Jump to content

Implications of Hybridization - v1.1


Huntster
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

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." 

 

Not even talking about self defense. You must intend to kill a human for it to be murder (leaving aside commission of a felony charge, and other statutory exceptions). Since not even science would know/could know if it was human beforehand, there could be no premeditated intent possible. Ditto as to manslaughter where the key word in that is “man”...even a reckless endangerment requires reasonable knowledge that a human life was in danger. All these theories of prosecution would fail pretty quickly. The idea that anyone would be successfully prosecuted for homicide for killing a Sasquatch is frankly preposterous. A 1L law student could probably get that dismissed, pre-arraignment. 

 

 

 

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.   

No doubt...I meant that it is a good problem for science to have.

 

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

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.

Maybe there utter defense of denial is to protect themselves of liability if one was ever to be shot . If you keep screaming ape ape then it must be an ape so if one was to shoot one well they will not be liable . It would be like getting a free out of jail card. But then how would that stand up in court , even if it was self defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
On 8/25/2019 at 9:58 AM, Huntster said:

........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........

 

https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/book-reviews/Nature-of-the-Beast.pdf

 

Quote

.........Should we be dismayed that no clear genetic evidence was found of an unknown hominoid? No, Bryan Sykes delivered, and I congratulate him on doing what he set out to do.


Three open-ended mysteries do, nevertheless, remain unanswered for those who read this book closely, thanks to Sykes and his associates’ scientific work. These three subsections are worth the reading of the book alone.
(1) In the “Postscript,” Sykes details an intriguing finding from a hair sample from Dr. Henner Fahrenbach. It yielded a result that Sykes is still pondering, and we may hear more about in the future. The DNA sample of a “sasquatch” from Walla Walla matched that of a feral “individual from Uzbekistan,” Sykes writes (page 282).
(2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the labor of the Russian hominologists during four decades of the Snowman Commission at Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream media has completely misinterpreted what Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of Zana being an “escaped African slave” demeans what appear to be the genetic realities behind the case. You must read Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he has discovered.
“Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6” tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes (page 296).
Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics that tell us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” (page 306)..........

 

The Walla Walla DNA sample matched that from a feral person from Uzbekistan. 

 

This is how DNA is going to play a big role in the ultimate discovery scenario. 

 

 

Edited by Huntster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Huntster, You are now seeing what I've been a proponent of for the last 10 years or so.  This Zana talk makes me wish we had DNA from Julia Pastrana. Her life story is a little different from Zana's , but she had many similar attributes and behaviors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story of Zana is fascinating.  The descriptions of her are identical to those of Sasquatch.  So interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the only plausible scenario that explains the repetitive results...how many DNA samples could you reasonably expect to be "contaminated" with H. sapien DNA?  Okay, more than one is likely, several is possible, but it seems like we are seeing this EVERY time results are published. I've suggested before...the lab reaches a point where they are satisfied the sequence contains DNA markers that agree with known human sequences and they shut it down, write it up as "contaminated" and move on.  Unless and until those samples are fully sequenced and a library of them is kept for cross referencing, we may continue to overlook subtle variations in the genome that indicate a Sasquatch. This, of course, means time and money.

 

Moreover, although the behaviors of Sasquatch can be viewed as ape-like, so can many of ours, if we are truthful about it...they just exist within a framework of a hyper-socialized, densely populated and technologically saturated environment. If you also believe the close-up observations and "gut" feelings of those who have lived in close proximity to BF, almost unanimously they come down on the side of "people". These observations count.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
4 hours ago, WSA said:

Unless and until those samples are fully sequenced and a library of them is kept for cross referencing, we may continue to overlook subtle variations in the genome that indicate a Sasquatch. This, of course, means time and money.

 

I have to assume that with the few Tom Slicks, Wally Hersoms, Adrian Ericksons .. and others .. who can afford the testing without so much as blinking an eye, that it has been done by someone at some time.   The question, then, is why the results aren't public.   I would say someone found something that makes them uncomfortable, something they think we are better off not knowing.   Maybe some of our "crazy" ideas are crazy but are also truth?   I dunno.  A puzzle.  Also a hint to move forward in our field research carefully because there may be more to the puzzle than we imagine, maybe something  more dangerous than a mere man-ape-thingy in the woods.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is an issue with publishing DNA sequences of modern homo sapiens , you have to have their consent to put them in genbank. So it may be a road block if bigfoot has fully modern human mtDNA. This is why Ketchum didn't publish the 20 whole mitochondrial genomes she got from 20 different samples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
6 hours ago, WSA said:

........Unless and until those samples are fully sequenced and a library of them is kept for cross referencing, we may continue to overlook subtle variations in the genome that indicate a Sasquatch........

 

The one Denisovan mandible found was discovered in China in the late 1970's, but it was not correctly attributed until after 2008 when DNA from Denisovan cave was compared to it. So yeah, there is likely sasquatch fossils in somebody's possession already.

 

2 hours ago, MIB said:

........The question, then, is why the results aren't public.........

 

I suspect DNA test results are kept close to the vest by each researcher. Proprietary information that isn't shared. 

 

But Sykes has written about a match of a DNA sample from Walla Walla and that from a supposedly feral man in Uzbekistan. Both samples were likely sent to him, so it's all his to publish about.

 

It's all about getting your name in the history books, don't you know? That's apparently worth more than the proverbial up-front payola. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor featured this topic
On 8/26/2019 at 1:03 PM, Huntster said:

 

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.

 

Until a physical examination is done we don't know what we are dealing with. Zana didn't match the description of Patty to a tee. Ethical considerations are what drive our laws and any laws regarding sasquatch will have to wait until we know what a sasquatch is exactly. 

 

 

 

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.

 

Whatever Patty was, she didn't look human to me, or like a gorilla, or any other primate that we know about.

Quote

 

 

 

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.

I believe that we are just lucky, homo sapiens didn't exist until about 200K years ago, we are the result of numerous hybridization events. It doesn't indicate that our genes are any better than any other prehistoric precursor to homo sapiens. There were probably many more times that hybriduzation wasn't successful than than those events that were, and what you are left with is us. 

 

Quote
 

Sorry, I suck at quoting.

 

Edited by CallyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
16 minutes ago, CallyCat said:

Until a physical examination is done we don't know what we are dealing with.........

 

Agreed. But speculation is legal and should be expected, especially since intentionally killing one is illegal. 

 

..........Zana didn't match the description of Patty to a tee........

 

Her description was exponentially closer to Patty than any sub-Saharan African slave than you can point to.

 

........Ethical considerations are what drive our laws and any laws regarding sasquatch will have to wait until we know what a sasquatch is exactly.........

 

Our existing laws and hunting regulations clearly already prohibit the intentional killing of a sasquatch.

 

........Whatever Patty was, she didn't look human to me, or like a gorilla, or any other primate that we know about.

 

Agreed. Same here. But "looks" have little to do with this. For example, I look much more like our current artist depictions (and their accuracy should be in question more often) of a Neanderthal than a member of the Bambenga tribe, yet my DNA undisputedly puts me at 47% sub-Saharan African, and 43% European.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
3 hours ago, Huntster said:

Our existing laws and hunting regulations clearly already prohibit the intentional killing of a sasquatch.

 

Not entirely correct.   It depends on who "our" is.   There are two paradigms of wildlife regulation.   Some states operate from the principle that all critters are protected except those specifically listed as legal to kill, other states operate from the principle that only prohibited species are listed and anything unlisted is legal to kill.   California is one of the former, Oregon is one of the latter.    As wildlife, in California, bigfoot is protected by omission of mention in the regulations.  As wildlife, in Oregon, bigfoot is legal to shoot because of omission in the regulations.    It is important to know the rules / regulations for your particular state.   Do not assume adjoining states are the same.   

 

As "persons", humans, etc ... then the only legal way to kill would be in self defense.  

 

The notion that you could kill the first one because they are unknown / unprotected would not necessarily stand up in court no matter how badly someone wants to believe it is so.   It would be up to a judge or jury, thus it depends on location the jury pool came from, to make that decision and it could go very badly.

 

MIB 

Edited by MIB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
53 minutes ago, MIB said:

Not entirely correct.   It depends on who "our" is.   There are two paradigms of wildlife regulation.   Some states operate from the principle that all critters are protected except those specifically listed as legal to kill, other states operate from the principle that only prohibited species are listed and anything unlisted is legal to kill.   California is one of the former, Oregon is one of the latter.    As wildlife, in California, bigfoot is protected by omission of mention in the regulations.  As wildlife, in Oregon, bigfoot is legal to shoot because of omission in the regulations.    It is important to know the rules / regulations for your particular state.   Do not assume adjoining states are the same.........

 

That is true, but I consider it tenuous. I will not be the one testing it. My last court adventure costed me $80K and all I got out of it was paper that would make lousy wipe and lots of dissatisfaction, and that was a civil case. I have no intention of facing criminal charges.

 

........As "persons", humans, etc ... then the only legal way to kill would be in self defense.  



 

The notion that you could kill the first one because they are unknown / unprotected would not necessarily stand up in court no matter how badly someone wants to believe it is so.   It would be up to a judge or jury, thus it depends on location the jury pool came from, to make that decision and it could go very badly.

 

This would be my ultimate fear; a taxonomic ruling of Homo genus and murder/manslaughter charges. Convicted or not, it would be life changing. I'm not going there...........unless a sasquatch acted aggressively. Then I'll shoot him without a second thought.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
  • 1 year later...
BFF Patron

RE: Zana looks like Burtsev was a co-author https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggn2.10051

ggn210051-toc-0001-m.jpg
1 INTRODUCTION. The local folklore of the South Caucasus region of Abkhazia records a “wild woman” named Zana, who lived in the 19th century, who was referred to by some locals as a female Abnauayu or Almasty: names for a creature similar to the infamous Yeti of the Himalayas and Bigfoot of North America, that supposedly lives in the Caucasus and Central Asia. 1, 2 Originally captured ...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Never seen before group of humans identified based on this research:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03823-6

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/world/wallacea-skeleton-dna-discovery-scn/index.html

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...