The Jacobs Photo Is A Juvenile Sasquatch

[JDL]

Didn't know that, Bodhi.  Can you provide a link?

[bipedalist]

BFF debunked it long before FB.

 

The abbreviated lack of an identifiable heel extension seals it for me.   Looks like somebody cutoff the back of a primates foot=bear.

 

If Bigfoot has a midtarsal flexibility, it is likely they would have a strong exaggerated heel extension.  Nada on the Jacobs bear.

Edited December 1, 2015 by bipedalist

[Bodhi]

Didn't know that, Bodhi.  Can you provide a link?

Here's a mention:

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-jacobs-bigfoot-creature-was.html

[norseman]

Its not a Bear.

And with that, any outdoor credibility Norseman might have had, goes up in smoke...http://bnatural-muddyvalley.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-weeks-game-cam-photos.html

There is a bear in almost the same pose (4th pic down)

Doesnt even look close.

And any time you want to grab your predator calls and go hit the woods Im game. You'll obviously teach me alot about calling bears, i look forward to it.

Also it looks like a chimp to me.

Edited December 1, 2015 by norseman

[Catmandoo]

Bear. I am surprised the bear image has surfaced.

I have had images of mangy bears, bears with nice fur, bears walking forward, backwards and standing.

Bear with me on this on.

Have you noticed that there is nothing further from Mr. Jacobs?

[JDL]

 

Didn't know that, Bodhi.  Can you provide a link?

Here's a mention:

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-jacobs-bigfoot-creature-was.html

 

 

Thank you.  No mention that it has been debunked by BFRO, though.  Just that they are examining it. 

 

Got some questions:

 

The mother bear theory was based on the perception that the quadrupedal photo depicted a mother bear facing the camera at less than a 30 degree angle, with the outline of her head blending in with the rest of her body.  If so, she has no eye shine like the bear cub has.  Did she blink at just that moment?  Also, since mange is caused by parasitic mites, why would the mother bear have mange, but the cubs have none?

[Bodhi]

 

 

Didn't know that, Bodhi.  Can you provide a link?

Here's a mention:

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-jacobs-bigfoot-creature-was.html

 

 

Thank you.  No mention that it has been debunked by BFRO, though.  Just that they are examining it. 

 

Got some questions:

 

The mother bear theory was based on the perception that the quadrupedal photo depicted a mother bear facing the camera at less than a 30 degree angle, with the outline of her head blending in with the rest of her body.  If so, she has no eye shine like the bear cub has.  Did she blink at just that moment?  Also, since mange is caused by parasitic mites, why would the mother bear have mange, but the cubs have none?

 

Here's what I believe is the portion of the episode from the "Rejected" portion of the Finding Bigfoot website. You can also google these things too.

 

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/videos/a-squatchy-photograph-bigfoot-or-bear/

 

regarding your various questions; feel free to believe that it's a sasquatch I do not care one iota. You need this thing to be real more than just about anyone other that good ol' DWA.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Bodhi

[MIB]

The Jacobs photo is interesting.   I don't know what it is.   I grew up in a bear preserve.   It does not look like any of the literally thousands of bears I've seen.   I don't necessarily think it's a sasquatch either.   I think it best to toss it in the "hmmmm" pile.   Jumping to premature conclusions **of either sort** is .. premature.   I don't understand why people can't leave puzzles as puzzles and instead latch onto answers that can't be defended with integrity.

 

Recently an animated gif I'd never seen before surfaced.   The first pic is new, the middle one seems to be the Jacobs photo we're all familar with, and the third is clearly a bear.   That first picture puts the "bear-ness" of the Jacobs photo into greater doubt ... at least for me.   It seems to be the same figure but turned a bit.  

 

Like I said, I grew up in a bear preserve.   I also hunt them other places.   Bears ears are cartilage.   They don't grow much so as a bear ages and gets bigger, its ears appear progressively proportionally smaller and smaller.   They also seemingly slowly relocate from right on top of the head down to the upper side of the head.    As a hunter, if you're after a trophy bear, look for bears that have very small seeming ears mounted relatively low on the head.   

 

So, relative to the photos, if this is a baby bear, the ears should be quite prominent and mounted high.   I don't see them.  The pictures aren't clear but they are clear enough.   Unless this is a very old bear, the lack of prominent ears is a giant red flag.  

