 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
 Posted: October 20th, 2007 01:32 PM |
     |
|
Hey Cowboyman- I know, but it's real hard. Even adjusting the brightness won't gain any detail. That's why I'm thinking along the lines of what Kate1980 said about the head resting/ sniffing thing.
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tazman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 02:12 PM |
|
|
These are so cool photos. It dose look like a Primate. But we don't know how a young sasquatch/bigfoot looks like when he or she is young. As for the way it looks you can go by the way a adult bigfoot looks like. Like LOOKING4SQUATCH said "I would never have thought that my 6lb. son would grow up to be a 6'6" 250lb." My son was about 6lbs also he had long legs and arms and big feet and hands and is 6'2 At 280lbs i would have guess he was going to tall and thin. So this could be a younger bigfoot. I am looking for ward to the analysus that BFRO and the anthropologists at Idaho State University at Pocatello are doing. GOOD LUCK guys.
Open our minds and eyes to the world around us. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom
Approved
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 02:13 PM |
|
|
| wasserwulf to answer your questions there were 7 pics total with 30 second delays everything happened on the first day. Dates and times are on all pics. I believe the other pics along with a photo taken with a digital camera at the tree with a yardstick will be shown soon on the BFRO site. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buck
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 02:21 PM |
|
|
am new here, but would like to add some comments.
1. to me the object measures out to be about 5' 8" tall.
my measurements were reached by assuming there is a 4" spread betwen the cub with the eye shine. incidentally, didn't know an animals eyes would reflect in infrared light. the bear cubs appear to be about 2' long and weigh in between 50 or 60 lbs.
2. the questionable ball in picture 3 can also be seen in #2 but is extremely light in color and there appears to be a shadow under the left arm. can't see one anywhere else.
3. neither picture gives a clear head picture. it is obscured from the hump in the back forward.
obviously ther has been much shuffling of the feet between pictures. just part of my observations none of which are necessarily right.
4. wonder why the mineral block was concealed? peace  |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 02:59 PM |
|
|
Hi Tom- I'm curious about what your brother thinks about all of this. Is he amazed at all the excitement his trail cam has caused, and is he interested in Bigfoot? And how about you- what's your opinion? Thanks for keeping us informed - Eric
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 03:03 PM |
|
|
What an exciting development, and how appropriate for these to be posted on the forthieth anniversary of the Patterson-Gimlin footage. A fitting tribute. Much analysis will be performed, of course, but for my money this is clearly the real thing. How strange it looks, how unlike a person in a costume. The sheer length of the left arm in shot #2 strikes me (when seen within the whole context) as disposative. That, and the fact that this figure is able to lean so far down as to place its head on the ground without bending its legs!!! Congratulations to all concerned, this is cause for a general celebration within our hard-working community. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron_Lamb
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 04:00 PM |
|
|
Very interesting photos. I believe most skeptics will immediately attempt to identify the figure as a roaming orangatang, as opposed to a young squatch.
There is no possibility that one could assume this would be a man in an ape costume. The anatomy of the figure does not at all match up with that of a human. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kate1980
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 05:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Eric Squatcher wrote:
Hey Kate1980- I was wondering when you would chime in with some of your professional primate observations. 
What's your take on the appendages?
|
I think the overall appearance definitely does not lend to any common primate, it does have an appearance similiar to a chimp but the proportions are not what I think you would typically find. The legs are much longer that what you would see on a chimp of any age, young or old. As far as everyone debating over the size of the feet, I'd say its very likely a juvenile who hasn't hit puberty yet. I also think its a juvenile just due to what its doing, I think you'd find an adult to be alot of more cautious of this situation and might have easily discovered the camera. I think they might tend to hang back and assess a scene rather than freely explore it.
Coastal British Columbia exped. 2008
New Hampshire exped. 2008 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beenthereseenthat
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 324
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 05:36 PM |
|
|
| I know what you mean, those roaming orangutan have been a problem in Northwestern PA for a long time. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kate1980
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 05:39 PM |
|
|
LOL...pesky critters huh?
Coastal British Columbia exped. 2008
New Hampshire exped. 2008 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 06:52 PM |
|
|
Which one? The orangutans or the skeptics?
Kate1980- good observations.
I was wondering if maybe an adult was nearby, and jr. was doing some investigating first. 
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MikeSquatch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 06:55 PM |
|
|
| I looked in the background of both photos to see if I could see any other sort of animal, but I didnt' see anything. Lightening and using negative didn't help me unsolve the riddle. This is, by far, the closest I think we've seen to good photographic evidence of a primate surviving in the wilds of North America. I don't know about y'all, but I can't wait for the other photos to hit the site! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roboron
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 738
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Roboron wrote:
Look at it's legs, much longer,perportionate wise, to the body than a apes or other primates .
|
Kate the very first thing that I noticed as well
R.Boles
BFRO investigator for the Ozarks
" IF Theodore Roosevelt believed,why can't I ?" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:29 PM |
|
|
Its definately got us all excited...what is frustrating is it is just not clear enough, the animal is not just standing there to make it easier to discern just what it is...all it does it add to the mystery...I agree looking at it again that the legs seem too long for a chimp, and I take your point about young kids, especially some mid-teen boys being all legs and arms etc...I am having trouble getting round the impression that it just does not look like a sasquatch, whether it be a juvenile or adult.of all the books I have read about 5 i think and many hundreds of reports I have read on bfro over the years, this does not fit the descriptions..it looks like a monkey/ape...now I could be wrong, but I ask you, when you look at it, what is your first thought of what it may be...........cheers everyone..
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beenthereseenthat
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 324
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:32 PM |
|
|
| It looks like a younger version of the two adult male squatch I have seen close up. Not as muscular, but in the same way that my 11 year old son is not as muscular as I am. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:38 PM |
|
|
fill us in beenthere about the sightings you have had mate...cheers rod
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beenthereseenthat
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 324
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:44 PM |
|
|
| I haven't posted all of them yet. Check out Washoe County Nevada, and I described the second one I just mentioned in brief yesterday on the "Should we be afraid" thread. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:45 PM |
|
|
if you look at something long enough you can make out whatever you want...remember the guy who reckons you could make out the zipper on patty in the patterson footage...we gotta be careful is what I am saying....rod
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jagger
Approved
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Aaron_Lamb wrote:
Very interesting photos. I believe most skeptics will immediately attempt to identify the figure as a roaming orangatang, as opposed to a young squatch.
There is no possibility that one could assume this would be a man in an ape costume. The anatomy of the figure does not at all match up with that of a human.
|
I believe this is what the skeptics will say. A lost chimp, as it resembles that enough to discount it as such (Playing devils advocate) especially If they can discount the Patterson footage as a man in a suit!
I would assume that the BFRO has/is studying these and comparing to known primates (size,?) as evidence for rebuttal to the skeptics.
Not knowing how many pictures were taken and to what quality, i'm just guessing the skeptic remarks from these two pics.
On another note, pretty dam good pics! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 07:52 PM |
|
|
so beenthere your saying that it does look like the sasquatches you have seen....if that is the case then I take back much of my argument...interesting a few months ago I interviewed a pig-hunter up here in north queensland australia, he and a mate found a cave with 17inch footprints, huge turds and a clear outline of the animal where it had slept in the dust...I have gone looking for it twice, he gave me pretty good directions, but both times I had no luck, we are talking about thick tropical rainforest, I will keep looking when I can...anyway, it took me 2 months of moralising over it before I set out for what if I found one asleep in the cave, got it on footage, dna in the crap etc...what happens next...i still wrestle with it...I figure they exist because we do not know they are there....once we do, you can kiss em goodbye....cheers rod
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
matt4632
Approved
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 08:08 PM |
|
|
| i dono if anyone posted this yet but the thing that elemenates a bear for me is the coat color it looks lighter, matted, spotty. Hmmmm kinda like patty thats the paralel i drew from the two is their hair is just so similar to me. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
matt4632
Approved
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 08:11 PM |
|
|
| Oh and what is the black thing in the bottom corner of the photo when u look at the one with the bear u see a cub and a gray thing. The baby squatch has some black blob in the bottom. I wonder where the parents are. Arn't bear cubs always folowing around their mothers? Where is mama Squatch? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 08:22 PM |
|
|
looked at again and again and now it looks like michael jackson...think i need to stop looking at it...cheers everyone
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1868
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 09:11 PM |
|
|
Hey Rod,
I think the story under the pics said that the "black thing" on the ground is the upturned tray that was holding the salt lick. In the photo with the bear cubs it's upright with the salt block sitting in it properly.
