 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 458
|
 Posted: November 15th, 2007 11:21 PM |
     |
|
BFRO Investigator Paul Mateja has now visited the site and made careful measurements. He, as well as our Navigator, have given me the go-ahead to post this important picture, to add it to the mix of the vigorous and fruitful debate that has already taken place. The tree is 25 feet from the game camera. The measuring stick placed on the tree gives us a surprising insight, it seems, into the relatively small stature of the subject. The black lines on the stick are 6 inches apart.
More perameters, in Paul Mateja's words:
"The tree is not even close to two feet wide. Using a precision caliper I estimated the tree to only 16.9 inches wide at certain points along its height.
"The subject was estimated to be 24 inches from the tree by comparing certain landmarks seen in the photos and the location of the deer bait.
"The ground was not level across the entire 25 feet. It dipped and rose at various points. The subject was standing in a small drop that I could not get an accurate measurement of because I did not have a level with me. Rough guess it dropped 8-12 inches."
I'll post the picture below, as well as the by-now-old-familiar images. Thanks, Paul, for your diligent work. Finally some new data for us to chew on--let's have fun with it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 458
|
| Posted: November 15th, 2007 11:26 PM |
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 15th, 2007 11:38 PM |
|
|
Excellent!
Thanks, Chris...something told me to check the website! Get back to you after I've looked at this.
Don |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 12:56 AM |
|
|
The creature would be approx. fifty-five to sixty inches tall (and I am choosing to err on the short side)if it stood upright.
There is leaf cover...enough to obscure parts of hands, toes and heels.
The raised area in one of the enhanced pics is a tree root. This is the infamous "round thing".
This creature is not the "mother bear".
This is not a "skinny, mangy bear".
Don
http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/1867...3547/411231.jpg[/img] 
(Edited by Southman) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 01:16 AM |
|
|
And, in J2, the creature is too robust to be a chimp. In J3, the rear legs are not reminiscent of a chimp's legs or a chimp's stance. Chimps are more bowlegged.
Just my opinion, of course. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISAWBIGFOOT
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 01:59 AM |
|
|
Christopher Noel,
From what I saw of BIGFOOT 30 years ago this creature looks very much like what I saw in the Jacobs photos except much smaller. I would investigate every one of those sticks piled up in the background of the daylight picture. If he was scared off in that direction you could find some hair samples on them. Also, I would look for bang marks and hair samples on trees for about a hundred yard radius of this sighting.Tree bark is an excellent way to scratch your back if you get an itch. Bigfoot has been known to bang on trees to communicate. He can be captured alive we know he must eat and drink to stay alive. Any creeks or caves near by? Any footprints around?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buck
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 03:22 AM |
|
|
morning y'all;
Seems no one considered my estimate of tree size, way back yonder, which was 18" at three ft. high. hey i'm just a WV, Cl
ay co. HILLBILLY.  PEACE Burley B.
PS; only one inch off not six. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildwoman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 06:34 AM |
|
|
The tree behind the tree I think gave the illusion that is was wider. If you look at the bark of the second tree it appears that there are "divots" in the bark. Perhaps from bear itching, scratching or something hitting the tree. We have a bear that visits the "neighborhood" and leaves his/her calling card on some of the trees.  CJ
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. Emerson |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
captainsmc
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 06:59 AM |
|
|
When Paul and I (ED) estimated the size we put Paul in position of the creature and placed the camera at the same position of the game camera. Knowing Pauls height we estimated 4and a half to 5 feet...same as your guess...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buck
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 07:55 AM |
|
|
captainsmc
I think we have a little confusion. I'm referring to the diameter of the tree in the previous post.
My estimate of the height of the creature was 5' 8". 225/250 lbs.
By the way this wasn't a real guess as guesses go. i did some measuring while sitting in my armchair. Wasn't trying to be real accurate. Didn't know it would develope as it did.
Just trying to show that being uneducated doesn't mean stupid. Bigfoot may be smarter than you think.
IMO I don't think this is a genuine Bigfoot. Just guessing.  BB |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jondpatton
Approved
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 10:05 AM |
|
|
Excellent work on measuring that location. For what it's worth, I did a few images here. I took the recent scale photos and layered them with the Jacob's photos, lined them up as best as I could (latest camera angle was slightly different) and isolated the animals in each of the 3 photos, to show them in relation to the daylight perspective. It's not exact but it's close. Hope this helps. Peace
Jon
   |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LouBob
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 10:42 AM |
|
|
THANKS for posting the daytime photos and providing some measurements!!!
Hey, Jon - LOVE what you did with these images!! I'm wondering if you can do J3 and cancel out the B&W round thing to allow the colored tree root to show through, since it's so obvious that the tree root IS the round thing? I don't know how much trouble this is, but it might cut down on some unnecessary debate to go ahead and acknowledge it here. Just a suggestion.
A general observation -- I was shocked at how small the tree is! I thought it appeared to be much larger.
The creature is so small - I estimated my height with the tape measure and I was also shocked at this.
Can you imagine any BF who watched this recent visit? "What the heck are those tiny people doing now?"
We don't know everything.
2008, 2009 NC BFRO Expeditions |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 10:51 AM |
|
|
These are some great new findings and photo comparisons. Thanks to all.
Now, there is some thing that raises my curiosity. What is that pile of sticks/twigs/branches that seem to be gathered together in the back ground?
