Guest tirademan Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Well, there is just no way a small bigfoot would be there...oh crap. tirademan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 15, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 15, 2011 To keep with the OP, this thread references starting out bear and your article TM has the typical discount with it "being a bear" ubiquitously on it's hind legs chasing the children........but then again the four ft. hairy ape on the edge of the woods in PA thingy ..... hmmmmm No yells, screams, roars or smells in this article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Where are the photos taken immediately before and after the two photos being bandied about? How come we never get to see those pics? Surely if the camera is capable of taking pictures 36 seconds apart, then more pictures likely exist, right? Surely they would add some meat to the claim that we're looking at a primate, right? Instead we are shown two shots of bears, one at 20:02:55, the other at 20:04:23, and then two shots of supposed bigfoot at 20:32:05 and 20:32:41. Where are some of the pics from 20:30:00 - 20:35:00, and what do they show? Why are only those shots that might be interpreted as a bigfoot shown from that very small time-frame, and the remainder conveniently withheld? RayG Aren't you just guessing that other photos exist? You cannot question the subject shown in the photos and then offer up as proof of your position the lack of other photos. Granted IF (and "IF" is the salient point) other photos exist, they would be helpful to arriving at an informed conclusion. To presuppose they exist, and are being undisclosed, is not scientific. Flights of imaginative fancy seem to happen on both sides of the sasquatch debate. One can't claim the "scientific" high ground while employing the same tactics you deride in others! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 No insidious subterfuge on my part, I'm asking questions, like anyone should do. Trying to make sure there's no wannabe-wizard hiding behind the curtain, so to speak. And I'm not so much guessing as I am wondering. We know the camera took pictures only 36 seconds apart, yet we only see two pictures from the timeframe 20:30:00 - 20:35:00. Just makes me wonder why the camera only captured those two particular images and no others. I'm also wondering if that specific camera can be programmed to take pictures only 36 seconds apart. Here's what I'd guess however: If we were able to somehow see the entire set of photos IF there are any, it would lay to rest any debate between bears and sasquatches. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) The arms are 22 inches and the torso is 18 3/4 so it doesn't matter what leg is what it still can't be a bear with those dimensions. But how do you explain the line of seperation that's visible in some of the best copies? It's impossible to be the left leg. I can explain it there's definately a line there it's a seam! Everyone here has discovered a seam! This is a major discovery, now who made the costume? Edited July 16, 2011 by Tim Kota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 No insidious subterfuge on my part, I'm asking questions, like anyone should do. Trying to make sure there's no wannabe-wizard hiding behind the curtain, so to speak. And I'm not so much guessing as I am wondering. We know the camera took pictures only 36 seconds apart, yet we only see two pictures from the timeframe 20:30:00 - 20:35:00. Just makes me wonder why the camera only captured those two particular images and no others. I'm also wondering if that specific camera can be programmed to take pictures only 36 seconds apart. Here's what I'd guess however: If we were able to somehow see the entire set of photos IF there are any, it would lay to rest any debate between bears and sasquatches. RayG or the other mysterious pictures show even less. That is, if they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Here's what I'd guess however: If we were able to somehow see the entire set of photos IF there are any, it would lay to rest any debate between bears and sasquatches. RayG You are able, and you should. The owner has left an open invitation on the BFRO for anyone to examine all of his photos. Bushnell (the camera manufacturer) was the first to examine them and they left him with a report that told how they spent days examining them with a team of experts in both biology and wildlife photography. They could not identify the primate-like animal in the photos and did not find any sign that they were altered in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 I thought I'd start a new twist on the subject since they usually start with "it's a bear" or "put a nail in the coffin" or something on that order. This way we can compare the two side by side. I thought it was very interesting that the shooter in the Sierra Kills story said that the juvenile BF looked exactly like the Jacobs photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) I thought it was very interesting that the shooter in the Sierra Kills story said that the juvenile BF looked exactly like the Jacobs photo. Thanks, that is interesting then take into consideration the sounds they recorded in the area of the Jacobs figure: http://s2.excoboard.com/BFRO/150505/1931401 and the history of that very same place: http://www.bradfordera.com/news/announcements/article_b11ed053-ec74-544c-9528-ad098ad06a3b.html and it all adds up to a juvenile Sasquatch if there is such a thing. Edited July 16, 2011 by Forbig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 You are able, and you should. The owner has left an open invitation on the BFRO for anyone to examine all of his photos. I seem to recall someone on here issuing the same invitation. However, it's kind of like being invited to a birthday party after everyone's already gone home, and I have no assurance there's any cake left. First, it's not up to me to confirm he has photos of a juvenile sasquatch, that's up to him. One way to do that is by showing any other photos, if there are any. Second, it's far easier (and cheaper) for him to throw those images up on photobucket, for example, than it is for me to take time off from my family/work, rent a vehicle, and travel a very long way to his location, just to see or not see some photos that may or may not exist. Bushnell (the camera manufacturer) was the first to examine them and they left him with a report that told how they spent days examining them with a team of experts in both biology and wildlife photography. They could not identify the primate-like animal in the photos and did not find any sign that they were altered in any way. Is there a link to this claim/report? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 I seem to recall someone on here issuing the same invitation. However, it's kind of like being invited to a birthday party after everyone's already gone home, and I have no assurance there's any cake left. First, it's not up to me to confirm he has photos of a juvenile sasquatch, that's up to him. One way to do that is by showing any other photos, if there are any. Second, it's far easier (and cheaper) for him to throw those images up on photobucket, for example, than it is for me to take time off from my family/work, rent a vehicle, and travel a very long way to his location, just to see or not see some photos that may or may not exist. RayG I suggested going to the sourch because the important ones are already posted on the BFRO and there's really nothing else to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Or so we're told. Is there a link to the Bushnell report? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 16, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 16, 2011 Forbig did Bushnell specifically use this language? primate-like animal Just askin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tirademan Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Is there a link to the Bushnell report? RayG I didn't find that, but they've got a bunch of legalese associated with their contest here..which I'm assuming was a response to the Jacob's photos being taken with a Bushnell? http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bushnell-million/ tirademan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 The owner has left an open invitation on the BFRO for anyone to examine all of his photos. Bushnell (the camera manufacturer) was the first to examine them and they left him with a report that told how they spent days examining them with a team of experts in both biology and wildlife photography. They could not identify the primate-like animal in the photos and did not find any sign that they were altered in any way. I'll ask again, is there a link to this claim/report? I'm doubly curious now, because of tirademan's link to the Bushnell $1,000,000 Sasquatch photo contest. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts