Toe Flex

[Twist]

10 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I saw it when it was on History Channel 

I enjoyed it and still have it  on DVR .

Nothing there to convincing. Remain skeptical. 

 

Curious PGF,  would a clear video of a supposed BF ever convince you?  Something as clear as we get from National Geographic’s when filming lions or hyenas ?

 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

........would a clear video of a supposed BF ever convince you?  Something as clear as we get from National Geographic’s when filming lions or hyenas ?

 

I've read opinions on the former James Randi forum written by skeptics that if they saw a video film of a huge male sasquatch (size confirmed by an object in the film) doing something requiring super human strength (like picking up or throwing a log), they would be convinced.

 

I believe those statements are only partially true. Many "people" would indeed be convinced. Current "skeptics"? Some. Understanding the phenomenon of denial, it is not possible that all would be convinced.

 

Adding to that is the question of whether or not such a video would force science (as an industry), academia, and (most importantly) government to action. To this question, I say that the answer is a solid "no".

[Patterson-Gimlin]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Curious PGF,  would a clear video of a supposed BF ever convince you?  Something as clear as we get from National Geographic’s when filming lions or hyenas ?

 

It certainly would keep me interested.Even then  I would have to know who did the filming.  I am 

more inclined to believe,if filmed by a source like Nat Geo or a professional wildlife expert non believer. 

To really answer your question, in short no. 

 

Dead  horse 🐴 =No body 

No proof. 

 

 

[Tee-yim]

Thank you for the link.  Great show.  I think I have actually seen all of the points that were made on the Thinker Thunker youtube channel.

[Backdoc]

5 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I saw it when it was on History Channel 

I enjoyed it and still have it  on DVR .

Nothing there to convincing. Remain skeptical. 

 

 

I agree nothing is convincing.   I think of convincing meaning removes all doubt.  Yet it’s impressive and the case is made in a professional logical manner.    It’s a good case nearly requiring a skeptic response to discount the points made.   I doubt that would be easy.   <——- that’s what makes it impressive.  

Edited October 23, 2022 by Backdoc

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Certainly not easy at all. Exactly why I am big fan of this awesome film.

 Why else would I choose the moniker Patterson-Gimlin?

[hiflier]

You're a chemist. DNA is chemistry. So as a chemist have you experience in studying that technology? If not then would you trust a chemist who has the ability to assess anomalies in raw DNA data results that show a novel primate in the wilds of North America other than Human? A nice explanation for why you would or wouldn't would be good.

 

I only came back onto the Forum to ask you this question- then outa here.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I am very glad you have returned and I hope its not a one off.

I have not studied DNA and do not begin to understand the complexity for which it entails. 

My experience and expertise is in the chemical manufacturing industry. 

Now to answer your question. The complex science of DNA is fascinating . Certainly one of the most useful tools in today's world. 

I would be inclined to believe it. That’s exactly why a body would be great examining, testing and the exact proof needed. 

Hopefully,leading to conservation and protection of whatever the creatures are. 

Once again hope you stick around, I always enjoy your passionate posts. 

[Huntster]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

........I only came back onto the Forum to ask you this question- then outa here.

 

Are you angry with us?

[Huntster]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........would you trust a chemist who has the ability to assess anomalies in raw DNA data results that show a novel primate in the wilds of North America other than Human?.........

 

This is hitching the cart in front of the horse. The story of Zana proves that........using DNA to prove it. 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

This is hitching the cart in front of the horse. The story of Zana proves that........using DNA to prove it. 

I thought he meant someone I knew and trusted in that field of expertise. 

 

I admit not as familiar with Zana as I should be to form an opinion. Not impressed with what I have read and been told. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Patterson-Gimlin

[hiflier]

57 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I thought he meant someone I knew and trusted in that field of expertise.

 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I thought he meant someone I knew and trusted in that field of expertise. 

 

I admit not as familiar with Zana as I should be to form an opinion. Not impressed with what I have read and been told. 

 

The two DNA studies of Zana's and her son's (Khwit) remains 'prove' that both were 100% "human" (their word, both times), and from that we're to presume that means 100% homo sapien. The second study outlined the African DNA tribal pool from which Zana came from. 

 

Thus, in this case, and scientifically (not necessarily from somebody whom any of us "knew and trusted in that field of study", but who are undeniably so), a DNA study "proved" that a wild woman whose physical description from many who knew her is nearly identical to that of the subject in the PGF film. 

 

Not the other way around. 

 

Thus, if someone finds DNA that indicates "a novel primate in the wilds of North America other than Human", somebody is stull required to catch one to prove it, and if sasquatches are either homo sapiens (like Zana has been scientifically shown to be by the magic of DNA analysis), or another human species similar to Neanderthals, Denisovans, Hobbits, or another:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans

 

Quote

.........In 2019, scientists discovered evidence, based on genetics studies using artificial intelligence (AI), that suggests the existence of an unknown human ancestor species, not Neanderthal or Denisovan, in the genome of modern humans.[81][82]...........

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6335398/

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/artificial-intelligence-identifies-unknown-ghost-ancestor-in-the-human-genome

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thank you for sharing. I find the reports/ articles interesting and needing further study and understanding. 

[guyzonthropus]

While I don't recall ever seeing mention of it specifically, I wonder if Zana had the radical toe flex being "100% human"? Which also begs the question of if Zana is of some African stock yet was found considerably well away from that region, does this imply a wave(s) of still quite furred "humans" leaving Africa proper? For some reason, my mind always visualized man's expansion out from there as occurring well after we'd lost our fur. And if she was similar to Patty, then wouldn't it stand to reason that somewhere along the pathway followed by her ancestors  there would be remnant populations of still fully furred humans? Would these represent a branch of Homo sapiens that never undertook the long distance running down of ungulate prey that is attributed as the causative  factor for us losing our fur in favor of more efficient heat management. That might also go a ways in explaining  the mid-tarsal break since that group would have employed a different style of running. But how many of such seemingly slight differences could a population manifest and still remain Homo sapiens genetically,if not phenotypically? I find it hard to think many taxonomists would keep such divergent  traits as the disparate foot morphology and the presence of fur within what would then become the umbrella species of Homo sapiens.