 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leatherneck
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 669
|
 Posted: October 25th, 2007 09:29 PM |
     |
|
Good work.
Be especially watchful at night. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: October 25th, 2007 10:19 PM |
|
|
Having slogged thru the last 13 pages of this forum, I'd like to add my two-cents' worth to this discussion:
First: I've watched any number of black bears at garbage dumps (in Northern MI) over the years and, yes, the wild ones tend be more graceful and even "cat-like" than the overstuffed, roly-poly ones you see at the zoo. Wild black bears often have more slender, albeit well-muscled, limbs than their overnourished compatriots confined to zoos, private collections and roadside tourist attractions. Even allowing for possible malnutrition AND mange, though, the creature in Jacobs 2&3 doesn't make sense as a bear. The extraordinary length of the left forarm in relation to both the torso and the legs appears completely out of proportion for a black bear. And the (hind) legs look pretty long, too.
Second: And speaking of proportions, I'm struck by the fact that the Jacobs Creature is doing exactly what you or I (or any other great ape) might do if we were trying to bend over and sniff/eat something on the ground. He's bent forward (at the waist ), his torso is leaning forward and down and his buttocks are are almost pointing skyward. Trust me on this, but Mother Nature designed black bears to be a very efficient disposal system for whatever may be on the ground; they don't have to go thru the contortions the Jacobs Creature is going thru just to get a bite of something lying a few inches under its nose. The clincher, for me, is the long, well-muscled arm splayed out to the creature's left side -- apparently to support its weight as it leans forward. Even if you're prepared to assume that a bear could have a foreleg that appears to be longer than its torso, why would the critter assume such a tortured, nonsensical posture just to get at some morsel that was a few inches from its face? The explanation, I think, is fairly straightforward: it's not a bear.
Third: If it's not a bear it's either (a) a feral ape (i.e., an escapee), (b) some kind of a hoax or put-on or (c) a for-real sasquatch. I dunno how to address this issue other than to defer to the experts but, taking the pix at face value, I'd have to say they're one of the most intriguing developments we BFologists have seen in a good long time. We should probably remember that these pictures, if genuine, aren't likely to resolve the Bigfoot Mystery any more than the Patterson film did. It's just another piece of "anecdotal" evidence in a file that -- as the years go by -- keeps getting fatter and fatter.
And one, last, off-the-wall question: the Jacobs Creature appears to have buttocks -- small, tight, muscular "buns". Image 2 seems to suggest that our critter has an almost-discernible (and somewhat human-looking) "crack". Do black bears have buttocks too? Do bears have "glutes" that perform the same function as the muscles in a human derriere? For some reason, I kind of doubt it. I ask the question out of sincere ignorance; if there's anyone out there who's ever field dressed, butchered or otherwise dissected a black bear, it might be useful to hear from you.
Thanx,
MARC |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 07:06 AM |
|
|
Experts are'nt going to resolve this...all we got to go on is the photos and over the last week we have debated and analysed every angle.. and what have we voted currently; sasquatch 20, bear 19....what can an expert offer, looking at the photos that is going to 'prove' one way or the other...if it comes up 'proven' sasquatch' by the experts its a hometown decision...if it comes up bear, many people here won't except it and believe what they want to believe anyway....its gotta be 'INCONCLUSIVE"...these 2 grainy, blurry black and white photos just aint enough..wish they were but sorry....would never stand up in court...wouldn't even get to court......Ahhh i just had an idea for a new topic...
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beenthereseenthat
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 324
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 07:51 AM |
|
|
Where's the snout? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bobo
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 08:22 AM |
|
|
| Heres what I have noticed and can not believe that no one else has. I took both photos and put them in photoshop. In Pic #3 there is a whitish line above what appears to be the head smelling the ground. I notice the same line in front of the leg and after the leg and above the head. That white line is also in pic #2. I took the pics and laid them on top of each other in phototshop and changed the opacity of the top one by 1% at a time and that line is always there. Try it and focus on the the line. This indicates to me that there is no neck. That line is part of the log and would also seem like if indeed that is its head it is nolonger attached. Thate b blob on the ground my be part of the body, back leg but I do not think it is the head.. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TXSquatch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 09:15 AM |
|
|
This is my first post. A friend sent me the link, and I am a 'closet' Bigfoot fanatic. I watch all of the shows when I see them on, and I'm intrigued by the interest you all have for this animal.
I, too, skimmed through all of these posts, and was surprised (like bobo) that no one else has thought differently of the 3rd photo (2nd one with animal X).
If you look at it quickly, it looks to me like the animals right leg is on the ground, knee bent, and tucked under his glutes. It is 'kneeling' on its right leg. It's left leg is up, knee up near its chest where it is leaning over it, foot likely on the ground but hidden by its long left arm which is also on the ground supporting its weight.
The right arm is then outstretched forward trying to grab something or what not...and the face is down and we are looking at the top/back of its head. Or, just too dark to see the face.
Am I the only one seeing it this way?
Regardless, great game-cam pics - if it's a hoax (looks doubtful), it is a great attempt.
Just thought i'd provide a different look.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kate1980
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 258
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wdlp1965
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 09:28 AM |
|
|
I too have examined the pictures, this being my first post as well.
One can see a very distinct butt crack with lighter hair in picture 2, I am pretty sure bears do not posses such.
Secondly in picture 3 one can also see a patch of skin under the arm, probably due to the swinging motion of the elongated arms wearing the hair away.
This leads me to believe these pictures are not a hoax as I wouldn't believe somebody would take the time to or have the knowledge to impliment this into a so called monkey suit.
IMO what we have here is a curious juvenile sasquatch investigating the site set up by the individual for tracking deer, just as the report states.
Edit: After re-examining the pictures I also noticed that in picture #3 you can see a skin crease where the individuals knee bends furthering the evidence that this is not a bear nor a hoax suit.
(Edited by wdlp1965)
(Edited by wdlp1965)
(Edited by wdlp1965) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mudzillaefi
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 104
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 11:28 AM |
|
|
| Bear bear bear! mangy bear, or bears summer coat, but definitely a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wdlp1965
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 11:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
mudzillaefi wrote:
Bear bear bear! mangy bear, or bears summer coat, but definitely a bear.
|
Since when do bears have long straight legs and a waist in which they bend at?
Not to mention, since when do bears have butt cracks as well.
Anybdoy who thinks this is a bear is basically ignoring the obvious signs that this indeed it is NOT a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TrentCoole
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 12:09 PM |
|
|
I worked at a national park in 1998 & before that hadn't seen a bear in the wild. Well, we had a major challenge with black bears in the campgrounds & in the residential area where staff members families were located. I lived in the park adjacent to the wardens office, which is about 2 miles forom the residential area.
I witnessed a lot of bear behavior during that time including finding a juvenile bear that was a bit scrawny from being on it's own for the first time, on my doorstep after work one day. In order to work in the park alongside bears, we had to get extra training for dealing with bears. I've come face to face with this juvenile on several occassions before we trapped it & relocated it.
On a side note, the only time we had to get out the tranquilizers was when a large black bear, we figure over 600 pounds, had wandered into the fenced off area for civilian workers (mechanics, carpenters, and others not involved with the parks activities). We managed to scare it off without firing a shot.
Why would an animal that normally walks on all fours stand up & bend to an awkward position like that. I don't know what it is but it can't be a bear. It does look like a primate. But not any that I know of. I considered an orangutan but they have really short hind legs.
By the way Rod, where did you get these numbers?
Quote:
rod
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 126
Posted: October 24th, 2007 05:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as they turn for home its sasquatch 15...bear 10.....elvis 2 and elvabersquatch bringing up the rear on 1........jonathan, at least you can see now what i see....and i respect and enjoy your comments....toledodan i agree ........inconclusive and sitting on the fence is american for elvabersquatch i am told so it goes to 3....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for what its worth
rod
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 126
Posted: October 24th, 2007 05:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LATE PLUNGE IN THE BETTING, whisper is jeff meldrum says probably 'bear'...sasquatch 15 but looking over his shoulder...bear 13 and has a sniff.....elvabersquatch keeping his followers happy with 3 and the old hunka hunka burning love himself is 1 and |
You go from 10 votes for a bear to 13 votes for a bear in one post. If you explained or corrected the numbers, then dismiss this last paragraph.
Oops, I forgot to vote. I say sasquatch.
Be Positive. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 12:53 PM |
|
|
I'm fence sitting (elvabersquatch) now. I was bear, based on my interpretation that picture 3 was a rump view, as indicated by Stormbear's animation. But now I've swung to the side-on view based on the pale marking under the left arm. I still don't rule out that it's a bear, but I'v ealso ruled in the possibility that it's a primate, which I didn't before.
In any case, the whole furore demonstrates that still photos will have to be razor sharp to be even close to conclusive, and that those who find this evidence as compelling as the Patterson film are way over-optimistic. Game cams are all well and good, but an installation that shoots 20 seconds of video when its motion sensor is triggered would be 100 times better. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 01:00 PM |
|
|
I dont think anyone is saying that it is a bear bending over at the waist. It is a bear on all fours looking almost straight at the camera, with its right front leg stretched out. What are being called legs of a squatch are the left front and back legs of the bear. You can see faint eyeshine and the outline of ears and snout. Pics have been posted to show this.
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brynsmith
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 01:50 PM |
|
|
I live in northwest PA. Sasquatch does not exist in this region. Its a bear...
Bryn Smith |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thenorthboi
Approved
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 02:06 PM |
|
|
Seems the front and back limbs are way too long in porportion to the body for it to be a bear. It just doesn't look natural. The way it's sniffing the ground is way different than what a bear would look like. A bears nose is very close to the ground in comparison and wouldn't have to contort in such a weird manner. I say, put up some more cameras in this area and better yet. a motion activated digital video recorder.
Greetings |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bobo
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 04:12 PM |
|
|
Ok here it is for all to see. Look at the red circles. There are light spots in each small circles. These photos were taken right from bfro. they were laid on top of each other in photo shop. Each pic i posted is with the top ones opacity at lower levels. notice the red circles change with the opacity settings because they are on the top pic.
100% opacity
75% opacity
40% opcity
20% opqcity
Notice the light spots are in both pics. What people think is the face is the light spot in the first pick and the white line above the head is also in the first pic. They do not move they just become a little darker due to the shadow. what people think is the head is not and what people think is the face is not. those light spots are in both pics. All you photoshop users try it yourself with the pics posted on the site. This is not a creature bent over at the waist plain and simple. I can not believe that no one else has noticed or tried this. Do not get me wrong I have no idea what this is but what I do know is it is not bent over and that is not the face or head.
(Edited by bobo) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 04:16 PM |
|
|
Thanks bobo!
I tried that same comparison, at first thinking that it was a rock. Not really sure. Could be rock and corn. Corn, Corn and deer cocaine. so and so forth.
But yes, it is in both frames and does not move.
Thanks again for the comparison.
I'll say that it was a great job. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bobo
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 04:23 PM |
|
|
| I know that the white stuff on the log is deer feed. also I do not see where some people think it is walking upright. Sure looks like all 4 are on the ground to me but thats just me. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 04:33 PM |
|
|
if you have any doubts about my integrity trent, there will be some of my "friends" knocking on your door very, very soon.....no fair enough, its in your constitution, freedom of speech(unless your an aussie)...feel free to count them, i may have missed a few...cheers
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 06:21 PM |
|
|
Its a root from the tree.
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reader
Approved
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 08:42 PM |
|
|
I know this is not going to be popular with either side of the agrument of a bear or a bf, but I have felt from the the 1st time I saw the pictures that 2 and 3 were not the same animal but animals of the same kind, but not the same animal. The animal in 2 looks to be heavier than the one in 3. Am I wrong I do not know, its just the lighting is not good. The more I look at these the more I think this.
I think it is possible for BigFoot to be real. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 08:46 PM |
|
|
reader
I thought the same thing at first. I sometimes think it now. But, the seconds between frames keep me from questioning it any further.
You are right though, the 2nd pic does look heavier than the 3rd. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reader
Approved
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 08:48 PM |
|
|
Also the animal in 3 seems to have more of a neck than the one in 2.
I think it is possible for BigFoot to be real. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 09:23 PM |
|
|
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH...now we got two of them.....people lets all go to bed and sleep on it...(it is 11.30 in the morn here but I am willing to go back to bed for solidarity)....
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 09:28 PM |
|
|
| Come on now rod, you can't see the difference in weight with those two pics of what you are calling a ...bear? Almost chocked while writting ...bear. See, I did it again. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tygrwolf
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 09:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
rod wrote:
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH...now we got two of them.....people lets all go to bed and sleep on it...(it is 11.30 in the morn here but I am willing to go back to bed for solidarity)....
|
The Foster must be flowing fresh down under, I will keep an eye out for you mate. no running into jerrys there. Look out for the good things in life there.
Shape Shifting at its best |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 09:41 PM |
|
|
Im here for you Rod!!!! Us bear believers gotta stick together.
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CascadeMike
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: October 26th, 2007 10:07 PM |
|
|
Ive already said this but im gonna say it again. This whole thing could all be settled if they just release all the other photos taken. And dont try to tell me there isnt any other photos because my buddy has one of these trail cams and they take alot more photos then just 2 in 30 minutes. And the fact that they dont release the other photos just makes me think that they clearly show that it is a bear and they want there hoax to make it big. Dont get me wrong, i want it to be a squatch but i just dont believe that these photos this time show one.
What the... Did you see that? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smithcd
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 02:25 AM |
|
|
| I'm with cascade; clay |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RossNunes
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 02:28 AM |
|
|
| Please see the images comparing the anatomy of the feet that I placed at the end of page 4 (the post begun by street medic). I am open to correction, but I sincerely believe that a careful consideration of these points renders the bear hypothesis untenable. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
