Leaderboard

Concealing equipment can be a challenge. Several approaches have been presented on this forum. Tree bark covering with local species, commercially available materials in the way of ASAT fabrics and Cambush tapes. CamoHide from South Africa was designed to hide cameras from poachers. Interesting stuff. I was curious and bought the 'pine' version. The material had an 'industrial' smell. The method to attach the material to a tree conflicts with what I am allowed to do in my area. The snap fittings with screws don't work for me. I have not cut the material for a camera. A test that I have not done is the dry bark versus wet bark look. The texture is good. The back is a smooth surface. The snap fittings are situated around the perimeter. This might work for some researchers.

Nope. But pointing out the inconsistencies, and instilling doubt? Oh, you bet I can……..

NOT wrong, MIB. And you're putting words in my mouth. How many times have I asked here who or what built the nests? I'd really apprecitae you not slanting the really good evidence we have is relatively meaningless when it comes to drawing conclusions about what I'm saying. Because All I've done is present the evidence available and some of that evidence, in the way we were given it makes no scientifically accurate sense. And I think we DO have the right kind of evidence for stating that. The truth is not being given to us. Everything I've studied regarding these nest discoveries says there a lot more to it than we are being told, which includes the DNA report we've been given. And I've built the strongest case possible to date that underscores that. All this Forum has ever done is water down, dismiss, and otherwise ignore evidence in this case because it would make too mush trouble for some key people who get propped up as having the final word on the nest discovery's DNA outcome with regard to the details at the nest site itself. There is a real disconnect on that. But I haven't seen one member here call it out. Not one. No one at the top, and no one at the bottom. Wrong...it's unknown to us because I don't think for a minute that we are being told the whole truth. Why? Because the DNA samples may have been too degraded to show a novel primate but not to degraded to show a novel Human. Because that to me would be an impossibility because mtDNA shows GENUS. and primate is FAMILY. People need to have some backbone and stop kowtowing to whatever these experts dish out. They are NOT telling the whole truth regarding what that DNA is actually saying. And anyone with a negative comment had better have a darn good reason, and not just an opinion, for posting it. I have fact and science going here so argue the discussion with fact and science. Not opinion and anecdotes.

Wrong. The questions have been asked, the implication considered. You seem to be equating lack of clear evidence of H.S.S. as proof it was bigfoot. That is a leap too far, it is equivalent to citing lack of proof as proof of lack. That is false logic. I think it is very possible the nests were bigfoot-created. I just don't believe we have conclusive evidence, aka "proof", in EITHER direction, "us" vs "them". So .. unknown .. which means UNKNOWN. MIB

I almost never build a nest to sleep on, even when I don't bring a bedroll, which is when I'm on a multi-day march. I would sleep on piled up leaves or in winter on a pallet of sticks. However, your practice (as rare as it is/was) does illustrate tye point: Whatever built that nest was of the genus Homo, because that is the only creature in North America within the natural and fossil record which builds nests of that type. Bear nests are used for hibernation and are within a natural shelter. I'd like to bring forward a post I made three years ago that almost mirrors hifliers recent posts here:

Here's TWO questions that I've seen no one ask in the discussion of whether or not modern Humans built the nests. 1) the greenery was fresh so why wasn't there undegraded Human DNA collected? Is it because the samples were frozen for a year and a half before they got tested? Moisture? Because Dr. Disotell said that the samples were degraded from moisture and freezing. And 2), why more than one recently built nest. The Olympic Project reported that they found 5 or 6 nests. Then went on to discover 15-16 more in various stages of decay. So again, no litter over the years? No debris whatsoever left behind by modern Humans over the years? Why don't members here ask these kinds of questions? Is there no critical thinking here by anyone? No critical questions asked. The ones I have been asking, in order to be valid, would have to be asked in context with EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of the nest site taken into consideration as a whole picture. NOT mentally or publicly cherry picked as individual points of debate or discussion. So I have to ask, if this is a discussion Forum then just where is the discussion on these points. Or have I made such an incredibly air tight argument that no one has anything more to say that directly impacts the discussion about who or what made the nests? Is the discussion over? At an end? No more opinions related to the complete picture of the nest subject when ALL details are presented within that picture? Does anyone still think that the conclusion to the mystery still has two possibilities? Or only one? There's no doubt that the builders were Human. Let me give you only one of my larger thoughts: The DNA was NOT degraded! Because if it was and so was inconclusive then why hasn't the raw data of the test results been made available? Someone I know contributed to the cost of testing but hasn't had access to that data. Why not? Personally, I don't know why not, but what I do know is that it's time for the Bigfoot Community to stop getting jerked around and the big influencers to start telling the truth about that nest find.

Interesting stuff here! I'm intrigued by the concept of archaic sapiens forms comingling with pre-european neanderthals, slipping them the sapienesque mitochondrial DNA.. Then the part about smaller population size leading up to the accumulation of less favorable genes which then allowed the sapiens x chromosome to be so easily ushered in to the Neanderthal genome. They pondered what benefits were had through this substitution, and I can't help but wonder if it could be something so simple or basic, what with these two "substitutions", as those Neanderthals with the "upgrade" looking just a bit more sapiens than the neighbors, and there by tolerated by the actual sapiens longer, like they were less alien looking so they didn't have to die, right off. This does also somewhat support the idea that we sexed the other hominids out of existence....