norseman Posted November 10, 2023 Admin Posted November 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, Huntster said: What species are these two animals? Those two animals are domesticated and belong to the same species. But selectively bred for desired traits.
Huntster Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, norseman said: She also wasn’t a Bigfoot…. Correct, even though she looked like a bigfoot, acted like a bigfoot, and was hirstute like a bigfoot, she was Homo sapien and human. And we know this because her DNA said so, in accordance with your scientific ideology. Quote ........It’s a human that evidently thinks she is a dog. Correct. She acts like a dog because she was raised by dogs. She will never act fully human. Her early development was that of a dog. Yet she is Homo sapien and human. And we know this because her DNA says so. Thus, behavior has absolutely nothing to do with it. Edited November 10, 2023 by Huntster
Huntster Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, norseman said: Those two animals are domesticated and belong to the same species. But selectively bred for desired traits. Yes. They are the exact same species, even though they look completely different, including brain size. Indeed, the smaller dog might very well be smarter that the large dog, despite brain size differences.
Huntster Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 So.........a bigfoot *might* be of the genus Homo, and thus leaves DNA which is extremely close to Homo sapien DNA in a nest, and if so, that bigfoot would be *human*, just like all others in the genus. Or...........a bigfoot *might* be a feral person, and thus a Homo sapien and human, just like Zana. In both cases, that bigfoot is not a species managed by USFWS. It would not be inclusive of either the ESA or wildlife management authorities. And if you killed it with premeditation, you will commit homicide. Homo-cide. The killing of a human. But don't worry, it's done all the time. Daily. Sometimes on grand scale. That's why we have lawyers. Blast away. 1
norseman Posted November 10, 2023 Admin Posted November 10, 2023 39 minutes ago, Huntster said: Yes. They are the exact same species, even though they look completely different, including brain size. Indeed, the smaller dog might very well be smarter that the large dog, despite brain size differences. Which means what? What are you trying to say? Because a bulldog and a grayhound have different sized brains and are the same species that some how it equates across to DIFFERENT species in Hominids? So Chimps are as smart as humans? Got it!🤔 26 minutes ago, Huntster said: So.........a bigfoot *might* be of the genus Homo, and thus leaves DNA which is extremely close to Homo sapien DNA in a nest, and if so, that bigfoot would be *human*, just like all others in the genus. Or...........a bigfoot *might* be a feral person, and thus a Homo sapien and human, just like Zana. In both cases, that bigfoot is not a species managed by USFWS. It would not be inclusive of either the ESA or wildlife management authorities. And if you killed it with premeditation, you will commit homicide. Homo-cide. The killing of a human. But don't worry, it's done all the time. Daily. Sometimes on grand scale. That's why we have lawyers. Blast away. I will.
Huntster Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, norseman said: Which means what? What are you trying to say?.......... Brain size, behavior (tool use, fire use) have absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy. It's genetic. Now, back to the thread topic: These creatures are almost certainly *human*..........of the genus Homo. The species remains in question. You can run way out on the branch and say that they're extraterrestrial, pithecan, or some other genus currently unknown, but that's pretty much where you'd be........out on a flimsy limb. Thus, killing one or trying to "manage" them like wildlife is legally inappropriate. I still say that an ESA petition and certain suit is appropriate to drag government into a courtroom to fight with itself over the issue and either admit what they know (which they won't) or force them to conduct a (sham) study. But we will never see such an ESA listing. Edited November 10, 2023 by Huntster
hiflier Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Huntster said: I still say that an ESA petition and certain suit is appropriate to drag government into a courtroom to fight with itself over the issue and either admit what they know (which they won't) or force them to conduct a (sham) study. But we will never see such an ESA listing. Yes. Until that happens then the conversations between you and Norseman will be circular and result in nothing but unresolved debates. We've all seen just about all we can see and talk about but it seems that just before the Forum hits the wall a thread will come up, or a diversionary comment once again steers it away from hitting that wall. I hit the wall about 6 years ago (or more) once the nest discovery happened and DNA came onto the scene as a way forward. Been asking more and more ignored and unanswered questions ever since. I'm on the other side of the wall now and know that it's the only place any reasonably thinking person will end up. "Phase one" got me here. Designing the path forward from there is "phase two." Now just need to find a Pro Bono lawyer who is fearless. Could one lawyer have both of those elements to offer? Because stepping into phase two successfully will require both. A wealthy proponent of BF existence would certainly be welcome at this point. Maybe if all researchers sell off their research equipment and pool the money (which would be a LOT) then phase two could enter phase three. And we all have a pretty good idea by now what phase three is. Edited November 10, 2023 by hiflier
Huntster Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 1 hour ago, hiflier said: ........the conversations between you and Norseman will be circular and result in nothing but unresolved debates........ This is exactly what government wants, and I see no way around it. Even if a sasquatch is killed by vehicular collision, gunfire, or natural causes and subsequently found, government simply shows up, takes the proof, and we end up in the same situation we're in today. This *might* be what happened in the Smeja case. Quote ........I hit the wall about 6 years ago (or more) once the nest discovery happened and DNA came onto the scene as a way forward........ With all due respect, the DNA front is just as problematic. It has been going on at least since the Eric Muench affair in 1989. At first, DNA was "unrecognized". Then it was "degraded". Now it's "human". The funny part is that the "human" line *might* actually be true. They simply have us so ideologically divided and confused that it furthers along their ideological war, which has been waging at least since Darwin's publications in the 1850's and '60's. Quote .......Designing the path forward from there is "phase two." Now just need to find a Pro Bono lawyer who is fearless....... Phase Two, if even remotely successful, will only force government to begin a "Project Blue Book" in sasquatchery, which they will most certainly pollute with BS like they did with Project blue Book in UFOlogy.
hiflier Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 12 minutes ago, Huntster said: This is exactly what government wants, and I see no way around it. Even if a sasquatch is killed by vehicular collision, gunfire, or natural causes and subsequently found, government simply shows up, takes the proof, and we end up in the same situation we're in today. This *might* be what happened in the Smeja case. With all due respect, the DNA front is just as problematic. It has been going on at least since the Eric Muench affair in 1989. At first, DNA was "unrecognized". Then it was "degraded". Now it's "human". The funny part is that the "human" line *might* actually be true. They simply have us so ideologically divided and confused that it furthers along their ideological war, which has been waging at least since Darwin's publications in the 1850's and '60's. Phase Two, if even remotely successful, will only force government to begin a "Project Blue Book" in sasquatchery, which they will most certainly pollute with BS like they did with Project blue Book in UFOlogy. And on the positive side? Because it's difficult to think there's that much negativity surrounding this. I just love it when people introduce failure way before anything is in the works. And it's not just you, Huntster. Yes, there's wisdom there sometimes but generally, so far, the legal idea has been a big shoot down. But then, when one thinks about it, Forums by and large are just shooting galleries. Kinda had my fill of that sort of attitude. What usually gets positive responses and promotions here typically have little to do with going hard as hell for the truth. In truth I'm not disappointed because I don't expect much. Anyone think Meldrum, Barackman, Randles, Morehead, Powell, Coleman, or anyone else is interested in this? After being here for ten years I can honestly say I doubt it very much that any of them are. The glaring question in my mind has always been...why not?
norseman Posted November 10, 2023 Admin Posted November 10, 2023 3 hours ago, Huntster said: Brain size, behavior (tool use, fire use) have absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy. It's genetic. Now, back to the thread topic: These creatures are almost certainly *human*..........of the genus Homo. The species remains in question. You can run way out on the branch and say that they're extraterrestrial, pithecan, or some other genus currently unknown, but that's pretty much where you'd be........out on a flimsy limb. Thus, killing one or trying to "manage" them like wildlife is legally inappropriate. I still say that an ESA petition and certain suit is appropriate to drag government into a courtroom to fight with itself over the issue and either admit what they know (which they won't) or force them to conduct a (sham) study. But we will never see such an ESA listing. But it does. There is an absolute progression of brain size within the genus Homo from oldest to youngest species. Sorry! The creatures most certainly are a primate…. Not necessarily of the genus Homo. That doesn’t mean they are not related to modern humans. Not Homo genus species. https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-africanus https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/paranthropus-aethiopicus https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/ardipithecus-ramidus https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis And many more……
norseman Posted November 10, 2023 Admin Posted November 10, 2023 21 hours ago, Huntster said: Yup. "If it is determined to be in the genus Homo, it is human, just like Homo sapien, Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Denisovan, Homo Floresiensis, etc." "Just like" refers to its humanity, not how it looked to a 21st Century artist. That is, of course, unless you're ready to begin discussion about spirituality and its role in the definition of "homo"........ I also want to point out something. Isn’t it hypocritical for you to make fun of a “21st century artist” rendition of a Homo Habilis based on REAL fossils of the skull? Versus taking Zana stories of her size, physicality, morphology at face value based simply on stories? Correct me if I am wrong? We do not have any remains of Zana. We have stories. 🤷♂️
Huntster Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 1 hour ago, norseman said: ……..There is an absolute progression of brain size within the genus Homo from oldest to youngest species. Sorry!……. Homo Floresiensis shoots your model to Hell.
Huntster Posted November 10, 2023 Posted November 10, 2023 24 minutes ago, norseman said: I also want to point out something. Isn’t it hypocritical for you to make fun of a “21st century artist” rendition of a Homo Habilis based on REAL fossils of the skull? …….. Didn’t you condemn Danny Vendramini’s artist rendition of Neanderthals in his Predation Theory? Only your artists are valid? Quote ……… Correct me if I am wrong? We do not have any remains of Zana. We have stories. 🤷♂️ There was a whole village with “stories” of Zana, including her children. when it was all documented in the 1960’s. As Margaryan wrote: Quote ……..One prime example is Zana of Abkhazia (South Caucasus), a well-documented 19th century female who was captured living wild in the forest. …….
norseman Posted November 10, 2023 Admin Posted November 10, 2023 13 minutes ago, Huntster said: Homo Floresiensis shoots your model to Hell. No it doesn’t. It’s a species that has Island dwarfism. It’s brain to body mass ratio is inline with Homo Erectus. Besides your trying to use outliers to prop up your bogus talking point. Going back in time brains get smaller on the aggregate with Hominids.
norseman Posted November 10, 2023 Admin Posted November 10, 2023 3 minutes ago, Huntster said: Didn’t you condemn Danny Vendramini’s artist rendition of Neanderthals in his Predation Theory? Only your artists are valid? There was a whole village with “stories” of Zana, including her children. when it was all documented in the 1960’s. As Margaryan wrote: Yes. I condemn slit pupils in a hominid. It’s stupid. It’s also not supported from the fossil record or the Neanderthal genome. So they don’t have her skeleton to study. And yet you take the “stories” at face value. Why? Because it fits your narrative.
Recommended Posts