The Jacobs Photos

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Grubfingers said:

Who or what is hiflier?

 

He's a forum participant (who we haven't heard from in a while) who tried to get officials to confess their knowledge of the existence of sasquatches.

[Grubfingers]

This thread has at least one person that thinks Bigfoot doesn’t exist just like the Pennsylvania Game Commission. That would make it impossible for the Jacobs photos to be Bigfoot in their evaluation. They at least admitted they failed to replicate the photos with 15 years of sick bear photos. They need their scientists to survey the site in the very least these 2 numbers are a repeatable guideline if they deduct for tree growth when aligning cameras. It’s obvious they are frustrated and have worked against investigators since day one. The earliest news article I post here had biologist Jerry Feaser mad at Penn State graduate (and first investigative journalist on the Jacobs site) Marcie Schellhamer.

Copied from Bradford Era 2007:

He (Jerry Feaser) went so far as to chastise The Era for reporting the story of a questionable photo which some said may be a juvenile Bigfoot.

"Somebody may mistakenly identify something and the news media helps spread the rumor causing more concern and panic than necessary”.

 

Obviously they weren’t interested in investigating the truth only covering it up using “bear” as a quick excuse to calm the hysteria.

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

They need their scientists to

 

No.  They don't need to.   We WANT them to.  We think they should.  Etc.   It is about benefit to us, not benefit to them.   If we want to lead them into doing so, we have to start with understanding that difference, then find something to offer to entice or compel them.    Trying to present our need as their need just makes us look dumb.

 

MIB

 

[Grubfingers]

4 minutes ago, MIB said:

Trying to present our need as their need just makes us look dumb.

 

MIB

 

They did say it was “unfortunate” they couldn’t replicate the photos in 15 years. If they regret that they have another verification process. It’s entirely up to them to take it.

[Grubfingers]

On 7/15/2022 at 1:24 PM, Larryzfoot said:

 

a creature that hasnt been proven. 

You might want to take a closer look at the spine and leg position the contorted posture in both Jacobs photos is close to proving something is out there.

[Doug]

So why do they line up with the opposite fore limbs? Your illustration is wrong. Other than that, it is of a creature that has been proven. It is a chimp. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Doug

[Grubfingers]

Doug your description of the leg/arm placement supports the young Sasquatch scenario perfectly. Try it yourself, curiously face the camera with legs planted, now twist hard to the right while bending down with your hands out to explore the bait. Start to peek over your left shoulder at the camera. That’s contorted like the Pennsylvania Game Commission described the photos but doable for any primate.

[MIB]

20 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

proving

 

I'll give you credit for imagination and persistence.    However, it's not close to proving anything to anyone who isn't already convinced.    It does not move the needle one iota, not for science, not for scoftics, not even for intelligent skeptics.    Not even for this knower who remains a skeptic of the photo.

 

I also don't consider "bear" or "chimp" proven.

 

As I've said, it's an ambiguous photo.    Even eventual proof of sasquatch will not validate the Jacobs photo as a photo of sasquatch any more than proof of sasquatch will validate a picture of a box of corn flakes as a photo of sasquatch.   It has always fallen short in the past.  It falls short today.  It will always fall short in the future.   The Jacobs photo is not a hill to die on so far as proof of bigfoot.   Personal advice, one enthusiast to another: your time would be better spent in the field gathering new evidence instead of flogging a long dead horse 'cause that horse is not going to budge.   I don't think you'll heed it but I'm offering it anyway.   Best o' luck out there ...

 

MIB

[Doug]

One thing that the pics convince me of is that it is a real flesh and blood creature and not a person in a suit hoax. What that creature is, is just guess by all who view it.

[norseman]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I'll give you credit for imagination and persistence.    However, it's not close to proving anything to anyone who isn't already convinced.    It does not move the needle one iota, not for science, not for scoftics, not even for intelligent skeptics.    Not even for this knower who remains a skeptic of the photo.

 

I also don't consider "bear" or "chimp" proven.

 

As I've said, it's an ambiguous photo.    Even eventual proof of sasquatch will not validate the Jacobs photo as a photo of sasquatch any more than proof of sasquatch will validate a picture of a box of corn flakes as a photo of sasquatch.   It has always fallen short in the past.  It falls short today.  It will always fall short in the future.   The Jacobs photo is not a hill to die on so far as proof of bigfoot.   Personal advice, one enthusiast to another: your time would be better spent in the field gathering new evidence instead of flogging a long dead horse 'cause that horse is not going to budge.   I don't think you'll heed it but I'm offering it anyway.   Best o' luck out there ...

 

MIB

I hear what your saying completely. But we have a complete sub section dedicated exclusively to the PGF. Hundreds of threads….

 

The PGF is in the same boat as the Jacob photo. Maybe it’s time why create more sub sections of famous film and videos?🤷‍♂️

[Patterson-Gimlin]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:51 PM, Huntster said:

Your photographic and email evidence appears to have elevated this beyond doubt. That is most certainly a juvenile sasquatch. I was very wrong not to recognize it at the outset.

 

But, fifteen years after the photo was taken, what now? Have you acquired funding for a sasquatch hunt at that exact location?

I am very surprised,but it is still a bear. 😂 

[Huntster]

 

[Camper]

Not to bring back a subject that's somewhat old with this thread but has a bear with short spine syndrome been ruled out? Its highly unlikely and incredibly rare and I haven't been able to find any pictures of what that would look like but it seems to occur in lots of types of quadrupeds from horses to raccoons. That could explain the spine to limb ratios being different to that of a bear but again the chances of even surviving that long it are insanely low. Probably no point in bringing it up given the lack of pictures of an animal like that but its still a potential idea for whats in the picture outside of whats already been proposed.

[Backdoc]

I think I am a victim of expectations.   My expectation would be IF this is some Bigfoot to be photographed it shouldn't really be that complicated.  That is, it shouldn't take a Bigfoot doing Yoga or a Bigfoot playing twister to make me squint and see it that way.   

 

Some say it is a bigfoot.  Then, they say it's not just a bigfoot, but it must be a juvenile bigfoot. Then they say it is a juvenile bigfoot crouched down in some awkward position.  The more add-ons needed to explain it, the more it just seems a stretch.   

 

I don't know what I am seeing.  If I see a video where some bears are feeding and one pic looks odd, then I tend to think it's more likely something to do with a bear.  I just don't jump to some "Yoga bending elementary school level bigfoot"    Even if we said it was an escaped chimp from a zoo, it should look like a chimp.  I know some of you are saying, "Well if you say it is a bear it should look like a bear.  HA   What about that?!"    I understand.   Yet, what is more likely to be the case.   Just on its face, it seems no different to me than the many times I saw something normal, but it looked weird, odd, or whatever, then by moving a foot to the left or right I was obvious it was really some else what was normal.   

 

I have to guess many of you who are convinced this is clear evidence of some juvenile bigfoot didn't have this impression immediately when you first saw it.  It took looking at it until you could imagine it could be before you ever thought it was. 

 

I can't join you on this one.   Sorry.

 

'Love' shouldn't be this difficult.   

[Huntster]

15 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

.......'Love' shouldn't be this difficult.   

 

Unfortunately, it is. It's also very complicated. But it also transcends science. One can love something that doesn't even exist.

 

Quote

........Some say it is a bigfoot.  Then, they say it's not just a bigfoot, but it must be a juvenile bigfoot. Then they say it is a juvenile bigfoot crouched down in some awkward position.  The more add-ons needed to explain it, the more it just seems a stretch........

 

Not only does it become a stretch, it becomes meaningless. It accomplishes nothing, unless one considers social psychology, which is certainly a scientific study within the phenomenon of sasquatchery. However, one can still love the pic and believe anything one wishes. But within the ideology of science, it is not a sasquatch.