 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 620
|
 Posted: November 29th, 2007 08:53 AM |
     |
|
Below is the only other nighttime shot from Rick Jacobs' game camera, from the October 16, 2007, batch of images. Other shots are from earlier that day, before dark, and contain no animals. (I'll post those, too, when I receive them.)
There are no further images of the creature itself. Nor did we ever suggest that there were; believe me, if a better image of the creature existed, it would have been posted from the beginning.
This creature appears to be the mother bear.
 [img]
(Edited by Christopher Noel)
There are two possibilities, and two only. Either Sasquatch does not exist--in which case all of the thousands of sincere eye-witness accounts, as well as centuries of Native American wisdom, are false--or else it does exist, and if it does exist, it has survived alongside Homo sapiens only by being far more elusive than Homo sapiens can imagine. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DoryR
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 09:21 AM |
|
|
Where's Goldilocks?
Seeing the top photo of those three bears just swayed me evenmore towards the other photos being a Bigfoot.
That one bigger bear doesn't look anything like how the other "creature" was built AND it sure doesn't look mangy to me.
You guys are the experts on the measurments... is that bigger bear the mother or a yearling? Either way, I think the three bears left because they knew the other "creature" was coming. Combining that with what my son heard in the dark, a combo howl/hyena like laugh, I have to think the other creature is a BF. Where my son was hunting is not really THAT far from where Jacob's crature was... not as far "as the crow flies" anyway... or is it "as the Bigfoot walks"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brent D
Approved
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 09:54 AM |
|
|
What are the picture intervals on the trail cam? Every 1-2 minutes?
The time stamp for j2 and j3 is 30 seconds or so. Hmmmm. The last two pictures are 7 months old. Something is just not adding up here.....
IMHO it's a bear with mange, I know I wanted it to be BF too...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
semi p
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 402
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 11:30 AM |
|
|
| What is that first picure? It sort of looks like a shoulder of a mid-size bear. Sort of. Can we do any clarity enhancements? Also, seeing that four pointer in about the same spot validates the smallness of the Jacob's creature. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 11:40 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the nudge, Brent. You're right, the two deer shots are not from the same time period, but just comparison images from the same camera. The only only image from the same night is of what is apparently the mother to the two cubs.
Can I ask you, Brent, though, to discuss how your bear theory matches up with the limb-to-torso ratio study done by Bucker and Donut and Southman, which I featured in my short video?
There are two possibilities, and two only. Either Sasquatch does not exist--in which case all of the thousands of sincere eye-witness accounts, as well as centuries of Native American wisdom, are false--or else it does exist, and if it does exist, it has survived alongside Homo sapiens only by being far more elusive than Homo sapiens can imagine. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skippy the Sasqutch
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 01:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
semi p wrote:
What is that first picure? It sort of looks like a shoulder of a mid-size bear. Sort of. Can we do any clarity enhancements? Also, seeing that four pointer in about the same spot validates the smallness of the Jacob's creature.
|
Wow, the Jacob's creature IS small!!! Now that there's something to get some scale from, JC must be a real youngun'. Makes me wonder what the rate of growth for Squatchies is. Rkennedy, do you have any insight to this?
Scott R.
S.E. AZ
Still Squatching after all these years... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3263
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 01:15 PM |
|
|
***READ THIS***
Something was lost in translation when Chris was sent these latest pictures. Please note that the deer photos are from a different location. Give him a chance to re-evaluate what he has and then there will be an adjustment to this thread.
Bossburg
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chasing Safety
Approved
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 338
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 01:21 PM |
|
|
I thought something was suspicious... Thanks, Boss.
More than one tree, different camera angle, and a log, couldn't tell if he had more than one camera on the post or if they were different.
--Dallas O'Conner |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 01:25 PM |
|
|
I've now been told, by Mr. Jacobs himself, that the dates are different because he changed batteries in the camera and forgot to re-set the date.
There are two possibilities, and two only. Either Sasquatch does not exist--in which case all of the thousands of sincere eye-witness accounts, as well as centuries of Native American wisdom, are false--or else it does exist, and if it does exist, it has survived alongside Homo sapiens only by being far more elusive than Homo sapiens can imagine. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildmanmarty
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 01:53 PM |
|
|
I wonder how far away the camera is from the tree in this photo as opposed to the tree in the creature photo?
How old would you be, if you didn't know how old you are? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2969
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 02:22 PM |
|
|
In this photo the deer attractant is far more visible and it looks like it was placed all around the tree. It also looks like the first photo was taken with a regular flash as it has color in it. The others are infra red. If this trail cam was taking regular pics with a white flash then it may very well have chased away the "little foot" or caused it's mom to take it away. Same with the bears.
Darcy S, Maple Ridge BC
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lteliza
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 03:00 PM |
|
|
I just wanted to say kudos to you Chris for obtaining these Other Photos.
I would also like to say Thank You to everyone who has put in all these man hours of hard work to bring us closer to an understanding of the Jacob's photos. I just did not know the appropriate place to post such a thank you..
Liz |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 03:01 PM |
|
|
Two quick reactions to the new pix:
First: the larger bear -- standing behind the cubs -- doesn't appear to be particularly mangy nor does it seem have a foreleg which could be dimensionally equivalent to the foreleg of the mystery critter and
Second: the young buck (in the image in which he's standing closest to the tree) could provide a useful benchmark for an accurate estimate of the creature's height. Getting it right would take more high-tech computer skill than I can muster, but it certainly looks doable.
My guess is that useful data can be extracted from these new images and, even if I'm wrong, they'll definitely give us something to talk about.
MARC |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3263
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 03:14 PM |
|
|
Marc - the deer photos have been taken down as they were from a different location and had no relevance to this discussion. They were part of a collect of trail cam pictures the Jacobs had and were not meant to be posted as a comparison.
Bossburg
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2969
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 03:15 PM |
|
|
mwebbles,
As Bossburg has said, the photos of the deer were taken at a different location so they can't be used for any size comparisons to the Jacobs creature. They have no bearing on the subject at hand so I believe that's the reason they've been removed from the forum.
PBYodeler
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LouBob
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 717
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 03:51 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the clarification because I kept wondering just where in the heck the deer was! I mean, I know my eyesight is bad, but geez!
We don't know everything.
2008, 2009 NC BFRO Expeditions |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navigator
Administrator
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 395
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 03:55 PM |
|
|
Folks,
We need to put the other photos back up, and clarify the purpose for posting them.
Somewhere it was said by Tom Jacobs (Rick's brother) that there were other photos on the camera. Some people took that to mean that there were other photos of the creature on the camera. That is not correct. There were a few other shots of the bear cubs, which were not as clear as the one we posted. The rest of the photos show deer, etc. ... but they were the "other photos on the camera."
Some of those other photos were taken at different locations, at different times, and showed different animals ... but they were taken with the same trail camera, and they were on that trail camera when the camera obtained the three images we originally posted. We should keep these "other photos" posted, if nothing else, to show that there were no other images of the creature. Please post them again.
Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
manticora
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 04:24 PM |
|
|
"Squatchdog- according to Tom (the brother of R. Jacobs), there are 7 pics taken at 30 sec intervals. So there might be some more exciting shots yet to have been seen.
(Edited by Eric Squatcher)"
@ http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread...hreadid=1716523
I think this posting was the problem, it mades the people waiting for more "hot" pix!!!
manticora:-) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 05:14 PM |
|
|
Oops! Shoulda paid a bit more attention to the thread. Sorry.
I must say that I envy the Jacobs Bros. their target-rich environment; the trail cams in use by my hunting neighbors in MI usually produce pictures of (a) nothing at all, (b) bunnies, (c) racoons or (d) coyotes. Bears and antlered deer (to say nothing of a possible squatch!) are relative rarities.
And while I'm on the subject, I'd also like to thank the Jacobs clan for making the pictures and the site details & location available to us. It's been an amazing experience (and a rare priviledge) to examine such freshly developed -- and remarkable -- evidence. In the brief time that they've been available to us, the pictures (whatever they may truly depict) have been put thru as thorough and rigorous an analysis as they could have received in any public or private testing & research facility. And I have as much confidence in our conclusions as I do in the conclusions of any self-professed "expert". I've been genuinely blown away by the energy, wealth of practical experience and wide variety of personal/professional expertise that we (all of us) have brought to bear on these images. This has been just about as good as armchair squatching gets.
MARC |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 07:41 PM |
|
|
I wanted to bring the mother bear's outline out of the dark background in order to better see her size and apparent position.
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DoryR
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 07:56 PM |
|
|
How about this one? Does this look lighter?
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 08:12 PM |
|
|
| This photo was taken with a visible flash. I read that somewhere in the above posts. I think it was Chris or Boss that said it. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 08:16 PM |
|
|
| It was PBYodeler that said it was a "white flash". |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 685
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 08:29 PM |
|
|
| I think the camera has a conventional white flash but it is activated with an infra red motion detector |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 08:30 PM |
|
|
Mom seems pretty well nourished and with a nice, shiny coat. I don't think we've seen her before. And one more thing: she seems to be sniffing or examining something on the ground -- and all she has to do to lower her head is bend her neck. No bizarre "mooning" posture and no (disproportionately) long forearm splayed out to the side to maintain her balance.
MARC |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DoryR
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 08:37 PM |
|
|
Right, they all look nice and healthy with a thick shiny coat, no mange, and none look like that other "creature". Not even close to looking like the other creature.
So therefore it is not a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: November 29th, 2007 09:33 PM |
|
|
 
There are two possibilities, and two only. Either Sasquatch does not exist--in which case all of the thousands of sincere eye-witness accounts, as well as centuries of Native American wisdom, are false--or else it does exist, and if it does exist, it has survived alongside Homo sapiens only by being far more elusive than Homo sapiens can imagine. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: November 30th, 2007 08:31 AM |
|
|
More Pictures from Rick Jacobs' Camera:
Further deer (notice the eye shine, absent from J3)
Bear in the dark--notice the pointy ears
(Edited by Christopher Noel)
There are two possibilities, and two only. Either Sasquatch does not exist--in which case all of the thousands of sincere eye-witness accounts, as well as centuries of Native American wisdom, are false--or else it does exist, and if it does exist, it has survived alongside Homo sapiens only by being far more elusive than Homo sapiens can imagine. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
semi p
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 402
|
| Posted: November 30th, 2007 09:45 AM |
|
|
| WOW. These are great!! Shame they weren't posted before. Thanks for the additional pic's, I think they just further the fact that Jacob's creature is not a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daveillig
Approved
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: November 30th, 2007 10:14 AM |
|
|
Just a curious question here… If Jacobs creature was a “Mangy Bear” why don’t any of the other animals show even the slightest sign of mange? Can someone enlighten me on the spread of mange among bears and perhaps deer? All the other animals in these photos look perfectly healthy.
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.” –-Danial Boorstin |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