 

The other thing that is missing is a rostrum ... a prominent, protruding snout.   If the head is turned away so we can't see the snout, the ears should display clearly.  If the head is turned to the side so the ears are hidden against the head, the snout should be prominently displayed.

 

Neither case seems true.

 

I think calling this a bear demonstrates no knowledge of bear anatomy whatsoever.  None.

 

That doesn't make it a sasquatch.  However, putting your "weight" behind a shaky claim it's a bear just to prove it can't be a sasquatch reeks of a wizard-of-oz -style "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain" ploy.  

 

It's a puzzle best left as a puzzle. 

 

MIB

[JDL]

 

 

 

Didn't know that, Bodhi.  Can you provide a link?

Here's a mention:

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-jacobs-bigfoot-creature-was.html

 

 

Thank you.  No mention that it has been debunked by BFRO, though.  Just that they are examining it. 

 

Got some questions:

 

The mother bear theory was based on the perception that the quadrupedal photo depicted a mother bear facing the camera at less than a 30 degree angle, with the outline of her head blending in with the rest of her body.  If so, she has no eye shine like the bear cub has.  Did she blink at just that moment?  Also, since mange is caused by parasitic mites, why would the mother bear have mange, but the cubs have none?

 

Here's what I believe is the portion of the episode from the "Rejected" portion of the Finding Bigfoot website. You can also google these things too.

 

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/videos/a-squatchy-photograph-bigfoot-or-bear/

 

regarding your various questions; feel free to believe that it's a sasquatch I do not care one iota. You need this thing to be real more than just about anyone other that good ol' DWA.

 

 

Wow, Dude, you went all bait and switch on me!  

 

That clip isn't about the Jacob's creature.  It's another case/photo entirely and is conclusively a mangy bear in my opinion.

 

I don't need it to be real.  In fact, that's a moot point from my perspective.  I just want to make sure that aggressive skeptics are held to the same standard that they want to impose on the bigfoot proponents.  Do you find that unfair somehow?

MIB, That is probably the best post of the thread.  Plussed.

The more upright photo has been around from the start.  But skeptics, true to form, ignored it and focused on the more ambiguous four-legged stance photo.

The animated GIF that MIB mentions:  https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jacobs+creature&view=detailv2&&id=162BE2D0A3AC2F5DB208DE6B2D85F8482CBC751D&selectedIndex=0&ccid=MfU32LhX&simid=608048223235802610&thid=OIP.M31f537d8b8571219cda904bde130a53cH0&ajaxhist=0

[WSA]

Plus to MIB too.

 

Look, there are mysteries out there. We should all know that as adults living in this world. As much as we want all of our questions answered, on our own timetable, we should all know we will be lucky if we die having only a small fraction of those resolved.  Give in to that, and everyone finds the common ground we all want to find, and hopefully we also find a way to begin to get answers.

 

I don't know what is depicted in the Jacobs photo. I will always wonder. It looks like something other evidence tells me should be out there, and a more mundane explanation doesn't fit for some very good reasons. Still, it is an ambiguity in search of an explanation. I'm o.k. with that.    

[Terry]

  Also, since mange is caused by parasitic mites, why would the mother bear have mange, but the cubs have none?

 

The cubs probably do.  The adult bear has had mange longer and more seriously than her young cubs and has had longer to scratch because of the itch mange causes.  The long term scratching causes the hair loss.  

 

t.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The photo of it stretching is what makes it obvious to me that it's a bear. The legs just look like the legs of a bear. An actual Sasquatch in my opinion would have human-like legs similar to what you see in the Patterson film, but with that being said, the first photo of it does have a chimp-like appearance, so I guess it's understandable if someone thinks that it can't be a bear after looking at that photo.

[Drew]

Chimps are not nocturnal animals, and they don't live in Pennsylvania bear country.

 

Why are you making it difficult?  It's so easy.

[dmaker]

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/12/03/28/

[1980squatch]

Thanks for that link dmaker.  The entire thing seems similar to the Grey's Harbor Brown thermal- in that case there were confirmed to be a bunch of cows moving around, and yet the indistinct thermal hit must have been a BF, not a cow.