 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BCsquatch
Moderator
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 205
|
 Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:28 AM |
     |
|
Rob Kennedy has.
Blaine McMillan
BFRO Investigator
Western Canada
From an Island in the Pacific |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cowboyman
Unregistered
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1217
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:30 AM |
|
|
I'm sorry BC, and especially to Rob.
" Some wonder if it is, others study how it is".
( Texas Expedition 2008) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:30 AM |
|
|
BCsquatch
I'll delete some of my post |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:36 AM |
|
|
The key to it all is a good laugh, with some serious discussion, lets not forget what we are talking about here, 90% of the population would think we are nuts....all this analysing of a couple of photos is just great, really it is, at the same time as being bloody funny...maybe its me, the new guy from down under but this is informative, friendly, interesting and absolutely fly-wheel loose funny ...talk about doing a doco, interview a dozen of us......
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:51 AM |
|
|
Personally - This is the most fun I've had in a long time!
I'm sure Rob K is amused by all the analysis. 
Well this time I mean it - Good Night! 
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 02:30 AM |
|
|
Hello...coooeee, anyone there.....knock knock...........have you yanks all gone to bed....eric, cowboyman surely "not those whom do not sleep"...someone, anyone, pleeeease................
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildmanmarty
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 03:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
matt4632 wrote:
Using this pic and this pic only i see...
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/j...ure_image_1.asp
Too me it looks like it has its back to the camera. I think that its left arm is on the ground and the patch of light hair is its arm pit, its right arm is on the ground and cannot be seen. Its left foot is on the ground and its right foot is on the ground. Both of its legs are back and its left knee is bent to the side. The leg directly behind its left arm is its left leg the one that is fully visible and not covered by tree, and appears thinner is its right leg. I can see where its neck and sholders meet and i can see both sholders. I can draw a line inbetween its sholders aka spinal chord through the body to the glut. Which is the whiter hair inbetween its legs. I can almost make out a heel on its right leg which also looks to be bent a little bit.
|
That is how I see it too, Matt. The only thing I would add is what looks like it could possibly be a down pointing left ear, appearing right beside the left side of the big tree trunk, which is behind the squatch/bear/monkeyman thing.
Hey, Rod, I am still awake! Can't.....last......much longer...............uuuuunnnnhh.
Just scoop me up in the morning and set a cup of coffee in front of me.
How old would you be, if you didn't know how old you are? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beenthereseenthat
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 324
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 03:27 AM |
|
|
Wildmanmarty asked if anyone had seen a young squatch. I've never seen a young male squatch, but I've seen adult males, a very young adult female, and a young early adolescent female.
From what I've been able to tell, the females are generally bulkier in the torso than the males. The adult males I've seen did not carry much, if any, excess body fat. The two adult males I've seen had very clear muscle definition underneath their hair.
The females were more barrel shaped, while the males had a distinctly smaller waist than chest. The Jacobs creature is significantly thinner than the adult males I saw, but that would not be unusual during an adolescent growth spurt. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 03:49 AM |
|
|
Well, back on.
Have to place one more post.
After further examining the photo's, the sob is real.
What seemed to be a pocket on the left side and a bulge that looked like a can of snuff, and separated waist line, this is a BF with what appears to be severe health problems.
After enlarging it once again, cleaning it up, etc., looking at the photo's from different angles, flipping it, inverting it, so on.
The second pic of the UWO definitely shows that it is under weight, having loose skin. Either starving, haves worms, etc.
The two bulges at the buttocks are caused by its hip bone.
My personal opinion, who ever haves that camera, needs to keep revisiting the area. Just my opinion, I think this thing will be dead soon.
If this person haves friends with these types of camera's, I would position them strategically.
Hang a calves leg or dear leg from a tree approximately 7 to 8 feet above the ground in front of one of the camera's.
I bet that this thing is seriously looking for food. It looks hungry, and probably doesn't have the strength to successfully hunt anymore.
I'm now sold.
Don't know what it is, or even if it may be a descendant of Esau. But I do feel that it does not have much time left on God's green earth.
Now it makes me think that it is eating bear scat.
"This has been my view and my opinion, and mine alone." |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 04:41 AM |
|
|
If I knew how to attach the photo and show you i would but me and computers, well, lets just say we are not on very good speaking terms.... basically the photo where people think it is bent over flashing its boney arse is actually a case of mistaken interpretation of the photo. the bear is looking at the camera, look for the 2 eyes, then you'll see ears, snout, even ridge of spine. what seems to be inturned toes on the front left leg is probably shadow from camera flash, right leg is stretched to the side somewhat...add to this; what is the most likely animal it could be; 2 cubs 30mins prior, many bears in area, bears DO exist, sasquatch 'may' not even exist...look for the eye flash caused by camera and go from there, its just looking at the camera people......also the argument that juvie bigfoot is in terrible shape, not long to live, health problems all to try and explain its boney arse and legs just again reminds me of how far we can go to see what we want to see, no offence jonathan.... personally if I were a skinny, sick juvenile bigfoot I'd being sitting or lying on my boney butt next to the salt lick not bent in a yoga pose, plus those cubs looked almost chubby, bears in the area probably means food is as well, the bigfoot would be very very high on the food chain, so the likelihood of it being in such bad condition is doubtful, not impossible but doubtful...anyway take another look, ignore the boney butt distraction, the butt is the side of the bear which is looking at the camera....sleep well all you yankee doodle dandees
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigmike
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 09:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Eric Squatcher wrote:
Here's cowboyman's pic:
|
Good Job Guys!
