 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
 Posted: February 21st, 2008 12:42 PM |
     |
|
mg: Honest disagreement does not equate with "suppression". Your opinions were freely and fully expressed; you may not have met with a sympathetic audience but you cannot claim to have been silenced. The decision to fold up your tent and walk away was/is entirely your own.
MARC |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildwoman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 12:58 PM |
|
|
well said mwebbles,
I was going to compare it to a kindergarten student that get's angry because they didn't win and then stomps off mad. Your comment is more succinct.
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. Emerson |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EllenA
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 01:02 PM |
|
|
| Well I came back to this thread to say that I felt that mg was maybe getting a rough time here, but after rereading, I can see that he wants full agreement, which no one is ever going to have. You are right Marc. The free expression is the important thing, and he got that. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 07:00 PM |
|
|
| You're right, I misread the minutes/seconds. My bad. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 07:19 PM |
|
|
So....... what you're saying is....... if I'm reading you all correctly..... I should continue along these lines of thought and post up all the evidence and arguments I can muster in favor of my interpretation of the pictures? And that won't annoy or pester or bore or infuriate anyone at all?
Cool. Thanks everyone. I'll start doing some work on this and get back to you. And I promise I'll be friendly about it. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1855
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 07:36 PM |
|
|
Being friendly is all we ask. I, personally, don't agree with your views on those pics but if anyone gets rude with you I will defend your right to your opinion very aggressively. Isn't that right everybody? LOLOL
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 07:48 PM |
|
|
Around here, rudeness is a capital offense. Heads roll!
MARC |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 08:26 PM |
|
|
I was second guessing my self there..........PBYodeler......but I can see others point...but I am not being a bone head here...but once you have seen a BF and seen one do that pose in #3.................then its more than obvious.......
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgalla
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 09:51 PM |
|
|
I was reacting to what I felt was a stance ready to resist all arguments I can offer. I too feel strongly about what I see in those photos, and I think (assuming that I'm right - just *assuming*) I would feel I did not do something I should have to point out what I see. It doesn't even matter to me if I don't manage to convince a single person of a single point. You see, when I was told things like "that was brought up before" and "that argument has come and gone" (I'm paraphrasing by the way) I took that as "don't bother to try to make your point, no matter what you might have to offer". This may take me a while, but I don't offer this argument with nothing to back it up. The other thing is that I'm not oblivious to the fact that this is actually the wrong forum thread for this discussion. I should appologize for going off topic, as well as for being abrasive. I honestly want to offer something valuable to this discussion board.
I also see a lot of comments throughout the pages here about so-and-so is a newbe and he/she is trying to tell us about whatever. I expect people feel that way about me. I may be new to the BFRO discussion board, but I'm not new to the world. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sarah
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 10:23 PM |
|
|
I know you thought my hand connection was unreasonable but I still support you on your opinion. The stick across the back makes perfectly good sense. I did trace a well formed shape of a hand. I ran the ends of the lines to what looks like a wrist, but turns out to be a gun. The arm may be blending into the background as well.
Sarah |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mwebbles
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: February 21st, 2008 11:06 PM |
|
|
mg: I'll plead guilty to being a tad bit jaded when it comes to the various "squatch vs. (insert name of species)" arguments but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to state your case. All it really means is that you'll have to try a helluva lot harder to convince people like me. Your experience and opinion(s) undoubtedly have value (and you express yourself quite well!) but at this forum and on this thread you're dealing with folks who've been fighting over this same ground for quite some time. Any contrary opinion you run into around here is likely to be battle tested.
MARC |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: February 22nd, 2008 04:14 PM |
|
|
| Those of us who have been on this thread for a while have seen photo overlays of bear and jake 2. It doesn't matter which you make the larger they don't match. Jakes legs are too long for a bear that size. I have these overlays saved but they are save on a linux system and won't post to the board for me. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRUTH-SEEKER
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 572
|
| Posted: February 22nd, 2008 05:02 PM |
|
|
Hi everyone,
I'm new to this board. I have been interested in Sasquatch since I was a kid. I have 5 five people I know of personally that claim to have seen them. I live in Washington State (Squatch country as I call it) . And actually, I can't believe these photo's are still up for debate. I have read all about these photo's on other sight's. I have the seen the photos. And I have to agree with windwalker7. Pretty much the cubs in the preceeding photo tell's the story if you ask me. And he is right about it being a cub under momma in I think it's the 3rd photo in my opinion. I think they are at play at the salt lick and she is stradleing the cub. And not only that, I myself can see the momma bears face looking right at the camera. It's kinda hard to see because her head blends in with the rest of her body in the position she is in. Anyway, As much as I wish these photos were of a Sasquatch, juvenile or adult, doesn't matter to me. I just don't see it in these photo's. And please people, don't come back with, " You see a bear because it is what you want to see". I'm to old for that. Like I said, I wish these photo's were of Sasquatch but for me, the cubs and the fact that I can see the face on the animal in the 3rd photo tells ( me ) that the Jacobs photo is a bear. Just my opinion. Hopefully Jacobs doesn't let all us nay sayers keep him from continuing with his trail cam. Because in my opinion it will be someone like Jacobs that places these cams, will soon get some undeniable photos of Squatch. Him and people that go out in the bush, like the BFRO. I am going on my first BFRO expedition in June. I am looking forward to learning some things and hopefully have some great experiences.
"He who seeketh long enough and hard enough will find the truth, whatever that truth may be." Roger Patterson
“When you realize the value of a life, you dwell less on what is past and concentrate on the preservation of the future.” Diane Fossey 
Expeditions Attended:
2008, 2009 Washington Cascades
2008, 2009 Wa. Olympic Peninsula
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: February 22nd, 2008 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
mgalla wrote:
"that was brought up before" and "that argument has come and gone" a newbe and he/she is trying to tell us about whatever.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cowboyman
Unregistered
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1217
|
| Posted: February 22nd, 2008 06:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
mwebbles wrote:
Around here, rudeness is a capital offense. Heads roll!
MARC
|
Muhaaaaaaa!( insane laughter from a crazed man who doesn't see a mangy bear) 
" Some wonder if it is, others study how it is".
( Texas Expedition 2008) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: February 23rd, 2008 12:17 AM |
|
|
Me...
YAWNING.
Southman |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kayakbuilder
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: February 23rd, 2008 06:50 PM |
|
|
TRUTH-SEEKER
Check your PMs |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRUTH-SEEKER
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 572
|
| Posted: March 21st, 2008 12:09 PM |
|
|
Kayakbuilder,
Checked PM and replied
"He who seeketh long enough and hard enough will find the truth, whatever that truth may be." Roger Patterson
“When you realize the value of a life, you dwell less on what is past and concentrate on the preservation of the future.” Diane Fossey
Expeditions Attended:
2008, 2009 Washington Cascades
2008, 2009 Wa. Olympic Peninsula
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
patvince
Approved
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: March 22nd, 2008 06:29 AM |
|
|
Hi all, here is my (french) point of view, and as T.S, i can believe this pics are still up for debate; I showed them to hunters (french, some hunting bears in eastern Europe, of course brown not black!, to people working in zoo, to friends, who does not believe in BF and etc etc....i told them "those are pics of a black bears": Sorry but 100% of them don't see at all a bear in those pics,
I tell to some (bears hunters) it was maybe a youg Bigfoot and they all said l" ...maybe, but it is NOT a bear!"
I personally have seen some (black and brown) when i was in Yukon and B.C, sorry they were not like this one!
R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bart
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: March 22nd, 2008 08:04 AM |
|
|
| I have been interested in this story and I know black bears including skinny and mangy ones, I can tell you that is no bear. I don't care what some of the other people say there is no length to his torso. Its not a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RalphTDog
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: March 22nd, 2008 11:12 AM |
|
|
This is great, we all have differing opinions, we all see something different. What ever it was, it did one thing, it brought a lot of people closer to the truth.
RTD
Rick
Tech Manager
S.P.R.I. Paranormal
Certified Cat Trainer <M.E.O.W.> |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derek.Felber
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bart
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: March 22nd, 2008 09:54 PM |
|
|
It doesn't matter how many pictures of apes, bears or monkeys you post with the right snapshot they all have similar looking hips, elbows...
I pass judgment when I step back and look at the whole picture. Thats when I see its no bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derek.Felber
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: March 23rd, 2008 10:35 PM |
|
|
Bart,
I never once said I didn't believe that the Jake images weren't of that of a BF. I simply said I wouldn't use them as "proof" because there are too many points that **could** be convincingly argued that it **could** be a bear, but in the same breath there are many points that **could** be argued that it isn't a bear, that there really is something else in the PA woods. All these details have been pointed out ad nauseam.
Now belief in what is in a few grainy images and what can be proven often are very different things. Faithful can see a representation of their faith in anything:
As an example
http://snoedel.punt.nl/upload/pla.0...956_320X240.jpg
To me that salt run off looks like a very personal part of the female anatomy and looks NOTHING like the creative works of artists presenting a representation of what something from their faith looked like.
If the mainstream is ever going to acknowledge THE FACT that there is another large mammal in the woods of North America (and other places) it will take more than just a few images that can be convincingly argued by zoologists & skeptics against what we're claiming the images to be. It will take better quality images, sooner and not later that will happen, but the Jake Pics aren't the "sooner" we're waiting for though.
Once a few better quality images are out there mainstream science will eat their richly deserved plate of crow. That's when they'll all say they secretly believed that there is something more in our woods because of the footprints, the hair samples that couldn't be identified beyond being primate and found in North America, and the vocalizations that no other animal is known to make. It will be AWESOME when Skeptic prints the "we were wrong" article because the presumption of intelligence as evidenced within their pages is one of the GREATEST hindrances to discovery and gaining knowledge.
As for me, the personal experiences I had require no photography for me to know what is out in the woods of my state. I've seen elk the size of a camel with a gland condition, a few deer that made me wish I had more than my 300 Win Mag on me, I've had black bear climb up the tree to see what I was doing in the tree stand and my experiences that wasn't any of the "accepted" large critters.
Derek |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tomb
Approved
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: March 29th, 2008 11:53 AM |
|
|
If you look closely at the photo in which the "sasquatch" is supposedly bending forward at the waist away from the camera (the one shown prominently on the BFRO home page), you can see two white dots about one centimeter apart horizontally, right where the left shoulder-blade of the "sasquatch" would be. These white dots I believe to be a bear's eyes. Below the "eyes" you can just make out a nose/snout, and above them the "bear's" ears. Around these you can just barely (no pun intended) make out the outline of a bear's face looking toward, and a little to our right of the camera.
With this face made out, one can then see the body as that of a bear stretching its right front leg in front and to its right, as if it were tentatively about to make a step. The "bear's" left paw would seem to be deformed or twisted, except that this can be easily explained in that, what would otherwise look like a sasquatch's left foot, could be a shadow made by the camera's flash.
I have not been able to find a bear's face in the other photographs, but this appears to be because the creature is looking away from the camera, and the other photos could, I believe, be explained by the unusual appearance of a skinny, mangy bear. Therefore, as I see it, these photos do not meet the parsimony test. Perhaps some of the things that are being put near cameras to attract sasquatches could actually be repelling them, in that they are so unfamiliar to creatures more wary (and intelligent) than bears, deer, and elk. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: March 29th, 2008 12:10 PM |
|
|
tomb- please visit the *READ THIS FIRST* section of the forum and post your introduction.
Thanks,
Bossburg
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: March 29th, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
| Tomb, what your suffering from is known as bearsyphilitis. It’s common around this web site. It comes from the fact that you can’t except this is indeed a Sasquatch and when you look at it your subconscious mind fills in the shadows with bear faces. The treatment for this disease is to thoroughly read all the threads first, then post. Everything you said has been proven wrong. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: March 29th, 2008 04:06 PM |
|
|
| If you want to see a bear on the same camera look at Jake 1 that's a bear cub born in late Jan. or early Feb. Thats what a bear looks like and the eye shine that you see there is from the flash. Thats how their eyes look when the camera flashes. If you want to see what a mother bear looks like see OTHER PHOTOS. That's what mother bears look like. There is no need to go searching for possibilities or maybes we have bears to look at at the same sight and they don't look like Jake 2 or 3 in any way |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexBFRO
Unregistered
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1126
|
| Posted: March 29th, 2008 05:26 PM |
|
|
It is a Squatch about or possible maybe 10-12 years old...(maybe-judging the observations of other young squatches)........I am throwing my 2 cents in again....this is going round and round here....love everyone's thoughts and injects........great thoughts and freedom of speech......and everyone wants to see a squatch.....Well there you are.....right there........!!
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations
Lead Investigator
Team Caddo |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRUTH-SEEKER
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 572
|
| Posted: March 31st, 2008 12:27 PM |
|
|
I must admit though. In all honesty. I can't really say it is a bear in the 2nd photo. It is just to hard to tell what it is in my opinion. But the other two photo's make me lean towards it being a bear in the 2nd photo. I'll also admit that it is the strangest looking bear I have ever seen if it is a bear. I was just wondering if anyone might know this, do the Big Ones like salt ?
"He who seeketh long enough and hard enough will find the truth, whatever that truth may be." Roger Patterson
“When you realize the value of a life, you dwell less on what is past and concentrate on the preservation of the future.” Diane Fossey
Expeditions Attended:
2008, 2009 Washington Cascades
2008, 2009 Wa. Olympic Peninsula
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
