 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kolker8
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 166
|
 Posted: November 25th, 2007 11:24 PM |
     |
|
A different way to view this. Daylight gives a different perspective to all this,nice work.
You never know when he`s watching. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stusteelhead
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: November 26th, 2007 07:31 PM |
|
|
I have overlayed the jacobs creature and bear in the daytime image for some perspective. The jacobs creature is pictiured as close as i could to where it actually stood the cub has been moved to the right but in the same plane. Black bear cubs in there first fall weigh anywhere from 15 to 165lbs depending on food availability. When i look at these guys against the marked tree I'd say they are roughly 18-20 inches talls, which i would guess puts them at about 40lbs give or take, which puts them on the low end of their fall weight. By comparison the jacobs creature is much larger, I'd say nearly 30 inches talls at the pelvic crest which would make it close top 5 feet tall when standing and close to 100 pounds imo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lteliza
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 03:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Stusteelhead wrote:
I have overlayed the jacobs creature and bear in the daytime image for some perspective. The jacobs creature is pictiured as close as i could to where it actually stood the cub has been moved to the right but in the same plane. Black bear cubs in there first fall weigh anywhere from 15 to 165lbs depending on food availability. When i look at these guys against the marked tree I'd say they are roughly 18-20 inches talls, which i would guess puts them at about 40lbs give or take, which puts them on the low end of their fall weight. By comparison the jacobs creature is much larger, I'd say nearly 30 inches talls at the pelvic crest which would make it close top 5 feet tall when standing and close to 100 pounds imo.
|
Stusteelhead,
that is awesome! As I said in my intro, I know I'm a little late to the Jacob's party here, but is it too late to ask...maybe Paul Majeta or Navigator, who went out to the site to take these original photos and measurements..Did either of you stand yourself next to the tree, or the approximated estimated distance from the tree, and take a photo? Or even take a shot of one of touching-your-toes while smelling the ground type pose? I think that would have been cool.
Also, does any one know the current status of this game cam? Is it still in operation? Perhaps for privacy reasons, I don't know, the Jacob's wanted to take it down or re-locate it. I was just curious if it is still in operation.
Thanks in advance..Liz |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jpred1
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: December 7th, 2007 08:46 PM |
|
|
stusteelhead , can you do the same overlay using the other pic where boy squatch is standing more erect?
I believe!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
realitychex
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 126
|
| Posted: March 27th, 2008 09:45 AM |
|
|
A bipedal, in that forward, bentover in a forward position, on a downward slope would most certainly end up in a forward somersault or roll. Any type of bipedal instinct would demand that the rear be pointed downhill and the forward bend be uphill to ward of gravity pulling it downslope. This looks like a bear facing the camera and standing sideways, hence the support of the front paw pushing against the downslope for balance. The small, black blob under it is a cub curled up under the mother bear. In the closeup pictures provided by previous readers, a bear's face can be seen looking at the camera while under the mother. Logically speaking, this is what appears to be seen.
Fact = 100% truth
Myth = 100% hearsay |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DMargaretW
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: March 27th, 2008 10:27 AM |
|
|
| if it is a bear then why does it have an a$$ like a primate? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BFSanctum
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: March 27th, 2008 11:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
realitychex wrote:
The small, black blob under it is a cub curled up under the mother bear. |
The small, black blob under it is not a cub. It is the tree root. Check the day comparisson shots. It's not a head...it's not a cub...it is clearly the root as demonstrated by the comparison shots.
~Sanctum
Chris R
(Nebraska) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: March 27th, 2008 03:53 PM |
|
|
| Where is the eye shine fro the cub as in eye shine from the actual cub in jake 1. the cub in jake 1 is a spring cub as in born Jan or Feb. That's the size they are. The mother is shown in other photos and that's the size she is. This isn't rocket science. Its a primate. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
minnie-ear
Approved
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: March 27th, 2008 05:58 PM |
|
|
If it's a mangy bear why the hair and wheres the tail? where's its Snout? If it were an underfed sick bear wouldn't the ears be more pronounced and exaggerated? Other features would stick out more like a bony pelvis and scapula.
The legs are straight not bent like the hind legs of a bear. The musculature is wrong.
I've tried to see the bear, in the picture ,but all I see is something resembling a lanky chimp.
The daylight pictures don't change this opinion.
Chris
"In order to conquer the animal, I have to learn to think like an animal. And, whenever possible, to look like one."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smokebender
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: August 6th, 2008 10:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Randy wrote:
Excellent work here.
|
You can say that again !!
MBG Member |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: August 11th, 2008 02:39 PM |
|
|
I'm not trying to start trouble, but does nobody else see the left ear of the animal on the enhanced photo on the BFRO web-page?
I'm sorry, but all I can see is bear although I'd be delighted if it were clear one way or the other.
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: August 11th, 2008 04:14 PM |
|
|
| Enhanced that’s the problem when you start zooming in and working on a low quality digital picture you loose control over the composition and it's happened on these from human faces to dead animals draped across his back. When I look at the whole photo I see a Sasquatch jumping out of it and thats all your ever going to get out of these pictures. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil
Approved
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: August 11th, 2008 07:52 PM |
|
|
Evidence is all anyone has and this is just as good as all the rest its just evidence. That’s why I come here everyday not really to chat just to see the latest and hope this might be the day that some evidence turns into proof.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: August 12th, 2008 03:17 AM |
|
|
I want sasquatch to be proven real as much as anyone. I just got back from the Kinzua area and I can't imagine a better habitat for the creature. I have little doubt that it roams the area, but I just can't let myself be duped by an obscure photo for which there is a logical explanation.
I'll keep my fingers crossed that the expedition in September results in something more substantial. I'm looking forward to reading what turns up.
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil
Approved
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: August 12th, 2008 03:22 PM |
|
|
| When you go down the list of evidence someone will find a logical explanation for each one when you put them all together it demonstrates a good possibility. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: August 12th, 2008 08:00 PM |
|
|
If only there was a picture of it in a bipedal position, we wouldn't have had to use up three pages of memory on BFRO's server voicing opinions...
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kaimiloa
Approved
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 298
|
| Posted: August 14th, 2008 05:48 PM |
|
|
I read this thread as soon as I joined recently, and now have gone thru it again. Let's look at the initial pic of the young Sasquatch? bent over steeply with face to the ground, near the top of page 1,.
Apparently this is an enhanced pic and I now see an anomaly - whatever it is appears to have two distinct tubercles (bumps) symmetrically placed on its butt. As to protect the ishial tuberosities (you can feel your own) when sitting down on hard rocks and the like. It's limbs are too long for a bear, and its back is too sharply bent for a bear. Plus it has an area nearly devoid of hair on the rearward part of the upper limb, seen especially well in the first pic of the animal.
For those who see a bear looking at them, with right front leg spayed out on the "downhill" side of the site, I offer the following:
1) once your brain gets set on an image interpretation, it is quite hard to see it differently. A few spots on the side of the creature become re-imaged by the brain and the brain "sees" something more familiar, like the frontal view of a bear's head.
2) If it was indeed a bear, facing the camera, how do we account for the bare spot of what would then be its right front leg? Bears do not have a bare spot there. Conversely, if instead it is a creature facing largely away from the camera, the bare spot is in the right spot to match that seen on the first pic.
3) Again, if it is a bear facing the camera, there is no way to explain two odd things. The bear has an irregular back-line, with a jog in it. Bears do not have this. And further, there are two tuberosities on the side of the bear - bears simply do not have these.
4) If it is a bear facing the camera, then both front feet are facing downhill at right angles to the joints of the legs. Impossible.
5) Lastly, if it is supposedly a bear in this position, it's right leg is splayed out, and if drawn back to its usual position, would be about 6-8 inches longer than the other leg. Again, impossible to reconcile.
Conclusion, it's a primate, with long legs, probable tuberosities on its butt, and capable of not only bending way over at the waist with knees locked, but of bending the body forward at a much sharper angle than a bear can.
I know, I know - preaching to the choir and all that. But there are still some doubters here, and there will be new viewers to this thread. I know bears pretty well, and I'll add my voice clearly: I don't know what it is but it looks like a primate - and it DOESN'T fit with a bear, depite the skinny/mangy claims.
Aloha, Ka'imiloa
Yep, they're out there. (P.S. I'm in central Arizona) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kaimiloa
Approved
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 298
|
| Posted: August 20th, 2008 01:39 AM |
|
|
Interesting pic, Phil. But the bumps at each side of the top of the bikini (I'm being gracious) are the rear portion of the iliac crest, the top of the pelvis. The ishial tuberosities are to each side of the bottom of the blue strip, and are the bone-bumps that get sore if you're skinny and sit down hard on a wooden chair or rock. They aren't visible in the pic.
Aloha, Ka'imiloa
Yep, they're out there. (P.S. I'm in central Arizona) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SniperJames
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: October 1st, 2008 05:04 PM |
|
|
I have found this to be most interesting. While I disagree on this be easily dismissed as a bear, and certainly not a hunter, I have not accepted it as "proof". I have however seen that the parameters set would show this creature to be of a set known height under 5ft ? This obviously would not be a mother bear. This creature is obviously a juvenile (Sasquatch?) I seriously doubt that an adult mother bear would allow a mangy young small bear around her young without perceiving them as a threat. So I doubt there is a bear cub under the creature, which I have seen some suggest. The mother bear is of good size from what we can see. Certainly not the same creature. This rules out mother bear with cubs in the photo.
What of a juvenile bear following 30 min behind hoping for an easy snack. Not likely but possible. If Image #2 doesn't leave you with you with a question, than you must know that it is not a bear. The more I see it the more I am convinced in the North American Primate.
I am a semi-retired Us Army Ranger Sniper. Meaning I can crawl better than most. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 1st, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
This is why I see a bear in the Jacobs photo:
I actually can see the tail as well. I have not altered the photo other than adjust the shadows and contrast a bit. The head is blurred because the animal is scratching it against the tree. I believe this is what is giving the illusion of a sagittal crest.
Please be kind.
(Edited by J Schein)
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SniperJames
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 02:17 AM |
|
|
I agree with what you see. It could very well be a bear with just the picture to go with. The limb proportions though start to paint a different picture. Are we seeing an adaptation that does occur in nature? Is there a chance that adaptation has occurred over thousands of years and now a new subspecies is established? I am saying,"What if it is a bear with very long extremities?". Would it not make more since to walk bipedal in the evolutionary process? Could we be looking at a creature not quite like what is seen in Bigfoot History but rather, that one step of creation that didn't quite get there. Its late and I don't want to sound like a quack but nature is unfolding around us at an alarming pace. I see the bear, but I also see something quite different.
Need I mention Oliver ? What would have happened if that primate had mated with another chimpanzee of the same characteristics? I would suspect the traits would have been passed on to its offspring.
This creature very well could be sickly and have mange and be lacking the genetics to cope with the illnesses that its group(bear?) has learned to cope with. But because of its genetic differences, however subtle they are (limb ratio does not lie, exaggerated some but does not lie) it is split in the tree of creation in some small way and only time (possibly thousands of years) will tell us what it may mean for future generations of both bear and Sasquatch. I am sure to miss it. I will still continue to hunt for the creature so many people have reported.
I am a semi-retired Us Army Ranger Sniper. Meaning I can crawl better than most. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joshual
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 08:17 AM |
|
|
The picture that is shown is more distorted and misleading than this clearer one. I see a smooth Saggital crest and the ears drawn in are just not there. The head is far from the tree and cannot be rubbing on anything- a fact that was pointed out by some visitors to the site. The only face I see is what might be the face of Bigfoot.
I’ve sat back and watched this for a long time and I can tell you a few visitors here are just digging deep for reasons to prove everyone wrong. They really want to see a bear in these pictures and time and time again I have watched obvious deceitful efforts to try and prove their point. If these individuals were truly concerned in research they would use all of this work effort searching for good evidence.
Josh |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 08:59 AM |
|
|
I understand what you see to be a sagittal crest. Be careful what you claim to be fact. It does nothing for the creditility of us believers to push a fuzzy blow-up as evidence. I think a better case could be made that this is a chupacabra.
I'm not trying to cause trouble. I'm a PA resident and would like nothing more than to have a picture representing the PA Sasquatch. This just doesn't do it for me. The limb ratio analysis is scewed due to the camera angle and is subjective at best.
Maybe I'm taking it a little too personal, but I don't want the non-believers to label the PA creature in the same category as the "Georgia" sasquatch, which I'm sure exists as well.
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thompsy
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 09:25 AM |
|
|
[quote]SniperJames wrote:
I agree with what you see. It could very well be a bear with just the picture to go with. The limb proportions though start to paint a different picture. Are we seeing an adaptation that does occur in nature? Is there a chance that adaptation has occurred over thousands of years and now a new subspecies is established? I am saying,"What if it is a bear with very long extremities?". Would it not make more since to walk bipedal in the evolutionary process? Could we be looking at a creature not quite like what is seen in Bigfoot History but rather, that one step of creation that didn't quite get there. Its late and I don't want to sound like a quack but nature is unfolding around us at an alarming pace. I see the bear, but I also see something quite different.
[quote]
I agree that you may be reaching a little on this. I am not saying that your suggesteed theory could not be possible, I just think that the odds don't line up.
You have an animal that is reported to be sasquatch whose appearance is stereotypically 7-8ft tall, which account for most BF sightings. People think that every BF sighting should be of a 7-8ft tall individual. The fact is that BFs are not beemed down from the sky and instanly appear full sized, therefore it is more feasable that we are dealing with a juvi. BF than anything else. Based on that skeptics are not satisfied with this pic because it is not what they would expect as what they need for photographical proof due to the size of the creature.
I think that if it where a new subspecies of bear, there would either be more sightings of strange long limbed skinny bears or they are more rare than BF.
Married white male seeking class A sighting of Biggie!
2009 MN Expedition. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bart
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 01:05 PM |
|
|
| J Schein,This IS your PA Sasquatch representative just take a look in your travel brochure. Many including myself see this as one of the best. What you claim as ears to be fact shows your judgment ability especially when you have to draw them in after you alter the shadows and contrast on the lowest quality version of this picture. When did you visit the site? From what I hear everyone else that studied it could tell he’s almost completely parallel to the camera. So wipe your tears and be a man, if you don’t like it don’t look at it, this one is all over the world and is not going away. As for Bigfoot’s reputation if you don’t have a real body it would be easier to defend the reputation of a lady working in a brothel. This is Bigfoot we're talking about there just isn’t a lot of contenders in this Pennsylvania pageant and may never be again after the scolding this Juvi probably had from his parents. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 02:06 PM |
|
|
Sorry, Bart, just because a lot of people think they see sasquatch in the photo doesn't make it so. It lends credibility to Dr. Bindernagle's statement that the majority of eye witness reports can be discounted because when some people see something that doesn't look like what they are use to seeing, they let their imagination fill in the blanks. It's the remaining ten or twenty percent that are true sightings.
All bears don't look like Whinnie the Pooh.
Of course you are free to believe what you want. I would never try to market this as anything other than a poor miserable black bear that is scratching it's head on a tree and then on the ground.
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
River
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 02:20 PM |
|
|
| I've looked at these photos quite a bit and enhanced them many different ways to try to make as much detail as possible out. One of the telling features to me is the feet. This is a bear folks. (diseased, with mange, you can also see many eruptions and skin bumps) You can make out the pads slightly on the feet. (also note the size of the feet/paws) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bart
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 05:33 PM |
|
|
| Sorry, J Schein your no authority on Bigfoot niether is your River partner. I know a skinney bear when I see one and that isn't what this is. Your opinion is just that, also that head isn't scratching the ground or the tree. If you have a clear view of the feet, skin eruptions and bumps on the skin you have a better pictures than the rest of us, we have enhancement and zoom also. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 06:00 PM |
|
|
Bart, I can't believe this argument is still going on, these persistant fellows are most likley a couple of young male teens, Ive been down this same road before with them. Now do you see why I have stayed away from this web site? I understand your frustration.
Red |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
River
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: October 2nd, 2008 06:43 PM |
|
|
I'm just expressing my opinion. (just as you are) I'm not a young male teen. I'm 29 and have seen many black bears in my life. I'm an avid outdoorsman, and spend quite a bit of time in remote areas. I'm not just some kid tossing around an uneducated opinion. I never said there was a "clear view" of the feet. I think if you re-read my post I mentioned what exactly I saw. I'm using the full resolution photos to form my opinion. (not the small ones displayed on most sites) I think people want so bad to have some credible evidence, they will see what they want to see with these images. I'm not a disbeliever, I'm only saying these photos are of a diseased bear. The paws are very telling. Tell me what you see when you look at them. Do you see "bigfoot" feet? or anything close to a human foot? I see bear paws.
How do you explain all of the bumps and abormalties on the skin? (and the fact you can see them.
Argue your point, instead of trying to insult or assume things about others because of your frustration. Also, I'm no ones partner here. I come for my interest in bigfoot/sasquatch and to have intelligent conversations about evidence found. Not for a pissing contest, or to assume anything about you or your "partner"
the photo below has no enhancements. you can see the paw well enough on the left rear to see it does not appear human at all, or similar to any bigfoot prints found. Funny enough though, it looks just like a bear paw. In the other photo on the right hind leg you can slightly see the pads (and with some enhancements you can make out slightly what appears to be pads on the front left as well)
You can easily see, with no enhancements all of the bumps covering its body. How do you explain this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
