Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[norseman]

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

It's simple, an ancient Human's DNA will be genus Homo. It can never be genus Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, or any other great ape of non-Human primate. In other words, ancient Denisovan DNA, no matter how degraded showed genus Homo. Period. And genus Homo could never be confused with "otherwise" some other ape or monkey. And that goes right to the heart of what I've been saying about the nest builders: Genus Homo, which was the result of the testing done by Disotell. And my other argument on that was that neither Disotell nor anyone else ever delineated that those results could ONLY mean that a Human in some form built the nests since there was no other primate DNA but Human found there. It makes the argument that Sasquatch, if it exists, and it was what built those nests, MUST be of genus Homo- which means it's a HUMAN species of some kind. I hope you're starting to get that.

 

I will clarify this by saying this argument can ONLY be applied to the genus Homo DNA that was found at the nest site. And ONLY because no other primate DNA was found within the samples tested. But it also brings up another point: Cliff Barackman (a pretty smart guy) placed a reconstructed sample of a similar nest into his BIGFOOT museum that he and another guy built in about 45 minutes IIRC. Did he ever quantify that nest as an example of the nests discovered in the Olympic Peninsula as NOT being constructed by a non-Human primate? My guess is he really didn't say one way or another in order to keep the public's imagination of center. Better for the BF biz if the public doesn't get around to thinking of the Sasquatch as being a Human of some kind? Or members of the Bigfoot community? Are there members of the Bigfoot community that still think the Sasquatch is just an ape- as opposed to a Human? Because if it built the nests then according to the DNA collected from the site whatever built the nests is genus Homo.

 

No this is dead wrong!

 

Imagine a bushy tree. Someone comes along and cuts the Pan-Homo fork out of the tree. Depending on how degraded the DNA is? How would a geneticist tell the difference between the 2 species? Other than morphology. Obviously if enough of the bones are laying there? They can tell the 2 species apart by looking at them! Again we DO NOT have the genome of most species in the genus Homo.
 

Ok so now I need further clarification. Disotell found human DNA at the nest site you claim. I take that to mean he found Homo Sapien Sapien DNA at the nest site?  And not some NEW novel species that he is claiming belongs in the genus Homo? 
 

So are you claiming Sasquatch is Homo Sapien Sapien?

 

 

[norseman]

I just noticed the marine monkeys on my primate tree🤦🏻‍♂️ Sorry. I’m just trying to help visualize the relationship between chimps and humans. Please disregard the marine monkeys. Thanks.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Imagine a bushy tree. Someone comes along and cuts the Pan-Homo fork out of the tree. Depending on how degraded the DNA is? How would a geneticist tell the difference between the 2 species?

 

Explain how that relates to the modern nest samples that I'm discussing, please. Believe me, a geneticist would know. This isn't to say that DNA can be so severely degraded that it would only show: Family- Primate. This is the disclaimer that Miroslava Munguia Ramos, who at the time was the one who made the announcement of Dr. Mayor's Chimp DNA discovery. told me to read when I emailed her about it:

 

"We sometimes have sequences that match multiple species equally well. In this case, we use statistical programs to choose
the right level of taxonomy to report. If the multiple matches all share the same genus, we will likely only report the genus
level and not the species level. If multiple genera have equally good matches to the DNA sequence but are all in the same 
family, we will report only down to the family level"

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I take that to mean he found Homo Sapien Sapien DNA at the nest site?

He didn't say that. All he said was degraded Human DNA and I won't read more, or assume anything more, than that. How could I and still be honest about what he Disotell reported?

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

And not some NEW novel species that he is claiming belongs in the genus Homo?

He 's not claiming that at all. He's not claiming anything other than the Human DNA was too degraded to show a novel primate. He COULD have said Human DNA too degraded to show a novel Human but he didn't. He only said novel primate. This is why I take issue with his statement. I mean what kind of primate other than Human would there have been? None according to the test results. But neither he (who SHOULD KNOW) nor Dr. Meldrum had the integrity to say so. They played the Bigfoot game and it's sickening to me to think that they did. BOTH of them should know what those results were indicating, which could only BE Human.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

So are you claiming Sasquatch is Homo Sapien Sapien?

Absolutely NOT claiming that at all. The test results came back Human, it was never said Homo sapiens sapiens so I will not put those words into their mouths.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I just noticed the marine monkeys on my primate tree🤦🏻‍♂️ Sorry. I’m just trying to help visualize the relationship between chimps and humans. Please disregard the marine monkeys. Thanks.

 LOL, no problem But since Gigantopithicus isn't genus Homo? And genus Homo was what was found under the nests? I'm pretty sure that the Sasquatch's position on that primate tree is in error?

[norseman]

36 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Explain how that relates to the modern nest samples that I'm discussing, please. Believe me, a geneticist would know. This isn't to say that DNA can be so severely degraded that it would only show: Family- Primate. This is the disclaimer that Miroslava Munguia Ramos, who at the time was the one who made the announcement of Dr. Mayor's Chimp DNA discovery. told me to read when I emailed her about it:

 

"We sometimes have sequences that match multiple species equally well. In this case, we use statistical programs to choose
the right level of taxonomy to report. If the multiple matches all share the same genus, we will likely only report the genus
level and not the species level. If multiple genera have equally good matches to the DNA sequence but are all in the same 
family, we will report only down to the family level"

 

He didn't say that. All he said was degraded Human DNA and I won't read more, or assume anything more, than that. How could I and still be honest about what he Disotell reported?

 

He 's not claiming that at all. He's not claiming anything other than the Human DNA was too degraded to show a novel primate. He COULD have said Human DNA too degraded to show a novel Human but he didn't. He only said novel primate. This is why I take issue with his statement. I mean what kind of primate other than Human would there have been? None according to the test results. But neither he (who SHOULD KNOW) nor Dr. Meldrum had the integrity to say so. They played the Bigfoot game and it's sickening to me to think that they did. BOTH of them should know what those results were indicating, which could only BE Human.

 

Absolutely NOT claiming that at all. The test results came back Human, it was never said Homo sapiens sapiens so I will not put those words into their mouths.

 

That’s WHAT I am trying to figure OUT. Disotell found HUMAN DNA? What does HUMAN mean? How is he using the term human? What context? Our species? Our genus? What?
 

YES Ms. Ramos is right. I concur. Species>Genus>Family…. The tree of life.

 

If you go back far enough? You can compare Homo Sapien Sapien base pairs (3.2 Billion) with an Avocado tree or a Mushroom!

 

https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/DeepGreen/NYTimes.html#:~:text=As part of an outpouring,than to plants like lettuce.

 

Regardless? The nesting site doesn’t sound like it’s going to produce a new species. It’s a dead end. So we are beating a dead horse. 👍

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

That’s WHAT I am trying to figure OUT. Disotell found HUMAN DNA? What does HUMAN mean? How is he using the term human? What context? Our species? Our genus? What?

He said Human DNA so it HAS to be our genus. Can't be anything else BUT Human. But it doesn't necessarily mean Homo Sapiens sapiens.

 

7 minutes ago, norseman said:

If you go back far enough? You can compare Homo Sapien Sapien base pairs (3.2 Billion) with an Avocado tree or a Mushroom!

No you can't because it will no longer BE Homo Sapiens sapiens. Or even genus Homo. Because if those 3.2 billion base pairs were in the same order as today there would have been Humans back then. It isn't the number of basepairs, it the ORDER of those base pairs and the order determines what proteins get coded to create a certain organism's body shape and other characteristics. Yes, I'm being technical because going back as you suggest simply doesn't apply to this thread. It all about an organism's unique DNA sequences that make it what it is.

 

17 minutes ago, norseman said:

Regardless? The nesting site doesn’t sound like it’s going to produce a new species. It’s a dead end. So we are beating a dead horse. 👍

Not at all. The point of all of this is that what you just wrote should have been said years ago. And that even though the degraded Human DNA wouldn't be capable of showing anything novel, it should have been said that the chances of the DNA showing ANYTHING outside of something Human was zero! Did anyone say that? Nope, they didn't. The only term they used was primate...novel primate. Neither Disotell nor Meldrum ever said that since only Human DNA was found then if Sasquatch built those nests then it has to be a species of Human.

 

Had either one said that right at the beginning when the test results came out then this thread, and any other thread like it, wouldn't exist. And those two PhD's STILL haven't said it. They STILL haven't said that if Sasquatch built the nests then all indications in the DNA collected there says that Sasquatch is a species of Human. Why haven't they said that? Any idea how incredibly important that would have been? But nope, didn't happen then and it's not happening now. There is a certain level of dishonesty there that I could no longer tolerate.

 

Only saying novel primate has kept the door open to ape and neither one ever bothered to close it even though they both knew that an ape conclusion was wrong and misleading. Was saying the nest builder were either Human or some kind of novel Human simply too hot to handle? Or would it have wrecked BIGFOOT museums? Or conferences where the enigma of Bigfoot as an ape still has a firm grasp on the Human believer psyche? Why am I the ONLY one asking these questions? Why am I the only one who sees the test results from the nests as showing only a Human presence at the site and no other primate BUT Human? That the nest builders weren't some kind of other ape but were IN FACT a Human or a species of Human? Is this somehow a dangerous thing to know or promote?

 

Because as scientists Disotell and Meldrum should have been saying these things all along and all on their own. Why? Because they KNEW!! But the really bad part of this is that they also knew that the Bigfoot community-at-large DIDN'T know. So why tell them? Let the community think Sasquatch is some reclusive ape living in North America. Let everyone stay ignorant about the fact that Human DNA could never show anything but Humans in whatever form? Let everyone keep thinking that Saquatch DNA and Human DNA is so close as to be nearly indistinguishable by anyone except those specially gifted lab people. Keep the cash cow going as long as possible. Sasquatch as nest builder must never be seen as being a species of Human.

 

Well folks, good luck with that because I've just showed you in the=is very thread that if Sasquatch built those nests then it is, without doubt, a HUMAN creature. And that's ALL it can be according to what Disotell and Meldrum pulled out of that nest site and tested. And they have had the last word on it for years- no novel primate- until now. Because "no novel Human" is what they should have said which would have more accurately lined up with Disotell's test results. Why didn't either one of them say that?

 

This is NOT a dead horse. This is an exposure of shady wording which has led all too many astray. Truth? The nest builders were Human through and through and nothing BUT Human through and through. A different species of Human perhaps, but 100% Human nonetheless. Are you reading this Huntster? This is all in your wheelhouse. Because from what I've determined, the Sasquatch, as the nest builder in the Olympic Project's Mason County, Washington nest site? Was entirely a Human- modern or otherwise. Period

 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

He 's not claiming that at all. He's not claiming anything other than the Human DNA was too degraded to show a novel primate. He COULD have said Human DNA too degraded to show a novel Human but he didn't. He only said novel primate. This is why I take issue with his statement. I mean what kind of primate other than Human would there have been? None according to the test results. But neither he (who SHOULD KNOW) nor Dr. Meldrum had the integrity to say so. They played the Bigfoot game and it's sickening to me to think that they did. BOTH of them should know what those results were indicating, which could only BE Human.

 

I think you're picking imaginary nits.    Humans are primates.   They did not mis-speak.     That they could have been more specific does not mean what they said was incorrect.    You're trying to play "gotcha games" twisting meaning of words to your purpose to trap people who aren't even here to address your questions.    Even if you convince every person here,  you've accomplished nothing, moved the needle not at all.   So why waste your angst?   If you want to know, go ask Disotell or Meldrum for clarification.   If you don't want to know, don't want to make the effort, well, I guess that says enough.

 

MIB

 

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

……..This whole issue regarding the Olympic Peninsula nest builders, i.e. not apes but instead Humans or novel Humans, should have been settled years ago. Why wasn't it?

Because both Science and government don’t want it solved. Science wants both male and female carcasses, they want them delivered, and they want it free. Government wants none of that to occur.

 

I rest my case.

[hiflier]

19 minutes ago, MIB said:

I think you're picking imaginary nits. 

I am not.

 

20 minutes ago, MIB said:

Humans are primates.   They did not mis-speak. 

They did not follow though by saying that their "novel primate" could have only been a HUMAN novel primate. So technically and scientifically they mis-spoke by being obtuse about what the test results actually meant. They short circuited the public and the community by not elaborating on what the test results implied. Instead, they left the broader field of "primate" hang in the air for years KNOWING that any novel primate coming out of a degraded Human DNA result would have to have been Human. They never said that even though they are the experts. And no one else has ever called them on it or questioned it...until now. I am not the bad guy here. I'm citing the evidence according to what they said the outcome was. It would have been nice if one of them had said, "The results we got, even though degraded, shows that the nest builders were Human, though the samples were too degraded to show modern Human or some other Human species."

 

THAT, my friend, would have been a way more accurate assessment of their test results. So....what? They didn't think it was important enough to mention? The reverse of that is actually the truth: It was TOO important to mention! Any idea how much was riding on NOT mentioning it? On NOT giving the community such thoughts? Imagine what could have happened. Thinking back on what so many of the "experts" said when they chimed in. "Now, I'm not saying it was a Sasquatch that built those nests." But none said that DNA was genus Homo and nothing else so the builders must be Human, or some kind of Human. Nope. No one said anything of the sort. And people wonder why I have an attitude.

 

45 minutes ago, MIB said:

I think you're picking imaginary nits.    Humans are primates.   They did not mis-speak.     That they could have been more specific does not mean what they said was incorrect.    You're trying to play "gotcha games" twisting meaning of words to your purpose to trap people who aren't even here to address your questions.    Even if you convince every person here,  you've accomplished nothing, moved the needle not at all.   So why waste your angst?   If you want to know, go ask Disotell or Meldrum for clarification.   If you don't want to know, don't want to make the effort, well, I guess that says enough.

What a ridiculous comment. What you don't understand is I DO know. If this doesn't move the needle the onus is on the Bigfoot community who are happy with only getting half story that they are given. The ones who can't reason this stuff out for themselves and are too lazy to put two and two together and do some critical thinking. I mean how hard it this? Ya got Human DNA at a site out in the middle of nowhere where nests were built. Soil got tested for DNA and came back Human. Ya got Human DNA that even if degraded will STILL only yield Human DNA.

 

Conclusion? Only a Human, or a species of Human, built the nests and not some ape that isn't Human. I mean, how hard is that to reason out really? And it's ALL based on what Disotell and Meldrum have said regarding the test results and told the public. What they DIDN'T say, basically keeping it to themselves, was that the "novel primate" that the degraded DNA couldn't show would, by default, also HAVE to be Human. And you're trying to tell me that this won't move the needle?

 

Is that because there are those involved in this Bigfoot business doesn't WANT the needle to move? Because in my opinion, KNOWING that only a Human, or some type of Human, could have built those nests is an enormous revelation. Because if Sasquatch built the nests then it stands to reason that the creature must be virtually a Human. And that's just "imaginary nits" according to you? That if everyone was convinced that the nest-building Sasquatch was Human that it wouldn't accomplish anything?

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Agreed, otherwise the Tyrannosaurus Rex would've been a chicken long ago

You have answered an age-old question, but the main question remains:

 

The dinosaur came before the chicken, but we must still wonder if it came before the egg……..

[hiflier]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

Because both Science and government don’t want it solved. Science wants both male and female carcasses, they want them delivered, and they want it free. Government wants none of that to occur.

 

I rest my case.

Government/Science can get these things anytime they want. My point in this thread is NOT that the government doesn't want it solved. I'm question why people in our own community don't want it solved. And as far as I'm concerned that goes to the top. Huntster, what was your take on things after the test results came back from Disotell? Too degraded to show a novel primate? End of story? And I have to ask, what is your take on how the official "story" stands now?

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

……..Disotell found human DNA at the nest site you claim. I take that to mean he found Homo Sapien Sapien DNA at the nest site?……

 

That IS the question. It was degraded human dna. That’s all we know, because that’s all we were told.

 

What is the difference between Homo sapien dna and that of Homo Neanderthal or Denisovan?

 

Quote

………..So are you claiming Sasquatch is Homo Sapien Sapien?….. 

 

 Margaryan claimed precisely that. Do you reject that claim?

 

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Margaryan claimed precisely that. Do you reject that claim?

If you're addressing me then yes, I reject it.

 

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

What is the difference between Homo sapien dna and that of Homo Neanderthal or Denisovan?

Neanderthal has a 202 base pair difference. There are apparently three Denisovan species, one newer than the other. The base pair differences range from about 600 on the oldest specimen to around 300 base pair differences for the newest.

 

The point of all this is that if the Human DNA from the nest site WASN'T degraded and showed a "novel primate" then that novel primate would have had to be a novel Human. Because genus Homo DNA can only show genus Homo, even if it happens to be a different kind of Human. The 40,000 year old Denisovan DNA was highly degraded and yet it showed a Human lineage. Not some non-Human ape. So my point is that the degraded Human DNA from the nest site would have the same results, degraded or not: Human, and nothing but Human. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

14 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Government/Science can get these things anytime they want………

Precisely. And logic requires one to realize that they have already done so, and their behavior almost confirms it. And the fact that these things are human is one of the main reason for this.

 

Quote

………Huntster, what was your take on things after the test results came back from Disotell? Too degraded to show a novel primate?……..

 

“Same old, same old”.

 

Quote

………End of story?………

For me as an internet fan of sadquatchery? Even for this Olympic Project, probably not. Little, similar tidbits will be forthcoming to keep their click-numbers up. 
 

Scientific story? Oh, yeah, that has been over all along. The PGF proved that half a century ago. 
 

Quote

……….And I have to ask, what is your take on how the official "story" stands now?

Again, same old, same old. These “degraded DNA” games will continue until the community refuses to accept that line anymore. Then they’ll poop up another line of BS. There’s no end to it. 
 

Until you lay one out on a slab, and it must be fresh. Zana, dead for over a century, was simply re-created into a run-of-the-mill African slave. 

[Huntster]

13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

If you're addressing me then yes, I reject it.………

I was addressing Norse, but your answer is welcome. I must accept Margaryan’s results, but wish Sykes was alive to comment. Margaryan gave Science and government a tight space to squeeze out of, but it narrowed the next bind. If these creatures are Homo sapien, government is still in deep doo doo. Not so Science. They just don’t care unless it pays or bestows honors.

 

Quote

……..Neanderthal has a 202 base pair difference. There are apparently three Denisovan species, one newer than the other. The base pair differences range from about 600 on the oldest specimen to around 300 base pair differences for the newest.

 

This is the kind of difference we seek with sasquatches. They are almost certainly of the genus Homo.