Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Still looks like a bear to me. Well that settles it then. I can show you a lot of people that don’t. Just because it doesn’t live up to the expectations of what some person on the BFF steering committee thinks Bigfoot should be or whatever it doesn’t mean its going to be shunned by everyone. Why is it that when a real scientist from Duke University that studied the Jacobs creature along with all of the other Bigfoot evidence believe it has a better chance of being a real Bigfoot over Patty? Edited September 21, 2011 by Forbig
BobZenor Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Apeman from the old forum put the nail in the coffin for me. He described the way all apes have compressed backs from front to rear. The apparent pointy back where the spine sticks outs is a characteristic of bears and not apes. You could relate to it as apes having shoulders that are in the same lateral plane as the rest of the upper thorax and normally lateral though we may have considerable flexibility. There were also other bear pictures that were omitted from the discussion that really pointed to a mangy young and somewhat emaciated bear. Someone also produced an almost identical mangy bear picture. It was too many years ago to remember who but it was also very persuasive. I sure didn't think it could be a bear when I first saw it but apeman, the other bear pictures and the remarkable match that someone found in another mangy bear picture changed my mind. Edited September 21, 2011 by BobZenor
Guest Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 . . . and it's OK for the Jacobs creature to be a bear. From the same camera on the same night we have evidence that bears were at that same spot. This was, I think, McKean County - that place is crawling with bears. Consider the number of game cam set-ups across the U.S. right now and the number of bears photographed at same. Clearly, bears are happy to roll around the feeders and get their photos taken. Now, other than some highly ambiguous photos of a darting bigfoot just barely getting caught in the camera's flash, we don't have any clear photographic evidence of a bigfoot just hanging out in front of a game camera and taking feed or otherwise responding to a bait, except for the Jacobs creature. The going wisdom in bigfootery is that the bigfoots are way too smart to be lured into a camera trap situation and that they don't want their photos taken. Yet in the Jacobs photos we have an alleged bigfoot lolling around in full view and allowing itself to be photographed twice. Does it make more sense that a bigfoot would be caught on camera acting exactly like a bear in a place that's loaded with bears, or that a couple of photos of a funny-looking bear could fool people into thinking they were looking at something else?
Guest parnassus Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 And you need a DITM, which I am quite certain you have had plenty of, just not recently. Joey: PLEH is help spelled backwards, so that the helicopters up in the air can read it.
Guest para ape Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 I think the creature is a chimp. If the creature on the photo is a young bigfoot,why aren't there other photos of the creature from trail cams?
Guest COGrizzly Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Joey: PLEH is help spelled backwards, so that the helicopters up in the air can read it. I didn't realize that helicopter pilots were required to read backwards. Learn something new everyday.
Guest Biggie Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 I didn't realize that helicopter pilots were required to read backwards. Learn something new everyday. Yep. I used to fly helicopters until I saw this then I quit. !HSARC OT GNIOG ERUOY
Incorrigible1 Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 I didn't realize that helicopter pilots were required to read backwards. Learn something new everyday. It's because, being pilots and infatuated with themselves, often they fly whilst gazing at themselves in a handheld mirror. Thus, a message in mirror-image reverse will register better with them.* My sincere apology to any actual humble pilots. Like the bigfoot creature, they too, are rumored to exist.
