hiflier Posted May 25, 2023 Author Share Posted May 25, 2023 14 minutes ago, norseman said: 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. 🤷♂️ My position specifically is that only genus Homo was found at the site. Twisting it any way you wish changes nothing. I never said Homo Sapiens and no matter how you try to force that the fact remains I only said genus Homo. The rest of your post is just a big SIGH, but not at all unexpected. Same weak excuses and dodge 'em MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 25, 2023 Share Posted May 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, norseman said: .........Has he scolded you?🤔 Not today. He has actually PMed me with his frustrations. I understand. We all do at various times. Trying to get a concept across to people who fight it passionately can be tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 25, 2023 Author Share Posted May 25, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, norseman said: No. No he has scolded me repeatedly for debating the WRONG SUBJECT….. Has he scolded you?🤔 Ridiculous strawman argument. I have repeatedly asked you BOTH to stay on topic. This subject of this thread WOULD have died but you guys stayed on tangents and I wasn't about to let those tangents be the last things folks remembered about this nest topic's issues. That's why I keep steering it back whenever it veers off. Edited May 25, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 25, 2023 Admin Share Posted May 25, 2023 22 minutes ago, hiflier said: Ridiculous strawman argument. I have repeatedly asked you BOTH to stay on topic. This subject of this thread WOULD have died but you guys stayed on tangents and I wasn't about to let those tangents be the last things folks remembered about this nest topic's issues. That's why I keep steering it back whenever it veers off. 🤨 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 25, 2023 Admin Share Posted May 25, 2023 26 minutes ago, Huntster said: And I agree......but Science does not. Both are discredited. Do you posit that Bill has not been attacked in every which way, including Sunday? 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. Not at all. I am the one that said Mick Dodge could have just as easily built the nest. You scoffed at it. The DNA is Homo Sapien, so Bigfoot is Homo Sapien. Only when pressed do you retreat to the genus Homo. Which makes zero sense as well. You can make fun of my reading comprehension all you would like. That’s what people do when they are losing a debate. Or call them secret agents… I can do this FOREVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 25, 2023 Share Posted May 25, 2023 7 minutes ago, norseman said: .........I am the one that said Mick Dodge could have just as easily built the nest. You scoffed at it......... I sure did. First, you said that not even knowing if Mick Dodge is still alive or in the region. Secondly, if it was a Mick Dodge-like "man" (or woman, or whatever sex that Homo sapien decided to choose, regardless of science), the burden of proof that it wasn't a "sasquatch" remains on YOU, ever since Margaryan dexcribed Zana as Homo sapien. Margaryan, Ketchum, Meldrum, Disotell, et al have elevated the dna needle to genus Homo, whether you like it or not. The sapien vrs Other remains to be seen (but Margaryan/Zana has actually already actually brought us there). Thirdly, if Margaryan is 100% correct, sasquatches/almas might actually be feral Homo sapiens. Sorry, but that is exactly what he has "proven", and that is exactly what many pseudoscientists have been arguing for decades. It doesn't matter what you or I believe. That there is just the way the Science ball bounces. Quote .........The DNA is Homo Sapien, so Bigfoot is Homo Sapien. Only when pressed do you retreat to the genus Homo. Which makes zero sense as well......... I'm not retreating from anything. Nor am I the one claiming, with "creds", that sasquatches/almas/yetis/et al are Homo sapiens. For the umpteenth time, I'm positing that they *might* be Homo sapiens (as the priests of Science demand), or they *might* be Homo SomethingElse. Obviously, if they're feral Homo sapiens, they're genus Homo. If they're Homo SomethingElse, they're genus Homo. Ultimately, the purported sasquatch dna is repeatedly coming back as Homo. The only oddball outlier is the Pan claim from Kentucky. Quote .......I can do this FOREVER. And you will.........until some pinhead with "credentials" lays out a theory that you like better, or until, painted in a corner, you hunger for a sandwich so badly that you're willing to walk across the wet paint to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 25, 2023 Author Share Posted May 25, 2023 (edited) 57 minutes ago, norseman said: The DNA is Homo Sapien, so Bigfoot is Homo Sapien. Only when pressed do you retreat to the genus Homo. Which makes zero sense as well No one said the DNA from the nest samples was Homo Sapiens. Not even the gurus in charge of extracting, handling, or testing those samples. Why don't I remind everyone what was said. It's certainly been stated more than once, if not a dozen times. What was announced WASN'T that degraded Homo Sapiens DNA was found. What was announced, identically by BOTH scientists by the way, was simply that there was Human DNA too degraded to show a novel primate. Your the one injecting the 'Sapiens' qualifier