Quote:
Valleydude wrote:
I'm impressed, I'm pretty sure we all know the IR comes from the camera...duh, but if you can calculate the exact location of it then your much smarter than me. I'm all ears now, so what the heck was this thing I thought was a root?

Quote:
I don’t have any idea what angle, side or elevation that cameras IR came from but the effect is obvious.

Quote:
BenR wrote:

Just an observation after reading this longggggg section. haha

Quote:
RalphTDog wrote:



I don't know if I posted this before, but this is the result of of taking the image, zooming in on the "face area" and doing a edge enhancement, I also did a find lines. what you see if what i found.
edit: I also rotated the image to make the face more visable.

Quote:
mikeofborg wrote:


I am a biologist with an associates of arts and science from Ohio State University and I am in the last 1/2 year of my bachelor of science program. I have studied animal anatomy and form and function. I want to believe this photo is of a sasquatch but unfortunatley it is not. It is a bear with some type of skin diorder, be it mange or something else. Another tell tell sign it is a bear, if you look closley in the left hand corner of the photos of the creature you'll see the head of what appears to be a bear cub.

Quote:
Bossburg wrote:
mikeofborg: Please visit the *READ THIS FIRST* section of the forum, read the posting guidelines and then post your introduction.

Quote:
robday wrote:


If this is a bear with mange, then why are the cubs not suffering from it?

Also, the object in the left corner (according to many, including the person who acquired these images) is not a bear cub.

Quote:
mikeofborg wrote:

The animal to us looks very similar in color, size and shape to a North American Black Bear

Quote:
mikeofborg wrote:


Those cubs might not be from the paticular bear. Just because one bear has mange doesn't mean all bears around it will get it. For example, if you have dogs. You might have a dog that comes down with mange, but your other dogs might be unaffected. Other times all your dogs might get it. That paticular bear might of also had some other immune systems problems that might have made it more susceptable to the mange mite or it could be it had an autoimmune disease which was attacking its hair follicles.

The point is with those photos you cannot clearly see where the long bones really end or begin on the animal. Nor where the joints actually meet. Any attempt at getting an accurate limb ratio is going to near impossible. There just is not enough data in the photo to make an accurate measure.

The only thing I can see and others that I showed the photo is animal that appears to have some type of skin disorder be it mange or something else. The animal to us looks very similar in color, size and shape to a North American Black Bear with extreme hair loss. It is impossible to get accurate limb ratios or any other usable data except the raw morphological data that leads one to believe it is in fact a sick bear.

Quote:
helsbels wrote:


The bear cubs in the first photo look healthy. It is unlikely that they suckled from a mother who had an advanced case of mange without suffering it themselves. It is unlikely that they were born to a mother who suffered an auto-immune illness or a weakened immune system during her pregnancy. Even if the mother aquired a condition after the birth, she would not be able
to provide for them well and I would think that the cubs would look sickly too.

Quote:
mikeofborg wrote:


First off, each time you zoom in on a digital photo you lose loads of resolution and artifacts begin to appear. Artifacts are mistakes created as you zoom in beyond the actual pixel rate of the photo. Richard Hoagland is notorious for doing this to show supposed martian artifacts and machinery in photos from the rovers. What you have in your photo enlargment are the usual artifacts associated with zooming into a digital photo beyond the rated pixel number for said photo. Too much data is lost and no number of enhancements will get that data back. Long story short, it is impossible to tell facial features on this photo by zooming in, due to data loss and digital artifacts.

On the unaltered photos now. I am a biologist with an associates of arts and science from Ohio State University and I am in the last 1/2 year of my bachelor of science program. I have studied animal anatomy and form and function. I want to believe this photo is of a sasquatch but unfortunatley it is not. It is a bear with some type of skin diorder, be it mange or something else. Another tell tell sign it is a bear, if you look closley in the left hand corner of the photos of the creature you'll see the head of what appears to be a bear cub. One shot is very good of this as you see the ears quite clearly. I also looked at the limb proportions myself and had a few of my professor look at them also. The problem is there is not enough data to get an accurate measure of where the limb bones end and begin. The person who did the measurments took a good guess, but if you move them just a few inches either way then it falls into the range of a bear. I'm not saying there are no sasquatches, I feel this photo is simply not the smoking gun we need. It raises too many questions and it does look just like a mangy bear looks like in the wild. More study is needed of better photos or evidence. The Skookum Cast is a piece of evidence that is very interesting. In the end, I think it will take a live captured subject, extremely high quality photos/video or a carcass to prove that BF is a real animal. We simply have to be vigilant and try and get this data. However hoaxes like we had earlier this year do not help our cause at all.

Quote:
TexBFRO wrote:
Cubs were scared off when the Juvey Squatch walked up and started to play with what the cubs were sniffing or eating...then the Squatch took a bow, bent over and smelt that area........numerous individuals has seen a squatch perform that movement, bend straight over at the waist to sniff the ground......also arms, elbows, knees, shoulders, the hips and waist area.......not anything shape of a bear...........if you read back to some of my orginal posts about these photos....I was there in person when these photos came into BFRO. The gentleman that submitted these was unaware of what he had on film...................Ladies and Gentleman this is the REAL DEAL........some people get really lucky and get something on film....well here it is..........everyone has there opinion.....but for what it is worth......somebody wants to see a photo of one...there you go...and even performing a uncomfortable movement as a straight over bend leaning down hill at that...............

Quote:
Valleydude wrote:


According to records the bait used was C’mere Deer I found it at http://www.cmeredeer.com/ according to the manufacturer it is made to attract deer only not bear. It’s to be applied to the base of a tree as clearly seen here in an earlier photo. The bears seem to be more interested in the salt lick. The deer bait is clearly on the root.



The creature comes in at a later time and is only interested in the C’mere Deer bait he reaches out and touches it.



He moves forward for a closer look, he clearly is looking directly at the white bait line on the root. Then he disappears forever. According to some records this was the last photo taken from this camera. A few days later it was picked up by the owner.



None of these images have been altered. I carefully only darkened the creatures body for demonstration reasons. The Sagittal Crest shaped head can be seen clearly even before darkening.

Quote:
Carman1 wrote:

I've been studying these images, and recently have come to some conclusions. I think the Jacobs images most likely show a young sasquatch. (He has all his fur so it can’t be mange infestation or some other disease) I've done a couple of illustrations showing what I see in these images. I enlarged the photos with no adjustments/enhancements otherwise.

Note how (second image) when its bent over in that position, the rear legs stay almost straight? Get in that position right now, and watch how easy it is to keep them straight if you’re young and flexible.

The whole anatomy of the hind leg is just like a primate.

Note the long length, front and hind legs in all the images.

Note the light colored hair in the underarm area, which is consistant with apes and monkeys, and quite opposite of us humans.

Note the head/neck length. Primates have a much shorter neck like is seen in these images.


This illustration demonstrates this point pretty well in comparing the neck and head length as well as the morphology of primate neck, being that they are relatively short, and not much goes past the top of the shoulders.

Quote:
Carman1 wrote:
There are a lot of theories out there, going all the way back to Darwin who suggested that humans became bipedal to free their hands in order to make and use stone tools like arrowheads and spears. But we now know from the fossil record that humans began to walk upright about 4 million years ago — long before they started making such sophisticated tools.
About 4 million years ago is when we observed a change in orientation of the tibia — a bone between the knee and the ankle — so that it is held upright rather than angled to the outside as it is in apes. But there is no evidence that hominids started systematically crafting tools before 2.6 million years ago, shedding doubt on Darwin’s hypothesis.
Another theory has to do with the earliest of humans moving out onto the savannah. This theory suggests that early hominids needed to stand upright to look over tall grasses to spot predators and potential prey. We don’t think that’s how things happened based on what we see in the fossil record.
In fact, there is new evidence that shows that the earliest human ancestors were not out on the savannah, but still in the woods.
An idea that has recently gotten a lot of press is the notion that hominids started to stand upright for improved thermal regulation when living in open country. By standing upright, they had more air circulating around the body and less direct sunlight. Again, there is a problem in assuming that early hominids were living in open country before they had these adaptations.

Quote:
BenR wrote:



I've been studying these images, and recently have come to some conclusions. I think the Jacobs images most likely show a young bear. (either with mange infestation or some other disease) I've done a couple of illustrations showing what I see in these images. I enlarged the photos with no adjustments/enhancements otherwise.

Note how (second image) when its bent over in that position, the rear legs stay almost straight? Get in that position right now, and watch how your legs will bend, and you'll find it almost impossible to keep them straight.

Also on the bent over photo, note the long tendon/ligament that is visible/sticking out at the rear of the hind legs. That long sloping curve, with no break or bend in the center.

Primate legs, and human legs have a very noticable indention at the knee joint on the leg when bent over like that. The whole anatomy of the hind leg is wrong for it to be primate.

Note the short length, yet wide paws on both front and hind legs in all the images.

Note the lack of hair in the underarm area, which is consistant with bear, and quite opposite of us humans/primates.

Note the head/neck length. Primates have a much shorter neck than is noted in these images.


This illustration (someone elses) demonstrates this point pretty well in comparing the neck and head length as well as the morphology of primate neck, being that they are relatively short, and not much goes past the top of the shoulders. They've also emphasized the hind leg tendon that I noted as well and compared it to some primate legs.

Quote:
TexBFRO wrote:


Ok, I can accept your thoughts, but something is here I can not reveal......and will not...but sorry it's real very real.............

Quote:
plwilloughby wrote:
Troy,
it would be really great if you could reveal the fact that would prove this one way or the other.

Paul

Quote:
Hound wrote:


Give us a break! Then why even mention it.
I know and I won't tell. Then typing about it.
Makes NO sense but a lot of this doesn't.

Quote:
wickie wrote:
Talk about a tease!
I'm still on the bear side, so prove me wrong