Poll: Which is the Best Candidate for Bigfoot?

[BlackRockBigfoot]

27 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

By definition no. Lifestyle yes.

 

Lol.  I have a few of those nearby myself

 

[Arvedis]

On 5/23/2020 at 11:34 PM, Huntster said:

 

The potential of an unknown line of sub-Saharan Africans migrating into Asia over 100,000 years ago, as suggested by Sykes after his DNA work on Zana's progeny, is particularly interesting. Her physical description matches Patty from the PG film quite well.

 

It's not a reasonable comparison. You keep bringing this up in various threads and reiterating her height 6'6" and physical features make such a comparison reasonable.  Your theory cannot be substantiated by Sykes' own research. Nowhere does Sykes say or imply or even muse that Zana was a bigfoot. Nothing beyond having a sub-Saharan African lineage. In fact, none of Sykes' work has confirmed anything regarding Bigfoot.  It is purely your own hypothesis to involve Zana in the discussion, using Sykes' inconclusive analysis. 

 

Zana was human. Patty is an undefined creature which come call Bigfoot.  We'll never get Patty's DNA to be 100% certain the two are not related but we know that Sykes' own research cancels out your hypothesis.

 

 

On 6/6/2020 at 1:47 AM, jayjeti said:

Dr. Sykes report on Zana is skewed by those reporting on his findings, rendering their spin on his data.  Dr. Sykes has stated he believes Zana was an Almasty and he relayed descriptions of her as passed down by villagers to bolster that point, like hair covered, 6'6". could out run a horse and swim raging rivers after an ice thaw.  The West African DNA he found, according to him, was similar to what existed 100,000 years ago and was not thought to have existed into modern times.  Moreover, Sykes can only look at mtDNA passed down to grandchildren and only looked at so much.  

 

Sykes never said Zana was an almasty/bigfoot.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

13 hours ago, Arvedis said:

It's not a reasonable comparison.........

 

Reasonable:

 

 

Quote

1) (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

 

2) as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

 

The comparison is perfectly reasonable. You just reject it.

 

Quote

.........You keep bringing this up in various threads and reiterating her height 6'6" and physical features make such a comparison reasonable.  Your theory cannot be substantiated by Sykes' own research..........

 

It is not my theory. And Sykes research has no bearing on the similarities that we can all see on the PG film with the written descriptions of Zana.

 

Quote

........Nowhere does Sykes say or imply or even muse that Zana was a bigfoot......Sykes never said Zana was an almasty/bigfoot........

 

He does, however, suggest that she may be a yeti.

 

Quote

.........Nothing beyond having a sub-Saharan African lineage. In fact, none of Sykes' work has confirmed anything regarding Bigfoot.  It is purely your own hypothesis to involve Zana in the discussion, using Sykes' inconclusive analysis.........

 

Do you deny that Sykes noted that her lineage did not match those currently known in Africa, and thus suggested that her unknown line may have emerged from Africa a hundred thousand years or so. Zana has been involved in the study of yetis/almas/bigfoot by others, not me. My noting that might upset you, but that will only increase my zeal to do it more often. 

 

You don't want me to do that, do you?

 

Quote

.......Zana was human.........

 

Neanderthals were human. Denisovans were human. "Hobbits" were human. Sasquatches might be human. Hell, even I'm human (or at least partly human).

 

So?

 

Quote

........Patty is an undefined creature which come call Bigfoot........

 

And her image is very similar to the descriptions of Zana.

 

Quote

........We'll never get Patty's DNA to be 100% certain the two are not related but we know that Sykes' own research cancels out your hypothesis.

 

And you appear to have an aversion to Sykes, or those who comment on his words, as well as virtually everybody else. This discussion is about the best candidate for Bigfoot, and the poll even includes entities as vague as "forest people". Since Zana's dna the target of a renowned geneticist, and his conclusion was one of clear continued interest, I would say that Zana is "reasonable" to bring up in this discussion.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Huntster

[MIB]

I have to go with Arvedis on this one.

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

And her image is very similar to the descriptions of Zana.

 

With a LOT of interpretation, perhaps, but based on her offspring, Khwit, not reasonable interpretation.    In this case you are cherry-picking what suits the conclusion you want and ignoring the parts that do not fit it.   There is more you are deliberately ignoring than there is that you are paying attention to.

 

If ... a very large and absolutely unproven "if" ... Zana was in fact almasty, then almasty is nothing like bigfoot. 

 

Look at Khwit .. closely.   Turn off your "I will only see what I wish to see" filter and LOOK at him.   He is exactly what Sykes said .. a descendant of a sub-saharan African migration predating when we thought the first modern humans left Africa.   No more, no less.  

 

Zana is interesting in the context of human development and migration.   So far as bigfoot, though, she's a dead end.   You can agree or you can be wrong.  There is no third option.

 

MIB

[Huntster]

50 minutes ago, MIB said:

With a LOT of interpretation, perhaps, but based on her offspring, Khwit, not reasonable interpretation.......

 

The description of similarity with Patty is not of Khwit. The description is of Zana. Khwit does have a unique description of his own, and his skull is clearly interesting compared to other villagers of the area, but I continue to maintain that the description of Zana as recorded from the living memories of people who had seen her is very similar to what we see on the PG film.

 

Quote

.......In this case you are cherry-picking what suits the conclusion you want and ignoring the parts that do not fit it.......

 

There is no conclusion that I want or demand, with the one exception of accuracy in the discussion of Sykes words, which is why, in utter frustration, I bought his book, since it was obvious that people were commenting on his words inaccurately.

 

Quote

.........There is more you are deliberately ignoring than there is that you are paying attention to........

 

Please detail what I am deliberately ignoring.

 

Quote

.........If ... a very large and absolutely unproven "if" ... Zana was in fact almasty, then

almasty is nothing like bigfoot.........

 

I posit the following regarding that very interesting statement, delivered by someone who claims that I am "deliberately ignoring" some undetailed fact(s):

 

Almasties, yetis, sasquatches, yerens, bigfeet, yowies, ALL.........

 

.......are unproven, undocumented, are reportedly hirstute, strong, bipedal, wild, secretive, rare, somewhat intelligent, and probably more that I can add, if I must go into detail to point out.

 

They are very much "something(s)" like bigfoot.

 

Quote

 

.......Look at Khwit .. closely.   Turn off your "I will only see what I wish to see" filter and LOOK at him.   He is exactly what Sykes said .. a descendant of a sub-saharan African migration predating when we thought the first modern humans left Africa.   No more, no less........

 

Actually, he is the mixed descendant of a Caucausus homo sapien man and a sub-Saharan African female whose dna has markers unlike any other that one of the world's leading geneticists has ever seen, and who suggests that may have been of a migration out of Africa prior to @ 100,000 years ago.

 

........Zana is interesting in the context of human development and migration.   So far as bigfoot, though, she's a dead end.   You can agree or you can be wrong.  There is no third option.

 

Yeah, sorta' like climate change in the political world. "The science is settled".

 

I'll be wrong (in your view), thanks.........in whatever position you imagine me to have taken. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Huntster

[Huntster]

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

22 hours ago, MIB said:

........In this case you are cherry-picking what suits the conclusion you want and ignoring the parts that do not fit it.   There is more you are deliberately ignoring than there is that you are paying attention to.........

 

Please detail what I am deliberately ignoring.

 

.......If ... a very large and absolutely unproven "if" ... Zana was in fact almasty, then almasty is nothing like bigfoot........

 

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

I posit the following regarding that very interesting statement, delivered by someone who claims that I am "deliberately ignoring" some undetailed fact(s):

 

Almasties, yetis, sasquatches, yerens, bigfeet, yowies, ALL.........

 

.......are unproven, undocumented, are reportedly hirstute, strong, bipedal, wild, secretive, rare, somewhat intelligent, and probably more that I can add, if I must go into detail to point out.

 

They are very much "something(s)" like bigfoot..........

 

Well, it has only been a day since I asked what I was ignoring, and I know that people have real lives. I'm kinda' busy here, too. But I bet you missed this in my post above:

 

.......

There is no conclusion that I want or demand, with the one exception of accuracy in the discussion of Sykes words, which is why, in utter frustration, I bought his book, since it was obvious that people were commenting on his words inaccurately.......

 

I had to run a search to recall the exchange on this forum that motivated me to purchase Sykes book so I had HIS words instead of relying on what others were assigning to him. 

 

It was April 13th and 16th when I wrote:

 

.......I guess I'm just going to have to buy his book, but my strong suspicion is that I'll be left hanging after finishing the last page........

 

........That's it; I'm ordering "The Nature of the Beast" right now so I can quote properly.........

 

Now I have two more questions for you:

 

1) Guess who I was replying to on the 16th?

2) Have you read The Nature of the Beast by Bryan Sykes?

 

[Arvedis]

There are other threads that discuss Sykes and his genetics work. My opinion is if you are expecting breakthroughs, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for a good read and a book that treats BD as a valid scientific subject to be considered then Sykes is ok. It's just ok though, barely hovers over that 3rd star rating IMO.

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, Arvedis said:

........My opinion is if you are expecting breakthroughs, you will be disappointed........

 

It is my opinion that Sykes has already made two major breakthroughs with the efforts he recorded in The Nature of the Beast. First, in his peer reviewed paper, he has established a population of unique bears in the Himalayas, and as an Alaskan, that alone is of extreme interest. He even outlined the dna traces of Ursus maritimus in the brown bears of the ABC Islands in southeast Alaska. Secondly, he has established mystery markers from Zanas progeny that can be used later to compare to other samples of promise.

 

Rather than disappointment, I have been pleased with my purchase and consumption of The Nature of the Beast, especially since I no longer have to read opinions on his words. I get them verbatim. 

[gigantor]