Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[norseman]

How many nano grams is a 800 lbs carcass? Im guessing it’s in the millions. Maybe more.

 

Im pretty good with a hunting knife.

 

How many DNA samples could I send out? Probably more samples than the government could intercept?
 

The amazing thing about truth? Is that it always eventually shines the spotlight on the lie.

 

Roswell was a flying saucer, and then it was a weather balloon, and then it was a secret nuclear test balloon, and then it was a crash dummy balloon…. And now it’s looking like it was a real flying saucer again. There is even alien manufactured material that has surfaced. 
 

 

 

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, Twist said:

.........Keep in mind I don’t believe in the Swatsquatch  unit or the government intercepting DNA samples........

 

Me, neither. I believe that sasquatch dna test results come back as "human" because sasquatches are.........human. 

 

And, yet again, that is precisely why government want them to remain a myth.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

......For those who believe any version of #3 I am just trying to have a little fun and mean no offense.........  

 

I'll take this version of Door #3, Alex, because similar events appear to have happened before:

 

Quote

........SHOOTS and KILLS BIGFOOT  ----->   announces he killed one   ----->  Media sensation  ------>   government officials show up arrest him.   They take the body--->  before charges are brought they tell him he will cooperate with a government cover-up and they will reward him for it.  If he does not, he will go to prison. ----> government enacts their premade plan -should bigfoot ever be shot- to declare the matter a hoax.   They man gets on TV and admits (to save his own skin) the bigfoot things was a hoax ----->  .........

 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

........what could explain the motivation for our government to want or need to keep Bigfoot's existence quiet?   ........

 

1) Bigfoot, whether a human species or not, would be a royal PITA to manage, which falls 100% on government, and Bigfoot is not taxable......ie, Bigfoot management funding come directly out of their current kitty.

 

2) If Bigfoot is a human species (which I'm pretty sure they are, or at least can be after the lawyers get on it), the management nightmare grows to epic proportions over just a rare, endangered ape. They will have basic human rights. If you don't think we already have enough problems with that around the globe, consider adding another human species to the boiling cauldron.

 

3) It's already international law. The U.N. already has a law recognizing the right of "uncontacted people" to remain uncontacted if they exhibit that desire, which sasquatches clearly do. In this regard, the U.S., Canada, Russia, Chiba, Australia, India, etc are simply honoring existing international law.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

 

Quote

........Recognizing the myriad problems with contact, the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2009[9] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2013[7] introduced guidelines and recommendations that included a right to choose self-isolation.[22][12]..........

 

4) Keeping sasquatches as a myth clearly helps keep human pressure off of them. It is best for them if mankind remains ignorant of their existence and location. 

 

I'm pretty confident that there are more good reasons for government to keep this mum. 

[norseman]

I reject that Patty was Homo Sapiens. She is not our species. It’s debatable on the genus. Either way her DNA should be very easily discernible from a modern Human. Unless, there is foul play.

[hiflier]

33 minutes ago, norseman said:

I reject that Patty was Homo Sapiens. She is not our species. It’s debatable on the genus. Either way her DNA should be very easily discernible from a modern Human. Unless, there is foul play.

 

Absolutely agree. And even if Homo? Not nearly as genetically close as Neanderthal (202 base pairs different) or Denisovan (about 600 base pair differences for Denisovan-1, and around 300 for Denisovan-3).

 

Chimps are 1,600+base pairs away from us. My best guess is for the Sasquatch to be 900-1100 base pairs different. Genetically advanced Homo compared to Chimps, but still won't have our mutated brain genes. That profile seems to fit the creature's mannerisms, actions, and characteristics best. As a highly robust species in size, shape, and mobility, it still lacks our level of cognition. And, although they've had millions of years to get to where we are today brain-wise, they simple haven't arrived. Which is why we are the ones typing these posts and they aren't. They have a long, long way to go- if they ever get here at all.

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Thank you Inc1. One more point to mention and that is what is called phenotyping, which is grouping organisms into a category based on their looks. It can sometimes end up quite wrong. For instance, Pandas may look like bears but they are actually in the raccoon family. Sasquatches may have our general look and posture but, as Norseman said, maybe a completely different genus. Like perhaps another genus like Gorillas are another genus. Pandas look like bears. Sasquatches look like Humans- doesn't mean they are. The caveat, of course, is that there in "Human" DNA out there that has a pile of anomalous mutations. i.e., Looks very much like Human DNA....but different enough to not be Sapiens. Norseman's on the right road with his line of thinking, and the results in that chart would seem to back it up.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

........it still lacks our level of cognition. And, although they've had millions of years to get to where we are today brain-wise, they simple haven't arrived. Which is why we are the ones typing these posts and they aren't. They have a long, long way to go- if they ever get here at all.

 

As intelligent as we think we are, they're essentially laughing at us right now. I suspect they don't want to be here, and I often wonder if here is a good place to be.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

I reject that Patty was Homo Sapiens. She is not our species..........

 

Do you accept the Zana dna test analysis? Because her description matched Patty exceedingly well:

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm

 

Quote

........Her skin was black, or dark grey, and her whole body covered with reddish-black hair. The hair on her head was tousled and thick, hanging mane-like down her back. 

She could not speak, over decades that she lived with people, Zana did not learn a single Abkhaz word; she only made inarticulate sounds and mutterings, and cries when irritated. But she reacted to her name, carried out commands given by her master and was scared when he shouted at her. And this despite the fact that she was very tall, massive and broad, with huge breasts and buttocks, muscular arms and legs, and fingers that were longer and thicker than human fingers. She could splay her toes widely and move apart the big toe. 

From remembered descriptions given to Mashkovtsev and Porshnev, her face was terrifying; broad, with high cheekbones, flat nose, turned out nostrils, muzzle-like jaws, wide mouth with large teeth, low forehead, and eyes of a reddish tinge. But the most frightening feature was her expression which was purely animal, not human. Sometimes, she would give a spontaneous laugh, baring those big white teeth of hers. The latter were so strong that she easily cracked the hardest walnuts. 

She lived for many years without showing any change: no grey hair, no falling teeth, keeping strong and fit as ever. Her athletic power was enormous. She would outrun a horse, and swim across the wild Mokva River even when it rose in violent high tide. Seemingly without effort she lifted with one hand an eighty-kilo sack of flour and carried it uphill from the water-mill to the village. She climbed trees to get fruit, and to gorge herself with grapes she would pull down a whole vine growing around the tree. She ate whatever was offered to her, including hominy and meat, with bare hands and enormous gluttony. She loved wine, and was allowed her fill, after which she would sleep for hours in a swoonlike state. 

She liked to lie in a cool pool side by side with buffalos. At night she used to roam the surrounding hills. She wielded big sticks against dogs and on other perilous occasions. She had a curious obsession for playing with stones, knocking one against another and splitting them. 

She took swims the year round, and preferred to walk naked even in winter, tearing dresses that she was given into shreds...........

 

 

[norseman]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

 

Do you accept the Zana dna test analysis? Because her description matched Patty exceedingly well:

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm

 

 

 

Exceedingly?

 

Did Patty have hair hanging down her back?

 

Humans are the only great apes in which our scalp hair never stops growing. All other great apes have the same length hair everywhere on their body. Gorillas or Chimps or Orangs would never open hair salons or invent rollers.

 

Patty? Had head hair the same length as the rest of her body, like a non human ape. Zana based on the description? Exhibits head hair like any Homo Sapiens.

 

 

[Huntster]

28 minutes ago, norseman said:

Exceedingly?.........

 

Yup.

 

Quote

.........Did Patty have hair hanging down her back?........

 

It doesn't look like it, but there are lots of reports of sasquatches with "manes" on the backs of their heads and even forearms. Maybe all those sasquatches are human, like Zana? Or maybe sasquatches are like humans (not gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs) in that some are hairier than others?

 

Quote

.........Patty? Had head hair the same length as the rest of her body, like a non human ape. Zana based on the description? Exhibits head hair like any Homo Sapiens.

 

The rest of Zana's description is a dead ringer, and if it's just the longer head hair that you're working the jury over, that's a pretty weak position just in comparison to Zana's other attributes. When you combine her 6'6" height, being covered in hair, great strength, preference to live outside with no clothes in freezing weather, and even swimming in rivers in winter, etc.........she is a perfect model of a female sasquatch, but with homo sapien dna.

 

So your science gods insist that creatures that look so much like sasquatches are people. That's pretty much a slam dunk, isn't it? Science says it, so it must be true. To borrow a phrase written by another forum member, Patty must just be a feral woman "with issues".

[norseman]

13 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Yup.

 

 

It doesn't look like it, but there are lots of reports of sasquatches with "manes" on the backs of their heads and even forearms. Maybe all those sasquatches are human, like Zana? Or maybe sasquatches are like humans (not gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs) in that some are hairier than others?

 

 

The rest of Zana's description is a dead ringer, and if it's just the longer head hair that you're working the jury over, that's a pretty weak position just in comparison to Zana's other attributes. When you combine her 6'6" height, being covered in hair, great strength, preference to live outside with no clothes in freezing weather, and even swimming in rivers in winter, etc.........she is a perfect model of a female sasquatch, but with homo sapien dna.

 

So your science gods insist that creatures that look so much like sasquatches are people. That's pretty much a slam dunk, isn't it? Science says it, so it must be true. To borrow a phrase written by another forum member, Patty must just be a feral woman "with issues".

What reports have Sasquatch with long head hair?

 

William Roe

Fred Beck

Bauman

Albert Ostman

 

None of them report long hair.

I’ve never seen a picture of Zana. 6 ft 6 inches doesn’t seem that big. She isn’t much bigger than me.
 

How long was her foot?

 

Admittedly I don’t know as much about Zana as you do. But I don’t hear reports of Sasquatch with long locks. And Patty is NOT human. Jim McClarin is 6’6” tall and she made him look like a matchstick. Patty is outside the parameters of a human female. IMHO.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

I'm not splitting hairs when I say that Zana was 100% Human according to her DNA, that means she was genus Homo. But NOT Homo Sapiens and nowhere in the literature does it say that she was. Read this section of Dr. Bryan Sykes' book Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal: A Geneticist's Search for Modern Apemen:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=uoRNCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=was+zana+homo+sapiens&source=bl&ots=jg_Itbm-sI&sig=ACfU3U2s_OkYZx_pq_BSdDL6Y15FI2C_LA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzyqPshNr7AhVPkokEHbahBHE4ChDoAXoECBMQAw#v=onepage&q=was zana homo sapiens&f=false

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by hiflier

[norseman]

46 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I'm not splitting hairs when I say that Zana was 100% Human according to her DNA, that means she was genus Homo. But NOT Homo Sapiens and nowhere in the literature does it say that she was. Read this section of Dr. Bryan Sykes' book Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal: A Geneticist's Search for Modern Apemen:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=uoRNCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=was+zana+homo+sapiens&source=bl&ots=jg_Itbm-sI&sig=ACfU3U2s_OkYZx_pq_BSdDL6Y15FI2C_LA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzyqPshNr7AhVPkokEHbahBHE4ChDoAXoECBMQAw#v=onepage&q=was zana homo sapiens&f=false

 

I think it says it right in your own link. Sykes asks the question and then goes on to talk about her African roots as a Homo Sapiens per Kwits DNA tooth test. Zana was a Homo Sapiens.

[hiflier]

I think not. Both sections in the link say "was zana homo sapiens." It's why I asked to actually read the section that the link goes to.