hiflier Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 20 minutes ago, MIB said: For the sake of argument, there are things we more or less universally accept as true even though very few among us have the ability to verify them ourselves. We are limited to taking the word of presumed experts or worse, what the media represents as the word of those the same media wants us to believe are experts and we do it without even batting an eye. I believe we need to be more skeptical, more rigorous, when viewing commonly accepted "truths" even in the world of science. A great post, MIB, and you are entirely correct. And though many may not be aware of it that's what this thread is really about. It's also, and even more so, what my "nest question" is about as well. Because the information is there but oft time it takes a critical thought to put it together. So yes, more skeptical and more rigorous indeed. As far as Disotell goes? And his announcement? If one wasn't up on genetics then on might simply go along and keep thinking that Sasquatch is an ape. Because the good Doctor never said otherwise. But the truth of it is he DID say otherwise but, again, if someone isn't familiar with genetics then they wouldn't have caught it. Al normal animals, including genus Homo, was found at the nest site. That's what he basically announced. But he also played it safe by following that with Human DNA too degraded to show a novel PRIMATE. No one caught what that meant, even me, until a week or so ago. Then it struck me, BECAUSE of genetics, that what Dr. Disotell was saying was that there were no other primates there EXCEPT Humans. Because nature likes it genera the way they are and doesn't mix them together. So the only option available for Dr. Disotell's "novel primate" would have to be Human of some sort- modern or otherwise. That's what he was saying (without coming right out and actually saying it). Is this the kind of critical rigorous thinking you are referring to? I hope so.
hiflier Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Bigfoot Ed said: We just touch on the North American ape issue so far science which is what we're trying to use here says there are no North American apes!! Quoted for truth. Everything genetically in ANY study, as far as being purported evidence from a Sasquatch, points to Human. As far as the term Sasquatch being congruent to being a species of ape goes? We've been handed a bill of goods. So all the evidence says is that NAWAC has been out there for about 15 years and evidently trying to shoot a species of Human. Not good. Edited June 9, 2023 by hiflier
norseman Posted June 9, 2023 Admin Posted June 9, 2023 2 hours ago, Huntster said: More from Reviewer #1 in Nature's peer review of Ketchum's manuscript: http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_responses_to_referees__first_review.pdf Doesn't this ring bells? We've been flooded from Science over the past 10-15 years about how the human population has genetic traces of both Neanderthals and Denisovans. Now Ketchum, Sykes, and Margaryan have established that purported sasquatches/almastys are H U M A N, with mdna being 100% Homo Sapien. This makes these creatures Homo Sapien, perhaps feral, or (if their ndna is unknown) a hybrid or new species. Legally, if Meldrum's ichnotaxonomic name (Anthropoidipes ameriborealis) is accepted, it is not of the genus Homo. Killing one cannot be homicide, by definition. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence currently makes them human. Kill one at your peril. Meldrum is jumping the gun as well. I think he did it more so to prove a point. But we don’t know what the heck it is until we have one on a slab. If you’re not pro kill? I suggest you grab a shovel and start poking around caves and mines. That’s where a lot of our closest kin’s fossil remains are found!
norseman Posted June 9, 2023 Admin Posted June 9, 2023 1 hour ago, hiflier said: Well, since I don't own guns, which you already know, then it would be kinda stupid doncha think? But if I did own guns, sure, I'd go. And why not. And that is important how? Does it address Dr. Disotell's ambiguous announcement? You know the one, right? Where he hinted LOUDLY that the nest builders were genus Homo? Nope. Does it address Dr. Haskell Hart's chart of rare Human mutations that are common in OTHER primates? Nope. Does it say ANYTHING AT ALL about what's important to discovery? Nope. Nada. Zero. So, I'm hardly impressed and it it really doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. But what it DOES do is squirm away from scientific arguments and distract (as usual) from them. Good job playing the diversion card once again. My point being is that for the umptenth time said, we play to our strengths and interests. I don’t badger you about it until you start in with your holier than thou attitude…. Im not playing the diversion card. You’re playing pseudo science! The sooner we run the charlatans out of this subject the better! Sorry if your hero is on the naught list…..🤷♂️
hiflier Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 1 minute ago, norseman said: Meldrum is jumping the gun as well. I think he did it more so to prove a point. But we don’t know what the heck it is until we have one on a slab. If you’re not pro kill? I suggest you grab a shovel and start poking around caves and mines. That’s where a lot of our closest kin’s fossil remains are found! I like this line of thinking. I was interested and glad when he moved on from Grover Krantz's Gigantopithicus hypothesis. Generally that hypothesis is dead in the water. Still don't know what to think about Mayor's Chimp DNA though. If that was indicative of Sasquatch DNA then eastern Kentucky wouldn't have been the only place so far that it was found. IMHO it should be found all over the PacNW and BC if that was the case. I have to admit, that one is a stumper.
norseman Posted June 9, 2023 Admin Posted June 9, 2023 28 minutes ago, Bigfoot Ed said: Just as a qualifier I have a bachelor's in religious studies as well as anthropology so I have a little bit of both sides of this subject. There is no physical evidence that even remotely accepted by anyone who is regarded as a scientist. I've read meldrum's books I've seen the footprints the casts even the skookum cast it's still not evidence. Any ideas that Sasquatch could be the remainder from a biblical beast are purely faith-based and bordering on the mythic. It's exasperating because these ideas cannot be proven wrong and they can't be proven right so they don't belong in science. And while we're at it there's absolutely no way that Sasquatch and or Bigfoot could have anything to do with gigantopithecus which is almost entirely regarded as a quadruped that went extinct around the time of homo erectus. Who probably have something to do with it. We just touch on the North American ape issue so far science which is what we're trying to use here says there are no North American apes!! This is a I’m not a “this is absolutely what a Bigfoot is” proponent. But Krantz thought Giganto was bipedal based on the jaw structure. Other scientists disagree based on its size. Either way? We don’t have the leg and foot bones to say conclusively how it walked. It’s an educated guess. But Bigfoot, Yeti, Orang Pendak, if any of these cryptid apes are real? Did bipedalism arise twice? Once with African apes and once with Asian apes? Or is this only a African Homo (and ancestors) lineage now found all around the world? To me? Patty doesn’t look like a Homo Sapien. Assuming the film is authentic.
hiflier Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 Just now, norseman said: ...until you start in with your holier than thou attitude…. Good grief, not you, too. Genetics and logic are my strengths just as hunting is yours. And we have wished each other luck on both ends and for the same reason. In fact, you have a bit of holier than thou going for yourself where getting one on a slab is concerned And I'm happy to say it's all to the same end: Solving for Sasquatch. But th Human aspect of the equation puts a different spin on things, no? 6 minutes ago, norseman said: You’re playing pseudo science! I'm playing the technology and science of genetics card, no pseudo involved. 8 minutes ago, norseman said: Sorry if your hero is on the naught list…..🤷♂️ My hero? You really want to know who my hero is? I'll tell you....It's Dr. Haskell Hart. That's who it is. The rest? Meh.
hiflier Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 3 minutes ago, norseman said: African Homo (and ancestors) lineage now found all around the world? I think that pretty close to what is, Norseman. I could see branches of a bush like with Humans. Mostly die outs with some survivors. One argument for that concept would be three extant species of Gorillas, three extant species of Orangutan, and at least three extant species of Chimpanzee. Kinda leads one to think, "Oh my, three extant species of Humans?" Lot of food for thought there and I do think science is closing in on that possibility? 9 minutes ago, norseman said: To me? Patty doesn’t look like a Homo Sapien. Assuming the film is authentic. Couldn't agree more, but there are elements of her that DO suggest a possible Human species of some kind? IOW, more than just ape, except where brain development is concerned perhaps. We need good whole cell samples in order to get nuclear DNA though. Any ideas? My only take on the matter is to do everything Humanly and scientifically possible to secure proof of existence short of shooting one. But if it has to come down to that then.... And by Humanly possible without killing one I mean go hard down EVERY avenue for the truth. And not just as one person either. But that's another matter entirely.
ThePhaige Posted June 10, 2023 Posted June 10, 2023 Aren't they also looking into some genetic material that is claimed to be a sort of canine/human hybrid... Some call it Dogman... I think I saw something from Scott Carpenter mentioning this. or even that he might have helped acquire some of the samples? Are there other cryptid related studies besides they are conducting...
ThePhaige Posted June 10, 2023 Posted June 10, 2023 5 hours ago, Bigfoot Ed said: Just as a qualifier I have a bachelor's in religious studies as well as anthropology so I have a little bit of both sides of this subject. There is no physical evidence that even remotely accepted by anyone who is regarded as a scientist. I've read meldrum's books I've seen the footprints the casts even the skookum cast it's still not evidence. Any ideas that Sasquatch could be the remainder from a biblical beast are purely faith-based and bordering on the mythic. It's exasperating because these ideas cannot be proven wrong and they can't be proven right so they don't belong in science. And while we're at it there's absolutely no way that Sasquatch and or Bigfoot could have anything to do with gigantopithecus which is almost entirely regarded as a quadruped that went extinct around the time of homo erectus. Who probably have something to do with it. We just touch on the North American ape issue so far science which is what we're trying to use here says there are no North American apes!! This is a I would say first nations folks probably never refer to them (SSQ) as anything but a people and a tribe, they dont refer to animals as people or tribes. Nor so they call them Apes... Probably North American first nations have no point of reference for ape, (although you see ape looking animals on totems sometimes) but they know what a people and tribes are... and we are not only speaking of North America, this is global... They also attribute a spiritual kind of way about them along with very unique skillsets etc... which is also reported en mass in current time. Also in my interactions with the Ohio and Penn Amish people over the years, they seem to be quite definitive about the humanity of the SSQ, even their historical reference... Its not really religious to them, just fact... cant go into to much more with the rules and all... I would also say most people I have spoken with refer to them as more human... as do the vast majority... I recall many who had them scoped and couldn't pull the trigger because they looked like a human, albeit huge and or hairy etc... Sure there are some that say they look like apish, monkeyish, doglike, devilish, ... heck there are other who tell us they better look like Bears
norseman Posted June 10, 2023 Admin Posted June 10, 2023 34 minutes ago, ThePhaige said: I would say first nations folks probably never refer to them (SSQ) as anything but a people and a tribe, they dont refer to animals as people or tribes. Nor so they call them Apes... Probably North American first nations have no point of reference for ape, (although you see ape looking animals on totems sometimes) but they know what a people and tribes are... and we are not only speaking of North America, this is global... They also attribute a spiritual kind of way about them along with very unique skillsets etc... which is also reported en mass in current time. Also in my interactions with the Ohio and Penn Amish people over the years, they seem to be quite definitive about the humanity of the SSQ, even their historical reference... Its not really religious to them, just fact... cant go into to much more with the rules and all... I would also say most people I have spoken with refer to them as more human... as do the vast majority... I recall many who had them scoped and couldn't pull the trigger because they looked like a human, albeit huge and or hairy etc... Sure there are some that say they look like apish, monkeyish, doglike, devilish, ... heck there are other who tell us they better look like Bears Indians called all sorts of animals “brother” or “grandfather”. There is even a creation story in which humans were thrown out of the tribe of animals. I would have to dig for it. But definitely the lines are blurred between animals and humans with Indian mythology. There is no doubt that if there is another bipedal primate on this planet? No matter if it’s warranted or not? Humans will feel a close kinship to it. Just as people feel a close kinship to other great apes….
Huntster Posted June 10, 2023 Posted June 10, 2023 14 minutes ago, norseman said: Indians called all sorts of animals “brother” or “grandfather”. There is even a creation story in which humans were thrown out of the tribe of animals. I would have to dig for it. But definitely the lines are blurred between animals and humans with Indian mythology........ Animism. Even inanimate objects are attributed souls/spirits.........floods, rain, trees, lakes, etc. But the general rule is that native traditions saw sasquatches as either another "race" of people or spiritual entities. Quote .........There is no doubt that if there is another bipedal primate on this planet? No matter if it’s warranted or not? Humans will feel a close kinship to it. Just as people feel a close kinship to other great apes….... According to current Science, we didn't feel a close kinship to Neanderthals and Denisovans. We killed them off........or changed the climate somehow to kill them off. And our propensity to kill off each other supports that theory.
norseman Posted June 10, 2023 Admin Posted June 10, 2023 26 minutes ago, Huntster said: Animism. Even inanimate objects are attributed souls/spirits.........floods, rain, trees, lakes, etc. But the general rule is that native traditions saw sasquatches as either another "race" of people or spiritual entities. According to current Science, we didn't feel a close kinship to Neanderthals and Denisovans. We killed them off........or changed the climate somehow to kill them off. And our propensity to kill off each other supports that theory. They didn’t see them as just another tribe of Indians…. We also bred with them and had babies.
Huntster Posted June 10, 2023 Posted June 10, 2023 Just now, norseman said: They didn’t see them as just another tribe of Indians…..... Agreed, but they saw them as people........or spiritual entities. Quote ........We also bred with them and had babies. Just like Dr. Ketchum claims.
norseman Posted June 10, 2023 Admin Posted June 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, Huntster said: Agreed, but they saw them as people........or spiritual entities. Just like Dr. Ketchum claims. They saw them as wild men, forest spirits, cannibals, stone giants, etc…. No. Not really anything like that. Svante Paabo is not Melba Ketchum either….
Recommended Posts