Why has bigfoot not been listed as an endangered species?

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, guyzonthropus said:

The Luyah were a Bantu race of Africans not known for their abundant body hair, from Kenya and uganda.  That declaration seems as random a guess as one might make. I presume he had genetic markers indicating that as a point of origin, but when you're looking for recent hair covered hominids im none too sure equatorial Africa is the place for it, considering how long ago we'd lost our fur and had body wide sweat glands

 

Yup. More, less than 1% of women exceed 6' in height. 6'6"? The odds are extremely low. Add to that hypertrichosis. Those odds are somewhere between 1:1 billion to 1:10 billion. Now add to that the odds of becoming feral and surviving into adulthood. I don't know hiw to even begin calculating those odds.

 

All three in one individual? Impossible.

 

Yet, there she was.

[guyzonthropus]

But was that anything close to what she really was? Do the accounts describe her as dark skinned. Those indigenous to Kenya tend to be rather dark skinned. I don't recall that specifically mentioned in the stories, but it's been a while since I read through them. Kvit didn't seem all that African in his outward appearances, and picking up a table with your teeth seems more like a Russian party game..

[Huntster]

35 minutes ago, guyzonthropus said:

But was that anything close to what she really was?........

 

The hypertrichosis is the only thing I know of that can explain the body hair coverage. The height is just rare genetics. The feral behavior is also incredibly rare, especially to survive to adulthood in the wild. And the three traits together in a single individual is mathematically off the charts.

 

Quote

........Do the accounts describe her as dark skinned.......

 

Yes.

[xspider1]

^ Definitely a great point regarding the rarity of those 3 things occurring simultaneously in one individual human, Huntster.  Does kind of make me wonder if there is a Patty-Zana connection.  

 

In any event, I think that a giant human covered in ‘fur’ would be far more likely than normal to seek refuge in the woods anyway.  It’s sort of like flipping a coin.  After flipping one tails, the odds of flipping another tails is exactly the same 50-50.

[Huntster]

28 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

^ Definitely a great point regarding the rarity of those 3 things occurring simultaneously in one individual human, Huntster.  Does kind of make me wonder if there is a Patty-Zana connection......

 

The incredibly rare combination of traits that Zana exhibited make multiple such examples mathematically impossible. For example, the hypertrichosis is known to occur at a ratio of one in a billion to one in ten billion people, thus in today's crowded world (many times the population than Zana's world in the late 1800's) there is statistically only one person with the condition. Thus, with a dozen purported hominid sightings per year and a few dozen other possible events (howls, footprints, etc), there are just too many such creatures out there to possibly be a genetically huge and feral Homo sapien with hypertrichosis. 

 

But can feral Homo sapiens explain a few of the sightings reported over the past century? Of course, and that is exactly what happened with the Zana affair. At least, that is what Margaryan says, and his peers agree.

[Chim Chim]

Zana might have been abandoned while young because of the hypertrichosis, so far as that goes she may have been locked up in a shed out back with extremely limited human contact (sadly there's still cases of that happening) and somehow managed to get out not that long before she was captured.  It isn't like anybody who would do something like that would step forward to clear the matter up once they heard about the 'wild woman' being found. 

[norseman]

14 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

From your link:

 

 

Please note the highlighted points.

 

Now, can you post anything about a current dna analytic process that can establish a currently or formerly existing human's (or any other species) height, limb length, hairiness, foot length, etc? If you can do that, can you contact Dr. Margaryan and demand that he provide proof that Zana was not 6'6" tall, hairy, strong, fast, or illiterate?

 

Then, you should publish your own document taking the village of Tkhina to task for assuming that Zana (the huge, hairy, wild woman) was an almas, because that's the real reason everybody is so upset.

I don’t think you appreciate how specific genes within DNA can be.

 

start the video around 9 minutes.

 

 

[Huntster]

56 minutes ago, norseman said:

I don’t think you appreciate how specific genes within DNA can be.........

 

Oh, they're extremely specific......when they want them to be. But with sasquatchery, they can be incredibly vague.

 

It's like the weather........

[norseman]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Oh, they're extremely specific......when they want them to be. But with sasquatchery, they can be incredibly vague.

 

It's like the weather........

So trying to parse out what you’re saying?

 

Is that you admit that something like Bigfoot is not a modern human, but because of ulterior motives? Academia reports the DNA samples as modern human to hide the existence of such creatures?

 

I don’t know. But the morphology of a Neanderthal is different than a Homo Sapien. And we represent two distinct species with two distinct genomes. And there is a far greater morphology difference between Patty and a modern human woman than there is between a modern human woman and Neanderthal woman….. in fact Patty in some ways looks more like a Gorilla than a Human. So it is inconceivable to me that we have the same DNA and do not represent two different species.

