vinchyfoot Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 5 minutes ago, Huntster said: The fact that her DNA came back as 100% sub-Saharan African proves that she was "different" than the local population, even if her characteristics were exaggerated. That does nothing to exclude human however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 3 hours ago, vinchyfoot said: Okay so saying she existed, it's still more likely that she might just have been for lack of a better term, "not normal looking"?, deformity, any one of a number of possibilities that are more likely than Hunster's almasty flight of fantasy. Apparently you and MIB haven't understood my position. Due to the DNA paper published by Margoryan et al, I have come to accept the likelihood that Zana was a feral human. I also, however, harbor prejudice over all things "scientific", I always will, and I await the remote opportunity to attack the Margoryan premise. You are free to call that a "flight of fantasy" if you wish, but if you think that your opinion will make it go away, try holding your breath for a few years........please........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 2 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: That does nothing to exclude human however. Again, your simplistic use of the word "human" illustrates your poor grasp of the question. Neanderthals were humans. Denisovans were humans. Homo Erectus were humans. Homo floresiensis were humans. Homo Rudolphensis were humans. Zana was human. Almasty might be human. Sasquatch might be human. Even you might be human. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooly Booger Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 We should at least all agree, that there is no such thing as aliens. And therefore, Sasquatch cannot be an alien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Again, your simplistic use of the word "human" illustrates your poor grasp of the question. Neanderthals were humans. Denisovans were humans. Homo Erectus were humans. Homo floresiensis were humans. Homo Rudolphensis were humans. Zana was human. Almasty might be human. Sasquatch might be human. Even you might be human. Please yourself, you have no oroof alamasty are even real.... the others you mention were hominids, humans are human, the others are offshoots, their being human is oPen to OPINION, such as yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 55 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: .......... the others you mention were hominids, humans are human, the others are offshoots, their being human is oPen to OPINION, such as yours. "Science" (the same cabal that says that Zana was a Homo sapien) says that there were numerous human species. So it appears that you and I are both displeased, no? https://www.livescience.com/how-many-human-species.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 56 minutes ago, Huntster said: "Science" (the same cabal that says that Zana was a Homo sapien) says that there were numerous human species. So it appears that you and I are both displeased, no? https://www.livescience.com/how-many-human-species.html Your placing science in quotes is telling, care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 21 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: Your placing science in quotes is telling, care to elaborate? You first, please. "Science" (the same cabal that says that Zana was a Homo sapien) says that there were numerous human species. So it appears that you and I are both displeased, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 Science is a method...not a cabal. And also the Earth isnt flat. That response is VERY telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 18 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: Science is a method...not a cabal. And also the Earth isnt flat........ Science is an ideology. Those in control of science are a cabal. The Earth is not flat, but many of the beliefs on Earth are very flat. Quote .........That response is VERY telling. What does it tell you? Do you disagree with the scientific consensus that there have been several different human species? If so, how so? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 15 hours ago, Wooly Booger said: We should at least all agree, that there is no such thing as aliens. And therefore, Sasquatch cannot be an alien. The government has basically admitted that aliens are flying through our airspace at will. So in ufology what is real and what is not? Travis Walton? Betty and Barney Hill? Etc? Is there a connection to other phenomena? I used to say emphatically NO. But I can no longer say that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws#The_laws Magic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 14 minutes ago, Huntster said: Science is an ideology. Those in control of science are a cabal. The Earth is not flat, but many of the beliefs on Earth are very flat. What does it tell you? Do you disagree with the scientific consensus that there have been several different human species? If so, how so? No Science is a method that evolves. And I said they were human offshoots, ie hominids. You dont know for a fact nor can you prove they were identical to humans. Even if the DNA is 99.99999% the same theres still that difference. And once again the Earth isnt flat. You dont know what zana was either so maybe stop talking in alleged facts when all you have is opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxhill Posted April 2, 2022 BFF Patron Share Posted April 2, 2022 On 3/30/2022 at 5:40 AM, Grub-Girl said: Trying to get a handle on the general consensus of the community. I'm open minded about most explanations (including skepticism). Is it fair to say that generally people are looking for an undiscovered bipedal primate? Or, is there a lot of support for the 'mythical creature' explanations? At this point legend/myth/social construct IMO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 19 hours ago, Wooly Booger said: We should at least all agree, that there is no such thing as aliens. And therefore, Sasquatch cannot be an alien. We should all agree, that there are no such thing as sasquatches. And therefore aliens cannot be sasquatches. Unless of course you are a knower, then that would be an impossibility. I hate it when people speak in absolutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted April 2, 2022 Share Posted April 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, Doug said: We should all agree, that there are no such thing as sasquatches. And therefore aliens cannot be sasquatches. Unless of course you are a knower, then that would be an impossibility. I hate it when people speak in absolutes. Especially the whole Opinion as fact thing. The subject is 99% conjecture as it is, but having seen one, what I saw lends itself to a humanish whatsit that is very flesh and blood. All the cloaky mindspeak nephilhim crap without proof is a fantasy rabbit hole to nowhere. Aliens are an apple to the bigfoot orange, imo whole different subject. But again, life elsewhere in the universe verse bug eyed greys invented by popular culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts