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

[Guest]

Here's some news on the results of episode 3. Basically, Zana is African, not Almasty.

 

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/was-russian-bigfoot-actually-an-african-slave

 

 

 

Looks like unknown primates are batting 0 for 3 in the Sykes study...

 

That isnt new news either. This was found in some "Russian Yeti TV-show" already, years ago! 

[Oonjerah]

I have no problem with that distinction.  Oh, how many unknown primate results has Sykes announced so far?

 

None so far that I know of. 

In fact, the hype line: "will change our understanding of human history," for his upcoming book ...

likely comes from the publisher, not Sykes. The Dr. has not promised me anything amazing or

cryptid. He has not said what is in the book. 

He has not said what the 7th PNW sample turned out to be. 

 

Hints & secrecy is all I have. 

 

That and the fact that he's still looking.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Oonjerah

[roguefooter]

Looks like unknown primates are batting 0 for 3 in the Icon Films presentation ...

(Fixed it for ya.)

 

Sykes himself said at the end of the second episode that his project found no Bigfoot. Not sure what it is that you're expecting to happen.

 

Hype, hope, and disappointment is the reoccurring theme around here.

Edited November 1, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest]

As far as i am concerned, this was a TV show hyped by the production company and presented in a format palatable to the most common view held by the audience. The Oxford-Lausanne collaboration continues and the results will be peer reviewed and published. They wouldnt be able to release any controversial results piror to review as that could compromise the integrity of the findings and people involved in the project. Until the journal publishes, I am reserving judgement on the Sykes study. 

[MarkGlasgow]

I have no problem with that distinction.  Oh, how many unknown primate results has Sykes announced so far?

The 'got monkey' jibes only jar those who are firmly entrenched in the ape camp.

What you conveniently left out was Sykes stunning theory that 'Zana' could have come from an 'unknown' (yep, that word again) ancient human 'tribe'.

First the unknown bear followed by possibly the unknown humans.

This study has yielded gold for Sykes. For marks to him for taking the gamble.

 

Edited November 2, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
Edited at the request of the member

[Guest]

What you conveniently left out was Sykes stunning theory that 'Zana' could have come from an 'unknown' (yep, that word again) ancient human 'tribe'.

 

 

 

A new 'tribe'? Maybe he has found a new haplogroup? Ground breaking stuff although not going to do much in the way of BF proof.

Edited November 2, 2013 by kezra

[Guest]

As far as i am concerned, this was a TV show hyped by the production company and presented in a format palatable to the most common view held by the audience. The Oxford-Lausanne collaboration continues and the results will be peer reviewed and published. They wouldnt be able to release any controversial results piror to review as that could compromise the integrity of the findings and people involved in the project. Until the journal publishes, I am reserving judgement on the Sykes study.

This, exactly!

[MarkGlasgow]

Quite possibly Kezra, but for some of us who have interests that stretch beyond NA BF, this is quite an development. 

 

Edited November 2, 2013 by MarkGlasgow

[JDL]

Nothing presented precludes the possibility that Zana is both human and unknown.

[Guest]

yeah., plussed...and perhaps for BFs  as well.    . the RDC people seem like a huge step for that hypothesis.....and perhaps the bridge to our understanidng.   argggg.. I am so tired of waiting!

Edited November 2, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest WesT]

From what I've gathered so far, it over yet. Here's a dose of logic, if nothing of significance was found, there would be no peer reviewed journal in the works. It's easy really, nothiing to report=nothing to report, no need to jump through the hoops.

Edited November 2, 2013 by WesT

[Guest]

I hope not!

[roguefooter]

From what I've gathered so far, it over yet. Here's a dose of logic, if nothing of significance was found, there would be no peer reviewed journal in the works. It's easy really, nothiing to report=nothing to report, no need to jump through the hoops.

 

We already know there was something of significance found with the ancient bear DNA. It may not be significant if you're wanting him to find a big monkey. Sykes himself said that his project found no Bigfoot but I guess people would rather see it in print to believe it.

 

I'm just thinking that Bigfooters are trying to concoct a hopeful scenario out of nothing here. I'm not sure why this always happens but I have a pretty good idea of the outcome.

[Oonjerah]

For the American episode of Bigfoot Files, an accurate description would have been,

"We didn't find Bigfoot, but we did find some Footers to laugh at. Everyone likes to

make fun of Footers, so that's good TV." The shows are so slanted, I'd expect most

participants to feel embarrassed by the exposure. If I were a producer of documentaries,

I'd give these guys a failing grade. 

 

The Book will be different I hope, but will it offer "blockbuster findings"? Hmmm. 

If he fails to find Bigfoot, Almasty, Yowie or any other cryptid hominin, I won't 

want to read it. OTOH, if he finds any one of them, but not Bigfoot, I will read it.

[bipedalist]

Guess I'm failing to see the significance of Zana and Sykes' finding in the big picture.    

 

I get the impression that the show is mostly poking tongue and cheek at Bigfoot to date.  

 

It is as if the journey, the glitzy entertainment, pocketing advertisers  and flying around the world is more important than the science or effort (that is until the book royalities start pouring in).   As always just my humble opinion and I own one of Sykes' books. 

Edited November 3, 2013 by bipedalist