Implications of Hybridization - v1.1

[Huntster]

This thread is so titled because there has already been a thread titled "Implications of a Human Hybrid" that has been closed (why are such threads closed if there is no open warfare in them?). However, the points I hope to present were not discussed in detail there. That thread was likely inspired by the theories of the Sasquatch Genome Project, specifically that sasquatches were themselves hybrids of humans and an unknown ape. I'm coming from a different direction, based upon Bryan Sykes theory which he bases on his work on the DNA of Zana's progeny.

 

His DNA analysis resulted in Zana being 100% sub-Saharan African, which means no hybridization with Neanderthals or Denisovans. Most people responded with, "Aha! See, she was human!" Well, no s**t, Sherlock. "Human", or of the genus Homo, includes several species, including Homo sapiens (us), Neanderthals, Denisovans, and several others. This doesn't mean that sasquatches don't exist. Another common escape avenue was the claim that Zana was was simply a former African slave imported during the Ottoman Empire who went feral. This doesn't meet the smell test for several reasons, and Sykes also pointed out that her DNA differed from any African models known today, indicating hers as a "ghost" population that likely left Africa thousands of years ago. Moreover, looking at the description of Zana herself (collected @ 1962 (5 years before the PG film was shot) by zoologist Prof Alexander Mashkovtsev) was a spitting image of Patty, the subject of the PG film: 

 

https://sites.google.com/site/noxgigasstudy/home/zana-and-the-black-plague

 

 

Quote

...........Her skin was black, or dark grey, and her whole body covered with reddish-black hair. The hair on her head was tousled and thick, hanging mane-like down her back. 

    She could not speak, over decades that she lived with people, Zana did not learn a single Abkhaz word; she only made inarticulate sounds and mutterings, and cries when irritated. But she reacted to her name, carried out commands given by her master and was scared when he shouted at her. And this despite the fact that she was very tall, massive and broad, with huge breasts and buttocks, muscular arms and legs, and fingers that were longer and thicker than human fingers. She could splay her toes widely and move apart the big toe. 

   From remembered descriptions given to Mashkovtsev and Porshnev, her face was terrifying; broad, with high cheekbones, flat nose, turned out nostrils, muzzle-like jaws, wide mouth with large teeth, low forehead, and eyes of a reddish tinge. But the most frightening feature was her expression which was purely animal, not human. Sometimes, she would give a spontaneous laugh, baring those big white teeth of hers. The latter were so strong that she easily cracked the hardest walnuts. 

   She lived for many years without showing any change: no grey hair, no falling teeth, keeping strong and fit as ever. Her athletic power was enormous. She would outrun a horse, and swim across the wild Mokva River even when it rose in violent high tide. Seemingly without effort she lifted with one hand an eighty-kilo sack of flour and carried it uphill from the water-mill to the village. She climbed trees to get fruit, and to gorge herself with grapes she would pull down a whole vine growing around the tree. She ate whatever was offered to her, including hominy and meat, with bare hands and enormous gluttony. She loved wine, and was allowed her fill, after which she would sleep for hours in a swoonlike state. 

   She liked to lie in a cool pool side by side with buffalos. At night she used to roam the surrounding hills. She wielded big sticks against dogs and on other perilous occasions. She had a curious obsession for playing with stones, knocking one against another and splitting them. 

   She took swims the year round, and preferred to walk naked even in winter, tearing dresses that she was given into shreds. However, she showed more tolerance toward a loin-cloth. Sometimes she went into the house, but the women were afraid of her and came near only when she was in a gentle mood; when angry she, presented a scary sight and could even bite. But she obeyed her master, Edgi Genaba, and he knew how to bring her to heel. Adults used her as a bogy figure with children, although Zana never actually attacked children. 

  She was trained to perform simple domestic tasks, such as grinding grain for flour, bringing home firewood and water, or sacks to and from the water-mill, or pull her master's high boots off..........

