The Jacobs Photo Is A Juvenile Sasquatch

[Guest Forbig]

Yup. Still looks like a bear. Not the one in your photo. More like a mangy one that hasn't eaten enough.

Some of you guys are seriously in denial, listen to the old hunter. "He knows a real bear when he sees one." He skinned and ate plenty of them and nobody is fooling him.

"That was no bear, I'll tell ya right now!"

edit for typo

Edited September 24, 2011 by Forbig

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hi

Tim

[Guest Forbig]

Hi

Tim

I know I posted that several times I just can't help it I love the way that guy puts it all on the line and tells it how it is in front of thousands of viewers.

[Incorrigible1]

Forbig, do you have a stake in proving these photos bigfoot? I merely ask because you seem determined to convince people they're real. You seem very engaged in these photos.

I find them interesting, and the several threads that came about while they were freshly posted worthy. I was intrigued because the photos were and are unclear as to what animal was photographed. This isn't the smoking gun that "skeptics" will never accept photographic evidence of bigfoot, because whatever the photos depict, if you have to draw lines it ain't proof.

Again, interesting, if ambiguous photographs. What's it been, a year or two, now?

[Guest Forbig]

Forbig, do you have a stake in proving these photos bigfoot? I merely ask because you seem determined to convince people they're real. You seem very engaged in these photos.

I find them interesting, and the several threads that came about while they were freshly posted worthy. I was intrigued because the photos were and are unclear as to what animal was photographed. This isn't the smoking gun that "skeptics" will never accept photographic evidence of bigfoot, because whatever the photos depict, if you have to draw lines it ain't proof.

Again, interesting, if ambiguous photographs. What's it been, a year or two, now?

They're close to home and they're probably the most likely not a hoax evidence out there. The worst thing about Bigfoot to me are the hoax's. These photos were a big deal, they still are around NW Pa. Heck, they still are on here there's no shortage of people that like to argue about them one way or the other. I do have some other favorites like Painthorse's juvenile but it was shut down on here I wish we could open a thread that could stay open. Then there's the NY baby footage but nobody wants to talk about it on here. I love Patty but the whole hoax thing turns me off but I still give it some hope.

[Guest Giganto Guru]

The better questions that need to be asked are:

Why do the same people try so hard to convince everyone it was a bear?

Why do they insist on coming back repeatedly to say "it's a bear" without any new evidence that it was?

Why have the pictures been altered in some places to make it look like a bear?

Why are rumors like "there's bears in the same picture" or "there's other photos that show it's a bear" started?

What interest do they have that benefits from this?

I find it odd that some people here wish to shove bears down bigfooters throats.

[Guest]

It's the bear side that tries too hard. If it was a bear they wouldn't have to draw lines or put pictures on it to make their point.

[georgerm]

Hi

Tim

Ok.........see the bear............see the BF.

[Guest]

The better questions that need to be asked are:

Why do the same people try so hard to convince everyone it was a bear?

Why do they insist on coming back repeatedly to say "it's a bear" without any new evidence that it was?

Why have the pictures been altered in some places to make it look like a bear?

Why are rumors like "there's bears in the same picture" or "there's other photos that show it's a bear" started?

What interest do they have that benefits from this?

I find it odd that some people here wish to shove bears down bigfooters throats.

I am going to speak for myself, but probably true for others in the bear camp.

1. Circumstantial evidence points towards the subject being a small bear (size is right-shoulder height- as well as presence of other bears in pics taken within about a half-hour).

2. Occam's Razor says "bear." We bear folks feel that maybe we should not jump to BF as an explanation when a more likely one fits the bill. Why make something quadrupedal that's the size of a small bear into a juvenile 'squatch?

3. The pics are of pretty poor resolution, and the subject is at an odd angle (not straight on) so evidence/measurements from the pics are pretty darn subjective. This keeps us from good empirical determinations of proportions. The "proof" (picture evidence) that this is a BF is pretty shaky to begin with due to these constraints.

4. We "bear" folks probably want things that are put forward as evidence to meet a certain standard of quality (before being touted by, say a major research group)in order to avoid embarrassment of the community in general. Frankly, it is my opinion that the Jacobs pics are of such poor quality - as evidence goes - as to be an embarrassment to Bigfootery. I believe that is why many in the bear camp feel the need to continue to debate with Jacob's pics proponents. No conspiracy to debunk. Just healthy skepticism of very poor quality and subjective evidence.

Make sense?

I could actually ask some of the same questions above of the proponent camp. What do proponents have to gain from backing the Jacob's pics? Where is the new evidence that it is a juvenile BF, for those of us who just do not buy the "measurements" that have been put forward?

I believe that these questions actually apply more to proponents than opponents. All JMO.

[Guest Giganto Guru]

I am going to speak for myself, but probably true for others in the bear camp.

1. Circumstantial evidence points towards the subject being a small bear (size is right-shoulder height- as well as presence of other bears in pics taken within about a half-hour).

2. Occam's Razor says "bear." We bear folks feel that maybe we should not jump to BF as an explanation when a more likely one fits the bill. Why make something quadrupedal that's the size of a small bear into a juvenile 'squatch?

3. The pics are of pretty poor resolution, and the subject is at an odd angle (not straight on) so evidence/measurements from the pics are pretty darn subjective. This keeps us from good empirical determinations of proportions. The "proof" (picture evidence) that this is a BF is pretty shaky to begin with due to these constraints.

4. We "bear" folks probably want things that are put forward as evidence to meet a certain standard of quality (before being touted by, say a major research group)in order to avoid embarrassment of the community in general. Frankly, it is my opinion that the Jacobs pics are of such poor quality - as evidence goes - as to be an embarrassment to Bigfootery. I believe that is why many in the bear camp feel the need to continue to debate with Jacob's pics proponents. No conspiracy to debunk. Just healthy skepticism of very poor quality and subjective evidence.

Make sense?

I could actually ask some of the same questions above of the proponent camp. What do proponents have to gain from backing the Jacob's pics? Where is the new evidence that it is a juvenile BF, for those of us who just do not buy the "measurements" that have been put forward?

I believe that these questions actually apply more to proponents than opponents. All JMO.

1. There was no other bears there at that time. I'm sure there are bears everywhere at one time or another so that has nothing to do with it.

2. We don't know if it's quadrupedal unless it was walking and it is not. It appears to be bent over checking out the bait because that is what it was doing.

3. Investigators that have been there have a good idea of what angle it was at and the proportions it has. We have all seen these proportions from models and measurments and the body was too short to be a bear. Have you seen the ape picture that is in the same angle? I know the leg position is in question but how can you deny its resemblance to position and proportions? It was much better than the bear picture you have touted as a match.

4. What picture has ever passed a quality test? It's far too late to worry about being embarassed because people all over the world have looked at this picture in wonder. It doesn't make any sense that we should be afraid to talk about a picture unless we have a perfect one because we may never talk at all.

[Guest]

I am pretty sure that there were bears in other pics taken of the area a short time before the Jacob's pics were taken. The released pics dates and timestamps showed that, did they not? The pics show an animal on all fours, thus quadrupedal. Proponents of the pics have imagined a creature that is not entirely quadrupedal. The two pics themselves show a quadrupedal subject. Models and recreations are made based on someone's idea of what is in the fuzzy pics, introducing an element of bias and flaw. I can accept that we may gain a rough scale from the recreations or measurements at the picture site, but (and I am not an expert in examinations of data from pictures)it seems that proportions are nigh-impossible due to the picture angles and resolution qualities of the pics (other folks on this forum who are experts in that area have commented on the paucity of data that can be gleaned). Much of the data for recreations or measurements is inferred due to the pics two- dimensional nature. So, if you see a chimp-like primate in the pics, you can recreate something that seems to fit the pics, but that is not a guarantee that said thing is what is actually in the pics. I am sure one could do the same for a bear model, but that also would not guarantee that it was what was in the pics, either. Make sense?

[Painthorse]

Two tid-bits I would like to add, first is in reference to Occams Razor as someone mentioned above.

Just because there are bears in prior pics doesn't "make it a bear", also just because bear are native to the area does not mean it's a bear.

Is it "not possible" to get more than one species of animals on a series of cam pics?

Is it "not possible" to get more than one species in the "same pic"?

We do not know how a sas intermingles with other animals to know if they are social or antisocial with other wildlife. If someone knows this for sure, please do tell.

Also, this was a bait situation=F-O-O-D= Survival, or just an easy meal. Animals don't think, they react when it comes to food and they're hungry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other issue that comes up is "There should be more pics".

To think that there should always be more pics is an incorrect assessment. I've stated this before and I'll say it again...Depending on the make and model of a cam, the trigger mechanism, the number of pics the cam is set at, the viewing area that the cam can capture, all plays a part in what is going to be in the pics.

The other issue is the trigger timing of the cam and "what direction an animal comes in towards the camera".

If an animal walks "straight towards or away from a camera" there may be more than one pic of the same animal "depending on the trigger speed".

If an animal comes in from the "side view and walks past the camera" depending on how close or far from the camera and the camera viewing area, 1 pic is most likely. If the animal is in run mode your lucky to get a partial blur if anything at all.

