The Jacobs Photos

[Backdoc]

It's said you can tell what a person thinks will really happen based on who much they are willing to bet.

 

Man:   "I bet the Cubs will win the World Series"

Lady:   "You think the Cubs will win?  Really?    How much are you willing to bet?"

Man:   "Oh, I won't bet you!  Heck no!"

 

 

Here is this Jacobs 'video' still.   Assume for a second we had the answer.   How much would you be willing to bet it is really bigfoot in this photo? 

 

For me, I would bet Zero it is a bigfoot.  Zero.

 

A skeptic might say they don't believe in ghosts.  Yet they might admit, "I don't believe in ghosts but would never spend the night in a house that is haunted"   This clearly means they at least might believe there could really be ghosts and that house might actually be haunted.    

 

In the case of this Jacobs video, I give it zero chance to be a bigfoot.   I don't know what it is.   We will never know, and I look forward to the continued BFF dialog/ discussion so I can continue to learn more on the subject.   It's just how I feel.    

 

 

 

 

[Doug]

Reminds me of the Skookum cast. The sasquatch laid down on its side and reached out in a contorted way to grab an apple. Really? They come up with outlandish ways to try to explain something. The difference is that Jacob's pic has a subject to complicate the situation and they come up with more outlandish ways to try to explain it.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

......Assume for a second we had the answer.   How much would you be willing to bet it is really bigfoot in this photo? 

 

For me, I would bet Zero it is a bigfoot.  Zero........

You wisely prepped the wager with the impossible condition of somehow getting the truth about the pic. I would also bet zip.

 

But if we could get the truth on the Patterson film, how much would you bet that Patty was a real, live sasquatch?

 

I'd bet $100K.

[Twist]

8 hours ago, Backdoc said:

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.   

^^  BD’s post sums it up.  Well said. 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Twist

[norseman]

10 hours ago, Backdoc said:

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.   

It’s simple for me. I lean heavily on my own experiences and work backwards. Is it a Bear? Is it a Wolf? Is it a Chimp? Well what does it most resemble to me? And what does it not resemble?
 

The camera took photos of SOMETHING. Barring a hoax. Yes we are all victims of expectations. The quintessential Bigfoot photo is the look back Patty photo. 

 

Lets say as a alien this is your expectation of what a human looks like.  A woman looking over her shoulder with a hat and a shoulder bag. But instead your camera snaps photos of a small child doing a somersault. Is it safe to assume because the human woman is bipedal and the toddler is exhibiting a quadruped that we should assume that the toddler is in fact a Bear? 
 

To me this is silly logic. 
 

The Jacobs photo is not like any Bear I have ever observed in the wild. So I will not logically check that box. I don’t know what a baby Bigfoot looks like. So I will logically not check that box. It does very closely resemble to me what a Chimpanzee looks like at a zoo. It also matches their gregarious behavior. 
 

So based on my reality? It’s not a Bear. What is it? Well it appears to be something firmly in the ape family. I could be flat wrong. But I’m not going to pad my position based on “safe” estimations of odds. 

 

 

[Doug]

I say that it is not a sasquatch. If they are at some point proven to exist and they look just like that, I would probably retract my statement. Although the likelihood of it being a bear is decent, it just has a weird vibe to it. It to me, it looks like a chimp which is almost as preposterous as a sasquatch and seems less likely than a bear. It is much easier to say it is something that defies simple identification, other than something weird, and move on. No one can convince me that it is one of the three options or none of the three options. It is just a mysterious photo of a weird moment in time.

[norseman]

Fact. If I was worried about being right all the time? I would never gotten involved in this subject!🤔

[Backdoc]

8 hours ago, Huntster said:

You wisely prepped the wager with the impossible condition of somehow getting the truth about the pic. I would also bet zip.

 

But if we could get the truth on the Patterson film, how much would you bet that Patty was a real, live sasquatch?

 

I'd bet $100K.

 

(you are betting 100k it IS real right?)   
 

 

As far as the PGF. I would not bet Anything FOR the film being legit.  But, I would not bet Anything FOR the film being a hoax either.   The case For Patty is not the Patterson Gimlin Film..    It never has been.  It has always been the complete laughable inability to date of replicating the PGF in a same or similar way as the 1967 film.    That lack of doing -to date- what 2 cowboys did is just too glaring to ignore.

 

I am not convinced either way.   If I had a $20 bill in jacket I did not know I had I would put $10 on Patty, $5 on a hoax and keep the last $5.    

 

[Backdoc]

9 hours ago, Doug said:

Reminds me of the Skookum cast. The sasquatch laid down on its side and reached out in a contorted way to grab an apple. Really? They come up with outlandish ways to try to explain something. The difference is that Jacob's pic has a subject to complicate the situation and they come up with more outlandish ways to try to explain it.

Skookum cast was huge cautionary tale.   If a city slicker like me didn’t know what it was that can be forgiven.  But, when those who were overly enthused thought this might be, they clearly never talked to a basic outdoorsman of the area.  Such a person could tell them in 10 seconds.    The eye of the beholder approach made these guys look overly zealous when caution should have held the day. 
 

 

[Backdoc]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

It’s simple for me. I lean heavily on my own experiences and work backwards. Is it a Bear? Is it a Wolf? Is it a Chimp? Well what does it most resemble to me? And what does it not resemble?
 

The camera took photos of SOMETHING. Barring a hoax. Yes we are all victims of expectations. The quintessential Bigfoot photo is the look back Patty photo. 

 

Lets say as a alien this is your expectation of what a human looks like.  A woman looking over her shoulder with a hat and a shoulder bag. But instead your camera snaps photos of a small child doing a somersault. Is it safe to assume because the human woman is bipedal and the toddler is exhibiting a quadruped that we should assume that the toddler is in fact a Bear? 
 

To me this is silly logic. 
 

The Jacobs photo is not like any Bear I have ever observed in the wild. So I will not logically check that box. I don’t know what a baby Bigfoot looks like. So I will logically not check that box. It does very closely resemble to me what a Chimpanzee looks like at a zoo. It also matches their gregarious behavior. 
 

So based on my reality? It’s not a Bear. What is it? Well it appears to be something firmly in the ape family. I could be flat wrong. But I’m not going to pad my position based on “safe” estimations of odds. 

 

 

I’ll say it this way.    When a lot of ‘somethings’ are in an area with 4 legs, each one a blurry, crowded,  black and white still shot, I tend to consider that situation.  Such a situation sets up a more likely scenario to me that somehow some overlap of the same or more than one normal area animal is being caught at just the right time/ spot to make what we see something it’s not.  It may look like a “what?”    That doesn’t mean it’s anything more than just catching normal things in a random way leading to the look of something else.   IF some non-bear animal was in this pic it stands to reason its a normal animal like a dog, wolf, or whatever..    Unlikely to be a near extinct animal.

 

I don’t claim to know what it is.

 

[Grubfingers]

I’ve come to the conclusion that I can’t explain the Jacobs creature and that it is as real as religion. Bigfoot in general is as real as religion from what we have seen and others have told us both could be real but neither are proven. The debate is perpetually impossible to resolve therefore I keep the Jacobs photos along with Patterson film and others in the Bigfoot category. 

[Backdoc]

7 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

I’ve come to the conclusion that I can’t explain the Jacobs creature and that it is as real as religion. Bigfoot in general is as real as religion from what we have seen and others have told us both could be real but neither are proven. The debate is perpetually impossible to resolve therefore I keep the Jacobs photos along with Patterson film and others in the Bigfoot category. 

 

There is a big difference between the PGF and the Jacobs photo.  

 

The Jacobs photo is unclear.  It's not sure what we are looking at.  Even if I knew it was not Bigfoot I still can't tell what normal thing it is or account for why it looks the way it does.   Even if I thought it was Bigfoot I can't explain why it looks so unlike an ape/monkey/bigfoot.    

 

The PGF is very very clear.   It's so clear we can all agree exactly what it is:  It is a biped walking with an unhuman, odd walk.  Nearly all learned skeptics agree on that and don't dispute it.   The only Q is if it is a 1) man in a suit or 2) a real unknown creature as claimed by the persons filming it that day.   

 

 

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, Backdoc said:

(you are betting 100k it IS real right?)........

 

Yup. I'm convinced.

[norseman]

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

There is a big difference between the PGF and the Jacobs photo.  

 

The Jacobs photo is unclear.  It's not sure what we are looking at.  Even if I knew it was not Bigfoot I still can't tell what normal thing it is or account for why it looks the way it does.   Even if I thought it was Bigfoot I can't explain why it looks so unlike an ape/monkey/bigfoot.    

 

The PGF is very very clear.   It's so clear we can all agree exactly what it is:  It is a biped walking with an unhuman, odd walk.  Nearly all learned skeptics agree on that and don't dispute it.   The only Q is if it is a 1) man in a suit or 2) a real unknown creature as claimed by the persons filming it that day.   

 

 

The Jacobs photo is much more clear than the PGF. Your most basic trail camera is light years ahead in resolution from an old Kodak camera from the 1960’s. What your meaning to say is the Jacobs photo is in ambiguous….

[Twist]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

The Jacobs photo is much more clear than the PGF. Your most basic trail camera is light years ahead in resolution from an old Kodak camera from the 1960’s. What your meaning to say is the Jacobs photo is in ambiguous….

The way I read BD’s post,  I agree with him.    I take his post about clear and unclear refers to the content in said film.   What is the actual subject of the film.    A bipedal creature vs an ambiguous potentially bipedal “creature”

 

Norse, your take on his post seems to be in regards to clarity and resolution.   I think your take, while accurate, is missing the meaning BD attempted to convey.

 

I may be completely wrong however. 🤷🏻