Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 3 minutes ago, hiflier said: My understanding is the complete opposite, that the Sasquatches rarely get OUTA da woods. So who/what type of individuals are you actually referring to? The Zana types. They lived in institutions during the era when they were commonly reported in the woods. Now they live on city sidewalks and are less commonly reported in the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 6 minutes ago, Huntster said: This entire subject is pretty extreme, don't you think? We're talking about a subject that has been discussed throughout human history, will not go away, yet is noticeably ignored by the very people who should be all over it, yet is being hashed out in an electronic hinterlands by a gaggle of laymen. 110% agree on that point, Hunster. 9 minutes ago, Huntster said: So, then, who needs a scientist? And exactly what do you need them for? I do. To run my DNA tests and tell me the results. Will that scientists claim the find and cut me out of the picture? Probably. Do I care? Nope, not one bit, because it isn't about me, it's about proof of Sasquatch existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 9 minutes ago, Huntster said: The Zana types. They lived in institutions during the era when they were commonly reported in the woods. Now they live on city sidewalks and are less commonly reported in the woods. Zana types? Bringing up the idea that they now live on city streets is entering some pretty dangerous territory for Bigfoot Forum don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Solvedit said: I have known of a few people with faces which reminded me of frame 352 of the famous Patterson-Gimlin film. Facial characteristics imply nothing but straw grabbing. Your point is turning into a rather nasty implication. And there is a word for it but that's not for here, and never will be. Edited October 31, 2021 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 5 minutes ago, hiflier said: Zana types? Bringing up the idea that they now live on city streets is entering some pretty dangerous territory for Bigfoot Forum don't you think? It's not my theory. It's Solvedit's, and supported by Dr. Margaryan's paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 4 minutes ago, Huntster said: It's not my theory. It's Solvedit's, and supported by Dr. Margaryan's paper. Yes, and my point is what does any of it have to do with Sasquatch discovery beyond speculating that street dwellers are Sasquatch hybrids? Without Sasquatch DNA that determination is impossible beyond only THINKING that way. Bottom line is that there is a very large, very powerful, fully-haired bipedal primate in the woods that may look like Zana or Patty. That's the DNA one needs. DNA from the so-called street dwellers will not make that connection. One NEEDS the DNA fro the Sasquatch first and that should be the goal. How that shakes out with street people, if one even needs such a crass reference as that in order to ridiculously target some group of people, is a connection that is pure conjecture and treads in the wrong social direction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 19 minutes ago, Solvedit said: My theory is that people with small traces of Sasquatch DNA live among us. But, you'd never know them because they don't show any signs unless some unusual event such as severe inbreeding causes their deeply recessive Sasquatch DNA to become active in place of their human parents' genes which have replicated too many times. Most of the time, it still probably only results in an ordinary human baby albeit with some of the side effects of inbreeding. It's really more of a postulate than a theory. I haven't done much research. I understand, and that is exactly what Dr. Margoryan and Dr. Twist came up with: Zana was an ordinary homo sapien "with issues". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 27 minutes ago, Solvedit said: .......Facial, not racial......... If you don't think that "racism" can evolve into "specism" in a brief moment, hang on. You're about to witness it happen on this very thread......... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 11 minutes ago, Solvedit said: My theory is that people with small traces of Sasquatch DNA live among us I know exactly what you are theorizing. My point, which I seem to have to keep repeating for some unknown reason, is that just calling that type of DNA Sasquatch DNA is doesn't make it so. AGAIN, only a Sasquatch's DNA can a determine such a thing, or a match. So getting Sasquatch DNA from that large, hairy, 600 lbs. biped that lives in the woods should be of paramount importance- which, just in case no one has been listening, it IS. And that end goal cannot be stressed enough. You have a theory. You want to prove it? The only way to do that is doing just what I said, because simply labeling ancient African DNA as Sasquatch DNA is without the support of actual real Sasquatch DNA is a a senseless exercise. I see your point, Solvedit, but without Sasquatch DNA to prove your case, you've completely missed the boat any Sasquatch connections. Tell you what, go out into the woods, find a trackway that consists of large barefoot prints in the dead of winter, scoop out some samples, get them tested, and IF the results say novel North American primate, THEN compare them to you street dwellers. Other than that you a flag flipping in the breeze of confirmation bias. Notice, if you will, I have yet to call you a chairsquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 6 minutes ago, Solvedit said: I didn't say it was proof. It's more like a suggestion for a new direction. Because.......you may be looking in the wrong place. Suppose they only reach the woods when something extraordinary happens, like being sold to the mob. Sold to the mob??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 22 minutes ago, hiflier said: Yes, and my point is what does any of it have to do with Sasquatch discovery beyond speculating that street dwellers are Sasquatch hybrids?......... The testing that Dr. Margoryan conducted was specifically to address the question of whether or not Zana was an almas because her appearance, physical capabilities, and lifestyle matched the descriptions of an almas (and sasquatch) perfectly. Scientifically, through the scientific process that YOU are so hopeful will discover sasquatches, it was scientifically proven that she was a homo sapien "with issues" (as a forum member further posulated). Thus, with Solvedit's theory oerfectly aligned with Dr. Margoryan's results, we must accept the fact that sasquatch looking/behaving homo sapiens are running around out in the wilderness...........and within our societies. Quote .......Without Sasquatch DNA that determination is impossible beyond only THINKING that way........ Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to isolate "sasquatch" dna, and then get the Dr. Margoryan types to accept your label of "sasquatch dna". Quote .......Bottom line is that there is a very large, very powerful, fully-haired bipedal primate in the woods that may look like Zana or Patty. That's the DNA one needs....... But we've been there. Done that. It was homo sapien dna......"with issues". Quote .......DNA from the so-called street dwellers will not make that connection....... I have learned that all things are possible with God and Science, especially when the two are merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 15 minutes ago, Solvedit said: Forum, what do you do when you're stuck in one place like Hiflier? Fast for a few days and sleep on it? Whenever stuck, due to breakdown, deep mud, police arrest, or ideological wall, I begin work immediately to break free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, Solvedit said: Forum, what do you do when you're stuck in one place like Hiflier? Fast for a few days and sleep on it? Nope, one takes action. Problem is you're calling this African DNA that some of your ill-referenced street people possess is Sasquatch DNA and trying to force the Sasquatch fit. It doesn't work that way. That isn't science- it's speculation that leads nowhere. You think Sasquatch DNA lives on the street? Well there obviously is SOME kind of DNA there, but just CALLING it Sasquatch DNA doesn't make it so. That's my point. You think you can lead the discussion in that direction simply by using the word Sasquatch but such an amateurish attempt simply doesn't fly. You need The creature's DNA to compare to your target group's mystery DNA. THEN you can smile. Beyond that you haven't a leg to stand on. Or get Sasquatch DNA from that unrecognized species and compare it to what's in the GenBank. The mystery DNA is probably sitting there just waiting for the match you are proposing. Because in order to do the comparison, one needs to be able to have the DNA from the woods creature to match to your group. And there's only one way that I know of to accomplish that. You have one, now you need the other. Are you even listening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 16 minutes ago, hiflier said: .......My point, which I seem to have to keep repeating for some unknown reason, is that just calling that type of DNA Sasquatch DNA is doesn't make it so. AGAIN, only a Sasquatch's DNA can a determine such a thing, or a match....... Huh. That's the point I thought I was trying to get you to accept. Quote ......So getting Sasquatch DNA from that large, hairy, 600 lbs. biped that lives in the woods should be of paramount importance- which, just in case no one has been listening, it IS....... But in the case of Zana, that has occurred. Quote ......simply labeling ancient African DNA as Sasquatch DNA is without the support of actual real Sasquatch DNA is a a senseless exercise....... Wait! Somebody with authority just labeled the dna if a woman with perfect sasquatch qualifications as rare African homo sapien dna, and another forum member simply labeled that woman's remarkable and unique sasquatch characteristics as "issues". Haven't you been paying attention? 20 minutes ago, Solvedit said: ........How do you respond? Suppress science? I tend to push back, but then I'm accused of being a social Neanderthal, so I guess that proves your theory as well as a dna test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 13 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: Sold to the mob??? Escaped slave. Zana. Or cultural refugees like the Huntster, fleeing to a sub-Arctic wilderness, inly later to be surrounded by other cultural refugees who tend to like McDonalds more than bear meat. I have "issues"........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts