 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron_Lamb
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 30
|
 Posted: November 2nd, 2007 09:28 PM |
     |
|
Well pragmatic, you present an interesting defense. However, as I said, my eyes are trained to immediately identify and observe objects, figures, animals, humans, etc. I spend close to seventy hours a week drawing, animating, 3D modeling, and studying anatomy. I have become very good over the last three years at viewing the figure of an animal, or a human, and allowing that image to burn into my brain in order to create a representation on paper, or in photoshop.
I still say it isn't a bear, in my opinion, the arch on the spine, as well as the length of the legs do not match up. The silhouette of the figure does not read as that of a bear, young or hairless. It's close, and I can see how people might think it is a bear with his head turned to the right, but in my opinion, it isn't.
Now lets arm wrastle! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 09:35 PM |
|
|
Thanks, CN and Iveseen...!
Glad I'm not just crazy and seeing things! I've got Photoshop 8 (I believe) and you can sharpen and then remove noise etc. But what I did was get rid of the blue hue on the site shot before I started tinkering. I also looked at negative images and compared the way the creature's body changed when I adjused the contrast as compared to the tree and the ground so I'd know what was what. It jumped out
at me suddenly. Kind of a Eureka!!! moment.
(Edited by Christopher Noel) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lubeckjo
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 09:35 PM |
|
|
Hi all, I introduced myself to the board already. I just want you all to take a look at this video feed from my local news station, of a bear in a snare. Its the video labeled Pennsylvania Outdoor life 10/28 Part 1. Ironically the Pa Game Commission is in charge of this. I personally do not see ANY resemblence of the Jacobs photo. This bear in the snare is moving in ALL directions, and you can even hear the Bioligist from the Game Commission say its a skinny bear. Let me know what your thoughts are. Thanks All! John
Link http://www.wnep.com/Global/category...&nav=menu158_17
Johnny Lubeck |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lubeckjo
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 09:37 PM |
|
|
Its only 7 minutes long, but the bear in the snare is towards the end of the video. Thanks!
Johnny Lubeck |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron_Lamb
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 09:49 PM |
|
|
| If you pause the video at 6:47, take a long look at where the shoulder of the forelimb flows into the neck, which leads to the skull. Take a look at the length of the neck as well, and then compare to the orthographic view of the Jacobs creature. Notice a difference in length? Also, look at the curve in the spine of the bear, and then compare it to the curve in the spine of the Jacobs photo. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ryanh
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 10:18 PM |
|
|
| He sure is a limber sumbitch! These photos ar phenomenal! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 10:28 PM |
|
|
| Southman, check your private messages (top of main board page). |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ryanh
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 10:42 PM |
|
|
| I HAD A FEW BEERS TONITE, BUT I SWEAR I CAN MAKE OUT A FACE? AWESOME JOB ON THESE PICS!!! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goon123
Approved
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: November 2nd, 2007 11:16 PM |
|
|
PD,
Yes, I stand corrected on the Hock or tarsal joint premise. I started to think about that lower tarsal joint on the bear today as I walked down the street and observed a dog being walked and realized the difference to that of a bear.
Thus, the hock premise isnt sound. Accuracy is everything when it comes to this topic of BF or no BF.
However, in regard to the muscle formation and bone lengths (Tibis and fibula) of the pelvic limb below the knee I still believe, as you supported, that it is all wrong for that of a bear for Jacob photo #2. The length of the calf muscle or gastrocnemius are too long for that of a bear.
I searched to web for a pic of an actual bear skeleton. I found this pic of a HS student erecting a bear skeleton. It gives a clear shot of a pelvis, then a thigh bone (femur) and then the two bones I referenced (Tibia & fibula) and notice the short length. if that animal were alive it would have a corresponding short calf muscle to boot. The #2 photo the calf is longer and wider in girt.
Well anyway my 2c. hope helps and not hinders
http://www.imls.gov/images/profilePromoMar06.jpg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 06:35 AM |
|
|
The version of pic#2 presented by Southman has been brightened compared to the original. In that one, the creature is investigating a roundish object, quite light in colour, at "7 o'clock" to the base of the tree.
In the original of pic#3, this round object is still there, in EXACTLY the same position as in the other picture, relative to the tree. The object is dark enough so that it could be interpreted as part of the creature.
