Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 12:54:23 GMT
Long video. Gonna watch it now while I play NBA2k. That’s a Good game How is 2K good? ''Hey you can become a virtual nigger and play basketball, how fun is that hmm?'' ''yes'' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 13:44:12 GMT
I've got some shit on today so will drop back in on this thread to say more another time. But before shooting off I'll link a YouTube video, a talk + slideshow by Lloyd Pye, perhaps the best and most conpelling summation I've ever heard on what is hairyman Antonio given the kind of theories you're putting out here you in particular I think would find it a fascinating watch if you haven't already seen it. It's been years since I watched it but might rewatch it later for a primer. Adios, until later Amigos. So... that escalated quickly towards the end. But anyway... He made lots of great points, BUT also was the whole time annoying me for a familiar reason. He generalised homo sapiens. I hate when people do that about dogs, and humans. He was so confident with the comparison of footprints and skulls and how humans are "nothing like archaic humans". Meanwhile my homo sapien wife (from papua new guinea) is clearly way way way closer to the archaic humans. Her skull and footprint and bone robusticity and everything he described. She matched the proto-humanoids. He needs to sample a wider array of human diversity. The "missing links" he is looking for are actually within homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is a domesticated animal, so yes the phenotypical diversity is insane, BUT natural stone age people don't deviate that much from archaic proto human species. They are now a minority, but they are the real humans. If you use the dog analogue, just imagine "this french bulldog is nothing like a wolf!!!", yeah no shit, look at the dingo, then you can start ruling out conspiracy theories and start understanding how dogs evolved from wolves. So all the alien/annunaki stuff is, to me, frankly BS. However, still lots of good stuff in there, and he actually made me return to a headspace where I shouldn't rule out the idea some hairy archaic hominids might remain. I always thought the Patterson film was way more intriguing and harder to discount than people made out. And he mentioned the Zana case... to me beyond intriguing. Very very very interesting. He thinks Zana was a neanderthal... I almost guarantee he changed his tune since learning about denisovan. Denisovan is the closest cousin to neanderthal and yes, I fully agree Zana and almas were/are denisovan. It just seems very likely, even though it's also outrageously fantastical. Like did these primitive village hoaxters know subtle details about denisovan and archaid hominids in general? I doubt it. I think they are, or were at least, still finding rare surviving denisovans in siberia/russia/asia. No doubt on the brink of extinction or possibly extinct, but maybe one was still alive in the 1850s. All the almas cases are way way more sober and credible than the sasquatch/bigfoot/yeti cases, IMO. Even the modern ones I don't want to rule out. When hunters say "I saw a guy who was covered in black fur and kind of an asshole" it doesn't sound made up. "I saw a monstrous ape man that was 10 foot tall in some forest outside Seattle", that sounds made up. But the almas stuff just seems like "sorry, but that's what I saw". Humble people being honest. I starting rewatching it earlier today and only got about 15 mins in as he was annoying me a lot too, too confident making wild assumptions along with glaring errors. Years ago when I watched it and knew less I remember being a bit more impressed than I am now, I think because it was the first time I'd heard of the "bigfoot are the pre-humans" connect. So in hindsight I'm a bit embarrassed about asking you to spend 2 of your valuable hours on that. I hope I don't ask you to do that too many more times! I intended for the idea of bigfoot being the pre-humans to be the takeaway but realize now his reasoning isn't as compelling as I used to think. Unfortunately not currently up on the whole Neanderthal vs Denisovan thing. So "the missing link" can be explained by the fact that domestication doesn't take the time "wild evolution" does? Never thought of that but domestication explains it perfectly. Yeah of course the alien/Annunaki connection is definitely bullshit, he is really woo woo. On a sidenote near the beginning he was majorly overrepresenting the physical strength of wild apes, as is common. Just a pet peeve of mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Dec 15, 2022 14:47:47 GMT
How is 2K good? ''Hey you can become a virtual nigger and play basketball, how fun is that hmm?'' ''yes'' It is literally "n - simulator", yes, I guess you take it for granted 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Dec 15, 2022 15:34:11 GMT
So... that escalated quickly towards the end. But anyway... He made lots of great points, BUT also was the whole time annoying me for a familiar reason. He generalised homo sapiens. I hate when people do that about dogs, and humans. He was so confident with the comparison of footprints and skulls and how humans are "nothing like archaic humans". Meanwhile my homo sapien wife (from papua new guinea) is clearly way way way closer to the archaic humans. Her skull and footprint and bone robusticity and everything he described. She matched the proto-humanoids. He needs to sample a wider array of human diversity. The "missing links" he is looking for are actually within homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is a domesticated animal, so yes the phenotypical diversity is insane, BUT natural stone age people don't deviate that much from archaic proto human species. They are now a minority, but they are the real humans. If you use the dog analogue, just imagine "this french bulldog is nothing like a wolf!!!", yeah no shit, look at the dingo, then you can start ruling out conspiracy theories and start understanding how dogs evolved from wolves. So all the alien/annunaki stuff is, to me, frankly BS. However, still lots of good stuff in there, and he actually made me return to a headspace where I shouldn't rule out the idea some hairy archaic hominids might remain. I always thought the Patterson film was way more intriguing and harder to discount than people made out. And he mentioned the Zana case... to me beyond intriguing. Very very very interesting. He thinks Zana was a neanderthal... I almost guarantee he changed his tune since learning about denisovan. Denisovan is the closest cousin to neanderthal and yes, I fully agree Zana and almas were/are denisovan. It just seems very likely, even though it's also outrageously fantastical. Like did these primitive village hoaxters know subtle details about denisovan and archaid hominids in general? I doubt it. I think they are, or were at least, still finding rare surviving denisovans in siberia/russia/asia. No doubt on the brink of extinction or possibly extinct, but maybe one was still alive in the 1850s. All the almas cases are way way more sober and credible than the sasquatch/bigfoot/yeti cases, IMO. Even the modern ones I don't want to rule out. When hunters say "I saw a guy who was covered in black fur and kind of an asshole" it doesn't sound made up. "I saw a monstrous ape man that was 10 foot tall in some forest outside Seattle", that sounds made up. But the almas stuff just seems like "sorry, but that's what I saw". Humble people being honest. I starting rewatching it earlier today and only got about 15 mins in as he was annoying me a lot too, too confident making wild assumptions along with glaring errors. Years ago when I watched it and knew less I remember being a bit more impressed than I am now, I think because it was the first time I'd heard of the "bigfoot are the pre-humans" connect. So in hindsight I'm a bit embarrassed about asking you to spend 2 of your valuable hours on that. I hope I don't ask you to do that too many more times! I intended for the idea of bigfoot being the pre-humans to be the takeaway but realize now his reasoning isn't as compelling as I used to think. Unfortunately not currently up on the whole Neanderthal vs Denisovan thing. So "the missing link" can be explained by the fact that domestication doesn't take the time "wild evolution" does? Never thought of that but domestication explains it perfectly. Yeah of course the alien/Annunaki connection is definitely bullshit, he is really woo woo. On a sidenote near the beginning he was majorly overrepresenting the physical strength of wild apes, as is common. Just a pet peeve of mine. I don't regret watching it at all. I cottoned on pretty early that my guy was motivated by some kind of agenda to promote some wacky theory ( wasn't sure whether religious or aliens) but still that can be a strong motivator to uncover some interesting truths and make some good points, and he did. I think it was really interesting and good and like I said actually made me re-open "bigfoots still exist" in my mind, to some extent. But yes I don't subscribe to his overall final teachings, and also I notice he did have some glaring errors which totally invalidate his final teachings. He's just totally overlooking modern humans who exist now but are ancient archaic humans by design also. He's emphasising the "huge gap" between archaic hominids and modern humans by focusing on one tiny little branch of modern humans which are mutated domestic animals (aka white people) and then making huge assumptions based on that. Like I said you could do the exact same thing with wolves and french bulldogs or cavalier king charles spaniels or whatever. A far more dramatic difference, it doesn't say what he thinks it does. Alien input is not necessary. Compare archaic homo sapiens with these archaic hominids and they aren't that different at all. Post-agricultural revolution homo sapiens? Sure, but that's to be expected with the ramifications on losing natural selection. |
|
|
|
Post by lincoln on Dec 15, 2022 15:40:27 GMT
How do you play? I just do mycareer only. Play on park, 2s and 3s or ante up 1 on 1. I actually don't have 2k23 yet, thinking of skipping it. The one thing I hate about the franchise is they shamelessly rape you of money. Not even like "I can't spare the money!" but more like it's insulting to my intelligence. I mainly play blacktop, I’m still on 2k20 |
|
|
|
Post by lincoln on Dec 15, 2022 15:41:08 GMT
How is 2K good? ''Hey you can become a virtual nigger and play basketball, how fun is that hmm?'' ''yes'' What if the player is white? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Dec 15, 2022 15:55:01 GMT
How is 2K good? ''Hey you can become a virtual nigger and play basketball, how fun is that hmm?'' ''yes'' What if the player is white? That's just weird. My player is black as coal. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Jan 3, 2023 10:08:28 GMT
Maybe a hoax or a misidentified sighting, like seeing a Bear standing on its hind legs in an odd angle.
I mean a lot of people believe in alien abductions, ghosts/demons/possession/goblins/evil spirits, lochness monster, dogman, chupacabras, and etc.
I guess Werewolves are going to be considered real in a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 3, 2023 12:15:45 GMT
What intrigues me about bigfoot are the legends of tribal people who have never encountered one another but have matching stories of a history with large ape-men. Their geographical distribution is interesting too. Through Asia and Russia, over in the Americas and then down in Australia. This makes it seem like humans encountered an ape man in asia during their out-of-africa migration tens of thousands of years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 16:48:45 GMT
I think I know where the North American Bigfoot legend comes from. Traders probably embellished stories of Central American monkeys as hairy men and exaggerated their sizes over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 3, 2023 18:25:08 GMT
I think I know where the North American Bigfoot legend comes from. Traders probably embellished stories of Central American monkeys as hairy men and exaggerated their sizes over time. No. Account suspended. Jk |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 18:52:38 GMT
I think I know where the North American Bigfoot legend comes from. Traders probably embellished stories of Central American monkeys as hairy men and exaggerated their sizes over time. No. Account suspended. Jk Phew, I didn’t see the jk at first. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Jan 3, 2023 19:42:05 GMT
Great footage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 3, 2023 21:14:26 GMT
Phew, I didn’t see the jk at first. Sorry, I should stop joking about stuff like that, lol. I definitely think you are wrong though. I don't think this creature still exists but I think humans definitely encountered a hairy hominid that they still tell legends about. I don't think a spider monkey would muster up such a legend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 23:39:24 GMT
Phew, I didn’t see the jk at first. Sorry, I should stop joking about stuff like that, lol. I definitely think you are wrong though. I don't think this creature still exists but I think humans definitely encountered a hairy hominid that they still tell legends about. I don't think a spider monkey would muster up such a legend. No worries lol, all good bro. |
|
