Pembo Posted Friday at 09:24 PM Posted Friday at 09:24 PM 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 Friday at 09:49 PM Posted Friday at 09:49 PM 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 Friday at 10:54 PM Posted Friday at 10:54 PM 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..............
Pembo Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 21 hours ago, Huntster said: 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). If I'm following your though process correctly (which, knowing me isn't certain), that would mean that bigfoot/almas would be an archaic human (i.e. a species of homo but not homo sapiens) whilst Zana would have been the offspring of a male bigfoot and female homo sapiens (given that the minutely detailed mitochondrial DNA apparently passes via the female line, leaving Zana testing as pure homo sapiens). It's certainly an interesting thought, and could well be correct. How typical of such an elusive species that one of the very few possibilities available for testing would be an individual that wouldn't divulge anything! The other possibility, to my mind, is that she could have been a modern human, homo sapiens, from Africa, with Hypertrichosis who had been living wild following either voluntarily (escape) or forcibly (shunned) leaving her people. The descriptions of her are essentially from individuals who would have seen her as children, giving descriptions some 70 years later. Given that they would likely not have seen any other individuals of African heritage, Zana theoretically having been amongst the last of the slaves brought over by the recently deposed Ottoman Empire, she would have looked entirely different to their eyes. Coupled with potential Hypertrichosis, and the perspective of children (with regards to the super strength and speed), this could possibly be another explanation.
norseman Posted 4 hours ago Admin Posted 4 hours ago 29 minutes ago, Pembo said: If I'm following your though process correctly (which, knowing me isn't certain), that would mean that bigfoot/almas would be an archaic human (i.e. a species of homo but not homo sapiens) whilst Zana would have been the offspring of a male bigfoot and female homo sapiens (given that the minutely detailed mitochondrial DNA apparently passes via the female line, leaving Zana testing as pure homo sapiens). It's certainly an interesting thought, and could well be correct. How typical of such an elusive species that one of the very few possibilities available for testing would be an individual that wouldn't divulge anything! The other possibility, to my mind, is that she could have been a modern human, homo sapiens, from Africa, with Hypertrichosis who had been living wild following either voluntarily (escape) or forcibly (shunned) leaving her people. The descriptions of her are essentially from individuals who would have seen her as children, giving descriptions some 70 years later. Given that they would likely not have seen any other individuals of African heritage, Zana theoretically having been amongst the last of the slaves brought over by the recently deposed Ottoman Empire, she would have looked entirely different to their eyes. Coupled with potential Hypertrichosis, and the perspective of children (with regards to the super strength and speed), this could possibly be another explanation. I think Sykes DNA study has been called into question by Meldrum. I now question Zana being a Homo Sapiens. She undoubtedly belonged to the genus Homo. But science needs to work on parsing out samples that are closely related. Evidently you could give Neanderthal DNA to most genetics labs and the result would be Homo Sapiens. Meldrum tried to talk to Sykes about what to look for in a legitimate cryptid sample and he didn’t listen. It would be interesting to send Qwits tooth to the Max Plank institute.
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 2 hours ago, Pembo said: If I'm following your though process correctly (which, knowing me isn't certain), that would mean that bigfoot/almas would be an archaic human (i.e. a species of homo but not homo sapiens) whilst Zana would have been the offspring of a male bigfoot and female homo sapiens (given that the minutely detailed mitochondrial DNA apparently passes via the female line, leaving Zana testing as pure homo sapiens)............ Thanks for giving my opinions a good think, and for carrying this conversation on! But I think you've misunderstood me. Both Sykes and Margaryan found Zana to be 100% homo sapien. Zana was not a hybrid, and she was bred (essentially by rape) with village men and bore several young, some of whom survived and continued breeding with local men. Zana was twice proven to be homo sapien............but the villagers believed her to be an Almas, and since she fit the description of an Almas perfectly, she was actually both, and there is no reason in the world that she couldn't be. This means several things. First, a feral homo sapien can be seen to be a wild man.........and that is exactly what he is. Moreover, some of the reports from others should be expected to be of feral Homo sapiens. How many? Probably not many, because there aren't a whole lot of feral Homo sapiens running around out there..........I hope.......although it appears that we are creating more and more of them right in the middle of our cities............. Second, this does NOT mean that 100% of wild man reports are feral Homo sapiens, just like 100% of sasquatch reports are actually misidentifications of black bears. We must admit that some sasquatch reports are misidentified black bears..........but we must also recognize that some valid Sasquatch sightings are misidentified as black bears. Quote ........The other possibility, to my mind, is that she could have been a modern human, homo sapiens, from Africa, with Hypertrichosis who had been living wild following either voluntarily (escape) or forcibly (shunned) leaving her people.......... This is almost certainly true, given the fact that two peer reviewed genetic tests have been conducted on her remains and both identify her as 100% homo sapien (more on that below in a reply to norseman). But that reality is complicated with some really outrageous odds. For example: 1) First are the odds that an abandoned child survives abandonment in the wilderness. We're talking one in many hundreds of millions odds. Review the feral children topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child 2) Add to those odds the fact that Zana was hypertrychosis (about 1 in 160,000,000). #) Add to the above two incredible odds the fact that she was 6'6" tall. The average height of players in the WNBA is 6'1". A friend played center tat UConn, and went on to play with the LA Sparks. She was 6'2". Only 12 players in WNBA history have been 6'6" or taller. ^^^^^^^^^The above combination is some tall odds, indeed.................
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 2 hours ago, norseman said: I think Sykes DNA study has been called into question by Meldrum........... Sykes claimed that Zana had "mystery markers", and he opined that her lineage might have come from Africa prior to 100,000 years ago. Margaryan jumped on that like a praying mantis. Immediately, if not faster. That line of evolutionary primatology can't have anything like that stand. He zeroed her in on a tribe in east Africa in order to put it all to bed. Sykes died soon afterwards. I'm pretty sure you won't see another Sykes pop up after that.
Recommended Posts