Jump to content
Guest ThePattyArcade

What Do You See In The Jacobs Photo?

  

169 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Guest Clay

post-987-025003300 1299880418_thumb.jpg

Looking at it now some of the hump seems to be a shadow on the tree. The thing was nearly up against the tree because it's suppose to be looking at bait at the base of the tree.

It was at least part shadow nothing clear enough to get excited about. I get more excited over the face that's not clear than defining hump that you can't really tell what shape it is. I'm not talking about some of the shapes some of you call bear faces. The other one when it's not bent over as far that shows up good on the original picture.

The face that's had some filter work done on it at the end of this video:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Clay

Here's another video I found where they use the original picture. It's not enhanced like the other one but you can see that same strange face staring over the left shoulder if you pause it at 1:10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Clay

Now if that's more shadow on the tree around the face like the hump, and Leslie Junipers cut out enhancement is really a face, it looks very human like. It almost looks like the Incredible Hulk and that brings up more questions. What the heck, now I'm really confused about what it is. The Monkey Monster of Pennsylvania?

Could it be a cartoon cut out stood up in front of the tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crosspeg

Sizes and shapes are significant unless you feel that the sasquatch is capable of shapeshifting it's proportions as it grows.

They’re significant when they’re clearly visible not when you can’t tell for certain where they begin and end or what shape they really have. You can’t get facts based on these blurry areas like the face above or the blurry hands and feet that are mostly compressed in the soft ground cover and hidden from the cameras view. I don’t see where that face is anything we can draw conclusions from either. There is one foot print that shows up between the photos that’s longer than a bears but once again not clear enough to draw conclusions.

They are significant when the duplicate photograph of a model standing on the same points compared to the Squatch clearly showed the basic proportions and the size is now known. That size reflects the proportions of a primate and not a bear. It would take some major arm or torso changes to get bear sized proportions and those changes don’t match up with the juvenile Squatch photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Giganto Guru

My vote was undecided because it pretty much remains unsolved at this point. Even though there are a couple individuals with backgrounds in science and engineering that have ruled out it being a bear there’s still other possibilities that it wasn’t a Sasquatch. It will be interesting if there are any juvenile photos in the future to look back at this and compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wildwoman

I thought this discussion was done years ago. So, I have a suggestion why not go to Elk county PA or Forest, McKean, or Warren and see what you can dig up? Who knows what you may find. Camp out make a fire, stay for a week sing Kumbaya if you have to. Then when you come back... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Boolywooger

I think the feet make it obvious that this is a bear. They're way too short in proportion to the body than even a human foot, let alone a "juvenile squatch".

I agree with you. It doesn't have a heel, and the 'squatch is supposed to have an ankle that is placed further forward on the foot than a human foot according to Meldrum and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This one has always been one of my favorite Bigfoot videos.

Thanks -

That was very informative!

It answered questions I had about why we don't have more pictures from Game Cams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crosspeg

Niether the feet or heel araa are clear enough to pass judgment to determoine anything especially when they couldn’t even get a good measurement on them. The one footprint that was visible that it made between the photos was obviously larger than a bear’s foot. I’ve heard of humans born with tiny little feet go on to wearing size 28 shoes plus Meldrum pointed out in the above video on this photo that we have no data on a juvenile foot size or how they grow. On the other hand the duplicate photo was a key player in determining if it was a bear or not and the proportions were not of a bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

post-987-016620800 1309292905_thumb.jpg

post-987-058383500 1309292929_thumb.jpg

post-987-082492900 1309293081_thumb.jpg

I should be able to see very prominent protruding claws especially if it is a bear with mange and I can't. The feet don't look any different than the feet in the chimp picture it's most often compared to. Hair over the ankle with the blur do make it impossible to see detail. Dr. Meldrum also said the features may remain chimp like until it matures. Who knows maybe the oldest ones have the largest feet if they never stop growing like a humans ears and nose.

Share this post


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

×