georgerm

Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

1,403 posts in this topic

 

 

 

^When you know for sure how hoaxing Yeren is dealt with in China lets us know.  Until then speculation you're waving.

Have you ever lived out of New York state?      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China   Now tell me again how likely Chinese people are to lie to their government?     

 

  Now then does that mean fake Yeren report can't happen.  It can happen for the same reason all bigfoot things happen $$$$.  Village/villager claims sighting attention and $$$ flows into town, Happens all the time.  Bigfoot like creatures are impossible to prove or even disprove so faking a simple bigfoot report is about the safest thing a person and lie about.  Can you come up with a single instance where the Russians and Chinese have arrested anyone on such hoaxing?

 

You sure stepped in this one.    China has banned April fools day with the threat of criminal prosecution yet you claim the government would be tolerant of hoaxing?.   Three years in prison for even stating something untrue on the internet.   I suggest you avoid travel to China.      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/01/no-joke-april-fools-day-has-been-banned-in-china/    What does the Russian government have to do with the Yeren?   

 

Hold it.  I haven't claimed Chinese authority would be tolerant of hoaxing.  Maybe  this country needs a better standard of allowing hoaxers air time.  We'd have been rid of Rick Dyer and Todd Standing before they ever got going.  Now then I did  say that faking a Yeren report would be nearly impossible to prove fake.  You know here in the US of A some believe 90% of those honest folks claiming bigfoot sightings.  So in China a person can as easily create a sighting.  They can also mistake sightings resulting is essentially a false report.  Do you suppose they'll strap the citizen to a chair and cattle prod them day and night until they may crack and spill their guts it was a joke?  In the scheme of things what China and Russia do is as meaningless as BFRO or NAWAC nothing has ever come of it and it isn't looking very promising that anything ever will.

Edited by Crowlogic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has some interesting implications.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/11/russian-almasty-is-actually-ancient.html

 

And Sykes has raised the bold theoretical possibility that Zana (bigfoot type creature captured in Russia) could be a remnant of an earlier human migration out of Africa, perhaps tens of thousands, of years ago. If correct, Zana could be evidence of a hitherto unknown human 'tribe', dating from a distant time when the human species was still evolving and whose ancestors were forced into remote regions, like the Caucasus mountains, by later waves of modern humans coming out of Africa.

 

 

One of the Russian Almasty hunters, Dr Igor Burtsev, offers testimony in the Channel 4 documentary that may back this theory up. He unearthed Khwit's skull in 1971 and a few years later, showed it to a group of anthropologists in Moscow. They were, he says 'amazed', and identified a mix of 'primitive' and 'progressive' (modern) features in the skull. Lacking the scientific tools at Sykes' disposal, they could take it no further. Now Sykes is able to propose the theory with some confidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Where can I find the documentation of the "Khwit" skull that is not on a crypto website?

Thanks in advance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "And Sykes has raised the bold theoretical possibility that Zana (bigfoot type creature captured in Russia) could be a remnant of an earlier human migration out of Africa, perhaps tens of thousands, of years ago. If correct, Zana could be evidence of a hitherto unknown human 'tribe', dating from a distant time when the human species was still evolving and whose ancestors were forced into remote regions, like the Caucasus mountains, by later waves of modern humans coming out of Africa."

 

The problem is that Bigfoots are not humans as the proportions do tell you.

The only Homo candidate would be a lot older that in the tens of thousands of years in terms of migration out of Africa. 100,000 to a million is more likely.

 

100,000 or earlier even if a Homo Erectus (unlikely).

 

That would be because Homo Habilis which is the only human ancestor that shares similar proportions to Patty and Paranthropus Boisei are that far back, so more like many hundreds of thousands to a million plus with the likelihood being nearer the 500,000 to a million plus mark or even earlier if a Paranthropus.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has some interesting implications.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/11/russian-almasty-is-actually-ancient.html

 

And Sykes has raised the bold theoretical possibility that Zana (bigfoot type creature captured in Russia) could be a remnant of an earlier human migration out of Africa, perhaps tens of thousands, of years ago. If correct, Zana could be evidence of a hitherto unknown human 'tribe', dating from a distant time when the human species was still evolving and whose ancestors were forced into remote regions, like the Caucasus mountains, by later waves of modern humans coming out of Africa.

 

 

One of the Russian Almasty hunters, Dr Igor Burtsev, offers testimony in the Channel 4 documentary that may back this theory up. He unearthed Khwit's skull in 1971 and a few years later, showed it to a group of anthropologists in Moscow. They were, he says 'amazed', and identified a mix of 'primitive' and 'progressive' (modern) features in the skull. Lacking the scientific tools at Sykes' disposal, they could take it no further. Now Sykes is able to propose the theory with some confidence.

 

 

Sounds like a hybrid.

 

(Like I been saying)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Where can I find the documentation of the "Khwit" skull that is not on a crypto website?

Thanks in advance.

 

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/the-story-of-zana-wild-woman-has-been-solved-through-dna-analysis/        read the comments too and go from there

 

Quote: "And Sykes has raised the bold theoretical possibility that Zana (bigfoot type creature captured in Russia) could be a remnant of an earlier human migration out of Africa, perhaps tens of thousands, of years ago. If correct, Zana could be evidence of a hitherto unknown human 'tribe', dating from a distant time when the human species was still evolving and whose ancestors were forced into remote regions, like the Caucasus mountains, by later waves of modern humans coming out of Africa."

 

The problem is that Bigfoots are not humans as the proportions do tell you.  WHAT?

The only Homo candidate would be a lot older that in the tens of thousands of years in terms of migration out of Africa. 100,000 to a million is more likely.

 

100,000 or earlier even if a Homo Erectus (unlikely).

 

That would be because Homo Habilis which is the only human ancestor that shares similar proportions to Patty and Paranthropus Boisei are that far back, so more like many hundreds of thousands to a million plus with the likelihood being nearer the 500,000 to a million plus mark or even earlier if a Paranthropus.

 

Your knowledge on this ancient homo species is beyond me.

 

If Zana and her 'people' came from Africa as the first wave of a type of homo/ape people to reach Asia that later crossed the land bridge, this might explain how our Bigfoot is reported to have human/ape qualities.

 

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/the-story-of-zana-wild-woman-has-been-solved-through-dna-analysis/   This come from the comments on the article.

 

This possibility is not just remote. And to answer spookyparadigm and others and their theories about racial abuse etc.

I would suggest that you read the book by Sykes before you express a conclusion to Sykes`s research on Zana.

Therefore I cite some statements by Sykes made in his book:

 

“The well-researched contemporary descriptions suggest to me that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world.â€

“The details (of her mitochondrial DNA) place Zana in the L 2C lineage, one of the oldest 12 matrilineal African clans (and therefore NOT the ancestors of modern humans, my comment)….Zana would be a survivor from an African diaspora that fizzled out in the face of competition – the later spread of Homo sapiens that left her ancestors hanging on in the remote valleys of the Caucasus.â€

 

“I also had the scraps of her nuclear genome scattered among her descendants. Again, the African segments DID NOT match any records.â€

“I am hard at work making sense of it and I hope to know soon whether Zanan was indeed a survivor of an antique race of humans.â€

 

So: Sykes will publish a scientific paper on Zana in the near future. We have to wait until this paper to be totally sure. But does this citations sound like a modern African slave? Certainly not…Sykes has found something and it sounds that the Russian anthropologists who believed Zana was a surviving Neanderthal were not this far from the truth. Well, Zana, as Sykes writes, was not a Neanderthal, but from his book it becomes totally clear that by time of writing he was convinced that Zana was NOT a modern Homo sapiens sapiens (like all people today on this planet). What exactly, we will see very soon…

Edited by georgerm
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zana was considered to be a captured bigfoot type creature that was forced to live in a Russian village during the 1800s. According to Sykes, Zana and her 'people' came from Africa as possibly the first wave of a type of homo/ape people to reach Asia. They were not Neanderthals but came well before them according to the theory. Why they didn't go to Europe is a mystery. This helps explain the primitive human/ape called Almesty that the Russians witness. So then what happened? Was the Almasty driven to live in the mountains as modern humans began to move into the area? Then later did they cross the land bridge, that explains why our Bigfoot is reported to have human/ape qualities.

 

http://doubtfulnews....h-dna-analysis/   Read the short article sample below and the well written comments.

 

“The well-researched contemporary descriptions suggest to me that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world.â€
“The details (of her mitochondrial DNA) place Zana in the L 2C lineage, one of the oldest 12 matrilineal African clans (and therefore NOT the ancestors of modern humans, my comment)….Zana would be a survivor from an African diaspora that fizzled out in the face of competition – the later spread of Homo sapiens that left her ancestors hanging on in the remote valleys of the Caucasus.â€

Edited by georgerm
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^ Where can I find the documentation of the "Khwit" skull that is not on a crypto website?

Thanks in advance.

 

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/the-story-of-zana-wild-woman-has-been-solved-through-dna-analysis/        read the comments too and go from there

 

 

The problem is that Bigfoots are not humans as the proportions do tell you.  WHAT?

The only Homo candidate would be a lot older that in the tens of thousands of years in terms of migration out of Africa. 100,000 to a million is more likely.

 

 

 

WHAT is the what in reference to?

It is well known that the proportions of Patty do not match up to a man in a monkey suit.

This is for the same reason (and the same proportions) That Patty does match up to Paranthropus, and other great apes but not the Homo species.

So she is not human like although considerable closer than a Gorilla.

Our closest non human (Homo) ancestor or more correctly lateral relation.

The only Homo ancestor to have those proportions was very similar to Paranthropus and is named Homo Habilis.

This was the first split in the human / ape line (though we are technically Apes, I mean all the other ones) - an Australopithecus (Paranthropus Boisei) and a Homo (human) Habilis.'This is right at the boundary where Patty fits into the hominid family tree so adjust your thinking accordingly.

(to any "hybrid human" debaters out there)

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zana was considered to be a captured bigfoot type creature that was forced to live in a Russian village during the 1800s. According to Sykes, Zana and her 'people' came from Africa as possibly the first wave of a type of homo/ape people to reach Asia. They were not Neanderthals but came well before them according to the theory. Why they didn't go to Europe is a mystery. This helps explain the primitive human/ape called Almesty that the Russians witness. So then what happened? Was the Almasty driven to live in the mountains as modern humans began to move into the area? Then later did they cross the land bridge, that explains why our Bigfoot is reported to have human/ape qualities.

 

http://doubtfulnews....h-dna-analysis/   Read the short article sample below and the well written comments.

 

“The well-researched contemporary descriptions suggest to me that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world.â€

“The details (of her mitochondrial DNA) place Zana in the L 2C lineage, one of the oldest 12 matrilineal African clans (and therefore NOT the ancestors of modern humans, my comment)….Zana would be a survivor from an African diaspora that fizzled out in the face of competition – the later spread of Homo sapiens that left her ancestors hanging on in the remote valleys of the Caucasus.â€

http://www.cryptozoonews.com/zana-african/

 

Quoting from the link:

 

For decades, the Russian Almas/Almasty have often been theorized to have shown itself to the locals via the individual known as “Zana.†But Bryan Sykes’ DNA study has startling new results to show the true origins of Zana.

The Channel 4 Network has released the following regarding the intriguing results for the Zana legacy:

 

A leading British geneticist, who recently found the DNA key that could answer the mystery of the ‘Yeti’, has now solved the riddle of Russia’s own Bigfoot, ‘Zana’.

 

Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, has carried out DNA tests on saliva samples taken from descendants of Zana – a so-called ‘wild woman’ captured in the late 19th century in southern Russia, who local people believe was an ‘Almasty’.

 

Professor Sykes’ research (part of a worldwide analysis of alleged Bigfoot samples), has yielded a remarkable result: that Zana’s ancestry was 100% Sub-Saharan African and that she was most probably a slave brought to the region by the ruling Ottomans.

 

His findings feature in a new Channel 4 documentary series, Bigfoot Files (November 3rd), presented by Mark Evans, who is on a global quest to unlock the real story of Bigfoot.

Zana’s story is extraordinary. She is said to have been captured in the forests of Abkhazia, a remote part of Russia’s Caucasus region, in the 1870s. Imprisoned, it’s said, for two decades by a local landowner, she was described by eyewitnesses as being ‘very big, strong, her whole body covered with hair’. Chillingly, Zana had four children with local men.

 

Russia’s ‘Almasty Hunters’ have been obsessed with her story for over half a century and have always believed that Zana could be a surviving Neanderthal, the human-like species that is thought to have died out tens of thousands of years ago.

To answer the riddle and establish what species she belonged to, Professor Sykes has tested samples from six of Zana’s living descendants. He has also recovered DNA from a tooth taken from the skull of one of her sons, Khwit. Such work is highly specialized and Sykes was the first geneticist ever to extract DNA from ancient bone.

 

The results are complex and fascinating. First, they show that Zana was, in fact, no more Neanderthal than many of the rest of modern humans. When the Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010 it became clear that Europeans and Asians contain around 2 to 4% of Neanderthal DNA; almost certainly the result of interbreeding.