Guest krakatoa Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Why is it that when a real scientist from Duke University that studied the Jacobs creature along with all of the other Bigfoot evidence believe it has a better chance of being a real Bigfoot over Patty? [/size][/font] So real scientists never make mistakes? "All the other" evidence didn't include prints or hair or 'foot poo or anything physical, am I right? You've mentioned as evidence that after this supposed juvy foot showed up, all the bears in the vicinity left for weeks. One - Assuming this is even verifiably true, it isn't evidence of 'foot. Two - (entertaining the argument for a moment) Why didn't the bears vacate with a wider window than 30 minutes before the 'foot decided to get its salt fix? I mean - the 'foot surely didn't camp out at the salt-lick for weeks and chase off all the bears, did it? Surely there'd be evidence of such, yes? I mean, there are no later photos showing the alleged 'foot returning for more treats, are there? Three - [Two] isn't evidence of non- 'foot, and your answer to [Two] still isn't evidence of 'foot. Edited September 21, 2011 by krakatoa
Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 . . . This was, I think, McKean County - that place is crawling with bears. The going wisdom in bigfootery is that the bigfoots are way too smart to be lured into a camera trap situation and that they don't want their photos taken. Yet in the Jacobs photos we have an alleged bigfoot lolling around in full view and allowing itself to be photographed twice. Does it make more sense that a bigfoot would be caught on camera acting exactly like a bear in a place that's loaded with bears I don't agree with you but I love all your posts they always sound like you're wrighting a book. Anyway, it's also common knowledge in bigfotery that they often inhabit areas that support a healthy bear population. If it was a Squatch it certainly was a young one that's why some people have said it's the reason it was caught on a game camera in the first place. The 2 photos are only seconds apart then it was gone, so why do so many here insist it was lolling around? There were no bear there for 28 minutes that's plenty of time for it to keep a safe distance and investigate what the bear were looking at.
Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Someone also produced an almost identical mangy bear picture. You must of never seen this then because it's the most identical thing I've seen. So your not confused on what it is in the upper left is the Jacobs creature slowly fading into the identical looking ape on the bottom right. The ape picture is not as blurry or out of focus as the creature so some have thought "fake" detail was added to the creature.
Incorrigible1 Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Even with the ongoing campaign, I still find it an ambiguous photo of a bear.
Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 "All the other" evidence didn't include prints or hair or 'foot poo or anything physical, am I right? You've mentioned as evidence that after this supposed juvy foot showed up, all the bears in the vicinity left for weeks. One - Assuming this is even verifiably true, it isn't evidence of 'foot. Two - (entertaining the argument for a moment) Why didn't the bears vacate with a wider window than 30 minutes before the 'foot decided to get its salt fix? I mean - the 'foot surely didn't camp out at the salt-lick for weeks and chase off all the bears, did it? Surely there'd be evidence of such, yes? I mean, there are no later photos showing the alleged 'foot returning for more treats, are there? Three - [Two] isn't evidence of non- 'foot, and your answer to [Two] still isn't evidence of 'foot. The evidence that I find intriging are the sounds that many witnessed and recorded while investigations of it were taking place, the engineer that surveyed the area and figured out its size better than anyone has, the scientist that studied it and at least gave it more credit than Patty, and the long history of eyewitness sightings there that's been on going. There is something strange in that area so I don't see why anyone would say this couldn't have been a young naive one. They've said Footprints are hard to get in grass or leaves there but someone once demonstrated one that can be seen between the photos. I've seen where there's also footprints found in that area but nobody can really say what they were from or more importantly if they were from this creature.
Guest krakatoa Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) The evidence that I find intriging are the sounds that many witnessed and recorded while investigations of it were taking place, This evidence is generally questionable for all the reasons given on threads dedicated to them. Accepting for the sake of argument that it is solid evidence however, it doesn't support the claim that this is a picture of 'foot, anymore than hearing a Corvette horn is evidence that a picture of a Yugo is a 'vette. the engineer that surveyed the area and figured out its size better than anyone has, I presume you mean the limb and torso proportions rather than size in general, and would quibble and say "figured out those proportions to the 'foot proponents satisfaction better than anyone else." I happen to think other people's measurements wherein the proportions align quite nicely w/ that of a bear's to be better. With dueling experts, I suspect we need to just agree to disagree. the scientist that studied it and at least gave it more credit than Patty, Again, I ask, is this scientist infallible? If her word were so iron-clad in this field, I would think more scientists would be willing to entertain the notion that finally, there is photographic proof of 'foot. The broader silence from her peers are rather telling. There is something strange in that area so I don't see why anyone would say this couldn't have been a young naive one. I'm not saying what it couldn't have been. I'm saying there is not enough proof to sway me or science in general that this picture is what you claim it is. It's certainly possible it is a picture of a juvenile bigfoot with very bear-like features captured doing very bear-like things. I'm just not persuaded. Edited September 21, 2011 by krakatoa
Recommended Posts