Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[hiflier]

^^ I already answered that earlier, Norseman. One North American primate, us. But then doesn't that depend on who you talk to? A believe in Sasquatch COULD say two, but only if they think Sasquatch is Human. In which case those believers just might thing that the Human species we call Sasquatch was the one who built those nests. Because saying the Human DNA found at the nest site was too degraded to show some OTHER primate left that door wide open. But, because the degraded Human DNA was all that was there then some other Human, as far as a believer is concerned, would be the only conclusion they could make.

 

It doesn't matter what gets asked here or what diversions get promoted, the FACT of the matter is if Sasquatch built the nests it had to have been a species of Human. No other outcome would be possible. At some point that will sink in, but evidently that salient point sinking in hasn't happened yet?

 

6 minutes ago, Huntster said:

How many genders does science currently recognize in North America?

You're not really going to go there are you?

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Modern Humans, Twist? Because that's the question on the table here.……..

Plussed and quoted for truth and accuracy.

 

Science is balancing its believability on DNA. One one hand, even in courts of law at the penalty of perjury, they claim that DNA can identify a precise individual of any species. Within sasquatchery, it’s repeatedly cornered into a “degraded primate” result, and increasingly and uncomfortably being cornered into the “degraded human” box.

 

Science is running out of wiggle room……….

[Huntster]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

……..You're not really going to go there are you?…….

To trap Science or those who worship at its altar?

 

You’d better believe I would.

 

Now let’s see if its worshippers or protectorate rises to the challenge…….

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

To trap Science or those who worship at its altar?

 

You’d better believe I would.

 

Now let’s see if its worshippers or protectorate rises to the challenge…….

HAH! Cleverly brutal

[Huntster]

8 minutes ago, hiflier said:

………A believe in Sasquatch COULD say two, but only if they think Sasquatch is Human. In which case those believers just might thing that the Human species we call Sasquatch was the one who built those nests. Because saying the Human DNA found at the nest site was too degraded to show some OTHER primate left that door wide open……..

“Degraded” also protects the speaker from identifying the precise individual, whether sasquatch, feral human, land owner, timber industry cruiser, environmental activist, sasquatch hoaxer, et al……….

[hiflier]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

“Degraded” also protects the speaker from identifying the precise individual

But it doesn't protect them one bit from a guy like me It just took me a while to put it together. If the degraded Human DNA WASN'T degraded and it did in fact show a novel primate then my point is that novel primate would ALSO have to be Human. Meldrum and Disotell never said that though, which would've been the TRUE qualifier, and that's why I've taken issue with how they said what they said. IMHO, where the BF community was concerned? It was unforgivably deceptive.

[Huntster]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

………If the degraded Human DNA WASN'T degraded and it did in fact show a novel primate then my point is that novel primate would ALSO have to be Human………

The day it comes back as “non-degraded”, they will be able to identify the individual to some degree. Then, “Hey! Let’s see if we can find this guy’s long, lost cousin!”

[norseman]

44 minutes ago, Huntster said:

How many genders does science currently recognize in North America?

Biology says 2.

[Huntster]

Just now, norseman said:

Biology says 2.

If they do, they’re saying it under their breath……

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The day it comes back as “non-degraded”, they will be able to identify the individual to some degree. Then, “Hey! Let’s see if we can find this guy’s long, lost cousin!”

We'll, if geneticists can use modern Human DNA as a baseline for discovering a Denisovan or a Neanderthal then those same genetic protocols should allow a geneticist to find a novel Human with one test tube tied behind their backs. But it doesn't alter the fact one bit that a Human of some kind built the nests as recently as 3 years ago if the discovery of the new nests in February of 2020 has anything to say about it. Of course what we're dealing with here are the results from seven years ago. And those results were good enough to PROVE that a Human, or Humans, built the ones in the initial discovery. The glaring point, though, is that if something novel build the nests then no matter what anyone says that novel "something" would also have to be nothing beyond Human.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

12 minutes ago, Huntster said:

If they do, they’re saying it under their breath……

No. Your listening to modern psychology and politicians. 

[Huntster]

17 minutes ago, norseman said:

No. You’re listening to modern psychology and politicians. 

Psychology is science. Or, at least, it’s supposed to be. No?

[Huntster]

11 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Psychology is science. Or, at least, it’s supposed to be. No?

For that matter, political science is “the study of politics and power from domestic, international, and comparative perspectives. It entails understanding political ideas, ideologies, institutions, policies, processes, and behavior, as well as groups, classes, government, diplomacy, law, strategy, and war.” Thus, the study of how politics interacts with other sciences is a valid scientific inquiry. If political realities impacts biology, be it the discovery of an another extant human species or gender dysphoria, one should recognize the struggle as a scientific process.

[norseman]

31 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Psychology is science. Or, at least, it’s supposed to be. No?

Its a branch. But I would trust Biology more because its straight forward.

 

But interestingly enough? The APA still calls it a mental disorder.

 

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

 

 

[Twist]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

Modern Humans, Twist? Because that's the question on the table here. Or, you could be more ambiguous, Like Meldrum and Disotell, and just say primates built the nests And therefore what was found in the samples, generally stated, was degraded primate DNA.

 

Im told DNA came back degraded human.  I’ve seen pictures of humans in the nest, we know it’s an area that humans inhabit.  When looking at the evidence as presented I have to default to the most likely answer, humans.   Wish it was Bf, that would be cool and confirming of a long held belief in the creature.  Unfortunately as I stated above, until evidence says otherwise the simplest answer is the most likely answer.