 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wickie
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 20
|
 Posted: January 2nd, 2009 04:48 PM |
     |
|
Quote:
Joshual wrote:
There were a couple of occasions when a few went to the area with somesort of reference instrument.
Hang on while I check my notes.
Found it!
They called it a ruler. haha
|
Sweet!, but remember that some folk think 2" is actually 10"  |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2gunner
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: January 3rd, 2009 10:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Squatchgirl wrote:
I used the measurements from the top of page 1 to see how they compare to this anatomy picture of a flat sided black bear.
The top photo I marked with an H is where the head of the baby bigfoot would be if their legs were to be the same size.
The bottom photo I marked where the wrist and ankle would be if their bodies were to be the same size.
|
I double checked your spots whatever it was it couldn’t be a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1778
|
| Posted: January 3rd, 2009 11:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
wickie wrote:
Can't really tell without somesort of reference.
|
If you have a look through the other threads pretty much everything about the photos has already been discussed.
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread...=1732282&page=1
The daytime photos are here on this thread.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joshual
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: January 3rd, 2009 03:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2gunner wrote:
I double checked your spots whatever it was it couldn’t be a bear.
|
Comparing the real picture of a skinned bear to the size of the creature is a good example on just how long a bear’s torso really is. There is a substantial amount of play for measurement errors before you could consider it as anything other than a primate.
Josh |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wickie
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: January 3rd, 2009 03:48 PM |
|
|
Thanks Boss, you dudes have a ton of info to go through. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2gunner
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: January 4th, 2009 11:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Carman1 wrote:
This picture Squatchgirl has is identical to the creature. The only problem with the leg position is it totally destroyed the bear camp theory. I’m starting to understand the politics of bear camp. They have one or more debunkers doing some off the wall research coming up with proclamations that didn't amount to a hill of beans. They don’t really care what it is.
|
I tried twisting to the right without touching the ground like this picture. My left leg automatically went back and to the right for support just like the squatch leg moved back and toward the direction of the tree. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob The Builder
Approved
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: January 6th, 2009 04:28 PM |
|
|
| I’ve worked in the woods of North Western Pa. practically everyday for over 40 years and seen thousands of black bears in all shapes and sizes. I have never seen one look like this, anyone that says different is full of BS. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DoctorAtlantis
Approved
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: January 6th, 2009 04:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Joshual wrote:
Without limbs, ears or a tail it was something inanimate most likely a root.
|
It wasn't a root. Not sure what it was - but these ought to show that it is too dark to be a root - unless the trail-cam can switch gray to black and black to gray?
(And I'm in the forward-facing bear camp...)
Think Critically. Think Often. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 6th, 2009 05:06 PM |
|
|
Of course it changed colors from the creature blocking the infrared light. Your picture proves it was a root or are you going to tell us it was a paper thin bear cub?
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldilocks
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: January 6th, 2009 06:01 PM |
|
|
how do we know this "creature" (I say Bigfoot) didn't take a leak there? That would make it appear darker because it would be wet.
Lisa |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: January 6th, 2009 06:09 PM |
|
|
Good point G-
It could also look that way because of a drop of condensation on the camera lens, or the illuminator.
It's obviously the same object, in the same place, with the same size and shape. Are we to believe that it is something else?
It's kind of off-topic anyway, regardless of why it seems to change in contrast it doesn't help any theory, either way.
If someone has never actually seen a bear, I suppose they might see one in this pic. But as has been mentioned so many times in this thread by people with direct experience with bears, this is simply not a bear. I'm not going so far as to say it IS anything, only what it is not. If it were proven not to be a primate of some sort (human, chimp, BF, or any other) I STILL would insist it is not a bear. I would go with something like a wolf or other dog (and reluctantly at that) long before I could imagine this to be a bear. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1963
|
| Posted: January 6th, 2009 09:34 PM |
|
|
DoctorAtlantis: Pleases visit the *READ THIS FIRST* section of the forum, read the posting guidelines and then post your introduction.
Thanks,
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1778
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 04:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Goldilocks wrote:
how do we know this "creature" (I say Bigfoot) didn't take a leak there? That would make it appear darker because it would be wet.
|
If he had taken a "leak" there it would have shown up a lot lighter. Even after it had a chance to cool down a little bit. These thermal imagers are capable of picking up on even a little bit of heat and making it show up a lot clearer.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldilocks
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 11:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
PBYodeler wrote:
If he had taken a "leak" there it would have shown up a lot lighter. Even after it had a chance to cool down a little bit. These thermal imagers are capable of picking up on even a little bit of heat and making it show up a lot clearer.
|
I was just thinking. (smell something burning? LOL) It was just an idea that came into my head.
Lisa |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BenR
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PBYodeler wrote:
If he had taken a "leak" there it would have shown up a lot lighter. Even after it had a chance to cool down a little bit. These thermal imagers are capable of picking up on even a little bit of heat and making it show up a lot clearer.
|
If I'm not mistaken, this was taken with IR (infrared) not thermal. Thermal is a whole different thing that reads heat signatures. Infrared is just a different spectrum of light. The part of the spectrum used is referred to as near-infrared to distinguish it from far-infrared, which is the domain of thermal imaging. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 03:37 PM |
|
|
The juvenile Sasquatch has killed the cub from the earlier photo then laid its hide over the root. Pretty clever using the sticky fat side to scoop up the bait. Don't laugh it's no funnier than what the skeptics are saying.
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1778
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 04:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
BenR wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, this was taken with IR (infrared) not thermal. Thermal is a whole different thing that reads heat signatures. Infrared is just a different spectrum of light. The part of the spectrum used is referred to as near-infrared to distinguish it from far-infrared, which is the domain of thermal imaging.
|
I stand corrected. Boy do I feel stupid. What was I thinking?
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2gunner
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 04:27 PM |
|
|
| The shape on the ball on the ground doesn’t come close to the shape of any part of a bears head or a cub. Could this shape be some kind of bag to collect food? It’s a well known fact that animals’ bladders make an excellent container watertight, thin, flexible storage. It looks it’s loading it with the bait stuff! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob The Builder
Approved
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 09:29 PM |
|
|
| This looks like this, that looks like that, what it all comes down to is the darn thing doesn’t look like a bear. The fact that it isn’t the size of a bear can’t be denied. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1778
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 09:45 PM |
|
|
Bears are all different sizes just like any other animal. The only thing we all can agree on is that the pics aren't clear enough to say for sure 100% either way.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BenR
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: January 7th, 2009 10:24 PM |
|
|
A few credible and well known people have had a look at these photos and were of the same opinion as me. At the Texas Bigfoot Conference on 10 November 2007, Dr. Jeff Meldrum stated the subject was in all likelihood a black bear. Renowned black bear researcher Lynn Rogers, Ph.D., identified the figure as a juvenile black bear.
I'm open to taking a look at any evidence to suggest otherwise certainly though. It just seems at closer look, this really may be a sick juvenile black bear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 06:28 AM |
|
|
More recently the numbers are increasing with people that have the opinion they are not of a bear. Dr. Jeff Meldrum stated that he couldn't tell what it was for certain. Then some well known scientists from Duke University looked over some of the newer data and thought it looked like a primate. Several other researchers and experts have also commented on the possibility of this being a Juvenile Sasquatch.
I seen in the past year these stood up to some tough scrutiny and are looking more like a Sasquatch. I just don't believe this is ever going to be the proof we need to convince the world that Sasquatch is real. The honest Bigfoot seekers and even partial skeptics need to stop quarreling over these pictures and move on.
(Edited by Carman1)
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1778
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 09:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
BenR wrote:
A few credible and well known people have had a look at these photos and were of the same opinion as me. At the Texas Bigfoot Conference on 10 November 2007, Dr. Jeff Meldrum stated the subject was in all likelihood a black bear. Renowned black bear researcher Lynn Rogers, Ph.D., identified the figure as a juvenile black bear.
I'm open to taking a look at any evidence to suggest otherwise certainly though. It just seems at closer look, this really may be a sick juvenile black bear.
|
Meldrum didn't say it was "in all likelyhood a bear". He said that the possibility is there that it could be a bear and that he couldn't determine conclusively one way or another what it was.
Read through all of the threads in this section. I think every possible angle regarding the evidence presented by the Jacobs photos has been covered. Ideally what would change our minds one way or another is if it returns and is caught in the photo with a bear next to it for comparison. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
I think no matter what we believe the creature to be, bear of sasquatch, our minds are made up and, again, the only thing we can agree on is that the pictures aren't good enough to clear up the mystery.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BenR
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 11:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
PBYodeler wrote:
Meldrum didn't say it was "in all likelyhood a bear". He said that the possibility is there that it could be a bear and that he couldn't determine conclusively one way or another what it was.
Read through all of the threads in this section. I think every possible angle regarding the evidence presented by the Jacobs photos has been covered. Ideally what would change our minds one way or another is if it returns and is caught in the photo with a bear next to it for comparison. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
I think no matter what we believe the creature to be, bear of sasquatch, our minds are made up and, again, the only thing we can agree on is that the pictures aren't good enough to clear up the mystery.
|
Actually, thats exactly what he said. "subject was in all likelihood a black bear". I have not seen any well known or credible scientist say it was not a bear. I also have not seen any credible or well known scientists say it was a primate.
If you can present some evidence to show otherwise, I'm all ears for certain. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
BenR wrote:
Actually, thats exactly what he said. "subject was in all likelihood a black bear". I have not seen any well known or credible scientist say it was not a bear. I also have not seen any credible or well known scientists say it was a primate.
If you can present some evidence to show otherwise, I'm all ears for certain.
|
Likewise, if you can present some clear evidence that you have not misquoted Dr. Meldrum, we're all ears as well.
A simple link to the transcript would work, or any link to an audio recording. The entire context of the statement, please, not just a phrase.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BenR
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 02:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
robday wrote:
Likewise, if you can present some clear evidence that you have not misquoted Dr. Meldrum, we're all ears as well.
A simple link to the transcript would work, or any link to an audio recording. The entire context of the statement, please, not just a phrase.
|
I think you'd have to acquire persmission to post a recording or transcript. I'm also pretty sure if you are in doubt of the quote it's very easy to send Dr Meldrum an email to clarify the point. I can send you a link to his contact (email address) if you need it just PM me. I didn't misquote however. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1778
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 02:13 PM |
|
|
Then send us the link to your source. We're not going to go looking for something to support your claims. That's up to you. You brought the subject up.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BenR
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 02:40 PM |
|
|
I already did quote the source (Dr Jeff Meldrum spoke at the Texas Bigfoot Conference on 10 November 2007)
As far as it being mentioned someplace online, I think this link has a mention of that as well. http://www.squatchopedia.com/index....p/Jacobs_figure |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joshual
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 03:46 PM |
|
|
Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Scientists collect data in the form of observations and physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this info to construct theoretical explanations.
No good scientist will commit to any Bigfoot evidence as proof until there is a real body of proof.
A good scientist does have an open mind and will not commit to the Jacobs Creature 100% either way.
That’s the problem here one side is as right or wrong as the other. So round it goes, and goes, and goes…
Josh |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: January 8th, 2009 03:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
BenR wrote:
I already did quote the source (Dr Jeff Meldrum spoke at the Texas Bigfoot Conference on 10 November 2007)
As far as it being mentioned someplace online, I think this link has a mention of that as well. http://www.squatchopedia.com/index....p/Jacobs_figure
|
Ah, ok, an internet article with no named author.
And from "Squatchopedia".
So, you sent us something you read on the internet with no named author or links to any supporting documentation.
Heck, I would even be happy to see this same quote you gave us, but from a couple of other sources.
The reason I'm questioning this is because in your previous post you said you were quoting Dr. Meldrum (in your words, "he said exactly that"). Showing us this article of unknown origin isn't a quote from Dr. Meldrum, and I'm sure (like me) plenty of readers here would be surprised to find out this was an accurate quote.
I also looked at the link at the bottom of this article concerning the comparison to a juvenile black bear, and the bear photos are very obviously doctored to extend the length of the legs. The photo manipulation is comically bad, and certainly does not help support the validity of the article.
I can just as easily go to the Weekly World News website and show you pictures of a scuba diver feeding a captive Loch Ness Monster.
What would really help pin this down is a transcript of presentations given at the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Symposium. Just like a term paper, an accurate, researchable bibliography is the only way to determine if these quotes were actually made. Or your suggestion (and a very good one) to ask Dr. Meldrum yourself.
I will retract any dissenting comments if this info can be provided. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
