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

[Guest Darrell]

So if the folks who are claiming they are on that razor edge of research, either by habituation or whatever, cant collect a single bonafide sample of this creature and get it to the guy who is actually trying to do some big science stuff with them, maybe this phenomina isnt what those same folks claim it to be.

 

Overall, I see the point you are trying to make, albeit a rather dull one.

But I must ask, in the realm of scientific inquiry, does testing 30 samples, collected from random folks from the public (not sure of where you got the impression all of the samples came with a chain of custody), constitute a serious investigation of the topic?

 

 Well I try and keep my blades sharp and my guns loaded, but I guess my points are getting dull. Zing! But if Sykes asked for samples, and only 30 could make the cut and none of those were anything special, what does that say? Are we getting to the point where Ketchum has never found a sample that didnt have bigfoot DNA and Sykes cant find one that does? 

[Guest shoot1]

So if the folks who are claiming they are on that razor edge of research, either by habituation or whatever, cant collect a single bonafide sample of this creature and get it to the guy who is actually trying to do some big science stuff with them, maybe this phenomina isnt what those same folks claim it to be.

 

 

 Well I try and keep my blades sharp and my guns loaded, but I guess my points are getting dull. Zing! But if Sykes asked for samples, and only 30 could make the cut and none of those were anything special, what does that say? Are we getting to the point where Ketchum has never found a sample that didnt have bigfoot DNA and Sykes cant find one that does? 

Well my "blades and guns" say that any "habituator" who doesn't produce indisputable bona-fide proof is merely an attention-***** and either a hoaxer or a nutter.  If you have a Sasquatch on your property, shoot it and retire rich. Very simple. The most complex approach would be to hire someone else to do the shooting. 

 

If Ketchum had something, she botched the presentation so badly that she just doesn't matter. And my opinion of Sykes is that he is content in profiting from his presentation of negative results.  If he's actually greedy - which I don't think he is, he's just business savvy- he could find a way to create a sequel in a few years in order to continue making money  milking the "searching for Bigfoot" entertainment niche from the comfort of his lab and writing desk. Actually if i were him I'd move into more of an active role - put a bounty out on Sasquatch DNA and charge for the DNA tests. Wait, *anyone* can do that. Hmmm....

Edited October 29, 2013 by shoot1

[Guest Darrell]

 Perhaps you thought that Sykes would deliver some kind of killer blow to the Bigfoot community? Alas you woke this morning to find that nothing has changed and that damned Bigfoot 'cult' grinds on just like before.

Actually you can search my earlier posts on this and find that what I expected to happen is what actually happened. No reason to get posterier abraded the wrong way over it. My point is that there is nothing that comes out that will change the point of view of the proponent and thats why I think its a cult. And IMO, there are proponents who dont want anything proven because it will show they were wrong all along and full of crap.

Well my "blades and guns" say that any "habituator" who doesn't produce indisputable bona-fide proof is merely an attention-***** and either a hoaxer or a nutter.  If you have a Sasquatch on your property, shoot it and retire rich. Very simple.

I agree 100%

[HOLDMYBEER]

Well here we go. Sykes asks for vetted and documented samples with a chain of custody and receives said samples..........

 

That's my point. They probably weren't vetted, at least not to a standard of probability. I have yet to see documentation for any sample passing that standard,  Ketchum, Sykes or otherwise.

So if the folks who are claiming they are on that razor edge of research, either by habituation or whatever, cant collect a single bonafide sample of this creature and get it to the guy who is actually trying to do some big science stuff with them, maybe this phenomina isnt what those same folks claim it to be.

 

 

Absolutely agree.

[Guest]

So, does this not mean a single thing then? Is everything done with? I'm trying to figure everything out, and am still hoping that we are all being too pessimistic (we are all basing the DNA results off a entertaining TV show for goodness sake).

 

UPDATE #2- October 2013

Most people know that the public submission of hair samples has been closed for some time, but some hair samples with excellent provenance were still being accepted and submitted through, Bigfootology, Bryan’s agent for samples. There were a few samples that were sent to Bryan that have potential and Bryan and I discussed which samples to still test in terms of high to low potential. Bryan told me this morning that he has made the decision on which of those last few samples he is testing now, which are samples that we have already submitted to him and he has current possession of because other factors have now come into play for us to stop testing for the project. So there are five last samples that he has put in for testing – pro bono.

He has stated that he will go ahead and implement the plan that if anyone wants to submit samples they can but the submitter will have to absorb any costs for that testing (approximately $1500) and if the sample does prove to test as an authentic Bigfoot hair the fee for analysis will be refunded. We are putting together a package that will come out with the release of the paper detailing an incentive for people to submit samples and how to do that properly, so stay tuned for that. Many will find it interesting.

So at this point no more samples are being taken, even behind-the-scenes for this project.

Rhettman A. Mullis, Jr.
Bigfootology

[Guest Darrell]

^I would think it gets expensive testing all those bigfoot samples and having them come out bear, cow, horse, goat, homo, or what ever else other than bigfoot.

[Cotter]

So if the folks who are claiming they are on that razor edge of research, either by habituation or whatever, cant collect a single bonafide sample of this creature and get it to the guy who is actually trying to do some big science stuff with them, maybe this phenomina isnt what those same folks claim it to be.

 

 

 Well I try and keep my blades sharp and my guns loaded, but I guess my points are getting dull. Zing! But if Sykes asked for samples, and only 30 could make the cut and none of those were anything special, what does that say? Are we getting to the point where Ketchum has never found a sample that didnt have bigfoot DNA and Sykes cant find one that does? 

 

Glad you agree the point was dull as well.  You never did answer my question.  Or should I just assume you do feel that the Syke's sample submission process was a serious investigation into the topic?

 

The results say that 30 samples provided were tested NOT to be unknown primate, but I think you knew that.  Drawing further conclusions by painting with broad brushes is better left for someone besides me. 

 

Another question, you are comparing Ketchum's process to Sykes, do you feel that their approach to sample collection and testing are similar enough you can make such a comparison? 

[Guest Darrell]

^I think they both asked bigfoot researchers for bigfoot samples. Sykes got nothing. Ketchum got a new species. So you tell me. They both tested samples that researchers said were bigfoot for DNA. Some of those samples were from the same source. Someone strongly in the proponent camp gets results, the other nothing special.  And testing 30 samples was serious if only 30 samples were submitted. Who knows how many samples were not even biological? So Cotter, what would you consider serious?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Darrell

[southernyahoo]

 

it was stated they were not atypical in their presentation

Thanks, did they show any of the samples under a microscope? The nonatypical bear hairs would be interesting to me.

[Guest]

 

Overall, I see the point you are trying to make, albeit a rather dull one.

But I must ask, in the realm of scientific inquiry, does testing 30 samples, collected from random folks from the public (not sure of where you got the impression all of the samples came with a chain of custody), constitute a serious investigation of the topic?

 

But it wasn't just "random folks from the public" was it? Weren't at least some of the samples sent in by some of the best known people in the Bigfoot Field? Guys that are well respected and have group names with words like "Project", "Research" or "Organization" in the title. Serious guys. Smart Guys. Experienced Guys. Guys with protocols and procedures. Surely, nobody thinks their samples would fit into my previously mentioned categories A or B. Of course we never thought they could fit into "C" either - seriously - misidentified? If these guys can misidentify evidence, what are the chances that some "random folks from the public" could misidentify a bigfoot

I understand that 30 negative samples is not proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist, nor is 1000 or 1,000,000. At least one group of BF experts thought these samples were "the best". Seems to me, if you REALLY have bigfoot evidence, you should pony up the $1500...you get it back later.

[sheri]

For those who are saying why does he need peer review and a journal if he has nothing, he doesn'r have nothing. He has an amazing find. An ancient bear that is suppose to be extinct. That is something that needs peer review and a journal. As far as bigfoot goes, those collecting samples aren't doing what needs to be done.I believe someone needs to be in a real habitutation with these creatures like Goodall or Fossey, which is going to take a huge amount of courage. Otherwise your not going to know 100% that the sample you got was from a bigfoot. I for one don't have that kind of courage and am not ashamed to say so. They are scary. I also am not upset over any of this and I don't understand why anyone is.

[yowiie]

Comncents

I have hair in my possession that I have recovered from several bed structures, that I have located here in Australia

I have had theses hairs examined by dr Fahrenbach who has stated that they are of higher primate origin

I have tried in vain to contact Sykes to have them tested but he simply just doesn't get back to me

I am prepared to send a sample, but it appears he isn't interested

Edited October 29, 2013 by yowiie

[Guest Darrell]

^So take them to a certified DNA lab down under, pay the money to have them tested, and publish the results. If you are so sure that what you have is yowie then why are you waiting?

[Guest]

See post #1295 - Rhettman Mullis, Jr (Bigfootology) + $1500 should get it tested. When it comes back Bigfoot - you get the money back! or what Darrell said.

[Guest SDBigfooter]

I'm thinking DNA testing is a waste of time.  It's a mess.  There are no "certified DNA labs" who will be able to prove anything.  We have heard the "unknown primate" classifications but seriously, what does that mean?  Case closed on the sample?  Wouldn't the logical conclusion be to figure out what it is?  Or is that not possible?  Is that the block people are running into?  Or is that a hoax conclusion?

 

Either there has never been a sample collected in history or is is too difficult to say what a sequence is without some kind of reference.

 

I had forgotten about the Hobbits and when they were "discovered".  I'm pretty sure that held up but there were many who claimed they were normal people with one of the hydro/hypo-cephalus type conditions where the fluid gets trapped in the cranium.  That seems like it should have been an easy thing to clear up.  Maybe DNA did just that?

 

With BF, DNA will never work as there will always be a reason for doubt and with this subject, we simply can not give the benefit of the doubt. 

 

Body or bust?