World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
His genetics say Zana is a modern subSaharan African woman. If we’re talking something farther from us than Neanderthals, Denisova, the un-named west-African archaic only found in descendants with no type fossil, etc., then we aren’t talking anatomically modern, are we? And for someone furry and “giant,” we’d be talking about that.Maybe I’m wrong. But my take is that he’s got something that seems out of place, and he’s not discounting the stories about Zana. I personally think that without real genetic evidence suggesting something separated from us by over 300,000 years or more, we should discount the stories. She was an African, and the report is coming from the time when Africans were most likely to be misrepresented as apes because of the rise of scientific racism in the wake of Darwin (who did not support such frames, but who gave the ideological cover to do so), and when people were all too happy to throw around descriptions of “primitive” to describe modern human variation.If Sykes presents a major mtDNA split of the sort that has been used to separate out the other archaics, so be it. But just pointing at “primitive” morphology, when one has the DNA in hand, is crap.
Sykes will need some very strong genetic evidence to overcome the impression that the story of Zana is a racist exaggeration of the horrific abuse heaped upon a feral or mentally impaired member of the former slave class. To speculate without clear evidence is quite close to perpetuating the horrific legacy of slavery.
Here we go... There's 252 comments from the previous comment section that shows otherwise; https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/paranormal-researchers-have-run-in-with.htmlMan, you have a short memory!