Jump to content
Guest

Jacobs Juvenile Revisited

Recommended Posts

Guest

Gruffo, that can't be a face it was too close to the tree to be forward facing according to investigations. The same face with glowing eyes can be seen on the side of the investigator in my video. He was standing in the same place so I have to think it's pareidolia from moon/sun light through the trees? Why else would both have the same kind of face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerry, I'm not answering for Denialist, but it seems his problem was with this statement....

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.

If I had to guess, and I'd agree with him, its your stating this as a fact that's troubling....

Your first sentence/statement is "Its a juvenile Sasquatch". It should have been "I believe its a juvenileSasquatch".

Your second sentence, predicated on the first, is thus meaningless, as it proves absolutely nothing without the first part being true.

Making statements of fact, without proof, is inadvisable, and will draw fire from most of the skeptics, including some skeptically minded believers like myself.

It's not personal, and at least in my case I'm not trying to pick a fight with you- but from your first post in this thread, you've stated several things as "fact", when they're actually your personal beliefs.

You think that what you've removed from the creatures back is a shadow... I happen to think you've lopped off part of its back ...

Your certainly entitled to your opinion- but dont be surprised, or get your feelings hurt when people dont agree with you.

-A-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Art, I don't get my feelings hurt. I made the same statement as Gruffalo in reverse. I'm glad you brought this up. Why is it that he can state it as fact when it's just his belief? For all the more anyone knows this could be a model that has fooled everyone.

I don't believe one bit that the hump is part of the creature. The manufacturer of the camera didn't believe it was either when I talked to them this afternoon.

Watch my video again and notice the difference in color compared to the creature as I erase it. Notice how exact the trunk lines match up to the investigator. Coincidence you say? I think not!

I can't believe it took 5 years to notice this. I know I'm not the only biologist that has analyzed these photos and it has features that I can't explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

I think it is a shadow too Kerry, But have never thought it was a Sasquatch because of the stubby feet and the rear end looks weirdly angular. Feel free to explain that because I have not paid attention to the Jacobs debate since I saw a mangey bear pix ; o )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerry, when other believer's totally disagree with you it is most likely time to drop it. In this same Film/Video section there is a thread about best video and photo evidence, not one person mentions this pic...not once. Also, in your original post, what does that 1938 story about? More of a reach than stretch armstrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

I have never understood how it could be a bear face looking directly forward if it's front paw is angled sideways, do bears stand like that?

The comparison between chimp and bear is so close that I think it is a mystery photo and if awesome Sasquatch footage is ever obtained we may be able to look back and say yes, this was a Juv. Sasq, but until then it is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

VioletX, I respect Dr. Meldrum's position on Jacobs feet. We don't know what a juvenile foot looks like and I'm positive they're not born with great big feet. It would be a great help to identify this if it wasn't standing in the grass, if I could see the bottom of the foot.

Denialist I see people all over talking about this, I think people are afraid to bring it up here and that's why they asked me to. I can understand why, did you not just ask me to drop it?

The 1938 story: Why all the mysterious happenings in this small spec on the map? Is the missing little girl related to all the sightings there over the years? I know there is another thread about missing persons and Sasquatch sightings. We are always looking for a body to study, maybe they beat us to it. I would hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Apologies Kerry, the 2nd word(s) in my first post should have been probably or most likely...

I stated that it was a bear as it is still and will only ever be the most likely explanation for the Jacobs photos

You as a biologist will no doubt employ scientific method in your field of study to ascertain what is most likely or probable? thereby ruling out or diminishing the probability of the less likely or even the absurd. In a nutshell isn't that what rather a large part of scientific enquiry is about?

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!

Taken to the extreme it could also make one come across as somewhat gullible, easily led, delusional, stubborn, in denial, etc, etc... in many ways the opposite of the above statement.

Gruffo, that can't be a face it was too close to the tree to be forward facing according to investigations. The same face with glowing eyes can be seen on the side of the investigator in my video. He was standing in the same place so I have to think it's pareidolia from moon/sun light through the trees? Why else would both have the same kind of face?

Maybe the investigations where wrong? and sorry, how can it be too close to the tree to be forward facing? I don't understand that statement??

The faces are completely different Kerry. The low res pic of your investigator was taken in bright sunlight hence the bright patches, which make a face of sorts on the side of their torso, but the two are in no way similar. One looks very much like a face looking at the camera, eyes, ears, nose, snout, etc the other a grouping of sunlight patches on a low res pic that look a little bit like a face.

Art, I don't get my feelings hurt. I made the same statement as Gruffalo in reverse. I'm glad you brought this up. Why is it that he can state it as fact when it's just his belief? For all the more anyone knows this could be a model that has fooled everyone.

Please see the beginning of my post.

A bear is still more likely than a hoax/model or an ape given the actual facts/history of the pictures

As for the way it's standing yes it looks a bit odd but it is most likely not impossible for a bear to stand in those positions. Watch enough bear videos while randomly pausing them during movement sequences and I'm sure you'll see a whole myriad of stances that look a bit odd.

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

I am not saying it is a Bigfoot, but the forward looking face to me is a good example of Beareidolia. :tease:

(sorry)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have not paid attention to the Jacobs debate since I saw a mangey bear pix ; o )

So you see it too Violet, probably... :tease:

Maybe it was going to pull a bear hoax and that's its mask in its hip pocket!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Sorry, I'm late to this one. Are we talking about the two photos above in this thread? How do you get 'bear' from those images? I don't see that- not even close.

The first pose looks like the head is down (almost as it if is about to do a headstand) and its looking at the camera from under its arm (there is some whiteness of the face but face detail is poor, possibly blurred) . Butt is in the air and at an angle towards the camera. This is a pose that has been noted in some sightings.

The second pose looks like it is leaning over to pick something up.

In both photos, there is no manginess that I can see. The limbs are long- really un-bear-like.

So- how do people get 'bear' out of these images?

Edited by salubrious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

^^ OK, so if this is in response to my post, how do these images have anything to do with the first two in this thread??

Share this post


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

×