The reason that I ask this is, when I lived in the woodland/hills of Eastern TN., we had a familiar structure in our back forty. No kidding, not making this up, but that structure is quite identical to the one that was in our back wooded area.
I personally don't think that all of the branches that fall from the trees land in the same location. Or could this be a new phenomenon?
Any suggestions? Comments? Etc.?
Just curious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DoryR
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 11:06 AM |
|
|
| My opinion, for what it's worth, nothing? LOL I think those twigs and branches in the back is just a dumping ground that someone threw them there because they didn't feel like cutting them up or whatever. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISAWBIGFOOT
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 11:57 AM |
|
|
| Yes a dumpnig ground for BIGFOOT! WHO KNOWS? Unless you investigate it. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 12:17 PM |
|
|
The pile of branches could be a tree that fell or a scrap pile from a logging operation, you can actually find these quite often, again good natural hunting blind. I used to use them alot.
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISAWBIGFOOT
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 12:27 PM |
|
|
| It would be easy to see if they were cut or snapped in two. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonathan820
Approved
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 12:31 PM |
|
|
Good point ISAWBIGFOOT
I didn't really pay any attention to the pile to notice if they were cut ot broken.
No logging went on on our back forty nor near it, but it could have been a result of land clearing befor the house was sold to us.
One of my brothers still lives there, I'll ask him if he can investigate it for me. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buck
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 12:41 PM |
|
|
captainsmc
Not trying to be picky, but, there is what seems to be a pile of firewood or wood in the background of J2 and J3, but which looks to me to be a stump. The top of this can barely be eeen in your pictures. Where was the bush that is now in front of this item[stump] when J2 and J3 were taken? Just curious.  peace BB |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 458
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 01:42 PM |
|
|
| Is it just me or does "Jake" seem, thanks to Jondpatton's excellent overlays, to be a lot shorter than 4 feet? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 02:01 PM |
|
|
Yeah, he seems to be vertically challenged!
My guess is around 36" or so. LOL
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 458
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 02:07 PM |
|
|
| I was going to say between 30" and 40", accounting for the dip in the ground and the fact that he's a couple of feet from the tree. Any nearer the tree/measuring stick, he'd be larger, any farther, smaller. Someone check my logic on that last statement! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 03:04 PM |
|
|
| Excellent work here. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 03:13 PM |
|
|
| No matter how I look at it, this creature is small. This new photo helps give a better understanding of the facts. As far as how tall Jake would be if he stood upright, I estimate that he could be anywhere from 48" to 58". I am just comparing the "foot to top of hip" length using the 6" increments on the marker pole. And, I allowed for Jake being approx. two feet from the tree. My guess is that from the bottom of Jake's foot to the top of his hips is 26" to 28". And, since the upper torso and head would be somewhere near that same length (maybe), I just doubled the "foot to top of hip" length. That gives me 52" to 56". Who knows! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hollywood
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 03:14 PM |
|
|
The size issue brings up a few questions for me. What time of year are squatch babies born? How big are they at birth? How fast do they grow? Obviouslty nobody knows the answers to these questions, but there must be theories. Just wondering how "juvenile" this creature might be.
Not afraid to believe. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sierraromeodelta
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 04:04 PM |
|
|
Well since we have daytime measurements I change my position from hoax to Juv. BF. I think we can stop talking about a sickly animal as well. It is obviously a little BF guy/girl playing around and sniffing the ground. The weight and foot size should no longer be a concern as well. I mean come on guys if "we" were ever going to catch one of these smart creatures on camera, it was more than likely going to be a juvenile with no experience. So lets rejoice and continue the analysis!
On a side note, the best evidence we have to date is a big female (Patty), and a child (Jake). The male BF's must be very very smart.
P.S. great job on the BFRO for getting the daytime photos posted.
SierraRomeoDelta
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sassyluv
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 04:21 PM |
|
|
| Thanks so much for the day time photographs. I can see the "face" on the root, so that helps disqualify the infamous round thing as part of the creature's body. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
youtellme
Approved
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 240
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 04:54 PM |
|
|
That is really cool to see that place in the daylight. I think that it adds some merit to the query. I personally think that the bigest reason that there are not more sightings is because the creatures are very good at looking like other creatures.IMO, and are disregarded as whatever.
Another thing that strikes me and has since the beginning is that the proportion of the body is not equal to the proportion of the legs os man or bear.
I think that seeing this in daylight, and having a measurment to refer togives weight to what some may believe and offers hope to others. I hope that the area is left quiet so that they will feel comfortable and someone offers them a basket of squash, or cucumbers, or even asparagus for the trouble of the picture. Maybe a big fish would be in order, of coarse "Don't feed the bears." LOL |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buck
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 04:58 PM |
|
|
hi y'all
I'm puzzled for sure, that looks like a spring at the roots of those trees. see the sky reflecting in the water next to the casting kit. supposed to have been dry weather there hasn't it? wonder why we couldn't see that water before.
and then look right above that ain't that a Bigfoot looking out of that little square hole. and then straight left to the edge of the picture, looks like a bear there watching what's going on. what do you think? BB |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wildwoman
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: November 16th, 2007 06:40 PM |
|
|
Not logic Christopher, perspective thanks to Brunelleschi. You are correct, farther away smaller, closer shorter. I did some resizing looking at the perspective of the back ground line. To me "Jake" is probably a little over 5 foot. So if they are 7 to 8 feet full grown then "Jake" is just a kid. CJ
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. Emerson |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
