Guest Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 We have at least one similar incident to the Zana one recorded in Washington State among the Colville Indians. Check out this article by Dr. Ed Fush, anthropologist. For that particular story, scroll down to "The Stick Indians of the Colvilles" and begin reading. It is very interesting. http://www.bigfooten...ology/fusch.htm Thank for posting the link, very enjoyable article. I can't get enough of those stories.
Guest Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Legally enforcable or not, IMO, aggreements should be kept if possible. I agree 100%. I was raised being taught that a man is no better than his word. If you made an agreement with someone, whether you get along with him/her or not, that you would not reveal the evidence, results, or whatever without his/her permission first (or whatever the conditions were), then you need to keep that agreement, regardless of the pressure the bigfoot community may be putting on you to reveal what you know. It is very difficult to rebuild your character in the eyes of others once you have destroyed it by doing something like that.
Guest Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Nobody yet knows the circumstances of any agreement, if one was actually made. If someone was not authorized in the first place, that in itself is reason to not proceed. There could be Russian Laws that prohibit such sales that someone tried to sidestep when talking with Erickson. That would make such a Russian Representative Unauthorized! There could be other reasons why such a sale was not allowed. In fact, we don't even know if this alleged sale was even true or rumor at this point. Jodie I am already in touch with Igor to see what he may know about it. Will report what/when I can... Richard, you never did respond to the American Plains Indian source for the 'Homo Sapiens Sesquequiensis' name on Page 51 of this thread. If such an important name for taxonomic purposes could be derived by scientists, then surely the source of said reference would be sufficiently documented as well. To say its from a "plains American Indian tribe that is probably already extinct" doesn't offer any validity to the source. Regardless of whether a tribe has become extinct, if it once existed they had a name, ESPECIALLY if the term Sesque could be derived from their language. Not offering a tribe name is the same as how Todd Standing validates many of his claims, by preventing anyone else from validating themselves. Not that this is your intent, but what's in a name is critical in my view. So Richard, what American plains tribe did the Sesque nomenclature originate?
Guest Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) I hear you PT, that's why I am asking all of these questions, and I know there are issues with procuring relics and shipping internationally, as well as any legal permits regarding human remains. It seems that if a direct line female descendant can be found that would solve a lot of problems as far as analyzing the mtDNA. It would still be interesting to see how the nuclear DNA differs, if this individual exists, even if no traits were expressed and was watered down through the generations, what? Maybe 5 or 6 generations possibly? And I think someone should check out the Colville story also, it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to do for someone living in the area. If I lived closer, I believe a road trip would be in my future to either area. It's a shame I don't have the means to travel to Russia. Do let us know what you find out PT, I'm very interested. Edited October 2, 2011 by Jodie
Guest Stubstad Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Very interesting posts, all of them. That's why I like this blog; you folks seem to be very intelligent and sincere, even if we disagree here or there. Re. the "Plains Indians", I will research that again, but haven't done so for over a year now. I can say that Melba & I & our other colleagues at the time went round and round about this, and in fact most of our initial suggestions were rejected, mainly by Melba. My first choice was: Homo sapiens sylvestris (man of the forest), but Melba definitely did not like the sound of it. I liked it because it was purely Latin derived, not a Latinization of an American Indian tribal name (with English or Latin sound-spelling & ending). I did look up a single website just now, though. This link doesn't specify which particular tribe the word "sesquec" came from: http://j.whyville.net/smmk/whytimes/article?id=11994 I think in the end that Melba felt that the American Indians should be given some kind of credit where credit is due, thus the name "sesqueqiensis" came about based on my research into maybe 50 different American Indian anglicized spellings of "sasquatch". Still, this naming issue was simply being bandied about and was NOT a done deal by any stretch. None of us even knew if we'd ever get naming rights in any event, whether as a group or individually. If I don't miss my guess, I believe Melba would like sole naming rights, and this blog is not the place to obtain the naming right in any event. She may or may not stick to her original acceptance of sesquec as a root word; who knows? Still, I'll look up where "we" came up with the spelling of sasquatch, which was: sesquec and became "sesqueq" to make the Latin derivative work, pronunciation-wise. Regarding the skulls & who "owns" them. I don't even think that the area they were located is in Russia itself (isn't Georgia a separate, independent country?). At the time, the Soviet Union existed, and now the USSR no longer exists. In short, the Russian government, or the previous Soviet government at the time, was not interested in cryptozoology as such, and probably felt the whole affair was utter nonsense, so they didn't bother to get involved whatsoever. They were probably too busy generating political propaganda and the time to do ANYTHING else, scientifically, that didn't lead to more and more weapons and a bigger and bigger army. To superimposed the present cryptozoology environment to something that existed way back then, and also in a completely different political and cultural context, is highly mistaken. Lastly, I have no idea of the status of the previous "deal" between these Russian "scientists" and Erickson now, and frankly I don't feel like going there again, because the whole thing appears mute to me by now. The idea of finding a female lineage directly from Zana is probably a good one. I don't have time or energy (or good heath) to do so, and I'm not even sure it can be done, or if such a person is still living today. I can say categorically that Khwit's offspring will NOT be useful, because Khwit is a male, not a female, so the mitochondria of Zana would not be passed down by him to ANY offspring. Lastly, the three mitochondria (complete) I have seen, while interesting, would not on their own lead to any "discovery" that is scientifically verifiable; only clues and statistics, etc., as I have pointed out on my website. By adding the complete mito sequence of Zana or her female lineage would surely add one more feather to the three we have, but wouldn't prove anything on its own, because it will likely be "within human ranges". I don't think this is worth going there, because it still won't prove anything beyond ANY scientific doubt. Only the nuclear DNA would do so, and Zana herself would be the only source of that "sasquatch" DNA -- if she in fact turned out to be such a creature. Richard
Guest Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) I think you are working off the assumption that these creatures are so similar to us genetically that it would be impossible to tell anything from both nuclear and mtDNA. We managed to hang onto to 2% to 4% of our Neanderthal genes after 30,000 years, why would there be no possibility of something unique existing in the nuclear DNA of either male or female descendants of Zana just a few generations out? Khwit's daughter had red eyes. That indicates some nuclear involvement to me. To think you are going to find one item, the holy grail, to establish the existence of these creatures is not very realistic. I imagine the case will have to be built piece by piece for it to be convincing to anyone. Anyway, maybe someone with more resources will consider this in the future and will have enough interest to follow it up. It could be a dead end, but then again, maybe not. Edited October 2, 2011 by Jodie
Guest Stubstad Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Jodie: Agreed. If a male offspring's DNA two or three generations removed from Zana will probably important "connect the dots" results for an overall research project. But only the nuclear, not the mitochondrial. As soon as a 100% modern human is involved (say, with Khwit) as the couples female half, the mito of Zana disappears, while the nuclear simply becomes "watered down" as you put it. Good point. Richard
Guest Stubstad Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Jodie: On a completely redundant level, how did you get the title "Yeti" under your picture? Even more disconcerting, how did I get the name "Booger" under mine? Is this yet another indication of my social ineptness? LOL Anyway, how can I change it something I, personally, like better? Richard
Guest gershake Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 The rank changes over time as you post more.
Guest Stubstad Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 The rank changes over time as you post more. OK, thanks. I was actually thinking that I post too much? Richard
Guest Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Jodie: Agreed. If a male offspring's DNA two or three generations removed from Zana will probably important "connect the dots" results for an overall research project. But only the nuclear, not the mitochondrial. As soon as a 100% modern human is involved (say, with Khwit) as the couples female half, the mito of Zana disappears, while the nuclear simply becomes "watered down" as you put it. Good point. Richard Correct, I'm talking about nuclear DNA, not mtDNA. Evidently neither the female or Khwit's nuclear DNA was analyzed. If a human being has red eyes without alibinism then that is NOT a human marker, and those genes can be recessive. There is still a chance you could find that with nuclear DNA analysis of the descendants, if it is there.
Guest Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 OK, thanks. I was actually thinking that I post too much? Richard Nope, you're just stuck with being called a Booger for a while longer.
Guest Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Jodie: On a completely redundant level, how did you get the title "Yeti" under your picture? Even more disconcerting, how did I get the name "Booger" under mine? Is this yet another indication of my social ineptness? LOL Anyway, how can I change it something I, personally, like better? Richard It means I post way too much on here Richard, be proud you are a Booger.
Guest Stubstad Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 A proud Booger, I am, I am. LOL Q: What is the difference between a smart blond (present company excepted) and sasquatch? A: Sasquatch exists. Q: What is the difference between all other blonds (present company once again excepted) and sasquatch? A: Sasquatch is smart.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 It means I post way too much on here Hi No such thing ~ Tim
Recommended Posts