Implications of Hybridization - v1.1

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

And how would they know the child will be a sasquatch, is there a test ala Down syndrome?

 

Precisely, even today. Yes, there is currently prenatal blood testing that detects Down Syndrome.

[Huntster]

8 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

What’s the ballpark estimate of hybrids trapped in basements?.......

 

I wouldn't know, but after the Margoryan paper, I did a cursory google investigation on the number of feral children, and I as absolutely floored by the high number if cases. More, their condition upon discovery after the age of five or so was pretty much irreversible.

 

 

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

There is a fine group here in Maine that wishes to PROVE the existence of the Sasquatch to the world. The caveat? They want to do it without harming, shooting, trapping, or having the creature otherwise be subjected to any testing. That ideal falls right into line with many research philosophies. So how does this community think that such a goal could ever be possibly accomplished? How could even the implications of hybridization even ever be determined with such a hands-off approach?

 

I'd like to bring this forward because there were two questions that no one bothered to address. And no, they are NOT looking in the wrong place. because of the experiences, encounters, and creature descriptions confronting some of the members.

[Huntster]

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.....Not hair covered, lives in the woods, weighs 500+ pounds, and is hair covered head to toe.......

 

But well over 300 lbs. I'm not sure about the hair, but he might be pretty hirstute. And this discussion is specifically about the ones that might be living among us, not in the woods.

 

Quote

.......No, they can be 100% Homo only. Sapiens maybe, but not Sapiens sapiens.......

 

Both Dr. Sykes and Dr. Margoryan have stated scientifically after dna testing that Zana was 100% homo sapien. You say that they're incorrect? On what do you base that claim?

 

Quote

.......That's the odd thing about the Sasquatches, though. No one has officially, nor scientifically, said that they don't exist. The correct word officially AND scientifically is "unrecognized." That's a huge difference.

 

Actually, I believe that there are people who claim that sasquatches don't exist. 

15 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Xbox has been mentioned in few times as a source of entertainment  or possibly a form of pacification for these creatures.

 

Given their greater strength and (assumably) poorer impulse control due to their bestial nature…a fragile piece of plastic like an Xbox controller would not fare well or long in the creatures hands.  I am not sure if we could look at abnormally high purchase quantities of these controllers?  Or perhaps track requests that may have been submitted to Xbox for custom controllers of unusual size or durability?  I am just spitballing here…

 

That is a good bit of sleuthing. You might find my abnormal number of purchases of such plastic junk notable.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

Down votes don't answer the hard questions, they only anonymously side-step them. Here's another question. There is a fine group here in Maine that wishes to PROVE the existence of the Sasquatch to the world. The caveat? They want to do it without harming, shooting, trapping, or having the creature otherwise be subjected to any testing. That ideal falls right into line with many research philosophies. So how does this community think that such a goal could ever be possibly accomplished? How could even the implications of hybridization even ever be determined with such a hands-off approach?

 

14 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I'd like to bring this forward because there were two questions that no one bothered to address. And no, they are NOT looking in the wrong place. because of the experiences, encounters, and creature descriptions confronting some of the members.

 

I do not believe that goal can be accomplished, and the how question becomes moot upon the answer of the first question.

[gigantor]

11 minutes ago, Solvedit said:

It occurs to one that there may be. 

 

Source?

 

 

[Huntster]

Quote

For whatever reason, reports of feral humans were somewhat common in the nineteenth century...........

 

https://countryroadsmagazine.com/art-and-culture/history/louisiana-s-wild-men/

[hiflier]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

Both Dr. Sykes and Dr. Margoryan have stated scientifically after dna testing that Zana was 100% homo sapien. You say that they're incorrect? On what do you base that claim?

 

My quantified statement said 100% Homo, and did not mention Homo Sapiens- which is what Sykes et al have stated, which has several species from which to choose. I specifically mentioned the Homo Sapiens sapiens variety (in order to be precise) which is different. The Sasquatch is a different species than Homo Sapiens sapiens.....PERIOD.

 

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

 

I do not believe that goal can be accomplished, and the how question becomes moot upon the answer of the first question.

 

And I think the goal CAN be accomplished, or I would neither be here nor involved at all in the subject. Nor would I ever bother to come here and encourage Forum members to consider a methodology that science has performed nearly every day for the last 25 years and recognizes it as valid science for at least genus-level and, depending on sample quality, even species-level, identification. Homo Sapiens is a diverse group of primates that includes the Great Apes, Lorises and others. That's why I specifically said Homo, yes, but NOT Homo Sapiens sapiens, which is actually a sub-species of the Homo Sapien group. And I'm not even splitting hairs here as some might think. There is a major difference between phenotype as well as genetics between Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens sapiens. Bottom line is that the Sasquatch is NOT us.

 

And furthermore the street people can have African mystery genes, it doesn't make then Sasquatch hybrids. It makes them HOMOS SAPIENS SAPIENS  who have mystery DNA. We have Neanderthal DNA but it doesn't make us Neanderthals. It's time wisely, and socioethically, to leave the street people alone.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Solvedit said:

Face it, we both have very little support for our respective views on Sasquatch.

 

YOU have very little support. As far as living in the wild goes? You carried that generalization a bit too far. In the case of the Sasquatch living in the wild, it is as much true as Gorillas living in the wild. Key word? LIVING- as in residing full time- not just visiting some urban or suburban neighborhood. Also your statement regarding a "heavily populated place like North America"....you're not serious, right?

 

1 hour ago, Solvedit said:

All we have is occasional sightings with very little clear photographic evidence.

 

The US Geological Service spent between $10 million and $20 million looking for the thought-to-be-extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker....based on ONE GUY'S blurry photo. We have way more, and better, trace evidence than that. But that involves another story altogether.

Edited November 1, 2021 by hiflier

[Doodler]

The woodpecker was known to have existed, had multiple reference bodies in studies, DNA was on file, and the study was based on sightings that occurred not long after alleged extinction.

 

Vs. Bigfoot. Not known to exist. No reference bodies. DNA not on file. 

 

Plus it was a government study so most of that money was wasted on booze and hookers, no doubt.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

My quantified statement said 100% Homo, and did not mention Homo Sapiens- which is what Sykes et al have stated, which has several species from which to choose. I specifically mentioned the Homo Sapiens sapiens variety (in order to be precise) which is different. The Sasquatch is a different species than Homo Sapiens sapiens.....PERIOD........

 

Well, to your credit, I don't think either Sykes or Margoryan used the term "homo sapien" at all, which is suspicious. They both write "fully human". One would think that supposed genetic scientists would use the proper terminology.......unless they don't in order to be intentionally vague. But their meanings are clear; Zana was of our species. 

 

Quote

.......Homo, yes, but NOT Homo Sapiens sapiens, which is actually a sub-species of the Homo Sapien group. And I'm not even splitting hairs here as some might think. There is a major difference between phenotype as well as genetics between Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens sapiens. Bottom line is that the Sasquatch is NOT us........

 

And what are those differences?

 

Quote

........And furthermore the street people can have African mystery genes, it doesn't make then Sasquatch hybrids. It makes them HOMOS SAPIENS SAPIENS  who have mystery DNA. We have Neanderthal DNA but it doesn't make us Neanderthals. It's time wisely, and socioethically, to leave the street people alone.

 

So if a homo sapien sapien has mystery markers, does that make them a hybrid? If not, why not?

[hiflier]

I'm pretty sure you caught my drift for even bringing the Woodpecker thing up. MILLIONS were spent as a result of a blurry photo. WE have blurry photos, too. The Woodpecker needed to have a consistent lone of ancestors, but nothing was ever reported in all the time since the thing supposedly went extinct except for that photo.

 

32 minutes ago, Doodler said:

Vs. Bigfoot. Not known to exist

 

Two sides to that coin.....they are not known to NOT exist. At least according to my state F&W. Kinda leaves the door open there.

 

36 minutes ago, Doodler said:

DNA not on file.

 

Officially? No. But I don't think anyone has asked the people at the US F&W's forensics lab in Ashland, Oregon about that either. Unless the late Dr. Sykes did back when he was there.

[Huntster]

41 minutes ago, Doodler said:

.........Plus it was a government study so most of that money was wasted on booze and hookers, no doubt.

 

Actually, it was government money given to Cornell University to do the study, so that booze and those hookers were acquired like all government contractors get them, and it's good that they used the money wisely, because there's no woodpecker to be found.

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Well, to your credit, I don't think either Sykes or Margoryan used the term "homo sapien" at all, which is suspicious. They both write "fully human". One would think that supposed genetic scientists would use the proper terminology.......unless they don't in order to be intentionally vague. But their meanings are clear; Zana was of our species.

 

I have to respectfully disagree Zana was of our genus (Homo) and even of the species Homo Sapiens, but as I explained above, WE are a sub-species of Homo Sapiens. Being fully Human doesn't mean our species in the same way that Neanderthal or Denisovan is of our species. I equate a Zana to a modern Homo Sapien in this day and age only, like a modern Gorilla, or Chimpanzee, in this day and age. But if she was in fact Human, then genetically she was different. I'll go so far as to say a different sub-species close enough genetically to breed. Our sub-species is Homo Sapiens sapiens, Zana's was probably more than likely Homo Sapiens xxxxxxx, a close sub-species. In which case, is still not Sapiens sapiens.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

.......Homo Sapiens is a diverse group of primates that includes the Great Apes, Lorises and others........

 

Man:

Kingdom:Animalia

Phylum:Chordata

Class:Mammalia

Order:Primates

Suborder:Haplorhini

Infraorder:Simiiformes

Family:Hominidae

Subfamily:Homininae

Tribe:Hominini

Genus:Homo

Species: Homo sapiens

 

Pygmy Slow Loris:

Kingdom:Animalia

Phylum:Chordata

Class:Mammalia

Order:Primates

Suborder:Strepsirrhini

Family:Lorisidae

Genus:Nycticebus

Species:Nycticebus pygmaeus

 

A loris is not a homo sapien.