Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[Huntster]

On 4/3/2023 at 7:52 PM, hiflier said:

……….there is no way, when all other animal genera were there, that only Human DNA was found to be degraded, at a site with every chance possible to have DNA fresh enough to show a non-Human primate was present. There. Done. Does anyone agree or disagree with this assessment?  

AGREED! Even with the supposedly proven explanation of Zana, her DNA wasn’t “degraded”, even though buried for over a century. 
 

I can accept sasquatches being feral humans, as wild as that sounds. I can’t accept all the scientific mumbo-jumbo excuses that stretch the imagination even beyond the unbelievable. 
 

We have near-feral people living by the thousands in our downtown city streets. They can easily be living in nests in the woods. And a feral life can do amazing things to a person.

 

Consider the Gazelle Boy:

https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/04/syrian-gazelle-boy-feral-child.html

 

Quote

………..Apparently speechless, the Gazelle Boy’s body was covered in fine hair and ate only grass ― although a week later he had his first meal of bread and meat. In this story, He could allegedly run at 80 kmph! He was 5ft 6in tall and was so thin that the bones could be counted easily beneath the flesh, yet stronger physically than a normal full-grown man………

 

[Huntster]

Another reason why the human DNA is always too degraded is because they either have the tell you who that human is, or explain why they can’t tell you who it is…….

 

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_4010.pdf

[hiflier]

20 hours ago, Huntster said:

Another reason why the human DNA is always too degraded is because they either have to tell you who that human is, or explain why they can’t tell you who it is…….

 

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_4010.pdf

 

But you see, Huntster, this has been my point for a long time now and so it's really nice to see someone else coming around to it as well. WRT the nest samples, (and yes, different environments affect DNA degradation) there's only one of two explanations available. One, only Humans were there- which of course would be a story all on its own- or two, Sasquatch, if it exists and built those structures, is Homo. Because if it isn't Homo then its genus would have been present along with all the other non-Human genera that were picked up in the samples. And here's where I clarify my first sentence: For Dr. Disotell and Dr. Meldrum to announce that the HUMAN DNA was too degraded to show a novel primate? What they were really saying was that a novel primate with a different genus would've shown up in the testing. It's a critical point to make for this thread.

 

But it didn't show a different primate genus. It showed HUMAN DNA, degraded or not. So the other thing that was being implied (without actually saying it) was that if Sasquatch built the nests then it would HAVE TO BE HOMO. Because the bottom line here is that the implication of what Disotell and Meldrum were saying is that the degraded Human DNA wasn't good enough to show a DIFFERENT Human species. Genus Homo then? YES! Along with all the other genera, bear, ungulates, raccoons, etc. But NOT a different primate genus. Follow me? I hope so because this falls right in line with that you've been saying about ZANA. As in not a different primate genus, but in fact within the HOMO genus, just different species. Now transfer ZANA to the Washington nest samples and you'd probably be pretty close to reading between the lines of what our good doctors were announcing- without actually announcing it.

 

YES! Different environments affect the degradation rate of DNA but it will not alter genera from Human to some other non-Human primate. Please correct me if this logic is flawed. Don't like being wrong but I've eaten crow before and, IMO, it's better to eat crow that go on with promoting a flawed logic.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

20 hours ago, Huntster said:

Another reason why the human DNA is always too degraded is because they either have the tell you who that human is, or explain why they can’t tell you who it is…….

 

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_4010.pdf

Because it’s too degraded? That would be a viable explanation, no?🤷‍♂️

[Huntster]

28 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........Genus Homo then? YES! Along with all the other genera, bear, ungulates, raccoons, etc. But NOT a different primate genus. Follow me? I hope so because this falls right in line with that you've been saying about ZANA. As in not a different primate genus, but in fact within the HOMO genus, just different species...........

 

Yes. All roads have led us here, including native American legend and oral tradition. 

 

And they might be a hybrid like Ketchum claims, Homo-other-species, or feral Homo sapien, but they're Homo, all right. We've run out of other options.

 

I'm inclined to believe that they're hybrids. This would add to the DNA result confusion and "degraded" claims we've become so used to. I also believe that a certain percentage of sasquatch reports are, indeed, feral people. How many? Impossible to say at this point. Many reports are also misidentified bears, moose, etc. Many are also manufactured.

 

Quote

.........the bottom line here is that the implication of what Disotell and Meldrum were saying is that the degraded Human DNA wasn't good enough to show a DIFFERENT Human species.........

 

Very possible. It could also be that they do, indeed, have dna evidence that these creatures are of the genus Homo, are not sapien, but still lack some sort of proof that they feel they need to drive this thing home.

