Leaderboard

^^^ That is all well and good, DWA, but you thought the shag carpet walking by the camera in an April Fools joke was a really, real bigfoot. Your powers of evidence sussing do not impress me. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50874-wellhmmmm-what-have-we-here/

With regard to the contributions of non-scientists, the following article is interesting. I would argue that intital discovery by non-scientists is more the rule than the exception, and that scientists are largely responsible for follow-on work, exploiting the initial discovery. This is how it will go with bigfoot. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/10-amazing-archaeological-finds-discovered-by-ordinary-people-and-one-badger/ar-BBmOvMp?ocid=spartandhp Many non-scientists should be credited with their initial work after the fact.

Your skeletal recreation of the hip area is cool to be sure rogue. I guess for me my eye is picking up enough non bear traits from my experiences that Im trying to dig deeper.

Proportional lengths between joints in the body are somewhat different. A suit may try emulate longer arms and forearms, but watching where the shoulders, elbows and wrists bend can give it away. Same for the legs. Also note where the fingertips line up when down by the legs. They should fall all the way to the knees or slightly below. Biggest giveaway is the distance between shoulders as seen from the front or back. Compare where the shoulder articulates to the outermost edge of the shoulder, if it looks like the shoulder breadth isn't broad enough, or the shoulders seem to have padding (the shoulder joint isn't all the way out to the end) it's a fake.

^^^ That requires a complaint to be filed with LE. Probably why (IMO) NAWAC rushed in with a check for several thousand dollars designed to preclude such action.

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.

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

I don't think the woods responds to BF presence much differently than it does us. Loud movement will quiet the insects and frogs or silence the owls and coyotes temporarily, but when you settle down the woods resumes normal activity.