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

[Guest Llawgoch]

Rhettman says Sykes paid for all sample processing out of his own funds, and has stopped pro bono work unless the tests prove interesting or positive on samples submitted from this point forward ($1500 otherwise). 

 

Can't you even wait for the National Geographic special two hour on November 17th, patience my dear Padawan, lol. 

 

He has said a  lot of things, none of which have been backed up by subsequent events.  The two hour special is a cut down version of the 3 hour series.

 

 

 

The full results are to be published after peer review as Sykes himself has stated.

 

That means you'll see all the information backing up his statements after peer review.  It doesn't mean that there are any test results he is holding back.  

 

Please try and accept that this is over and didn't prove Bigfoot because nobody sent him any Bigfoot samples.

[Guest]

 

That means you'll see all the information backing up his statements after peer review.  It doesn't mean that there are any test results he is holding back.  

 

Please try and accept that this is over and didn't prove Bigfoot because nobody sent him any Bigfoot samples.

i'm reserving full judgement until i read the journal. That seems like the resonable course of action. As opposed to lapping up the results of a television show and statements published across the internet. Interesting reads and exciting promises keep me enthralled and why shouldnt I peruse? But the final call comes down to the published paper.

[Guest Llawgoch]

i'm reserving full judgement until i read the journal. That seems like the resonable course of action. As opposed to lapping up the results of a television show and statements published across the internet. Interesting reads and exciting promises keep me enthralled and why shouldnt I peruse? But the final call comes down to the published paper.

 

Because a tv programme is not going to pay out the money they paid to Sykes to do this and then let him withhold anything interesting.  And why on earth would Sykes want to?  It makes no sense.  Just use your common sense, and it should be obvious to you that any published paper (if there is one, as if the bear results don't hold up to scrutiny there really isn't very much to publish) is not going to include anything more than has already been revealed.

 

I'm not sure where these exciting promises you think you are reading are come from, except from Bigfootology. I don't see Sykes even hinting at exciting promises.   Is there anything else?

[southernyahoo]

 

Because a tv programme is not going to pay out the money they paid to Sykes to do this and then let him withhold anything interesting.  And why on earth would Sykes want to?  It makes no sense.

 

If Sykes has something groundbreaking he would need to put that through the peer review process, because people would consider it irresponsible to avoid that process and exclaim bigfoot lives! You are advocating a double standard to advocate avoidance of that process.

[Guest]

 

 

If Sykes has something groundbreaking he would need to put that through the peer review process, because people would consider it irresponsible to avoid that process and exclaim bigfoot lives! You are advocating a double standard to advocate avoidance of that process.

 

This exactly. You would not let a TV show publish any of the results that showed something groundbreaking.

[Guest]

If Sykes has something groundbreaking he would need to put that through the peer review process, because people would consider it irresponsible to avoid that process and exclaim bigfoot lives! You are advocating a double standard to advocate avoidance of that process.

Fair is fair .. Hope it is presented that way ...... But we shall see.....

[Guest]

Because a tv programme is not going to pay out the money they paid to Sykes to do this and then let him withhold anything interesting.  And why on earth would Sykes want to?  It makes no sense.  Just use your common sense, and it should be obvious to you that any published paper (if there is one, as if the bear results don't hold up to scrutiny there really isn't very much to publish) is not going to include anything more than has already been revealed.

 

I'm not sure where these exciting promises you think you are reading are come from, except from Bigfootology. I don't see Sykes even hinting at exciting promises.   Is there anything else?

 

 

 

As others have stated, peer review is crucial when it comes to such sensational results being published. Going to the media first would be a fool’s game and could jeopardize the way the results are received by the wider scientific community. Press before publication is commonly known as a pitfall in the peer review process. Some of the bigger journals like 'Nature' have close links with the press and negotiate the terms of releasing info. 

Icon films made its money back. The programme advertised a lot here in the UK and had a prime time slot. Its also being rehashed on National Geographic for audiences outwith the UK. 'Finding Bigfoot', Monsterquest among others have relatively few 'new' findings yet still command huge viewing figures.

The show also only discussed 12 samples and gave results of only 11 of those. We know from Sykes himself that 30 samples were submitted so there are a number of results still to be revealed. I suggest a quick read of the OLCHP latest update if you want an enigmatic hint, highlights below :

 

 

https://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/academic/GBFs-v/OLCHP

 

Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project

 

UPDATE - August 2013

 

Thanks to all who have contributed samples to the project. We have collected and analysed over thirty samples and results are being prepared for publication. Following normal procedure, no results or other information will be available prior to publication, so please do not enquire.

Though the collection phase is now over, hair samples can still be submitted for analysis, but the costs (about $2,000 per sample) will no longer be covered.

Bryan Sykes.

 

As part of a larger enquiry into the genetic relationship between our own species Homo sapiens and other hominids, we invite submissions of organic material from formally undescribed species, or “cryptidsâ€, for the purpose of their species identification by genetic means.

PUBLICATION PHASE

Results from DNA analysis will be prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed science journal. No results will be released until any embargoes on publication have passed. 

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by kezra

[Guest Llawgoch]

Sigh.  Ok then.

 

The consolation for me is that you'll find out I am right in due course.  

[Guest]

Whatever helps you sleep at night big guy, I'm confused as to why you care what I think but flattered never the less

[Guest Llawgoch]

Whatever helps you sleep at night big guy, I'm confused as to why you care what I think but flattered never the less

 

It frustrates me to see people constantly making the same mistake and not learning from it, is why.  Not you in particular.  But people constructing elaborate false premises to permit them to hope for things that are never going to come.

 

The Sykes study is over and we know what's in it.  Hoping for something more than that before now was reasonable.  Hoping for something more from now on is misguided.

[Guest]

In the vein of Reagan and "trust but verify", I like to "hope but steel myself" when it comes to new breakthroughs. In the end, I almost hope it's never proven.  There are alredy enough yahoos running armed through the brush.  I'm not sure we do Sasquatch any favors by bringing him into the light.

[southernyahoo]

It frustrates me to see people constantly making the same mistake and not learning from it, is why.  Not you in particular.  But people constructing elaborate false premises to permit them to hope for things that are never going to come.

 

The Sykes study is over and we know what's in it.  Hoping for something more than that before now was reasonable.  Hoping for something more from now on is misguided.

 

It's not a false hope to know he didn't report on all the samples submitted. If they all were absolutely negative then why leave the others hanging? We hope to know about the rest and whether they justify a paper or book which changes our understanding of human history. We aren't hyping it the publicists are. If we all vowed to read the paper before buying the book, would you feel better?

[Guest Darrell]

It frustrates me to see people constantly making the same mistake and not learning from it, is why.  Not you in particular.  But people constructing elaborate false premises to permit them to hope for things that are never going to come.

 

The Sykes study is over and we know what's in it.  Hoping for something more than that before now was reasonable.  Hoping for something more from now on is misguided.

Something Ive been saying all along. But the force is strong among the Sykes supporters.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Darrell
To remove derogatory reference

[WSA]

Seems abundantly clear to me that Sykes' findings were not all contained in the U.K. documentaries.  From the sound of it, there may even be a little bit of ***-for-tat going on between his people and Icon Films, which would explain much of that, if so.  I for one will not consider the question of what  his study found, or didn't find,  until I see, well.... the published study results. (Yeah, I know. Call me crazy). 

(LOL...BFF editing software!)

[Guest Darrell]

I'm confused as to why you care what I think but flattered never the less

 

Well you are pretty cute so it should be easier to figure out than bigfoot