Toe Flex

[Backdoc]

On 10/23/2022 at 7:13 AM, 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 ?

 

 

That is a good Q.  Yet, the Q does reveal this fact:   The PGF is really good but is it not "a clear video" like the one "we get from National Geographic".    

 

The PGF is impressive.   If it had been Nat Geo level of today this would largely reveal the truth one way or another.  It's just good enough to be convincing and bad enough not to be.

[Twist]

That’s a great way to put it BD.  In the past I’ve said good from afar but far from good.   

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

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.

 

When the second DNA analysis was published linking her ancestry to a couple of African tribes, the convenient Ottoman slave trade explained her presence in the Caucasus region, and hypertrychosis explained her hirstute condition. .The rest of her unique physical characteristics are simply blown off.

 

This strongly indicates that even with a carcass, a sasquatch might be blown off as a human "with issues", to borrow a phrase used here on this forum.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggn2.10051

 

So my position evolves: if Zana and Patty were "humans with issues", does the rest of humanity have a responsibility to help them? Even the second DNA study on Zana ended with the  expected obligatory statement regarding ethics.

[guyzonthropus]

Huntster, you know that the "we need to help them". approach falls dangerously close to the justification used by the missionaries who might be credited with the first step towards extinction for countless cultures around the world....but I don't think that's what you were imparting...

While the ottoman slave trade is an awfully convenient and near plausible explanation, you tell me, who wants a furry maid? And I doubt even the ottomans are gonna be selling wild women(literally) as domestics or laborers, otherwise they'd have been catching chimps and gorillas as well.  Unless it fulfilled some odd kink trend of the time, like who's got the furriest gardener...but I just don't see it ..

Hypertrychosis, eh? Ok sure, but to achieve that dense a fur, she musta had it bad! Was it hyperthyroidism or something that granted her her extraordinary strength? Or her son's legendary ability to hold up a table with his teeth? Partial lycanthropy to explain away her taste for raw meat?

Ethics? Many a genocide has been justified by the greater good and the road to extinction is paved with good intentions...or something like that!

Huntster, you know that the we need to help them approach falls dangerously close to the justification used by the missionaries who might be credited with the first step towards extinction for countless cultures around the world....but I don't think that's what you were imparting...

While the ottoman slave trade is an awfully convenient and near plausible explanation

[guyzonthropus]

In regards to national geographic quality footage, were it of todays quality, or even IMAX(really big foot!) It would be swell. But I'm sure some of you guys remember the Nat Geo Shows from the late 60s with their grainy jungle footage, and relative to that the PGF holds up pretty well. The one thing the PGF's age and nature guarantees is that it isnt some form of special effect(As denied/refuted by "that  costume dude" Bi!! Munns)or CGI, the latter of which will prove a fallback for denialists of any modern footage ( "could be a bear or some kid with one of them new high powered laptops running the latest CGI app down in grandma's basement") Any excuse in a storm!

[Backdoc]

^^^

 

When it comes to the TV, movie of the 1960s the quality is the quality.   The PGF was some of the best film and camera in the right place at the right time under the right conditions.   

 

For me, even with all of that going for it and even with the subject as close as 100-110ft away, it is not a slam dunk BY ITSELF.  The film has its limits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by Backdoc

[guyzonthropus]

Huntster, you know that the we need to help them approach falls dangerously close to the justification used by the missionaries who might be credited with the first step towards extinction for countless cultures around the world....but I don't think that's what you were imparting...

While the ottoman slave trade is an awfully convenient and near plausible explanation

[guyzonthropus]

Wiiawiwb..that is one mighty contentious thread you cited! That's from the year I joined, and I had forgotten just how heated "discussions" got in those days!

Edited October 25, 2022 by guyzonthropus

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

Huntster, you know that the "we need to help them". approach falls dangerously close to the justification used by the missionaries who might be credited with the first step towards extinction for countless cultures around the world....but I don't think that's what you were imparting.........

 

Actually, it's not a justification that I desire or would seek. In fact, it's my theory that government is supressing discovery precisely because they don't want what happened to native Americans to happen to the last remaining human cousins of homo sapiens. 

 

But it is a justification that must be considered for feral humans, which is precisely what Science is insisting Zana was. We currently have a huge moral dilemma throughout the nation regarding homeless people. Well, that's exactly what Zana was; a homeless person "with issues".

 

Quote

.......While the ottoman slave trade is an awfully convenient and near plausible explanation, you tell me, who wants a furry maid? And I doubt even the ottomans are gonna be selling wild women(literally) as domestics or laborers, otherwise they'd have been catching chimps and gorillas as well.  Unless it fulfilled some odd kink trend of the time, like who's got the furriest gardener...but I just don't see it .........

 

Not all African slaves in the Caucasus were 6'6" tall women covered with hair and as strong as a gorilla. Just Zana. And yes, at least one wealthy man in the region wanted her as a slave, even sexually. 

 

And we still have a human slave trade, and we still have chimps, tigers, cobras, parrots, etc traded in the black market. People do any and everything.

 

Quote

.......Hypertrychosis, eh? Ok sure, but to achieve that dense a fur, she musta had it bad! Was it hyperthyroidism or something that granted her her extraordinary strength? Or her son's legendary ability to hold up a table with his teeth? Partial lycanthropy to explain away her taste for raw meat?.........

 

Those are all questions for the scientists who insist that she was homo sapien. Frankly, I'm skeptical.

[guyzonthropus]

Ok, but what happened to the native Americans was sanctioned and encouraged  by our government, who did pretty much what ever they could to eradicate the indigenous populations from handing out "blankets" knowing full well  the NAs had no resistance to European disease to the wholesale massacre of the plains buffalo which they knew the Lakota were dependent on for the food that carried them through winter. 

 

But I suppose I could consider the establishment of the national and state parks as a stage of creating a different approach to reservations in which to contain the indigenous, and then they were"discovered "by  the American public, who, thanks to ambiguous phrasings(made so to obscure their real purpose) just assumed the reservations really are public parks set aside for public access and use, which made sealing them off for The Containment nearly impossible without disclosure, thereby defeating their purpose from the get go. I

I can see it "For a number of decades they seemed able to serve the dual purpose, but as our numbers grew, along with our use of land, these reservations(aka the Parks system) came to represent the last remaining "wild lands" open to public use as well the only place the government could hide the sasquatch. So all they really needed to do is go park by park outlining why each one is no longer safe for the public, so they can be shut down and fenced off with no further questions to answer. This explains the role David Paulides has played, in the government efforts to scare the public out of these public lands( "I'm not saying it's aliens..but.." ) with his nine books that might as well be titled "Oh, so THAT'S why we should never go to a national/state park again"

 

But how will they exclude all the other homeless if it comes out that it was the government's crafty bureaucratic trick of redefinition of "feral"  to cover  this system of protected sasquatch reservations without requiring disclosure? I

"Ya see, you got yer homeless, then you got your hairy homeless"

 

or will a distinction be put forth outlining the difference(s)  between homeless and feral people(though feral really does imply a previous domestication, and well, who really wants a furry maid? Ok, sorry, it's a domestication/domestics joke/tie in to that earlier reply) But even then it's gonna come out just who got the luxury forest homes eventually , which will force disclosure, placing the ferals back into the very position of risk the government was trying to avoid/prevent in the first place.

The only hope for those responsible is for the government to then divest itself from the whole  "parks" system except in a supervisory role, which, of course, means privatization, and in order to not look like a copy of the nation's prison system and to allow the new billionaire owners to make  a modest sum to "cover operating costs" these reservations will be converted to a zoo-like status with tram-rides and gift shops, maybe a "none-too-exploitative" movie franchise...all with the quaint rationalization that since sasquatch never went to zoos in the past, "how would they even know?"

But this can't work, because the captive always knows, and feral or not, human zoos went outta style in the late 1800s ....

Edited November 19, 2022 by guyzonthropus

[Huntster]

During the colonial period, "government" was the English, Spanish, or French crowns. Indian tribes were fully foreign governments that were either allies or foes. This policy was continued after the American Revolution to this very day, even though treaties with these tribes differ widely from the colonial period and from tribe to tribe. 

 

Most of the conflicts between various tribes and both white settlers and state/federal governments began with individual violations of treaties; white settlers simply squatting on native lands, white prospectors trespassing, and young native men committing crimes against either illegal or legal settlers. These small violations quickly grew into wars. These struggles continue today. Alaska, with a significant native population (@ 17%), has this kind of trouble aplenty, I can attest. 

 

Government easily avoids this with sasquatchery by simply helping the sasquatches stay hidden. And it's easy. There are very few of these creatures, and they very much want to stay hidden. They aren't gathering and going on the warpath.

 

Quote

.......feral or not, human zoos went outta style in the late 1800s ....

 

Yup. There is now an international law requiring nations to respect a people's desire to remain solitary, so governments are acting legally and morally in keeping quiet about them:

 

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

 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/indigenous-and-tribal-peoples-convention-1989-no-169