Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Prove to me that Zana was a Almas and not just a run of the mill Homo Sapien woman.........

 

Those who knew her said she was an almas, and she fit the description. Her DNA proves her to be Homo sapien.

 

Quote

........With a dead Sasquatch I could raise 80k in about 30 seconds.👍

 

Maybe so, if $80K would cover your legal costs. I doubt it would. My $80K legal dispute was a run-of-the-mill real estate lawsuit. Two days in court, one deposition.

 

I wouldn't want the fame alone. You'd never get your privacy back. Ask Bob Gimlin and his wife what that's worth.

[norseman]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Start a thread. This one is about Human DNA showing genus Homo being found at the nest site and what the implications are. It's amazing that so few have chimed in here and addressed that.

And also whether or not anyone thinks Sasquatch built the nests. After all, Sasquatch is only a label. Start think seriously about this folks.

 

Was even a tarp found in there? A tent? Any sign of Human activity or did Humans just come and go the same way that everyone else did in order to access the site? Any litter? A latrine? Tools for cutting huckleberry bushes? Nests in various stages if decay. Bear poop everywhere. Was there one shred of evidence outside of Human DNA in the soil to sy that modern people made the nests? There was still greenery on some of the twigs in the nest. No lean-to's other shelter of any kind? Did someone, or several someones just up and leave when they heard the timber cruiser threading his way through the thickets and wall of huckleberries? Did he hear anyone make a bunch of noise as they were leaving?

 

The area immediately surrounding the nests was not cleared back. Why not? Having no tools didn't seem to stop the site being recently occupied. Very secretive people evidently. Found their way miles behind locked gates and said, "Gee, this looks like a good spot." as they thrash their way in and out of the overgrowth. So I don't care about Zana or Homo Erectus or the incessant ten year old (that I know of) debate about shooting one. I care about the nest site and what the evidence shows about who and what was there. Period. Can we all just get back on board with that, please?

 

As Twist succinctly put it? The implications are that Homo Sapiens built the nests.🤷🏻‍♂️

 

And I was building shelters and nests way way back behind locked gates on Boise Cascade lands when I was 10 years old. No tarps, no litter…. Not difficult.

 

I will not start a new thread. Later.

 

 

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

.......I was building shelters and nests way way back behind locked gates on Boise Cascade lands when I was 10 years old. No tarps, no litter…. Not difficult..........

 

Why were you building nests?

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Why were you building nests?

To sleep on. If it wasn't raining which was more common in NE Washington I wouldn't bother with a lean to. 
 

My packing list as a kid was:

 

Ruger 10/22

Case knife

Army blanket

Some canned food.

 

I cut small fir boughs, made a pallet and pulled the army blanket over me.

 

When I got older (teens) I could afford a pup tent, back pack and sleeping bag.

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, norseman said:

I cut small fir boughs, made a pallet and pulled the army blanket over me.

 

When I got older (teens) I could afford a pup tent, back pack and sleeping bag.

Sounds like a typical HUMAN camp. No cut boughs, branches, or stems at the nest site. You know, I have given details of what was there and have asked questions about those details and no one has addressed them. And the quote above is demonstrating the exact opposite of the details that I wrote. But this is what happens when denial enters the picture. The salient points that get presented......get ignored. So you wrote about your own personal details to what? Get people to thing that it somehow explains and proves that modern Humans built the nests? Because as far as I can see it's apples and oranges and your activities as a kid have NOTHING to do with the Nests in Washington.

 

Try again because you're smart and I know you can do better. Unless of course you are purposely trying to steer my arguments away from....my arguments and at the same time not ADDRESSING my arguments. Because if you can't or won't then maybe you think that the Olympic Project and Drs. Meldrum and Disotell were idiots to think that what was discovered was anything unique outside of your own personal childhood camping experiences?

 

Unless you think you could have gone onto that private timberland with no tools and no supplies and duplicated what was found, how it was found, and the habitat that it was found in.

 

[hiflier]

Here's TWO questions that I've seen no one ask in the discussion of whether or not modern Humans built the nests. 1) the greenery was fresh so why wasn't there undegraded Human DNA collected? Is it because the samples were frozen for a year and a half before they got tested? Moisture? Because Dr. Disotell said that the samples were degraded from moisture and freezing. And 2), why more than one recently built nest. The Olympic Project reported that they found 5 or 6 nests. Then went on to discover 15-16 more in various stages of decay. So again, no litter over the years? No debris whatsoever left behind by modern Humans over the years?

 

Why don't members here ask these kinds of questions? Is there no critical thinking here by anyone? No critical questions asked. The ones I have been asking, in order to be valid, would have to be asked in context with EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of the nest site taken into consideration as a whole picture. NOT mentally or publicly cherry picked as individual points of debate or discussion. So I have to ask, if this is a discussion Forum then just where is the discussion on these points. Or have I made such an incredibly air tight argument that no one has anything more to say that directly impacts the discussion about who or what made the nests?

 

Is the discussion over? At an end? No more opinions related to the complete picture of the nest subject when ALL details are presented within that picture? Does anyone still think that the conclusion to the mystery still has two possibilities? Or only one? There's no doubt that the builders were Human. Let me give you only one of my larger thoughts: The DNA was NOT degraded! Because if it was and so was inconclusive then why hasn't the raw data of the test results been made available? Someone I know contributed to the cost of testing but hasn't had access to that data. Why not? Personally, I don't know why not, but what I do know is that it's time for the Bigfoot Community to stop getting jerked around and the big influencers to start telling the truth about that nest find.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

.........I cut small fir boughs, made a pallet and pulled the army blanket over me.

 

When I got older (teens) I could afford a pup tent, back pack and sleeping bag.

 

I almost never build a nest to sleep on, even when I don't bring a bedroll, which is when I'm on a multi-day march. I would sleep on piled up leaves or in winter on a pallet of sticks. However, your practice (as rare as it is/was) does illustrate tye point:

 

Whatever built that nest was of the genus Homo, because that is the only creature in North America within the natural and fossil record which builds nests of that type. Bear nests are used for hibernation and are within a natural shelter. 

 

I'd like to bring forward a post I made three years ago that almost mirrors hifliers recent posts here:

 

Quote

..........I hate to be the linguist/lawyer type, but this kind of language is a huge part of the problem with regard to the cryptid hominins. 

 

Modern: "relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past."

 

Human: "Of the genus Homo, of which Homo sapiens is the only extant human species."

 

Neanderthals were modern humans. Denisovans were modern humans. You and I are modern humans. If sasquatches, almas, almasties, yerens, etc are discovered and (most likely) decided are of the genus Homo, they will also be modern humans. All of these are different species. Thus, if Sykes is saying that Zana was "100% Homo sapien", that is the term he should have used.........but he didn't............

 

 

[MIB]

57 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Why don't members here ask these kinds of questions? Is there no critical thinking here by anyone? No critical questions asked.

 

Wrong.   The questions have been asked, the implication considered.   You seem to be equating lack of clear evidence of H.S.S. as proof it was bigfoot.   That is a leap too far, it is equivalent to citing lack of proof as proof of lack.   That is false logic.   

 

I think it is very possible the nests were bigfoot-created.   I just don't believe we have conclusive evidence, aka "proof", in EITHER direction, "us" vs "them".   So .. unknown .. which means UNKNOWN.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

NOT wrong, MIB. And you're putting words in my mouth. How many times have I asked here who or what built the nests? I'd really apprecitae you not slanting the really good evidence we have is relatively meaningless when it comes to drawing conclusions about what I'm saying. Because All I've done is present the evidence available and some of that evidence, in the way we were given it makes no scientifically accurate sense. And I think we DO have the right kind of evidence for stating that. The truth is not being given to us.

 

Everything I've studied regarding these nest discoveries says there a lot more to it than we are being told, which includes the DNA report we've been given. And I've built the strongest case possible to date that underscores that. All this Forum has ever done is water down, dismiss, and otherwise ignore evidence in this case because it would make too mush trouble for some key people who get propped up as having the final word on the nest discovery's DNA outcome with regard to the details at the nest site itself. There is a real disconnect on that. But I haven't seen one member here call it out. Not one. No one at the top, and no one at the bottom.

 

59 minutes ago, MIB said:

I just don't believe we have conclusive evidence, aka "proof", in EITHER direction, "us" vs "them".   So .. unknown .. which means UNKNOWN.

Wrong...it's unknown to us because I don't think for a minute that we are being told the whole truth. Why? Because the DNA samples may have been too degraded to show a novel primate but not to degraded to show a novel Human. Because that to me would be an impossibility because mtDNA shows GENUS. and primate is FAMILY. People need to have some backbone and stop kowtowing to whatever these experts dish out. They are NOT telling the whole truth regarding what that DNA is actually saying. And anyone with a negative comment had better have a darn good reason, and not just an opinion, for posting it. I have fact and science going here so argue the discussion with fact and science. Not opinion and anecdotes.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

58 minutes ago, MIB said:

........it is equivalent to citing lack of proof as proof of lack..........

 

LOL! Lack of proof IS proof of lack, both are the universal realities of this phenomenon, they are being used like tools, and it will remain so.

 

Quote

.........I think it is very possible the nests were bigfoot-created.........

 

The question is, "What is a bigfoot", and that answer will not be forthcoming despite the "magic" (yeah, correct word) of DNA. The day they say, "It was Homo sapien DNA", the next question (which they don't want to hear) is going to be, "Who was it?" 

 

When that finally happens, we'll then be on the last carnival ride.

[MIB]

25 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Wrong...it's unknown to us because I don't think for a minute that we are being told the whole truth. Why?

 

but you can't PROVE that either ... can you?   Certainly have not done so so far.   You've argued for it but arguing for a thing is not proving the thing nor is claiming you've proven something the same as actually proving it.   The difference is wishful thinking at best, self deception at worst.

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

The day they say, "It was Homo sapien DNA", the next question (which they don't want to hear) is going to be, "Who was it?" 

 

When that finally happens, we'll then be on the last carnival ride.

And that's what this is all about by presenting the details FOUND at the site as well as the lack of imprecise scientific details regarding the DNA results. Something is really wrong with the picture that we are left with.

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, MIB said:

but you can't PROVE that either ... can you?   Certainly have not done so so far.

Impossible to do when emails don't get answered, MIB. Try it sometime.

 

12 minutes ago, MIB said:

You've argued for it but arguing for a thing is not proving the thing nor is claiming you've proven something the same as actually proving it.   The difference is wishful thinking at best, self deception at worst.

That is so insulting after everything I've presented as to not deserve a retort. I could just as easily fault you for not thinking clearly regarding the points I've brought up, or simply outright ignoring them an the usual effort to diffuse their importance and calm things down. Too bad it's such a worn out and obvious pattern around here by those who fight hard to have everything stay nice and harmless. Perpetuating a sleepy community, even in the face of facts, seems to be job one around here and more important than much in the way of pursuing logical efforts at getting the truth. Especially where these nests and who controls the true information on them is concerned.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Here's the bottom line to all of this, folks. The truth of all of it. That degraded Human DNA would've showed a novel Human no matter what condition it was in. Period. And that's the information, WITHOUT QUESTION, that is being kept under wraps. And I really appreciate members of this Forum doing nothing about it. My emails get ghosted. I'm stuck with simply presenting the facts that are available to make a case. Well, I've made the case. Now what? Walk away like everyone else here has done? Because the truth of it is I CAN'T walk away while thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions even, of believers are intentionally kept in the dark. And everyone here from the top on down knows it.

 

There's nothing more I can say or do here. Nor do I care to.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I almost never build a nest to sleep on, even when I don't bring a bedroll, which is when I'm on a multi-day march. I would sleep on piled up leaves or in winter on a pallet of sticks. However, your practice (as rare as it is/was) does illustrate tye point:

 

Whatever built that nest was of the genus Homo, because that is the only creature in North America within the natural and fossil record which builds nests of that type. Bear nests are used for hibernation and are within a natural shelter. 

 

I'd like to bring forward a post I made three years ago that almost mirrors hifliers recent posts here:

 

 

 

Not much for leaves in much of NE Wa. Mostly evergreen. 
 

Gorillas make ground nests? If something is here in north America? Other than us? We don't know what it is. And these nests don't shed light on it. (Other than DNA not present) We need a body.