Jump to content
James33

My Perspective and questions for you all

Recommended Posts

NatFoot
BFF Donor
6 hours ago, MindSquatch said:

Don't have a photo of the Matilda looking Bigfoot, only the neanderthal looking Bigfoot which is my avatar. I was looking through my binoculars at the other Bigfoot. It wouldn't have been a good photo as these phone cameras as you know are not good for long distance. That sighting prompt me to get a good camcorder for far away video recording.

 

 

 

That's right, my apologies! Just noticed you switched your avatar back. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

Among the Colville Indians, there was Patrick, a hybrid, bigfoot x indian child. If that's true, then Bigfoot is homo.

 

   Zana the captive "ape-woman" of Abkhazia was "not human" ... yet she bore 4 children with the local men.

I believe Zana was human. I think Bigfoot is, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
8 hours ago, Oonjerah said:

Among the Colville Indians, there was Patrick, a hybrid, bigfoot x indian child. If that's true, then Bigfoot is homo.

 

   Zana the captive "ape-woman" of Abkhazia was "not human" ... yet she bore 4 children with the local men.

I believe Zana was human. I think Bigfoot is, too.

 

Too many off color jokes here that I'll save for a more select audience. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor
32 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

 

Too many off color jokes here that I'll save for a more select audience. :lol:

Get thee to the Tarpit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
12 hours ago, Oonjerah said:

Among the Colville Indians, there was Patrick, a hybrid, bigfoot x indian child. If that's true, then Bigfoot is homo.

 

   Zana the captive "ape-woman" of Abkhazia was "not human" ... yet she bore 4 children with the local men.

I believe Zana was human. I think Bigfoot is, too.

 

Zana was 100% human according to Sykes DNA study.

 

https://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/the-story-of-zana-wild-woman-has-been-solved-through-dna-analysis/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Norseman:    "Zana was 100% human according to Sykes DNA study."      Correct sort of.        Sykes subsequently revised that and stated that while Zana was human, her DNA showed her to Sub saharan  African with ancestry out of the human mainstream for over 100,000 years.    He theorized that a group of them had migrated North and settled in an area isolated by geography or choice and not interbred with other humans for nearly 100,000 years.    In other words she was a relic human.       https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/dna-evidence-suggests-captured-russian-ape-woman-020288

 
Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
56 minutes ago, norseman said:

Zana was 100% human according to Sykes DNA study.

 

Perhaps, but beware of terminology trickery, The theme here is that these hominids are 100% human, but not 100% Homo sapien.

 

And there is no proof that Zana’s remains were examined. It was Khwit’s remains that were better confirmed as found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I meant Homo Sapien.

 

And correct, only the deceased sons tooth was analyzed.

37 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Norseman:    "Zana was 100% human according to Sykes DNA study."      Correct sort of.        Sykes subsequently revised that and stated that while Zana was human, her DNA showed her to Sub saharan  African with ancestry out of the human mainstream for over 100,000 years.    He theorized that a group of them had migrated North and settled in an area isolated by geography or choice and not interbred with other humans for nearly 100,000 years.    In other words she was a relic human.       https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/dna-evidence-suggests-captured-russian-ape-woman-020288

 

 

Well its correct. But she is a part of a group that is unique?

 

But is this the only the dna samples sampled? Kind of like the ancient polar bear-yeti connection? Come to find out all polar bears and brown bears share a close connection. 

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

OK. Now to work Bigfoot into this.

What's the difference in appearance between Bigfoot & us human people?

 

Bigfoot is covered with hair. I won't say fur: fur has an undercoat.

Bigfoot has a sagittal crest. That's from eating primarily raw, wild vegetables.

Without the hirsutism & the crest, Bigfoot looks like us.

Bigfoot is a mostly unrecognized human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
13 minutes ago, norseman said:

......... Kind of like the ancient polar bear-yeti connection? Come to find out all polar bears and brown bears share a close connection. 

 

Of all the DNA sorcery proffered to the sasquatchery world, this bit of “science” pretty much tops them all. While simultaneously continuing the complete denial of the potential remaining existence of the hominids repeatedly reported as being seen, and fitting their beloved Darwinist ideology, a magic polar bear in the Himalayas is offered as evidence, and all the pointy heads on Earth nod in satisfaction, since a hominid is completely unacceptable. 

 

Of course, grizzlies and polar bears can interbreed, and Sykes didn’t just say “bear”, he linked it to this magical, “ancient” polar bear, as if to say, “Look what I can do with bears, so be careful denying my ability to create a yeti”, but of course, no attempt whatsoever is being made to find this very special bear.

 

Yeah, the Huntster is clearly an ancient-polar-bear in-the-Himalayas denier, but he definitely knows how to run the trap play against rogue offensive linemen as well as they try it on him, so..........produce a bear carcass, or he will continue to call bullspit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 minute ago, Oonjerah said:

OK. Now to work Bigfoot into this.

What's the difference in appearance between Bigfoot & us human people?

 

Bigfoot is covered with hair. I won't say fur: fur has an undercoat.

Bigfoot has a sagittal crest. That's from eating primarily raw, wild vegetables.

Without the hirsutism & the crest, Bigfoot looks like us.

Bigfoot is a mostly unrecognized human.

 

They are 8 feet tall and 800 lbs supposedly.

 

Their footprints exhibit a midtarsal break.

 

They do not make or use stone tools supposedly.

 

They do not make or use fire supposedly.

 

As you mentioned they are hairy.

 

As you mentioned they seem to exhibit a sagittal crest....which is not exhibited by the genus homo. Even early members such as Homo Erectus. But Homo Erectus was making stone tools 2 million years ago. A sagittal crest is needed to chew coarse foliage like bamboo. It certainly isnt needed to eat cooked falling off of the bone meat. We know eating meat gave man bigger and bigger brains. A sagittal crest seems to fly in the face of intelligence. It takes most of your day to graze plant matter in order to support a big body. Like a mountain gorilla. Not a lot of time to be playing with fire or stones....

 

 

 

We wont know what Sasquatch is until we drag a bloody corpse in. But looking at supposed morphology and behavioral traits? I have to say that its not looking good that Sasquatch belongs to the genus Homo.

CA1ED05C-2B64-4051-972F-06895A28BC15.jpeg

7 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Of all the DNA sorcery proffered to the sasquatchery world, this bit of “science” pretty much tops them all. While simultaneously continuing the complete denial of the potential remaining existence of the hominids repeatedly reported as being seen, and fitting their beloved Darwinist ideology, a magic polar bear in the Himalayas is offered as evidence, and all the pointy heads on Earth nod in satisfaction, since a hominid is completely unacceptable. 

 

Of course, grizzlies and polar bears can interbreed, and Sykes didn’t just say “bear”, he linked it to this magical, “ancient” polar bear, as if to say, “Look what I can do with bears, so be careful denying my ability to create a yeti”, but of course, no attempt whatsoever is being made to find this very special bear.

 

Yeah, the Huntster is clearly an ancient-polar-bear in-the-Himalayas denier, but he definitely knows how to run the trap play against rogue offensive linemen as well as they try it on him, so..........produce a bear carcass, or he will continue to call bullspit.

 

What Im saying is there is no need for a mystical Himalayan polar bear. Sykes simply got a known sample of a known Himalayan brown bear and tried to turn it into something news worthy.

 

I too think that its possible that a Yeti exists. Its remote rugged country. And unlike north America? We know giant primates resided there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
14 minutes ago, norseman said:

.........What Im saying is there is no need for a mystical Himalayan polar bear. Sykes simply got a known sample of a known Himalayan brown bear and tried to turn it into something news worthy........

 

A trap on an end around play, then. An absolutely ridiculous play in the “yetis are bears” game. 

 

But ultimately, it is yet another example of how DNA “science” has nothing on photography, motion pictures, footprints, eyewitness testimony, scat, nests, and ancient oral history. In fact, with its ownership by a select group, it even has a close relationship to religion or shamanism. They can build creatures out of it like Dr. Frankenstein. 

 

And I’m out here with my lantern and pitchfork waiting for their magical bear.........

 

.........And unlike north America? We know giant primates resided there.

 

All the more motivation to keep them long dead..........even if they have to resurrect ancient polar bears do do it (and while simultaneously and falsely claiming that our current polar bears are dying off!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I don't think we have good enough pictures to deduce anything from morphology.      Many BF witness accounts and artist renditions do not look like Patty.   Perhaps we are dealing with more than one species?    Supposedly's are conjecture because we have next to no observation of the species in the wild.   So like Norseman says we need the body or at least a skeleton to deduce much of anything.    And even that would not rule out a second or third species.    I think probable that when sasquatch is accepted by science, others that witnesses are seeing might include other species or subspecies.     The mid continent grassy planes once settled by Europeans and farmers,  has most likely been a factor that has led to geographical isolation and species differentiation between the West Coast forested areas and the forested areas of the East and SE.    While there may be isolated pockets of BF,    throughout the US,  any population of size has to be in areas with light or no human population.   Human population tends to disturb, reduce or eliminate other species especially of we compete for the same resources.    Just ask Neanderthal how living with us went down.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

They are simply not going to allow extant hominids to exist:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2016/03/31/new-homo-floresiensis-dates-may-quash-cryptozoology-theories-about-hobbits/#23b050e12f2c

 

This species can’t even deal with racism. Imagine how painful speciesism would be, especially after the lawyers enter the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
41 minutes ago, Huntster said:

They are simply not going to allow extant hominids to exist:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2016/03/31/new-homo-floresiensis-dates-may-quash-cryptozoology-theories-about-hobbits/#23b050e12f2c

 

This species can’t even deal with racism. Imagine how painful speciesism would be, especially after the lawyers enter the field.

 

I dont think the dates being pushed back 40,000 years makes the prospect of these hobbits running around today any less plausible.

 

And technically Europeans and Asians are not just two distinct races. We are hybrids with Neanderthals and Denisovans or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×