norseman Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Im not agreeing its a Sasquatch mind you, but I do think they are on to something considering ape vs bear limb ratios. http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp Also another thought come to me. In the first photo the head is almost completely obscured by the shoulders, But Bears do not have shoulders, the torso just tapers to the neck. Edited December 4, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) I don't think there's enough information in the head to know anything. Same with the limb ratios, or any of that stuff. I think the only thing that can be done its to identify the lumps and bumps. I know what I think about it because a bear fits those lumps and bumps. Beyond that to me is all speculation- just not enough information. I guess if people want to keep speculating on those areas though then they can. I don't expect there to ever be a definitive resolution to this because like I said there's not enough information. It's forever in the giant steamy Bigfoot pile of unresolvable issues. Edited December 4, 2015 by roguefooter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Your skeletal recreation of the hip area is cool to be sure rogue. I guess for me my eye is picking up enough non bear traits from my experiences that Im trying to dig deeper. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Im not agreeing its a Sasquatch mind you, but I do think they are on to something considering ape vs bear limb ratios. http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp Also another thought come to me. In the first photo the head is almost completely obscured by the shoulders, But Bears do not have shoulders, the torso just tapers to the neck. Norseman Your 2 pics show why the Jacobs pic is not a bear and comparing the length of the legs in your 2 pics compared to the Jacobs creature, its a no brainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMBigfoot Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Chimps are not nocturnal animals Hi Drew, I was thinking the same thing until I found this article about Chimps raiding farms at night. So they can be active at night. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/18563/20141023/farm-raided-by-thieving%E2%80%A6chimps-primate-neighbors-getting-comfortable.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
churchill Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 In the second Jacob's ''creature'' photo (the one at 20:32,41) where they say its a mother bear nursing her young, if her head is facing the camera wouldnt her eyes shine from the camera flash? Correct me if im wrong but in 2007 these cams had just entered the market maybe two or three years prior and i dont think they had invisible led back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfriendly Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 I don't think there's enough information in the head to know anything. Same with the limb ratios, or any of that stuff. I think the only thing that can be done its to identify the lumps and bumps. I know what I think about it because a bear fits those lumps and bumps. Beyond that to me is all speculation- just not enough information. I guess if people want to keep speculating on those areas though then they can. I don't expect there to ever be a definitive resolution to this because like I said there's not enough information. It's forever in the giant steamy Bigfoot pile of unresolvable issues. X2, but I still remember when I first saw the photo........First words out of my mouth were "they got him". I have not seen anything to convince me otherwise. I give you the resemblance of the mangy bear photo except one thing. Those lumps and bumps you talk about are NOT on the head of jacobs creature, but they sure are on the mangy bear; almost bugs bunny like EARS! The ears are the most telling to me. You are also right that they can never be confirmed either way. Besides, if we got a shot of the same Creature today, it would be a LOT BIGGER =0) Maybe we'll get lucky enough one day to get his Juvy in a photo.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) ^There is no clear view of the head- that's been debated to death. I personally think it could have some kind of container stuck on it's head- which not only would erase normal features, but would also explain the extreme starvation and weird poses. Edited December 22, 2015 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) ^Proof that skeptical theories can be as grasping as proponent theories. Edited December 22, 2015 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Yes, the idea that an animal has been caught in a container, rope, fencing, or plastic 6 pack rings ( all actually having happened) is as "grasping" as portals, telepathic communication, and UFO origins ( none of which has been proven to happen ) /sarcasm. I get your point JDL, but to make that comment does nothing but invite debate. Rogue footer gave his opinion of what he sees, pointing a finger and saying that a skeptics view ( that has basis of happening in the past regarding wildlife ) is grasping does nothing to further the discussion. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Sure those things happen. But in this specific case, one has to assume that an improbable series of events must occur for the theory to be true. Let's say, charitably, that it is fifty/fifty that the subject would encounter something that could get stuck on its head. Another fifty/fifty for it to get the object stuck on its head. Another fifty/fifty that the object remains on its head long enough for it to encounter the area, and so on. It gets progressively more improbable. But life itself is improbable, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) This argument has been made before, but here it is again. As reports mount, the probability that they are all false in some way diminishes. For all to be false, every single one of the thousands at this point has to either be a deliberate hoax, a misidentification, a lie, or otherwise innacurate. And every single person who makes a sincere report has to be befuddled in some way. Results to date are on the side of the skeptics, but statistics are not. And as someone who has had clear unmistakeable short range encounters - not sightings, but encounters in which I reacted to the bigfoot and it to me - I submit that it is just a matter of time and statistics before something happens to provide irrefutable public proof. The statistical probability of encountering a bigfoot is not zero, but the statistical probability of a prepared or unprepared encounter which results in a type specimen is much slimmer. Even so, it will happen eventually, out of sheer chance. Keep in mind also that one of the greatest factors contributing to their delayed scientific recognition is ("may be" from your perspective) willful ignorance. Edited December 22, 2015 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I disagree. The more reports pile up without any proof of bigoot, the more this emphasizes that bigfoot is a product of the mind, not flesh and blood. You have it backwards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I disagree. The more reports pile up without any proof of bigoot, the more this emphasizes that bigfoot is a product of the mind, not flesh and blood. You have it backwards. You have it exactly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I disagree. The more reports pile up without any proof of bigoot, the more this emphasizes that bigfoot is a product of the mind, not flesh and blood. You have it backwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts