Leaderboard

That's a lot broader thing than just bigfoot unfortunately.

Zana might have been abandoned while young because of the hypertrichosis, so far as that goes she may have been locked up in a shed out back with extremely limited human contact (sadly there's still cases of that happening) and somehow managed to get out not that long before she was captured. It isn't like anybody who would do something like that would step forward to clear the matter up once they heard about the 'wild woman' being found.

I get everything except conclusive video/photographic proof. I found footprints, simple stick structures, rocks getting thrown at me-even got video of a rock hitting a tree next to me, I hear sticks breaking, wood knocks, rock clacking, and what sounds like bluff charges. I have not found any nest where they "live", but the top of the hill is thick and a large area, about 100 acres out of about 10,000 total summer range acres, but tough to investigate. I have found what I would call, look-out nests, where they can sit and survey areas and trails leading up to the hill, always at the foot of eastern hemlock trees. I seen one once, looked like a dark refrigerator sized object moving through the trees, upright, about 25 to 30 yards from me, I was recording video at the time but my camera was at elbow height and not eye level, so I didn't get it on tape. very frustrating. why do we have such an assortment of forest creatures? Maybe because they don't migrate and stay in areas they are used to. just my thoughts after 11 years investigating

The hypertrichosis is the only thing I know of that can explain the body hair coverage. The height is just rare genetics. The feral behavior is also incredibly rare, especially to survive to adulthood in the wild. And the three traits together in a single individual is mathematically off the charts. Yes.

Well the science is all based on the available data at hand, and if what you have shows the earliest KNOWN interaction to be 80,000 years ago, then that's what you go with. If later down the line you discover evidence that pushes that back another 300,000 years you make that known, adjust the models and timelines, work out the possibilities and ramifications and go on from there. Sure, it'd be swelli if the fossil record was complete and absolute, and lying somewhere exposed in a chronological manner so we could easily see who we is and who we aint(baby) but that's just not the case. Every new find holds the potential to rewrite nearly the whole book, or rearrange the chapters. It does demonstrate how there are many paths to the same result even if only one is right! Science isn't perfect, nor is it absolute, but it never claims to be. It differed from other systems in that it doesn't claim to hold the absolute divine knowledge that can't be questioned or contradicted, but rather a progressively more complex model that is continuously modified and improved, integrating ever more elements in networks of interaction and effect reflecting ever more grace in its expression. It's a dynamic model rather than a static doctrine.

It was just recently thought to be 80,000 years ago when Neanderthals met Sapiens, now it's 370,000 years ago?? Gotta love it when Science is so spot on over the years. We clearly have no definitive grasp regarding the evolution of Humans so; it's odd that anyone would be convinced that uncategorized Apes can't exist today, when we still don't even know what We are, or where we came from.