I would think Mama bear was probably feeding close by and it was the curiosity of the cubs that brought them in the bait station. As for the Mama Squatch you can be certain she's close by. There has been problems with capturing an adult Squatch on a trail can and the theory on why is that most trail cams make some noise before the photo is taken and there is also a short delay as well. The noise seems to warn them that something's not right and the delay gives them time to leave before the camera takes the photo. Like the bear cubs I think it was the curiosity of the young one wanting to check out the new smells and "toys" that appeared in his "back yard"
Darcy S, Maple Ridge BC
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 09:25 PM |
|
|
how are you mate, yeh I know here the remote cameras used also give off infra-red which actually triggers the camera to take a shot...any nocturnal critter can see it as a heat source, say like a sweat stain, hand print etc...so they stay away.. it is very difficult to get anything if the animal if half intelligent and has learnt our tricks...in a way this supports a young juvenile with a more curious and reckless approach.cheers..rod
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 09:54 PM |
|
|
HEY, have all you Yanks gone to bed or something.. and will someone reply to my new topic, I have done 2 and none of you have replied...come on, us Aussies were with you in ww2, korea, nam and now we are in the doo doo with you in iraq...someone at least reply..cheers
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 10:07 PM |
|
|
Hey Rod, I was about to, but first...
Just a minor observation about the leaf that appears to be in the hair at the peak of the creatures back in the first shot. It also looks like a lighter area in the front of the head. Face?
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 10:15 PM |
|
|
yeh, it is good how where it should have thin spots of hair, say under the arms it seems to have...also in the 2nd shot of the juvie, instead of looking at it with its boney arse in the air I can look at it where the to 2 closer legs to us are actually arms with one reaching to grab something and the foot is the knuckle of the other with fingers turned in, its head is blended with its body so it is hard to make out...can you see it like that...this is the way I first interpreted it until mate pointed out that it was bending over...cheers
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
joeecuva
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 11:56 PM |
|
|
Great pictures. I do have to say the feet look more like hands like a chimps feet. It could have been the way its standing plus so little (zero actually) is known about their life span therefore us knowing how long it takes for a Sasquatch to reach adulthood. Also in the second pic he wasn't necessarily walking on all fours , he may have just been in motion to smell the ground. Like many others I don t really understand the third pic but for all we know he could only be a couple of years old and simply playing and acting silly for the cam. My husband has used those salt blocks and they are about a foot tall for a comparison. I was born in NE Ohio and visit periodically and have been around PA and to me it is very unpopulated. I live in central FL so up there it seems to be a different world. I can t wait for more details and related images. What do you think related images means? More pics. Has this been televised at all?
PS Rod--I do truly hope there still are some Thylacine out there. What we did to them was disgusting and to think the last one that died in captivity was simply not given food or water. His caretaker should have gotten the same treatment.
Joee |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buck
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: October 20th, 2007 11:57 PM |
|
|
hi y'all; would like to add some further observations of Jacobs creature.
1. it appears to me that the bear cub with the eye shine has its nose inserted into a semi-transparent container.
2. in pic #3 the right foot has been moved forward one step and the the left foot has then been moved forward.
3. what we're seeing is the left side of the creature with its left arm extended for support or reaching for something.
4. the object of speculation in my opinion, under the creature is the container the bear cub had its snout stuck in.
5. the head and right arm are concealed.
so what is it? looks like a genuine sassy quatch to me.
Oh forgot to mention the creature obviously has night vision. peace y'all Buck here.
PS forgot to include my smiling face; couldn't sleep all night. don't see no smiling face. oh oh woe is me.
(Edited by buck) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