 

Here's the key:

 

 

Quote

........She became the mother of human children, and this is the wondrous side of her life story, very important for the science of genetics. Zana was pregnant several times by various men.........

 

This is not the only testimony of sasquatch creatures mating with humans, but it is the only testimony coming from multiple individuals and supported with the DNA of surviving progeny. Perhaps the most important biological results are that:

 

1. There is a unique DNA signature that can be compared to other purported sasquatch DNA samples, and
2. This testimony and resulting DNA analysis essentially confirms that sasquatches are "human", but not necessarily Homo sapien.

 

I want to repeat that:

 

This testimony and resulting DNA analysis essentially confirms that sasquatches are "human", but not necessarily Homo sapien

 

I want to point out just how critical this possibility is:

 

Biological:

 

This is likely why we repeatedly see DNA tests coming back as "human" and being thrown away as "contaminated". I suggest that both Bryan Sykes and the Sasquatch Genome Project may have isolated specific markers that might be found in future samples, and thus enormously strengthening sasquatchery evidence.

 

Secondly, understanding this possibility enables debaters to deal with arguments like this:

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/25077-russian-alma-zana/

 

 

Quote

Quote

Huntster said:

 

If Zana successfully mated with a human, Zana was human.

There's no need to ponder the situation. Alma or not, if she successfully mated with a human, she's human.

 

 

And if a donkey and a horse successfully mated then the offspring is a horse?? Don't think soo that is how we get the hybrid thing called a mule. All it proves is what ever Zana was she was from a family that genetically was close to a human and allowed her to mate with a human. That does not mean Zana was a real human but rather a species that share close genetic material.

 

 

 

 

"Human" is a genus (Homo), not a species. It is now (and in 2009 when this genius wrote the above) well accepted science that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), are human, but of a different species than us, and now it is recognized that the same is true of Denisovans and at least two other "ghost" species.

 

Legal:

 

If sasquatches are human, one cannot kill one without committing a felonious crime, the least of which would be willful manslaughter. This is black letter law. This is a HUGE consideration for sasquatch "hunters". I, for one, refuse to go through any legal examination that might result in such a conviction. This makes the acquisition of a carcass, which is absolutely required to put sasquatches in the family of known and accepted species and confirm/correct any and all theories, extremely more difficult. 

 

Also, this will change much more than biology after discovery. For example, sasquatches/Zana demonstrated no spiritual awareness, tool manufacturing, or control/use of fire whatsoever, and tool use was similar to chimps (sticks and unmanipulated stones). This means that humanity might not necessarily include tool/fire use or spirituality as factors in the taxonomic requirements for humanity. Remember, our genetics are so close that not only hybridization possible, but the offspring are also fertile. 

 

Are sasquatches, human but not spiritually or mechanically aware, subject to the same human rights as Homo sapiens? Is a whole new body of law (or chapter) now required for the entire world to ratify and recognize?

 

We're just looking at a tip of this iceberg. This is way, way bigger than new insect species being discovered.

 

 

 

[CallyCat]

We need to find one first before we go off on ethical tangents. I thought the Zana DNA analysis was very interesting. I remember the discussion about Zana being from a more ancient line than could be explained if she was a descendant of an ottoman slave. However, it's a far stretch to call her a potential sasquatch as a result of that, she could have had genetic disorders to explain the behavior and some of her physical characteristics like hirsutism. Her descendants looked like regular biracial human beings to me. 

[ioyza]

It's aint just Zana...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uratrKnU3Gc

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, ioyza said:

It's aint just Zana...

 

Interesting. Too bad it's in Chinese language. Do you have a name for that interesting looking fellow that might be googleable?

[Huntster]

15 hours ago, CallyCat said:

We need to find one first before we go off on ethical tangents..........

 

But we have found them. Patterson filmed one, and the fine folks in Abkhazia even domesticated and inter-bred with one. In fact, that inter-breeding is why the ethical considerations are valid to consider, especially if that is one of the reasons why government is discouraging discovery. Besides, if "finding one" requires killing it, that in and of itself clearly requires an ethical decision, not to mention what I was actually pointing out: legalities, not ethics.

 

.........

 it's a far stretch to call her a potential sasquatch as a result of that, she could have had genetic disorders to explain the behavior and some of her physical characteristics like hirsutism...........

 

The same can be said of Patty in the PG film, but we never hear that. People say that she's a sasquatch, a man in a suit, or even that she's an extraterrestrial alien. Nobody suggests that she's a woman with genetic disorders. And she matches Zana's description to a T.

 

.......Her descendants looked like regular biracial human beings to me.

 

Agreed, which is remarkable in and of itself. The fact that interbreeding with homo sapiens may have directly led to the essential extinction of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Hobbits might be because homo sapien genetics are far stronger and superior.

 

 

[ioyza]

17 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Interesting. Too bad it's in Chinese language. Do you have a name for that interesting looking fellow that might be googleable?

 

Yeah sorry I put up the long version because there's a bit more footage, but this is the only other video out there about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZiMknx9wJE

 

The "skeptical" view is that he has microcephaly, but if you're accustomed to taking people's stories at face value... and if the shoe fits...

 

I dunno, I've always thought it was a really interesting case and it's a shame there isn't more information out there on it.

[Huntster]

Thanks for that.

 

There should be cases in North America like that, but American aboriginals had no written history. But that "ghost" DNA trace should be in native American genetics, especially PNW tribes.

 

 

[WSA]

Yup.  There are those, me amongst them, who have long held this theory to be accurate. It explains and doesn't scapegoat the data.

 

As for the legal/criminal implications of this, if it is true, and somebody intentionally kills one? Don't sweat it would be my considered legal opinion. No prosecutor in the world is going to get even a manslaughter conviction from any jury when the evidence is, "I saw an 8' ape wearing no clothes and covered with hair. I shot it.," and it was only after sequencing the DNA did we know if was a variety of H. sapien.  At any rate, it would be good problem to have.  Any government that has already drafted a statute or ordinance as a publicity stunt will have the law struck down for vagueness if it is ever enforced. Prohibiting an act against an animal that is not even recognized as existing at the time the law is passed (essentially, attempting to outlaw a hypothetical) and successfully prosecuting a defendant under that law would be a (not likely) first in American jurisprudence.    

[ShadowBorn]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 1:58 PM, Huntster said:

This thread is so titled because there has already been a thread titled "Implications of a Human Hybrid" that has been closed (why are such threads closed if there is no open warfare in them?

You want to know why it was closed . It was closed because the folks who rule the debate want it close to the fact that they do not want this creature to have any part of it to be Human. To have it be Human does not fit into their well fitted agenda of what ever it may be. They wanted it to be an ape/ chimp since they do not want some thing that can match up to what we as Humans are. Sure we as Human do not live in the wild  since us Humans build shelters . We as Humans are not savages where we eat our prey with our hands and teeth and rip the flesh off the bone.  Us Humans do not give off the fear of God to other apex animals like these creatures do what ever roams in our forest. ( I am sure that Zana never had this ) . Where you can actually feel that fear in your bones as a Human.( Where is the paranormal in that) This is pure apex in a species not felt anywhere else . It is only felt when we encounter these creatures. 

 

So what ever DnA they have it must be some thing that is truly undiscovered. True there must be some human in them but what ever other part that is in their strand is what should leave us with at a remarkable amazement. That is even if there are two strands of DnA  which we are not even sure off. There could be more then two strands of DnA  which would make them remarkable.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, WSA said:

.........As for the legal/criminal implications of this, if it is true, and somebody intentionally kills one? Don't sweat it would be my considered legal opinion. No prosecutor in the world is going to get even a manslaughter conviction from any jury when the evidence is, "I saw an 8' ape wearing no clothes and covered with hair. I shot it.," and it was only after sequencing the DNA did we know if was a variety of H. sapien.........

