It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zana the Russian Bigfoot an African slave?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The Luzia fossil skull from Brazil (with a recreation of what she may have looked like):



Unfortunately the lower part of the skull is missing, but the brow-ridges are clearly visible, although she was a young woman of at most 20.
Incidentally, the skull is not an anomaly from the site, and they found several more.

While it's clear that they are not mongoloid (American Indian) the disputes are about whether they were more African, or rather more connected to the aborigines and black peoples of the Pacific.
However, I did address that chicken and egg scenario in the previous post, and they could have been a single migration that moved out of Africa along the Asian coast, with some going south, others north, and still others east - into the Americas.
Of course, skulls also don't prove skin tones, and there's no proof they were "black" and couldn't have had gradual local adaptions over time.

I was surprised to see that the Zana/Khwit skulls were similarly described as being of an "Australoid type"!
www.cryptomundo.com...

What is clear from the Luzia skull is also a low brain-case (not always typical of modern Austronesian types), and although photos of such skulls are rare and sketchy, there might be similarities between Zana and Luzia and her people.

That would be astounding, but not inexplicable.

While the skulls are often described as "robust", that is a relative term, and it could be applied to one modern type by another.

Khwit's robustness could be due to the people his mother mixed with.
Actually the grandchildren of Zana stood out more because of a swarthy appearance, and the lingering (if less pronounced than Zana's) brow ridges.

edit on 22-11-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   

halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The Luzia fossil skull from Brazil (with a recreation of what she may have looked like):



Unfortunately the lower part of the skull is missing, but the brow-ridges are clearly visible, although she was a young woman of at most 20.
Incidentally, the skull is not an anomaly from the site, and they found several more.

While it's clear that they are not mongoloid (American Indian) the disputes are about whether they were more African, or rather more connected to the aborigines and black peoples of the Pacific.
However, I did address that chicken and egg scenario in the previous post, and they could have been a single migration that moved out of Africa along the Asian coast, with some going south, others north, and still others east - into the Americas.
Of course, skulls also don't prove skin tones, and there's no proof they were "black" and couldn't have had gradual local adaptions over time.

I was surprised to see that the Zana/Khwit skulls were similarly described as being of an "Australoid type"!
www.cryptomundo.com...

What is clear from the Luzia skull is also a low brain-case (not always typical of modern Austronesian types), and although photos of such skulls are rare and sketchy, there might be similarities between Zana and Luzia and her people.

That would be astounding, but not inexplicable.

While the skulls are often described as "robust", that is a relative term, and it could be applied to one modern type by another.

Khwit's robustness could be due to the people his mother mixed with.
Actually the grandchildren of Zana stood out more because of a swarthy appearance, and the lingering (if less pronounced than Zana's) brow ridges.

edit on 22-11-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Since it is lacking a lower jaw, it is tough to distinguish whether it is Mongoloid or Negroid. There is only one other way to distinguish the difference and it's by using the upper cranium but unfortunately it is not PC to even bring it up (cranium capacity).



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lazernation
 




I just watched the same documentary/show and thought it was very good.
Also brutal and very sad what they did to her.

Kind of ambiguous-ish ending as there were issues with her features being both ancient and modern... I know nothing about this stuff and don't pretend to, but found the show interesting anyway.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cathar
 


To Cathcar. I have to say I suspect you are lying about what Lloyd Pye said to you privately. I find it hard to believe Lloyd Pye confirmed belief in your crazy racist theory and your claim that he said as much in his EYKIW book is blatantly false, anyone who's read Lloyd Pye's work can see he said no such thing. In fact your theory is in direct conflict with Lloyd Pye's. Lloyd Pye specifically points to the difference between homo sapiens and hominoids to support his intervention theory, not white homo sapiens only but homo sapiens as a species, which includes black people. Lloyd Pye's theory is that the Annunaki created homo sapiens in Africa using their DNA mixed with the DNA of the hominoids who naturally evolved on this planet and created our species, homo sapiens (humans) who were all black at this time. He specifically supported the now established fact that the first homo sapiens were black afircans, and so called white people are simply Africans who adapted physically to the environments they migrated to. From their he goes along with the mainstream view that humans then spread through out the world adapting to their environment and changing slightly as a result. IE. Europeans skin paled so they could absorb necessary vitamin D, noses became more pointed and longer to provide longer nasal areas to warm up the cold air, frizzy curly hair became softer for better head protection of the cold, bodies started to be slightly stockier etc. DNA confirms that we, humans, as a species, came from Africa and Lloyd Pye has never disputed this, infact he points to these facts as supporting his own theory, pointing to the fact that while hominoids spanned all over the world, homo sapiens all originated in Africa and migrated to the other continents. Aside from the flatter noses, Africans share no more similarities with apes then any other homo sapiens. It's not about being politically correct, it's about basic sense, logic and understanding the facts. I have heard theories like yours before, and they seem deeply rooted in a racist ethos that see black people as a different species. Such theories have long been discredited by science. It is sad that now Lloyd is no longer here to deny your claim that he said such a thing, but in his absence I can atleast call BS on your claim that his book backs up your theory, when the truth is his book says quite the opposite. Try reading it again, the reason his intervention theory holds so much water is because it uses the established facts and fills in the holes with plausible possibilities that explain many things. Your theory conflicts directly with established facts, including many that Lloyd himself points to, and runs on the debunked assumption that white people and black people are different in some fundamental way. Lloyd Pye's assertion that we did not evolve from hominoids/pre humans is based on the fact that hominoids are closer to apes than us in physiology, and he has always maintained that "us" is homo sapiens. The differences he sights between us (homo sapiens) and other hominoids does not equate to the differences between white people and black people, and any assertion that black people are different to white people in ways that would make us different species is a pretty retarded view based on all available data. I'm sorry to suggest that you are a liar and a racist, but I don't know what other conclusion to draw. While I cannot speak with authority over what was said in your alleged conversation with Lloyd, I can say that your claim about the content of his book Everything You Know Is Wrong is... well wrong. And I find it highly suspicious that after he has passed you make such an outrageous claim about what Lloyd Pye believed, combined with your outright false claim regarding the contents of his book I can only assume that you are either incredibly confused or a simple old fashioned, racist, liar.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Here's another write up on th story of zaana with pictures www.bigfootencounters.com...

I heard Lloyd Pye talk about Zana and was quite impressed with the story. It seems no one has the details correct or folks can't agree on them. I have read that she and her children could speak some but others deny that. I read that her children, the offspring of Humans and herself a relict hominid ( a hominid thought to be a left over from an extinct race) could speak and even married other human women and had offspring of teir own - causing some of this DNA to spread through out the region. Would if this could be proven, but interesting nonetheless.



new topics

 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join