Guest LAL Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 With Sasquatch being in the area both before and after these photos were taken I honestly don’t see how anyone that believes Sasquatch is real would question these photos. The evidence that stands behind them screams juvenile Sasquatch. There were reports of sasquatches in the area. Bears were certainly in the area and got photographed by the same camera. Bears tear up cameras. Dr. Meldrum uses cautious language just as any scientist should. I thought the video made it seem he was leaning more toward juvenile sas but I'd read (somewhere) he'd come down for mangy bear. I didn't have much luck finding direct quotes so had to settle for that one. MM didn't agree, and didn't seem to think Meldrum was being scientific, either.
Guest Crosspeg Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 There were reports of sasquatches in the area. Bears were certainly in the area and got photographed by the same camera. I don't regard broken cameras as evidence the comparison photos along with measurements were accurate enough to determine it wasn't a bear. Witnesses and recordings of Sasquatch long before and directly after the photos are why I believe it was a Sasquatch. Why couldn't it be a juvenile? One that waited for the bears to leave?
Painthorse Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Was curious, are there any inverted pics? Can't remember seeing any. Sometimes inverting the black and white pics can bring out more conformation detail, contour of muscle, hair/fur separation where the joints are located, etc. I know somewhere in this thread someone drew in a tail and also where they "thought" the head was situated. Inverting the pics may give some insight. "IF" that has already been done, maybe someone can re-post the inverted pics in this thread.
Guest Crosspeg Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Was curious, are there any inverted pics? Can't remember seeing any. Sometimes inverting the black and white pics can bring out more conformation detail, contour of muscle, hair/fur separation where the joints are located, etc. I know somewhere in this thread someone drew in a tail and also where they "thought" the head was situated. Inverting the pics may give some insight. "IF" that has already been done, maybe someone can re-post the inverted pics in this thread. There's a face in this one that supposedly can be seen on the originals.
Painthorse Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Crosspeg, something to take into consideration, computer monitors are not created equal, lol. I found out that what someone may see on their monitor screen may be clear, on others "not so clear". I can't make out anything but the darkness of the subject in that clip. I was hoping for an inverted pic like what I did with my avatar. In my pics the "ear" is not visible in the mix of darkness but when it's inverted it becomes more apparent.
Guest LAL Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I don't regard broken cameras as evidence the comparison photos along with measurements were accurate enough to determine it wasn't a bear. Witnesses and recordings of Sasquatch long before and directly after the photos are why I believe it was a Sasquatch. Why couldn't it be a juvenile? One that waited for the bears to leave? Why couldn't it have been a young mangy bear related to the cubs - possible mother, possible yearling sibling? I'll have to check those reports again but weren't they more of the things that go bump in the night sort? MM seemed to think the camera smashing might have been related. It may or may not have been. Painthorse has a point with resolution. I can clearly see a tail with high res. ETA: "The most recent Potter County sighting was June 28, 2002" from Forbig's link. Five years isn't real recent, IMO. I have no problem with sasquatches possibly being in the Appalachians. These mountains and forests are prime habitat and remarkably similar to the Cascades with about as much rain and even less logging. Of course they could be in the same area with bears - especially if they eat the same stuff - but I don't think any sasquatches were caught on Jacob's camera that night. Sorry. Edited July 19, 2011 by LAL
Guest Forbig Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Why couldn't it have been a young mangy bear related to the cubs - possible mother, possible yearling sibling? I'll have to check those reports again but weren't they more of the things that go bump in the night sort? MM seemed to think the camera smashing might have been related. It may or may not have been. Painthorse has a point with resolution. I can clearly see a tail with high res. ETA: "The most recent Potter County sighting was June 28, 2002" from Forbig's link. Five years isn't real recent, IMO. I have no problem with sasquatches possibly being in the Appalachians. These mountains and forests are prime habitat and remarkably similar to the Cascades with about as much rain and even less logging. Of course they could be in the same area with bears - especially if they eat the same stuff - but I don't think any sasquatches were caught on Jacob's camera that night. Sorry. There's been other sightings in Pennsylvania that's just a few from one organization that researches them. It couldn't be a bear with its proportions and that has been proven IMO. There's no tail that I see with my resolution but I can see the line seperating the leg from the body that proves it's not a bear. I guess we all see what we want.
Guest LAL Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I guess we all see what we want. I've seen it as a bear since it first hit the Net, especially after seeing this guy: I had trouble figuring out the big round thing some thought was a head until someone said it was a bear cub. It's hard to get over first impressions but I find the counterarguments really interesting.
Guest wildwoman Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 sound of door slamming and Wildwoman running screaming from this thread!
Guest Forbig Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I had trouble figuring out the big round thing some thought was a head until someone said it was a bear cub. That's an interesting thought if it's true all it had to do was stick out an arm or something and it would of prevented a lot of commotion.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Another image that's inconclusive.. It will be debated by 50 people on one side of the room and 50 people on the other. Good to add to the vault of images, but a wast of time if we're looking to prove conclusively that bigfoot exist, let alone if the Jacob's project has anything to support their camp.. Until we have a sharp/clear picture with a face, etc, we're all just playing with ourselves..
Guest Forbig Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Another image that's inconclusive.. It will be debated by 50 people on one side of the room and 50 people on the other. Good to add to the vault of images, but a wast of time if we're looking to prove conclusively that bigfoot exist, let alone if the Jacob's project has anything to support their camp.. Until we have a sharp/clear picture with a face, etc, we're all just playing with ourselves.. You're right theres been to much playing around, so many attempts have been made to turn it into a bear by messing with light and color and poor quality copies that they all have canceled each other out. Bears ears have been placed all around the head and all have ended up being background shapes when laid over other photos without the creature. Take this hanging ear shape that was easily found in another photo without the creature. Check out this ear shape at 3:24 and again another failed ear attempt at 1:12 I could show you failed attempts at a bears head on the ground, on the rear, on the side... One minute it's a head the next minute it's a bear cub. It's endless the bear camp is so desperate they can't even make up their own minds. If I owned these pictures I would slap a lawsuit on everyone that messed with them.
Guest Kerchak Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I've seen it as a bear since it first hit the Net, especially after seeing this guy: I don't know what the Jacobs photo is but the torso seems much too short to be a mangy bear to me. Just my opinion. No mangy bears were harmed during the formation of my opinion.
Guest LAL Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I don't know what the Jacobs photo is but the torso seems much too short to be a mangy bear to me. Just my opinion. No mangy bears were harmed during the formation of my opinion. Maybe it's the angle. The lower legs don't look very apelike to me. The lack of defined calf muscles seems bearlike. I'd think an habitual biped would have legs shaped - well, more like Patty's even when young.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 One might also expect it to show, you know, big feet.
Recommended Posts