Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[Huntster]

49 minutes ago, Huntster said:

.........But it remains a dog.

 

Mrs. Huntster (who still looks great in a dress, but can't walk in high heels, and doesn't wear them.......is she still Homo sapien.......or a woman?) just recounted a standard poodle female we had years ago. This was an incredibly smart dig, but she couldn't hunt (was she still a dog?). Not long after she was adopted ubto our Homo sapien family, she found an unguarded package of hamburger thawing on the kitchen counter, stole it, and ate it all. Before the crime was detected and the detective work even began, she came to Mrs. Huntster and exhibited signs of guilt........to the point that Mrs. Huntster suspected wrongdoing, went into the kitchen, and discovered the crime.

 

Guilt. Did this creature eat if the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Was this truly a dog? Does her behavior determine her species, or does her dna genetics determine that? Since she was every bit as different from an Akita as she was from a red fox, are they all "dogs"? Are Labrador Retrievers a different species than a Pomeranian? Are Labrador Retrievers (just one of several Retrievers) of a different genus than Toy Class dogs like Pomeranians? 

 

Looks to me like you have a lot to work out there, Buddy. You might need to have a heart to heart reconciliation with a priest of Science on these kinds of questions.

 

Good luck with that.

[norseman]

And here is the rub. We specifically point out the reasons that Patty cannot be a man in a suit.

 

1) Size

2) Midtarsal break

3) forward slung face

4) longer arms

5) Compliant gait

6) sloped head.

 

So IF Patty is a Homo Sapien? Then obviously you think the PGF is a hoax?

 

Here is Bill Munns very eloquently pointing out the differences in morphology between Patty and Homo Sapiens……

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

7 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Mrs. Huntster (who still looks great in a dress, but can't walk in high heels, and doesn't wear them.......is she still Homo sapien.......or a woman?) just recounted a standard poodle female we had years ago. This was an incredibly smart dig, but she couldn't hunt (was she still a dog?). Not long after she was adopted ubto our Homo sapien family, she found an unguarded package of hamburger thawing on the kitchen counter, stole it, and ate it all. Before the crime was detected and the detective work even began, she came to Mrs. Huntster and exhibited signs of guilt........to the point that Mrs. Huntster suspected wrongdoing, went into the kitchen, and discovered the crime.

 

Guilt. Did this creature eat if the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Was this truly a dog? Does her behavior determine her species, or does her dna genetics determine that? Since she was every bit as different from an Akita as she was from a red fox, are they all "dogs"? Are Labrador Retrievers a different species than a Pomeranian? Are Labrador Retrievers (just one of several Retrievers) of a different genus than Toy Class dogs like Pomeranians? 

 

Looks to me like you have a lot to work out there, Buddy. You might need to have a heart to heart reconciliation with a priest of Science on these kinds of questions.

 

Good luck with that.

🤦🏻‍♂️ Can we please leave religion out of it? Science is not my God. It’s a tool.

 

 

[Huntster]

1 minute ago, norseman said:

........PATTY WILL NOT PASS AS A HUMAN WOMAN EVEN IF YOU PUT HER IN WOMANS CLOTHING!!!!!........

 

Of course she won't. That isn't the question, although that's where you insist we box ourselves........and where YOU have boxed YOURSELF. The "science" is the genetics, not the outdated opinions on what a dog vrs a fox is. If sasquatch dna continues to come back as "human" (and also universally as "too degraded to determine species"), they're human, either Homo sapien or Homo SomethingElse.

 

And if you insist that it's Homo Hoaxter, you end up with being the victim of a generational hoax.

 

And if you continue to Ketchum the analysts, you'll end up with fewer analysts willing to look at the data.

 

Quote

.......Show me a video of Zana walking across a sand bar? Show me Zana’s skeleton? Show me a picture of Zana? No? Then do me a favor and leave Zana out of it.........

 

Ask Margaryan what he sees in the PG film. I'll openly challenge you to a reasonable, gentleman's wager:

 

I'll bet you $100 that he says Patty is a man (Homo sapien) in a suit.

 

Now, show me the results of a dna study on Patty. Or leave Patty out of it.

 

See how that works? I sure do.........

 

Quote

........Your trying to shoe horn a crackpot DNA study to say THIS is a Homo Sapien.........

 

Are you accusing Margaryan of being a crackpot?

 

Quote

.........PATTY IS NOT HOMO SAPIEN.........

 

Doesn't look like she is to me. But I'm not a priest of Science, either.

 

But she very much looks like a member of the genus Homo, which makes her human by definition. the lack of a dress and high heels notwithstanding.......

[hiflier]

Good arguments (Patty in high heels, LOL) but can we now get back on topic, please? This is about the Washington nests and their DNA test results coming back genus Homo against what actually happened at the nest site BEFORE the timber cruiser ever showed up there. And so. On that specific subject? The following IS on topic:

 

Let's take it a step further. We already know that the reported nest sample DNA results came back Human. But the details surrounding the site, the nests, and the materials used to construct them along with how the material was harvested are not really a modern Human would go about doing what was done. So. If TPTB in BF community would be so obtuse as to not explain that the results showed only Humans of some kind were responsible for nest construction at that location, then are they holding back on any DNA evidence that another primate genus of some kind was actually there and actually did the work? Would they honestly do such a thing like hide the fact that there WAS Sasquatches there and their DNA was left there? Would they just keep any knowledge of that discovery from the community?

 

Is that why the raw data from the sample results havn't been made available? So that can't nothing can be independently reviewed? If that's the case, then Dr. Disotell, who ran the samples while at NYU (but is no longer there), is either sitting on the truth, or has 'given/was forced to give' the data to the government-never to be seen again. Is there anyone in the community, outside of the secret circle, who has the courage to access any information regarding what is really going on?

 

Isn't this an intriguing thread? It is as long as I keep the focus where it belongs and not on the distractions and side tangents. Is anyone waking up yet? Because we have a serious problem here. Or will any efforts to at squash such investigative dialogue continue? A friend here recently brought up money and power where the truth about the nest discovery is concerned. Any takers? 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Of course she won't. That isn't the question, although that's where you insist we box ourselves........and where YOU have boxed YOURSELF. The "science" is the genetics, not the outdated opinions on what a dog vrs a fox is. If sasquatch dna continues to come back as "human" (and also universally as "too degraded to determine species"), they're human, either Homo sapien or Homo SomethingElse.

 

And if you insist that it's Homo Hoaxter, you end up with being the victim of a generational hoax.

 

And if you continue to Ketchum the analysts, you'll end up with fewer analysts willing to look at the data.

 

 

Ask Margaryan what he sees in the PG film. I'll openly challenge you to a reasonable, gentleman's wager:

 

I'll bet you $100 that he says Patty is a man (Homo sapien) in a suit.

 

Now, show me the results of a dna study on Patty. Or leave Patty out of it.

 

See how that works? I sure do.........

 

 

Are you accusing Margaryan of being a crackpot?

 

 

Doesn't look like she is to me. But I'm not a priest of Science, either.

 

But she very much looks like a member of the genus Homo, which makes her human by definition. the lack of a dress and high heels notwithstanding.......

Im accusing Ketchum of being a crackpot. And I said Patty is not Homo Sapien.

 

It’s tough to debate you when you move the goal posts to suit your own argument. 

[hiflier]

9 minutes ago, norseman said:

Im accusing Ketchum of being a crackpot. And I said Patty is not Homo Sapien.

 

It’s tough to debate you when you move the goal posts to suit your own argument. 

 

Well I'M not moving any goal posts but they still apparently are just too tough to find and kick though.

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, norseman said:

And here is the rub. We specifically point out the reasons that Patty cannot be a man in a suit.

 

1) Size

2) Midtarsal break

3) forward slung face

4) longer arms

5) Compliant gait

6) sloped head.........

 

1) Zana was described as 6'6" tall, huge, and covered in reddish-black hair. That combination alone in a Homo sapien woman defies statistics. You've shown me a pic of a very tall/large woman. Now show me one of a woman who can swim raging rivers, run as fast as a horse in a short sprint, and is covered with hair.

 

2) The mid-tarsal foot morphology remains unproven, despite all the evidence otherwise. Moreover, Zana's foot morphology was described as amazing, but mostly regarding her toes.

 

3) Zana's face was specifically described as that if an animal, not human at all

 

4) Zana's arms weren't described as ling, inly stronger than that of a man

 

5) Zana's gait was undescribed

 

6) Zana's head shape was undescribed

 

Quote

.........So IF Patty is a Homo Sapien? Then obviously you think the PGF is a hoax?

 

I don't say that Patty is Homo sapien. I say that the evidence leans strongly towards Patty being human. I do not believe that the film is a hoax.

 

I believe that current science of taxonomy, especially that regarding humanity, is full of bullspit.

22 minutes ago, norseman said:

🤦🏻‍♂️ Can we please leave religion out of it? Science is not my God. It’s a tool.

 

 

 

If you treat it as a religion, it becomes a religion. Belief has a limit within Science.

[norseman]

13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Well I'M not moving any goal posts but they still apparently are just too tough to find and kick though.

 

Why do you pick on me all the time? Ok I will leave your thread alone.👍

[Huntster]

13 minutes ago, norseman said:

Im accusing Ketchum of being a crackpot..........

 

Her results of 111 samples submitted as sasquatch dna reported genus Homo results. Margaryan's results of Zana, close to Sykes, reported Zana (a known specimen whose description was strikingly close to what we see in the PG film, and who defies comparison within the world of Homo sapiens, currently or historically) as Homo sapien. 

 

Quote

........And I said Patty is not Homo Sapien.......

 

And I say that Patty is genus Homo, based upon all the dna work thus far attempted within sasquatchery.

 

Quote

.......It’s tough to debate you when you move the goal posts to suit your own argument. 

 

I'm not playing football. I'm playing Science. 

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, norseman said:

Why do you pick on me all the time? Ok I will leave your thread alone.👍

 

I only do when you bob and weave to avoid direct discussion. Leave if you must but you're more than welcome to stay if you can keep to the points of the discussion which are critical to the elevation of this community to the truth. And that truth is that the scientists we supposedly are to respect have bobbed and weaved themselves rather than give this community the whole story on what finding ONLY Human DNA at the nest site really means. I've done my best to explain what it means. If you don't see the importance of that then fine but it doesn't change the truth behind what those test results are saying. Humans were there before the timber cruiser showed up. Period.....unless either the Sasquatch was there and it's DNA/genus was not revealed? Or it's Human? Or only modern Humans were responsible. None of those options have ever been discussed and Disotell and Meldrum certainly haven't gone out of there way to clarify any of it.

 

GAMES, Norseman, games perpetrated on the community. Anyone and everyone should see that by now.

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I only do when you bob and weave to avoid direct discussion. Leave if you must but you're more than welcome to stay if you can keep to the points of the discussion which are critical to the elevation of this community to the truth. And that truth is that the scientists we supposedly are to respect have bobbed and weaved themselves rather than give this community the whole story on what finding ONLY Human DNA at the nest site really means. I've done my best to explain what it means. If you don't see the importance of that then fine but it doesn't change the truth behind what those test results are saying. Humans were there before the timber cruiser showed up. Period.....unless either the Sasquatch was there and it's DNA/genus was not revealed? Or it's Human? Or only modern Humans were responsible. None of those options have ever been discussed and Disotell and Meldrum certainly haven't gone out of there way to clarify any of it.

 

GAMES, Norseman, games perpetrated on the community. Anyone and everyone should see that by now.

 

You called me a secret agent…🤦🏻‍♂️ And I bob and weave?

 

I am mainly addressing Huntster in this thread because as you said this thread is useless. It’s ran its course. So I am trying to explain to him why anecdotal stories about Zana are not on the same footing as the Patterson Gimlin film. And why Bill Munns definitely does NOT think Patty is a Homo Sapien in a suit. 

 

Do you scold Huntster? No. Why? I guess because he supports your position that Bigfoot is a Homo Sapien? You both do!
 

That’s where this thread is RIGHT NOW.

 

It’s completely germane to the question at hand on what built the nests and what that means for DNA going forward.

 

🤷‍♂️

[Huntster]

29 minutes ago, norseman said:

Why do you pick on me all the time?........

 

He's debating, just like you and I. Defending his position, just like scientists do. 

 

If you don't like his theories, you can always try to stop his "publication", like they tried to do with Ketchum. She simply did an end-around, but (of course) that was a violation of their rules. 

 

The end result was almost the same:

 

They discredited her theory of hybrid human by simply destroying its validity exactly like they did Galileo (attacking his violation of their rules of presentation)..........but they failed completely to destroy the growing evidence that these things are human (of the genus Homo). Moreover, with Margaryan's "proof" that Zana was Homo sapien, they are further boxed in to it.......indeed, even tighter. They must posit that Zana's description was embellished (which you just did), and must rule that Patty is a man (Homo sapien) in a suit.

 

They have no other recourse. No other retreats. 

 

Unless they go with the extraterrestrial escape hatch............

[norseman]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

He's debating, just like you and I. Defending his position, just like scientists do. 

 

If you don't like his theories, you can always try to stop his "publication", like they tried to do with Ketchum. She simply did an end-around, but (of course) that was a violation of their rules. 

 

The end result was almost the same:

 

They discredited her theory of hybrid human by simply destroying its validity exactly like they did Galileo (attacking his violation of their rules of presentation)..........but they failed completely to destroy the growing evidence that these things are human (of the genus Homo). Moreover, with Margaryan's "proof" that Zana was Homo sapien, they are further boxed in to it.......indeed, even tighter. They must posit that Zana's description was embellished (which you just did), and must rule that Patty is a man (Homo sapien) in a suit.

 

They have no other recourse. No other retreats. 

 

Unless they go with the extraterrestrial escape hatch............

No. No he has scolded me repeatedly for debating the WRONG SUBJECT…..

 

Has he scolded you?🤔

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, norseman said:

.........I am mainly addressing Huntster in this thread because as you said this thread is useless. It’s ran its course. So I am trying to explain to him why anecdotal stories about Zana are not on the same footing as the Patterson Gimlin film........

 

And I agree......but Science does not. Both are discredited.

 

Quote

........And why Bill Munns definitely does NOT think Patty is a Homo Sapien in a suit.........

 

Do you posit that Bill has not been attacked in every which way, including Sunday? 

 

Quote

........Do you scold Huntster? No. Why? I guess because he supports your position that Bigfoot is a Homo Sapien? You both do!........

 

Your complete misunderstanding of our positions illustrate a fascinating phenomena in and of itself. It's a reading disability not based on reading comprehension, but ideological acceptance.