 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
 Posted: January 24th, 2008 05:38 PM |
     |
|
The real deal folks..........
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: January 24th, 2008 05:45 PM |
|
|
| Thanks TexBFRO. Here we a have an experienced individual stating this is a picture of a sasquatch and people asking if we have multiple encounters why no pictures on another thread. If you add it up we have a picture of a sasquatch. This from someone who will lead an expedition and also states if you want to see for yourself sign up. Sounds petty certain to me. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: January 24th, 2008 05:51 PM |
|
|
As much as I know the real deal behind the photos........I guess you could say I was "there" so to speak....and as Bossburg said...everyone is in tittled to their opinion...very true...they don't have to believe me...but once said, other than I know "the inside" of the Jacob's...its also that I have seen both bear and Sasquatch (juvies) even...mangy bear and bear on "crack" LOL.........
People want to see some pictures....there you are........!!!
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buttersquatch
Approved
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: January 25th, 2008 06:41 PM |
|
|
(Remember this is just my opinion)
Runnah, Id say its reasonably safe to say that these photos are a bear. Though it is somewhat an ambiguous photo and holds little ground for either argument since no one can prove without a doubt what is in the photos and therefore we cant rule out "juvenile sasquatch". Even though by going off of what we do know points to a bear in my opinion.
I like the way you (Runnah) and Windwalker think. The photos are well within the boundaries of a bear. The photos where taken where bear inhabit and minutes earlier on the same trail cam obvious photos of bear cubs where also taken. We also know bears are quadrepedal and the position of the creature in the photo is within the limits of a bear. We know this because we can compare the Jacobs photos with other known bear photos. After a comparison we can see that the Jacob photos are very similiar to a bear's morphology which we know for certain are creatures that exist in nature. That among other things we do know.
Other than speculations made, we dont know for certain the actual morphology or boundaries of a "juvenile Sasquatch" because we have no representation of an actual "juvenile sasquatch" to compare too and we dont actually know if they are quadrapedal or bipedal or whether they inhabit the location where the photos came from. Unfortunely a Sasquatch or "juvenile sasquatch" still falls within the category of an unknown species or cryptid which implies that it is yet to be discovered. So in my opinion there really isnt any truely legitimate or scientific values to compare the Jacobs photo to a "juvenile sasquatch". Given what is available points more in favor that the Jacobs creature is a bear. We know nothing about Sasquatch other than assumptions and speculations made.
So based on what we do know and to ask whether the photos are of an unknown species or a known species of bear, which is the more probably explanation? Basing your evaluation of the Jacobs creature on certainties is, in my opinion a more scientific method of evaluating. But as mentioned before Im not ruling any possibilities out but I do think the evidence points to bear.
(Edited by Buttersquatch)
(Edited by Buttersquatch) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: January 25th, 2008 08:02 PM |
|
|
| Since we haven't seen a sasquatch we know it isn't one? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: January 25th, 2008 08:22 PM |
|
|
dksac.....this is getting old....just let them debate it....I will PM you dksac........
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finch
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: January 26th, 2008 01:59 AM |
|
|
Whether or not it is a bear, bigfoot, alien or Santa, it is not enough evidence to prove to the world anything! We have to keep searching and hoping for a better visual than this or the Patterson Film!!!
P.S.
It's a bear |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buttersquatch
Approved
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: January 26th, 2008 03:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
dksac wrote:
Since we haven't seen a sasquatch we know it isn't one?
|
No, that is not what Im saying.
Finch pretty much sumed up my feelings.
(Edited by Buttersquatch) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JodiW
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: January 26th, 2008 11:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Finch wrote:
P.S.
It's a bear
|
P.S.S.
It's a sasquatch
I believe... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildmanmarty
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: January 28th, 2008 01:42 PM |
|
|
Anybody familiar with the Monty Python bit "The Argument Room"?
