The Jacobs Photos

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

.......I think it looks like a Chimp. With the caveat I don’t know what a young Bigfoot should look like. Or what it’s behaviors are.

 

I don't know what it is. I still say it's most likely a young sow bear, primarily because it's good bear habitat and there was a pic from that camera of two cubs minutes before. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't move the ball. Moreover, the density of reports in that area isn't high like areas in Washington, British Columbia, California, and Oregon, so to spend effort there offers a low yield return.

[Doug]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

I don’t think it looks like a Bigfoot. But I’ve never seen a Bigfoot either. If I saw a baby Sasquatch crawling around on the ground? Would I even recognize what I was looking at? Probably not. If I was able to see the feet that would be a clincher.
 

I think it looks like a Chimp. With the caveat I don’t know what a young Bigfoot should look like. Or what it’s behaviors are.

Very well said.

 

I have been looking at these pics for years , all the while "knowing" it was a bear. Now, I'm kinda blown away that I would believe it to be a chimp, however, that's where the evidence has taken me.

[Grubfingers]

17 hours ago, Huntster said:

 You've even gone as far as to write that a mile away should be good enough

This is a lie being used to paint me as a liar, along with you telling me to “take a break” is like telling me to shut up so you can push your bear theory. The truth is the reservoir is only a few hundred yards wide there. When you look at the map and see the area of the Pacific North West this creature is usually reserved for then look over at Pennsylvania and see the Jacobs site surrounded by numerous Town Hall eye witness sightings a few hundred yards away it is a tiny spot on the map. Remember I started this thread asking for a bear picture with its head on the ground that looks like the photo on the right and you haven’t contributed to that whatsoever.

[Grubfingers]

12 hours ago, Huntster said:

it's good bear habitat and there was a pic from that camera of two cubs minutes before. 

It was 30 minutes before the creature showed up. I’ve watched many Pennsylvania black bear feed and when done they move on sometimes returning the next day around the same time not half hour later. They cover miles of forest making a big loop every day scavenging for food.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Grubfingers said:

This is a lie being used to paint me as a liar.......

 

Your words:

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/83140-the-jacobs-photos/?do=findComment&comment=1123852

 

Quote

The same general area? The photos taken on the banks of the reservoir. Do you have a map? It’s less than a mile wide? You don’t think that’s close?

 

That was posted after I pointed out that you had previously posted that there had been a sasquatch eyewitness sighting "at that exact same location", and there is no such report. In fact, on that same exact camera, minutes before the creature pic was taken, there was a bear cub picture taken.

 

I didn't say that you're a liar. But I will say that you've become bothersome. I don't like being clearly called a liar. Please don't do that again. I'm posting your words, and the words of others, in quotes and with links. If you don't like how your words look, like I wrote, you might want to take a break, cool down, and be more careful with your words.

 

Quote

........along with you telling me to “take a break” is like telling me to shut up so you can push your bear theory........

 

I don't have a bear theory. I have a "likely bear" opinion. And I won't be brow beaten to declare it a juvenile sasquatch by anybody. You can believe whatever you wish. So can I.

 

58 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

It was 30 minutes before the creature showed up.........

 

Thirty minutes is.........wait for it........."minutes". It's less than "hours", and more than 'seconds".

 

Quote

.......I’ve watched many Pennsylvania black bear feed and when done they move on sometimes returning the next day around the same time not half hour later. They cover miles of forest making a big loop every day scavenging for food.

 

I've been baiting bears in Alaska since (I believe it was) 1986 (maybe '85......or '84.......). I couldn't possibly remember how many different locations I've baited in Alaska, but it's definitely dozens. I've posted pics of one of my bait stations on this forum in the past. I've observed both brown bears (grizzlies) and black bears at these stations, often for hours at a time, and sometimes even for days at a time. I've seen bears take naps near the bait for hours, and sometimes even for "minutes".........even "30-35" before going back into camera range. I've had bears (and other animals) at my bait station and had my camera fail to record it. I've gotten pics of moose, wolverines, foxes, grizzlies, black bears, ravens, magpies, and wolves at my bait (never gotten a pic of a sasquatch of any age). I've been trapped in a tree overnight because a grizzly was acting predatory towards me, and at that time, grizzlies were not legal to take over bait. I've watched bears show up near the bait, then refuse to approach it and get snapped on camera. I'm pretty sure I've got a fairly full experience of bear behavior at baiting sites.

