Jump to content
Guest

Jacobs Juvenile Revisited

Recommended Posts

Guest

You would not believe how much mail I've been getting on this. The most interesting are from people that have gone to the site and witnessed evidence. Some are members on this forum that don't even comment about it on here. There was way too much going on there for this to not have possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

Cool, so you are not in the minority then ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

It seems to me that someone might have noticed pretty big ears on a young bear? So where are the ears of the bear?

I'm on the side of "It's a hairy little guy" and if someone would try to convince those of us that believe this, then have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sunflower I already 'had at it' so to speak in posts 7, 25, 33 and 38. Not that the point was to try to convince you or anyone otherwise but to highlight the blind faith and wishy-washy pseudo scientific analysis being employed to suggest that the figure is a hereto undiscovered species of mega fauna roaming around the backwaters of Pennsylvania when the more probable answer given the circumstances is a black bear, not the prettiest looking black bear but a black bear all the same.

As far as I'm aware nobody made a comment regarding the bears age?!

You believe it's a little hairy man? I can assure you it is not! ; )

Edited by Gruffalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have worked with bears, ape's, monkeys you name it. I assure you this doesn't have bear features or proportions. There's no question that it was in a historical hotspot. Several witnesses recorded sounds at night during the early investigation of it. There's always that chance Bigfoot is not real but if it is this was one. The silly skeptical bear theory has officially been put to bed with my video. You can clearly see the hump/shadow/motion blur whatever it is is not part of the creature. What we have left is a perfect match for a human trunk comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

ha ha sorry Kerry. I just watched your video the one that apparently 'puts it to bed', the same video that goes about doctoring the images to suit while accusing those that are skeptical of doing just that to further their own ends... Ummm, utter hypocrisy anyone!!?

Honestly I couldn't care less what people think with regard to those photos, each to their own. I do though care that people are hoodwinked into believing conjecture as fact by so called 'scientists' who should know better and who fail repeatedly to employ much if any science in their rationale and or reasoning.

P.s. I really liked the esoteric music, panpipes are always a nice touch. It very nearly had me hoodwinked too but I fell asleep, sorry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest baboonpete

I'm taking a break from this one, as it's just a fundamental failure of critical thinking. It's clearly a bear, surrounded by other bears. Making into a squatch in your mind is wishful thinking and imagination and nothing more than Unicorns eating Cheerios. Enjoy your speculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

This a.m. they are talking about the Jacobs photos on the Big Foot Evidence blog, hehehe. Of course they are!

Did you make the video with flute Kerry?

I am not ashamed to say I am being won over to the Sas. camp on this one, but you know I have always had s fondness for young BF ;)

Even if the bent over creature has a hump I think it is still possible it is a Sas, Some people bend "correctly" at the hip hinge but many many people bend more at the lumbar spine creating a small hump. I tried to find a picture, but I mostly found correct bends and bends at the thoracic spine, but I have seen people bend close to the picture, even if we add the "shadow" back in.

Not to say that it it is or isn't a shadow, but to say that the hump does not necessarily rule out it being BF IMO.

so with lack of bear ears, elbow bending outwardly and torso and limb lengths it is not completely crazy to think it may be a Sasquatch.

I would say there is plenty of critical thinking arguing for Sasquatch, and less reason for it being a bear if you look at the physical data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dopelyrics

Surely the feet on this thing are a dead giveaway?

I realise that a baby Sas wouldn't necessarily be born with massive feet, but surely by the time they become juveniles they would have grown and be at least in proportion with its body - these are small feet in comparison to the body.

My understanding that a juvenile would be the equivalent of a teenager - is that correct? If so, a juvenile Sas would need big feet by this age to negotiate the terrain they walk through on a daily basis. Isn't that why Bigfoot has Big Feet?? Their parents aren't going to be carrying them at this age, would they?

For me, this is a poorly sick bear.

Best,

lee

Edited by dopelyrics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Coinkidink BFE blog!.. I've said my piece. If anyone can truly explain the bears face looking back at the cam in the last pic I'm all ears... :)

If you could do it objectively though without referring to any suitably edited material that would be great. thank you please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

Yeah Lee the feet are what bug me the most, although you cannot see them completely so I am not convinced. I can also see wrists on one of the pictures, not sure if a bears wrist looks like that??

Coinkidink BFE blog!.. I've said my piece. If anyone can truly explain the bears face looking back at the cam in the last pic I'm all ears... :)

If you could do it objectively though without referring to any suitably edited material that would be great. thank you please

What bears face? ; }

We would have to agree that it is not a headstand position then,lol.

How come the face in the crouch posture looks paler and flat like you would expect form an ape, human or BF?

And another thing! (as my ' lovely" MIL likes to say) The down dog position seems naturally progressive from the crouch position, if we assume forward facing bear posture, then the crouch breaks up the flow of movement.

Edited by VioletX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerry, in the 2nd video you posted above, at around 20 seconds in they show the creature outlined, in comparison to a chimp....

They show the arch/hump as being part of the animal and not a shadow.

Have you contacted the scientists named in that video to inform them of their mistake yet >?

Oh, and i cant speak for Gruffalo, but for the record I am a believer, although when it comes to certain specific pieces of evidence, whether it be someones written account of an experience, a photo, a video, or sound clips, yes I do maintain a healthy and normal sense of skepticism.

I always approach situations from a common sense and logical stance, and try to rule out the simple easy explanations, before I head down the road of alternate ones.

As has been mentioned- within seconds of the two photos being taken- there are two bear cubs present on the scene.

While that certainly doesnt prove that whats shown is a bear, it does make it seem fairly logical that a larger bear could be in the same area at the same time.

I've been on the fence since day one regarding these photos, as obviously the thing doesnt look like what most people think of when they picture a bear.

I just dont understand how anyone, especially with a scientific background, can make declaritive statements about it being a Sasquatch, and suggesting there is adequate evidence to do so.

It may very well be, but unfortunately it remains inconclusive in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VioletX

Art, I cannot definitively say it is a Sasquactch, but I believe there is bulkier evidence on that side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

OK. I really did want to know how anyone got 'bear' out of either photo, the best I got was (paraphrasing) 'just look at the picture'. I did that, still don't see how anyone gets 'bear'. Has there been any in-depth discussion about that yet? If no, then its time or its simply not a bear. Not saying what it *is* but for sure its not a bear, unless bears are prone to double-long limb mutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

Sunflower I already 'had at it' so to speak in posts 7, 25, 33 and 38. Not that the point was to try to convince you or anyone otherwise but to highlight the blind faith and wishy-washy pseudo scientific analysis being employed to suggest that the figure is a hereto undiscovered species of mega fauna roaming around the backwaters of Pennsylvania when the more probable answer given the circumstances is a black bear, not the prettiest looking black bear but a black bear all the same.

As far as I'm aware nobody made a comment regarding the bears age?!

You believe it's a little hairy man? I can assure you it is not! ; )

Ok, assure me. Show me the ears of a bear. And maybe a snout would help too......

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...