Guest Forbig Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 I thought I'd start a new twist on the subject since they usually start with "it's a bear" or "put a nail in the coffin" or something on that order. This way we can compare the two side by side.
Guest Forbig Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Like the old chimp photo I still think I can get in that position better than a bear could I guess I'm just camera shy.
Guest Woodenbong Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Great comparison, these bear followers need to open the eyes a little wider and only then will they get the big picture. Cheers
Guest TooRisky Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 I agree with you and also wonder where the tail and ears of this mysterious bear is at.... BUT this has been hashed over for a very long time and there is nothing new to change anyone's opinion... In other words this is yesterdays news... IMHO
Painthorse Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Nice comparison. I lean more towards primate than bear but I think the main issue is due to the Occams Razor Theory. The bear cubs were in the same time frame or close in time proximity ( If I remember correctly). I've had the same issue myself with a series of pics that my cam captured back in 09. The primate people that I sent the pics to says "primate" but due to my bird being in the same series of pics the bigfoot people say "bird" lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest Roberty-Bob Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 For the record, this is what *I* see in the photo, the back end of a bear.
Guest Crosspeg Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 For the record, this is what *I* see in the photo, the back end of a bear. It has yet to be proven to be a bear because the proportions are all wrong for a bear. That is a fact that's been tested in the field so for the record I see what this video producer sees.
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) For the record, this is what *I* see in the photo, the back end of a bear. That is exactly what I see as well. Will admit the proportions see a bit odd, but skinny bears at odd angles may look, well, odd. That said, there are the two camps, and no one seems to be swaying the other side. Now I have a question that doesn't have anything to do with the sides of the argument, and not trying to derail thread...what is the other "black thing" in the foreground of that photo? Anyone know? -edited to remove stupid statement about thing in foreground Edited July 14, 2011 by notgiganto
GuyInIndiana Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 It has yet to be proven to be a bear because the proportions are all wrong for a bear. It has yet to be proven "anything".
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 That is exactly what I see as well. Will admit the proportions see a bit odd, but skinny bears at odd angles may look, well, odd. That said, there are the two camps, and no one seems to be swaying the other side. Now I have a question that doesn't have anything to do with the sides of the argument, and not trying to derail thread...what is the other "black thing" in the foreground of that photo? Anyone know? -edited to remove stupid statement about thing in foreground Nevermind, it is the stand or whatever that the salt block was once on, as seen in the pic of the bear cubs...
Guest Forbig Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 The arms are 22 inches and the torso is 18 3/4 so it doesn't matter what leg is what it still can't be a bear with those dimensions. But how do you explain the line of seperation that's visible in some of the best copies? It's impossible to be the left leg.
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) ... Thanks gershake for posting previous discussion. The results of the vote show a heck of an even split... Edited July 14, 2011 by notgiganto
Recommended Posts