My interpretation, though, is that the two are the same object. One is darker because the creature is standing over it and reducing the reflection of the camera flash.
I speculate that it's a large piece of the salt lick that rolled away when it was turened over, in the half-hour of time between pics #1 and #2.
I further speculate that the creature is actually licking the back of this object, so that it's head is nearly all hidden.
I've seen so many cases where photo enhancements actually degrade the information. This isn't even an extreme case. I've seen a bush become a face! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 11:14 AM |
|
|
If that's is the same type of salt/mineral lick that I buy for my horses (and I think it is) a piece of it doesn't just roll away. In the cub picture it looks to be a fairly new, complete item. It would take a huge impact for it to break and since it's squared I doubt it would roll away. Be carried maybe, but not roll.
Photo enhancements: I know what you mean. I've seen the side of an unknown primate become a bear!
Bossburg
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 11:24 AM |
|
|
| Also, even if part of the salt lick did become separated from the block, would it take the form of a sphere? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ryanh
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 11:58 AM |
|
|
| It indeed looks human, but who here has ever really seen the face of bigfoot to compare these pics with?? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 12:25 PM |
|
|
| But you do see it as a separate object in #2, Bossburg, right? And do you accept that the animation by Ralph shows the exact same object in #3, i.e. not a head? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 12:27 PM |
|
|
| Correction, either Ralph or Stormbear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 12:52 PM |
|
|
pragmatic- both of em did one. Heres RTD's version:
(Save it to your PC- then use windows Fax/Viewer to view and enlarge it. It becomes so very clear)
http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/1867...8125/408607.gif
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 01:17 PM |
|
|
Erm, sorry to spoil the party, but your enhancement of pic #3 shows the left shoulder joint at about the area of the 4th or 5th rib. And a neck that's long enough to enable the creature to bend the head backwards by about 40 degrees.
Neither of these physical features have ever been observed on a sasquatch before.
And thanks to Southman, who , without intending to, has given us the first close up enhancement of pic #2 to show the whole of the left ear from root to edge. Perfect shape for a bear's ear, too! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smithcd
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 01:49 PM |
|
|
Look at my post on "face now visible" thread
Clayton T |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oregongirl
Approved
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 03:17 PM |
|
|
The object that is light in the second photo and becomes dark in the third photo is also visible AND in the same spot in the photo of the cubs. The cub looking at the camera is very near the object. I went back and looked at all 3 pics and it's in all of them.
What ever the object is it captured the interest of the cub and the creature in the last 2 pics.
Jacquie in Oregon |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 09:13 PM |
|
|
The write up with the photos on the BFRO website says that there was a deer attractant placed at that spot. I don't remember if it says what kind or if it was in a tray of some sort that's what has the attention of the bear cubs and the Jacobs creature.
Darcy S, Maple Ridge BC
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RalphTDog
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: November 3rd, 2007 11:38 PM |
|
|
Tbe more I think about it, the more it I think the circle in question is the place where the deer attracter is placed.
Rick
Tech Manager
S.P.R.I. Paranormal
Certified Cat Trainer <M.E.O.W.> |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
andre the great
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: November 4th, 2007 01:05 AM |
|
|
| Excellent work gentlemen!!! You can't mistake those shots for no BEAR!!! All the technical talk was most intersting to read. But when it comes to deciphering where it's a juevnille or adult who is malnuritied, it's a hard call. Who knows for that particular area in which it lives it's body size may be perfect...depending on food source and other factors. Out here in California though that picture would be considered a small one. 8-12 feet is very common out here...not to fimiliar with sizes in that area. The food source is a definite factor. But I can tell you this I know a person who is 6'4 and close to 230-240 lbs. and to sustain that weight doesn't take much...he only eats one solid meal in the evening and just snacks during the day. So if your a big guy your just big doesn't necassarily mean you will eat a considerable amount of more food...that factors into the amount of active on a giving day..Well there's my 2cents... AGAin great job. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: November 4th, 2007 03:34 AM |
|
|
Andre,
Welcome to the board. We'd like to get to know you a little better so if it's not too much trouble could you please introduce yourself on the "Read this first" thread on the forum's main page?
Darcy S, Maple Ridge BC
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
coyotemaster
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: November 4th, 2007 04:47 PM |
|
|
Somebody please tell me...
why the Jacob's Pennsylvania juv. sasquatch
THERMAL, infrared flash images don't look anything like these
THERMAL, infrared flash image:
http://www.bfro.net/thermal/default.asp
I doubt it but I hope it. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LouBob
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 695
|
| Posted: November 12th, 2007 04:18 PM |
|
|
OK, I have been wondering about the creature's "butt" bones and I had hoped to find them discussed here. Not sure what to call these specific bones, so I'll just call them pelvic bones from here on, OK?
In photo #3, we clearly see the rounded pelvic bones sticking out its back side. How do these compare to the known skeletal structure of a bear vs. primate??? It seems to me that this one, clear detail might provide a clue as to the creature's anatomy/identity. And, the fact that these pelvic bones stick out so prominently, with no fat around them, indicates to me that this creature, no matter what it is, is sick or malnourished. Poor thing's butt looks pretty darn painful if you ask me.
If you go to this link: http://www.theidahosportsman.com/be...r%20anatomy.pdf
and go to page 5 of the pdf, you'll see that a bear's pelvic bones stick out and up and are pretty "pointy." Seems to me that they would produce the small, rounded shapes if poking through emaciated butt tissue as we see in photo #3.
Now, what about primates? I found a chimp skeleton at:
http://www.boneclones.com/images/sc-003-a2-lg.jpg
and an illustration of a gorilla at the following link. (All photos I found of the same style as the chimp's skeleton were shot from the front.):
http://picture-book.com/node/6740
As you can see, pelvic bones similar to gorilla and chimp wouldn't be "pointy" enough to produce the small, rounded images we see in our mystery creature.
Of course, we don't know what a BF's pelvic bones are like. I'm just tossing this out to think about.
We don't know everything.
2008, 2009 NC BFRO Expeditions |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mudzillaefi
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 104
|
| Posted: November 14th, 2007 10:13 AM |
|
|
| Can I make in interjection here? Bears have forward bending legs like humans, chimps am i right? Pigs, deer, horses, and other ungulates have rear bending Hocks. bears do not have Hocks. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
countryboy
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: November 14th, 2007 10:37 AM |
|
|
coyotemaster
these are not THERMAL, infrared images. The trail camera is digital camera that can be mounted on a tree. The trigger is an infrared sensor, the flash is a Xenon bulb with a 30 foot range 30 ft. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tontar
Approved
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: December 19th, 2007 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote: "1) I am not seeing any evidence of a clear and defined "hock"
or tarsal joint on the pelvic limb or rear leg of the mystery beast. The hock is a joint found in dogs, cats, horses and most quadruped animals on the pelvic limb or hind leg. On humans the equivalent joint is the ankle and is as you know lower to the foot. In quadrupeds, such as bears, it is located higher up on the limb."
You must be rustier than you thought. Bears do not have "hocks" like dogs and cats do. Bears are built much more like humans, and have their leg and foot bones laid out much more similarly to humans than to dogs and cats. Bears do NOT have hocks. Check out some photos:
<http://www.americanbear.org/bear-photographs/BL/8/>
<http://www.americanbear.org/bear-photographs/TH/5/>
<http://www.americanbear.org/bear-photographs/JP/6/>
Tontar |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tontar
Approved
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: December 19th, 2007 02:19 PM |
|
|
LouBob said: "In photo #3, we clearly see the rounded pelvic bones sticking out its back side. How do these compare to the known skeletal structure of a bear vs. primate??? It seems to me that this one, clear detail might provide a clue as to the creature's anatomy/identity."
Bingo! One of the clearest features of the photos is the pelvis, and that is without doubt not a human or Sasquatch pelvis. It is a bear pelvis, a quadruped pelvis. I "wish" these had been photos of a bigfoot, but they aren't, and so I will go on hoping someone else gets something genuine...
Aaron
Tontar |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: December 19th, 2007 03:19 PM |
|
|
"You must be rustier than you thought. Bears do not have "hocks" like dogs and cats do. Bears are built much more like humans, and have their leg and foot bones laid out much more similarly to humans than to dogs and cats. Bears do NOT have hocks. Check out some photos:"
If you had read the other posts on this thread you would have seen that this subject has already been corrected and it's been made clear that bears don't have hocks. Have a look at the other posts to make sure you're not bringing up something that has already been concluded earlier.
PBYodeler
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
