Bigfoot DNA

[Jodie]

Or could have been an abandoned child and left to her own devices by the parents from one of those villages with African roots.

 

[The Great God Pan]

"I'll kidnap the hairy one. That weird one? Yes, the one that acts like an animal and looks all messed up. I'll get her to be my slave and she can do all sorts of things."

Why would anyone want to kidnap her if she was so messed up?

I mean if she was as described then why would she be wanted by anyone for anything?

What Tomtomkent said.

We all know how stories get exaggerated as time goes on. "Hairy" probably originally meant she had long matted hair because nobody ever let her cut it or wash it. She may have been tall and strong, but probably nothing exceptional. She may have been mute - either due to problems from birth, or even electively. As for acting like an animal, read up on Genie. Remember we only have , even in the story, the hunters' word for it that they captured her in the woods shortly before taking her to the village. In reality who knows when they took her or how long they had held her before anyone else saw her.

Absolutely nothing is needed to explain this story except human cruelty and criminality, which unfortunately still goes on today.

 

[The Great God Pan]

Or could have been an abandoned child and left to her own devices by the parents from one of those villages with African roots.

It is not of course impossible. Unfortunately I find the scenario of people taking a child from its parents and holding it prisoner more likely than parents wilfully abandoning a child and that child surviving in the woods.

I mean, if they did kidnap her, of course they are going to tell a story about finding her wild in the woods, as long as there are people to believe it.

I have no more knowledge than any one else, of course, but I would believe the people who originally took her knew exactly who she was and where she was from. When they took her to a village in the mountains where people had never seen a black person (remember that in those days a place 40km away with no roads is not a place you'd visit) then maybe there they did think she was a wild woman.

 

[LTC8K6]

We're not told whether anybody checked. Presumably because nobody did. It could be ruled out by checking, but until someone does, there's little need for any more speculative theories.

Speculative theories are just about all we have to discuss regarding bigfootery.

 

[The Great God Pan]

Speculative theories are just about all we have to discuss regarding bigfootery.

But this has nothing to do with bigfootery any more. It's a fascinating, if rather harrowing, way to gain an insight into the manner in which legends can arise.

 

[LTC8K6]

DNA of strange humans definitely falls under bigfootery...

Ask any footer.

 

[Resume]

But this has nothing to do with bigfootery any more.

Actually, yes it does. According to the unsinkable rubber ducks that are bigfoot enthusiasts, Zana= relict hominid=bigfoot. This is how they "think." Some also believe that Sykes is on their side of the fence and the proof will be in "the paper."

It's a fascinating, if rather harrowing, way to gain an insight into the manner in which legends can arise.

There are any number of legends arising in the bigfoot community; watch what the do with Syke's findings.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Or could have been an abandoned child and left to her own devices by the parents from one of those villages with African roots.

Abandoned. A run away. One of the victims of the social turmoil in Russia for the half century or so before the revolution. Bare in mind that things like pogroms, emancipation of serfs, protests and rebellions caused shockwaves that would echoe for years and decades. There were oppertunities for somebody to slip through the cracks.

I think people may talk about the legend as they do not want to confront the more upsetting mundane explanations.

 

[Jodie]

Makes perfect sense to me, Russia did emancipate their slaves in 1861. The Zana story happened around the same time with Zana supposedly dying in the 1880's-90's.

 

[dmaker]

I'm not an expert on DNA. In fact, I know next to nothing about DNA, so my puzzlement may be misplaced. But it seems to me that if Zana was an example of a relict hominid with such drastic morphological differences compared to modern humans, would that not have been obvious in the DNA that Sykes has already analyzed?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not an expert on DNA. In fact, I know next to nothing about DNA, so my puzzlement may be misplaced. But it seems to me that if Zana was an example of a relict hominid with such drastic morphological differences compared to modern humans, would that not have been obvious in the DNA that Sykes has already analyzed?

The loophole that the footers believe is there is the fact that Sykes tested mtDNA and not NuDNA, I think.

 

[MikeG]

The loophole there is the fact that Sykes tested mtDNA and not NuDNA, I think.

If what you are suggesting is that nuDNA would show up species differences more than mtDNA would, then I think you are wrong. mtDNA mutates at a faster and more predictable rate than nuDNA, and so it is likely that if this is indeed an ancient migration our of Africa, predating the known migrations, then the mtDNA would show greater changes than the nuDNA. Rather than masking such changes, I am fairly sure that mtDNA would actually be the best place to be looking for them.

 

[LTC8K6]

If what you are suggesting is that nuDNA would show up species differences more than mtDNA would, then I think you are wrong. mtDNA mutates at a faster and more predictable rate than nuDNA, and so it is likely that if this is indeed an ancient migration our of Africa, predating the known migrations, then the mtDNA would show greater changes than the nuDNA. Rather than masking such changes, I am fairly sure that mtDNA would actually be the best place to be looking for them.

I didn't think I needed to clarify the topic, but I did.

 

[MikeG]

The addition of "that the footers believe" changes the sense of almost anything that is ever posted on the subject.

 

[LTC8K6]

Zana looked like a yeti/bigfoot.

Bigfoot/yeti is a bear.

Zana was a bear!

 

[LTC8K6]

The addition of "that the footers believe" changes the sense of almost anything that is ever posted on the subject.

Noel apparently thinks Zana looked just like Patty...

Which is mind boggling...

I said that footers would use the results, but I really didn't expect this:

“Bryan noticed some unusual features on Khwit’s skull,” Mark Evans narrates, “very wide eye sockets and an elevated brow ridge that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins. And he was starting to toy with a thought-provoking alternative notion.”

Sykes then shares it: “Maybe she isn’t an African of recent origin at all but one from a migration out of Africa many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years ago, and she comes from a relict population.”

Now, let us take the full measure of this “speculation.” If true, it would mean nothing less than that Zana was a member of a pre-modern human group mistakenly thought to be extinct—precisely what many researchers have long pointed to as the origin story of Sasquatch itself (those researchers, anyway, who don’t place this creature in the “ape” category). Keep in mind, too, that Professor Sykes has the mtDNA results from Khwit’s tooth (a scientific paper on the topic is awaiting publication) and therefore already knows the answer to whether Zana hails from a modern or an ancient period of time.

Bryan Sykes is an extremely prudent man—a conservative, world-class scientific mind. Thus, he would not have allowed himself to speculate, on international television, that Zana may have derived from a relict line of ancient Homo sapiens if the mtDNA sequences did not support this very conclusion. (It’s a conclusion, incidentally, that falls right in line with Melba Ketchum’s mtDNA findings.) If his test results had demonstrated a modern origin for Zana, it would be highly irresponsible and out of character for him even to entertain such a radically divergent hypothesis.

And finally, if Zana was merely a modern person and not, in fact, a Sasquatch (or Alma, in the Russian context), then why was she (as described) a dead ringer for the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin Film—more than a century before anyone had laid eyes upon Patty?

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bryan-sykes-sasquatch-research/

 

[EHocking]

Zana looked like a yeti/bigfoot.

Bigfoot/yeti is a bear.

Zana was a bear!

Buuuurrrnnnn her!!!!!





oops, wrong comedy.

 

[smartcooky]

I said that footers would use the results, but I really didn't expect this:

“Bryan noticed some unusual features on Khwit’s skull,” Mark Evans narrates, “very wide eye sockets and an elevated brow ridge that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins. And he was starting to toy with a thought-provoking alternative notion.”

Sykes then shares it: “Maybe she isn’t an African of recent origin at all but one from a migration out of Africa many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years ago, and she comes from a relict population.”

Now, let us take the full measure of this “speculation.” If true, it would mean nothing less than that Zana was a member of a pre-modern human group mistakenly thought to be extinct—precisely what many researchers have long pointed to as the origin story of Sasquatch itself (those researchers, anyway, who don’t place this creature in the “ape” category). Keep in mind, too, that Professor Sykes has the mtDNA results from Khwit’s tooth (a scientific paper on the topic is awaiting publication) and therefore already knows the answer to whether Zana hails from a modern or an ancient period of time.

Bryan Sykes is an extremely prudent man—a conservative, world-class scientific mind. Thus, he would not have allowed himself to speculate, on international television, that Zana may have derived from a relict line of ancient Homo sapiens if the mtDNA sequences did not support this very conclusion. (It’s a conclusion, incidentally, that falls right in line with Melba Ketchum’s mtDNA findings.) If his test results had demonstrated a modern origin for Zana, it would be highly irresponsible and out of character for him even to entertain such a radically divergent hypothesis.

And finally, if Zana was merely a modern person and not, in fact, a Sasquatch (or Alma, in the Russian context), then why was she (as described) a dead ringer for the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin Film—more than a century before anyone had laid eyes upon Patty?

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bryan-sykes-sasquatch-research/

It reads like the same chain of pseudo-logic that the ancient aliens nutters use.....if "A" is true, then "B" might also be true, and if "B" is true then "C" might also be true, and if "C" is true then "D" might also be true, and if "D" is true then "E" might also be true thereby proving that alien astronauts built half the stone ruins on the Earth.

Its also darned similar to Sagan's "Venusian Dinosaur Fallacy", which goes something like this...

"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus.
Why not?
Because it's covered with a dense layer of clouds.
Well, what are clouds made of?
Water, of course.
Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it.
Therefore, the surface must be wet.
Well, if the surface is wet, it's probably a swamp.
If there's a swamp, there's ferns.
If there's ferns, maybe there's even dinosaurs."

Observation? I can't see a thing!
Conclusion? Dinosaurs!

 

[rockinkt]

[/I]Its also darned similar to Sagan's "Venusian Dinosaur Fallacy", which goes something like this...

"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus.
Why not?
Because it's covered with a dense layer of clouds.
Well, what are clouds made of?
Water, of course.
Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it.
Therefore, the surface must be wet.
Well, if the surface is wet, it's probably a swamp.
If there's a swamp, there's ferns.
If there's ferns, maybe there's even dinosaurs."

Observation? I can't see a thing!
Conclusion? Dinosaurs!

That is uncannily like the type of logic the massive monkey molesters led by Brian Brown use.

 

[chuff8xt]

There is now The Starchild Project thread in which they are discussing the DNA results. Wasn't the sequencing and analysis for starchild also done by Melba Ketchum? The claims for starchild also include DNA sequences not found in humans - more "angel dna"?