Mike Aragona
BFRO Investigator New Jersey |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 09:42 AM |
|
|
Stick man comparison of what I see.
(removed pic, wrong photo. I'll be back)
(Edited by jonathan820)
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kate1980
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 10:31 AM |
|
|
If the third pic is a bear facing the camera, why doesn't it have eye shine like the first picture with the cubs? If this was a sick or healthy bear, it would have eye shine no matter the physical condition of it. My gut feeling on this is its definitely NOT a bear. But regardless, there will always be skeptics, some can't believe without seeing something smack dab infront of their face. I believe in god but I have yet to meet him face to face...
Kate
Coastal British Columbia exped. 2008
New Hampshire exped. 2008 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 10:35 AM |
|
|
| I wish that I had the actual negative to work with. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
poacher68
Approved
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 11:18 AM |
|
|
If thats a bear than I'm a squatche's uncle!
It's not how often you get knocked down that speaks of your character; it's how often you get back up. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 11:30 AM |
|
|
| I'm surprised that someone has yet to post that its a chupacabra. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 12:11 PM |
|
|
The 'suspect' posts have been deleted and the user disabled. I've also deleted the posts that came after because they have no reference now...except to those of us who read the originals. Aughhhh!
Bossburg
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BS47
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 12:15 PM |
|
|
| As stated before, if there are 5 more pics, please post them. If this is clearly a BF then ALL pics should be made available. I think the other pics only provide evidence of a bear, and that is why they haven't been posted yet. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kate1980
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 12:21 PM |
|
|
I think people need to cut them some slack, when they are finished with their analysis on the photos, we'll have our chance to see them...Patience people :-)
Coastal British Columbia exped. 2008
New Hampshire exped. 2008 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roboron
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 732
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 12:58 PM |
|
|
The third picture I think does show however faint reflection from the eyes right where the the head is assumed to be by the ground. Not on top where people are trying to make out a sick bear scenerio.
R.Boles
BFRO investigator for the Ozarks
" IF Theodore Roosevelt believed,why can't I ?" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BS47
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 12:59 PM |
|
|
| Thanks Boss. I got the impression from one of these threads that there were 7 pics of "it". That clears it up. So, back to only these 2 pics? Not enough evidence to prove anything, so most logical answer wins out.....bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buck
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:18 PM |
|
|
| found 2 more cents. I think we have an optical illusion here. If the left leg of this creature is looked at right itappears to be two long skinny legs with short trousers or fur and two bare, bony feet and a skinny rump. however I see two large legs and the build of a sasquatch. solid and probably heavy as most active creatures seem to be my estimate of its weight, using my own build as a comparison, this creature probably weighs between 225/250 lbs. duh that's all folks. need more change. peace |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cowboyman
Unregistered
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1217
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:44 PM |
|
|
This is a squatch!
" Some wonder if it is, others study how it is".
( Texas Expedition 2008) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 01:58 PM |
|
|
Man I hate to say this, I mean it really pains me, but I see a bear in the third pic now. Whoever lightened it and outlined it did a great job. Nobody wanted this to be the Big Guy more than me. But my opinion, just my opinion, is now skinny, possibly sick old bear. Third pic maybe the bigger bear with one of the cubs under it??? Actually could it just be mama bear, with two small cubs wouldnt she be skinny and a little ragged looking?
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beenthereseenthat
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 324
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 02:25 PM |
|
|
This photo is so unlike a bear, that I don't understand how any objective observer can conclude that it is a bear. If it's a chimp, it's over five feet tall, is nocturnally active (uncharacteristic), and lacks the bowleggedness of the rest of its species. Also a chimp moving to examine something on the ground would not apporach it bidpedally, it would go to knuckles and move forward. Then it might raise itself up on its arms and toes.
The only thing I would worry about it being other than a squatch is a disproportionate human in a suit. But it doesn't look that way to me. The body is too consistent from head to toe and the hair is too natural.
We have to keep in mind that there are people out there who are invested in the non-existence of squatch. They've concluded that squatch don't exist and can't allow anything short of a body to prove them wrong. Then there are others who feel threatened by the possible existence of squatch. They are invested in denial. There are still others who believe in the possible existence of squatch, but lack the courage to professionally admit it. They are invested in living vicariously through those that do have the courage.
At some point the preponderance of evidence points to the existence of squatch. Those with a contrary investment get around this by attacking each item of evidence individually. It's like claiming that a stone house doesn't exist by coming up with an alternative explanation for how each individual stone managed to get where it is by some other means.
(Edited by Beenthereseenthat) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
matt4632
Approved
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 02:47 PM |
|
|
| i think the bear that was outlined in the third pick is just the coat of the creature playing tricks i mean i see it too but i also see the head in between its legs. Its posture is all wrong. Also for pic number 3 to be ba bear pic number two has to be a bear, which in my opinion it looks nothing like a bear. Pic two and pic three are the same animal. Pic one is a different animal. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 02:51 PM |
|
|
Dude I want it to be proven more than anyone so my wife and friends will have to kiss my a**! But I honestly see a bear looking straight at the cam, I hope Im wrong. Im going to hold off until the results of the university analysis before I give up on it though!
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
matt4632
Approved
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 03:04 PM |
|
|
| do you see a bear in picture number two? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: October 23rd, 2007 03:11 PM |
|
|
OK - This is a comparison of a Bear Skeleton and photo #2:
bigmike BFRO Inv in NJ asked me to post it to help show the difference in the anatomy of each one:
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
