Leaderboard

The Jacobs photo is interesting. I don't know what it is. I grew up in a bear preserve. It does not look like any of the literally thousands of bears I've seen. I don't necessarily think it's a sasquatch either. I think it best to toss it in the "hmmmm" pile. Jumping to premature conclusions **of either sort** is .. premature. I don't understand why people can't leave puzzles as puzzles and instead latch onto answers that can't be defended with integrity. Recently an animated gif I'd never seen before surfaced. The first pic is new, the middle one seems to be the Jacobs photo we're all familar with, and the third is clearly a bear. That first picture puts the "bear-ness" of the Jacobs photo into greater doubt ... at least for me. It seems to be the same figure but turned a bit. Like I said, I grew up in a bear preserve. I also hunt them other places. Bears ears are cartilage. They don't grow much so as a bear ages and gets bigger, its ears appear progressively proportionally smaller and smaller. They also seemingly slowly relocate from right on top of the head down to the upper side of the head. As a hunter, if you're after a trophy bear, look for bears that have very small seeming ears mounted relatively low on the head. So, relative to the photos, if this is a baby bear, the ears should be quite prominent and mounted high. I don't see them. The pictures aren't clear but they are clear enough. Unless this is a very old bear, the lack of prominent ears is a giant red flag. The other thing that is missing is a rostrum ... a prominent, protruding snout. If the head is turned away so we can't see the snout, the ears should display clearly. If the head is turned to the side so the ears are hidden against the head, the snout should be prominently displayed. Neither case seems true. I think calling this a bear demonstrates no knowledge of bear anatomy whatsoever. None. That doesn't make it a sasquatch. However, putting your "weight" behind a shaky claim it's a bear just to prove it can't be a sasquatch reeks of a wizard-of-oz -style "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain" ploy. It's a puzzle best left as a puzzle. MIB

All the show "proves" is Lansdale does exactly what the producers/directors tell him to do in a tightly scripted environment. IMO, he is the "leader" of a ship of fools and your personal attacks illustrate a foundation of clay feet underlying suppositions predicated upon gross ignorance/arrogance not to mention your total lack of understanding for all things BF related. Signed, Gnat

This is a comparison I did a few years ago with a 3D model of a bear skeleton. It shows the lumps on the backside match up to the pelvic bones of a bear.

Because it doesnt look like a bear? It looks much more like the chimp comparison some one posted to me. And we have 2000 registered chimps in north America with many more not listed. Its not beyond the realm of possibility at all. I'm not a bear whisperer, but I have hunted bear over bait as well as called them in. It doesnt look like a bear to me. And if it did look like a bear these pictures would not have gone viral and we wouldnt be talking about them. I of course could be wrong. I don't think it looks like a Sasquatch to be sure, it does lack a heel, but so does a chimp. And it looks plenty big enough that it shouldnt be crawling around on all fours since the species is reportedly bipedal. Dont worry Drew, the fact you think its a bear hasnt destroyed your credibility with me!

I do think this analysis points out that the context of any proposed evidence is as important as the actual evidence. You can't get away from the confirmation that bears were in the vicinity, even though the last confirmed photo of one was about 30 minutes previously. I would just cite this as something to be mindful of, no matter as to which side of the debate the evidence seems to favor. The Grey's Harbor thermal is a much thornier problem, in my estimation. For one, there was a human operator on the stick, not a game cam. The impressions of that person, and their judgment is not something I can overlook. The f/u analysis did more to strengthen my impressions than otherwise...not the case with the Jacobs image, which seemed to not hold up as well under scrutiny. And while the Jacobs animal can fit within the boundaries and geometry of a bear, the thermal image is a much squarer peg in a much rounder hole for me.

Thanks for that link dmaker. The entire thing seems similar to the Grey's Harbor Brown thermal- in that case there were confirmed to be a bunch of cows moving around, and yet the indistinct thermal hit must have been a BF, not a cow.

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/12/03/28/

Chimps are not nocturnal animals, and they don't live in Pennsylvania bear country. Why are you making it difficult? It's so easy.

Here's a mention: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-jacobs-bigfoot-creature-was.html Thank you. No mention that it has been debunked by BFRO, though. Just that they are examining it. Got some questions: The mother bear theory was based on the perception that the quadrupedal photo depicted a mother bear facing the camera at less than a 30 degree angle, with the outline of her head blending in with the rest of her body. If so, she has no eye shine like the bear cub has. Did she blink at just that moment? Also, since mange is caused by parasitic mites, why would the mother bear have mange, but the cubs have none? Here's what I believe is the portion of the episode from the "Rejected" portion of the Finding Bigfoot website. You can also google these things too. http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/videos/a-squatchy-photograph-bigfoot-or-bear/ regarding your various questions; feel free to believe that it's a sasquatch I do not care one iota. You need this thing to be real more than just about anyone other that good ol' DWA.

You have the attention span of a gnat. I said lansdale is safety concious and a leader now, and the show proves it. I never called him a squatch expert.......cuz there are none.

It's one a them thar earless baars.

How the heck would anyone know if the guns are even loaded. They have been trying to kill one for 20 years with no luck.... and now somehow cameras and a film crew going to help? I'm all about shooting one of these things but to even think for one minute this show is anything other than tabloid entertainment right beside the Kardashian's and Ghost Hunter's is an incredible stretch.

While we're critiquing people's character. For someone that has yet to attain a FTF encounter with the subject of this entire forum, yet proceeds to demonize it via your pet website whilst basically totally ignorant of the actual subject, and make herculean leaps in logic about what others say that is in contrast to your own opinions, speaks volumes. Per Martin (post #26) my opinion of Lansdale/GCBRO is not an isolate. Since when has a cable TV production company who's primary objective certainly appears to be entertainment value, become such an authority on the subject of this forum?

I think your comparison is over the top, and says alot about your character. And I know that if Destination America thought for one second that the GCBRO was dangerous to their film crew they would pull the plug. Your FTF stories are just that stories, and you have a axe to grind with pro kill advocates, not only the GCBRO but also NAWAC. So I dont but much faith in what you say about any of them.....sorry.

Lay this to rest. Grasping at straws. It's a bear.

More of the silly bigfoot mythos.