 

The only other option is that Patty is a hoax and I am not observing a real creature. Therefore it’s morphology is bogus and it has no bearing on a real Bigfoot. I don’t believe this to be the case. But I cannot be 100% sure with anything associated with Bigfoot. And I have never seen the real creature for myself. Maybe a real Bigfoot looks like a 8ft tall human?

 

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

.........Is that you admit that something like Bigfoot is not a modern human, but because of ulterior motives?.........

 

If sasquatches still exist, and are of the genus Homo, they are, by definition, a "modern human", whether or not they're Homo sapien or Homo SomethingElse genetically.

 

Quote

.........Academia reports the DNA samples as modern human to hide the existence of such creatures?........

 

Academia most likely does the same thing that you did in your statement I just quoted: they use the word "human" to mean "Homo sapien" and Homo sapien alone. You and academia do it because most people equate *human* with Homo sapien alone. Taxonomically, *human* and Homo sapien are not mutually exclusive. A *human* is any species within the genus Homo.  

 

I doubt that academia (outside of Meldrum and a few others) has even a remote clue. Government doesn't even want to be seen near a scene.

 

Quote

........the morphology of a Neanderthal is different than a Homo Sapien..........

 

 

You could meet a woman like that anywhere in todays world. She looks no different than a Homo sapien. But, then, that image is somebody's opinion on how a Neanderthal looks.

 

Quote

.........there is a far greater morphology difference between Patty and a modern human woman than there is between a modern human woman and Neanderthal woman…..

 

The evidence seems to support that opinion.

 

Quote

........in fact Patty in some ways looks more like a Gorilla than a Human. So it is inconceivable to me that we have the same DNA and do not represent two different species.........

 

I see no reason why a Homo habilis is considered *human* any more than a sasquatch would, especially since artists love to make their faces look like chimps.

 

Quote

......The only other option is that Patty is a hoax and I am not observing a real creature........

 

Possible, but I don't think so.

 

[norseman]

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

If sasquatches still exist, and are of the genus Homo, they are, by definition, a "modern human", whether or not they're Homo sapien or Homo SomethingElse genetically.

 

 

Academia most likely does the same thing that you did in your statement I just quoted: they use the word "human" to mean "Homo sapien" and Homo sapien alone. You and academia do it because most people equate *human* with Homo sapien alone. Taxonomically, *human* and Homo sapien are not mutually exclusive. A *human* is any species within the genus Homo.  

 

I doubt that academia (outside of Meldrum and a few others) has even a remote clue. Government doesn't even want to be seen near a scene.

 

 

You could meet a woman like that anywhere in todays world. She looks no different than a Homo sapien. But, then, that image is somebody's opinion on how a Neanderthal looks.

 

 

The evidence seems to support that opinion.

 

 

I see no reason why a Homo habilis is considered *human* any more than a sasquatch would, especially since artists love to make their faces look like chimps.

 

 

Possible, but I don't think so.

 

I know less about your position now than before you posted that.

 

Yes. I am using their term “modern human” to mean Homo Sapien. 
 

No. That Neanderthal woman looks nothing like any modern woman on the planet. And we have broken the Neanderthal genome. So it’s also no longer an “opinion”.

 

Yes. Based on the fossilized remains of their skull…..

 

Science is science remembered? Incontrovertible I believe is the term you used?

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, norseman said:

........That Neanderthal woman looks nothing like any modern woman on the planet........

 

There sure are a lot of Alaskan women that look like that. Some even dress like that.

 

Quote

........And we have broken the Neanderthal genome. So it’s also no longer an “opinion”........

 

The artists renditions are opinion.

 

Quote

.......Science is science remembered? Incontrovertible I believe is the term you used?

 

Yup.........until the next peer reviewed and published opinion becomes gospel.

 

[Chim Chim]

All I know is if I was pretty well lit and it was close to last call the Neanderthal woman wouldn’t look bad at all.  Patty on the other hand, I’d pass out before she’d look good.  
 

I’d say that’s a good way to judge how human they are. 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

There sure are a lot of Alaskan women that look like that. Some even dress like that.

 

 

The artists renditions are opinion.

 

 

Yup.........until the next peer reviewed and published opinion becomes gospel.

 

The artists renditions are not opinion…. remember those genes you agreed were precise?

 

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/neanderthals-didnt-give-us-red-hair-they-certainly-changed-way-we-sleep

[norseman]

If Zana had hypertrichosis? Her DNA would show it.

 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320048