 

You're probably correct in that. As long as it isn't shot in the back, all you'd really have to say is, "I was afraid." 

 

.......

At any rate, it would be good problem to have........

 

Not from my perspective. Whenever you're in a courtroom, you've got problems. Even if you win, you've lost, at least a bunch of money. 

59 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

.........Us Humans do not give off the fear of God to other apex animals like these creatures do what ever roams in our forest.........

 

I agree with most of what you posted except this. I have personally seen at least two gorgeous grizzly bears sense my presense and leave in fear, one at a dead run as if his life depended on it. 

[ShadowBorn]

10 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I agree with most of what you posted except this. I have personally seen at least two gorgeous grizzly bears sense my presense and leave in fear, one at a dead run as if his life depended on it. 

Huntster

Do you believe that it could be these Grizzly never seen a Human in their entire lives ? This could be a possibility. Not to change to the subject. But we really need to learn about all aspects of behavior.  If these creatures place fear in us in some way then is it possible that it is embedded with in our own DnA.

[Huntster]

7 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

.......Do you believe that it could be these Grizzly never seen a Human in their entire lives ? This could be a possibility.........

 

I'm pretty confident that both bears (and all the others around here that have survived humanity thus far) know all about us and will run away in fear........unless in an official Yogi Bear park, The bears seem to understand that better than most of humanity.

[Twist]

2 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

You want to know why it was closed . It was closed because the folks who rule the debate want it close to the fact that they do not want this creature to have any part of it to be Human. To have it be Human does not fit intotheir well fitted agenda of what ever it may be.

 

I believe that’s completely false.  I believe the thread was locked by admins because at one time a poster, DWA, was posting in every thread to disrupt the forum.   I’ve found the BFRO to be pretty open about any aspect of BF as long as it’s civil and fits the subforum.  

[Huntster]

One thing is sure regarding the possible humanity of sasquatches: Lots of folks are unclear about what that means taxonomically, biologically, and legally. Taxonomically, that simply means they would be of the genus Homo, but not necessarily (and very doubtfully) of the species Homo sapien, but they seem to think that somehow if it is "human", it can't be a sasquatch. I'm not sure why that is, but perhaps it's a last-line defense of utter denial.

[ShadowBorn]

44 minutes ago, Twist said:

I believe that’s completely false.  I believe the thread was locked by admins because at one time a poster, DWA, was posting in every thread to disrupt the forum.   I’ve found the BFRO to be pretty open about any aspect of BF as long as it’s civil and fits the subforum.  

Twist

I am not talking about a thread being locked by admin but about the species it's self. Taxonomically : because it walks on two feet and it has hands and it evens looks human  it could be human in that form. But due to DnA samples that keep coming back contaminated with out truly looking into it . It does not scream out sasquatch. So those samples simply get thrown out with out further research only because it does not fit what they want it to fit into which is ape.  They are trying to put a square into a circle  which we all know does not fit. 

 

Like I have said before , how do we know how many strands of DnA they have. All we know of is that we as Humans and I believe that of most creatures have two except for maybe an octopus but I am not sure and since I am not geneticist I might be wrong.  But what if we did bring one of these creatures in . What if these creatures had DnA strands of maybe four that included many different animal types  which fits the pattern that is showing up in the now. Would that not amaze science . I know that I am speaking hypothetical and I am ok with this. 

 

But what if all those sample that were contaminated  by humans as they say were retested. What if they could not find a match to the human DnA that they said was contaminated . Then what would be said of that DnA  then. How would they be calling that newly found Human DnA in our world now.  How would they be considering it then. Would it be considered as a truly new wild human. If so could this be the reason why they consider the samples contaminated knowing that they can get a clean sample. Are we being lied too by those who know the truth.