Guest Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) Note that stories do not constitute credible evidence. Also, not one of your stories of human x bigfoot hybridization purports to claim the production of viable offspring. Viable offspring are those that can, in turn, breed successfully. If mules were always viable, horses and donkeys would be a single species. This was investigated as more then just a story however. Zana Edited June 1, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 No. The episode is on YouTube. Susi says: I did *not* know that. yikes..unsuccessfully, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Note that stories do not constitute credible evidence. Also, not one of your stories of human x bigfoot hybridization purports to claim the production of viable offspring. Viable offspring are those that can, in turn, breed successfully. If mules were always viable, horses and donkeys would be a single species. Not true. Zana's children had children themselves. Zana was an Almasty from Abkhazia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Zana was an Almasty from Abkhazia. 1) Define "Almasty." 2) Provide the analysis that confirmed Zana to have been an Almasty. 3) Thanks for doing 1 and 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 This was investigated as more then just a story however. But what actual evidence is there? Some of the bold statements being thrown around are quite remarkable, quite unsubstantiated, and quite unscientific. Stuff like: "Zana was a female abnauyu..." (from the link) and... Zana was an Almasty from Abkhazia. By what process was it determined that Zana was an Almasty? DNA tests conducted on Khwit's skull determined that he was human, not some sort of hybrid. And if he was human, so was his mother. (squatchopedia ) RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 But what actual evidence is there? Some of the bold statements being thrown around are quite remarkable, quite unsubstantiated, and quite unscientific. Stuff like: "Zana was a female abnauyu..." (from the link) and... By what process was it determined that Zana was an Almasty? DNA tests conducted on Khwit's skull determined that he was human, not some sort of hybrid. And if he was human, so was his mother. (squatchopedia ) RayG Looks like we are back to square one here. So Almastys are a type of human then? And Bigfoots are a type of human too? So much evidence seems to be converging on this point, bizarre and insane as it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 So Almastys are a type of human then? No. You're making some leaps in logic there. First, you'd need to establish that the Almasty is an identified and cataloged species. (which hasn't happened) Second, you'd have to show evidence that the Almasty is a type of human. (which you haven't) Third, you'd have to show evidence that Zana DNA and Almasty DNA are a match. (which you now seem to be implying, but again, have failed to substantiate) I'll ask again, by what process was it determined that Zana was an Almasty as you claim? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Are people who work in science really bright? Would say that Scientist's as a whole are "bright" in their individual specialties. Not everyone is involved in the required fields to make a decision either way regarding Bigfoot. Just for informative purposes (I have no real idea). What Scientists would be even be called in to confirm or deny, or study a Body should we find one? Physical Anthropologist? Then who? Has anyone even made a list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Would say that Scientist's as a whole are "bright" in their individual specialties. Not everyone is involved in the required fields to make a decision either way regarding Bigfoot. Just for informative purposes (I have no real idea). What Scientists would be even be called in to confirm or deny, or study a Body should we find one? Physical Anthropologist? Then who? Has anyone even made a list? I would imagine that any biologist or even a coroner could positively identify that: 1) Yes it is a real corpse. 2) Yes it's deceased. Beyond that, the body could be passed off to the proper authorities to give it it's own taxonomy or classification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 But what "proper authorities"? I mean what type of scientists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 But what "proper authorities"? I mean what type of scientists? How about a neutral zoologist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Primatologists and biological anthropologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Adds another "buck and a quarter-quarterstaff to the collection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 According to Mulder, if our prominent scientist issues a statement or writes a popular book about his analysis of those footprints and hairs, the reality of the unicorn is verified. Unless and until the Skeptics can overturn his data or procedures, which they have not done. According to me, those statements and that book have bypassed a crucial process in the advancement of scientific knowledge and represent a pseudoscientific effort to promote belief in something for which the evidence is lacking. There's "according to you", then there's "according to reasonable people"...I'll be over with the reasonable people if you ever decide to join us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Note that stories do not constitute credible evidence. Also, not one of your stories of human x bigfoot hybridization purports to claim the production of viable offspring. Viable offspring are those that can, in turn, breed successfully. If mules were always viable, horses and donkeys would be a single species. Actually, all the stories I can think of that tell of surviving hybrid offspring do mention that they had viable offspring. Zana's offspring married into the village families and had a family burial plot. The Chelan, WA hybrid child also interbred with the village people and was smoothly incorporated into the tribe. Sure, the stories do not constitute credible evidence but DNA does. I do hope they sequence nuclear DNA in this case and have something solid to present. And as Bob pointed out if the ancestry of the sample sasquatch has a modern human female very near in the lineage the mDNA could be completely human while the sasquatch has nuclear DNA consistent with an archaic homo. The explanation does fit quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts