General consensus on what Bigfoot is

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

But what's all that got to do with sasquatch? Are you proposing that we could interbreed with them or saying that we already have..........

 

There are lots of indigenous stories of sasquatches breeding with their women. 

 

Quote

.......... I don't see how this is relevant to what a sasquatch could potentially be as there is no genetic line to follow................

 

Correct. So if the aboriginal stories of sasquatches breeding with homo sapiens are true, and if offspring were produced, that would establish that they are a species of Homo (because they could breed with us, unlike chimps), but they are not Homo sapien (because the offspring were sterile, and could not carry forward a genetic line). 

 

This was the theory that was implied in the story of the supposed almas, Zana of Abkhazia, who successfully bred with men. In that case, her remains were located and genetically tested. It turns out that she was Homo sapien, and a theory was then proposed for her abnormal appearance and how she got there. That theory is, actually, just as fantastic as the discovery of another extant species of human.

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

......... claiming that chimps and gorillas are closer than himself and another homo sapien is flat out incorrect even if there are obvious visual differences. 

 

The visual/physical differences between chimps and gorillas are few. Gorillas have large fangs that chimps lack, males have a saggital crest that chimps lack, and they're larger. Yet they cannot successfully mate.

 

The differences between humans of various tribes can be almost fantastic. Again, even though I'm multiracial and a significant percentage of my genetic line is of recent African descent, I'm as different visually and physically from an African pygmy as can be, yet I can successfully mate with his daughter.

[Darby Orcutt]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

There are lots of indigenous stories of sasquatches breeding with their women. 

Would you please cite a source for such stories? I'd be interested to know more about this. Thank you.

[Celtic Raider]

5 minutes ago, Huntster said:

5 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

But what's all that got to do with sasquatch? Are you proposing that we could interbreed with them or saying that we already have..........

 

There are lots of indigenous stories of sasquatches breeding with their women. 

 

Quote

.......... I don't see how this is relevant to what a sasquatch could potentially be as there is no genetic line to follow................

 

Correct. So if the aboriginal stories of sasquatches breeding with homo sapiens are true, and if offspring were produced, that would establish that they are a species of Homo (because they could breed with us, unlike chimps), but they are not Homo sapien (because the offspring were sterile, and could not carry forward a genetic line). 

 

This was the theory that was implied in the story of the supposed almas, Zana of Abkhazia, who successfully bred with men. In that case, her remains were located and genetically tested. It turns out that she was Homo sapien, and a theory was then proposed for her abnormal appearance and how she got there. That theory is, actually, just as fantastic as the discovery of another extant species of human.

Ah, right I understand. And it's an interesting thought for sure, however, the problem I have with postulating anything like that is:

1) it's based off hearsay and stories with no (as far as I know) current witnesses. It's all passed down tales from years ago.

2) If the tales are true that sasquatch and humans had sexual intercourse then it's a massive unproven if any offspring were successfully born and even if they were we might not know if they were subsequently sterile.  

3) The Zana story is very interesting again but it's in my eyes much more likely she was an African woman with some kind of deformity or unusual appearance that at the time and maybe due to some inherent racism that was prevalent at that time viewed her as not entirely human.

 

I can see the logic in thinking a sasquatch could be an extant species of the human branch, I don't see it myself personally but there's just too much loose conjecture regarding breeding and subsequent generations for me. If the speculation was based on a factual account or a scientific fact then I'd be more likely to really take notice but the speculation is based upon past speculation and in turn based upon tales, myths and stories. I think it's fun to postulate but when we do that it introduces so much room for error. That's why despite being a skeptic, if sasquatch is real it's Patty and Patty looks like a regular ape to me albeit bi-pedal and very, very large. 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

.......1) it's based off hearsay and stories with no (as far as I know) current witnesses. It's all passed down tales from years ago.......

 

True. It is rather weak testimony, and if put against all sasquatch testimony, it is pretty rare, but it's there. The testimony that an actual offspring was born is even more rare.

 

 

Quote

........2) If the tales are true that sasquatch and humans had sexual intercourse then it's a massive unproven if any offspring were successfully born and even if they were we might not know if they were subsequently sterile........

 

Yup. In fact, I recall only one or two claims that offspring were born of the mating of a male sasquatch and a North American female aboriginal human. I'll have to dig for those........

 

Quote

........3) The Zana story is very interesting again but it's in my eyes much more likely she was an African woman with some kind of deformity or unusual appearance that at the time and maybe due to some inherent racism that was prevalent at that time viewed her as not entirely human.

 

The Zana story is absolutely incredible, even if one accepts the African slave line. First, she was huge; claimed to be @ 6'6" tall and proportionately built. This is not impossible, but an extremely rare female Homo sapien size, especially for one who was likely malnourished, living in the wilds.

 

Secondly, the medical condition that supposedly accounts for her body covered with hair; hypertrichosis. Scientifically, it is so rare as to be a condition found in 1 of five billion or more people. That's right; there have been about 50 cases recorded since the Middle Ages. So add that remarkable claim to a 6'6" tall African woman found wild in the Caucacus Mountains. But there's more: incredible strength, speed, and daring (like swimming a swollen, turbulent river), not to mention her ability to survive (even prefer) outside during sub-zero cold.........all winter. 

 

The demand to accept all of these things is only valid with the claim that dna genetic testing proves that she was Homo sapien. Frankly, I only accept it with suspicion. I'll be open to and looking for any chink in Margaryan's claims that I can find.

[Celtic Raider]

10 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

The Zana story is absolutely incredible, even if one accepts the African slave line. First, she was huge; claimed to be @ 6'6" tall and proportionately built. This is not impossible, but an extremely rare female Homo sapien size, especially for one who was likely malnourished, living in the wilds.

 

Secondly, the medical condition that supposedly accounts for her body covered with hair; hypertrichosis. Scientifically, it is so rare as to be a condition found in 1 of five billion or more people. That's right; there have been about 50 cases recorded since the Middle Ages. So add that remarkable claim to a 6'6" tall African woman found wild in the Caucacus Mountains. But there's more: incredible strength, speed, and daring (like swimming a swollen, turbulent river), not to mention her ability to survive (even prefer) outside during sub-zero cold.........all winter. 

 

The demand to accept all of these things is only valid with the claim that dna genetic testing proves that she was Homo sapien. Frankly, I only accept it with suspicion. I'll be open to and looking for any ***** in Margaryan's claims that I can find.

 

Yes, it is an incredible story indeed. I do think there was a 'Zana' and I do think it was her DNA that was tested, I think they tested her offspring too maybe which was entirely human? With regard to the reported size, appearance and claimed physical abilities I'm very much more inclined to believe those were dramatic embellishments and overexcited stories based on her different appearance. Many, many old time stories about creatures have gross embellishments of height, size, strength etc. for all kind of animals - snakes, sharks, apes and so on and I'm inclined to believe that is what happened in this case unless there is very good evidence otherwise. I simply don't know but when they did the DNA analysis did they measure the length of the bones, like a femur bone or something to establish likely size ranges? That would be telling. I think you're right, we can accept certain things 'with suspicion'. That is a great phase 

 

 

[MIB]

3 hours ago, Darby Orcutt said:

Would you please cite a source for such stories? I'd be interested to know more about this. Thank you.

 

One place I believe they are mentioned are in Paulides' books, either Tribal Bigfoot or The Hoopa Project.  Maybe both.

 

MIB

[bipedalist]

5 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

True. It is rather weak testimony, and if put against all sasquatch testimony, it is pretty rare, but it's there. The testimony that an actual offspring was born is even more rare.

 

 

 

Yup. In fact, I recall only one or two claims that offspring were born of the mating of a male sasquatch and a North American female aboriginal human. I'll have to dig for those........

 

 

The Zana story is absolutely incredible, even if one accepts the African slave line. First, she was huge; claimed to be @ 6'6" tall and proportionately built. This is not impossible, but an extremely rare female Homo sapien size, especially for one who was likely malnourished, living in the wilds.

 

Secondly, the medical condition that supposedly accounts for her body covered with hair; hypertrichosis. Scientifically, it is so rare as to be a condition found in 1 of five billion or more people. That's right; there have been about 50 cases recorded since the Middle Ages. So add that remarkable claim to a 6'6" tall African woman found wild in the Caucacus Mountains. But there's more: incredible strength, speed, and daring (like swimming a swollen, turbulent river), not to mention her ability to survive (even prefer) outside during sub-zero cold.........all winter. 

 

The demand to accept all of these things is only valid with the claim that dna genetic testing proves that she was Homo sapien. Frankly, I only accept it with suspicion. I'll be open to and looking for any chink in Margaryan's claims that I can find.

 

 

The problem is the precise differential diagnosis.  Hypertricosis vs. hirsutism  Not a simple derivation to make conclusive statements about unless investigated to the nth degree genetically.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534854/

Edited May 4, 2022 by bipedalist

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

.........With regard to the reported size, appearance and claimed physical abilities I'm very much more inclined to believe those were dramatic embellishments and overexcited stories based on her different appearance. Many, many old time stories about creatures have gross embellishments of height, size, strength etc. for all kind of animals - snakes, sharks, apes and so on and I'm inclined to believe that is what happened in this case unless there is very good evidence otherwise........

 

That, too, has more evidence to support the testimony. Note the size of Khwit's skull.

[bipedalist]

Kwit's skull phenotypically looks alot like the Ukraine twins in the news lately, not off the charts to me.   Phrenology doesn't say much about much however. 

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

Kwit's skull phenotypically looks alot like the Ukraine twins in the news lately, not off the charts to me..........

 

Khwit is not off the charts for a man; just much larger than the local Abkhazians, and evidence of Zana's great size. Zana was off the charts for a woman. I come from a family of tall men, the tallest being Zana's reported height of 6'6". Nit ine of the women of my family made 6' of height. Only 1% of American women achieve 6' of height or greater. 6'6"? Google it. For a woman, it's off the charts. We have a friend who played center at the University of Connecticut, then the WNBA. She's 6'2". 

 

Now, a 6'6" woman covered in hair (the possibility of which is also off the charts) who grew up feral (and somehow escaped the malnutrition that could have affected her bulk)?

 

The story of a woman named Zana is as fantastic and unlikely as a story of an almas named Zana, yet that is what we are told we must accept because, you know, Science says so. 

[Huntster]

So, along those lines, anybody out there willing to accept this as a feral woman?

[Celtic Raider]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

So, along those lines, anybody out there willing to accept this as a feral woman?

 

Nope, that is not a feral person. No way, no how. I have to be careful with nomenclature here as of course we're all apes but that is non-human ape closer to gorilla and bili ape in my book. If it's a real creature...................and I'm leaning towards it being real as I simply can't explain it 

[Celtic Raider]

12 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Khwit is not off the charts for a man; just much larger than the local Abkhazians, and evidence of Zana's great size. Zana was off the charts for a woman. I come from a family of tall men, the tallest being Zana's reported height of 6'6". Nit ine of the women of my family made 6' of height. Only 1% of American women achieve 6' of height or greater. 6'6"? Google it. For a woman, it's off the charts. We have a friend who played center at the University of Connecticut, then the WNBA. She's 6'2". 

 

Now, a 6'6" woman covered in hair (the possibility of which is also off the charts) who grew up feral (and somehow escaped the malnutrition that could have affected her bulk)?

 

The story of a woman named Zana is as fantastic and unlikely as a story of an almas named Zana, yet that is what we are told we must accept because, you know, Science says so. 

 

Again, this is all fascinating, really. But, do we KNOW that Zana was 6'6" or is that just what has been reported. Do we have any reliable bone measurements, something other than hearsay? If she was actually 6'6" that would be incredible and if she was hair covered and 6'6" that would be even more incredible but nothing I've read (and I certainly haven't exhausted the material at all) can prove she was what was described? I suspect strongly that there has been a great deal of exaggeration over the years, old-time measurements of sharks among other animals, for example, are often 50% exaggerated.

[Huntster]

31 minutes ago, Celtic Raider said:

.......do we KNOW that Zana was 6'6" or is that just what has been reported..........

 

That is what was reported........just like her very existence was just reported to Boris Porshnev about 1960. She is now positively identified. I'll speculate that continued denial of her reported extraordinary height will eventually result in somebody with some letters behind his name to assemble the skeleton and apply a certified tape measure to it.