Jump to content
Guest

Jacobs Juvenile Revisited

Recommended Posts

Guest VioletX

Cumon. Do I have to draw red lines on it? :)

post-337-0-13296700-1349472750_thumb.png

The question is whether the bush is in front of or behind the tree. If it is behind the tree then that's the ear. Otherwise, it could be part of the bush. What do you think?

Thanks GF!! ;D I see what you mean.

I suppose you can't draw an ape face next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Forbig, you mean the foreground, in FRONT of the tree, right? The question was where is that bush? Behind or in front of the tree? If you say behind the tree then it's the ear of a bear. In front of the tree, then it could be part of the bush. So which is it? Choose wisely grasshopper. :)

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

I seen these photos way back before they were on the BFRO. I remember when they were on Pennsylvania buck hunters web site and people went nuts over them. Not one hunter in Pennsylvania belived they were of a bear. i remember they had a red spot on the leg that I never understood that's not on them now. I remember so many comments that it was a rag or some kind of material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks GF!! ;D I see what you mean.

I suppose you can't draw an ape face next?

On a bear? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

Forbig, you mean the foreground, in FRONT of the tree, right? The question was where is that bush? Behind or in front of the tree? If you say behind the tree then it's the ear of a bear. In front of the tree, then it could be part of the bush. So which is it? Choose wisely grasshopper. :)

Is this a test? Because you will loose. I couldn't tell all I remember is that it was in both photos and it still would be there today.

post-987-0-84247000-1349475131_thumb.jpg

The thing that impressed me the most was the line of seperation that proves its legs are in the position of the ape. It is very clear on the original and will make your jaw drop open. I recommend that you check it out if you ever get the opportunity to see the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SquatchinNY

I dunno, I am starting to be drawn toward bear. Show me the daylight photo please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mdhunter

I really hate to admit this but... G, that just moved me out of the 100% bear camp. I see what could be interpreted as a shadow at the edge of the tree trunk running through the ear. And what could be interpreted as the twisted pelvis, left,right leg confusion in that pic. It would have Hank Hill butt in that case. And part of what is marked as snout could be interpreted as part of the arm. The dark stripe starting up the back as the spine line.

Is that what you see Forbig? Just wondering.

This is why I don't like blobsquatches. Too much interpreting going on. I also don't like jacking contrast and saturation personally because it introduces too many artifacts.I had a friend with an entire milk crate full of 35mm blobsquatches. As far as I know I was the only person to ever see them. None were even close to conclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

On a bear? :D

I see what you mean ...maybe you could draw a bears' body on the apes head as well, hehehhe...

Edited by VioletX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

The original is much more impressive, I wish I had a copy of the daytime photo to show everyone but that ear or snout is for sure in the day photo. I really don't think these were a bear. Everytime I look at Bigfoot evidence there's always somebody complaining "that's not Bigfoot". I'm glad I seen the original because there's no question in my mind that Jake could be one. Then there was Bigfoot hanging out there for so long, there's a sighting reported there 5 years before Roger Patterson was born! The Native Americans living there talk about them being there before that. I remember the Jacobs family saying they were scared when they were showing the BFRO the location and something started beating on a tree! They didn't know what a wood knock was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

tree_scale.jpg

From the BFRO

Edited by VioletX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

That's not it VioletX, there's one that was taken with the game camera before the creature was there. They had them on the screen and you could flip back and forth. It was cool to see before and after, one day, and one that night.

The photos are strange , that much is for certain. I'm not sayin they were for sure Bigfoot because I don't even know if I believe in it but these were cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

That's not it VioletX, there's one that was taken with the game camera before the creature was there. They had them on the screen and you could flip back and forth. It was cool to see before and after, one day, and one that night.

The photos are strange , that much is for certain. I'm not sayin they were for sure Bigfoot because I don't even know if I believe in it but these were cool.

aw rats... it has to be out there somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

I thought it was really cool how Bushnell got involved. They had the Jacobs camera and all the photos analyzed with a zoologist, a biologist, and a team of wildlife photo experts. They came up with it was not a bear and overnight Jacobs like 20 of their best cameras to see if he could get another picture. He couldn't but they still bought the photos for like 100k! Then they offered a one million dollar reward for a Sasquatch photo. After about a year Bushnell gave up. At least they were good sports and gave Bigfoot a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I really hate to admit this but... G, that just moved me out of the 100% bear camp. I see what could be interpreted as a shadow at the edge of the tree trunk running through the ear. And what could be interpreted as the twisted pelvis, left,right leg confusion in that pic. It would have Hank Hill butt in that case. And part of what is marked as snout could be interpreted as part of the arm. The dark stripe starting up the back as the spine line.

Is that what you see Forbig? Just wondering.

This is why I don't like blobsquatches. Too much interpreting going on. I also don't like jacking contrast and saturation personally because it introduces too many artifacts.I had a friend with an entire milk crate full of 35mm blobsquatches. As far as I know I was the only person to ever see them. None were even close to conclusive.

Your confusion or switching back and forth a bit, is exactly why myself and a few others have said that in the end, the photo's were just not clear enough to be conclusive.

I'd love to say its a juvenile Sasquatch, and while i happen to be more in the bear camp, I can absolutely see why some people still think its a Squatch.

It's just too bad the pics werent at a different angle, either showing more of a side profile, or even better yet the "holy grail" face shot- but they dont.

From a personal belief standpoint there's nothing wrong with people stating that they think its a bear, or that its Sasquatch, but from a scientific standpoint I believe there is a both a lack of evidence + anomalies that make it extremely difficult to state with any surety what is shown in the photos.

I guess in my case, I just get a little irritated sometimes when people declare things to be fact, when the reality is that there is insufficient evidence to do so.

There's a few other recent threads in this section, where a member has posted several of his audio clips, and I've had to be careful about how I chose my words in those discusions, because it bothers me that this person declares that what he's captured on recorders is definitely Sasquatch related.

It may be, just as the Jacob's photo's might be a young Bigfoot, but to say so with certainty, without allowing for other possibilities does little more than to appear somewhat foolish to many people, including myself.

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Is this a test? Because you will loose. I couldn't tell all I remember is that it was in both photos and it still would be there today.

post-987-0-84247000-1349475131_thumb.jpg

The thing that impressed me the most was the line of seperation that proves its legs are in the position of the ape. It is very clear on the original and will make your jaw drop open. I recommend that you check it out if you ever get the opportunity to see the original.

This is where you lose. This composition is absolute bunk. The legs of the bear are not crossed and they don't match the chimps anyways. Look how the ape's & bear's feet are no where near each other. You know why? Because this contorted cross legged pose is impossible for any animal. I know you will claim otherwise, but you obviously aren't confident enough to show us that it can be done. That's because you can't. I dare you. Make me eat crow.

:popcorn:

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...