 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerbs
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
|
 Posted: August 5th, 2008 09:44 PM |
     |
|
This past winter my wife (who is a semi-retired engineer) and I decided to start working on a project together to determine the actual dimensions of the Jacobs Creature. She had some good ideas on how we could figure it out so this isn’t just a guess. It ended up taking longer to get everything together than we anticipated and didn’t finish until late spring. I wasn’t going to bother posting it until I read over some of the comments and I feel it may help clear things up.
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1860
|
| Posted: August 5th, 2008 10:08 PM |
|
|
This is a link to another thread that has photos of the site in the daylight with a measuring stick up against the tree. I think some of the others there had a different idea about the height but what you guys have done looks really good.
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread...hreadid=1732282
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaDave
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: August 6th, 2008 02:17 PM |
|
|
You might be close. I looked at the scale on the tree and tried to compare the photos but they were taken from different locations so nothing really matched. If I had warped the photos any results would be useless. So I tried to do a comparison of what would happen if the critter was 2 feet in front of the tree and the photos were taken 25 feet from the tree as Paul Mateja stated.
If you measure the hind leg in J3, it measures about 22 inches compared to the scale in the later photo as you came up with. If the photo in J3 was taken at 25 feet away from the tree and the animal is 2 feet in front of the tree, the length of the leg is foreshortened to 20 inches. If based on the ratio of 20/22 and height of 46.25", the total height would be about 42.5 inches.
Edited to use Paul Mateja's measurements.
(Edited by DaDave) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerbs
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: August 8th, 2008 06:13 AM |
|
|
| All of the discrepancies were eliminated we’re within one quarter of an inch on all the measurements this wasn’t a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: August 9th, 2008 07:09 AM |
|
|
| Nice work Gerbs. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerbs
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: October 9th, 2008 03:43 PM |
|
|
I was asked if I could display our staked out measurement points from the field survey so here they are. Everything was documented and reproducibility was tested with a model we constructed from these sizes I encourage those in doubt to do the same. Now I can’t tell you what this creature is but we’re certain it isn’t a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 9th, 2008 04:00 PM |
|
|
Gerbs, I like your approach and I appreciate the time you have put toward your presentation. You must admit that even though you use what appear to be actual demensions, in reality they are estimates and subject to the same errors as all others...including mine.
It would be interesting to see how the ratios in your work compares to the Patterson creature. There's a nice project.
Have you attempted this analysis with any of the bear photos?
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerbs
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: October 9th, 2008 04:38 PM |
|
|
| This wasn’t an estimate done by amateurs. We used the same model of Bushnell camera that was listed by the BFRO that the hunter used, it was hung and aligned in the marks left in the bark by the hunters camera on the same tree, then adjusted with a portable laptop to perfect alignment with the 2 photos all of the angles in question were totally removed from these figures. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 9th, 2008 05:02 PM |
|
|
What is the basis of your conclusion that it wasn't a bear?
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerbs
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: October 9th, 2008 05:35 PM |
|
|
| The skinniest mangiest bear doesn’t come close to matching those proportions. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 9th, 2008 07:01 PM |
|
|
That statement isn't supported by the evidence you have presented.
I think given a reasonable tolorance for error the measurements fall within the range of a bear.
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: October 9th, 2008 07:42 PM |
|
|
| Shine I'll give you an A for effort but when I look up at the scaled picture Gerbs has I say he has driven the point home. That doesn't look anything like any bear I've seen and from the sounds of it there wasn't much, if any error on those measurements. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kaimiloa
Approved
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 298
|
| Posted: October 9th, 2008 10:52 PM |
|
|
I love the measurements and scientific approach, plus the very impressive effort it took to present them. Yet I cannot resist one more statement from a lifelong nature-lover and nature-student, as well as hunter. Even without any measurements, I can tell the difference between an ox, a cape buffalo and a water buffalo. Ditto for very similar animals like an elk and a red deer, or a wolf and a coyote, or a cottontail and a jackrabbit.
Thus it takes me but a moment to look at the Jacobs pictures and know it is not a bear. And also to conclude it is a primate.
Aloha, Ka'imiloa
Yep, they're out there. (P.S. I'm in central Arizona) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil
Approved
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: October 10th, 2008 06:13 AM |
|
|
| My God that thing really was a sasquatch! I know some of you get frustrated from the arguing but it’s needed, things have a tendency to get boring and stall out on here without it. Most of the best work here came from argument. Some of us would have never seen this excellent job by Gerbs and his wife if it wasn’t for it. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 10th, 2008 11:42 AM |
|
|
One hitch in the measurements provided is the assumption that the head is some distance away from the tree. If indeed the creature is scratching its head on the tree, as I perceive it to be, then the measured length of the spine becomes somewhat longer. Unfortunately, one camera angle is not enough to determine depth and this can't be proven either way.
That is however a big matsa ball that the non-bear evidence depends on.
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldilocks
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: October 10th, 2008 12:52 PM |
|
|
Not only that, mange is contagious. Wouldn't the bear and cubs we saw in the other frames have mange also since it is the same area? Or a possibility of having the mange too... at least one of them. And they obviously dont, so therefore since the bears don't have mange then that makes the creature not a bear and instead is a Bigfoot. Make sense?
Quote:
Gerbs wrote:
The skinniest mangiest bear doesn’t come close to matching those proportions.
|
Lisa |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 10th, 2008 01:33 PM |
|
|
Make sense, no. That, in Logic, is what is known as the "slippery slope" fallacy. You can look it up.
According to that reasoning, every bear in the woods should have mange.
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: October 10th, 2008 01:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
J Schein wrote:
Make sense, no. That, in Logic, is what is known as the "slippery slope" fallacy. You can look it up.
According to that reasoning, every bear in the woods should have mange.
|
J Schein: Need to stop and think about this now. You are doing exactly what we ask others NOT to do to you when you had differing opinions. We know what you think - you've told us many, many times. You've provided your side. Let others have a say without pushing your 'logic' on them. No one has to agree with you.
Bossburg
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Schein
Unregistered
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: October 10th, 2008 02:18 PM |
|
|
Point taken.
He did ask though...
My opinion is just that. If you think me wrong, I very well could be.
Thanks,
shine |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joshual
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: October 10th, 2008 08:13 PM |
|
|
Everyone sees something different in these pictures and you all have overlooked something important.
You have 2 different pictures.
The creature is in 2 different positions.
The creature is in 2 close but different locations.
The limb measurements are the same that is accuracy you can take to the bank.
THE INTERMEMBRAL INDEX IS 107.97
ALL THE LIMBS ARE AT LEAST 108% LONGER THAN THE TOTAL TORSO LENGTH
THIS IS A PRIMATE
Josh |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercury
Unregistered
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
|
| Posted: October 12th, 2008 09:59 PM |
|
|
Not sure....But even with SOME adjustment or allowance for error by Gerbs since it is SO apparent he winged the numbers (notice the sarcasm), there is just too much discrepency between a primate (100+%) and a bear (50-60%).
Gerbs....Just curious.... Is there anyway to try and distort the or mimic the image from Jacobs but put the limb to core ratio into a bears range? Take the picture where the leg is VERY evident and then base the spine off of that but at a bears ratio. Also in the one pic the "unknown" subs left front appendage is very visible and easily measured with what should be something every one could agree with. Then do the same and try to get an idea what the animal would look like with a bear's ratio. If I am not mistaken, I dont believe there is any argument in the academic world about the ratios. If this "reverse engineering" or what ever can be done, then the animal would look distorted with a bears ratio no? Or use the obvious appendages to start and base the numbers from and then use a bears ratio and insert bone lines of a bear. Then it would be apparent even if you use a far range ration like 65% that the bones are not fitting into the picture correctly. It is easy to argue but if you could truely put a BLOB squatch on a screen due to the messed up (bears) ratio, might just give another look and sway some of the "pro bear" campers.
Kevin A |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerbs
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: October 13th, 2008 06:43 AM |
|
|
| Sorry, we live pretty far away from the location and neither my wife nor I have a clue about the anatomy of a bear or the artistic ability to turn the picture into one. The stakes from the survey were only set up to the points shown on the photos I displayed. Someone will need to go back set up and re-mark all the stakes with bear dimensions. This might be a good project for some ambitious young engineering student. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: October 13th, 2008 06:18 PM |
|
|
Who cares about bear camp? Like they say on the TV show this bear myth is busted. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1860
|
| Posted: October 13th, 2008 06:34 PM |
|
|
Valleydude
I ended the discussion on that photo on another thread. Drop it. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion then keep your posts to yourself.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercury
Unregistered
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
|
| Posted: October 13th, 2008 09:18 PM |
|
|
Yep..Unfortunately the engineers I see out of school build roads and infrastructure, not models of bears. LOL.
Still..you did some great work. Im sure everyone here appreciated the time and effort! I did!
Kevin A |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
un_xplained
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: October 13th, 2008 10:54 PM |
|
|
Most of the photos of bears ive seen with mange have a lot less hair on them than the creature seen in the jacobs photos.
Someday, soon |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercury
Unregistered
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
|
| Posted: October 14th, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
Un....I noticed in bear photos with OUT mange, the skin between the rear legs is joined closer to the ground. Not sure how to explain what I mean. The Jacobs photos looks like a naked man wearing all black. Is this fold of skin that looks visible when a bear stands look the same when it has mange? This fold of skin is NOT visible OR present on jacobs photo that I can tell!
Kevin A |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: October 15th, 2008 03:41 PM |
|
|
| I don't know how many months I've been looking at these pictures, some say I'm obsessed, I still can't see any loose skin hanging from it and after all this time I'm completely convinced that it wasn't a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: October 15th, 2008 04:06 PM |
|
|
What struck me about these pics, immediately, was the similarity to footage I've seen of a family in (I believe) India that normally moves around in this exact posture. On the flats of their feet and the palms of their hands.
I'd love to see stills of them side by side with a bear and this creature.
Doni
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: November 28th, 2008 08:56 AM |
|
|
side by side by side by side |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