The above is easily proved by anyone who owns several different models of cams by using yourself as a guinea pig and your not camera shy, lol.

[Guest Giganto Guru]

I am pretty sure that there were bears in other pics taken of the area a short time before the Jacob's pics were taken. The released pics dates and timestamps showed that, did they not? The pics show an animal on all fours, thus quadrupedal. Proponents of the pics have imagined a creature that is not entirely quadrupedal. The two pics themselves show a quadrupedal subject. Models and recreations are made based on someone's idea of what is in the fuzzy pics, introducing an element of bias and flaw. I can accept that we may gain a rough scale from the recreations or measurements at the picture site, but (and I am not an expert in examinations of data from pictures)it seems that proportions are nigh-impossible due to the picture angles and resolution qualities of the pics (other folks on this forum who are experts in that area have commented on the paucity of data that can be gleaned). Much of the data for recreations or measurements is inferred due to the pics two- dimensional nature. So, if you see a chimp-like primate in the pics, you can recreate something that seems to fit the pics, but that is not a guarantee that said thing is what is actually in the pics. I am sure one could do the same for a bear model, but that also would not guarantee that it was what was in the pics, either. Make sense?

No it doesn't, these repeated arguments by the same few bigfooters are not an embarassment to you yet the ambiguous photos are? How will the public respect us when we can't agree among ourselves? It was something like 27 minutes if they were in a hurry they could be 10 or more miles away. Are we really to believe a bidped can't lean over to all fours and examine something on the ground? They have tried photos of different size models from what I have read and only the primate proportioned ones have matched in the game camera comparison. There was never any guarantee that this was a juvenile and it will never be proof of one it was just an interesting photo that will never be any more than that.

[Guest]

No it doesn't, these repeated arguments by the same few bigfooters are not an embarassment to you yet the ambiguous photos are? How will the public respect us when we can't agree among ourselves? It was something like 27 minutes if they were in a hurry they could be 10 or more miles away. Are we really to believe a bidped can't lean over to all fours and examine something on the ground? They have tried photos of different size models from what I have read and only the primate proportioned ones have matched in the game camera comparison. There was never any guarantee that this was a juvenile and it will never be proof of one it was just an interesting photo that will never be any more than that.

So if you understand it isn't "proof" (or at least good evidence), and we can't determine that it is a juvenile BF (as has been claimed), and the photos are in fact ambiguous, and you just see this as just an "interesting photo," then what are we arguing here? I am at a loss.

As far not being being able to agree on evidence, a big part of that has to do with the ambiguity of certain evidence, such as the Jacobs photos. It is their very ambiguity that makes them poor evidence behind which to take a stand. The fact that many have done so seems, well, folly, in my opinion, or perhaps there is some other reason that some folks have backed these pics as genuine. I get that "you see what you see" and that we have to agree to disagree on that. But the fact that we HAVE to agree to disagree makes the Jacobs pics poor evidence, regardless of whether it is a bear or BF. The Jacob's pics fall along the same lines as blobsquatches for me. As far as the pics themselves (beyond subjective ideas of those that view them), any evidence that what they show is a BF relies on a mound of dubious inferred data from fuzzy oddly angled photos. All in all, I came to the bear conclusion after weighing all of that ambiguity with the likelihood that what we are seeing is a bear (simplest answer), combined with what I find to be compelling comparison pics of bears, along with personal sightings of bears and animal evidence in the wild. That said, I am a BF believer, but I am waiting to see more personally compelling evidence that the two Jacobs pics show an animal other than: a bear either licking a salt lick or contorting its body trying to rub its head into something on the ground (scent marking, perhaps, I don't know?) or digging into the ground to get at the remnants of salt or something else there. The very best I can come up with, to my mind, pro-BF, is that there is just not enough evidence to say one way or another what that is in the pics - still making me lean toward parsimony/Occam (bear) and away from BF. And with that said, I am out of this thread. Good luck, Jacob's photo backers, and I will wait to see what new evidence you can provide that shuts down the bear camp, or at least changes this individual's mind. Cheers.

Edited September 24, 2011 by notgiganto

[GuyInIndiana]

Some of you guys are seriously in denial, listen to the old hunter. "He knows a real bear when he sees one." He skinned and ate plenty of them and nobody is fooling him.

"That was no bear, I'll tell ya right now!"

edit for typo

Why do we have to listen to the OLD guy? Why can't we choose to listen to the YOUNGER guy in the video who thinks it could be faked? Why is the OLD guy's word more credible than the other guy's? Maybe he's suffering from dementia?