The Sykes / Sartori Report - Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project

[Guest]

We have contemporary eyelwitness testimony Russian peasants' bigoted and racist descriptions of Zana being extradinarily strong and hirsute feral person. Fairly hard to come up with people today who lived across the street from her in the 19th century. If she was only a folktale, it would be exceedingly hard to find relatives of hers, living and dead, no? Her mitchondrial DNA was not what was expected, unless you expected an african subtype. I'm curious to know what her father's DNA ight hold. It may be unexpected too.

 

I have come across soul detroying before. It seems you're using it in a way that might be over the top, even in a metaphorical sense. That's just conjecture though...

 

 

FIFY. 

[Guest SDBigfooter]

Hey Llawgoch,

 

In your opinion, what came first?  The chicken or the egg?

 

Tracing your paternal history, when is the father not human?  If we took a good look at each individual, going back in time, they would start to look more ape-like.

 

Does that make sense?  Maybe I am alone in that thinking.  Maybe it is just my guess.

 

I do not have evidence to say this is fact but I believe it and have a college degree (no holiday inn express last night though...it was a Ramada).

 

Similarly, say we successfully map the genome of Bigfoot and we begin to see what it really is.  Do we say that europeans have more bigfoot DNA than people of Asian descent?  Do some races have more Bigfoot DNA than others?  Currently, I hear the Neandarthal and Denisovan percentages thrown around and I wonder to myself, how did they come up with that percent?  The percentages make me laugh, because my guess is that there are probably specific isolated genes we share and the percentage is actually a factor of the fun ones we have discovered and use as markers.  Anyways, its not really a big deal.  What is notable is that they have found varying differences among modern humans.

 

As for the Sub Saharan African mess, what does 100% actually mean?  To say something is one hundred percent a modern Sub Saharan African and at the same time say that it might actually be some archaic line out of Africa would be a contradiction.  I'm bringing up the Ramada again for that statement.  Which one is it because it can't be both?  This brings me back to the actual test.  What makes it 100 percent?  One gene?  Maybe a few?  Does this classification only really matter when comparing against other modern human races?  My guess is that they isolated a single gene that all modern sub saharan africans have.  It would be nice to hear for sure but I think these are important questions.  If the bigfoot genome is mapped, I think it is safe to say that there will be varying differences among modern humans.

 

The conjectures will continue and for me, that sounds like a lot of fun.  No soul destroying.  Keep in mind that bigfoot has to exist for any genome mapping to be possible.

 

BTW, I saw that term used on another comment section today.

By the way ApeHuman, that is interesting about the Red Deer Cave People.  I had not heard of them as they somehow slippoed through the cracks for me.  Thank you for bringing that up.  Pretty crazy that they were found a while ago. 

 

Very interesting they would not support that.

[Guest]

Thanks leisureclass, but my post didn't need fixing. How about we make a deal? you don't "fix" my posts, and I don't read yours.

[Guest Llawgoch]

We have contemporary eyelwitness testimony of Zana being extradinarily strong and hirsute feral person. Fairly hard to come up with people today who lived across the street from her in the 19th century. If she was only a folktale, it would be exceedingly hard to find relatives of hers, living and dead, no? Her mitchondrial DNA was not what was expected, unless you expected an african subtype. I'm curious to know what her father's DNA ight hold. It may be unexpected too.

 

I have come across soul detroying before. It seems you're using it in a way that might be over the top, even in a metaphorical sense. That's just conjecture though...

 

 

We do not.  We simply do not.  You clearly don't understand the difference between eye witness testimony and hearsay.

 

There is nothing written down purporting to have been written down contemporaneously with Zana.  We have it at multiple removes.  Do you not see the difference?

Then it is ok for you to assume it's human with no proof, but not ok for anyone to even think about alternative ideas?

 

What do you mean, no proof?  Her descendants' DNA was tested and all proved to be human.  That's the proof.  There is no more reason to assume my father or your father was not human than to assume Zana's wasn't, as they have not been DNA tested either.  (Maybe yours has, I don't know).

 

If you want to suggest a reason why her father may not have been human, you have to have more than "old stories say she was hairy".

Zana was a black African woman horribly treated.  That is 99.99% certain and fully explains all circumstances connected with this story..  If you want to speculate, at least admit first that the speculation is unnecessary.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Llawgoch

[yowiie]

So why exactly has Zana been mentioned in the thread, it appears as though there are many posters jumping to conclusions

[Guest Llawgoch]

Hey Llawgoch,

 

In your opinion, what came first?  The chicken or the egg?

 

Tracing your paternal history, when is the father not human?  If we took a good look at each individual, going back in time, they would start to look more ape-like.

 

Does that make sense?  Maybe I am alone in that thinking.  Maybe it is just my guess.

 

I do not have evidence to say this is fact but I believe it and have a college degree (no holiday inn express last night though...it was a Ramada).

 

Similarly, say we successfully map the genome of Bigfoot and we begin to see what it really is.  Do we say that europeans have more bigfoot DNA than people of Asian descent?  Do some races have more Bigfoot DNA than others?  Currently, I hear the Neandarthal and Denisovan percentages thrown around and I wonder to myself, how did they come up with that percent?  The percentages make me laugh, because my guess is that there are probably specific isolated genes we share and the percentage is actually a factor of the fun ones we have discovered and use as markers.  Anyways, its not really a big deal.  What is notable is that they have found varying differences among modern humans.

 

As for the Sub Saharan African mess, what does 100% actually mean?  To say something is one hundred percent a modern Sub Saharan African and at the same time say that it might actually be some archaic line out of Africa would be a contradiction.  I'm bringing up the Ramada again for that statement.  Which one is it because it can't be both?  This brings me back to the actual test.  What makes it 100 percent?  One gene?  Maybe a few?  Does this classification only really matter when comparing against other modern human races?  My guess is that they isolated a single gene that all modern sub saharan africans have.  It would be nice to hear for sure but I think these are important questions.  If the bigfoot genome is mapped, I think it is safe to say that there will be varying differences among modern humans.

 

The conjectures will continue and for me, that sounds like a lot of fun.  No soul destroying.  Keep in mind that bigfoot has to exist for any genome mapping to be possible.

 

BTW, I saw that term used on another comment section today.

By the way ApeHuman, that is interesting about the Red Deer Cave People.  I had not heard of them as they somehow slippoed through the cracks for me.  Thank you for bringing that up.  Pretty crazy that they were found a while ago. 

 

Very interesting they would not support that.

 

 

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking.  Of course if you go back far enough you'll find amphibians in my lineage, but I don't see why it matters.

 

There is no "sub Saharan mess".  The DNA pointed without any ambiguity to a sub Saharan African ancestry.  Nothing needs explaining or is muddied.  The speculation about an archaic line was simply thrown out as an unlikely and almost certainly untrue possibility with no scientific reason to back it up.

[Guest]

By your reasoning, Llagwoch, Khwit may not have been Zana's son. It's hearsay. You can't prove he came from her womb, so you're speculating on his origins.

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

 

I have come across soul detroying before. It seems you're using it in a way that might be over the top, even in a metaphorical sense. That's just conjecture though...

 

Incidentally,

 

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/soul-destroying

 

 

"Unremittingly monotonous".  Not sure why you have failed to come across this common idiom.  And the reason this is unremittingly monotonous is because once again there are people here who are convinced that the archaic line scenario was not simply a flight of fancy thrown out for a TV show, but is somehow backed by science, If other people seemed tor recognize this simple fact, I wouldn't have to say it so often to balance those that ignore it.

By your reasoning, Llagwoch, Khwit may not have been Zana's son. It's hearsay. You can't prove he came from her womb, so you're speculating on his origins.

 

No, you can't prove it.  Maybe he wasn't her son.  But the fact that he had sub Saharan ancestry in the right proportion to be the son of an African woman does tend to back up the case that he was.

 

But if you want to know the difference between hearsay and eyewitness testimonygo into a court and say "I saw him commit the crime".  Then try "My grandfather told my father that he saw him commit the crime, and my father told me".  See which one holds up better.

[Guest]

Of course! how could I be so obtuse!! If those folks who actually saw what Zana looked like had the audacity to die before swearing out accounts to a local magistrate, their accounts should relegated to "folklore".

 

Llagwoch-"No, you can't prove it.  Maybe he wasn't her son.  But the fact that he had sub Saharan ancestry in the right proportion to be the son of an African woman does tend to back up the case that he was."

 

Your above quote takes for granted that Zana was a sub saharan female, when you admit it's hearsay that she was Kwhit's mother. Arguing in a circle. I can play the same game of semantics too. I just won't from now on. I find it soul destroying.

[Guest Llawgoch]

No, it doesn't take it for granted at all.  it just tends, on balance, to back up that part of the story.  Either Khwit's mother was some other African woman, now forgotten, and by coincidence he was mistaken for being Zana's son,   or his mother was Zana, who was an African woman.  I'm willing to accept the latter as being a reasonable explanation,  There's no circularity.  I can't help you if you can't see that.

 

And yes, when accounts have travelled through numerous pairs of hands and are being reported by people who never saw the events in question, they are less reliable.  I can't help you if you can't see that, either.

 

There is no semantics here at all.

[Guest]

And I can't help you if you can't ken that the accounts of Zana were contemporary. There would be no story today if there wasn't one then. By your definition, any history that no one alive today witnessed is apocryphal.

Edited November 21, 2013 by stinkyfeet

[Guest Llawgoch]

Right, for the last time.

 

There is a difference between a contemporaneous account written down and recorded at the time, and accounts which were not written down or recorded until years later, when they were being recounted not by the original witnesses but by people who had heard stories at second or third hand from the original witnesses.

 

The accounts of Zana were the latter.  Do you dispute that?

 

History is based on contemporary sources.  NOT people's muddled recollections of what their grandparents told them.  Not unless that is all there is, and if that is all there is than it is universally recognized as unreliable history.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Llawgoch

[WSA]

Report today from Bigfootology is that Sykes has found human nuDNA in Zana samples, but has yet to determine if her parentage is modern, or relic sub-Saharan African.  Either outcome is pretty fascinating to me.

[Guest]

Report today from Bigfootology is that Sykes has found human nuDNA in Zana samples, but has yet to determine if her parentage is modern, or relic sub-Saharan African.  Either outcome is pretty fascinating to me.

 

Until I read the November 20th update on bigootology.com, I assumed Zana was 100% sub saharan african.  

 

"Still, of the six descendants of Zana tested by Bryan all showed human lineage – just as the result were announced that she is human with half of her DNA being sub-Saharan African.

"

[Guest Darrell]

This sounds like a broken record, but it just seems like the proponent camp is grasping with their last breath for anything that might validate thier beliefs.