Pembo Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 17 hours ago, norseman said: Interesting story. Thanks for the video. It's a genuine shame that the more interesting stories happened so far back, and therefore investigated less thoroughly.
Pembo Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 16 hours ago, Huntster said: When the Zana genetic tests came back as homo sapien, I delved into some study of feral humans. Wow. I concluded with the realization that at least part of the sasquatch phenomenon can be accredited to feral people...........just like Zana was believed to be an Almas. With that in mind, I wonder if native children, stolen and raised by sasquatches, became sasquatches.............just like the aboriginal legends claim? It's interesting. I saw a documentary some years ago - 'Bigfoot files' - it was a UK documentary regarding Brian Sykes' investigation of DNA, which had an episode looking mainly at Zana with other considerations of Almasty. I don't know if you could see it in the US but it's quite interesting if you can, and has contributions from Igor Burtsev, who excavated the grave, and from Zana's descendants. The conclusion, as you say, is that she was human (with the usual 2-4% Neanderthal DNA that almost all European/Asians have). The interesting part was that it concluded that she would have been West African. Hypertrichosis is what has been suggested as an explanation of excessive hair, which has been proven to occur sometimes as a result of hormonal changes from hunger and deprivation. An African (possibly an escaped or shunned slave from the recent Ottoman Empire) with Hypertrichosis could explain the appearance and DNA. Again, the difficult thing is weeding the scientific evidence from the anecdotal, given that Zana wasn't studied until 70+ years after she died and that the descriptions come from individuals who saw her as children over 70 years previously. Whilst open to the idea that Bigfoot is a very close relation to homo sapiens, I do question how Zana would fit into that. The DNA evidence put forth to support Bigfoot is DNA that is very close to but not quite human - unknown primate. Zana was confirmed as 100% human. If Bigfoot is 100% human, how would one account for the extreme discrepancy in size -height and girth - differences in reported facial features, mid tarsal break etc etc.? And if there is a difference in DNA, which to my mind there must be however closely linked, then one species couldn't change their DNA in order to become the other
Huntster Posted 27 minutes ago Posted 27 minutes ago 52 minutes ago, Pembo said: ........ If Bigfoot is 100% human, how would one account for the extreme discrepancy in size -height and girth - differences in reported facial features, mid tarsal break etc etc.?........ Because they are 100% human (and thus due basic human rights), but not 100% homo sapien (which is what Zana was eventually proven to be, @120 years after her death). Quote .........And if there is a difference in DNA, which to my mind there must be however closely linked, then one species couldn't change their DNA in order to become the other......... Agreed, however: 1) While a Neanderthal and Denisovan may have been able to successfully breed with Homo sapiens, and their offspring been able to further reproduce, Florensinsis or sasquatches might be able to reproduce with Homo sapiens, and their offspring might have been sterile........but all were of the genus Homo........... 2) If #1 is true, we will never find sasquatch or Floresiensis DNA in the current extended human record. It will have to be recovered from a sasquatch, Hobbit, or 1st generation hybrid. 2) People might see a feral human and see an Almas, sasquatch, or Hobbit, but are actually seeing a feral homo sapien..................or vice versa Let us review the "definition" of an Almas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(folklore) Quote ..........Nikolay Przhevalsky described the almas in 1876, as related to him under the name kung-guressu ("man-beast"), as follows: "We were told that it had a flat face like that of a human being, and that it often walked on two legs, that its body was covered with a thick black fur, and its feet armed with enormous claws; that its strength was terrible, and that not only were hunters afraid of attacking it, but that the inhabitants removed their habitations from those parts of the country which it visited".[10] Heaney suggests that the almas should be identified with the Arimaspi, a group of legendary humanoid creatures said to inhabit the Riphean Mountains.[5] Scholar Damdinzhavyn Maidar [mn] has provided the following description in 1981: Almases, according to the stories of witnesses, appear half animal, half human, with reddish black hair. The face is hairless, the stomach covered with sparse growth. The head seems pointed at the occiput, the forehead flattened back with projecting brow ridges, and prominent cheekbones. They are the height of an average person. The almas walks with half-bent knees, is round-shouldered and pigeon-toed. It has broad shoulders and long arms. The women have long breasts. Almases are timid, suspicious, but not aggressive, and lead a nocturnal way of life. No-one has heard their speech.[12]........... Zana was an almas. She also just happened to be homo sapien, too..............
Recommended Posts