Guest habber Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 I couldn't disagree more, all the pictures were shown at one place or another on the BFRO with the exception of one with the hunter picking up the camera. Like I said earlier if there was anymore then the hunter was involved in a hoax not the BFRO. That certainly wasn't the case because he never thought of it as being a 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 later on then suggested he send it into people that study Bigfoot photos. I fear your belief is vastly in the minority here
Guest COGrizzly Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Also, sticking up for COGrizzly here - I'm pretty sure his "mustard" comment was in jest. I was totally kidding! It sure can be tough to "see through" my poor humor in person, let alone on a forum! Thanks Saskeptic. And GuyIn, Inc, any others - if I offended you in any sort of way, my sincere apologies! All right, back to the topic.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Hi All this mustard talk got me thinking i want some knockwurst and sauerkraut for lunch Tim
Guest Forbig Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 . . . Which is all stuff and nonsense. She's written that we can't prove bigfoot isn't real and that maybe it really is. That's nothing but a lightweight "Keep an open mind, kids" kind of statement. How on earth can you interpret this as demonstrating that the "Jacobs creature" is a bigfoot? Also, sticking up for COGrizzly here - I'm pretty sure his "mustard" comment was in jest. When she investigated the Jacobs creature she was questioning if it was a photo of Bigfoot and had no answer other than they couldn’t say for certain. If I reference to page 18 of the same article she believes Patty’s evidence shows it was a hoax. So here we have a famous Duke University scientist that studied the Jacobs creature proportions like no other and believes it has more of a chance of being genuine than Patty does.
Guest vilnoori Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Hi All this mustard talk got me thinking i want some knockwurst and sauerkraut for lunch Tim I'm with you, buddy. LOL
Guest Giganto Guru Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Jake could be a juvenile I never thought it was a bear. I'm excited to hear that this new scientist would admitt that bigfoot could be real. There's room for fresh blood and we won't have to keep referring to the same old bunch.
Bonehead74 Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) And yet, still, there isn't a SHREAD of proof that Sasquatch travel on all 4's either. Sure there is. We get it from the same place we get our proof that bigfoot travels on 2 feet. Edited September 20, 2011 by Bonehead74
Guest parnassus Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Also, sticking up for COGrizzly here - I'm pretty sure his "mustard" comment was in jest. it's a moo point... Joey: Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.
Guest Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 When she investigated the Jacobs creature she was questioning if it was a photo of Bigfoot and had no answer other than they couldn’t say for certain. If I reference to page 18 of the same article she believes Patty’s evidence shows it was a hoax. So here we have a famous Duke University scientist that studied the Jacobs creature proportions like no other and believes it has more of a chance of being genuine than Patty does. Correct. It's genuinely a bear. I checked out Vanessa Woods' website. Thanks btw, she's rather easy on the eyes, and seems to be a top-notch young scholar. She's also, judging from her books and other media appearances, someone passionate about science and conservation advocacy. That's all really cool. These things, however, do not make her infallible. I'll expound on that in a minute. Judging from what I could learn using my modest powers of Google-fu, Woods is married to Brian Hare, Assistant Professor in the Department of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke. Hare has a PhD (from Harvard!), something crazy like 50 journal publications, and some sweet wavy hair. His lovely wife does not have a PhD, she has a Master's in Science Communications, and she appears to have 3 journal publications. She also has a nebulous title as "Research Scientist." That's academia code for "spousal hire." In other words, part of Duke's offer to the brilliant Dr. Hare included creating a position for Ms. Woods. She is not a "professor" in the strictest sense of the word, and she describes herself first as an "author" on her website. Note that there is nothing wrong with any of this. I'm not 100% sure that the spousal hire scenario I've painted is accurate, but even if it is, spousal hires like this happen all the time. Sometimes the spouse that gets hired is kind of a deadbeat faculty member, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case here. Woods is a really special individual, and I can guarantee you that she's way smarter than little old me. That said, she does not appear to be a classically trained vertebrate zoologist. Her research interests with bonobos seem to center on behavioral/social interaction, not morphology. She also hasn't demonstrated anywhere that she's experienced in the morphology of black bears. Finally, there's nothing in her background to demonstrate advanced skill in photogrammetry. So yes, we have a brilliant young scholar issuing some ambiguous statements about the so-called Jacobs creature. (You'd think that if she really believed it wasn't a bear, she'd have published that opinion somewhere other than "Scienterrific", but that's another story.) But that scholar is a student of primate social interactions, and likely not at all experienced in at least two crucial lines of inquiry in interpretation of the Jacobs photos: black bear morphology and photogrammetry. People with experience in those areas have provided what should be considered more informed opinions of the photos, and those opinions have been near unanimous that the subject is a young bear, possibly malnourished and suffering from mange. One final note: One of the staunchest advocates for "bear" was a well-respected member of the original BFF who was at the time working toward a PhD studying apes in the field and who also was a veterinarian. That guy knew vertebrate anatomy, and he really knew his apes. He provided skeletal overlays with some of the most compelling evidence that the subject's anatomy was fully consistent with a bear and inconsistent with humans or chimps.
Guest Forbig Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) One of the staunchest advocates for "bear" was a well-respected member of the original BFF who was at the time working toward a PhD studying apes in the field and who also was a veterinarian. That guy knew vertebrate anatomy, and he really knew his apes. He provided skeletal overlays with some of the most compelling evidence that the subject's anatomy was fully consistent with a bear and inconsistent with humans or chimps. I seen that one too it was a joke they left the spine out because it didn't fit. Then this guy tried to convince Lynn Rogers in the other direction but it backfired when Lynn finally admitted he couldn't tell unless he was there. Still the best look into the Jacobs creature wasn't from those sitting at home drawing lines and overlaying photos. It was the professionals in field that determined the arms were 22' long and the body was 18 3/4" long. Try and down play them all you want it doesn't matter if it was just an engineer and a scientist that studies primates. The fact is that they still have done the very best job at determining the proportions bar none. BTW That's the reason she thought it wasn't a bear because it looks like a bonobo. She knows her wild primates after all she has lived with them and made them her life. Edit to fix link again :- ( Edited September 20, 2011 by Forbig
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Hi I can't help it but join back in, those are the pictures were they put in the hands and fingers on the subject, that too me is just making a BF, get those dam things out of there and put back the original ones ~ Tim Edited September 20, 2011 by RedRatSnake
Guest Forbig Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Hi I can't help it but join back in, those are the pictures were they put in the hands and fingers on the subject, that too me is just making a BF, get those dam things out of there and put back the original ones ~ Tim Its the Jacobs creature original in the upper left then it fades into an overlay of an actual ape! It's like the one that fades into a bear but they are such a close match it has even fooled you. Yes my friend this was no bear!
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Hi Nar i picked up on those the first time they were shown a few years ago also, but it gets ya to think why some one would have to do that to prove there point, shouldn't the ones taken that night have already come with hands, fingers, feet and toes instead of paws ? Tim
Guest COGrizzly Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 it's a moo point... Joey: Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo. EXACTLY! I would like to start another thread on how many layers of deepness this comment has. I'll start. 1. Wait. So is this whole discussion of Jacob's photos a "moo point"? Is that what you are referring to? 2. Ok wait again. You referenced Saskeptics comment that my comment was in jest. Does that mean I am the moo point? The point I was trying to make was a "moo" point? 3. Are you calling me a cow? 4. ...Ok, you give it a try! Back to the discussion of the bear.
Recommended Posts