For YOU Crypto Types

[Ninurta]

Here's a curious regurgitation of Dr Melba Ketchum's genome work on the alleged Sasquatch samples
sent to her. Academia scoffed her work and for most of us, the data is above our pay-grade!

The particular discussion begins at 45.53 and I think you'll find it interesting... as well as a light-hearted
chat.

Fascinating, Captain!

I need to track this paper down so I can read it. Everything points to a "hybrid" - maybe. The common DNA with humans could also point to a divergence from human at some point in time. I need to find the paper to see if there is any mention of the length of the chains of common DNA, in centimorgans. That would indicate when the divergence occurred, whether it is long chains (indicating recent hybridization) or much shorter chunks (indicating a divergence way back when).

See, humans (outside of Africa) hybridized with Neanderthals and Denisovans - for example, I have more Neanderthal DNA than about 3/4 of the rest of the people on Earth. My son has more Neanderthal DNA than about 90% of the rest of humanity, meaning he got a crap ton of it from me AND from his ma.

That, however, does not mean we are Neanderthals, or that our mothers or grandmothers bred with Neanderthals. It means that way back when, some folks in our family trees bred with Neanderthals, and how far back is indicated by the length, in centimorgans, of the Neanderthal DNA components. In addition to the European (and Asian) Neanderthal hybridization, there is a higher proportion of Denisovan in Australian Aborigines and Melanesians. Denisovans, in their turn, have DNA from a "mystery hominid" that has, as yet, been unidentified, and sub-saharan Africans also have DNA from another "mystery hominid" that has as yet remained unidentified, and which is not found in Europeans or any other folks from outside Africa. At the same time, no Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA is found in sub-saharan Africans (although some is found in Afro-Americans, because of their interbreeding with Europeans).

In other words, humans from various locations are "human", but we all carry different DNA from OTHER, previous, "human" species, making us all somewhat different sorts of "human" depending on the area our ancestors originated in.

These DNA results MAY indicate some sort of hybridization with Bigfoot, OR it may indicate that Bigfoot is an, as yet, unidentified variety of "human", same as we are. Size and morphology alone are insufficient to exclude them from being "human" - look into Homo Floresiensis or Homo Luzonensis, both fairly recent discoveries of varieties of "human" who walked the Earth with our own ancestors, and who may still walk the Earth, and have as yet been undiscovered outside the fossil record. Both are shorter than Homo Sapiens (between 3 and 4 feet tall or so), and yet are still classified as human. What is to prevent a strain of Human from being much TALLER than us? Luzonensis' foot morphology is closer to Australipithecines than humans, as is his stature (some say this indicates a potentially arboreal habit), yet other things point towards "human". A hybrid, perhaps?

Like Bigfoot, perhaps?

Years ago, Myra Shackley wrote a book called "Still Living?" in which she proposes that Central Asian Almas or Almasty are in reality relict Neanderthal survivals, still walking the Earth. If that is possible, what else is? Could Bigfoot be a relict hominid population of an earlier species of human, changed over time to reflect what it is today rather than what it was in the fossil record?

So I need to track down this paper...

ETA: Link to the Journal where the paper is published. At this site, It's about a $30 purchase. The paper CAN be found out in the wilds of the internet with minimal effort for free, but I'll not post those links here.

.