Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 It looked like a young BF more than a bear to me. I looked at everything and I truly do not see a bear.
Guest dr hook Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 The photographic "evidence" is old fashioned, just like plaster casts of footprints has gone out of style. Now that detailed casts have exceeded the fakesters capabilities to provide a halfway believable print, the common practice is to document truly ambiguous "tracks" in leaves and the like, and as with photos, we are spinning our wheels with junk like the photos in this thread, the new tack is to talk DNA.................still totally weak IMO. What happens when the current DNA stuff fizzles? (and it will), we will be stuck with what any truly serious BF'er has been attempting for years. We have to shoot one.
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 What happens when the current DNA stuff fizzles? (and it will), we will be stuck with what any truly serious BF'er has been attempting for years. We have to shoot one. This doesn’t look like a bear to most of the people I know or me but you’re right somebody needs to kill one before anybody believes it. There’s no sense in getting upset about any type of evidence because nothing short of a body will do.
Guest Kerchak Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 The subject's head is not in full view; its feet are. In the most talked about photo the feet are not in 'full view'. The subject has its back to us and the feet are obscured by vegetation (twigs, a leaf). In the second photo there looks to be a biggish foot there. It doesn't look much smaller than Patty's foot at a similar angle in certain stills. I see no sign of ears or a snout anywhere. Nothing. I'm not saying it isn't a bear. I already said I don't 'know' what it is. All I'm saying is that it doesn't look like a bear, not even a mangy extra skinny one. If it's a bear then it has the longest limbs and the shortest torso of any bear I have ever seen (and with the wonders of modern technology, images of bears can be at your fingertips in their gazillions). Whatever it is, it looks **** weird. I stand by my assertion that I don't know what it is, despite people pronouncing what it is as a proven fact (that goes both ways).
Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Looks like an ear to me. It's partially obscurred by the dark foliage behind the tree, but what else could it be, a crest?
Guest Crosspeg Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Looks like an ear to me. It's partially obscurred by the dark foliage behind the tree, but what else could it be, a crest? Watch the original at around 1:09 It certainly isn't an ear. Don't waste your time on bad copies or ones were somebody fiddles with colors because you end up focusing in on background images and digital artifacts as you have done in your photo.
Guest Forbig Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 (edited) The photographic "evidence" is old fashioned, just like plaster casts of footprints has gone out of style. Not when it's backed up with this click here photo reenactment and survey at the location that proves its odd proportions are a reality. A Duke University primate specialist worked out this size from the site and published it back in 2008 in a science magazine called Scientriffic it was ISSN number: 1442-2212. It's clear that it had 22 inch arms and an 18 3/4 inch torso length. These same methods were later copied during a similar but not as involved reenactment in 2009 that was done by Peter Schmitz on a case to prove a 6 foot Sasquatch was a bird on the television series "Monster Quest." Edit to fix link Edited September 18, 2011 by Forbig
georgerm Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 Hey uh if you look at it this way: then maybe look at the third one here: http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp IDK, I showed a bro of mine that knows wildlife, and he immediately saw a bear looking at the camera, please tell me someone else has also seen this in the jacobs photo!! The first picture is a bear that has nice thick fur, ears, and a fat round body. The next picture is a BF and has none of these features. It looks like a BF to me since the fur is thin, no big round bears ears, and the body is thinner. just my 2 cents worth........ black bear.htm
Guest Forbig Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 Yes the first picture was cubs I think everyone could tell that one. Then something like 27 minutes goes by and there was some sort of a scuffle because the dish was knocked over (off camera) I hope the cute little guys weren't eaten. What some thought was eyes were to wide for a bear and they don't glow. Then what some thought looks like a big ear was sticks, leaves or something in the background. You can see it pointed out in a couple of videos above and when compared to a daytime camera setup photo.
adam2323 Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Having seen many many bears I ran them with hounds for years. used to tree 50 + a year inclucing cubs. I can tell you that is not a bear. Its a teenage SAS. In my eyes it noway even remotely looks like a bear closes animal in comparison would be a chimp. Adam
Guest krakatoa Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Having seen many many bears I ran them with hounds for years. used to tree 50 + a year inclucing cubs. I can tell you that is not a bear. Its a teenage SAS. In my eyes it noway even remotely looks like a bear closes animal in comparison would be a chimp. Adam Still looks like a bear to me. How many teenage Bigfoot have you seen?
Guest Forbig Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Still looks like a bear to me. How many teenage Bigfoot have you seen? Watch this at 1:14 I have to agree with them it doesn't look anything like a bear to me either. Edited September 19, 2011 by Forbig
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Hi I have always wondered why only a few pictures of this bearsquatch were posted, in my mind there has too be more cause the animal looked like it was taking it's sweet ole time in that area, so why no more pictures ? maybe cause others just don't look like a Squatch ~ i agree it sure looks like a small one but the whole secret thing that surrounds it just adds to the BF mystery and gives a help rating of ~ El Zilch Tim
Guest krakatoa Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Watch this at 1:14 I have to agree with them it doesn't look anything like a bear to me either. Still looks like a bear to me.
Guest Forbig Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Hi I have always wondered why only a few pictures of this bearsquatch were posted, in my mind there has too be more cause the animal looked like it was taking it's sweet ole time in that area, so why no more pictures ? maybe cause others just don't look like a Squatch ~ i agree it sure looks like a small one but the whole secret thing that surrounds it just adds to the BF mystery and gives a help rating of ~ El Zilch Tim I can’t believe that Tim because that would suggest the hunter was involved in a hoax. That was never an issue with those pictures because he never thought of Bigfoot. He walked around with the pictures for several days asking everyone what kind of animal it was. It wasn’t until his niece seen it and suggested he send it into people that study Bigfoot photos that he learned that it could be a Sasquatch.
Recommended Posts