 

But the big surprise in Sykes’ results was that Zana’s DNA is not Caucasian at all, but African. Khwit’s tooth sample confirms her maternal African ancestry and the saliva tests on the six living descendants show that they all contain African DNA in the right proportions for Zana to have been genetically 100% sub-Saharan African.

 

“The most obvious solution that springs to mind is that Zana or her ancestors were brought from Africa to Abkhazia as slaves, when it was part of the slave trading Ottoman Empire, to work as servants or labourers,†says Professor Sykes. “While the Russians ended slavery when they took over the region in the late 1850s, some Africans remained behind. Was Zana one of them, who was living wild in the forest when she was captured?“

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrigible,  you missed the most important part of what Sykes said.   Even though he stated Zana might have descended from slave stock and lived wild, he also proposed that she might also have been from some far earlier out of Africa migration in which was cut off and isolated in the area with no interbreeding with the locals until Zana was impregnated in captivity.    He suggested her DNA seemed to show her bloodline had ancient origins.      The problem with this is that her DNA was not directly tested.   Should his theory be correct then the Almasty might simply be Sub Sarahan Africans that have not interbred humans in the region.      If their original migration was long enough ago, then they would have had time to get hairy to protect them from the weather if they did not arrive hairy.    DNA from her descendants only serve to muddy the water as to her origins since it was known that the fathers of the descendants were modern humans. 

 

Here is the part of the article that you did not paraphrase:    "And Sykes has raised the bold theoretical possibility that Zana could be a remnant of an earlier human migration out of Africa, perhaps tens of thousands, of years ago. If correct, Zana could be evidence of a hitherto unknown human ‘tribe’, dating from a distant time when the human species was still evolving and whose ancestors were forced into remote regions, like the Caucasus mountains, by later waves of modern humans coming out of Africa."

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at BF the same way, one theory could be that BF migrated from Asia across the Bering land bridge during one of the ice ages then was forced into a secluded and isolated existence it has today by the more recent human migration during the last ice age.     Since much of the coastal land exposed by ice ages is now under coastal waters,   skeletal remains of BF living unhindered by humans that arrived during the last ice age may simply be under water off the PNW coasts.   Certainly without the presence of pesky humans, BF would likely prefer the moderate climates of the coastal areas to the harsher snowy Cascade Mountain ranges.    Just the numbers of Olympic Peninsula and Oregon Coastal range sighting reports would lend some support to BF preference for the Coastal Zones.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at BF the same way, one theory could be that BF migrated from Asia across the Bering land bridge during one of the ice ages then was forced into a secluded and isolated existence it has today by the more recent human migration during the last ice age.     Since much of the coastal land exposed by ice ages is now under coastal waters,   skeletal remains of BF living unhindered by humans that arrived during the last ice age may simply be under water off the PNW coasts.   Certainly without the presence of pesky humans, BF would likely prefer the moderate climates of the coastal areas to the harsher snowy Cascade Mountain ranges.    Just the numbers of Olympic Peninsula and Oregon Coastal range sighting reports would lend some support to BF preference for the Coastal Zones.   

 

Well put SWWA. Thanks for the input Cryptic. The ones that crossed to North America and the ones left in Asia had to deal and flee from modern pesky humans that had superior weapons. This explains why they are so hard to find since they know how to remain unseen.

 

This theory also relates to the Almasty and Yeren sightings since some of these hominids did not cross the land bridge and remained in Asia. Sykes thinks they came from Africa as a primitive hominid but were not Neanderthals that came later.

 

Below is the Homo habilis that lived in Africa 1.9 million years ago. The right one shows another reconstruction opinion, and it looks more primitive. It could have evolved into the Almasty or Yeren that may have arrived in Asia 100k years ago. The fossil record has many missing pieces and DNA is helping answer some questions. The pieces to the puzzle are coming together. What's your opinion and research knowledge?

post-447-0-07323800-1464141104.jpg

post-447-0-18832900-1464142528_thumb.jpg

Edited by georgerm
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am liking these days.

After doing my latest avatar from the Patterson film and seeing this I think that the skull structure more closely represents this.

Paranthropus Aethiopicus.

Meldrum would likely say that the jaw may be too long (too large under the nasal cavity) and it may be a bit too robust.

But the eye structure seems more accurate than Paranthropus.

Perhaps there was a link between the two that is undiscovered, they were a brother species (to each other) after all

for more reading: (you will need Google Translate extension)

https://www.wikiwand.com/fr/Paranthropus_aethiopicus

post-25212-0-53264600-1464142836_thumb.j

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.