Jump to content
Guest

Jacobs Juvenile Revisited

Recommended Posts

Guest

Saskeptic asked me to revisit the Jacobs creature story seen here:

What I found in my research was both tragic and eerie. I contacted a friend from the BFRO for this interesting history. I hope I'm not ruining an upcoming episode of Finding Bigfoot so I won't list all of the history.

All within a few square miles the following has occured:

1921 (yes before the PGF) Woodsman Jack Mckain had a large upright walking animal enter his camp!

1938 Four year old Marjory West disappeared during a family picnic picking flowers while

standing close to her eleven year old sister! Her mother, father, and brother were all there. The

only thing she left behind were the heads ripped

off the flowers she was holding where she

stood. They searched the woods for a long but

Marjory was never found.

1995 during hunting season, a man spotted a large creature walking around a hillside at a fast pace then disappeared.

2001 a man woke when he heard heavy footfalls outside of his tent. He looked out and seen an eight foot creature go between him and the campfire! It had black hair, walked on two legs and arms that went down to it's knees. He reported it made heavy breathing sounds.

1992 three campers witnessed a hairy bi-pedal creature that screamed a loud, high pitched drawn out scream.

2007 The Jacobs creature was caught on a game camera.

And there's several more, including during the investigation and after.

Gigantofootecus got me started on this a while back when he told me a primatologist pointed out the hump that convinced him it was a bear. I worked with some images I received from my same friend over at the BFRO and discovered this about the hump:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL4ApaWXs&feature=plop'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL4KFApaWXs&feature=plcp

I don't know for sure what that shadow is but from what I've been told the camera was low and the creature was uphill from it. It doesn't appear that it was part of the creature.

I tried to clean this up but it was impossible using this phone. Anybody that wants to correct it can have at it.

Edited by Kerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

how do you know what you removed was a shadow, and not a hump ? Looks more like a hump, than a shadow to me.

You're saying that someone "told you" that the picture was taken from a low vantage point ?

You can clearly see in the original photos right from the Beefro site, that's not the case ! You can clearly see that the subject being photographed is below the level of the critter cam, or at least on a similar level. No way this is looking up a steep hill/angle towards the photo subject.

Here's the orginal photo that's being used in the above photo...

Umm, yea... that's not a shadow... sorry.

jake2.jpg

Edited by Art1972

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

I now think it's probably a bear. The feet are almost a dead give away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Art the photo I was sent is a little clearer to me, it was a close up right off the original from an investigators copy. That's definitely a shadow or something else. It's separate from the main trunk.

You sound disturbed that I was told this? I was

told it was a hill and the camera was on a tree facing up the hill.

This creature has features that a bear doesn't. I've been searching for other young Sasquatch photos but the only one I found was too blurry to compare. With it's 22 inch long arm and 18 3/4 trunk I can tell you this was not a bear.

This sighting history tells us that Sasquatch are teaching their young where the safe areas are. This safe zone was a very small spec in the Allegheny Mountains and we can't deny something is going on there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerry i'm not "disturbed"about anything. That being said, I am a bit incredulous, because all you have to do is look at the photo to see that the camera itself is either at a level plane, or possibly even a slightly higher elevation than the subject in the photo....

There's just no way that its even remotely steep enough, to cast a shadow at that angle "up" onto the tree....

Is it a shadow in this picture as well ?

You can clearly see the actual shadow, around the edge of your puported one...

In fact the hump casts a clearly visible shadow on the tree at around "10-11 o'clock" just off/above the shoulder area.

jake1.jpg

come on ! please... give me a break.

I'm not saying its a bear, or that its a sasquatch... I'm not sure what's shown in this photo.

But doctoring them, to try to remove animal characteristics is not going to solve this puzzle.

I stand by what i said..

-A-

Edited by Art1972

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I can only go by what I've been told and if it's not a shadow it's something else. If it is looking down it could still cast a visible shadow on the tree behind it. That dark area I removed in my video was not part of its trunk. These infared cameras sometimes create some interesting effects.

The particular camera model used in these photos is illuminated by LED's above and below the lens.

The body matches the investigator who is standing in the same place so well, I have to question myself if this could be a hoax.

Edited by Kerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's a bear... this has been said a million times but you can quite clearly see it's face looking almost directly at the camera in the first pic [above]

The 2nd pic [above] admittedly at first looked (at the time) quite intriguing but as the time stamps are only 36secs apart then it's most likely the bear from the first pic [above]. Either that or the slightly emaciated and mangy black bear chased the purported juvenile away in less than 36secs.

The same bear and cubs (probably) were pictured a number of times in the days leading up to the [above] two infamous pics. The cubs a half hour or so before.

The Jacobs photos will never prove anything with regards to the existence of sasquatch, sorry but it really is that simple

Just so folk know, I'm open to the idea of sasquatch existing, I have the splinters to prove it. I just believe that it's self evident why the Jacobs photos should not be classed as evidence for existence.

dons tin hat and retreats to safe distance...

Edited by Gruffalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's a juvenile Sasquatch and it has proved something. This proved Sasquatch return with their young to places that were used by their grandparents.

It's classified as evidence with all the rest and they still keep calling Patty a man!

I did some research today and it is a shadow in my video. I called the manufacturer of the camera and talked to a technician about my analysis video. He said it is normal to get an upward shadow from that model depending on how things are situated. It does have six LED's below the lens.

it's 36secs apart

dons tin hat and retreats to safe distance...

It was nearly half an hour before this Sasquatch appeared after the bear were completely gone for the remainder of the week. With bait still around the bear should of came back, instead they must have sensed something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's a juvenile Sasquatch and it has proved something. This proved Sasquatch return with their young to places that were used by their grandparents.

What? Explain this please. I'm gonna need blood pressure medication in my 20s if I keep listening to this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

I've been around as long as anyone and regard the Jacobs juvy as the best evidence ever, bar none. it's even a legend to the native americans, and you can't say Sasquatch in Pa. without somebody talking about Jake. This is the only clear evidence that they're still breeding and even the hardest skeptics aree it was no hoax. In my book any evidence that's not a hoax deserves an A+ and the Jacobs creature inspired "Bigfoot Shadows" wine is a top sellar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What? Explain this please. I'm gonna need blood pressure medication in my 20s if I keep listening to this stuff.

First I have to ask is there any Sasquatch evidence you believe in? Because if there is none I would just be wasting my time and your arteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of looking at something and not reading into it. Allow "evidence" to be whatever it is and objectively consider various aspects of it. There will be disagreements about what various people observe and that's ok. Nothing on this forum is worth medication. It's just a website with pictures and words and funny people discussing evidence, good and bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You're right James, and like I told Bipto the increased brain activity from innovative thinking can actually make you smarter, more energetic, more creative, more sociable, and more open to new experiences and change.

Keep that mind open!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerry, the fact that you had to assume that the hump was a shadow negates this as being proof of anything. Proof requires that everything fits, no excuses or fudging. You may think it is a harsh criteria, but that's how science works. Many truths cannot be proved because apparent anomalies cannot be resolved. At least your video acknowledged that a primate cannot duplicate the Jacob hump. BTW, a shadow defines the same shape as its source. You can't flatten out the shadow just to make a human fit. And if this isn't a shadow, then it's a bear, right? :)

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So denialist is there any evidence you are open minded about?

Wrong Giganto, I never seen a bear get in a position like that. The hump is sharp and a different shade.

I'm not sure what the shadow is but I was told by the manufacturer today it may be a shadow or something else. They said it might even be something passing by. Infrared photos can produce some odd things.

Giganto what evidence is there that is proof? It may be proof to us but not to the rest of science.

I'm really beginning to think the second picture was a defensive move. One where it is trying to hide itself after it knew the camera flashed red.

Edited by Kerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...