How old would you be, if you didn't know how old you are? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildwoman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: January 28th, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
|
Yes, loved Monty Python, here's a link to the Argument sketch 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. Emerson |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1868
|
| Posted: January 28th, 2008 06:18 PM |
|
|
I'm a big Monty Python fan as well and appreciate the link but that's as far as this conversation can go on the forum here. If you like you're more than welcome to continue through PM's
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISAWBIGFOOT
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: January 30th, 2008 03:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Windwalker7 wrote:
I hate to rain on everyone's parade but it is a bear. I am from PA myself and a firm believr in BF but not in this photo.
I am an avid hunter and even bagged a PA black bear in 2003.
If any of you have ever seen a skinned out black bear, as I have, you would be surprised how human they look. I have helped skin a few for taxidermy purposes, including mine.
A bear with mange or a serious skin condition would look surprisingly human like.
Besides my experience with hairless bears, there are the other photos taken from Jacob's trail camera. They show two small bear cubs. These photos were taken within minutes of the supposed sasquath photo.
The photos showing the cubs were absent a mother. Being an experienced hunter, I know that cubs that small don't go anywhere without momma. Since there were photos of the two cubs alone and then within minutes there is another photo of a much larger creature, then it must be momma.
If you look closely at the one photo, you can see one of the cubs under momma licking at the "deer attracting chemicals"
Its not a rock. Its not a root. Its not a sasquatch's head. ITS A BEAR CUB!
I own several trail cams that I use for finding hunting spots. Most cameras stamp date and time on the photo when it is taken. Seeing the photos of the cubs and then a couple that are taken with in minutes showing a larger creature, tells me its a bigger bear.
I realize that the creature in the photo does not look like the typical bear. But like I said, if you have ever seen a skinned out bear, it looks surprisingly human. Most have only seen fat zoo fed bears with a healthy coat and thick fur.
Even normal animals such as fox and coyotes that have mange look surprisingly different. I've seen photos of dead coyotes with mange being touted as Chupacabras or demons.
Sorry if I rained on anyone's parade
|
Sorry to rain on your parade. But did you ever see bigfoot? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.allen63
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 259
|
| Posted: January 30th, 2008 07:13 PM |
|
|
what better way of concluding this facinating debate than for a man who has seen bigfoot ask another man if he has. i havn't (cept on utube or 'bigfoot reflections' dvd..vgood) but i do know that bears dont have flat faces...
http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/1867...6576/424206.jpg
goodnight
AA |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Armydude
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: February 1st, 2008 12:36 AM |
|
|
At first glance a monkey or young ape came to mind with my limited knowledge of primates. Then when I read the story I had doubts until I saw the timestamp on the photos. The cubs were there playing and 20 mins later they were gone (or off cam) and this creature was there. If this were another bear, I would think the other cubs would still be around the salt lick playing or at the least be all together in the frame.
Although we dont know what happened in the 20 minutes in between the pictures - somewhere off cam there was a momma bear and at least one other momma primate lingering around in the same area.
Expeditions 2008
"I have seen enough evidence to believe." |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 12th, 2008 05:42 PM |
|
|
Army
Just had a incident the other night......these guys do that same pose in Jacob #3 a lot...for some reason they do not crouch...they just bend over....for the evidence....sir
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ohio_cryptid
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: February 16th, 2008 01:39 PM |
|
|
| I do believe that Bigfoot exists. When looking at the Jacobs photos and closely looking at the feet, they all look similar to me and thus I am leaning towards a bear. I waited a long time to post this but the feet just look like bear to me. Am I missing something? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 16th, 2008 02:51 PM |
|
|
The feet are obscured by the pixels....they are there...and they are feet.......
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: February 16th, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
ohio_cryptid
What you might be missing are the long legs and arms |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ohio_cryptid
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: February 16th, 2008 04:23 PM |
|
|
| I have played it both ways in my head since the pics came out and I could honestly argue either way. The feet though is what is swaying me. I hear you on the arms and torso but the feet are what is swaying me. I understand about the pixels but that still makes me go either way. Oh well. I was just interested if anybody else noticed the feet besides me. I had not seen any posts about the feet anywhere and was wondering if I missed someone elses thread about it or if I was just missing something about the feet (other than they could be obstructed). Thanks. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 16th, 2008 04:28 PM |
|
|
Ooohhh I noticed...but trust me...I know inside about this...people want pictures...there you are....two of them to be exact......
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windwalker7
Approved
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: February 17th, 2008 01:15 PM |
|
|
TexBFRO states that he knows the inside story yet the "inside story" remains a secrete. Why? Photos are put out there for the world to see yet there is a secrete that no one gets to hear.
Especially when these photos are being debated, there remains this secrete. It just doesn't make sense to release photos and remian quiet about the story behind them.
Of coarse, TexBFRO has the inside scoop. To be honest, I don't believe TexBFRO really knows any more than the rest of us. While he may have had a BF sighting in his past and may have had more encounters with BF, I don't believe ha has any experience with bear.
I'm going out on a limb and will guess that TexBFRO lives in Texas.
What is the black bear population in Texas? I'd also go out on a limb and suggest that TexBFRO has not had many encounters with wild Black bears but he may have seen a few in a zoo.
What is the inside scoop on those photos that the public can't hear? I can understand if the exact location needs to be secrete but to keep the story behind the photos makes one think that there aint no story.
By the way those are normal feet for a black bear. I believe the Patterson film to be geniune as do most on this board. Everyone talks about the muscles in the buttocks of the Patty being so large, yet they are almost nonexistant on the Jacobs creature.
Is it just me or is the butt crack also absent on the Jacobs creature? When I look closely, I can almost see the stubby tail of a black bear.
Its a bear! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rachel L
Approved
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 660
|
| Posted: February 17th, 2008 01:43 PM |
|
|
Feeling a little spiteful, are we?? Good grief.....everyone doesn't have to agree with your views.
~R~
BFRO IL |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildwoman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: February 17th, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Hey Windwalker, It's not a bear, a hunter or a marten. Care to guess what it really is? 
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. Emerson |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Smith
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: February 17th, 2008 02:46 PM |
|
|
Its not a bear.
Arkansas Investigator
2008 NM, CO, OK, 2009 OK, CO, MO Expeditions
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oldfattylumpkin
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 167
|
| Posted: February 17th, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
|
Its a Squatch.
I have had encounters with wild Black Bears.
To Windwalker:
Notice I didn't bring to question your credentials, nor insinuate that you were lying?
How many wild Black bears have you seen?
I Squatch, Therefor I am.
(Clinton County, Michigan)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 17th, 2008 07:29 PM |
|
|
I will start off by saying that I am not a squatch, or bear, "specialist", and that I am only offering an opinion about a photo - Has anyone else looked at the fact that the foot of the "bigfoot" in the picture doesn't look very big? In fact, it looks about the size of a bear's foot. Particularly with respect to length. If I thought I was looking at a BF in that picture I would be confused by the relatively small feet.
The other thing is that BF has relatively long legs (for a primate) and if it were scanning the ground for something - as this animal appears to be doing - then I would expect it to bend it's knees and squat, not just bend way over at the waist like that. Again, I don't claim to know the biomechanics of a squatch, but I have seen how bears move.
I am convinced there is something out there that people have come to call bigfoot, but in my humble opinion, the animal in these photos does not resemble one. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 02:54 PM |
|
|
Windwalker read your PMs
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
|
More than 5 years investigating BF activity and more than 700 hrs logged in the field and with luck more than my share of Class As.....and yeaup I have seen my share of Brown and Black Bears (in Oklahoma, Colorado, and Utah)......and have not visited a Zoo in more than 23 years....I have seen American Alligators, Nile Crocs, 23ft snakes in Jungles of Congo.......been a few places in the military..seen a few things.........
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: February 18th, 2008 04:46 PM |
|
|
| For what its worth, Id bet my money on Tex. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