 

And it might also be that they're leaning in the direction that government has taken for the past century and decided that discretion is the better part of science. In any case, I understand and support their research.

 

Quote

.........Now transfer ZANA to the Washington nest samples and you'd probably be pretty close to reading between the lines of what our good doctors were announcing- without actually announcing it.........

 

In the case of Zana, Sykes published his results and theory that Zana was "fully human" (but he did not write Homo sapien), claimed that her genetic line was not known to him, and he theorized that it may have been a line that came out of Africa 100,000 years ago. Margaryan later (after Sykes death, robbing him of continued work or rebuttal) claimed to trace her line to a small tribe of people in east Africa, pretty much opined that she was the descendent of African slaves, and thus a feral Homo sapien. This is, of course, completely possible, but her description makes this a real stretch of the imagination, especially her size and body covered in auburn hair.

 

As I posted above, Gazelle Boy was reported to run.......like a gazelle, at 45 mph, and jumping 13' high while running. This sounds like Zana's athletic abilities of swimming spring swollen rivers, sleeping outside (and preferring it) in sub-zero temps, grea strength, etc. The more I read about feral humans, the more I accept the possibility that sasquatches are exactly that........until I watch the PGF subject in motion..........

 

[Huntster]

34 minutes ago, norseman said:

Because it’s too degraded? That would be a viable explanation, no?🤷‍♂️

 

Yes it would........until that's all you hear, especially after they repeatedly find dna thousands of years old that they build paleoanthropologic theories out of, including sapien/neanderthal/denosovan hybrids. How is it that only reported sasquatch dna is "degraded", even when as fresh as a spring lily? 

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Yes it would........until that's all you hear, especially after they repeatedly find dna thousands of years old that they build paleoanthropologic theories out of, including sapien/neanderthal/denosovan hybrids. How is it that only reported sasquatch dna is "degraded", even when as fresh as a spring lily? 

That’s the problem. It takes special conditions to create a fossil. And out of those fossils we get very little DNA.

 

We don’t have most Hominid genomes. Except the 3 you mentioned. And so we can compare and contrast between the 3.

 

Dr. Mayor as you mentioned is holding the living type specimen. She took all sort of samples because she is dealing with a living animal and not something dead the coyotes have been rolling and chewing on. And has been laying in the muck rotting away.

 

Is their skullduggery involved? Possibly. But it would be nice to find a carcass in a desert somewhere or a dry cave. Unfortunately the Pac NW doesn’t make good fossils. Which is why I am pro kill.

[Huntster]

42 minutes ago, norseman said:

That’s the problem. It takes special conditions to create a fossil. And out of those fossils we get very little DNA.

 

We don’t have most Hominid genomes. Except the 3 you mentioned. And so we can compare and contrast between the 3.

 

Dr. Mayor as you mentioned is holding the living type specimen. She took all sort of samples because she is dealing with a living animal and not something dead the coyotes have been rolling and chewing on. And has been laying in the muck rotting away.

 

Is their skullduggery involved? Possibly. But it would be nice to find a carcass in a desert somewhere or a dry cave. Unfortunately the Pac NW doesn’t make good fossils. Which is why I am pro kill.

 

Altai Cave is not a dry, desert environment. And the tiny, 40,000+ year old fingerbone fragment that "created" Denisova Man was buried under feet of........dirt. Carried into the cave by water. Yet they claim to identify a new human species from dna found in that "fossil".

 

Frankly, there's more to it than that. They claim that traces of Denisova are in many people today in east Asia, so traces were known. There was also Denisova fossils found decades earlier in China. By finding dna matches in these fossils, as well as the modern human record, they identified the species in a way that others couldn't deny.

 

I suspect the same is becoming true of sasquatches as we banter back and forth. There are researchers collecting unique dna that they publicly say are "degraded", and when they get a few matches, they're that much closer to the goal.

 

But, as you wisely point out, the winning point in the game is a carcass. If it hasn't already been collected and cataloged in secret (which I suspect has occurred), it will occur after matching dna evidence from multiple locations is proven.

 

Or, as I wrote above, these things are feral people. At this point, that is actually more fantastic to believe than the possibility of a human hybrid or primitive human species.

[norseman]

49 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Altai Cave is not a dry, desert environment. And the tiny, 40,000+ year old fingerbone fragment that "created" Denisova Man was buried under feet of........dirt. Carried into the cave by water. Yet they claim to identify a new human species from dna found in that "fossil".

 

Frankly, there's more to it than that. They claim that traces of Denisova are in many people today in east Asia, so traces were known. There was also Denisova fossils found decades earlier in China. By finding dna matches in these fossils, as well as the modern human record, they identified the species in a way that others couldn't deny.

 

I suspect the same is becoming true of sasquatches as we banter back and forth. There are researchers collecting unique dna that they publicly say are "degraded", and when they get a few matches, they're that much closer to the goal.

 

But, as you wisely point out, the winning point in the game is a carcass. If it hasn't already been collected and cataloged in secret (which I suspect has occurred), it will occur after matching dna evidence from multiple locations is proven.

 

Or, as I wrote above, these things are feral people. At this point, that is actually more fantastic to believe than the possibility of a human hybrid or primitive human species.

The Denisovan DNA find from the pinkie bone was a miracle. They have a lot more bone from many different species. Homo Erectus, Hobbits, Homo Naledi and to my knowledge they have not cracked their genomes. So my point is that just because you have recovered physical evidence that doesn’t mean you can pull DNA from it. Right now they are trying to recover enough DNA to resurrect the Mammoth. It’s tricky. And they have plenty of bone and tissue. 
 

What’s going on at the back door? Is anyone’s guess. But I would wager more than we know.

 

 

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, norseman said:

The Denisovan DNA find from the pinkie bone was a miracle............

 

I agree:

 

Quote

Miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency........

 

There are only five known Denisovan fossils. The age estimate of the juvenile female in Altai Cave has actually changed to 76,200-51,600 years ago. To have just one of five and aged so old give up "undegraded" dna, while reported sasquatch dna samples aged younger than my grandson in pre-school is consistently and repeatedly declared "degraded" is, indeed, miraculous. I'm not sure who the god of Science is, but at this point I'm ready to name him Predictable, unless somebody is willing to come forward and publicly identify him for us all.

 

Quote

.......What’s going on at the back door? Is anyone’s guess. But I would wager more than we know.

 

Indeed.............

[hiflier]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

But you see, Huntster, this has been my point for a long time now and so it's really nice to see someone else coming around to it as well. WRT the nest samples, (and yes, different environments affect DNA degradation) there's only one of two explanations available. One, only Humans were there- which of course would be a story all on its own- or two, Sasquatch........is Homo. Because if it isn't Homo then its genus would have been present along with all the other non-Human genera that were picked up in the samples.

 

With everyone's permission I would like to revisit the implications of these two options, because I think those two options are critical to what was reportedly discovered in the nests' soil samples.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

41 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

With everyone's permission I would like to revisit the implications of these two options, because I think those two options are critical to what was reportedly discovered in the nests' soil samples.

 

 

Please be careful with the word "human":

 

Quote

.......One, only Humans were there- which of course would be a story all on its own- or two, Sasquatch........is Homo. Because if it isn't Homo then its genus would have been present along with all the other non-Human genera that were picked up in the samples.........

 

Any creature of the genus Homo is human, including us (sapiens), Neanderthals, Denisovans, Habilis, etc.

[norseman]

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Please be careful with the word "human":

 

 

Any creature of the genus Homo is human, including us (sapiens), Neanderthals, Denisovans, Habilis, etc.

Correct. I see at least three options.

 

The nest were contaminated by human researchers. And built by a mundane species already known to science. Mountain Beavers, Bear, etc
 

The nest were built by Mick Dodge or some other human survivalist.

 

The nests were built by Sasquatch and their DNA resides somewhere in the genus Homo.

 

And the 2nd two options could also be contaminated by human researchers. Ive seen several photos of people laying in them as a size comparison.

 

 

[Huntster]

36 minutes ago, norseman said:

Correct. I see at least three options.

 

The nest were contaminated by human researchers. And built by a mundane species already known to science. Mountain Beavers, Bear, etc
 

The nest were built by Mick Dodge or some other human survivalist.

 

The nests were built by Sasquatch and their DNA resides somewhere in the genus Homo.

 

And the 2nd two options could also be contaminated by human researchers. Ive seen several photos of people laying in them as a size comparison.

 

 

 

Any option by which the samples were "contaminated by researchers" or "built by" a sapien would easily be confirmed by dna comparison with those researchers, the landowner (these nests are on private land), etc. If not, a scientific explanation of why should be forthcoming. 

[hvhart]

The final word (IMHO) on Zana is this excellent free access article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/NFUEBVWNUHN8HIZGVRHZ?target=10.1002/ggn2.10051

 

"Too degraded" is a relative term.  It depends on the experience of the researcher, the laboratory instrumentation used, the methodology employed in the sequencing, and the software and method employed in interpretation.   I humbly suggest, that one or more of the above parameters may not have been up to the task in the case of the nests.   Paabo et all sequenced the entire Neanderthal nuclear genome with barely over 1 X coverage (1.3 as I recall).