ShadowBorn Posted November 4, 2015 Moderator Posted November 4, 2015 JDL You've got a plus from me as well. Unless you have seen them in the wild no one will never understand. Bodhi JDL,What is "sub - aboriginal" supposed to mean? Break it down to figure it out for your self. It is easy to do and understand. I myself is a holiday inn kind a of dude and with Petron I can be a well you get the gist of it .
dmaker Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 And I don't much care whether or not you believe me. I don't. 1
BigTreeWalker Posted November 4, 2015 Author Posted November 4, 2015 MIB, in answer to your question. The first one, BP#1, consisted of two deer carcasses. In a previous year Mr Townsend found a spot where several deer carcasses had been laid out side by side. I don't know if he was able to return to that area again or not. For EK#1 there were other bones in the area. Older and very scattered. Our conclusions about that area was that it was a good area to hunt. Because some distance away we also found a hunter killed elk with evidence of saw marks on the leg bones. It is close to a spring that appears to be highly used by the animals in the area. My plan for this summer was to set up a hidden time lapse camera high up, aimed at the general spring area to get an idea of what frequents the spring. Because of prior commitments I ran out of time. The plan was to leave it for four months and retrieve it sometime in September. Hopefully next year. This area can't be accessed in the winter because of locked gates and usually lots of snow.
Guest Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 JDL, What is "sub - aboriginal" supposed to mean? Break it down to figure it out for your self. It is easy to do and understand. I myself is a holiday inn kind a of dude and with Petron I can be a well you get the gist of it . Ok, now I want JDL to explain "sub - aboriginal", and you to explain what is your gist.
jayjeti Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 That was a couple of excellent, informative replies JDL. I also believe they are a sub-species of man. Skeptics will proselytize their particular belief system. I've also seen it and had multiple encounters, which it mystifies me, due to all evidence and witness accounts some skeptics are privy to how they maintain their belief system.
dmaker Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) First, Bodhi, I am a scientist, a licensed professional chemical engineer. I'm also a West Point graduate and served on the faculty at West Point for four years. I hold four US patents and ten international. I don't make wild claims. But I'll tell you this: I have had not just sightings of bigfoot, but encounters with them. You are entitled to your opinion that bigfoot does not exist, and others, who may not have seen a bigfoot yet believe in them, are entitled to their positions as well. In fact, your belief system, devoid of personal encounter, is exactly equal to theirs in validity. All you can do is say that you do not accept the current evidence. That does not equate to non-existence, just opinion, and when you act on that opinion you are simply proselytizing your particular belief system. That does not make you an authority. If anyone asks me, I do state that they are real, but I will tell you that from my experience they are no more animals than we are. They are a sub-aboriginal people. And I don't much care whether or not you believe me. Plenty of incredibly smart accomplished people might see things that are not there. John Nash, for example. Added to which, we have no way of verifying a single word of what you claim. Edited November 4, 2015 by dmaker 2
JDL Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 JDL, What is "sub - aboriginal" supposed to mean? You can adopt an aboriginal infant, raise it in a modern family, and it will become culturally indistinguishable from the adopted family. A sub-aboriginal culture has some commonality with us with regard to baseline behaviors, and has its own culture, but a full-blooded bigfoot child would be incapable of adopting our culture and functioning within it. If there is truth to the tales of Zana's children and half-bigfoot native American children who have been culturally assimilated, however, it would have to indicate that bigfoot are essentially human, possessing 23 pairs of chromosomes and the capability to interbreed with us, though still something less than aboriginal with regard to full-blooded bigfoot. First, Bodhi, I am a scientist, a licensed professional chemical engineer. I'm also a West Point graduate and served on the faculty at West Point for four years. I hold four US patents and ten international. I don't make wild claims. But I'll tell you this: I have had not just sightings of bigfoot, but encounters with them. You are entitled to your opinion that bigfoot does not exist, and others, who may not have seen a bigfoot yet believe in them, are entitled to their positions as well. In fact, your belief system, devoid of personal encounter, is exactly equal to theirs in validity. All you can do is say that you do not accept the current evidence. That does not equate to non-existence, just opinion, and when you act on that opinion you are simply proselytizing your particular belief system. That does not make you an authority. If anyone asks me, I do state that they are real, but I will tell you that from my experience they are no more animals than we are. They are a sub-aboriginal people. And I don't much care whether or not you believe me. Plenty of incredibly smart accomplished people might see things that are not there. John Nash, for example. Added to which, we have no way of verifying a single word of what you claim. With regard to my background and qualifications, I would happily share documentation of that with a moderator who can verify them for you. With regard to my encounters, you are entitled to your opinion. But it is only that, your opinion. I plussed you for consistency. 1
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 ""A body could not be denied"? If any one of a half dozen accounts I have read about what happened when a body is present is true, ..." They are not. What the accounts are is unsubstantiated. Just because they're unsubstantiated doesn't meant that the accounts aren't true, nor does it make them true.
Guest Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 JDL, What is "sub - aboriginal" supposed to mean? You can adopt an aboriginal infant, raise it in a modern family, and it will become culturally indistinguishable from the adopted family. A sub-aboriginal culture has some commonality with us with regard to baseline behaviors, and has its own culture, but a full-blooded bigfoot child would be incapable of adopting our culture and functioning within it. If there is truth to the tales of Zana's children and half-bigfoot native American children who have been culturally assimilated, however, it would have to indicate that bigfoot are essentially human, possessing 23 pairs of chromosomes and the capability to interbreed with us, though still something less than aboriginal with regard to full-blooded bigfoot. The thing is,"sub-aboriginal" and now "something less than aboriginal" seems to imply that the Native American people are inferior to everyone else, and sounds kinda racist. The way I interpret your classification, is that aboriginal people are wild savages and Bigfoot are even more so.
dmaker Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 I think, in this case, sub means more like pre? As in bigfeets would be below aboriginals on a North American timeline. That is the only way it makes sense to me.
SWWASAS Posted November 4, 2015 BFF Patron Posted November 4, 2015 What the UFO people have been doing for unsubstantiated claims is to encourage witnesses to submit to lie detector tests. Not proof in a court of law but certainly would make me more comfortable with anecdotal evidence about some claim of BF body confiscation. Along with that the UFO people use hypnotic regression to get as much about encounters as they can. It seems to me that the UFO people are decades ahead of BF people with methodology in sorting out fabrications from likely true events. There are problems with both of those methods but at least it is an honest attempt at establishing credibility of a witness. Of course that takes funding and organization on the part of BF organizations and there is precious little of that.
JDL Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 I clearly stated that an aboriginal child raised in a modern home would become culturally indistinguishable from the adoptive family. This would not be possible if they were mentally or physiologically inferior. So you are imagining any implications of inferiority. Conversely, a child born to a modern culture, lost and adopted by an aboriginal culture would become socially indistinguishable from the adoptive aboriginal culture. In fact, there are several accounts of this in America from the 1800s. I would define the common perception of aboriginals as physiologically modern, yet technologically less advanced, thus culturally different. Any perceived implication of inferiority on your part would have to be restricted to the technological sense as I presented it. Cultural inferiority is a subjective construct, and I did not go there. With regard to sub-aboriginal as I've defined it, there would be a differentiation, but I wouldn't describe it as inferior, just not apples to apples. I could go with pre-aboriginal. I looked up the actual definition of aboriginal. I think we all commonly perceive aboriginal to mean primitive, but all it actually means is first inhabitants of an area. If the first inhabitants of an area were technologically superior, the term aboriginal would be equally valid.
ShadowBorn Posted November 4, 2015 Moderator Posted November 4, 2015 JDL, What is "sub - aboriginal" supposed to mean? Break it down to figure it out for your self. It is easy to do and understand. I myself is a holiday inn kind a of dude and with Petron I can be a well you get the gist of it . Ok, now I want JDL to explain "sub - aboriginal", and you to explain what is your gist. Ok, First I agree with what JDL has said about sub-aboriginal and this : that they are a people who first originated on a land mass. Whether they be Native Americans or another race that we have not yet discovered . The gist of this is, that when I drink petron I am a total butt H#le.
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 ShadowBorn, I'm wondering why you thought this was relevant to my question about the use of the word "aboriginal" but this is not the place for that discussion. JDL, If you meant "they were here before the humans arrived" it wasn't clear to me, and if you meant Bigfoot is sub - human there was no need to further qualify it. That's all I've got to say, let's get back to dem bones.
ShadowBorn Posted November 5, 2015 Moderator Posted November 5, 2015 ShadowBorn, I'm wondering why you thought this was relevant to my question about the use of the word "aboriginal" but this is not the place for that discussion. What about the word Aboriginal. Sure it was relevant to your question. What was not relevant to the question was my answer to myself drinking petron turning myself into a Butt H#le. ab·o·rig·i·nal /ˌabəˈrijənl/ adjective adjective: aboriginal 1. (of human races, animals, and plants) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous. synonyms: indigenous, native; More original, earliest, first; ancient, primitive, primeval, primordial; rareautochthonous "the area's aboriginal inhabitants" •of or relating to the Australian Aborigines or their languages. adjective: Aboriginal noun noun: aboriginal; plural noun: aboriginals 1. an aboriginal inhabitant of a place.
Recommended Posts