent to Sykes are:

A: Hoaxed (sent in by people who knew they were not Bigfoot)

B: The result of being hoaxed (submitters were hoaxed by others)

C: Misidentified - (submitters really thought they were from Bigfoot when they were not)

Have you got a guess of how many fit in each category and why????

[Cotter]

Well, wait, doesn't 12 samples only comprise less than half of the samples tested?
 

Or did only 12 come from NA?

[Guest DWA]

   

So to paraphrase: You think that all the samples sent to Sykes are:

A: Hoaxed (sent in by people who knew they were not Bigfoot)

B: The result of being hoaxed (submitters were hoaxed by others)

C: Misidentified - (submitters really thought they were from Bigfoot when they were not)

Have you got a guess of how many fit in each category and why????

Answer:  doesn't matter.

 

Why should it?

 

The bulk of the evidence remains unaddressed.

 

If I saw a rat leaving your house, then two, then 35, could I safely presume that only rats live there?

 

This is, logically, the precise same thing.

 

Edited October 28, 2013 by DWA

[Big Stinky]

A little confused with Sykes test results all coming out as known animals ( bears,cows etc) , were these not first subjected to microscopic morphological hair analysis via experts to first weed the possibilities of know animals similiar to the Ketchum study ????

I would have assumed that this initial screen would have easily screened out these very common and identifiable animal hairs and eliminated both labor and cost in the study...

thanks

 

Big Stinky

[Guest Stan Norton]

A little confused with Sykes test results all coming out as known animals ( bears,cows etc) , were these not first subjected to microscopic morphological hair analysis via experts to first weed the possibilities of know animals similiar to the Ketchum study ????

I would have assumed that this initial screen would have easily screened out these very common and identifiable animal hairs and eliminated both labor and cost in the study...

thanks

Big Stinky

There were at least two of the hairs which tested positive for black bear that Sykes admitted were atypical and that's why he tested them.

[1980squatch]

A little confused with Sykes test results all coming out as known animals ( bears,cows etc) , were these not first subjected to microscopic morphological hair analysis via experts to first weed the possibilities of know animals similiar to the Ketchum study ????

I would have assumed that this initial screen would have easily screened out these very common and identifiable animal hairs and eliminated both labor and cost in the study...

thanks

 

Big Stinky

 

It was likely more than worth it for the extra drama and storytelling time for a TV show...

[Guest]

DWA - I agree with one thing - no amount of samples tested will ever "close the book" for some people.

On the other hand, I think it does matter. I'll go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that none of the samples that were tested showed up in an anonymous envelope. I'm pretty sure that each submitter was stringently interviewed before being put in the "best available" category. I'll bet that every sample tested came with a convincing back story as to why it was a BF/Yeti hair. The exact type of story that you are convinced means there must be something out there - the exact type of story that gets a "Must have been Bigfoot" from the BFRO - and yet - still nothing. Its easy to pretend that Sykes didn't think about these issues and just randomly tested samples without any provenance, but I'll give him a little more credit than that. I guess we'll all see when the report comes out. So all of the "best" samples still fall into the category A, B or C. So, how many samples are enough? 1000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000? or do we just keep testing forever?

[Guest DWA]

I don't think we find out what this is until somebody does full-time what NAWAC is doing sort of semi-part-time.

 

Or NAWAC gets really lucky.

 

We need a type specimen, otherwise any DNA finding is provisional and only serves to ask:  OK, what is this 'unknown'?

[Guest]

^^

When they find a true "unknown" (i.e. identified and unique - not matching any known animal) I'll listen, but up to now there is only "not enough DNA to identify or contaminated" and all those identified as existing, known animals.

[Guest DWA]

 

^^^That just means that this round - on these specific pieces of evidence - is a dry hole.

 

If all potential sample testing stops with Sykes...then the mainstream tossed a bone at the issue and declared it a three-course-meal.  And of course leaves the most compelling evidence - which isn't hair - unaddressed.

 

(taking out unnecessary quote)

Edited October 28, 2013 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

We need to convince the Outlaws to come on in, turn yourselves in, we need a specimen. It has to come down to a body, but why not a volunteer, living specimen. Even when they get a body it will be an effort to get them to take it seriously, Too bad they left all us novices to try to capture evidence....

We seriously need to invent a Squatch trap, one that defies detection, say a 30 foot hole covered lightly tempting them with food? Could that work, oh no what else would get caught, complicated again....

Mark my words, they will get a body somehow, and I hope it does not have to be a dead one, but if that happens then let it be the Sacrificial Lamb for the rest of the specie.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The truth of the matter is that the Bigfoot Community is the biggest barrier to Sasquatch discovery, they don't have to fish for long to pull up all the bottom feeders in the field and expose their stupidity and inability.

 

I wish this phenomenon had not gotten such a west coast bias from the outset, it draws all the loony's and crackpots from that region, and somehow they seem to control the press on this thing.

 

Which is not to say they couldn't be replaced by a Midwestern loony version of the same,

 

But I say death to the "Bigfoot Community", and I say life to real research......

 

If anyone has the link to The Bigfoot Files episode two, this crackpot, loony tunes guy from the Midwest would like to go brain dead watching it.....

Edited October 28, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[roguefooter]

^I'm not sure why you think there's a difference between West Coast bigfooters and any other bigfooters. Finding Bigfoot showcases bigfooters from all over the US and they appear to be the same all over. It's certainly not a regional issue.

[chelefoot]

I just did a search for the second episode and still find nothing.