 

And I still say that the photo subject is likely a young sow black bear. Could it be a juvenile sasquatch? I doubt it. Could ut be a chimp? I think it would more likely be a juvenile sasquatch than a chimp. 

[Grubfingers]

37 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

That was posted after I pointed out that you had previously posted that there had been a sasquatch eyewitness sighting "at that exact same location", and there is no such report. 
 

I didn't say that you're a liar. But I will say that you've become bothersome. I don't like being clearly called a liar. Please don't do that again. I'm posting your words, and the words of others, in quotes and with links. If you don't like how your words look, like I wrote, you might want to take a break, cool down, and be more careful with your words.

I never said a mile my words are Less than a mile wide actually meaning a few hundred yards, if you would of looked on a map like I was. So that part is a not the truth! I’m bothersome? On a thread I started? I need to cool down? 
 

You’re looking for reports? It was a Town Hall meeting just a few miles from the Jacobs site in a fire hall. Pulling in local people that normally wouldn’t file reports or even go to the BFRO. They are the EYE WITNESSES I’m talking about from the same place the photos were taken. Any idiot  can type in a report for fun but to show up on live TV and tell your story is the real deal. They seen a Sasquatch at the same place on the map (my term) as the Jacobs Photo so it is a big deal. Call it general area a few hundred yards or whatever you want. Sasquatch are around there!

 

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

I never said a mile my words are Less than a mile wide actually meaning a few hundred yards, if you would of looked on a map like I was.........

 

"Less than a mile" would be 5,279 feet or less. That means that it was not AT the Jacobs photo site. Also, you have still not provided the name of that eyewitness sighting, the date of that sighting, what as actually seen (one bigfoot? ten bigfoot? juvenile bigfoot? old bigfoot? one-legged bigfoot? mangy bigfoot? white bigfoot? blue bigfoot? etc), or any other information about the alleged eyewitness sighting that supports your passionate insistence that the Jacobs creature is a juvenile sasquatch. 

 

Quote

.......You’re looking for reports?........

 

 I'm looking for the eyewitness report that you claim exists that makes the Jacobs creature a juvenile sasquatch.

 

Quote

.........It was a Town Hall meeting just a few miles from the Jacobs site in a fire hall. Pulling in local people that normally wouldn’t file reports or even go to the BFRO. They are the EYE WITNESSES I’m talking about from the same place the photos were taken........

 

Aha!!! Finally, thank you for typing those words! 

 

So, your position is that reported sasquatch sightings in the area supports your belief that the Jacobs creature is a juvenile sasquatch, correct?

 

Quote

........Any idiot  can type in a report for fun but to show up on live TV and tell your story is the real deal........

 

Ever see the Jerry Springer Show? Hell, ever watch CNN? 

 

Quote

.......They seen a Sasquatch at the same place on the map (my term) as the Jacobs Photo so it is a big deal. Call it general area a few hundred yards or whatever you want. Sasquatch are around there!

 

Again, you are equating the general area ("less than a mile") with "the same place on the map" regarding an unrecorded report that is unspecified within a few excerpts recorded at a local Town Hall meeting, and then saying that since "sasquatches are around there", the Jacobs creature is a juvenile sasquatch, even though it looks more like a long legged, skinny black bear sow with cubs that are clearly depicted on precisely the previous pic of the same camera 30-35 minutes before. 

 

Even if you were to somehow get me to relent in frustration and declare from the rooftops that, "YES! YES! The Huntster now believes that the Jacobs creature is a juvenile sasquatch!!!"..........what have you gained? Does that magically make the creature what you declare it to be? Will Science, as an industry, drop their universe-saving studies on the mating habits of echidnas and descent upon Pennsylvania and sift the forests "within a mile" of the photo site for a now adult bigfoot (that is now hopefully better fed and more robust)?

 

Sorry. I still believe that the Jacobs creature is a skinny, long legged sow black bear that I hope has fattened up over the years.

 

 

[gigantor]

Good job everyone for being amicable in this thread. Thank You!

 

Lets take a break.

 

[Grubfingers]

On 7/20/2022 at 10:32 AM, Huntster said:

"Less than a mile" would be 5,279 feet or less. That means that it was not AT the Jacobs photo site. 

Even if you were to somehow get me to relent in frustration and declare from the rooftops that, "YES! YES! The Huntster now believes that the Jacobs creature is a juvenile 

Just getting home from California this morning on my hunt for Bigfoot vacation believe me that is not my goal at all. I find it comical every time I post a good reason that this could be a Sasquatch you feel compelled to say “it’s a bear” without any new explanation why you believe that. We even had this thread spent on somebody telling me it wasn’t Sasquatch because there’s no such thing as Sasquatch and that’s actually a better explanation. But remember I’ve heard things that tell me different.

[Grubfingers]

When I pick a spot hunting and see a deer to the North 120 yards away then the next day I see one to the South 150 yards away I say it’s a good spot. It’s the same spot on my map just like the witnesses went on National television to talk about Sasquatch at the Jacobs site. In the same general area on both sides of a lake that looks to be a couple hundred yards wide. Yes it is the same spot to me.

[Grubfingers]

On 7/20/2022 at 10:32 AM, Huntster said:Will Science, as an industry, drop their universe-saving studies on the mating habits of echidnas and descent upon Pennsylvania and sift the forests "within a mile" of the photo site for a now adult bigfoot (that is now hopefully better fed and more robust)?

 

I now understand why science avoids Bigfoot and it’s not this deer Hunter wondering about some odd photos. From what I just witnessed in California Science has to be disgusted with the commercialization of Bigfoot on the West coast. This hunter didn’t want to open a Bigfoot motel and sell guided tours or make cash on Bigfoots back with gimmicky items. He asked the question, avoided interviews then quietly disappeared back into the woods not to be heard from again. That history alone gives the sighting credibility versus others I’ve been following.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

.......I find it comical every time I post a good reason that this could be a Sasquatch you feel compelled to say “it’s a bear” without any new explanation why you believe that.......

 

I don't have any new explanations why I believe that. My original explanation remains valid to me, and I have no others to proffer. Here it is yet again:

 

1) It COULD be a sasquatch. I just told believe that it is, and even if it was, the photo does not even come close to strong evidence, because it could also be a bear.........or even a chimp, since people are obviously arguing thus.

 

2) I do not repeatedly say "it's a bear". I repeatedly say that "I believe it's likely a bear, but it doesn't matter what it is, because even if it's a sasquatch, it does not move the ball".

 

You are free to pound the forum and world with your opinion that it is a sasquatch. If you are successful in "discovering" sasquatches by doing so, I will laud your power and persuasive skills. But I can assure you that you will never convince me that it is a sasquatch, and that's okay. As long as you convince the world, I don't matter.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

.........From what I just witnessed in California Science has to be disgusted with the commercialization of Bigfoot on the West coast.........

 

I am, too. But that certainly isn't unique to sasquatchery. Alaskan businesses to the same thing with our large bear population and peoples fascination with bears. Ditto salmon. Moose. Africans do it with gorillas. On and on. That doesn't seem to stop Science as an industry from cashing in on animal populations right along with the motels, restaurants, and gift shops. It certainly doesn't justify Science refusing to study the reports seriously. 

 

Here's a proposal: invest just 10% of the amount of money government spends on the search for extraterrestrial aliens into sasquatchery, and watch the scientists clog the doorway in to the money.

[Grubfingers]

Money rules the world not to get political but it doesn’t matter who is elected or what dictator is running the show.

[Grubfingers]

Getting back on topic I might have to use my research into this sighting as my entry for the 2022 BFF Researcher of the year contest. Especially after some challenging and not so successful attempts to get evidence in the PNW this past July. I did enjoy the scenery and will go back in the near future.

 

I did manage to expose the Pennsylvania Game Commission disappointment when they failed to replicate these photos. Their tone of disappointment is a win for Bigfoot proponents that try to get government agencies to admit the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch.

 

I’ve pulled the original news articles back to the very beginning and from the start the biologist that studied the photos knew the head was on the ground contrary to what skeptics of the photos believed. They argued it was a forward facing bear despite lack of eye shine. I found contrary to what many BFRO competitors have said Matt Moneymaker was actually in agreement with the PGC.