into the equation. Disotell and Meldrum never said 'Sapiens.' They were WAAAAYYY more careful than that. So careful that they never claimed that finding only Human DNA at the site meant that only Humans were there. In fact, they also were careful to ALSO not say whether any other primate genus was found. I don't recall either one actually saying that they found the usual animal DNA, degraded Human DNA........PLUS some other kind of individual genus primate DNA. All they said was that the HUMAN DNA itself that they found didn't show another primate which left big unanswered holes in BOTH their announcements. Read that again, folks, this isn't just word salad. Edited May 25, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 25, 2023 Share Posted May 25, 2023 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 25, 2023 Author Share Posted May 25, 2023 Atta boy Inc1, mud in mud out. Good work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 25, 2023 Admin Share Posted May 25, 2023 40 minutes ago, hiflier said: No one said the DNA from the nest samples was Homo Sapiens. Not even the gurus in charge of extracting, handling, or testing those samples. Why don't I remind everyone what was said. It's certainly been stated more than once, if not a dozen times. What was announced WASN'T that degraded Homo Sapiens DNA was found. What was announced, identically by BOTH scientists by the way, was simply that there was Human DNA too degraded to show a novel primate. Your the one injecting the 'Sapiens' qualifier into the equation. Disotell and Meldrum never said 'Sapiens.' They were WAAAAYYY more careful than that. So careful that they never claimed that finding only Human DNA at the site meant that only Humans were there. In fact, they also were careful to ALSO not say whether any other primate genus was found. I don't recall either one actually saying that they found the usual animal DNA, degraded Human DNA........PLUS some other kind of individual genus primate DNA. All they said was that the HUMAN DNA itself that they found didn't show another primate which left big unanswered holes in BOTH their announcements. Read that again, folks, this isn't just word salad. He is talking about ZANA. If you guys are gonna be attached at the hip? You may wanna step in time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 25, 2023 Author Share Posted May 25, 2023 (edited) 16 minutes ago, norseman said: He is talking about ZANA. If you guys are gonna be attached at the hip? You may wanna step in time! I'm not worried about Huntster in the slightest, he hasn't avoided the topic one bit and has continually found his way back to address it head on. Edited May 25, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 25, 2023 Share Posted May 25, 2023 51 minutes ago, norseman said: He is talking about ZANA. If you guys are gonna be attached at the hip? You may wanna step in time! That's because, like every other purported cryptid dna hit that came back as a primate (with the notable exception of the recent Kentucky Pan return), it came back as Homo, not pithecene or any other primate. The fact that it cane back as sapien, and that it came from a well known and recorded individual that was described to look just like a sasquatch, makes it significant. I understand your angst. YOU MUST ATTACK!!! You cannot let those words stand for others to consider. Now understand my situation: What I wrote is TRUE. I will defend it. and we are not attached at the hip. We're in the same ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 25, 2023 Author Share Posted May 25, 2023 32 minutes ago, Huntster said: Now understand my situation: What I wrote is TRUE. I will defend it. and we are not attached at the hip. We're in the same ballpark. It IS true and you are right to defend it. What I've said is also true, even including the part where announcements that were made concerning degraded Human DNA found at the nest sites, worded as they were, were grossly ill defined and misleading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 25, 2023 Share Posted May 25, 2023 40 minutes ago, hiflier said: .......announcements that were made concerning degraded Human DNA found at the nest sites, worded as they were, were grossly ill defined and misleading. Agreed, and we have every right to point that out and expect better. And if it continues, it should be expected that we should be suspicious that it's intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 25, 2023 Share Posted May 25, 2023 Science has now claimed to have identified the dna of four human species thus far: Homo Sapien Homo Neanderthalensis Homo Denisovan Homo Heidelbergensis https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pit-bones-yields-oldest-human-dna/story?id=21093890 Quote ........Researchers were able to extract DNA from a leg bone that was estimated to be 400,000 years old. After extracting the DNA from a femur bone, Matthias Meyer, who published his findings in a study in the journal Nature, was able to replicate the entire genome for the ancient human relative........ Remarkably, a fifth human species (Homo Floresiensis), younger than all the rest except Sapiens, has not yet been identified through dna analysis (coincidence?). Question: How did pithecene dna differ from homo dna? Is it possible that it didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts