Yuchi1 Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Well there is always the "death blossom"..... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Death+Blossom Insert "NAWAC WA hunters" for Iraqi Security Forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 ^^^Not based on, you know, the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 6, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 Insert "NAWAC WA hunters" for Iraqi Security Forces. NAWAC WA hunters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 WA = wood ape (my presumption) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 7, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 yah well, thats coming from someone thats just a wee bit bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 People want to call them essentially human unless ape like traits are pointed out then of course we need to give them some wiggle room. Just like in the other thread were it's postulated their young are quadrupedal and spend most of their time in trees. I'll grant you they could be between Chimps and humans or they could be their own Asian branch that parallels us. But either way they exhibit enough morphology and behavioral trait differences that they are not closely related to us. But they are related to us, as a mammal and as a primate. How much more? We don't know, nor will we know until we have a body or a ironclad DNA sample. People are apes, and at some point apes became people. First it was walking upright, then the feet changed and the toes converged across the front of the foot. The legs got longer and the face got flatter (less prognathous). Then the larynx descended which led to the human vocal tract capable of speech. Sasquatch has more human characteristics than chimps, it's undeniable, so wishing for something more distant than chimps seems fool hardy to me. People want to call them animals because they are mammals, and think they can shoot one until they look it in the eye. I think I know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 7, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 Why is it fool hardy? As I've demonstrated in this thread evidence of bipedalism is present in East Asian apes as well. Far from fool hardy it side steps the whole issue as to why a descendant of Homo Erectus or other archaic human would regress so badly. No where do we see this else where. The most recent discovery the "hobbit" did not lose their ability to control fire or manufacture tools. And they traveled halfway across the world with it! So what's Sasquatch's excuse? You may think that I have ulterior motives as to why I want it to be not of the Homo line. But that is simply putting the cart in front of the horse. All of this discussion is simply conjecture until real tangible proof is produced. What it is will be decided after the fact and the chips will fall where they may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 7, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponginae A few serious pluses; A) China is a much closer jaunt to Beringia than Africa. B )There is ample evidence to suggest bipedalism was at one time not a solely Homo trait or for that matter a African Ape only trait. C) Unlike our bipedal ancestors that left Africa with a certain skill set we find lacking with Sasquatch? We do not see this with Ponginae despite them giving rise to bipedalism separately. Edited April 7, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Why is it fool hardy? It just is. When you've watched enough evidence come and go, because it either says human or manufactured by one you realize there is a problem. You have to make alot of excuses for a Nonhuman ape to have not just fallen in our lap. How could that not make it into world news?? All the DNA testing should have turned up the new ape, it hides as a piggy back hominin species or it's not really there. If you want to persuade habituators to provide proof, I think you'd have to accept DNA. If your Non-human ape is around, scientists could find it in single gene and 1500 base pairs. Don't turn your back on DNA science just to preserve your argument Norse, it gets to be a rather juvenile tactic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 It just is. When you've watched enough evidence come and go, because it either says human or manufactured by one you realize there is a problem. You have to make alot of excuses for a Nonhuman ape to have not just fallen in our lap. How could that not make it into world news?? All the DNA testing should have turned up the new ape, it hides as a piggy back hominin species or it's not really there. Those are assumptions, which the evidence does not back up. There is plenty of very consistent evidence which shows no indication of human manufacture. Things that have been tested have been random stuff brought in by random people. Without concerted vetting by the mainstream there is no reason to accept that we'd have anything by now. We are just where societal attention to the topic says we should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 I think S.Y. makes a valid point about the DNA though. It is a theory that we all have to admit needs to be excluded. If suspected BF DNA is turning up with hominoid mDNA (and some have found that) we need to consider an explanation that fits that evidence. At some point, if it happens enough, some serious reexamining of the evidence needs be considered. An ape/hominid hybrid is my working hypothesis, and in saying that I don't necessarily mean H. Sapien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 My concern is with "You have to make alot of excuses for a Nonhuman ape to have not just fallen in our lap." Here's the excuse: mainstream science has done extensive lap-proofing. Look: evidence bounces *right off*!!! When something no reasonable person thinking about it *should* think is a guy in a suit is still *presumed* a guy in a suit, contrary to *published proof it ain't*, what's fishy is nothing but scientists' misuse of science. DNA will not sway the people it has to, barring events we cannot foresee, until someone brings in a body that they can point to and say: DNA came from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 yah well, thats coming from someone thats just a wee bit bias. IMO, not biased when predicated upon their own (NAWAC) words and deeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Nope. Not backed up by anything in the narrative by NAWAC. You'd have to show me chapter and verse, and yes I have read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 8, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 It just is. When you've watched enough evidence come and go, because it either says human or manufactured by one you realize there is a problem. You have to make alot of excuses for a Nonhuman ape to have not just fallen in our lap. How could that not make it into world news?? All the DNA testing should have turned up the new ape, it hides as a piggy back hominin species or it's not really there. If you want to persuade habituators to provide proof, I think you'd have to accept DNA. If your Non-human ape is around, scientists could find it in single gene and 1500 base pairs. Don't turn your back on DNA science just to preserve your argument Norse, it gets to be a rather juvenile tactic. Crazy.you think im turning my back on DNA science? how on earth can it hide as a piggy back species to homo sapien sapiens? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin read that, they know for instance that modern European and Asian populations carry 2-5% Neanderthal DNA. they also know that modern Melanesian and Australian aborigine DNA carries roughly the same amount of Denisovian DNA. so where is this Squatch DNA? if the samples come back as modern human? your proposing that they are Homo Sapien Sapiens? basically a giant hairy race of retarded people running around the woods living like animals? wouldnt a much more plausible explanation be that the samples were simply contaminated by Human DNA? have we ever had a bone to draw DNA samples from? no of course not. hair and stool samples make up the samples........ when Europeans landed in north America? Homo Sapien Sapien was already here, smart, cunning, deadly. And they were obliterated......... why? Cuz they competed for the same niche......the human one. and their technological advancements were less than European ones. Sasquatch bypasses all that because it doesnt compete for the same niche, because it aint human.......... Remote, rare, nocturnal, and Ape smart is plenty enough to escape our detection officially. Intelligence did not do native Americans any good. luckily for squatch its not his chosen battlefield. Remote forests and mountains are...... they have no need to come down to the valleys were humans are...... Is Melba Ketchum still taken seriously? Your hypothesis reeks of her kool aid. Disotell said it best......."40,000 years ago? Us was US!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts