Ketchum 2.0

[hiflier]

It also seems odd that when Ketchum came out with the possible mating of a 13,000 year old European female with some odd species of male that people automatically started looking at an Atlantic land bridge of some sort. Why not just default to a more sensible hypothesis that would point to a 13,000 year journey east across Europe and then into Asia and THEN through Beringia's land bridge? CHASED and persecuted my modern Humans most of the way for centuries, and maybe even through a couple of glacial cycles spanning the Neanderthal's 230,000 years of existence. Some "Zana's" stayed behind and found remote refuges in Asia, like with the Denisovan/Nanderthal matings and Zana was an offspring of that or some other more hybridized Asian remnant that had originated directly from Europe?

 

Disotell's conclusion from the nest samples did NOT necessarily say only a Human primate in the form that we currently know and accept Humans to be in?

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

And now for NAWAC: Would Ketchum and Disotell et al's conclusions be something that NAWAC would be aware of? I think so. And what might that do to the "wood ape" concept? Because "wood ape" has a way of painting a picture that is anything but Human. But there's more to say about this because IF NAWAC knows about Ketchum and Disotell's DNA outcomes (and how could they not!) then what might that say about who NAWAC really is? And I have a reason for asking that last question. Guess what it is.....

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

........Why not just default to a more sensible hypothesis that would point to a 13,000 year journey east across Europe and then into Asia and THEN through Beringia's land bridge? CHASED and persecuted my modern Humans most of the way for centuries..........

 

Dude, you're on a roll........

 

And as an Alaskan, I'm compelled to remind all that a land bridge is not required. Both "humans" and fauna cross the Bering Straits on the ice pack on a regular basis. 

 

 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

........what might that say about who NAWAC really is? And I have a reason for asking that last question. Guess what it is.....

 

No clue, but I'd love to hear your theory.........

[Bigfoot Ed]

Sasquatch takes the form of an ape. It takes the form of a mammal. From most reports there is a significant intelligence to these creatures. Very scant evidence of use of tools, fire or significant shelter structures creates quite a puzzling lifeway.  Not a single verifiable gnawed bone or scat pile????? What we have is a mystery so far "out of the box" that only people able to take their own prejudices, ignorance and belief systems out of the equation can even approach an explanation. 

I myself don't believe they can be "killed" even by the most well armed,camoed up hunter. The idea of the only ethical, quote unquote, hunters have come across them or been in a position to shoot them and then chosen not to do so because of their own fear or the possibility that they'd be killing another person is absolutely preposterous.

The woods are used by plenty  of murderers and treasure hunters, who would take a payday or another person's "life" any day of the week.

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Bigfoot Ed said:

........I myself don't believe they can be "killed" even by the most well armed,camoed up hunter..........

 

If it's "human" like the Science Guys keep telling us, I guarantee that it can be killed. Even Rasputin eventually expired.

[hiflier]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

And now for NAWAC: Would Ketchum and Disotell et al's conclusions be something that NAWAC would be aware of? I think so. And what might that do to the "wood ape" concept? Because "wood ape" has a way of painting a picture that is anything but Human. But there's more to say about this because IF NAWAC knows about Ketchum and Disotell's DNA outcomes (and how could they not!) then what might that say about who NAWAC really is? And I have a reason for asking that last question. Guess what it is.....

 

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

No clue, but I'd love to hear your theory.........

 

Pretty sure that in the beginning NAWAC, a couple of members of which had their roots in the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy until one of them shot at a creature, didn't think the Sasquatch was more than some ape. And as NAWAC the policy WAS to shoot one for science. But according to some about half of that team have moved away from that into more of a photographic evidence posture. And even though we are led to think some members still want to shoot on I think that that is no longer the case. Any further talk along those lines doesn't sit well with what they must know by now about what that creature is.

 

It has made no sene to me whatsoever that government people either under the auspices of USFW or USFS know all about NAWAC. I mean it's not like NAWAC is hiding out from them or the public, right? So their chances of getting ANYTHING to science is pretty much zero in my opinion. UNLESS NAWAC IS government. Or is working with government. Because as a private enterprise trying to do what they said their goal was? Thy have failed for over a dozen years that we know of. And even if its philosophy has changed, it's too late for NAWAC to back out. They're stuck out there because they know that Sasquatch is a Human and so they are bound by law to not shoot it even more so that they were bound by law to not shoot anything not on a state and federal list of animals legal to hunt.

 

And that was true probably for the last ten years and definitely in the last five since the Sasquatch/Human DNA connection has come to the surface. Government always knew where NAWAC was, what they were doing, and why. So even if NAWAC wasn't some government arm or had some kind of government agreement then government was going to make danged sure NAWAC never got a shot off while allowing them to still trot out and maintain the "we're going to shoot one" public posture card. Part of the Bigfoot-is-an-ape game for the benefit of keeping the public UN-focused on the truth. I need more coffee

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Bigfoot Ed said:

Sasquatch takes the form of an ape. It takes the form of a mammal. From most reports there is a significant intelligence to these creatures. Very scant evidence of use of tools, fire or significant shelter structures creates quite a puzzling lifeway.

 

I might say that it takes the form of a Human to the extent that, so far anyway, Human DNA seems to be the only kind of DNA it leaves behind. If one wishes to call that particular brand of Human a Sasquatch then the shoe of evidence fits it nearly perfectly. The issue I have always had is just what you mentioned, scant evidence of tool use, GOOD adequate shelter structures outside of maybe caves, overhangs, and occasional barns or abandoned buildings, and no fire. And that whole ball o' wax comes down to what didn't happen in their brain that did happened in ours. I think it to be what science should be looking for in any sample containing whole cells: Genetic brain differences, specifically those genes involved in the development, or lack of development, in the brain's neocortex.

[Twist]

19 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

It wasn't "what if". She was in their presence. Let's review:

 

* She was 6'6". At your mighty height of 6'3", you'd be looking up to look her in the eye. The average height (in 2016) on Earth for women is 5'3". In Sudan, where her genetics (both M&N) are claimed to be from by Margaryan, the average height for women is 5'7". She was a freaking giant, towering over the Abkhazian locals.

* She was covered in reddish-black hair (common in Sudan?), so much so that a mane ran down her back. Hypertrichosis? How many women in history had hypertrichosis? Go ahead; look it up. Then tell me how many of them were giants.

* She was feral. Again, look it up. Tell us what those odds are. If you actually do the homework, you'll read that a feral life actually explains her reported feats of strength and abilities.

* The combined odds of her "issues" (as you so curtly dismissed some time back) make her being Homo sapien almost as fantastic as her being another species. 

 

The locals called her an almas..........because she was "an almas". It just so happens that that particular almas was a Homo sapien "with issues".

 

Are all almastys Homo sapien? Dunno. But Zana's story *proves* that at least some almastys are/were Homo sapien.

 

If you review Tirademan's Historical Newspaper Archive, you'll find numerous "wildman" articles from a century ago. Along with misidentifications, hoaxes, and manufactured sightings, feral humans explain part of the phenomenon:

 

https://bigfootforums.com/forum/130-tirademans-historical-newspaper-archives/

 

How many of those feral people were giants with hypertrichosis?

 

Now comes the eDNA work being done in Washington. "Human" eDNA found in the lower reaches of the nests. Feral human? Dunno. But it sure wasn't a Paranthropus..........right? Or is Paranthropus DNA distinguishable from Homo sapien? If so, how so? How can peers be so harsh on Ketchum regarding "contamination" on fresh DNA after they swoon over 50,000 year old  Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Indeed, I can quote her peers discussing "ancient" DNA analysis, and Ketchum replying with, "Ummmmmmm.......this isn't ancient. It's fresh.........literally still wet."

 

You did read the peer review rounds, right?

Huntster, if all that eat was verified via more than oral legend, we wouldn’t have this discussion.   If all that you said was verified I have to believe I’d be on your side.   Problem is, the only actual science says that she is human.   The traits and stories you talk of are just that, stories.   Hence why I say #fishtale.  They can be considered nothing more than folk lore.  That’s what they are.  The only science we can count on sides with me, human.  

19 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I got my very first hydraulic log splitter last winter. I like it! It was a long time coming.

I mentioned getting gray in the hair but no smarter.   😂😂. I’m glad you learned better, but if you just got it last year I’m guessing you incurred a few pulled or strained backs before so.   Maybe there’s an ounce of hope for me yet! 😂

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Dude, you're on a roll........

 

And as an Alaskan, I'm compelled to remind all that a land bridge is not required. Both "humans" and fauna cross the Bering Straits on the ice pack on a regular basis. 

 

 

Very true. Just a couple of years ago I saw a photo taken of a Siberian tiger along the Alaskan coast.  Obviously it did not take a land bridge....

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

........the only actual science says that she is human..........The only science we can count on sides with me, human.........

 

LOL.........Like hiflier, I'm amazed how people can't see it even after it's explained to them. I'll try again:

 

Yes, it has been *proven* that Zana was (1st by Sykes) "human", then by Margaran. But she was also an almas. In fact, she was an almas before she was "human"! She looked like an almas, smelled like an almas, was as tall as an almas, was as hairy as an almas, couldn't speak like an almas, slept in sub-zero cold like an almas, swam like an almas, ran like an almas, etc, etc, etc. 

 

Then she died.

