Guest Forbig Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 The lower legs don't look very apelike to me. IMO they're no different than the ape.
Guest themanta Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 IMO they're no different than the ape. Then you need to look more closely, the ape picture clearly ends in digits and the bear photo clearly doesn't. You dont seem to even be able to manipulate the photo enough to make your case. And the reason is very simple, the jacobs photos are of a young bear with other bears. You're simply wrong adnexceptionally pig headed in your belief.
bipedalist Posted July 20, 2011 BFF Patron Posted July 20, 2011 If I owned these pictures I would slap a lawsuit on everyone that messed with them. Good luck with that esp. in view of the lack of a full card of pictures being revealed.
Guest Forbig Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Good luck with that esp. in view of the lack of a full card of pictures being revealed. There’s a few I know of that have spent way too much time emphasizing on bear and not enough time looking at its Sasquatch attributes. I have to question their intentions because most of these individuals are in competition with the BFRO. With copyright laws getting tougher these days we all should try to influence Rick Jacobs (hunter/owner of pictures) to pursuit a lawsuit. Hammer everyone that poorly represented his photos to convince the public it was a bear without his written permission. The ones that made convincing changes by poor alignment, not using the original photo, removing portions, misinformation… I know some well known names in the Bigfoot industry that have done this and had links to where profits were being made and that’s a big no no with the DMCA!
Guest themanta Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 There’s a few I know of that have spent way too much time emphasizing on bear and not enough time looking at its Sasquatch attributes. I have to question their intentions because most of these individuals are in competition with the BFRO. With copyright laws getting tougher these days we all should try to influence Rick Jacobs (hunter/owner of pictures) to pursuit a lawsuit. Hammer everyone that poorly represented his photos to convince the public it was a bear without his written permission. The ones that made convincing changes by poor alignment, not using the original photo, removing portions, misinformation… I know some well known names in the Bigfoot industry that have done this and had links to where profits were being made and that’s a big no no with the DMCA! bigfoot is an industry now? some might take that as a shot at Meldrum, possibly deserved
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 If I was shown the picture of just the animal I would think chimp, in a zoo or maybe an animal that was released into the wild at some point. Looking at the totality of the picture the other bear cubs in the picture. I would think mama bear would be tearing a chimp or BF apart to protect the cubs? Would the cubs be offensive against an intruder like a chimp or BF in their territory? I much as I wish it was a BF logic tells me it is a bear.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) If I was shown the picture of just the animal I would think chimp, in a zoo or maybe an animal that was released into the wild at some point. Looking at the totality of the picture the other bear cubs in the picture. I would think mama bear would be tearing a chimp or BF apart to protect the cubs? Would the cubs be offensive against an intruder like a chimp or BF in their territory? I much as I wish it was a BF logic tells me it is a bear. I think if a BF is around it would be THEIR territory. If a black bear runs from us, what makes you think they would be aggressive towards a creature that is 50% taller and probably has 10x our strength. Edited July 20, 2011 by HODS
Guest themanta Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I think if a BF is around it would be THEIR territory. If a black bear runs from us, what makes you think they would be aggressive towards a creature that is 50% taller and probably has 10x our strength. You dont know how much bigger they are or stronger and you know it. If they were that big and strong the bears would have fled so your "logic" fails. It's logically a bear.
Guest Giganto Guru Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) You dont know how much bigger they are or stronger and you know it. If they were that big and strong the bears would have fled so your "logic" fails. It's logically a bear. Then this was a Sasquatch because according to what I’ve heard the bears have fled and never returned. As for the feet not having toes I’m not sure you could see anybody’s toes standing in a soft forest bed but I would expect to see some claws sticking up if it were a bear with mange. Edited July 20, 2011 by Giganto Guru
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 The 2 sasquatch pictures were taken seconds apart but the bear cubs were 27 minutes earlier. ...... So it definitely isn't a bear but to you it DEFINITELY is sasquatch? You are labeling them something you just don't know what they are. Why so?
Guest Roberty-Bob Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) There’s a few I know of that have spent way too much time emphasizing on bear and not enough time looking at its Sasquatch attributes. I have to question their intentions because most of these individuals are in competition with the BFRO. With copyright laws getting tougher these days we all should try to influence Rick Jacobs (hunter/owner of pictures) to pursuit a lawsuit. Hammer everyone that poorly represented his photos to convince the public it was a bear without his written permission. The ones that made convincing changes by poor alignment, not using the original photo, removing portions, misinformation… I know some well known names in the Bigfoot industry that have done this and had links to where profits were being made and that’s a big no no with the DMCA! You have got to be kidding me. It's okay to draw lines to indicate that it looks like a primate, but not a bear? I think this has probably fallen in to a fair use area, at least as far as educational purposes. I understand he automatically owns the copyright to the pic, but I have never seen one modified and then used for monetary gain. You want to question the intentions of bear proponents, but give the primate side of the argument free reign? Is that how analyzing evidence works? You want to squash any contrary opinions to yours, and have the nerve to question the intents of others. Wow. Just wow. **edited with new info: Not only have I used fancy-schmancy photo editing techniques to prove it is a bear, I have proven it is a silly ol' bear at that. Case closed. Edited July 21, 2011 by Roberty-Bob
Guest Kerchak Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 One might also expect it to show, you know, big feet. Or if it's a bear one might also expect it to show, you know, big ears.
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 The subject's head is not in full view; its feet are.
Guest Batski Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 Nothing has changed both sides have good points but neither side has proof and we'll never be certain for all anyone knows both might be wrong.
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 I think if a BF is around it would be THEIR territory. If a black bear runs from us, what makes you think they would be aggressive towards a creature that is 50% taller and probably has 10x our strength. IMO a mother bear would not allow another animal that close to the cubs without a confrontation, if it were a BF it is a young small one which I still think the bears would be territorial of another animal in the area. If mama BF was around then she would be the same, doesn't make sense cubs and a young BF that close to each other. Just my opinion.
Recommended Posts