Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

but you can't PROVE that either ... can you?……..

Nope. But pointing out the inconsistencies, and instilling doubt?

 

Oh, you bet I can……..

[Huntster]

43 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Nope. But pointing out the inconsistencies, and instilling doubt?

 

Oh, you bet I can……..

 

Let's review:

 

How many Denisovan fossils are there currently known?

 

Five. All of them older than 50,000 years. 

 

Yet (as one poster here described as "a miracle", to which I had to agree), "non-degraded" DNA was extracted and identified as a previously unknown human species.

 

But wait, one might ask........how much purported sasquatch DNA is there?

 

Quote

...........One hundred eleven samples of blood, tissue, hair, and other types of specimens were studied, characterized and hypothesized to be obtained from elusive hominins in North America commonly referred to as Sasquatch. DNA was extracted and purified from a subset of these samples that survived rigorous screening for wildlife species identification. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing, specific genetic loci sequencing, forensic short tandem repeat (STR) testing, whole genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) bead array analysis, and next generation whole genome sequencing were conducted on purported Sasquatch DNA samples gathered from various locations in North America. Additionally, histopathologic and electron microscopic examination were performed on a large tissue sample.
The mtDNA whole genome haplotypes obtained were uniformly consistent with modern humans. Of the 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes sequenced, 16 diverse haplotypes were found suggesting that these hominins did not originate in a single geographic location.
In contrast, consistent, reproducible, novel data were obtained when nuclear DNA was amplified utilizing various platforms. Nuclear DNA obtained from Sasquatch samples produced novel SNPs, off ladder alleles on human STRs, retained human sequence interspersed with novel sequence, and whole genome SNPs that fell outside the human threshold. Three of the Sasquatch samples were subjected to next generation whole genome sequencing, each of which independently yielded high quality complete genomes.
Analysis of preliminary phylogeny trees derived from supercontigs generated from all three samples showed homology to human chromosome 11 reference sequence hg 19, and to primate sequences. The totality of the DNA evidence suggests the Sasquatch nuclear DNA is a mosaic comprising human DNA interspersed with sequence that is novel but primate in origin.
In summary, our data indicates that the Sasquatch has human mitochondrial DNA but possesses nuclear DNA that is a structural mosaic consisting of human and novel non-human DNA...........

 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

Yet (as one poster here described as "a miracle", to which I had to agree), "non-degraded" DNA was extracted and identified as a previously unknown human species.

 

Just here to correct something. The 40,000 year old Denisovan DNA was highly degraded...but still showed Human. But people refuse to translate that to the degraded Human DNA from the nest sites. All I get are strawman comments that intentionally ignore the facts and have zero to do with what is. See ya.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Let's review:

 

How many Denisovan fossils are there currently known?

 

Five. All of them older than 50,000 years. 

 

Yet (as one poster here described as "a miracle", to which I had to agree), "non-degraded" DNA was extracted and identified as a previously unknown human species.

 

But wait, one might ask........how much purported sasquatch DNA is there?

 

 

 

To compare apples to apples?

 

How many Sasquatch bones are we in possession of? Do we have a Sasquatch pinkie bone to extract DNA from? No.

 

Denisovans were not discovered and their DNA sequence using any methods that were used at the nests. It’s not a fair comparison.

[hiflier]

Why are you doing this, Norseman. You've done just about everything you can to ignore or dump on the facts that I've pointed out. You conveniently disregard the point of putting all the details of the nest site into one basket but instead take pot shots at the individual pieces. What is it about degraded Human DNA that you don't understand? Maybe the fact that even severely degraded Human DNA will still show Human and nothing but Human? And that the nest samples did the same thing because that the nature of DNA? Just what is it you're trying to do here? Make me repeat the same things constantly just so you can pick a different target to poke holes in? Because keeping a discussion going around in circles does have the effect of halting its progress on points of fact. Or are you so intent on steering things in order to favor your macho, great white hunter/martyr shoot-to-kill agenda?

 

You have refused to see a better way and have made efforts for years to shoot down this technology for discovery in any way you can. Just what is your game here because no one else but you takes such pains to wreck any dialogue about DNA that threatens to show that it can be, and has been successful, in finding previously unknown animals. Even your dialogue back when I presented the proof of concept studies using air DNA was nothing but crap debate. I use facts and science to prove my case and what do you do? tell stories about nest building as a kid.

 

And one of your last comments here was pure junk. Something to the effect about there being no DNA at the site. How's you come up with that little lie? I suggest you stay with facts and stop twisting everything to make it all look bad. You knows what been said and everyone also sees what you've been saying against it at every turn. People see your methods and attempts at debasing the points of discussion. So again, what are you hoping to accomplish here? I say hoping because you have failed in every effort and at every turn.

[Huntster]

57 minutes ago, norseman said:

To compare apples to apples?

 

How many Sasquatch bones are we in possession of? Do we have a Sasquatch pinkie bone to extract DNA from? No.

 

Denisovans were not discovered and their DNA sequence using any methods that were used at the nests. It’s not a fair comparison.

 

There was blood, hair and meat, none of which could possibly survive 50,000 years.......even by "miracle".

 

So it's a chunk of bone that will be the "magic" key?

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Just here to correct something. The 40,000 year old Denisovan DNA was highly degraded...but still showed Human.........

 

Of course it was "degraded"! How could it NOT be? 

 

Yet, by some "miracle", we're to believe that the DNA was so complete that a new species of human could be identified, and even to the point where a complete region of Earth are related to that species........but DNA that was yielded virtually yesterday is so "degraded" that only genus is identifiable, so it was "a dude" building and sleeping in nests in a rainforest like a gorilla. Has to be. That's how it works, ya' know.........

 

 

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

There was blood, hair and meat, none of which could possibly survive 50,000 years.......even by "miracle".

 

So it's a chunk of bone that will be the "magic" key?

I think its much more robust than taking an eDNA sample of dirt.👍

 

 

[Huntster]

1 minute ago, norseman said:

I think its much more robust than taking an eDNA sample of dirt.👍

 

Yup. And when it comes back as "human", you're satisfied, right? It was Mick?

[norseman]

22 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Yup. And when it comes back as "human", you're satisfied, right? It was Mick?

Those two DO NOT belong to the same species….. I have eye balls.🤷‍♂️

 

By the way, that’s Sandy Allen. The worlds tallest woman at 7’ 7” tall. She walked with a cane and was dead at 53. She isn’t motoring through the woods of Bluff creek and sleeping on the ground in the woods. (Even in winter) And she certainly does not have the bulk of Patty.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26273478

 

Look at Patty’s morphology…. She is NOT a Homo Sapien woman. So if the nest’s presumably built by her species is coming back as Homo Sapien?
 

Something is WRONG….

 

 

 

[Huntster]

51 minutes ago, norseman said:

Those two DO NOT belong to the same species….. I have eye balls.🤷‍♂️

 

By the way, that’s Sandy Allen. The worlds tallest woman at 7’ 7” tall. She walked with a cane and was dead at 53. She isn’t motoring through the woods of Bluff creek and sleeping on the ground in the woods. (Even in winter) And she certainly does not have the bulk of Patty.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26273478

 

 

Sykes wrote that Zana was "100% human". Margaryan writes that she was Homo sapien.

 

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

 

Quote

.........She dug herself a hole in the ground and slept in it and for the first three years she lived in this wild state, gradually becoming tamer. After three years she was moved to a wattle-fence enclosure under an awning near the house, tethered at first, but later she was let loose to wander about. However she never went far from the place where she received her food. She could not endure warm rooms and the year round, in any weather, slept outdoors in a hole that she made herself under the awning. 

Villagers teased her with sticks thrust through the wattle-fence, and she.would snatch them with fury, bare her teeth and howl. 

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. However, she showed more tolerance toward a loin-cloth. Sometimes she went into the house, but the women were afraid of her and came near only when she was in a gentle mood; when angry she, presented a scary sight and could even bite. But she obeyed her master, Edgi Genaba, and he knew how to bring her to heel. Adults used her as a bogy figure with children, although Zana never actually attacked children..........

 

Sounds like Patty to me.

 

Quote

........Look at Patty’s morphology…. She is NOT a Homo Sapien woman. So if the nest’s presumably built by her species is coming back as Homo Sapien?
 

Something is WRONG….

 

Yup. Something is wrong, all right. I think it's the careless............or deceptive..........use of the word "human" instead of being specific about species.

 

And yes, Patty does NOT look like a feral woman. But Zana's description doesn't, either.

 

When was the last time you saw an east African woman covered with reddish-black hair?

[norseman]

7 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Sykes wrote that Zana was "100% human". Margaryan writes that she was Homo sapien.

 

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

 

 

Sounds like Patty to me.

 

 

Yup. Something is wrong, all right. I think it's the careless............or deceptive..........use of the word "human" instead of being specific about species.

 

And yes, Patty does NOT look like a feral woman. But Zana's description doesn't, either.

 

When was the last time you saw an east African woman covered with reddish-black hair?

 

Never. But I cannot watch a video of Zana. All I can do is read stories. But Zana sounds like a big feral woman to me. And maybe the stories are embellished a bit. Run faster than a horse? How slow was the horse!? Patty was not going to outrun a horse. Maybe break its neck? But I could also be wrong. Maybe Zana didn’t look like a Homo Sapien woman at all? I just don’t know.

 

But Patty is like looking at a 2 legged Gorilla. And she is bigger than a Gorilla. Her musculature and skeleton is just as robust as a Gorilla. Her head is slung forward from her neck. Her arms are longer. She walks with a bent gait like a Gorilla when they walk upright. Her neck and shoulder muscles are massive. Her head is peaked like a male Gorilla for crushing food.

 

Of course if Patty is a hoax? Then I could be barking up the wrong tree. If Patty is real, which I think she is? There is no way she belong to our species. It’s questionable if she would even belong to our genus. She evidently doesn’t flake stone or use fire. She isn’t even in the Stone Age. She lives in the woods like a Bear. She IS bipedal. That’s about where the similarities end.

 

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

........If Patty is real, which I think she is? There is no way she belong to our species.........

 

Agreed. But if Science continues to only find "degraded" dna, or disallows/rejects dna analysis that shows the truth, this game will go on forever.

 

Quote

.........It’s questionable if she would even belong to our genus. She evidently doesn’t flake stone or use fire. She isn’t even in the Stone Age. She lives in the woods like a Bear. She IS bipedal. That’s about where the similarities end.

 

The use of fire is behavioral, not biological. Her foot morphology alone clearly places her in the genus Homo. If they speak to each other, that cinches the genus.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Huntster

[hiflier]

Nothing in the literature said that Zana built a nest. She preferred sleeping on the ground albeit inside a Human-made shelter of some kind? Even so, the elaborate nests, open to the rain and other elements, that was that was found would not seem to be an historical Human characteristic even if only for temporary use. A relatively recent re-study of Zana and Kwit's DNA absolutely showed Human with slight differences compared to Sykes' study. Included in the study were references to what he got right.

 

So, Huntster, would you be alluding to a Zana-type tribe of robust individuals of some kind in North America?

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Agreed. But if Science continues to only find "degraded" dna, or disallows/rejects dna analysis that shows the truth, this game will go on forever.

 

 

The use of fire is behavioral, not biological. Her foot morphology alone clearly places her in the genus Homo. If they speak to each other, that cinches the genus.

It’s biological because of brain size. So is flaking tools.
 

And the five toe inline foot is older than the Homo genus.

 

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/footprints/laetoli-footprint-trails#:~:text=The Laetoli footprints were most,about 70 early human footprints.