 

About 120 years after her death and burial, Science digs her up (specifically Sykes, the "once respected" Oxford genetics professor who tried to use genetic testing to discover what the cryptids actually were), and by some miracle her remains yielded uncontaminated DNA which easily *proved* that she was "human" (Sykes words were "100% human"). A few years later, after Sykes published his theory that her genetic line might have emerged from Africa as early as 100,000, Margaryan couldn't wait to retest and proclaim that Zana was "not anything BUT a human woman", and from the Luo and Luhya lines. Since Margaryan published, Science couldn't wait to pull the sheets over Sykes published study. My link to it online went dead (but I purchased his book.........sorta' like why Ketchum published herself after being run over by Nature.......let's see y'all make it go away before she kicks the bucket like Sykes).

 

Margaryan's pronouncement (and not one second before) somehow gave you the power to now proclaim that, "Aha! Huntster was wrong all along! She was human! She was NOT an almas!"

 

She CANNOT be BOTH?

 

Did I get that right?

 

Let's review Margaryans words:

 

Quote

.............Our results prove that the unknown female buried in the Genaba family cemetery was Zana herself. In contrast to the speculations that she might have been a female Almasty, we provide definitive genome-wide data to put an end to the accounts of her as anything but a human woman.

Zana was likely of eastern African descent, although we cannot rule out partial western African ancestry. We hypothesise that her lineage could have arrived in the territory of present-day Abkhazia (South Caucasus) as a result of the slave-trade practiced between the 16 to 19th centuries CE by the Ottoman Empire. Lastly, we speculate that it was simply her unfamiliar individual physical characteristics (such as unusual behavior, physical strength, tall stature, lack of recognisable speech and hypertrichosis) and the subsequent rumors over generations that fueled the myth of a non-human origin.

 

You are aware that Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores Man, and several other human species are all "human", right?

 

Quote

.........if you just got it last year I’m guessing you incurred a few pulled or strained backs before so.........

 

I never seemed to hurt my back swinging splitting mauls, railroad spike mauls, or sledge hammers. It always seemed to strike in the morning when I bent over the sink to splash water on my face, or when operating certain pieces of equipment. The movement kept me flexible, and the periods of laying or sitting locked me up, resulting in muscle tears. Sometime in my 40's, while working in a heavy equipment shop, I learned of the magic of ibuprofen.. We had a huge bottle of the stuff on the break room table. 800 mm at one shot seems to allow me to work after tearing a muscle. As I age, I'm stiffening up. If I don't get back into the stretching, I'll be in some trouble. 

 

Maybe that hydraulic splitter will actually be the death of me?

[Bigfoot Ed]

 By ape, I am including homo sapien. What DNA????

There is no evidence.

Let's get off that  crazy Melba train, and someone shoot one. 

But of course, I say they can't be killed.

 

 

 

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

Pretty sure that in the beginning NAWAC, a couple of members of which had their roots in the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy until one of them shot at a creature, didn't think the Sasquatch was more than some ape. And as NAWAC the policy WAS to shoot one for science. But according to some about half of that team have moved away from that into more of a photographic evidence posture.

 

And even though we are led to think some members still want to shoot on I think that that is no longer the case. Any further talk along those lines doesn't sit well with what they must know by now about what that creature is.........

 

One of the three samples that Ketchum claimed showed the novel mystery nuclear dna was blood from that individual that they shot. 

 

I found it hilarious in Ketchum's peer review exchanges that one of the reviewers chastised her regarding the ethics of shooting one. She replied with the promise to not mention the shooting. 

 

Maybe that's why they stopped the shooting stance? Because Science basically told them to?

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/authors_response_to_passing_reviews.pdf

 

Quote

.........5. Sample 26 - It is stated in the study that Sample 26 was derived from a shooting incident. The inclusion of such a sample in the study may be inconsistent with contemporary scientific ethics concerning the treatment of both human and animal study subjects and the procurement of research specimens from such. Moreover, this description casts the provenance of such a sample as murky, at best.

Author’s Response:

We have removed any references to the alleged shooting incident. Line 481.......

 

 

 

 

[MIB]

47 minutes ago, Bigfoot Ed said:

There is no evidence.

 

If you believe that  you don't know what "evidence" means.     Anything offered AS evidence IS evidence.     It doesn't have to be accepted as convincing or substantiating a claim.   That is a different thing from "evidence."

 

MIB

[hiflier]

55 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

One of the three samples that Ketchum claimed showed the novel mystery nuclear dna was blood from that individual that they shot. 

 

I found it hilarious in Ketchum's peer review exchanges that one of the reviewers chastised her regarding the ethics of shooting one. She replied with the promise to not mention the shooting. 

 

Maybe that's why they stopped the shooting stance? Because Science basically told them to?

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/authors_response_to_passing_reviews.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought sample 26 was Justin Smeja's "bear steak" tissue that Bart Cutino had independently tested and which came back bear.

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by hiflier