Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 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." They were its size. It was determined with a survey at the location by a female engineer from Pennsylvania. It's been posted and filmed in a couple places. They determined it through the eye of the game camera located in the original position then used steel stakes pounded into the ground were it stood. Monster Quest copied them and did almost the same thing on the Kenny Mahoney case. This was what they came up with: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 They were its size. It was determined with a survey at the location by a female engineer from Pennsylvania. It's been posted and filmed in a couple places. They determined it through the eye of the game camera located in the original position then used steel stakes pounded into the ground were it stood. Monster Quest copied them and did almost the same thing on the Kenny Mahoney case. This was what they came up with: Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. We are on the same page re. what is being measured in the analysis. As I said, I think others have done a good job showing the proportions/size match that of a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 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. Just for clarification purposes, the BFF Steering Committee does not have any expectations of what Bigfoot is, or looks like. Neither does the CFZ, which owns and runs the BFF. This description of what the Steering Committee is, was given when this site (version 2.0) went live. "The primary role of the committee is to keep this forum moving in the proper direction. This is accomplished through ongoing discussions and each member's opinions about how things should be run, and is why there is an odd number of members. The Steering Committee is not responsible for the day-to-day management of the forum, nor does it represent a leadership role in those activities. While the Forum Staff (Moderators and Administrators) work and communicate with the committee on a regular basis, it is still the Staff's responsibility to run the business of the Forum and to enforce the BFF Rules and Guidelines. The Steering Committee will set the tone and spirit of the BFF, create and set policy decisions, and create or alter the Rules and Guidelines as necessary." As far as the CFZ/BFF goes- from the rules and guidelines: "The BFF is an independent forum dedicated to the discussion of the Bigfoot phenomenon. While the Forum is independent, it is owned and operated by the Centre for Fortean Zoology which is not a Bigfoot research organization and has no official ties to any Bigfoot organization. The CFZ (including the BFF) has no official stance on any single aspect of the Bigfoot debate. The CFZ does not 'believe' that Bigfoot exists, or 'believe' that it does not exist, but that the evidence makes it worthy of discussion and further investigation. The members and Moderators may take a different view. That is entirely up to the individuals concerned. That being said, and while it is very difficult to pin any one opinion on a site with members as diverse as ours, there are some generalizations that can be made regarding the feeling of the board (assuming Bigfoot exists):" Any opinions expressed by either a Steering Committee member, or member of staff (Moderator or Admin), is wholly their own, and does not represent any "official" stance or expectation as you put it in regards to what a Bigfoot should look like. I think that's whats great about this site- pretty much everything except the general rules and guidelines is determined by the membership. The only official stance that the BFF takes on Bigfoot is the following, and its in regards to the physical =vs= paranormal aspect of things. " Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp." All of the above aside, I have been looking at all these different pictures of the Jacobs critter for a couple years now. Both the pro (Juvenile BF) and Con (mangy bear) arguments can offer tidbits of data or evidence to make their position seem tenable. Me personally, and as a believer in Bigfoot existence, I find them (photos) intriguing- but like many supposed photo's showing Bigfoot- they are not definitive to me in any sense. The key for me is not having a frontal view, which would show facial and other features that could certainly help clear up any ambiguity as to what is shown in the photos. To me, ultimately, definitive proof can mean only one thing. A large, stinky, hairy corpse lying on a steel examination table somewhere. Clear photo's are nice, some HD-Video would be even nicer, but you just cant refute or claim hoax, when its a body lying on a table in front of you. Unless its in an icebox in Georgia, then I'm not so sure. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 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. You and a couple other people on here need to replay the Ellen DeGeneres show that featured the Jacobs creature. They zoomed in using their high tech video equipment then asked each and every member of the hundreds in that audience not one of them thought it was a bear. Even better Good Morning America had some professionals on their show looking at the Jacobs creature photos and not one of them thought it looked like a bear. I tried to post a link for both of these videos but I can't find them. If anyone remembers where to locate them please post for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. We are on the same page re. what is being measured in the analysis. As I said, I think others have done a good job showing the proportions/size match that of a bear. They measured the creature's size by overlaying it on real world references through the game cameras eye. That's far better than anyone can do at home. They now know exactly where it's feet were and the distance between them, who could get measurements like that from their computer? The best investigations like this one can't prove it was a Bigfoot but it's not a bear. Edited September 21, 2011 by Forbig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 You and a couple other people on here need to replay the Ellen DeGeneres show that featured the Jacobs creature. They zoomed in using their high tech video equipment then asked each and every member of the hundreds in that audience not one of them thought it was a bear. Even better Good Morning America had some professionals on their show looking at the Jacobs creature photos and not one of them thought it looked like a bear. I tried to post a link for both of these videos but I can't find them. If anyone remembers where to locate them please post for all to see. I don't think you understand my position. Having more people tell me this picture is a bigfoot using the same arguments you have made thus far doesn't introduce more scientifically significant evidence. That's not the way science works. Hell, having more scientists tell me something doesn't make it so. It may improve the odds, but without better data, it doesn't make it so. Science is not a popularity contest. Science is about refining data down to the most elegant and verifiable theory. When science dares to trifle in popularity, you tend to find the most egregious of errors committed. Certainly I'd watch some professionals opine if you find the GMA link, in the interest of seeing if someone has something new on this photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Certainly I'd watch some professionals opine if you find the GMA link, in the interest of seeing if someone has something new on this photo. I'll keep trying to find it but it isn't new like many otheres myself included they just don't believe it was a bear. I differ because I believe it has a good chance of being a Sasquatch but I'm not 100% on that. Unlike the Duke U scientist I give it the same odds as I do Patty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) 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. This is the most identical thing you've ever seen with its legs impossibly crossed. This comparison is dead in the water. If we can't even come to an agreement on Patty's dimensions in the PGF, with over 900 frames to work with, how does an engineer, not studied in forensic metrology determine the dimensions of the Jacob bear from 2 photos? Is he/she trained in measuring objects in photos? Doesn't appear so. Edited September 21, 2011 by Gigantofootecus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 This is the most identical thing you've ever seen with its legs impossibly crossed. This comparison is dead in the water. If we can't even come to an agreement on Patty's dimensions in the PGF, with over 900 frames to work with, how does an engineer, not studied in forensic metrology determine the dimensions of the Jacob bear from 2 photos? Is he/she trained in measuring objects in photos? Doesn't appear so. Not according to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Forbig, you do realize that anything we think we see in these photos is HIGHLY speculative, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 You and a couple other people on here need to replay the Ellen DeGeneres show that featured the Jacobs creature. They zoomed in using their high tech video equipment then asked each and every member of the hundreds in that audience not one of them thought it was a bear. Well by Golly by Gosh... THAT SETTLES IT !!! If Ellen DeGeneres says so, it MUST BE! ( did anyone check with Oprah yet? ) More to the point... I don't care WHAT "high tech video equipment" they used. You can NEVER GET MORE out of a picture than what the original resolution provides. If it ISN'T there in the original picture, what ever the resolution is, it won't be there later. That's not my opinion. That's the laws of physics being a bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest para ape Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Let's address the subject of bigfoot and trail cam photos,which are basically nonexistent.You mean to tell me that there is animal that is so smart that it knows what a trail cam looks like and completely avoids walking in front of one and having it's photo taken?There is no such animal!No animal is that intelligent. The fact that bigfoot does this shows that it is something beyond an animal.I mean other animal are captured on trail cams all the time;deer,raccoons,bears,bobcats,etc.,but not bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habber Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Well by Golly by Gosh... THAT SETTLES IT !!! If Ellen DeGeneres says so, it MUST BE! ( did anyone check with Oprah yet? ) More to the point... I don't care WHAT "high tech video equipment" they used. You can NEVER GET MORE out of a picture than what the original resolution provides. If it ISN'T there in the original picture, what ever the resolution is, it won't be there later. That's not my opinion. That's the laws of physics being a bitch. Dengenres, really? It's clearly a bear. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Dengenres, really? It's clearly a bear. Done. Clearly? I guess I'm a little more optimistic like the thousands of other people that said it wasn't. You have to be when you're a bigfooter or else it would be depressing. Done already? Debate is what I like about Bigfoot forums I wish more people could be like Saskeptic that guy is the master debater. Look up at his picture he just finished off a good one and needs a smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 "...that guy is the master debater. Look up at his picture he just finished off a good one and needs a smoke" Seriously uncool Forbig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts